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?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister has been spotted in Downing Street
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.
But as its not possible to ignore GFA then A50 is worthless, it cannot be implemented for UK.
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.
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?
What are you on about? You are the one connecting them and saying that Art.50 is impossible for the UK.
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.
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
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.
It has lots to do with A50, if it cannot work by leaving eu and gfa arent compatible.
It could, just not without the support of Northern Ireland. You can't impose a hard brexit on NI due to the GFA.
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.
Where is that documented?
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.
I need clarity, a document with clear WTO denouncing GFA. Not 'by proxy ' arrangements. If there's nothing, just say it.
What clarity are you looking for? And why would a document denounce the GFA? You are making no sense.
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.
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.
May is really mulling over a proposal that has two tariff regimes in one country?
Feck me.
Feck me.
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.https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-to-see-off-revolt-ahead-of-key-brexit-summit
Since when did this British Empire bullshit become ok for a prime minister to say openly? Why the feck would the US, Australia and NZ be special cases that it's really important for us to trade more with? Is the money from a majority white English speaking country suddenly worth more than any other?
Although I did enjoy..
Ffs..
Ffs..
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.
But the legal framework that allows freedom of movement is for the UK and ROI within full EU membership, it's the combination of the Single market and the EUCU, so that's one thing that the UK eliminated and that's what needs to be replaced if the UK and the EU wants to be able to protect their respective markets and virtually have no border controls.
To be totally explicit, you can move goods outside of agreements but if you do then you will have to grant the same type of rights to every other member of the WTO which is bad for the UK and the EU. So the UK needs to find a way to at the same time not have border/custom checks between ROI and NI and make sure that tariffs and custom checks are applied, and at this point they failed to come up with a solution. This last point is based on GATT, the first article and the 14th.
And before you ask about where things are written, tariffs and border control are part of the UK's white paper. UK's own red lines.
The funny thing is that it actually makes sense.
I can't remember who said "Brexit will defeat Brexit". He was bang on.
Even Nick Clegg is against this proposal!
Blimey. It must be bad if the bloke who backed Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms to the hilt is against it.
Worth reading
God forbid anyone might want to back the right policy instead of wondering what might work best at the polls.
When people said Corbyn was a man of principle I wouldn't have guessed the principle they had in mind was "votes are more important than rational policy".
Brexiteers bottled it. They all signed up to it.
Cabinet agrees to negotiate a soft Brexit.
This it's going to end up being Norway plus CU.
Called it. Now, let's see if the hard Brexit kids resign their posts.
Seems they all signed up to it.
What does this mean then? Is anything going to be different?
The agreement makes FTA with Murica almost impossible. Dont see the point of Fox's department.
@DailyMailReporter is gonna be busy
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.