I do note multiple question marks two lines further downdmereifield wrote:Thus, rendering the backstop unnecessary
] when we have chosen to do - in total - 57% of our exports and 66% of our imports with countries thatwe have a better trade agreement with, as part of the EU or riding on their wing (40 more countries, to add to those who are in EU/ EEA).
Coming 2020, Nigel Farange and BoJo Reunion tour: "Get the UK out of the WTO!"SKB wrote:"No Deal" is a misnomer, there is already a deal that the EU and UK both already have. It's called the WTO.
If May's deal goes through future campaigns will be fought, again, on manifestos pledging to leave the SM+CU (I.e. backstop)Halidon wrote:Coming 2020, Nigel Farange and BoJo Reunion tour: "Get the UK out of the WTO!"SKB wrote:"No Deal" is a misnomer, there is already a deal that the EU and UK both already have. It's called the WTO.
Sorry to disappoint, Parliamnet won't let us leave without a deal, therefore we will end up in a backstop with SM+CU, we won't be able to sign FTAs with NZ, or anyone elseR686 wrote:Appears to me that if the UK can get the mutual recognition agreement adopted by the UK and NZ with other 3rd countries maybe the only one having to trade under WTO rules will be the EU, since you export more to 3rd countries than EU the UK should at least have not too many worries going forward without a WA
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/n ... ant=tb_v_1
its the GFA becomes the hard part
2 done (Swiss template also agreed), 39 to godmereifield wrote:be able to sign FTAs with NZ, or anyone else
, again 
"On the military front, the bulk of troops earmarked for Operational Yellowhammer look set to come from 3rd (United Kingdom) Division, with officers saying if that is the case then the most likely impact will be that some of these units may already be on a raised level of readiness as part of a new UK-led initiative called the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). next. Mrs May erratically driving while switching between "left&right" has not endeared her to the other side - who until now have seen it as a priority to keep her in office so as to have 'someone' to talk with!
The EU side has seen it all as nebulae, but in reality it is about plenty of fabula ('little porkies' in the eyes of whoever is delivering them, for whatever purpose. But it all adds up). ) The British government is actively sabotaging the work it has spent the past two years completing and then doing a victory dance.
There was a weird, and very un-British, quasi-religious undercurrent to all this — a sense that things would work if you just believed in them hard enough, a hatred of practical judgment and a bubbling tide of chest-beating jingoistic nationalism. Brexit was a political project based on the idea that identity politics could answer technocratic questions. If the technocratic question keeps proving problematic, you just need to have more faith in your identity. It was like trying to unlock a door with a slice of bread.
It was a very strange and pointless amendment. It said, in a not legally binding manner, that Parliament would back the Brexit deal if “alternative arrangements” were found for the backstop. What were these alternative arrangements? How do you promise to keep a border open while simultaneously not promising to keep a border open? Brady couldn’t say. Neither could the prime minister or any other member of her government. They had no idea what they were doing. They just needed some words, any words, that could win majority support in the Commons. The fact that the specific words they chose made no sense was an advantage. If the amendment had made sense, someone would have taken offense at its implications. This is the logic of fairy tale politics. The most common idea among Brexiteers is that they will use “high-tech solutions” to remove the need for checks at the border. But the technology they are wishing for does not exist anywhere on Earth. It is science fiction.
He couldn’t say because the Tory plan of policing the border using Leprechauns on unicorns is still classifiedHalidon wrote:Mr. Dunt pulls no punches.
It was a very strange and pointless amendment. It said, in a not legally binding manner, that Parliament would back the Brexit deal if “alternative arrangements” were found for the backstop. What were these alternative arrangements? How do you promise to keep a border open while simultaneously not promising to keep a border open? Brady couldn’t say.
. Research project and university exchange funding to continue IF the UK carries on paying its budget sharedmereifield wrote:mini-deals emerging
another IF there, and quite a step down from the level where we are atdmereifield wrote: visa-free travel for short trips, if UK reciprocates
. OK, we are not talking fresh money (like the mere 1 bn for buying DUP's favour), but rather a diversion of cash - our cash - that would be spent anyway The concluding note is a good description for the new trade deals (actually, continuation deals. Any of them have added any new, better terms?) and they equate to the funding for a start-up (AKA rebuild the Empire from scratch), who typically go to ' friends and family' firstHalidon wrote:a weird, and very un-British, quasi-religious undercurrent to all this — a sense that things would work if you just believed in them hard enough, a hatred of practical judgment and a bubbling tide of chest-beating jingoistic nationalism. Brexit was a political project based on the idea that identity politics could answer technocratic questions. If the technocratic question [no one had thought through how to implement, hence the past tense in the previous sentence] keeps proving problematic, you just need to have more faith in your identity. It was like trying to unlock a door with a slice of bread.
