EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’... | Page 459 | Vital Football

EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’...

GillsBluenose said:
I hope you are not driving in my direction in the near future, as you must be closing your eyes every time you see yet another european phone number on the side of an articulated lorry
Click to expand...
Given that 43% of our export trade is with the EU and beyond to non-EU states and 55% of our imports are from the EU, it's not surprising there are many foreign trucks; I suspect the numbers are roughly proportionate with the size and number of member states trading with us. It wont stop post-Brexit unless we stop trading with Europe in which case we might as well all pack up and go home. If you're that worried about trucks on our roads, have you lobbied those concerned to make far more use of the Channel Tunnel that is criminally under-utilised? I thought not. As I've mentioned before, one train is 50 or 60+ trucks off the road. Build more freight transfer depots such as the one at Daventry so traffic becomes local. Using the Tunnel is not an EU thing but the UK's voracious appetite for foodstuffs etc and the need to export in order to feed the habit.
 
I don't know you guys keep going over old ground about what has happened.
We all know that already.

To be arguing about whether Thatcher was a
Brexiteer or not is irrelevant.

All that matters is where we are today and what happens in October.

Business needs certainty one way or another.

The EU side have so far refused to acknowledge that things have changed with the change of PM.
Until they can come to terms with the simple point that the proposed WA is dead in it's current form, then there is no way forward.
They are still acting as if it was a ratified treaty.
It was merely a proposal that has been rejected by the UK Parliament (three times)

I think that Johnson is calculating that he can get the WA through parliament without the backstop in it.
Maybe he can, maybe he can't, but that seems to be the strategy anyway.

So, the ball appears to be very much in the EU's side of the court at the moment.

Johnson's plan appears to be along the lines of, if no change to the WA, then, if we're going down, we're going down in flames and we are taking all of you feckers with us.

Maybe that is what is needed to get their full attention.

So far they have said that the WA cannot be reopened.
They mean that it will not be reopened. (because it's massively in their favour when negotiating a trade agreement)
It's impossible says Juncker.
Well, it's not , is it ?

They could change it in five minutes if Varadkar said that is what he wanted.

I think that before the 31st October, some compromise will be made on both sides, probably a time limit so that both sides can save face.
 
Last edited:
Therealwaldo said:
We DID have a handbrake on immigration. We just never used it. When Labour tried to introduce the identity card scheme that would have enabled EU restrictions on migration to be implemented it was blocked by Lib-dems on privacy grounds and the Tories on cost grounds. We could have introduced the rule that says if you can’t demonstrate that you are in employment and self sustaining after 6 months you can be sent back to your hone EU state. That would have ended all the nonsense about migrant so called freeloaders whether or not they actually existed.
Click to expand...
Well said. Greece use it on British "migrants" for example (or at least I know they did in about 2015, pre our Brexit vote when we didn't bother).
 
shotshy said:
So far they have said that the WA cannot be reopened.
Click to expand...
The EU negotiated with May in order to accommodate her red lines within its rules; all that Boris has to do is look at the red lines then no doubt the EU will reopen talks. People forget, like GBN, that it's the UK that is leaving the trade bloc not the other way.
 
I don't think that anybody has 'forgot' anything, including GBN

May's redlines have been and gone.
They are now totally irrelevant to any future discussions because she no longer represents the UK.

If, and it's a big if, the EU side can get their heads around that fact that they didn't have a deal, but merely the proposal of a deal, then things can hopefully move on.

The real point now is that the UK is leaving, with or without a withdrawal agreement.
Article 50 gives both parties two years to reach a withdrawal agreement.
Nowhere does it state that this is mandatory.

If an agreement cannot be reached and ratified by both parliaments, then the leaving country just leaves.

That is my understanding of it.
 
According to a commentator regarding the US offer of a limited US/UK trade deal post-Brexit, four things will be essential to the US: [1] adopt US rather than EU regulatory standards; [2] side with US on international security matters, eg Iran; [3] ensure there is no hard border between the north and south of Ireland - both US Houses are very pro Belfast Agreement and [4] stop using Huawei to roll out G5. Item [1] would screw us if we wanted to continue selling to the EU.
 
According to a commentator …… blah blah blah !

You don't know, I don't know, they don't know ...

Nobody knows how it will all pan out except … according to a commentator …..
 
shotshy said:
According to a commentator …… blah blah blah !

You don't know, I don't know, they don't know ...

Nobody knows how it will all pan out except … according to a commentator …..
Click to expand...
If you/we don't know, why on earth did you vote Leave? That was from a US commentator; I suggest you cut and paste what I wrote and see what happens if and when Brexit happens.
 
shotshy said:
I don't think that anybody has 'forgot' anything, including GBN

May's redlines have been and gone.
They are now totally irrelevant to any future discussions because she no longer represents the UK.

If, and it's a big if, the EU side can get their heads around that fact that they didn't have a deal, but merely the proposal of a deal, then things can hopefully move on.

The real point now is that the UK is leaving, with or without a withdrawal agreement.
Article 50 gives both parties two years to reach a withdrawal agreement.
Nowhere does it state that this is mandatory.

If an agreement cannot be reached and ratified by both parliaments, then the leaving country just leaves.

That is my understanding of it.
Click to expand...
There is only one sticking point and that’s the Irish border. If there isn’t a Customs Union, WTO rules require the border to be controlled with regard to tariffs and standards. No one has as yet come up with a way of doing it. If the group of brexiteers who went away to come up with one haven’t been able to do so who the hell can ? How can you negotiate around that single fact ? Without a solution you can whistle for a UK/US trade deal. If you don’t understand how Irish/US politics works and why that might be a problem perhaps you should look into it.
 
Pure speculation old chap.
If or when the EU puts up the border, we'll see what happens.
My theory is that it's a red herring and will never be erected.
 
The Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd has told the BBC that unemployment "could go up" if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal.
She also said the prime minister and cabinet should remember parliament could not be ignored in a push towards what she said was a "far inferior" no-deal Brexit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.