45 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Now that would make it interesting! Hopefully Verhofstadt can go with him

You really do not seem to understand how the EU works. Their replacements would be bound by the same guidelines as defined in EU treaties and have (in the case of Mr. Barnier) the same mandate as given by the governments of the 27 EU countries. It wouldn't make any difference.

11 hours ago, sandyf said:

This is where the brexiteer mindset cannot see the difference between treaties and policies. Treaties are drawn up between member states and then ratified in parliament of each member state. They are very complex and not easily amended.

Brexiteers want to forget that the UK signed up to the treaties that they now claim are EU intransigence. A bit like some one driving on 3rd party and then complaining when the claim for their own car gets rejected.

 

1 hour ago, whatsupdoc said:

You really do not seem to understand how the EU works. Their replacements would be bound by the same guidelines as defined in EU treaties and have (in the case of Mr. Barnier) the same mandate as given by the governments of the 27 EU countries. It wouldn't make any difference.

It is quite ironic really.

 

The EU is bound by treaties etcetera which of course cannot be amended or reinterpreted.

 

The view of the British Electorate, as expressed in the referendum (and confirmed in the subsequent general election) can, of course, be junked, because you don't like what they decided...

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

And O.K. We know there is some friction between Trump and the E.U.

However I’ve heard nothing of the sort regarding the U.K.

in fact Trump has stated that he fully supports the democratic decision of the British electorate.

Really? What remote island have you been on?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-mays-brexit-plan-could-kill-chances-for-u-s-u-k-trade-deal-1531440255

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/12/trump-slams-may-over-very-unfortunate-brexit-plan-says-would-have-done-it-much-differently.html

11 minutes ago, JAG said:

 

It is quite ironic really.

 

The EU is bound by treaties etcetera which of course cannot be amended or reinterpreted.

 

The view of the British Electorate, as expressed in the referendum (and confirmed in the subsequent general election) can, of course, be junked, because you don't like what they decided...

Nothing ironic. Why would the EU change its treaties for a country that wants to leave?? They can be amended though when it is for the benefit of the members (and that now excludes the UK).

 

The Brexit vote is fine with me (even though I think Brexit is not smart). If you want to leave, just leave. Article 50 has been triggered, settle the bill, nothing else needed.

But a deal can only be made if it is also in the interest of the EU. Norway or Canada options are fine, the Chequers proposal certainly isn't.

30 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really? What remote island have you been on?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-mays-brexit-plan-could-kill-chances-for-u-s-u-k-trade-deal-1531440255

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/12/trump-slams-may-over-very-unfortunate-brexit-plan-says-would-have-done-it-much-differently.html

If Appeaser May’s plan gets the go ahead, which I think is very unlikely.

However after the above three articles were published, Trump did back peddle.

He has mentioned on numerous occasion, that he would look favourable to any agreement with the U.K. post Brexit. What that means in reality is anyone’s guess, after all he is a businessman representing the interest of the U.S.A.

 I just hope we can get rid of May, and replace her with a leader who will carry out the wishes of the majority, who voted Brexit.

3 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

calls for barnier to be sacked as hes just being obstructive and will lead to an  EU implosion

By whom?  Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg?

1 hour ago, JAG said:

 

It is quite ironic really.

 

The EU is bound by treaties etcetera which of course cannot be amended or reinterpreted.

 

The view of the British Electorate, as expressed in the referendum (and confirmed in the subsequent general election) can, of course, be junked, because you don't like what they decided...

Huh? No one is dictating to the UK what to do.  Brexit is barely mentioned outside the British press.  We've long moved on.  You should have just planned for a WTO deal since June 2016 instead of wasting all this time.  It's the Brexiteers who promised to the public that they would be able to negotiate a better deal than Norway/Canada/WTO.  Unless things change in the last minute, those promises will have been false, in which case a second referendum seems fair.  

 

I don't buy that holding a second referendum means disregarding the public's views.  Enough has happened in the past 2+ years that their views might have evolved.  If their views are unchanged, they can vote leave again.  Let's be honest, the hardcore Brexiteers wouldn't have given up either if the vote had gone 48/52 against them.

 

Personally I think it's a shame, but whatever, your decision.  If the British working classes want to hand over the country to the Tory right, so be it.  "Democracy is the theory that the public know what they want, and that they deserve it hard and good."

Edited August 1, 20187 yr by ChidlomDweller

39 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Huh? No one is dictating to the UK what to do.  Brexit is barely mentioned outside the British press.  We've long moved on.  You should have just planned for a WTO deal since June 2016 instead of wasting all this time.  It's the Brexiteers who promised to the public that they would be able to negotiate a better deal than Norway/Canada/WTO.  Unless things change in the last minute, those promises will have been false, in which case a second referendum seems fair.  

 

I don't buy that holding a second referendum means disregarding the public's views.  Enough has happened in the past 2+ years that their views might have evolved.  If their views are unchanged, they can vote leave again.  Let's be honest, the hardcore Brexiteers wouldn't have given up either if the vote had gone 48/52 against them.

 

Personally I think it's a shame, but whatever, your decision.  If the British working classes want to hand over the country to the Tory right, so be it.  "Democracy is the theory that the public know what they want, and that they deserve it hard and good."

The irony is caused by the two arguements which I quoted, deployed by the remain camp within the UK. Nothing to do with the actual position taken by the EU or other member states.

 

For what it is worth, I rather agree with you and the author of post #124 that we should have planned from the start for the "WTO" option.

On 8/1/2018 at 9:01 PM, JAG said:

 

It is quite ironic really.

 

The EU is bound by treaties etcetera which of course cannot be amended or reinterpreted.

 

The view of the British Electorate, as expressed in the referendum (and confirmed in the subsequent general election) can, of course, be junked, because you don't like what they decided...

Show me where the UK electorate voted to breach EU treaties. There is nothing to stop what the people voted for being carried out under the EU treaties, but that does not suit some of the people, they want to dictate how its done.

On 8/1/2018 at 11:08 PM, JAG said:

The irony is caused by the two arguements which I quoted, deployed by the remain camp within the UK. Nothing to do with the actual position taken by the EU or other member states.

 

For what it is worth, I rather agree with you and the author of post #124 that we should have planned from the start for the "WTO" option.

There is no WTO option for many issues, aviation for example, that means a deal with the EU and ECJ jurisdiction, back to the drawing board.

There is no WTO option for many issues, aviation for example, that means a deal with the EU and ECJ jurisdiction, back to the drawing board.

IIRC the U.K. is already operating on ‘certain’ WTO criteria.

The ECJ issue is primarily Brussels wishing to over-rule British courts on EU citizens, even though post Brexit the UK will an independent 3rd country, undermining the U.K. Supreme Court. A UK proposal of an independent arbitrator board I believe was also rejected by Brussels.
IMO( must be a power trip issue I think)

Aviation, nobody’s has mentioned the ‘open skies’ and I understand emergency measures are being drafted in order that the flow of aviation & any disruption is minimised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

There is no WTO option for many issues, aviation for example, that means a deal with the EU and ECJ jurisdiction, back to the drawing board.

So, what will be the difference between, for example, an Emirates flight from Dubai to Heathrow, over flying EU airspace and a British Airways flight from Heathrow to Dubai, over flying EU airspace? 

 

Unless of course Brussels will forbid the British Airways flight, to damage the UK! 

no deal will only lead to an EU implosion so its not all bad in the long run..french and german car factories will take a hit// so bring it on barmier

no deal will only lead to an EU implosion so its not all bad in the long run..french and german car factories will take a hit// so bring it on barmier

Mercedes is already looking at contingency plans referee one of their factories.

 

Dutch & Dublin are are looking to employ more customs staff, the FT in the city is ramping up its no deal planning & Mark Carney is saying no deal increasing by the day.

 

Some very uncomfortable ministers, Brussels beuracrats and Mr Hunt has made it clear to Barnier the UK will not blink.

 

We'll see how many appointments by March 2019.

 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

 

 

So, what will be the difference between, for example, an Emirates flight from Dubai to Heathrow, over flying EU airspace and a British Airways flight from Heathrow to Dubai, over flying EU airspace? 
 
Unless of course Brussels will forbid the British Airways flight, to damage the UK! 

Currently British planes and pilots are part of the EASA. If no new agreement is made before Brexit day, their licenses would no longer be valid (and not only for EU airspace but US and maybe more as well).


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

So, what will be the difference between, for example, an Emirates flight from Dubai to Heathrow, over flying EU airspace and a British Airways flight from Heathrow to Dubai, over flying EU airspace? 
 
Unless of course Brussels will forbid the British Airways flight, to damage the UK! 

IIRC BA & Iberia are part of IAG.

Which is now has its HQ in Spain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Airlines_Group

Both are terrible carriers too IMO.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

21 hours ago, citybiker said:

IIRC the U.K. is already operating on ‘certain’ WTO criteria.

The ECJ issue is primarily Brussels wishing to over-rule British courts on EU citizens, even though post Brexit the UK will an independent 3rd country, undermining the U.K. Supreme Court. A UK proposal of an independent arbitrator board I believe was also rejected by Brussels.
IMO( must be a power trip issue I think)

Aviation, nobody’s has mentioned the ‘open skies’ and I understand emergency measures are being drafted in order that the flow of aviation & any disruption is minimised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One day it will sink in, the UK is not operating under any WTO criteria, it is operating under EU WTO criteria, big difference.

 

The Open Skies agreement is to do with overflying and not related to landing rights or EASA. UK aviation is tied up in 35 EU legislative agreements, so there has to be an overall deal or a multitude of deals.

One day it will sink in, the UK is not operating under any WTO criteria, it is operating under EU WTO criteria, big difference.
 
The Open Skies agreement is to do with overflying and not related to landing rights or EASA. UK aviation is tied up in 35 EU legislative agreements, so there has to be an overall deal or a multitude of deals.

Still a WTO, as for sinking & your consistent negativity we'll agree to disagree.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_kingdom_e.htm

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

12 minutes ago, citybiker said:

Still a WTO, as for sinking & your consistent negativity we'll agree to disagree.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_kingdom_e.htm

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk
 

The UK has no schedule, it was removed when the EU became full member of the EU. The plan is to copy the EU schedule but that still has to be actioned and agreed, another deal in the event of a no deal.

1 hour ago, citybiker said:

Still a WTO, as for sinking & your consistent negativity we'll agree to disagree.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_kingdom_e.htm

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk
 

Here you can read more details about WTO after Brexit.

 

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/can-the-uk-rejoin-world-trade-organization-a-response-from-wto/

Here you can read more details about WTO after Brexit.
 
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/can-the-uk-rejoin-world-trade-organization-a-response-from-wto/

Thanks, so remains a member.

Post Brexit is ongoing, without facts we'll just wait & see.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

10 minutes ago, citybiker said:

Thanks, so remains a member.

Post Brexit is ongoing, without facts we'll just wait & see.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk
 

The WTO say that ‘Britain was, is and will remain a member of the WTO, but the process of independent integration into a series of WTO commitments will depend to a certain extent on the terms of its exit from the European Union’.

All Members of the WTO must have a schedule of commitments related to the terms of market access for their trading partners. In the case of Britain, the country does not have an independent schedule but as part of the European Union, it has abided by the terms of the common EU schedule. After Brexit the British  will need to have an independent schedule.

 

There will also be negotiations required for Britain to join the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). Again the British are proposing the same terms as they shared as an EU Member state. It’s difficult to say how the negotiations on TRQs and GPA may progress. There is a great deal of good will towards Britain among WTO Members, but keep in mind that WTO delegates are trade negotiators. They may seek additional access beyond what is on offer.

 

The whole thing is not so easy peasy

 

Edited August 4, 20187 yr by tomacht8

On 7/25/2018 at 5:47 AM, SupermarineS6B said:

Ha ha....... short memory lads ?  The last time Germany told us what to do we bombed them flat......... What a bunch of shysters the EU is revealling itself to be...... or should i say Germany,  because we all know who's really in charge......

ahem......YOU bombed Germany ???  Without Americans you would have been a German Colony very soon. Who got a short memory? But probably the day will come in ways of business and EU?

ahem......YOU bombed Germany ???  Without Americans you would have been a German Colony very soon. Who got a short memory? But probably the day will come in ways of business and EU?

Yeah Uk bombed Germany after it bombed London ! USA civilians never knew what that’s like !


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 hours ago, markaoffy said:

Yeah Uk bombed Germany after it bombed London ! USA civilians never knew what that’s like !


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Best try and ignore him. Always critical of the U.K. but what do you expect from a

Bigoted Irish Nationalist. He’s obviously forgotten how the hated Brits got them out of hoc, a few years back.

7 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

ahem......YOU bombed Germany ???  Without Americans you would have been a German Colony very soon. Who got a short memory? But probably the day will come in ways of business and EU?

No, a Soviet colony. And yes British aircraft did needed bonb Germany, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

On 7/25/2018 at 12:52 PM, abrahamzvi said:

All I can say in answering is: If so, bear the consequences. You can't have the cake and eat it.

This is the crucial point: there has only ever been 2 options for exit- never was a mix n match version.  If hard Brexit is selected then that has short term consequences- that's life!

 

No harm in consulting the people: it is a democracy after all and we will be a sovereign nation again.  That's the whole reason isn't ?  That will end answers once and for all.

 

So people have to decide on hard Brexit, soft Brexit, or neither.  It's a simple choice- each entailing loss of some form.  We have to make choices every day- at least those of us in the real world do!

 

Personally, although I didn't want to leave I am fine with either of the 2 distinct options outlined; I am not at all happy with the fudge proposed, and I rather suspect no ordinary, intelligent person is either- worst of both worlds.

 

If I were to choose between hard and soft Brexit, I would say hard is the way to go.  There would be a great deal of pain involved, but it does free us in many ways, and I'm sure there Britain would recover.  Soft Brexit is similar but worse than we have at present.

 

I wish the blasted vote had never happened in all honesty.  The only silver lining is that we will see the back of the Tories for a few decades.

 

 

Edited August 4, 20187 yr by mommysboy

7 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

The WTO say that ‘Britain was, is and will remain a member of the WTO, but the process of independent integration into a series of WTO commitments will depend to a certain extent on the terms of its exit from the European Union’.

All Members of the WTO must have a schedule of commitments related to the terms of market access for their trading partners. In the case of Britain, the country does not have an independent schedule but as part of the European Union, it has abided by the terms of the common EU schedule. After Brexit the British  will need to have an independent schedule.

 

There will also be negotiations required for Britain to join the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). Again the British are proposing the same terms as they shared as an EU Member state. It’s difficult to say how the negotiations on TRQs and GPA may progress. There is a great deal of good will towards Britain among WTO Members, but keep in mind that WTO delegates are trade negotiators. They may seek additional access beyond what is on offer.

 

The whole thing is not so easy peasy

 

Nevertheless, it is surely a done deal to some extent.

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

This is the crucial point: there has only ever been 2 options for exit- never was a mix n match version.  If hard Brexit is selected then that has short term consequences- that's life!

 

No harm in consulting the people: it is a democracy after all and we will be a sovereign nation again.  That's the whole reason isn't ?  That will end answers once and for all.

 

So people have to decide on hard Brexit, soft Brexit, or neither.  It's a simple choice- each entailing loss of some form.  We have to make choices every day- at least those of us in the real world do!

 

Personally, although I didn't want to leave I am fine with either of the 2 distinct options outlined; I am not at all happy with the fudge proposed, and I rather suspect no ordinary, intelligent person is either- worst of both worlds.

 

If I were to choose between hard and soft Brexit, I would say hard is the way to go.  There would be a great deal of pain involved, but it does free us in many ways, and I'm sure there Britain would recover.  Soft Brexit is similar but worse than we have at present.

 

I wish the blasted vote had never happened in all honesty.  The only silver lining is that we will see the back of the Tories for a few decades.

 

 

Yes, but you can't use the referendum for legitimising a hard brexit. It wasn't the only sort of brexit that was on offer then. People were told we could leave without consequences - hard brexit will have consequences.   

 

If you want it to be the will of the people, you need a new referendum with those consequences in plain view.  

 

Otherwise when people find out what a Sh!t ball hard brexit really is they will, quite legitimately reverse it as it wasn't what they voted for. If you really believe in Leave  and want Brexit to stick you need to do this.

5 hours ago, tebee said:

Yes, but you can't use the referendum for legitimising a hard brexit. It wasn't the only sort of brexit that was on offer then. People were told we could leave without consequences - hard brexit will have consequences.   

 

If you want it to be the will of the people, you need a new referendum with those consequences in plain view.  

 

Otherwise when people find out what a Sh!t ball hard brexit really is they will, quite legitimately reverse it as it wasn't what they voted for. If you really believe in Leave  and want Brexit to stick you need to do this.

Not really sure about a new referendum. I am afraid it would be just as divisive as the first Brexit vote.

In addition, it will take quite some time to actually organise it (possibly past Brexit date) and what would the question be? It is far from clear what a soft Brexit would be and whether it would even be acceptable to the EU...