British negotiator gives EU two-week deadline to drop ‘ideological’ stance

[Borchester]

That is a better laugh than the last one. https://www.ukcustomsacademy.co.uk/">https://www.ukcustomsacademy.co.uk/.

Sorry Pappy, I forgot. If your lips move when you are reading a form, it probably does take you you a while to complete it. But most of the rest of us can learn in pretty short order.

[papasmurf]

I like to see you happy Pappy.



HMRC likes to recruit on short turn contracts. It doesn't take long to teach someone to fill in a form.

That is a better laugh than the last one. https://www.ukcustomsacademy.co.uk/">https://www.ukcustomsacademy.co.uk/.

[Borchester]

That is the best laugh I have had for weeks.

I like to see you happy Pappy.



HMRC likes to recruit on short turn contracts. It doesn't take long to teach someone to fill in a form. So HMRC will pop down to the DHS or whatever it is called this week and offer some of your mates the chance to sit in a warm office, in civilised company, answering the phone and generally getting a break from hiding from employment in your cellar.

[papasmurf]

 finding another 50,000 VAT wallahs won't be difficult.

That is the best laugh I have had for weeks.

[Borchester]

It doesn't matter when you leave as you put it. The WA is legally as valid before and after you "leave".



It was't Mays deal. That was rejected, it was Johnson's deal.



The EU have said there's no problem in extending, all the UK has to do is ask, and it may still do that. Johnson is a man of not his word, seen as he has firmly said there will be no extension, we can prob take that as a strong indication he will ask for one.



Well the 7.5b the EU cost is starting to look like a pretty good deal. Hows the interviews going for the 50,000 new customs officials ?

If Boris asks for an extension he will be lose his core support and end up out on his arse. So he won't.

This Chinese flu has shaken up the Labour market so finding another 50,000 VAT wallahs won't be difficult.

Half the UK is sitting on its arse waiting for the government to pay 80% of its wages.so a few extra billions to (or possibly from ) the EU will be like the small change that falls down the back of the sofa.

[GerryT]

Indeed it is ....and the sooner we get shut of it the better....hence, Brexit must be accomplished as soon as is possible - no ifs or buts..we must 'bite the bullet' required as a result of useless May's deal....and undoubtedly do NOT extend the transition period - despite the EU's pretence that that will not be extended.....they would absolutely love that....and revel in the continuing largesse they receive courtesy of the UK taxpayer, because of the Europhilic spineless governments that the UK has been unfortunate to have empowered  - especially both  Heath and Blair!!

It doesn't matter when you leave as you put it. The WA is legally as valid before and after you "leave".



It was't Mays deal. That was rejected, it was Johnson's deal.



The EU have said there's no problem in extending, all the UK has to do is ask, and it may still do that. Johnson is a man of not his word, seen as he has firmly said there will be no extension, we can prob take that as a strong indication he will ask for one.



Well the 7.5b the EU cost is starting to look like a pretty good deal. Hows the interviews going for the 50,000 new customs officials ?

[Stevlin]

The WA is legally binding. It's an international treaty.



https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/withdrawal-agreement-act">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... eement-act">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/withdrawal-agreement-act

Indeed it is ....and the sooner we get shut of it the better....hence, Brexit must be accomplished as soon as is possible - no ifs or buts..we must 'bite the bullet' required as a result of useless May's deal....and undoubtedly do NOT extend the transition period - despite the EU's pretence that that will not be extended.....they would absolutely love that....and revel in the continuing largesse they receive courtesy of the UK taxpayer, because of the Europhilic spineless governments that the UK has been unfortunate to have empowered  - especially both  Heath and Blair!!

[GerryT]

The backstop was an insurance policy. The WA is a set of terms. The UK and the EUs position is to have a border in the Irish sea which is wtitten in the WA and I suppose you could call it a win for Boris that the Irish assembly vote to remain in the Customs union if a deal is reached. But the crucial thing is that if no deal is reached, there is no legal obligation to have a border in the Irish sea. Whereas with the backstop it would be up to the UK to come up with an agreement that the EU approved and if they couldn't they would abide by the EUs rules indefinitely. Your source is in regards to Boris's deal and not May's.

The WA is legally binding. It's an international treaty.



https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/withdrawal-agreement-act">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... eement-act">https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/withdrawal-agreement-act

[Stevlin]

I think in that circumstance there would be a border placed on the Island of Ireland, let's face it there is no way and probably never will be a way of managing two regions in different custom unions without border checks.

The question is more how will the NI region hold a vote, will the majority be a +1 or a qualifying majority. Will a majority be required from both the unionist and nationalist communities. My understanding is this level of detail hasn't yet been decided within the UK. But if the vote is a majority from both communities in NI and it was voted to leave the backstop then I don't think anyone could complain about a border on the island of Ireland.

Well let's face it - it takes two to tango as they say , and the 'greedy' and inflexible approach of Barmier looks like border controls in Ireland will have to be reinstated. Shame really, because Eire has grown used to being subsidised by the EU, and has only recently been able to manage without those subsidies.....and as much of their trade is with the UK, then I would have thought that alarm bells would be ringing, irrespective of the unfortunate border problem.

I think that it may be time for NI to have a referendum on whether or not they wish to form part of a united Ireland.....that may help, if the vote was for that , however, because of the bitterness that I suspect still exists - whichever way the vote went , I would not be surprised if the 'troubles' recommenced.

I earnestly hope that I am wrong, however..

[GerryT]

Well, technically not indefinitely as NI CAN quit the backstop.



"A unilateral exit mechanism by which Northern Ireland can leave the protocol: the Northern Ireland Assembly will vote every four years on whether to continue with these arrangements, for which a simple majority is required. If the Assembly is suspended at the time, arrangements will be made so that the MLAs can vote. If the Assembly expresses cross-community support in one of these periodic votes, then the protocol will apply for the next eight years instead of the usual four. If the Assembly votes against continuing with these arrangements, then there will be a two-year period for the UK and EU to agree to new arrangements, with recommendations made by a joint UK-EU committee.[90][91] Rather than being a fallback position like the backstop was intended as, this new protocol will be the initial position of Northern Ireland for the first four years after the transition period ends in December 2020.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_backstop">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_backstop



And what if NI vote no to renew the backstop but UK and EU failed to come-up a new arrangements? Well, that's another story.

I think in that circumstance there would be a border placed on the Island of Ireland, let's face it there is no way and probably never will be a way of managing two regions in different custom unions without border checks.

The question is more how will the NI region hold a vote, will the majority be a +1 or a qualifying majority. Will a majority be required from both the unionist and nationalist communities. My understanding is this level of detail hasn't yet been decided within the UK. But if the vote is a majority from both communities in NI and it was voted to leave the backstop then I don't think anyone could complain about a border on the island of Ireland.

[GerryT]

All FTA are is agreements between nations to stop tariffs on specific goods to give nations competitive edges over others. I think your problem is you're confusing customs standards over laws (or rules as you put it). That is the products you sell (and only those products) to another country must comply with that countries customs standards but the laws required to make aren't the same. Otherwise sweatshops in Asia wouldn't exist making cheap Adidas trainers or Primarni clothes for our EU friends.

I get your point but a country not being able to write all it's own laws around goods manufacturing is seeding sovereignty for those goods. Is it practical for a manufacture to have two production lines, one meeting IS standards and another meeting BS standards. In a EU FTA if disputes escalate the UK courts won't be the final arbitrator, this is also seeding sovereignty. The UK is looking for a more comprehensive FTA that covers services, intellectual property, security etc these will require seeding of more sovereignty.

This point was made to Stevlin who is under the impression that the EU was taking UK sovereignty which will be taken back post brexit, that's fine if you don't trade globally. Even WTO has rules you have to follow, such as "most favoured nation", this is letting others tell you what you can or can't do which seem's to be a big problem for Stevlin. Something every country in the world does regarding trade, with larger countries having a disproportionate level of say in FTA's.

Right, the withdrawal agreement is just an agreement of commitments and measures to discuss for the next phase in talks. You are confusing the WA with the backstop which now has been removed from the WA. The backstop would have remained indefinitely if the EU stalled trade talks because it relied on the UK coming up with another way to keep the UK Irish border open that kept the EU happy in regards to customs. Come December if nothing is agreed the UK isn't compelled to do anything except under WTO they would have to do customs checks in NI. But crucially it doesn't have to be at the border FYI.

The WA is a legally binding Treaty, not just commitments, that would be the political declaration, not binding but a framework on a FTA direction . Your correct in saying the May Backstop would have kept the full of the UK in the CU until such time as the UK alone came up with an alternative arrangement.

Having the backstop gave the EU what it wanted and there was no incentive for the EU in delaying trade talks, but it's very doubtful any form of FTA would have solved the NI border problem.



Johnson turned the backstop into a front stop. GB will leave the CU in January and NI remains, until such time as the people of NI want to change that by voting to leave on a 4yr cycle. But why would they, they would be in the EU CU and UK union. This could attract FDI companies as a gateway for UK based companies free access to the EU.

[B0ycey]

The backstop was an insurance policy. The WA is a set of terms. The UK and the EUs position is to have a border in the Irish sea which is wtitten in the WA and I suppose you could call it a win for Boris that the Irish assembly vote to remain in the Customs union if a deal is reached. But the crucial thing is that if no deal is reached, there is no legal obligation to have a border in the Irish sea. Whereas with the backstop it would be up to the UK to come up with an agreement that the EU approved and if they couldn't they would abide by the EUs rules indefinitely. Your source is in regards to Boris's deal and not May's.

[Tbird]

The backstop would have remained indefinitely if the EU stalled trade talks because it relied on the UK coming up with another way to keep the UK Irish border open that kept the EU happy in regards to customs. Come December if nothing is agreed the UK isn't compelled to do anything except under WTO they would have to do customs checks in NI. But crucially it doesn't have to be at the border FYI.

Well, technically not indefinitely as NI CAN quit the backstop.



"A unilateral exit mechanism by which Northern Ireland can leave the protocol: the Northern Ireland Assembly will vote every four years on whether to continue with these arrangements, for which a simple majority is required. If the Assembly is suspended at the time, arrangements will be made so that the MLAs can vote. If the Assembly expresses cross-community support in one of these periodic votes, then the protocol will apply for the next eight years instead of the usual four. If the Assembly votes against continuing with these arrangements, then there will be a two-year period for the UK and EU to agree to new arrangements, with recommendations made by a joint UK-EU committee.[90][91] Rather than being a fallback position like the backstop was intended as, this new protocol will be the initial position of Northern Ireland for the first four years after the transition period ends in December 2020.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_backstop">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_backstop



And what if NI vote no to renew the backstop but UK and EU failed to come-up a new arrangements? Well, that's another story.

[B0ycey]

No I didn't, I said if you sell into the EU you follow EU rules. I didn't say Laws. But the point I was making to Stevlin is when the UK leaves it doesn't just do what it wants. If it want's to trade under an agreed FTA with any large trading partner it will have to seed some sovereignty, and so will it's trading partner. Otherwise how can you have common ground, dispute resolution, standards etc.. Brexit won't bring a utopia, the big fallacy of brexit was some people thinking they would regain total control. But that's not the world any country lives in today.

All FTA are is agreements between nations to stop tariffs on specific goods to give nations competitive edges over others. I think your problem is you're confusing customs standards over laws (or rules as you put it). That is the products you sell (and only those products) to another country must comply with that countries customs standards but the laws required to make aren't the same. Otherwise sweatshops in Asia wouldn't exist making cheap Adidas trainers or Primarni clothes for our EU friends.

There is a border in the Irish sea, or there will be, even the UK Govt have admitted that in recent days. Johnson agreed to this in the WA, which is a legally binding treaty. In this case the UK have said they will put border checks at the NI ports. NI will remain in the CU and as such will be fully compliant with EU laws and the EU CE marking/employment laws/consumer rights. Effectively keeping NI in the EU, not quite, but in general terms that's whats happening.

Right, the withdrawal agreement is just an agreement of commitments and measures to discuss for the next phase in talks. You are confusing the WA with the backstop which now has been removed from the WA. The backstop would have remained indefinitely if the EU stalled trade talks because it relied on the UK coming up with another way to keep the UK Irish border open that kept the EU happy in regards to customs. Come December if nothing is agreed the UK isn't compelled to do anything except under WTO they would have to do customs checks in NI. But crucially it doesn't have to be at the border FYI.

[Stevlin]

Every country and that's Every country that sells product into the EU has to abide by EU rules.



AND



Dispute resolution between the UK and EU would be by a joint committee.

Absolute rubbish!! We are not talking about trading standards - we are talking about the likes of accepting the EJC as the trade arbiter - which is NOT a common denominator in Trading agreements. We expect to be treated as any other SOVEREIGN state, and no longer one of the vassal states subject to the EU politburo.

Tell me - what other non- EU country has a trade agreement with the EU which them to surrender fishing rights in their territorial waters, or are subject to EJC rulings, or EU political utterings.

 Stop talking such rubbish if you wish to seriously discuss this issue.