No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Can't you just leave then negotiate its not like people don't want to do business with the 7th largest economy on the planet.
Isn't Chris Heaton-Harris the one who wrote to University Chancellors to ask for a list of people lecturing on Brexit, and a copy of their syllabi*?
Sinister...
*I'm not latin, or Jacob Rees-Mogg so I don't know what the plural of syllabus is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47798754
""It will be difficult to protect both the Good Friday Agreement and the European single market in a no-deal Brexit, Leo Varadkar has said.
The taoiseach (Irish prime minister) said the Republic of Ireland and the EU will do everything possible to avoid the emergence of a hard border.
He said "reasonable questions" are being asked about the protection of the single market and the customs union.
Mr Varadkar described this as the basis for the Irish economic model.
"We know some things can be done remotely, the collection of tariffs for example," said Mr Varadkar, who is due to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Dublin on Thursday.
"Customs duties can be collected as other taxes are, either online or into tax offices.
"We know how to intercept smuggling, and that will have to be stepped up."
Mr Varadkar added: "When it comes to animal checks, it's much more difficult.
"Animal checks can only possibly be done physically by vets and it's our view that those should take place at ports, that the island of Ireland should be treated as a whole when it comes to SPS (sanitary and phyto-sanitary) but that would require the cooperation of the UK."
He said the Republic can't allow, for example, chlorinated chicken imported into the UK enter into Northern Ireland, cross the border and then go on into France, Spain or Portugal..."
"...The Taoiseach is getting to the nub of the no-deal border problem.
There is flexibility within the EU's Customs Code which could allow customs formalities and tariff collection to happen away from the border.
But the issue of animals and food products is much more difficult.
The EU has strict rules: if these products are coming into its union they must enter through border inspection posts located "in the immediate vicinity of the point of entry".
That is there in black and white: Council Directive 97/78/EC.
Mr Varadkar's answer to this is to ask the UK to carry out these checks on goods as they travel from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
In effect, the UK would have to agree to partially trigger the backstop.
But if the UK refused to do that - then what?"
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Then we'd have to have border checks and be in breach of the good Friday agreement.Originally Posted by Galant
I think the point is that although the EU have 'strict rules' about border checks willing parties looking for a solution could find ways to ensure the checks are completed without the need, or minimising the need, to build up the border between the R.O.I. and N.I.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
That is subject to quite a bit of dispute, not least because of how "hard border" is defined.
The Belfast Agreement only really refers to security apoaratus, the "demilitarisation" of the border, i.e. armed soldiers pointing guns at cars being searched, watchtowers, barbed wire, gun bunkers, etc. Nobody is suggesting imposing all that again, and certainly not ovet chlorinated chicken (if it ever happens) or pet passports.
I think the phrase you're looking for there is "over a barrel." As in they'd have us over one.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47821646
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47825841
So, despite doubting that something like that might be offered, and while it isn't until June 30th 2022, it does seem like Tusk, at least, would prefer if May stop knocking on their door every few weeks and offered (subject to the approval of other EU states), a longer extension with the flexibility of cutting it short.
And it would seem that our PM did say "No thanks. Too long." despite wanting another extension.
Why she would turn down a longer flexible extension is a bit beyond me. It's not like we would have to wait until then. All I can think of is that this is another case of stubbornness on the part of the PM. I mean, let's face it. No-deal brexiters are / will fume anyway. And since there is no great appetite for no-deal in the government/parliament, you may as well take the longer extension and use that time to actually reach some kind of cross-party agreement in the parliament. It's not like the government failed to come to a cross-party agreement in the past two years, the government never reached out to anyone but the DUP.
So rather than rush it, it makes a lot of sense to me to take the time given, and -really- come to a cross party (or at least opposition) agreement. I don't mean run the clock down again, or drag on one's feet, but it beats embarrassing the nation for asking yet another extension if we are just days from making a breakthrough on June 29th.
I don't think there is any real intention for no-deal nor revocation. So you may as well get some kind of deal through. Since there is also a lot of resistance for a second referendum, there is no point in trying to figure out how to please the largest minority (because I doubt that any form of Brexit will command a majority). Just get something through the parliament that the EU also find acceptable. But without knowing how long that is going to take, why not just take the longest flextension possible?
Last edited by TooNice; 05-04-2019 at 03:34 PM.
The argument against a long extension is that we voted to Leave, and it's dragged on for two years, since art.50, already.
Tusk would, of course, prefer a extension. A permanent extension to "don't leave" would be his preferred result. Nit my opinion, his own words.
I can't see why any "cross-party" talks should take more than a few days. For ANY chance of an agreement between May's position and the officisl Labour position (if we can work out what that is, since it varies according to who is describing it) is going to require a LOT of compromise by May, or Corbyn, or both. If they are going to, it shouldn't take more than a few days, and if they aren't, it shouldn't take even that long.
Of course, while Tusk (and Council members) preferred option is for us to Remain, it is certainly true that their least-favoured option is to still be arguing about it with no resolution in a year or two.
There is also, of course, the fact that anything beyond a very short extension will result in the UK having to take part in EU elections because, after all, we'll still be members. At least some EU leaders (like Macron) are not keen on a UK influence on, for instance, the next EU commission head, when having influenced it, we may be out mere weeks or months later.
Another issue is, the longer we stay in, the more chance of being involved in the next round of budget negotiations and,mof course, of the EU expecting the UK to stump up even more money .... years after WE voted to leave.
There's also a degree of trepidation over who we, the people, might vote for in those EU elections. Another significant anti-EU vote (like our last EU vote result) might well act as a rallying cry for EU-scepticism in other countries, among their populations. That's a wrinkle EUrocrats would rather do without.
As always, it's complex but there's more than one perspective on the long extension option, and for the EU side, the issues are very different to the perdpective from the UK.
Besides, there's a growing Brexit weariness in Brussels, amounting to "look, Leave, Stay, Whatever, but for pities sake, make your minds up and get the hell on with it".
https://www.facebook.com/UKIPWarwick...06783866172813
An interesting post from ukip to say the least.....
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Scrapping VAT you mean?
That is truly moronic.
First, it's a tier-1 tax-raising measure that pays for a huge chunk of our public services.
Second, it wouldn't put 20% back in most people's pockets anyway, especially the poorest, precisely because the poorer you are, the higher proportion of your spending is either exempt or zero-rated, and even energy bills are 5%, not 20%.
Several years ago, I analysed my supermarket bills for several months, and on my entire food expenditure, VAT accounted to around 1% to 1.5% and even that was because of "luxuries" I could do without. Most clothing is zero-rated too.
Where it would reduce prices is on things like cameras, computers, etc - mainly duscretionary spending, and even then, government would simply have to raise tax elsewhere.
There are good reasons to leave the EU. That isn't one of them.
VAT is one of, if not the, most equitable forms of taxation...
Indeed. You can avoid paying much, simply by selective spending. Of course, some aspects are hard to avoid, like VAT on fuel if you need a vehicle for work, or to get to work.
That said, income tax is a lot more equitable than it was a few years ago by virtue of large increases in PAs. Still has a way to go, though.
VAT is payable on clothes - only children’s clothes and shoes are exempt.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Its just more lies from ukip. Its never been an eu tax nor is it only european countries that have vat. Ukip and other leave based groups have told soo many lies about brexit and that it feels like brexiteers have this in general have an unreal expectation of whats going to happen post brexit.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
