BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
It's proof that it didn't contain a default position for the first day after the transition period.TheBigBean said:
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.0 -
If it had, it wouldn't have been signed, because then the Joint Commitee would never have agreed to anything else. It could have contained provisions to deal with the situation before arbitration which would have been better.kingstongraham said:
It's proof that it didn't contain a default position for the first day after the transition period.TheBigBean said:
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.
Ultimately, the whole agreement was based on both sides agreeing something sensible. They haven't done this. I find it a little irritating the way it is described as already agreed.
0 -
I think that might be a problem with the name "withdrawal agreement".TheBigBean said:
If it had, it wouldn't have been signed, because then the Joint Commitee would never have agreed to anything else. It could have contained provisions to deal with the situation before arbitration which would have been better.kingstongraham said:
It's proof that it didn't contain a default position for the first day after the transition period.TheBigBean said:
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.
Ultimately, the whole agreement was based on both sides agreeing something sensible. They haven't done this. I find it a little irritating the way it is described as already agreed.
So you're saying that if it had included something that would have prevented the UK breaking the agreement, it wouldn't have been signed, now it has been signed, the UK has to break international law months later to "clarify" it. I still don't see why it was a good thing to sign it with that in it.0 -
surely the WA replaces the default position of WTO terms between the UK and EUkingstongraham said:
I think that might be a problem with the name "withdrawal agreement".TheBigBean said:
If it had, it wouldn't have been signed, because then the Joint Commitee would never have agreed to anything else. It could have contained provisions to deal with the situation before arbitration which would have been better.kingstongraham said:
It's proof that it didn't contain a default position for the first day after the transition period.TheBigBean said:
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.
Ultimately, the whole agreement was based on both sides agreeing something sensible. They haven't done this. I find it a little irritating the way it is described as already agreed.
So you're saying that if it had included something that would have prevented the UK breaking the agreement, it wouldn't have been signed, now it has been signed, the UK has to break international law months later to "clarify" it. I still don't see why it was a good thing to sign it with that in it.0 -
No, The WA simply bought time without asking for another extension.surrey_commuter said:
surely the WA replaces the default position of WTO terms between the UK and EUkingstongraham said:
I think that might be a problem with the name "withdrawal agreement".TheBigBean said:
If it had, it wouldn't have been signed, because then the Joint Commitee would never have agreed to anything else. It could have contained provisions to deal with the situation before arbitration which would have been better.kingstongraham said:
It's proof that it didn't contain a default position for the first day after the transition period.TheBigBean said:
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.
Ultimately, the whole agreement was based on both sides agreeing something sensible. They haven't done this. I find it a little irritating the way it is described as already agreed.
So you're saying that if it had included something that would have prevented the UK breaking the agreement, it wouldn't have been signed, now it has been signed, the UK has to break international law months later to "clarify" it. I still don't see why it was a good thing to sign it with that in it.0 -
Just bonkers. So at last the UK admit that 'Australia' is shorthand for 'no deal', abut claim that that's good for the UK.
"It is understood that chief negotiator David Frost has told colleagues the best possible scenario is a low grade deal, suggesting that no deal is, by comparison, not such an unpalatable option.
He said that the UK would then trade with the EU like Australia, which does not have a deal with the bloc, describing that as “a good outcome for the UK”."
It seems as if they are setting that bar so low now for anything positive, that 'no deal' is only slightly worse than "really shït", so not so bad after all...0 -
They don't have to. There are other routes; they've just chosen the worst one. The really hilarious bit is that the tech sector would far rather have an FTA with the EU and ability to hire who they want rather some handouts on the basis of who the Sun Tzu fanboi thinks is a winner.kingstongraham said:
I think that might be a problem with the name "withdrawal agreement".TheBigBean said:
If it had, it wouldn't have been signed, because then the Joint Commitee would never have agreed to anything else. It could have contained provisions to deal with the situation before arbitration which would have been better.kingstongraham said:
It's proof that it didn't contain a default position for the first day after the transition period.TheBigBean said:
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.
Ultimately, the whole agreement was based on both sides agreeing something sensible. They haven't done this. I find it a little irritating the way it is described as already agreed.
So you're saying that if it had included something that would have prevented the UK breaking the agreement, it wouldn't have been signed, now it has been signed, the UK has to break international law months later to "clarify" it. I still don't see why it was a good thing to sign it with that in it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If Johnson et al were expecting the EU just to roll over and say "OK", they might have misjudged.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/10/trade-war-britain-eus-last-resort-uk-reneges-brexit-treaty/0 -
But if we left without a deal and tore up the WA then the Irish border would be on WTO terms?darkhairedlord said:
No, The WA simply bought time without asking for another extension.surrey_commuter said:
surely the WA replaces the default position of WTO terms between the UK and EUkingstongraham said:
I think that might be a problem with the name "withdrawal agreement".TheBigBean said:
If it had, it wouldn't have been signed, because then the Joint Commitee would never have agreed to anything else. It could have contained provisions to deal with the situation before arbitration which would have been better.kingstongraham said:
It's proof that it didn't contain a default position for the first day after the transition period.TheBigBean said:
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.
Ultimately, the whole agreement was based on both sides agreeing something sensible. They haven't done this. I find it a little irritating the way it is described as already agreed.
So you're saying that if it had included something that would have prevented the UK breaking the agreement, it wouldn't have been signed, now it has been signed, the UK has to break international law months later to "clarify" it. I still don't see why it was a good thing to sign it with that in it.0 -
I think, but I'm not sure, that it has to prove a loss. Tricky when it comes to export notices.briantrumpet said:If Johnson et al were expecting the EU just to roll over and say "OK", they might have misjudged.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/10/trade-war-britain-eus-last-resort-uk-reneges-brexit-treaty/0 -
I didn't mention terms, only that it was a quick easy way of agreed, election, majority, ratify, Brexit done, glory, rule Britannia etc.surrey_commuter said:
But if we left without a deal and tore up the WA then the Irish border would be on WTO terms?darkhairedlord said:
No, The WA simply bought time without asking for another extension.surrey_commuter said:
surely the WA replaces the default position of WTO terms between the UK and EUkingstongraham said:
I think that might be a problem with the name "withdrawal agreement".TheBigBean said:
If it had, it wouldn't have been signed, because then the Joint Commitee would never have agreed to anything else. It could have contained provisions to deal with the situation before arbitration which would have been better.kingstongraham said:
It's proof that it didn't contain a default position for the first day after the transition period.TheBigBean said:
Yes. That's not proof that the agreement shouldn't have been signed.kingstongraham said:
But it wasn't, so it is?TheBigBean said:
No. As I said before, I think it was a decent compromise.kingstongraham said:
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The Joint Committee was supposed to have agreed by June, so this wouldn't be a problem.
Ultimately, the whole agreement was based on both sides agreeing something sensible. They haven't done this. I find it a little irritating the way it is described as already agreed.
So you're saying that if it had included something that would have prevented the UK breaking the agreement, it wouldn't have been signed, now it has been signed, the UK has to break international law months later to "clarify" it. I still don't see why it was a good thing to sign it with that in it.0 -
The agreement is that EU customs code applies to NITheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The UK position is that in the absence of agreed exception everything is an exception
It's horseshit.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I know this an exercise in futility, buttailwindhome said:
The agreement is that EU customs code applies to NITheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.
The UK position is that in the absence of agreed exception everything is an exception
It's horseshit.
The agreement is that EU customs code applies to NI to extent agreed by the Joint Committee
The UK position is that in the absence of agreement everything is an exception
The EU position is that in the absence of agreement nothing is an exception0 -
This is wrong.TheBigBean said:The agreement is that EU customs code applies to NI to extent agreed by the Joint Committee
If it were right, the Gov wouldn't be breaking the law
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Maybe that's the get out they are looking for, vocalising their agreement to music probably doesn't count and the EU should have insisted on it in writing.rick_chasey said:
What is it about an@l sex that makes brexiters keep coming back to that analogy?john80 said:
What i admire is you lack of any knowledge of history. China, russia and the USA constantly break international law regularly. Look at Hong Kong recently. Germany handed 9 billion to one of their national airline carriers without getting much in return which is clearly state aid. The look we are better than everyone else does not seem to have historically worked for us but i am sure you can provide a solid reason for us bending over everytime someone asks.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it's very sad that people seem to think breaking international laws is fine.spatt77 said:
More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!rick_chasey said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836
In case it's not clear to the thickos.Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'
You won't see it that way, but the position gives legitimacy for the government to break the law again.
Anyway, the answer, obviously, is context.
Signing something as part 1 of a 2 part negotiation and in the middle of part two declare, 9 months after singing part 1 that you didn’t see the problems that your own team published before signing, is moronic.
It gets more moronic when you use the excuse “we didn’t have enough time to read it” when the government did political backflips to make sure they restricted the amount of time it could be considered in parliament.
It says a lot of the state of the nation that this behaviour is being defended by people.0 -
I posted some extracts from the withdrawal agreement upthread. It is hard to find any sensible commentary, so I have had to read it myself.tailwindhome said:
This is wrong.TheBigBean said:The agreement is that EU customs code applies to NI to extent agreed by the Joint Committee
If it were right, the Gov wouldn't be breaking the law
The UK government is breaking the agreement, because it is going completely overboard on it.0 -
I have reread it. You are right that the Joint Committee doesn't get to explicitly review the customs code. Just some fishing bits and when customs duties apply. It does however commit to the following which implies that it should review it in order to minimise the controls.tailwindhome said:
This is wrong.TheBigBean said:The agreement is that EU customs code applies to NI to extent agreed by the Joint Committee
If it were right, the Gov wouldn't be breaking the lawThe Joint Committee shall keep the application of this paragraph under constant review and shall adopt appropriate recommendations with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible.
0 -
Anyway, I've changed my mind. The position on 1st Jan is clear, and UK needs to go to arbitration over points it doesn't agree with.0
-
Do lawyers always word this stuff so badly?TheBigBean said:
I have reread it. You are right that the Joint Committee doesn't get to explicitly review the customs code. Just some fishing bits and when customs duties apply. It does however commit to the following which implies that it should review it in order to minimise the controls.tailwindhome said:
This is wrong.TheBigBean said:The agreement is that EU customs code applies to NI to extent agreed by the Joint Committee
If it were right, the Gov wouldn't be breaking the lawThe Joint Committee shall keep the application of this paragraph under constant review and shall adopt appropriate recommendations with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible.
Deemed "appropriate" by who and reccommended by who?
"With a view to" , "extent possible"
That's a lot of holes.
I note mention of ports and airports alone, hence the bridge!0 -
Fair play.TheBigBean said:Anyway, I've changed my mind. The position on 1st Jan is clear, and UK needs to go to arbitration over points it doesn't agree with.
There is no defence for the action the UK government are taking here.
It's simply extraordinary
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It’s nuts.tailwindhome said:
Fair play.TheBigBean said:Anyway, I've changed my mind. The position on 1st Jan is clear, and UK needs to go to arbitration over points it doesn't agree with.
There is no defence for the action the UK government are taking here.
It's simply extraordinary0 -
How do you feel the "no exemptions" policy will affect the peace process? As ever the focus is always on the other border.tailwindhome said:
Fair play.TheBigBean said:Anyway, I've changed my mind. The position on 1st Jan is clear, and UK needs to go to arbitration over points it doesn't agree with.
There is no defence for the action the UK government are taking here.
It's simply extraordinary0 -
Yes. The cynics say that's how they make money, but it is never black and white, so it needs a bit of grey language.darkhairedlord said:
Do lawyers always word this stuff so badly?TheBigBean said:
I have reread it. You are right that the Joint Committee doesn't get to explicitly review the customs code. Just some fishing bits and when customs duties apply. It does however commit to the following which implies that it should review it in order to minimise the controls.tailwindhome said:
This is wrong.TheBigBean said:The agreement is that EU customs code applies to NI to extent agreed by the Joint Committee
If it were right, the Gov wouldn't be breaking the lawThe Joint Committee shall keep the application of this paragraph under constant review and shall adopt appropriate recommendations with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible.
Deemed "appropriate" by who and reccommended by who?
"With a view to" , "extent possible"
That's a lot of holes.
I note mention of ports and airports alone, hence the bridge!
They also often contain contradictions, but slightly less blunt ones than "nothing should affected unfettered access" followed by some fettering.0 -
0
-
This is so good
The Internal Market Bill will be approved or not by Parliament, which is sovereign, as confirmed in recent years by the UK Supreme Court in a case brought by Gina Miller
Could it get any sweeter?
0 -
This seems popular among cretinscoopster_the_1st said:This is so good
The Internal Market Bill will be approved or not by Parliament, which is sovereign, as confirmed in recent years by the UK Supreme Court in a case brought by Gina Miller
Could it get any sweeter?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
