Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Stanley Road]

But I didn't vote for Cameron , that's in Stanley's universe.

I would have voted for brexit man most probably. Then cleansed myself from within.

 

[devilish]

But dont you have to apply to Switzerland if you want to move there?

Thanks will have a read.

Edit: so the work that needs to be done is around defining the "personality" of the UK post exit so that the "machinery" of the EEA still applies surely?

As far as requiring the approval of the member states, thats still a requirement for any agreement on exit, and will still require writing legislation defining the relationship post exit.

So it cant be any harder than whats happening now.

Nope. Switzerland tried to force the hand by changing the rules but they had to backtrack

I am no lawyer but from what I can gather, when the UK entered the EU it somehow modified its membership with the EEA. Hence, returning to the EEA will require the go ahead of the EU and the other EEA members.

If you ask me, the EU is getting a bit fed up of the UK constantly trying to weasel its way to the good old cherry picking strategy. It really risk pissing off its partners enough to be shown the door in few months time with no transitional period and a classic good riddance reply. That would be disastrous for the UK.

 

[JPRouve]

Nope. Switzerland tried to force the hand by changing the rules but they had to backtrack

I am no lawyer but from what I can gather, when the UK entered the EU it somehow modified its membership with the EEA. Hence, returning to the EEA will require the go ahead of the EU and the other EEA members.

If you ask me, the EU is getting a bit fed up of the UK constantly trying to weasel its way to the good old cherry picking strategy. It really risk pissing off its partners enough to be shown the door in few months time with no transitional period and a classic good riddance reply. That would be disastrous for the UK.

It's even simpler than that, EEA is part of the EU package(It's a single entity) for EU members, if you leave the EU you leave everything.

 

[devilish]

It's even simpler than that, EEA is part of the EU package(It's a single entity) for EU members, if you leave the EU you leave everything.

I am no lawyer so I can't really be 100% sure about that. However, what I do feel comfortable about is the irritation, this constant cherry picking strategies must be sounding among EU politicians. Countries enter into relationships together because they trust one another and its mutual beneficial in equal ways. The moment one of those get broken then you can kiss this relationship goodbye. The UK keeps with this colonial master attitude of imposing a deal then it really risking ending up with nothing

 

[JPRouve]

I am no lawyer so I can't really be 100% sure about that. However, what I do feel comfortable about is the irritation, this constant cherry picking strategies must be sounding among EU politicians. Countries enter into relationships together because they trust one another and its mutual beneficial in equal ways. The moment one of those get broken then you can kiss this relationship goodbye. The UK keeps with this colonial master attitude of imposing a deal then it really risking ending up with nothing

For EU members, EEA is part of the first pillar out of three. Type "EU pillars" on google and you will see charts that makes it easier to understand.

 

[Dobba]

Not really. It's just that all you've got is trying to make out that who people voted for previously has any relation to anything whatsoever, clearly angling to suggest Paul had no right to criticise Brexit because of how you thought he voted, same as the "didn't you vote Lib Dem?" aimed at me which apparently means I'm not allowed an opinion on the matter either.

It's not confusing, it's just shit and all you have.

The 'Didn't you vote Lib Dem' was in response to you complaining about politicians abstaining on crucial votes and/or voting with the government. You know, like they spent years doing but apparently not enough to lose your vote. Now, back to you complaining that people don't have principles when it comes to politics...

I've never said you can't have a opinion(Although if any mods are listening if I could have that type of power it would be great, thanks). Just that your always moaning about how Labour are unelectable yet at the same time your actively voting against them getting into power. I would take the moaning more seriously if you were like one of the progress lot who for some reason still vote Labour.

Oscie is genuinely worried about austerity and the NHS post-Brexit. The only good austerity and damage done to the NHS is the Lib Dem enabled variety.

 

[horsechoker]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44671507

Brexit: Third customs model devised ahead of cabinet talks

Downing Street has produced a third model for handling customs after the UK leaves the EU, the BBC understands.

Details of the new plan have not been revealed publicly but senior ministers will discuss it at Chequers, the prime minister's country retreat, on Friday.

Ministers have been involved in heated discussions recently as they tried to choose between two earlier models.

Tory backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg says the PM risks a revolt if the type of Brexit she promised is not delivered.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Rees-Mogg said he and other members of the 60-strong group of Eurosceptic Tory MPs he leads, known as the European Research Group, would reject a deal that did not amount to a clean break with the EU.

But amid signs of widening Conservative divisions, Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan suggested the "insolent" MP should "pipe down".

 

[Adisa]

Two years on, government is still negotiating with itself.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Oh good, a third one.

this is just a repeating cycle now of them coming up with customs models, going to the EU, the EU telling them "no, that's not in line with what we do", them going back saying "feck the EU, they won't negotiate at all, it's their fault". I wonder how many the UK will get through before they crash out in March?

But hey, at least they can blame the EU.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I would have voted for brexit man most probably. Then cleansed myself from within.

So are you a lifelong Labour supporter would vote Tory? That's exactly what I've said all along. But Corbyn has since revealed he's for Brexit as well but just doesn't have the courage to spell it out.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Because Britain is already a signatory and legislatively bound by the EEA.

www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features

www.ft.com/content/16b50be8-161c-38d3-83b8-14b04faa9580

The only problem with the EEA is its essentially committing to movement of goods, persons, services and capital. All of which are a "softer" brexit. I wonder how Switzerland controls migration? Surely theres something in that.

It also makes Britain free to seek trade agreements on its own.

Theres also a cost to Britain, but it might work for a few years until theres a GE and a government gets time to undo 50 years of legislation and agreements.

It makes Britain free to negotiate their own trade agreements. Two significant problems with this.

1. The real big problem - much bigger than tariffs , much bigger than having to apply the 4 freedoms - you have to have a hard border. This is the killer.

2. Why will the expert UK negotiating teams, note the irony, be able to negotiate better deals than they already have. And you won't need one team, you'll need dozens of them.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Oh good, a third one.

this is just a repeating cycle now of them coming up with customs models, going to the EU, the EU telling them "no, that's not in line with what we do", them going back saying "feck the EU, they won't negotiate at all, it's their fault". I wonder how many the UK will get through before they crash out in March?

But hey, at least they can blame the EU.

The EU have already seen a draft and it's already been rejected out of hand. More cake, vicar.

 

[balaks]

Has the Irish border been sorted out yet? No? Ok....

 

[balaks]

It makes Britain free to negotiate their own trade agreements. Two significant problems with this.

1. The real big problem - much bigger than tariffs , much bigger than having to apply the 4 freedoms - you have to have a hard border. This is the killer.

2. Why will the expert UK negotiating teams, note the irony, be able to negotiate better deals than they already have. And you won't need one team, you'll need dozens of them.

There can't be a hard border.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

There can't be a hard border.

I know.

 

[horsechoker]

There can't be a hard border.

So what actually happens when the UK goes for the hard Brexit and violates the Good Friday agreement?

 

[balaks]

So what actually happens when the UK goes for the hard Brexit and violates the Good Friday agreement?

They can't violate the GFA - it's written into Law. The only way they could would be to change the law which is impossible as the House of Lords would veto it immediately (if it even got to the HOL which it wouldn't)

 

[horsechoker]

They can't violate the GFA - it's written into Law. The only way they could would be to change the law which is impossible as the House of Lords would veto it immediately.

Ok but what happens when they violate the law?

 

[balaks]

Ok but what happens when they violate the law?

A return to the Troubles? Bombs going off in London and Belfast? Probably united Ireland longer term. Also you are ignoring the FACT that they can't violate the GFA like that. They simply cannot do it.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

So what actually happens when the UK goes for the hard Brexit and violates the Good Friday agreement?

There are two hard border problems - the Irish border and the border with the rest of the EU - the UK will never, or at least for the foreseeable future, be equipped to cope with a hard border.

 

[JPRouve]

A return to the Troubles? Bombs going off in London and Belfast? Probably united Ireland longer term. Also you are ignoring the FACT that they can't violate the GFA like that. They simply cannot do it.

By "they can't" do you mean literally or morally? Because from a practical standpoint, they can violate it and no one can do anything about it.

 

[balaks]

By "they can't" do you mean literally or morally? Because from a practical standpoint, they can violate it and no one can do anything about it.

From a practical standpoint they absolutely cannot do it - the border would be impossible to maintain in a 'hard' way - there essentially is no border between NI and ROI as anybody who has been here will know so to try and set-up checkpoints, etc. would be virtually impossible to do - and no I do not believe there is a technical solution to it. If they ripped up the Good Friday Agreement it would be political suicide and would cause civil unrest - not only that it would be illegal as I've already said.

Believe me - a hard border is an impossiblity even if that is what the UK government wanted to do (which I do not think they do). They will fudge it and continue with some sort of customs union.

 

[Silva]

There seems to be a coordinated twitter attack from conservative ministers against Mogg/the European Research Group (the hard Brexit faction of the conservative party).

 

[balaks]

There seems to be a coordinated twitter attack from conservative ministers against Mogg/the European Research Group (the hard Brexit faction of the conservative party).

The fact that BREXIT has given the likes of Mogg a platform is another reason to think it was a terrible idea.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

By "they can't" do you mean literally or morally? Because from a practical standpoint, they can violate it and no one can do anything about it.

The GFA was done in the context of both the UK and Ireland being part of the EU.
Can the UK legally actually do a Brexit?

Whether morally or legally countries could object to the UK becoming a member of the WTO for a start.

 

[JPRouve]

From a practical standpoint they absolutely cannot do it - the border would be impossible to maintain in a 'hard' way - there essentially is no border between NI and ROI as anybody who has been here will know so to try and set-up checkpoints, etc. would be virtually impossible to do - and no I do not believe there is a technical solution to it. If they ripped up the Good Friday Agreement it would be political suicide and would cause civil unrest - not only that it would be illegal as I've already said.

Believe me - a hard border is an impossiblity even if that is what the UK government wanted to do (which I do not think they do). They will fudge it and continue with some sort of customs union.

What are you arguing about? They can violate it, the only question is whether they are willing to pay the financial and political price, that's the doubtful part.

 

[balaks]

What are you arguing about? They can violate it, the only question is whether they are willing to pay the financial and political price, that's the doubtful part.

Did you even read what I said? They can't for a variety of reasons I have outlined.

It's like saying Trump can nuke the entire world - yes he could but in reality he can't/won't.

 

[JPRouve]

The GFA was done in the context of both the UK and Ireland being part of the EU.
Can the UK legally actually do a Brexit?

Whether morally or legally countries could object to the UK becoming a member of the WTO for a start.

Which is why I said that it was a bad agreement from a legal standpoint. You can't have an agreement that relies on a status quo that has nothing to do with the actual agreement, at least not without agreeing on an alternative. Now like several Irish posters pointed out, the very mention of an alternative would have made the agreement impossible.

 

[JPRouve]

Did you even read what I said? They can't for a variety of reasons I have outlined.

It's like saying Trump can nuke the entire world - yes he could but in reality he can't/won't.

I know exactly why it's unlikely but being unlikely is different from being impossible. Won't isn't equal to can't.

 

[balaks]

Which is why I said that it was a bad agreement from a legal standpoint. You can't have an agreement that relies on a status quo that has nothing to do with the actual agreement, at least not without agreeing on an alternative. Now like several Irish posters pointed out, the very mention of an alternative would have made the agreement impossible.

Whether it was a good or bad agreement is utterly irrelevant. The fact is the agreement is in place and as such the UK is bound by it despite what you may believe.

 

[balaks]

I know exactly why it's unlikely but being unlikely is different from being impossible. Won't isn't equal to can't.

You can't debate with anybody using that kind of logic.

 

[JPRouve]

You can't debate with anybody using that kind of logic.

There is nothing to debate, it's a fact. The GFA is literally and legally built around the EU legal framework when the UK triggered article 50 they were already in breach of the GFA.

 

[balaks]

There is nothing to debate, it's a fact. The GFA is literally and legally built around the EU legal framework when the UK triggered article 50 they were already in breach of the GFA.

The GFA is not legally built around the EU legal framework. It is an agreement between UK and ROI. The terms do not relate to being in Europe they relate to parity between NI and ROI which leaving the customs union will break. The UK has not yet left the EU and until they do so they have a legal requirement to create the same trading conditions within NI as there is in ROI once the UK leaves the EU. Which is why as I've already said they will have to either give special status to NI that enables the current customs union to remain there or they will have to create another 'customs union' but call it something different.

 

[JPRouve]

The GFA is not legally built around the EU legal framework. It is an agreement between UK and ROI. The terms do not relate to being in Europe they relate to parity between NI and ROI which leaving the customs union will break. The UK has not yet left the EU and until they do so they have a legal requirement to create the same trading conditions within NI as there is in ROI once the UK leaves the EU. Which is why as I've already said they will have to either give special status to NI that enables the current customs union to remain there or they will have to create another 'customs union' but call it something different.

In the GFA, it is literally stated that both countries wish to develop a unique relationship as partners in the EU. The absence of borders is based on the fact that as partners in the EU they share the same custom and trade areas which is the condition sine qua non for the absence of controlled borders and tariffs, if you don't want to be in breach of WTO rules who are also international agreements. So yes, the GFA is based on the fact that both countries shared the same legal framework aka the EU.

Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;

This isn't random, the GFA is based on the legal reality of 1998, that's how they managed to have no borders without having to deal with WTO within the agreement.

 

[balaks]

In the GFA, it is literally stated that both countries wish to develop a unique relationship as partners in the EU. The absence of borders is based on the fact that as partners in the EU they share the same custom and trade areas which is the condition sine qua non for the absence of controlled borders and tariffs, if you don't want to be in breach of WTO rules who are also international agreements. So yes, the GFA is based on the fact that both countries shared the same legal framework aka the EU.

Northern Ireland can have a unique relationship as partners in the EU by matching the trade and custom requirements of the EU which is in my view exactly what will happen. The UK leaving the EU does not necessarily mean the GFA is broken - a hard border will though - essentially NI will remain in the EU in all but name. I honestly can't see how any other option currently being looked at would work.

 

[JPRouve]

Northern Ireland can have a unique relationship as partners in the EU by matching the trade and custom requirements of the EU which is in my view exactly what will happen. The UK leaving the EU does not necessarily mean the GFA is broken - a hard border will though - essentially NI will remain in the EU in all but name. I honestly can't see how any other option currently being looked at would work.

I'm not sure if I follow you, "in the EU" has a legal meaning it means that Northern Ireland are by law members of the EU, matching requirements has zero value and bounds no one. NI and ROI needs to be in the same trade and custom area, from a legal standpoint, that's how you have no borders and no custom checks.

And by the way the ECHR is also a legal basis in the GFA, so when UK politicians entertain the idea of leaving it and potentially not respecting it, they go against the GFA.

 

[Green_Red]

How would Brits feel if NI was removed from the UK in order for the Belfast Agreement to be honoured?

I suppose if NI is no longer part of the UK thrn there is no need for a Belfast Agreement...

 

[balaks]

I'm not sure if I follow you, "in the EU" has a legal meaning it means that Northern Ireland are by law members of the EU, matching requirements has zero value and bounds no one. NI and ROI needs to be in the same trade and custom area, from a legal standpoint, that's how you have no borders and no custom checks.

And by the way the ECHR is also a legal basis in the GFA, so when UK politicians entertain the idea of leaving it and potentially not respecting it, they go against the GFA.

It is an agreement between the UK and Ireland - if Ireland agreed to the terms I have highlighted (which they already have said they would) then it would be fine - as long as it is within the 'spirit' of the GFA. The reality is that there is a way through Brexit that maintains the GFA and that is for NI to remain in EU in all but name. That is all that matters.

 

[Silva]

How would Brits feel if NI was removed from the UK in order for the Belfast Agreement to be honoured?

I suppose if NI is no longer part of the UK thrn there is no need for a Belfast Agreement...

@Sweet Square posted a poll a few days that showed about 2/3 of the country prioritising brexit over maintaining the UK

 

[balaks]

How would Brits feel if NI was removed from the UK in order for the Belfast Agreement to be honoured?

I suppose if NI is no longer part of the UK thrn there is no need for a Belfast Agreement...

I'd imagine most 'brits' couldn't give a fiddler's f*ck what happens to NI. The Brexiteers didn't give us one thought.