News6 mins ago
So Acceptance Or Ping Pong?
17 Answers
https:/
what do we think the old buffers will do here?
what do we think the old buffers will do here?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The HoL will reject the Internal Market Bill.
The Bill if/when passed will inevitably lead to a hard border in Ireland which no one wants.
Last year Boris signed an agreement which effectively kept NI in the EU single market. This alleviated the need for a physical border in Ireland, which would have broken the Good Friday Peace Agreement.
The idea was that there would be some kind of imaginary or theoretical border between NI and the rest of the UK where EU tariffs (and UK tariffs the other way) can be applied. The Internal Market Bill would make that impossible because it says there must be free trade between NI and England, Wales and Scotland.
It is a mess of the Governments own making. Your Prime Minister appears to have changed his mind and wants to rip up his own agreement which he personally signed.
The Bill if/when passed will inevitably lead to a hard border in Ireland which no one wants.
Last year Boris signed an agreement which effectively kept NI in the EU single market. This alleviated the need for a physical border in Ireland, which would have broken the Good Friday Peace Agreement.
The idea was that there would be some kind of imaginary or theoretical border between NI and the rest of the UK where EU tariffs (and UK tariffs the other way) can be applied. The Internal Market Bill would make that impossible because it says there must be free trade between NI and England, Wales and Scotland.
It is a mess of the Governments own making. Your Prime Minister appears to have changed his mind and wants to rip up his own agreement which he personally signed.
Corbyloon - the law of anticipated reactions. The offending parts may well get diluted (retreated litigation) before full reading such that it can be passed, and thus noted as a resounding success (albeit adapted) for Johnson and sovrinty innit.
Failing that, they will defer it back to Parliament and Johnson will do as he did with the Brexit Bill.
Failing that, they will defer it back to Parliament and Johnson will do as he did with the Brexit Bill.
//The Bill if/when passed will inevitably lead to a hard border in Ireland which no one wants.//
Who will impose that and enforce it then?
//The idea was that there would be some kind of imaginary or theoretical border between NI and the rest of the UK where EU tariffs (and UK tariffs the other way) can be applied.//
There was nothing “imaginary” about it at all. There was to be a trade barrier in the Irish Sea and goods crossing it would have to comply with EU regulations. Only goods identified as staying in NI would be exempt and the EU would police that identification process. The trouble came to a head when the EU threatened that it would not recognise the UK as a “trusted Third Country” where food “imports” (as they quaintly call the movement of goods between constituent parts of the UK) were concerned. That threat raised the prospect of the EU having the power to determine which food cargo was allowed to cross the Irish Sea and which were not. That is an outrageous proposition and one which no self-respecting government could countenance. Imagine if Spain had to get permission from the EU to move foodstuffs to the Balearics.
It strikes me as strange that such a fuss should be made about the Irish border. It seems far more appropriate to have a border between two sovereign nations than it does between constituent parts of one of them. It appears the Irish people (on both sides of the border) are adamant that there should be no border in Ireland but are quite content to see one drawn through the United Kingdom.
Yes I agree it is a mess of the government’s own making but I’m glad to see, for once, they’ve realised their mistake and they are putting matters right. If the EU is so concerned about contraband infecting their single market across the Irish border they have two options: agree a sensible trade deal with the UK which concentrates on trade and not political control, so obviating the need for border restrictions; or impose a border from north into the south (which I believe they have neither the authority nor resources to do) and see how it goes.
Who will impose that and enforce it then?
//The idea was that there would be some kind of imaginary or theoretical border between NI and the rest of the UK where EU tariffs (and UK tariffs the other way) can be applied.//
There was nothing “imaginary” about it at all. There was to be a trade barrier in the Irish Sea and goods crossing it would have to comply with EU regulations. Only goods identified as staying in NI would be exempt and the EU would police that identification process. The trouble came to a head when the EU threatened that it would not recognise the UK as a “trusted Third Country” where food “imports” (as they quaintly call the movement of goods between constituent parts of the UK) were concerned. That threat raised the prospect of the EU having the power to determine which food cargo was allowed to cross the Irish Sea and which were not. That is an outrageous proposition and one which no self-respecting government could countenance. Imagine if Spain had to get permission from the EU to move foodstuffs to the Balearics.
It strikes me as strange that such a fuss should be made about the Irish border. It seems far more appropriate to have a border between two sovereign nations than it does between constituent parts of one of them. It appears the Irish people (on both sides of the border) are adamant that there should be no border in Ireland but are quite content to see one drawn through the United Kingdom.
Yes I agree it is a mess of the government’s own making but I’m glad to see, for once, they’ve realised their mistake and they are putting matters right. If the EU is so concerned about contraband infecting their single market across the Irish border they have two options: agree a sensible trade deal with the UK which concentrates on trade and not political control, so obviating the need for border restrictions; or impose a border from north into the south (which I believe they have neither the authority nor resources to do) and see how it goes.
// If they do Johnson will use the Parliament Act. It will only delay by one year. //
One of the reasons this legislation was passed by the Commons without a fuss is that some would-be rebels decided that the Bill was too urgent to kick up a fuss about international law violations. This legislation is "needed" in time for January. So if the Lords do block it then waiting a year would be waiting until after there was any real point (at least for the offending sections 41-45).
On the other hand, the fact that this is going to the Lords so slowly suggests that all that guff about breaking International Law was never even intended to pass, but was meant as a gesture, a negotiating tactic. Threaten to pass legislation that undermines treaty in the hope of forcing the EU's hand. I hope I'm wrong in this interpretation, because it would be a disgusting and cynical way of using primary legislation. I'm sure that all would agree that the Government and Parliament ought to only introduce legislation that they genuinely intended to become law.
One of the reasons this legislation was passed by the Commons without a fuss is that some would-be rebels decided that the Bill was too urgent to kick up a fuss about international law violations. This legislation is "needed" in time for January. So if the Lords do block it then waiting a year would be waiting until after there was any real point (at least for the offending sections 41-45).
On the other hand, the fact that this is going to the Lords so slowly suggests that all that guff about breaking International Law was never even intended to pass, but was meant as a gesture, a negotiating tactic. Threaten to pass legislation that undermines treaty in the hope of forcing the EU's hand. I hope I'm wrong in this interpretation, because it would be a disgusting and cynical way of using primary legislation. I'm sure that all would agree that the Government and Parliament ought to only introduce legislation that they genuinely intended to become law.
Prime Minister Johnson lookedvery pleased when he signed the agreement 8 months ago.
https:/
// He said he hoped it would "bring to an end far too many years of argument and division". //
Then he goes back on his agreement and sets off a load more disagreement.
How and where do you propose custom checks and immigration checks are done?
https:/
// He said he hoped it would "bring to an end far too many years of argument and division". //
Then he goes back on his agreement and sets off a load more disagreement.
How and where do you propose custom checks and immigration checks are done?
The vast majority of goods from outside the EU that arrive into the UK (and thus, until last December, into the EU) do not undergo physical customs checks. Huge quantities of goods arrive in ports such as Felixstowe and you won't find a customs officer with a clipboard anywhere. As well as that, and incredible as it may seem, people used to travel to and from the Continent before the UK became a member of the EEC. The formalities can be achieved quite easily if there is will on both sides to smooth the passage. Alas that's the reason why the passage will not necessarily be smooth.
Of course Prime Minister Johnson looked very pleased when he signed the agreement 8 months ago. He was moving the process on from a crepe situation forced by a previous PM to a less crepe one that one could clarify and rediscuss at a later date once we were out. Returning to the agreement and finding an option to do so is correctly looking after UK interests.
jim; "This legislation is "needed" in time for January. So if the Lords do block it then waiting a year would be waiting until after there was any real point (at least for the offending sections 41-45). " - January is the earliest date when it might be needed, that does not mean it will not be helpful after that.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Caught, Those Who Allegedly Cut Down The...
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
News14 mins ago
Law17 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.