The erg are a worthy kick up the arse for May but it won't amount too much, replacing her is a bit of a sideshow and not much more. She will see it through but it's what she will see through. The eu have shown their final hand and the house of commons made it well known almost to a man and boy, that this deal will not pass the commons. Even the Labour dimwits can see this is a trap that they will never get out of unless the eu lets you.
You don't know who your father was, how on earth do you know who your great-grandfather was? *I know he could be your maternal great-grandfather, but my humorous comment still has great comedic effect.
Yes and yes, I think it's one of the few things leavers and remainers can agree on. Until something changes, ie way more than 52 v 48 we are stumbling into it.
Sky did a mobile phone text poll yesterday showing a massive shift for remain by 1,488 people with an iPhone. The tide is turning according to some.
Who would take it on. And why could they get from it. That will stop any leader challenge alone. But now give has backed her, like he did Johnson, she’ll probably be out by Tuesday.
Oddly enough, it was my ggf on my mum's side. Good guess. Thanks for reminding me I don't know who my dad was - it's been a while since I was called a bastard in a non-humorous way.
OK. You are troubled by it. My interpretation of the nature of the draft, and many folks share this, is that it is the worst conceivable outcome, out of the "Leave on WTO" and "Remain as we were" options. In fact, it's only just shy of an ELE asteroid strike. IMHO. I would choose WTO before either other choice and I would choose remain as we are before this draft agreement. For me, the draft agreement is entirely unacceptable. If Parliament approves it, they will have declared themselves utterly and irrevocably unfit to run the country. Not in a "those bloody idiots" sense but in a "it's time to turf these enemies of the people out" sense.
For me leave on WTO, no interim or transition, and this agreement are both appalling options but that's all we have on offer. The chaos caused by no interim or transition on 19 March will be immediate and evident, perhaps not as bad as some stories you see but bad nonetheless. Whereas the effects of this agreement will be more subtle and take longer to play out. Politicians work in the short term, hence I think they will opt for the withdrawal agreement in the end. As I said earlier they will reject it a few times and throw in a few meaningless amendments to show the electorate they have reluctantly taken this decision. I don't buy the 'enemy of the people' argument. That's the language of the caustic referendum debate that got us into this mess.
I don't throw out the "enemy" title lightly. Passing the draft agreement is an exception. The temporary arrangement relies upon the goodwill of the EU in order for the UK to transit from it towards whatever final arrangement there might be. Let that sink in. The UK would be in an arrangement that it needs the EUs permission to leave. No nation has signed up to such a thing in the modern era. It would be bad enough, if the EU were a fair-minded, politically neutral entity but it should be clear to any and all that the EU neither of those things. They cannot be trusted to play fair.
I have to admit I was foolishly accepting at face value what has been portrayed in the media, so I decided to check with the primary authorative source, the draft agreement itself. Everyone is hung up on 'the UK won't be able to leave the customs union unless the EU agree' the whole 'mutual agreement' stuff. I can't see that it actually says that. There is a transition period which runs until 31/12/2020 during which time both sides use their 'best endeavours' and 'good faith' to reach an agreement on future trade etc etc. This period can be extended if needs be. During the transition period the whole of the UK will remain aligned to, and play by, the Union's customs rules - status quo. If, by 31/12/2020, no future trading etc etc deal has been agreed then the UK leaves with no deal. At this point unless some technical solution has been put in place, there'd have to be border checks between NI/Republic - the dreaded 'hard border'. Or, the border moves to Irish Sea. The draft agreement states: '..this Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed.' There is nothing, I can see so far (and it's a very long and boring document) which says the WHOLE of the UK has to stay in the customs union. I know TM has suggested the whole of the UK will remain aligned, but it's not written in the draft agreement. IMO She's made that statement because she knows she has to to a) keep the DUP on-board and b) avoid accusations today of breaking up the Union (of GB & NI). However, 'can', 'road', 'kick' comes to mind. By 2020 will the DUP still hold sway in parliament? Will TM still be PM? Will she even be leader of the Tories? Who/what will be in government by that time? But assume for the time being she is still PM. What's to stop her renegotiating the deal between NI and GB? Leave NI as part of the customs union AND part of the UK. There are a lot of other territories around the world which are part of the UK and either aligned or not with the EU customs union, what difference does one more make. It wouldn't stop the people of NI classifying themselves as British or Irish (as they can now). There's precedence with Hong Kong. It was part of the UK but operated under completely different customs rules, as it still does now in relation to it's owner China. An SAR, Special Administrative Region, is how it's referred to. Sure, there'd be an uproar from various factions but never forget the majority of NI voted to remain within the EU. @bradders mentioned no other country would ever deal with the UK if it left illegally - yes and no. There'd be some uproar but it'd soon be forgotten. Look at the USA, constantly reneging on treaties, everyone still deals with them. However, that aside if the above scenario pans out the UK hasn't reneged on anything. TM however has, with regards to statements made in regard to where a border might be, but then how many times have politicians said one thing and meant or done another? It's par for the course. On a related matter the draft agreement explicitly states the UK is free, during the transition period, to negotiate new trade treaties with other countries around the world, they just can't come into effect before 1st Jan 2021. There's a lot of 'queering of the pitch' (if one is allowed to use that phrase in these PC times) by others within parliament, and outside, that have their own agenda. I do genuinely think TM will get the withdrawal agreement through parliament, eventually.
Oh no we will have to go to free trade and wto erm..you know the rest of the world uses this, even the eu themselves? but but food on the fields and medicines stock piling erm..You ever know a food company or pharma to not want money when customers are sitting there? but but but lorry parks on the motorway because of problems with the channel Erm, You do realise the biggest lorry park issues have been whilst we were IN the eu? but but security and terrorism, we will lose everything erm nope, we have one of the largest and best supplied security services, the eu cherry picked that bit for their deal but but but...the eu have kept the peace since world war 2 erm.. erm nope, nor did they do too well for the Ukraine and Crimea recently but but but...but Russia is the enemy and they want to destroy the solidarity of the eu erm nope... the same Russia that Germany, the leader of the eu, has just done a multi billion dollar gas and oil deal with? but but but..I don't like change erm, you ever been married, had kids, moved house, retired?
Yes but no country trades only on WTO terms, it's what you use when no trade agreement is in place. Which is why crashing out only to WTO terms is bad.
Yep. Goods produced in NI can be declared as Produce of the UK. If that’s what you mean? Edit. They can also be declared as Produce of Ireland if the producer so wishes, just as now. So with foodstuffs, the producer can send out the same goods in a packet with a Red Tractor for the UK market and a Produce of Ireland statement for the Irish market.
With regard to tariffs, the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. The EU rules prohibit individual countries from negotiating their own deal. Instead the EU negotiates trade deals on behalf of all 28 member states. Over the years, the EU has negotiated a number of free trade deals and other agreements that enable it to trade with the rest of the world on better terms. According to the European Commission, with regard to tariffs, there are 24 countries or territories with which the EU trades on WTO rules alone. Even with those 24, the EU has a variety of arrangements which make trade easier. For example, there is an agreement between the EU and the US about the language which can be used by wine exporters on their bottles. The EU - and therefore the UK as a member - has trade deals with other countries, like South Korea, Mexico and recently Canada. The agreements vary in breadth and depth, but can mean trade happens on a "preferential basis", so tariffs are lower than the WTO maximums. Reality Check: Would UK have to make new trade deals? After Brexit, or any transitional period, the UK could not automatically adopt trade arrangements that currently exist between the EU and other countries - it would have to negotiate its own. Some would be easier to nail down than others and Britain is a large market so there is a clear incentive for countries to negotiate. What would WTO rules mean? The UK wants to negotiate a "comprehensive, bold and ambitious" free trade agreement with the EU. If it can't achieve that, there are a number of other possible arrangements of varying depth before the UK reaches the point where it has no preferential trade relationship with the EU other than common membership of the WTO. If the UK had to trade under WTO rules, tariffs - a tax on traded goods - would be applied to all UK exports. (And the UK would impose similar tariffs on all imports from the EU no doubt) The average WTO tariff varies from product to product, from 0% on mineral fuels and pharmaceuticals, to around 20-35% on processed food and 45-50% on meat.
You're missing my point, none of the 24 countries listed trade only on WTO terms, they may trade with UK/EU currently on WTO terms but they have trade deals in place with other countries. WTO terms are what you use because you can't reach a better agreement. The idea that as starting position trading with every country in the world on WTO terms is good doesn't hold up.
The eu have insisted anything going through ni must carry the gb ni label, this is to allow the separate situation between the ni and the U.K. This is part of the separation process of the ni from the uk and into the republic. The continual "no side wants to use the backstop" is a lie . They have been negotiating for 2 years now, if there was a way for the ni border to remain as it is, it would have been found by now, they know nothing will change during the transition. The eu with the republics insistance will not allow anything to change from what it is, ever. Because of that the eu will not come to an agreement with the uk and therefore trapping us in. If there was no intent in using it then why include it, why no date of if nothing is agreed we go separate ways? because they have no intention of letting go and by default, keeping the entire U.K. in the customs union. on november the 5th the Irish foriegn minister tweeted this "The Irish position remains consistent and very clear that a "time-limited backstop" or a backstop that could be ended by UK unilaterally would never be agreed to by Ireland or EU."
