tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post4205755829657809231..comments2024-03-29T09:14:53.583+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: David Davis's Brexit FantasyPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-84275950891308182012018-10-16T22:04:44.707+01:002018-10-16T22:04:44.707+01:00I think May would definitely have no problems with...I think May would definitely have no problems with the backstop in that situation Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851236025486991991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-47686874846855498512018-10-15T13:54:18.711+01:002018-10-15T13:54:18.711+01:00If the Tories hadn't lost their majority (and ...If the Tories hadn't lost their majority (and thus become dependent on the DUP) do you think some of them would have been willing to give up Northern Ireland to the Republic in order to eliminate the Irish border problem?George Cartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170378024031141482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-46327026569725378082018-10-15T13:54:09.112+01:002018-10-15T13:54:09.112+01:00Could you expand a bit or point to a post where yo...Could you expand a bit or point to a post where you expand on the idea that Gordon Brown's admin was beginning to wake up to the UKs long term structural issues?<br /><br />I'm interested to learn more about this, it's something out political establishment has deluded itself over forever, masked by dreams of imperialism Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851236025486991991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-71126849247241235342018-10-15T10:53:00.035+01:002018-10-15T10:53:00.035+01:00" It would however mean extending existing ar..." It would however mean extending existing arrangements where goods not currently subject to EU-wide rules are logged and dealt with by, effectively, a custom border in the cloud."<br /><br />That's not true. It would be true if everyone involved always played absolutely by the rules, and only those whose goods and services were trafficked across borders were those who played by the rules. Its impossible to know whether the goods and services that actually cross borders, as opposed to what any paperwork (including digital paperwork) those involved claim is being traded across the border, actually comply with a common rulebook of regulations without checking them.<br /><br />The Brextremists have claimed that this is what happens with things like VAT, for example. Anyone who is taken in by that is naive, if only for the reason that it assumes that all businesses comply honestly with declarations in regard to VAT! Take businesses that deal in cash, for instance. A lot of money can be taken in in cash with no one being the wider if it isn't declared, provided the business doesn't get too greedy in terms of what they fail to declare as against what they actually declare. All that is then required, is that the end seller, pays for that that part of what they buy, and then sell, and don't declare, also in cash, so that their supplier pockets this cash, and doesn't declare the sale, so the taxman doesn't know anything about it.<br /><br />Even where free trade agreements between countries exist, there are still borders, because its necessary to check the actual contents of what is coming across the border. Somewhere like Ireland, where small traders are shifting stuff across borders all the time, makes that even more necessary, unless everything being traded can be checked as complying with the requirements of production set down in a common rulebook, at the point of production. The fact that the Brextremists want to scrap any such common rulebook makes that impossible.<br /><br />But also, the Brextremists own desire to stop EU migration is frustrated by their claim not to erect a border. EU citizens will be free to use Ireland in their tens of thousands, should they choose, as a Gateway into Britain. They just have to fly in Shannon, and then drive up to Belfast, before flying into Manchester, unimpeded as a result of the Common Travel Area.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-15050430943610205642018-10-14T16:15:56.855+01:002018-10-14T16:15:56.855+01:00The Irish border and the GFA. Two things.
Firstly...The Irish border and the GFA. Two things.<br /><br />Firstly, Mark Durkan said in the referendum debate that the GFA assumes both parts are in the EU. So it is not as if Parliament didn't know this could be an issue.Yet they still want and voted 6:1 to have a referendum.<br /><br />Now, one might have thought that the decision to hold a referendum offering voters a choice would imply that both options are viable. In which case, those parliamentarians who voted for the referendum and now go on about the GFA should really explain what solution for the Irish border they had in mind when they voted to hold the referendum.<br /><br />The alternative is that Parliament voted to hold a referendum on the basis that one of the options was not a realistic or viable one. In which case, why hold it? If you know what the answer is, why ask the question?<br /><br />Secondly, the GFA. Lets just go straight to strand three section 5. It is pretty vague, but has statements such as "to use best endeavours to reach agreement on the adoption of common policies, in areas where there is a mutual cross-border and all- island benefit". Now if that prevents the UK from going its own way and implementing regulations or reaching agreements that introduce a divergence from the EU, then the bipartisan nature of the agreement also prevents the EU from introducing regulations that deviate from UK ones without the necessary agreement. But funnily enough I haven't noticed anyone commenting on that. Yet.<br />Dippernoreply@blogger.com