Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Then no one thought about it when drafting A50. Shows lack of foresight and stupidity on those that signed it off. Why am i not at all surprised? Who agreed to A50?The GFA, why?
Then no one thought about it when drafting A50. Shows lack of foresight and stupidity on those that signed it off. Why am i not at all surprised? Who agreed to A50?The GFA, why?
Art.50 has nothing to do with it though and for what it's worth Art.50 has been written by a british. Art.50 simply stipulates that in order to withdraw a member state simply has to officially announce it.Then no one thought about it when drafting A50. Shows lack of foresight and stupidity on those that signed it off. Why am i not at all surprised? Who agreed to A50?
But as its not possible to ignore GFA then A50 is worthless, it cannot be implemented for UK.Art.50 has nothing to do with it though and for what it's worth Art.50 has been written by a british. Art.50 simply stipulates that in order to withdraw a member state simply has to officially announce it.
Again art.50 has nothing to do with it, it's strictly about the relationship that a member state has with the EU while the GFA is about the relationship between the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK, the latter doesn't involve the EU. The problem here is that the UK and Ireland tied their personal relationship with EU membership which isn't a good idea when you are talking about sovereign countries.But as its not possible to ignore GFA then A50 is worthless, it cannot be implemented for UK.
What are you on about? You are the one connecting them and saying that Art.50 is impossible for the UK.Actually i have just read A50 and the GFA, there are no black and white connections unless you can point any out. A50 just refers to A218/3 which says nothing. GFA a cross party agreement where no party are sovereign eu states, only British and Irish. So where is the document or article outlining the impossibility of A50?
Where have they tied eu relationship to gfa, bu proxy? Where is that documented? I've read here the gfa was based on eu framework, show me that paper.Again art.50 has nothing to do with it, it's strictly about the relationship that a member state has with the EU while the GFA is about the relationship between the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK, the latter doesn't involve the EU. The problem here is that the UK and Ireland tied their personal relationship with EU membership which isn't a good idea when you are talking about sovereign countries.
First GFA is possible because of their membership to the EU, because that's where they have their WTO membership, that's why they don't need borders according to WTO rules because they have together an FTA and custom union agreement both of which are through the EU. It's also partially based on the council of Europe legal framework on everything that concerns Human Rights.Where have they tied eu relationship to gfa, bu proxy? Where is that documented? I've read here the gfa was based on eu framework, show me that paper.
No I'm not, its what i keep reading here. I just want to know where its written that leaving the eu nullifies the GFA, i am curios.What are you on about? You are the one connecting them and saying that Art.50 is impossible for the UK.
It has lots to do with A50, if it cannot work by leaving eu and gfa arent compatible.First GFA is possible because of their membership to the EU, because that's where they have their WTO membership, that's why they don't need borders according to WTO rules because they have together an FTA and custom union agreement both of which are through the EU. It's also partially based on the council of Europe legal framework on everything that concerns Human Rights.
Now, none of this has anything to do with art.50
It could, just not without the support of Northern Ireland. You can't impose a hard brexit on NI due to the GFA.But as its not possible to ignore GFA then A50 is worthless, it cannot be implemented for UK.
No, the UK can leave but they need a deal that fits with the GFA, basically NI needs to be free to have a deal with the EU by themselves.It has lots to do with A50, if it cannot work by leaving eu and gfa arent compatible.
Where is that documented?No, the UK can leave but they need a deal that fits with the GFA, basically NI needs to be free to have a deal with the EU by themselves.
The solution isn't documented. It's a simple response to "no border" and WTO's principle of most-favoured-nation. Without FTA and CU both the EU and the UK would have to offer the NI-ROI arrangement to pretty much every WTO members. The entire problem here is to fit within WTO rules, not art.50.Where is that documented?
I need clarity, a document with clear WTO denouncing GFA. Not 'by proxy ' arrangements. If there's nothing, just say it.The solution isn't documented. It's a simple response to "no border" and WTO's principle of most-favoured-nation. Without FTA and CU both the EU and the UK would have to offer the NI-ROI arrangement to pretty much every WTO members. The entire problem here is to fit within WTO rules, not art.50.
What clarity are you looking for? And why would a document denounce the GFA? You are making no sense.I need clarity, a document with clear WTO denouncing GFA. Not 'by proxy ' arrangements. If there's nothing, just say it.
Because nothing you argue says there should be a hard border, unless you point me to the right clause. If WTO rules state that the GFA is void when uk leave eu i want to read that.What clarity are you looking for? And why would a document denounce the GFA? You are making no sense.
If we want to leave the single market then freedom of movement cannot continue, ergo we need a hard border. If we don't things stay the same. The former would put the GFA in jeopardy by eliminating freedom of movement between NI and Ireland.Because nothing you argue says there should be a hard border, unless you point me to the right clause. If WTO rules state that the GFA is void when uk leave eu i want to read that.
I know, I thought I was seeing things when I read that just now. Unbelievable stuff. Britain’s parliamentarians have really let Britain (and the rest of us) down.May is really mulling over a proposal that has two tariff regimes in one country?
Feck me.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-to-see-off-revolt-ahead-of-key-brexit-summit“We want a deal that allows us to deliver the benefits of Brexit – taking control of our borders, laws and money and by signing ambitious new trade deals with countries like the US, Australia and New Zealand,” May added.
Ffs..There has been speculation that the Chequers summit could could be marred by cabinet resignations. However, any minister who quits on the spot would lose access to their ministerial car, meaning that they would have to walk several miles to the nearest train station.
First I haven't argued that the GFA was void when the UK leave the EU, the same way that I didn't argue that Art.50 had anything to do with it, those are both coming from you.Because nothing you argue says there should be a hard border, unless you point me to the right clause. If WTO rules state that the GFA is void when uk leave eu i want to read that.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The funny thing is that it actually makes sense.
Blimey. It must be bad if the bloke who backed Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms to the hilt is against it.Even Nick Clegg is against this proposal!
God forbid anyone might want to back the right policy instead of wondering what might work best at the polls.
Seems they all signed up to it.Called it. Now, let's see if the hard Brexit kids resign their posts.
All this is what May is going to as for. Must be noted it's not what she will get. Shes basically asked for a common market for goods, not services and regulatory alignment on a bunch of things. This is the expectation of her best possible deal and the most she can possibly get. What it means is in the most likely scenario, she ends up ceding on the common market for services (free movement) and also a customs union. We will basically be an EU country in all but name.What does this mean then? Is anything going to be different?