Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Moby

cogito wrote: »

Let me get this right. The EU want to put the border in the Irish Sea to avoid conflict with the GFA.

If we don't agree to a border in the Irish Sea, the EU will create one along the existing border, thus conflicting with the GFA. Am I missing something?

Incidentally, it is illegal for Northern Ireland to be in a CU without the rest of the UK.

Don't forget the backstop is what will happen if there is no wonderful trade deal. May has already agreed to it but now she is trying to renege on it by time limiting it. That is nonsensical because it would mean it is not a backstop. As to the legality issue that is a claim the ERG are making due to the Customs Bill amendments but May is ignoring them and laws can be changed anyway. The real problem is the DUP, they refuse to accept anything that treats N Ireland any different from the rest of the UK.....even minimal checks away from the borders bound for Ireland.....which the EU is offering as a compromise. So in effect we are all being held hostage by May's stitch up with a bunch of antediluvian bigots.

Thrugelmir

cogito wrote: »

the EU will create one along the existing border, thus conflicting with the GFA. Am I missing something?

The wider EU has no say in the GFA. Wasn't a party to it.

Moby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The wider EU has no say in the GFA. Wasn't a party to it.

.....but Eire was and is backed up by 26 other countries.

andrewf75

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The terrain is somewhat different.

There's 80 crossing points on the Norway \ Sweden border.

Over 3,000 in Ireland in comparison. Some roads winds in and out of both countries. Villages are divided by the border. There's even a farm where the border runs through the middle of the farmyard.

As majority of Norweigians live on the coast. The Hurtigruten cruise ships double up as freight carriers. Driving in Norway any distance isn't easy that I can assure you.

True, but the checks would presumably only need to apply to those trading goods. Everyone else would carry on as normal. There would obviously be major smuggling issues.
How do you invisage it?

Moby

Q: Is it true you have told the Irish that you accept the backstop cannot be time limited?
May's press conference

May explains why the backstop is needed.

It would be in case of there being a gap between the end of the transition period and the future relationship coming into force.

The future relationship will deal with the border, she says

.
She's basically saying she now accepts it can't be time limited and hopes it can ultimately be supplanted by the brilliant trade deal she is going to achieve with the EU!
She's now having to change her position daily. Surely this cannot go on for much longer!

StevieJ

Joan_number_1 wrote: »

Quibble over irrelevancies if you want but you won't change the outcome you know.
We will still leave.

For the sake of accuracy "over half the electorate that cared enough either way to vote decided that it was too much and wanted out".
Better?


BTW StevieJ, please look at my username.
I realise that we're in an age of political correctness and all that but my hubby & kids would be ... how to put it politely? .... a little surprised at my gender change, madam.
Because Stevie could be either.

Certainly a more accurate description of a moment in time back in 2016.

Filo25

Moby wrote: »

Q: Is it true you have told the Irish that you accept the backstop cannot be time limited?
May's press conference
.
She's basically saying she now accepts it can't be time limited and hopes it can ultimately be supplanted by the brilliant trade deal she is going to achieve with the EU!
She's now having to change her position daily. Surely this cannot go on for much longer!

What is the alternative though?

I'm not sure what option would get through the current parliament, equally with the polls this close the Tories aren't going to be calling another election anytime soon (and there is precious little sign that it would return a much different parliament to the current one).

If there is a leadership leadership challenge, I think May still wins as Tory MPs know they are only likely to get one of the ERG grouping leading the party if she does go, given the views of the membership.

Weak and stable government continues....

Thrugelmir

andrewf75 wrote: »

How do you invisage it?

The UK could be bloody minded and at the very least operate customs checkpoints on inbound freight traffic. In essence play the same game the French will no doubt try.

Joan_number_1_2

HornetSaver wrote: »

Congratulations for your usual trick of parroting the punchline and turning it into a rant, without in any way, shape or form suggesting that the punchline itself was incorrect.



Our relationship with the EU, whether you love it, mildly like it, mildly dislike it, or wish to compare it to the 1940s, is a known quantity. Brexit on the other hand is a blank canvass. Now, by and large I don't care what we paint on that canvass. But what I do care about, and most Brexiteers would agree with me on this, is that by 29 March we know the direction of travel and that the transition period is the minimum length of time necessary to get there. No-one wants an indefinite period of being an unwilling and unwanted non-member-with-obligations of the EU, but instead to leave with a sense of purpose about how we're going to use that transitionary time.

Wrong.
I do not agree and nor I suspect would "most Brexiteers".

"Leave the European Union" was a simple enough question on the ballot paper.
Anybody with any doubt what that meant before voting could very easily have looked it up & the EU is very clear about what it is. (In the context of this discussion at least.)
If you didn't like the thought of leaving all that the EU entails or if you had any doubt the option was there: "Remain a member of the European Union".

You're doing no more than (to use your own terminology) parroting anti-Brexit media blurb because it was always obvious that leaving the EU would mean going the WTO route unless the EU were willing to harm themselves too.
There's nothing uncertain about it.
Prepare for no-deal WTO Brexit.
Anything more (an EU deal for example) would be a bonus.

From my family's dealings it is what sensible people have already been doing and (I suspect) it might well have been May's plan all along.
If you think about it logically (which I understand isn't easy for too many in this forum) that supposition would explain quite a lot.

Joan_number_1_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK could be bloody minded and at the very least operate customs checkpoints on inbound freight traffic. In essence play the same game the French will no doubt try.

They could.

Regarding Ireland though I have said before that there is no international legal requirement to have border controls.
Feel free to provide proof if you disagree.

If the EU carry on playing silly beggars, let them; let's see how the Irish on both sides like the ROI putting borders up.


People have short memories.
They forget that such border controls largely didn't exist until after WWI.