Richard28 wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I’ll answer your points regarding Northern Ireland

See my previous post for reasons, quite clear.

Look forward to your answer.

Not hear back form you on this yet? - looking forward to hearing from you soon Arion640,

Thanks mate - been a busy Sunday here so will have an answer soon.

I’ve spent the last 20 minutes re-watching footage from the EU Referendum. One of the greatest days of my life. British citizens uniting to reject the European Union. I remember me and my friend stayed up the whole night to watch the coverage - we both cheered when my local area returned a strong leave vote. Good times.

Richard28 wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I’ll answer your points regarding Northern Ireland

See my previous post for reasons, quite clear.

Look forward to your answer.

Not hear back form you on this yet? - looking forward to hearing from you soon Arion640,

Construction wise, first hand experience given construction is the family industry (ie avoided to join the civil service).

as for the rest, it is evident on various TB documentaries. Although I wouldn’t cite C4 as objective.

Perhaps you are right. Brexit getting close now. Official winter or spring next year but in reality the will of UK must be presented to EU meaning the UK people will finally see the real options the next 2-3 months.

But right now many investment decisions is made important for job creations; and will a company requesting EU access invest in UK right now? This question will affect the day to day life in UK the next year's.

Richard28 wrote:

Justine Greening MP has backed a second referendum, as she thinks the proposed white paper solution suits neither the remain or leave side of the debate and considers that parliament is deadlocked.

She proposes a three-option question with a preferential voting system, so that if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences, second preferences get taken into account.

(1) A no deal Brexit,
(2) Theresa May’s plan, or
(3) Staying in the EU

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 48856.html

Haha good one Justin - you aren’t even in the government anymore.

Anyway, what is the point asking people to vote on a plan that it is totally unacceptable to the EU ?

Richard28 wrote:

Justine Greening MP has backed a second referendum, as she thinks the proposed white paper solution suits neither the remain or leave side of the debate and considers that parliament is deadlocked.

She proposes a three-option question with a preferential voting system, so that if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences, second preferences get taken into account.

(1) A no deal Brexit,
(2) Theresa May’s plan, or
(3) Staying in the EU

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 48856.html

This proposal by Greening, just goes to show how out of touch she is. I am so glad I no longer live in the UK!!!

Take a choice of the least onerous of three options! What a waste of time. It is about time someone with some intestinal fortitude got things going to reverse the debacle which is unfolding right in front of us as we speak.

Out means out. So hard Brexit always was the only option.

Olddog wrote:

Anyway, what is the point asking people to vote on a plan that it is totally unacceptable to the EU ?

Shows how delusional a lot of the Remain supports are, just as bad as the Leave.
They fail to understand that to the EU it is just the UK, not Tory or Labour, until they stop fighting among themselves they will gain nothing.
Either accept the vote result to leave, or get together and say stuff it we are not leaving vote us out next election, in all honesty there is nothing in between, no hard or soft Brexit. All the soft options - Norway etc. - were known during the run up to the vote, were discussed and all indications were that they were not acceptable to the majority.

par13del wrote:

All the soft options - Norway etc. - were known during the run up to the vote, were discussed and all indications were that they were not acceptable to the majority.

Not acceptable to leave voters, there are still remain voters and to those 49% of the electorate Norway is more acceptable than hard Brexit......

best regards
Thomas

Unfortunately for all, the question was not that complicated, maybe the 400+ MP's who framed and voted the question had a moment of clarity, as based on the mess that has been made, the question and answer have been rendered irrelevant.

Richard28 wrote:

Justine Greening MP has backed a second referendum, as she thinks the proposed white paper solution suits neither the remain or leave side of the debate and considers that parliament is deadlocked.

She proposes a three-option question with a preferential voting system, so that if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences, second preferences get taken into account.

(1) A no deal Brexit,
(2) Theresa May’s plan, or
(3) Staying in the EU

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 48856.html

Nice concept, and probably one that should have been used for the first referendum in order to get a meaningful result that politicians could do something with, provided the brexiteers actually did have a plan to be the alternative of course, but let's be honest: the European ship has sailed from the UK now.

Sure, the UK can -probably- still backtrack on its article 50 letter and somehow manage to get back onboard, although -again probably- not entirely under the same favourable terms as before, but is that really want it really wants? And is that really what the EU wants in the long run? To have a partner who's been through self-humiliation and came back only because it couldn't handle leaving orderly?

Reality is that the UK is to live with the consequences of its own poor planning and overpromising, meaning OUTSIDE of the EU, yet very CLOSELY bound to it forever: call it sort of a CU+ combined with a SM-, a Norway+ or a Switzerland+++ deal or whatever, but it will come down to being largely and forever a rule taker, rather than a rule co-maker, like even Donald Trump has now understood. It's beginning to dawn in the minds of both leavers and remainers alike that something along these lines is the only possible outcome to settle this self-created mess, much to their own shock.

sabenapilot wrote:

Sure, the UK can -probably- still backtrack on its article 50 letter and somehow manage to get back onboard, although -again probably- not entirely under the same favourable terms as before, but is that really want it really wants? And is that really what the EU wants in the long run? To have a partner who's been through self-humiliation and came back only because it couldn't handle leaving orderly?
.

I don't think there is a UK right now, it it still Tory, Labour, Leave and Remain, so better to focus on what the EU needs, a neutered UK, never to be a thorn in their side ever again.
Once the result of the vote was known, the writing was on the wall, that those in the UK have still not woken up and smelled the coffee is as you say, on them.

The problem is that the British position is contradictory in itself.

a) We want full access to the common market, but we do not want to be bound by your legislations regarding the common market and want to make deals with other nations as we wish.

It is simply not possible. Say the UK would succeed in a deal with the USA and the chlorinated chicken would be included in the deal, there is no way that the UK could now allow unlimited access to all chicken products made in the UK to the EU market, as they could contain chlorinated chicken imported from the USA.

par13del wrote:

Unfortunately for all, the question was not that complicated,.

yup....
Leaving the EU, but stay in the common market (since that is what everybody has promised)
Remain the EU, also stay in the common market.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

a) We want full access to the common market, but we do not want to be bound by your legislations regarding the common market and want to make deals with other nations as we wish.

The EU already has 3rd country access which is what the UK would be, no need to reinvent the wheel. What I don't get is that everything else has / had a starting negotiating point except the Leavers, the Bus was made is stone, access made in stone, money for NHS made in stone to the last penny....

In any event, even if the fear of Labour see's the bill passed it is moot since it will be rejected or heavily modified by the EU. It just goes to show that those who said parliament should be a negotiator and not an approver were off their rocker. The vote may have been a national one but there is / was no national consensus on the result.

Yes the European Economic Area, which sadly misses all red lines by the UK. Still under EU law, still free movement, still paying money to the EU,....

seahawk wrote:

It is simply not possible. Say the UK would succeed in a deal with the USA and the chlorinated chicken would be included in the deal, there is no way that the UK could now allow unlimited access to all chicken products made in the UK to the EU market, as they could contain chlorinated chicken imported from the USA.

I still do not get how this health hazard has been allowed to continue in the UK for so long, has anyone even checked on the cost to the NHS?
A large number of UK residents / citizens go to the USA every year, and even though I have no sources I have to believe that they consume chlorinated chicken and return home to the UK with all the side / after effects, why are they not taxed or medically screened etc?
It may sound like a joke but chlorinated chicken has been center stage in this debate since the vote result was in, it has to be more than just a talking point, there must be some health risk.

par13del wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It is simply not possible. Say the UK would succeed in a deal with the USA and the chlorinated chicken would be included in the deal, there is no way that the UK could now allow unlimited access to all chicken products made in the UK to the EU market, as they could contain chlorinated chicken imported from the USA.

I still do not get how this health hazard has been allowed to continue in the UK for so long, has anyone even checked on the cost to the NHS?
A large number of UK residents / citizens go to the USA every year, and even though I have no sources I have to believe that they consume chlorinated chicken and return home to the UK with all the side / after effects, why are they not taxed or medically screened etc?
It may sound like a joke but chlorinated chicken has been center stage in this debate since the vote result was in, it has to be more than just a talking point, there must be some health risk.

You can replace it with any other field in which there are different regulations.

If trade partner A allows something that trade partner B has banned, you can not be in a common market with both.

But it gets much more complicated.

Say, trade partner A has a tariff on a product made by trade partner B means, that you can not buy at trade partner B and then sell it to trade partner A, as the tariff depends on the origin of the product not who sells it. So instead of being in two common markets you get the hassle of having to follow the rules of 2 different markets and all the trouble of importing and exporting into each market.

However, the EU does trade with third countries now, and yes there are different tariffs and conditions on those trades, it is done every day in the EU, some friction sure, but the world does not stop outside of the EU, in reality there are more countries outside of the EU than inside the EU and they deal with such issues along with the EU on a daily basis.
Maybe the UK are just not up to speed to be able handle such issues.

In any event, trade is the least of their concerns now, it will all be handled by the EU so.....

Richard28 wrote:

Without this certification, it is not possible to sell such goods into the EEA..

CE is self-declared, you don´t need certification, declaration will do, but w/o it even importing in the EU is normally not possible.

When you declared CE conformity, you are better sure to be right

best regards
Thomas

Heard today on the radio that the option to leave and revert to WTO rules would also require a hard border with Ireland.

Anyone able to shed light on this?

As someone said, leaving the EU feels like trying to "get the eggs out of a baked cake."

Mark

bananaboy wrote:

Heard today on the radio that the option to leave and revert to WTO rules would also require a hard border with Ireland.

Anyone able to shed light on this?

The republic of Ireland is an EU member, Brexit makes the ROI/NI border EU outside borders. As such, unless the UK (or at least northern Ireland) remains in the Common market, that has to be a hard border.

Best regards
Thomas

And you will have a hard brexit as May surrendered to theses wacko from the ERG group and accepted their amendments

seahawk wrote:

The problem is that the British position is contradictory in itself.

a) We want full access to the common market, but we do not want to be bound by your legislations regarding the common market and want to make deals with other nations as we wish.

It is simply not possible. Say the UK would succeed in a deal with the USA and the chlorinated chicken would be included in the deal, there is no way that the UK could now allow unlimited access to all chicken products made in the UK to the EU market, as they could contain chlorinated chicken imported from the USA.

What's happening, no trolling today ?

Aesma wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The problem is that the British position is contradictory in itself.

a) We want full access to the common market, but we do not want to be bound by your legislations regarding the common market and want to make deals with other nations as we wish.

It is simply not possible. Say the UK would succeed in a deal with the USA and the chlorinated chicken would be included in the deal, there is no way that the UK could now allow unlimited access to all chicken products made in the UK to the EU market, as they could contain chlorinated chicken imported from the USA.

What's happening, no trolling today ?

I never trolled the topic.

Because the only Brexit is a hard Brexit, all other options are not realistic.

EFTA membership would still mean free movement and accepting EU laws and regulations while probably paying more to the EU in the net result than before.
Giving the UK a better deal is totally impossible, because all 26 EU countries would need to agree and the EFTA countries would be furious - and as I understand it they would be heard in that case.

And as revoking Article 50 is highly unlikely, the only Brexit possible is the hard Brexit.

bananaboy wrote:

Heard today on the radio that the option to leave and revert to WTO rules would also require a hard border with Ireland.

Anyone able to shed light on this?

That's been known since day one the referendum was announced.

WTO is the default trading position, and the default trading position between two countries is that there is a border where people and goods are checked.

It takes a lot of hard work and trust to get to a no border situation.

seahawk wrote:

And as revoking Article 50 is highly unlikely, the only Brexit possible is the hard Brexit.

Though unlikely, May does use this a threat towards those who oppose her in the Tory party. Thus there's still a chance May actually is doing this just to displease some opponents. Likely? To be honest nothing will surprise me anymore in the Brexit saga.

LJ wrote:

Though unlikely, May does use this a threat towards those who oppose her in the Tory party. Thus there's still a chance May actually is doing this just to displease some opponents. Likely? To be honest nothing will surprise me anymore in the Brexit saga.

Regardless of what May does, the EU has to accept the deal, and so far the answer has been no, so if she is appeasing anyone the reason is...

par13del wrote:

Regardless of what May does, the EU has to accept the deal, and so far the answer has been no, so if she is appeasing anyone the reason is...

Are you sure the Eu has to accept the deal? My understanding is if there is no Deal, the WTO rules will then apply. The EU doesn't have to accept anything other than the keys to the EU from the UK.

Care to back up your statement with a reference?

mmo wrote:

par13del wrote:

Regardless of what May does, the EU has to accept the deal, and so far the answer has been no, so if she is appeasing anyone the reason is...

Are you sure the Eu has to accept the deal?
Care to back up your statement with a reference?

The UK parliament cannot pass a deal and force it on the EU, the EU can either accept it or reject it, and so far all the noise coming out of the EU is no.....so why continue to waste time adjusting it for UK interest? If you ultimately want the deal to be accepted by the EU you need to cater to the EU interest, and everyone knows what those requirements are...

par13del wrote:

LJ wrote:

Though unlikely, May does use this a threat towards those who oppose her in the Tory party. Thus there's still a chance May actually is doing this just to displease some opponents. Likely? To be honest nothing will surprise me anymore in the Brexit saga.

Regardless of what May does, the EU has to accept the deal, and so far the answer has been no, so if she is appeasing anyone the reason is...

She doesn't need a deal if she revokes article 50. Some EU countries might object or want an opinion wether article 50 can be revoked, but if article 50 can be revoked, no EU country can block the UK from remaining in the EU. It's one of the cards May can (and will) play should the Brexiteers oppose any deal she wants to make. However, this is also the reason why you wouldn't see a Tory leadership challenge untill May has played all her cards because they also know that they can challenge May only once a year. If the challenge comes too early and the challenge is lost, then May would have carte blanche. Is the "will of the people"? Probably not, but why would May care? She won't be PM anyhow after this term.

LJ wrote:

She doesn't need a deal if she revokes article 50. Some EU countries might object or want an opinion wether article 50 can be revoked, but if article 50 can be revoked,

...the key point there is BUT IF...stranger things have happened BUT I cannot see the EU giving up billions of dollars and their own peace of mind by allowing a malcontent like the UK to continue on as if nothing has happened.
Now the EU does have its own court and the EU did write the Article 50 rules etc after a thought so I am sure thy could find a loop hole that would allow revocation, but I am betting the loop hole will have penalties, such as payments wiping out rebates for the next 20 years (can't say no rebates but the end result is the same) all the other opt outs that the UK presently enjoys would some how get offset, they would still be there in name but the effect would be gone, after all,,one has to allow the UK politicians to save face on the home.

As for taking the UK serious after the revocation.....and the population regard of votes going forward....

par13del wrote:

mmo wrote:

par13del wrote:

Regardless of what May does, the EU has to accept the deal, and so far the answer has been no, so if she is appeasing anyone the reason is...

Are you sure the Eu has to accept the deal?
Care to back up your statement with a reference?

The UK parliament cannot pass a deal and force it on the EU, the EU can either accept it or reject it, and so far all the noise coming out of the EU is no.....so why continue to waste time adjusting it for UK interest? If you ultimately want the deal to be accepted by the EU you need to cater to the EU interest, and everyone knows what those requirements are...

I don't know if English is your first language, but you wrote the "EU has to accept the deal". I maintain it doesn't. The EU can reject any deal and if they do then it is a very hard Brexit with trade being relegated to WTO rules. I doubt there is any deal which is acceptable to the EU if the 4 corners are not maintained. The UK seems to think they can keep wrapping up the same pig of a deal and call it something else. The UK doesn't seem to understand the EU will not allow "cherry picking". Obviously, the UK can't understand that.

mmo wrote:

par13del wrote:

mmo wrote:

I don't know if English is your first language, but you wrote the "EU has to accept the deal"

...and so far they have said no, which was the rest of the sentence, so we are both in agreement.

mmo wrote:

par13del wrote:

mmo wrote:

Are you sure the Eu has to accept the deal?
Care to back up your statement with a reference?

The UK parliament cannot pass a deal and force it on the EU, the EU can either accept it or reject it, and so far all the noise coming out of the EU is no.....so why continue to waste time adjusting it for UK interest? If you ultimately want the deal to be accepted by the EU you need to cater to the EU interest, and everyone knows what those requirements are...

I don't know if English is your first language, but you wrote the "EU has to accept the deal". I maintain it doesn't. The EU can reject any deal and if they do then it is a very hard Brexit with trade being relegated to WTO rules. I doubt there is any deal which is acceptable to the EU if the 4 corners are not maintained. The UK seems to think they can keep wrapping up the same pig of a deal and call it something else. The UK doesn't seem to understand the EU will not allow "cherry picking". Obviously, the UK can't understand that.

English is not my first languages, but the way I understood par13del's post is "EU has to accept May's plan for ..... (something else to matter).

The UK government is negotiating with the EU, not the UK parliament. When the vote was lost the first line of attack was that parliament should have a say, look at the first thread all the Remain and EU supporters jumped on this line saying it was true democracy. Well guess what, TM is expending time and energy to get a deal that is acceptable to Labour, Tory and whoever elites want in. Fine so lets say all and sundry like her Cheq. deal and parliament has a nice approval vote, now what, she has to present it to the EU and they have been saying in English terms that it is not fit for purpose as it crosses their red lines so it is dead on arrival. So why spend time getting a deal that is acceptable to people who do not count, especially when the majority of them DO NOT WANT TO LEAVE.
The Leave faction was marginalized from day one when TM was selected as leader, the country was shafted when she decided on a split cabinet for a negotiation which will affect the nation for decades, and all parties now are just making the messy situation even messier.
The plan is even talking about aligning services to a standard which does not exist, and services is their largest export product?
If all of this is to fall on the revoke article 50 sword it sure is overly convoluted, especially in a remain parliament.

par13del wrote:

The UK government is negotiating with the EU, not the UK parliament.

For the most part the UK is negotiating with themselves. The EU is just waiting a for a workable proposal.

JJJ wrote:

For the most part the UK is negotiating with themselves. The EU is just waiting a for a workable proposal.

That is the other part of the mess, the EU waiting for a workable proposal or the UK to present a plan, in my mind there is no such thing. One is either in the EU or out, the 4 pillars mean you are in, there is no cherry picking the 4 pillars, so other than the UK saying they are in or out, everything else is just ....

If they had initiated Article 50 immediately after the vote (as some suggested) and stated WTO (as some suggested) this would be over by now and the second referendum would be waiting for Mar-2019.
Anyone who is or was in favour of a negotiated deal with the EU, other than being in and having the 4 pillars, what else is there...in my mind Norway is in the EU, with no disrespect to them, if they say they are not that to me is just in name only. I have done reading on their model, seen where the majority of them do not want to join, and I do not understand why they desire to follow all EU mandates, have their deals vetted and approved by the EU but refuse to sit at the table and have an input into the rules / laws that they live, work and trade by. Based on the friction presently taking place between them how much longer will that model be allowed...

Great to see these amendments passed in the commons just now.

To what end....it is still not acceptable to the EU, so................

First Leave.EU were fined and now Vote Leave who are also now being referred to police for potentially breaking electoral law.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 50466.html

Mark

mmo wrote:

par13del wrote:

mmo wrote:

Are you sure the Eu has to accept the deal?
Care to back up your statement with a reference?

The UK parliament cannot pass a deal and force it on the EU, the EU can either accept it or reject it, and so far all the noise coming out of the EU is no.....so why continue to waste time adjusting it for UK interest? If you ultimately want the deal to be accepted by the EU you need to cater to the EU interest, and everyone knows what those requirements are...

I don't know if English is your first language, but you wrote the "EU has to accept the deal". I maintain it doesn't. The EU can reject any deal and if they do then it is a very hard Brexit with trade being relegated to WTO rules.

Tiny problem with that: there is no such thing in as "WTO rules", at least not in the sense of some generic trade deal one can fall back on.
You still need negotiations, "WTO rules" pretty much just set the maximum tariffs, on procedure.

Best regards
Thomas

That is a sideshow anyway. Because tariffs for goods are the easiest point, there is no reason for the EU to not agree on no tariffs. The question is if the UK should do so. British farmers will be hard hit if the EU farmers backed by all the subsidiaries have unlimited access to the market, especially if the UK government does not keep paying the same amount of help.

But it also misses the fact that the UK is a service economy and WTO rules only regulate goods. So if the banking and insurance sector of the UK still wants to do business in the EU market, WTO rules mean that they can not do so. And that is the point that should be discussed, because no fancy border technology, no tariff deal and no WTO rule is going to fix this.

par13del wrote:

To what end....it is still not acceptable to the EU, so................

I hope you’re right. My gut feeling is that they will accept.