PDQ Mobile wrote:Switzerland, the much vaunted example of an economy doing well outside of the EU, has around 40 years of negotiations behind it covering a huge number of specific areas. To imagine we could achieve a similar position in less than half or even a whole decade is simply impossible. I posted this many many moons ago, before the vote, and it was discounted by many "leavers" on here.
You have 47 days, 5 hours, 45 minutes and 40 seconds....
Can we have a count down ticker like the USA do at the New Year?
mercalia wrote:beside the point. Just trying to get clear about the rights and wrongs of the situation and to make sense of the apparant intransigence of the EU since they claim to be reasonable whereas we are just causing trouble?
In real practical terms what is it you think the EU can offer? An open border between two customs regimes isn't possible, is it? Does it exist anywhere else?
not dealing with that issue just the unbalanced nature of the backstop and total puzzlement why Mrs may agreed to it. She built her deal on sand:
Sorry, but that isn't an answer. If you don't have the backstop, what else is there? One of the only amendments passed in the last round of voting called for an alternative, but no one is saying what that could be.
In terms of the GFA it would have been like demanding that the IRA disarm first.
That simply isn't accurate, both decommissioning and demilitarisation were a part of the GFA, with a timescale and a defined outcome. The latter could have been halted and reversed at any time if the paramilitaries broke the former.
pete75 wrote: Of course it isn't beside the point- it's exactly the point. You claim the backstop is damaging to Britain's long term interest when Brexit is far more damaging. Any problems, troubles etc that come from Brexit are entirely down to the UK leaving. No leaving, no problems.
I wasnt saying any thing about the pros and cons of Brexit but about the issues assuming Brexit. An important distinction
PH wrote:In real practical terms what is it you think the EU can offer? An open border between two customs regimes isn't possible, is it? Does it exist anywhere else?
not dealing with that issue just the unbalanced nature of the backstop and total puzzlement why Mrs may agreed to it. She built her deal on sand:
Sorry, but that isn't an answer. If you don't have the backstop, what else is there? One of the only amendments passed in the last round of voting called for an alternative, but no one is saying what that could be.
In terms of the GFA it would have been like demanding that the IRA disarm first.
That simply isn't accurate, both decommissioning and demilitarisation were a part of the GFA, with a timescale and a defined outcome. The latter could have been halted and reversed at any time if the paramilitaries broke the former.
mercalia wrote: not dealing with that issue just the unbalanced nature of the backstop and total puzzlement why Mrs may agreed to it. She built her deal on sand:
Sorry, but that isn't an answer. If you don't have the backstop, what else is there? One of the only amendments passed in the last round of voting called for an alternative, but no one is saying what that could be.
In terms of the GFA it would have been like demanding that the IRA disarm first.
That simply isn't accurate, both decommissioning and demilitarisation were a part of the GFA, with a timescale and a defined outcome. The latter could have been halted and reversed at any time if the paramilitaries broke the former.
read
A disappointingly poor answer and how rude to suggest I didn't read, the thing that needed to happen FIRST was agreement on the timescale and outcome, without it there would have been no GFA. Same as with any Brexit negotiations. Your repeated comparison with the GFA doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, you keep saying no backstop, I'll keep asking what instead, if you have an answer to that why not offer it? The backstop with the GFA was that they could return to the same situation as prior to the negotiations, the need for an agreed backstop in the WA is because there is no return.
PDQ Mobile wrote:Switzerland, the much vaunted example of an economy doing well outside of the EU, has around 40 years of negotiations behind it covering a huge number of specific areas. To imagine we could achieve a similar position in less than half or even a whole decade is simply impossible. I posted this many many moons ago, before the vote, and it was discounted by many "leavers" on here.
You have 47 days, 5 hours, 45 minutes and 40 seconds....
Can we have a count down ticker like the USA do at the New Year?
mercalia wrote:beside the point. Just trying to get clear about the rights and wrongs of the situation and to make sense of the apparant intransigence of the EU since they claim to be reasonable whereas we are just causing trouble?
In real practical terms what is it you think the EU can offer? An open border between two customs regimes isn't possible, is it? Does it exist anywhere else?
not dealing with that issue just the unbalanced nature of the backstop and total puzzlement why Mrs may agreed to it. She built her deal on sand: In terms of the GFA it would have been like demanding that the IRA disarm first.
All this "wah wah wah mean EU" narrative ignores the reality that the current backstop is a consequence of mad May's red lines combining with the GFA and her dependence on the DUP.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Why the heck does she think she will do anything useful in the next two weeks when she hasn't been able to do it in the last two months or the last two years? I hope MPs reject this attempt to run down the clock even further!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
The defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, will say in a speech today that Brexit represents an opportunity for Britain to boost its global military standing in response to the threats posed by Russia and China. He will argue that a post-Brexit UK should redefine its role as a global power prepared to intervene against countries that “flout international law”, backed up by new military technologies and capabilities.
So now we know it was really all about Rule Britannia and Empire
Oldjohnw wrote:From today's Guardian - and elsewhere:
The defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, will say in a speech today that Brexit represents an opportunity for Britain to boost its global military standing in response to the threats posed by Russia and China. He will argue that a post-Brexit UK should redefine its role as a global power prepared to intervene against countries that “flout international law”, backed up by new military technologies and capabilities.
So now we know it was really all about Rule Britannia and Empire
Obviously in the bizarre version of the world inhabited by Gavin Williamson, it was the EU that was stopping us from doing that as a member of the EU.
