keano77

Well you?ve obviously made your mind up on this issue. Just to say that when there was a border it was a border in name only since so much smuggling went on it might as well have not been there. Red diesel was a popular earner I understand. If a border is reintroduced at the EU?s demand it won?t prevent chlorinated chickens being smuggled into the Republic 😀

I was referring to a border between the North and Irish Republic. Apologies if I didn?t make that clear. Can?t comment about Question Time I?m afraid as I don?t watch it. I consider it cheap TV bear-baiting, a sort of middle class Jeremy Kyle.

Sorry Sephiroth, my attempt to be funny. Not bad I suppose for someone who?s probably got less rights than a housefly if the RSPCA got its way.

Another reason it ought to be rethought is because Sephiroth (above) probably wouldn?t even get those 10 points on the new system because of his English. Then we?d all miss his entertaining contributions. 😆

Yes Seabag. I think the immigration proposal needs to be re-thought. There?s been talk of an ?Australian system?. I?ve no idea what system Australia currently operates but I remember years ago it was based on needs and shortages. Some friends of mine who were nurses were refused visas as Australia has its own nurses. Pastry chefs and many restaurant, catering and hotel staff were much in demand but Australia didn?t want many professionals such as accountants etc. If you were prepared to be a cook at an outback sheep or cattle ranch you were welcomed with open arms as were jackeroos and jilleroos. Such an approach by Britain should be seriously considered to cover catering, hospitality and the care crisis to name just a few.

It?s nothing personal stepdown (or pk) The issues at hand are the issues that have always been at hand. The EU cannot be seen to give the UK a better deal as a non-member than we would have as a full member - otherwise the EU would collapse with Frexit, nexit, italexit etc but at the same time the EU wants to keep access to our waters and no doubt will request billions for U.K. access to this and that. In that sense, as Theresa May said, ?nothing has changed? Let battle commence with the talks

Fair point pk There?s nothing wrong with double knotting your shoes, belt and braces and taking out an umbrella on a fine day just in case.

?... and mugs like you will fall for it...? I have to admire your small c conservatism pk - your brave attempts to preserve the (EU) status quo. No adventurer you, boldly prepared to move forward. Do you have an EU flag on your bedroom wall? And perhaps a picture of Barnier that you light candles before. Do tell.

?... You've exposed your ignorance of what monetary policy is...? I?m sure I?ve got a couple of books by Milton Friedman on my bookshelves somewhere but I confess they must be very dusty now. You might be too young to remember but Friedman was flavour of the month under Margaret Thatcher and her policies devastated industrial Britain and mining communities and could be said to have paved the way for the Brexit result. Monetarism is about the supply of money. So we?re back to money, money, money as the ABBA hit had it.

Good point pk. But I?m more interested in the pressure Barnier is coming under from EU countries seeking to protect their own interests before the talks start. His draft negotiating position has had to be redrafted several times already.

No, "protectionist" means tariffs to protect local industry from foreign competition, the clue is in the name. The aim is to reduce domestic consumption of foreign imports, not to generate revenue. Translation - to keep prices artificially high Why do you think CAP had wine lakes and beef mountains? Anyway, I apologise as this is going over old ground.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There?s a reason ex World Bank and new ECB > President Christine Lagarde is instigating a root > and branch review of the bank?s monetary policy. Yes, the reason is to decide how they calculate their inflation target which was last updated in 2003: [www.ft.com] Err, hello - ?10 Billion hole in annual contributions now the U.K. has thrown off the shackles

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There?s a reason ex World Bank and new ECB > President Christine Lagarde is instigating a root > and branch review of the bank?s monetary policy. Yes, the reason is to decide how they calculate their inflation target which was last updated in 2003: [www.ft.com] Err, hello - ?10 Billion hole in annual contributions now the U.K. has thrown off the shakles

?... You can't even stay on-message between posts...? You?ve fallen into the trap that our Brexit negotiators did stepdown by accepting the EU version of what the message is. The majority of the British people freed you from such thinking in the referendum. Wipe the sleep out of your eyes stepdown and open your mind. Dominic Cummings is looking for radical thinkers.

How things work today pk might not be how they work tomorrow. It?s called change or adaption or evolution etc The EU realises it will need to adapt or die but so far only Macron seems to be suggesting change by advocating greater integration.

It?s all about money stepdown, something Remainers appear to be unable to grasp. There?s a reason ex World Bank and new ECB President Christine Lagarde is instigating a root and branch review of the bank?s monetary policy. The reason the EU imposes border checkpoints is to collect taxes/tariffs because it?s a protectionist market.

Posted by Sephiroth Today, 01:22PM "...it would insist on checks on the border... ie the EU would insist." ...which was why remainers said all along and were called scaremongerers... Posted by stepdown Today, 01:30PM ...That would only be the case if there wasn't an agreement... Posted by pk Today, 01:36PM ...the EU would obviously insist on checks on goods coming into their region - Thank you, you?ve proved my point. The nasty EU would impose border checks jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement to make sure their euros keep coming into the Brussels? coffers unless the U.K. accepts its rules and becomes a vassal state. But this is all old territory. Exciting times lie ahead when the talks commence.

I don?t disagree with everything you say stepdown but I?ll do you the courtesy of providing the following rather than just a link on its own ?... LEVEL PLAYING FIELD Preserving a ?level playing field? of customs and regulations after Brexit is crucial to the EU as whatever enters Ireland from Britain has free access to the rest of the bloc?s single market. Brussels needs to ensure that such products would not undermine agreed common standards, or compete by price dumping. Without an agreement with Britain, it would insist on checks on the border - which might be a threat to a Northern Ireland peace settlement that depends to some extent on unimpeded north-south movement. Alternatively, the EU could run checks between Ireland and continental Europe, but that would damage Dublin?s economic interests and subordinate them to non-member Britain?s...? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-backstop-explainer/explainer-a-guide-to-the-brexit-backstop-and-why-theres-a-uk-eu-standoff-idUSKCN1VA1ES ...it would insist on checks on the border... ie the EU would insist. I realise this is a secondary source but a very reputable one you?ll agree.

I?m always happy to be corrected stepdown but your answer doesn?t quite cut the mustard. There?s a reason the EU spent 3 1/2 years blackmailing the U.K. in the divorce talks - it was the UK?s Achilles heel and if the U.K. didn?t play ball Ireland (NB not the U.K.) would need to introduce a border to protect the integrity of the Single Market and all problems that would flow from it. It was well played by the EU, managing to place the onus onto the U.K.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The new SOS for NI says there will be no border > down the Irish sea. This border I understood was > an implication of the signed WA. Is the UK Gov > planning on breaking the agreement and forcing the > EU to insist that the ROI enforces a border on the > island? As I have previously pointed out on the Brexit thread. It has always been the case that EU states have to erect a border against non EU states. Don?t ask me under what EU Law or directive because I?ve never read them nor never will. An independent Scotland within the EU would need to erect such a border that would make Hadrian?s wall look like a flimsy picket fence. Anyway, to change tack, I see EU members are crapping themselves again because they?ve got to cough up more money to cover the UK?s contributions.

EU spending tens of millions of euros a year to promote meat eating https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/14/eu-spending-tens-of-millions-of-euros-a-year-to-promote-meat-eating Well done EU. Glad to see you?re spending MY money on something I agree with.

I?ve been dipping in and out of the Guardian?s coverage of the address to the EU Parliament. Understandably there?s a lot of bluff and bluster going on as the EU squares up for what will be difficult trade talks ahead. One thing that is already apparent is that Michel Barnier will not have such an easy ride as he did with the Brexit negotiations where there was EU unanimity as to the integrity of the union. Individual EU countries are already making demands on him to protect their vested interests - preserving the status quo for fishing rights for France, Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands for example. Barnier will have to balance competing EU interests, provide a deal with fewer benefits of full membership, try to tie the U.K. to EU rules and maintain a level playing field. A poisoned chalice indeed.

?...The question is what would it take for them to change this isolationist mindset ... ? It?s hardly isolationist to want to trade with the whole world without saying ?please sir?

Just to play devil?s advocate to re-energise this thread. The EU needs us more than we (as an independent country) need them. Many of you are over-complicating things. The only thing the EU understands is money (see EU bill on Brexit Day) Access to our fishing fields, no problem - charge them ?1 Billion a year (Except Spain unless they drop all claims to Gibraltar). Access to GCHQ (superior) intelligence ?2 Billion a year And so on and so on If Boris plays his cards right the EU will be paying us ?10 Billion a year (net, index linked) so we sign up to their rules and have a level playing field. The EU is crapping it?s pants. Remainers will be happy because we stay as we are (but quids in) Discuss

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nicola Sturgeon...So, given the verdict of the > > people of Scotland last night, the Scottish > > Government will next week publish the detailed > > democratic case for a transfer of power to > enable > > a referendum to be put beyond legal challenge. > > That didn't take long... > > It will be interesting watching what happens in > Scotland. > > Alex Salmond?s court case in January could do a > lot of harm to the SNP and partly explains > Sturgeon?s haste. > > More interesting perhaps is a point made by Andrew > Marr this morning. If, or when, Boris agrees to an > Independence vote for Scotland the U.K. will > probably have left the EU. Scotland would then be > faced with voting to leave the U.K. while also > being outside the EU. > > Squeaky bum time. Oh oh, Derek Mackay has now had to resign and Alex Salmond will soon be in court. Peak SNP? All downhill now?