Surely tony Blair would be in prison by now if a law like that existed for lying politicians. That man should be ashamed of himself for all the porkies and blood on his hands. Megalomaniac little narcissistic prick
"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". " Trade without discrimination see box). It is so important that it is the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which governs trade in goods. MFN is also a priority in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Article 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Article 4), although in each agreement the principle is handled slightly differently. Together, those three agreements cover all three main areas of trade handled by the WTO. Some exceptions are allowed. For example, countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group — discriminating against goods from outside. Or they can give developing countries special access to their markets. Or a country can raise barriers against products that are considered to be traded unfairly from specific countries. And in services, countries are allowed, in limited circumstances, to discriminate. But the agreements only permit these exceptions under strict conditions. In general, MFN means that every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners — whether rich or poor, weak or strong. GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS), although once again the principle is handled slightly differently in each of these. National treatment only applies once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market. Therefore, charging customs duty on an import is not a violation of national treatment even if locally-produced products are not charged an equivalent tax. back to top Freer trade: gradually, through negotiation Lowering trade barriers is one of the most obvious means of encouraging trade. The barriers concerned include customs duties (or tariffs) and measures such as import bans or quotas that restrict quantities selectively. From time to time other issues such as red tape and exchange rate policies have also been discussed. Since GATT’s creation in 1947-48 there have been eight rounds of trade negotiations. A ninth round, under the Doha Development Agenda, is now underway. At first these focused on lowering tariffs (customs duties) on imported goods. As a result of the negotiations, by the mid-1990s industrial countries’ tariff rates on industrial goods had fallen steadily to less than 4%. But by the 1980s, the negotiations had expanded to cover non-tariff barriers on goods, and to the new areas such as services and intellectual property. Opening markets can be beneficial, but it also requires adjustment. The WTO agreements allow countries to introduce changes gradually, through “progressive liberalization”. Developing countries are usually given longer to fulfil their obligations. back to top Predictability: through binding and transparency Sometimes, promising not to raise a trade barrier can be as important as lowering one, because the promise gives businesses a clearer view of their future opportunities. With stability and predictability, investment is encouraged, jobs are created and consumers can fully enjoy the benefits of competition — choice and lower prices. The multilateral trading system is an attempt by governments to make the business environment stable and predictable".
40% remain, 44 m% leave, exactly one your ago - the tide is with leave and even more so leave on wto rules and pay no divorce bill
Not too long ago had this conversation with a younger family member. His jobless view was that we should just do away with money and have a harmonious society where people just trade goods for other goods. The baker makes bread and trades a loaf for the eggs from the farmer etc... Then I pointed out that one trade may be worth more than another. When you’ve got to pay your mechanic 10,000 eggs when you’ve thrown a rod, the monetary system is what makes it work. His latest was his views that he’d camp out in a tent outside the council offices until he was given a house. He’s got a job now. Fingers crossed it goes well for him but his very liberal views and martyrdom tend to alienate people, including his coworkers and this tends to put him out the door by the time his probation is up. They decide he’s just not worth the hassle. When he’s trying on day one with no experience, to change the entire system to and make the company “ethically vegan” or “homeless friendly”, they tend to tell him to piss off and that his job is simply to take the package from A to B (as an example).
Interesting read Former Australian PM Tony Abbott... "It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny. Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get. The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence. But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy? A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe. Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are. Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers. Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain. Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership. Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere). UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum. As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it."
Farage spouted this shite also. The Good Friday agreement, since it is a treaty, is governed by the rules of the Vienna Convention. There is no mechanism with which either side may end that agreement, particularly where it’s clear that agreement is to subsist. Within that agreement and arising out of it there are commitments to the power share, devolved Government Etc and no hard border. The UK, therefore, cannot abandon it. It is the UK that wishes to leave the European Union and therefore it is the UK that is required to overcome the issue of the borderless trade it had previously enjoyed with memebership of the EU through regulatory alignment. Since it wishes to leave the EU, it is bound to protect its border as it no longer has regulatory alignment with its bordering states. To install a hard border across Ireland, breaches the conditions of the good Friday agreement and therefore breaches its treaty with Ireland and its obligations under the Vienna Convention. The UK therefore is obliged to overcome the problem.
Hold on, so they cant have a hard border anyway. Well that makes the Eu position illegal, as they seem to be the only ones insisting on a border, UK dont seem bothered. Good news for the leavers and Ireland as a whole. Imagine the extra trade thru Eire and NI when that becomes a key a gateway on and out.
I think you started the condescending speak with your high horse approach when I just pointed some voting statistics...
And where did I say UK wanted a border anyway? Which is what you seem to be suggested I said, assuming Farage said the same too. Sound like you are agreeing
This is not even close to the truth. Nowhere near. The UK is a member state of the ECHR. The UK has a duty to uphold the Articles of the ECHR to which it is a signatory. The UK government, its agents and public bodies have a duty not to act in contravention of the ECHR. As a result of the Good Friday agreement, Northern Ireland became a government devolved from the UK. In order to uphold its obligations, the UK government has a duty to ensure that the devolved government also adhered to the ECHR. And so, The Northern Ireland Act 1998, set out the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In order that Northern Ireland Assembly, as a devolved power, did not and does not breach the ECHR, the Act stipulates the Assembly may not legislate / act in a manner that conflicts with the ECHR.
Nope you're wrong. Using the eu human rights is not the same as the good friday agreement was between the U.K. government and the republic and the eu because it was not. Tell you what though, if you can show me where on the good friday agreement it mentions the signaturies and the eu is one of them, I'm happy to listen. I'll await your return I'll give you a head start, here is the agreement https://assets.publishing.service.g...ads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf or fuller http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/full_text.html
Your post I quoted, much of it nonsensical, says this: “Now as the the eu human rights, that was used as a standard agreed between the two, to cement a common goal/direction in regards to both sides.” It (“Eu Human Rights” as you call it) was not “used as an agreed standard”. The incorporation of the ECHR into Northern Irish Law was a legal requirement in order that the UK, including through the creation of the NI Assembly, maintained its obligations under the ECHR.
It's not nonsensical at all and if I was incorrect you would have found it by now. Both sides sought to find a standard of treatment towards each other, both are eu countries so used the EHR as a benchmark of respect and a way forward, just as I said earlier about boxing and using the marquis of queensberry rules does not mean the marquis was in the ring. By using a set of agreed rules both sides felt would work best, this does NOT mean the eu was a signatory of the good friday agreement as the agreement was between the U.K. and republic governments so when the eu goes on about the good friday agreement, they are acting as a non directly involved party. The U.S. with it's special envoys have more right to claim to be involved than the eu but the eu have sought to hijack an agreement between two countries to use it to manipulate brexit. In its basic terms, the eu doesn't give a fuck about the GFA other than as a bargaining tool to beat the opposition (us) around the head with.
You now mention the EHR in addition / interchangeably with “eu human rights” which you’ve referred to several times. I don’t know what your’re referring to. And neither do you. Else you would be clear. If you are referring to the ECHR then this is an instrument of the Council of Europe. The Council is distinct from the EU. I’ve already explained, very briefly, the legal reason why N.I. as a devolved Govnt. has a duty to adhere to the ECHR as a part of the UK but you fail to understand this or at least lack the wherewithal to enquire as to whether this is correct. The EU has a Charter of Fundamental Rights but of course you can’t be referring to that re: the Good Friday Agreement since it wasn’t ratified until 2000 and the UK has opted out.
