Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,143
    Tokens
    28,660
    View Awards

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    If you were a corporation and your global sales were falling, would you blame falling sales (thus effecting your share prices) on external factors specific to one country or external factors covering the world along with corporate issues too? Of course you'd place the blame on an easy-to-blame event in one country in order to mitigate the fallout from your shareholders. If they suddenly come out and say "Oh yeah guys, this is all actually down to car sales falling generally" the share price would plummet and angry shareholders would be up in arms that you'd just pulled the rug from underneath them. It's a PR exercise and they are naturally protecting their interests.

    Use common sense, corporations have agendas and interests. And they're often fed lines to repeat by governments too.
    if that's the case then why is nissan just moving production rather than cancelling it
    your idea of common sense is ignoring what you are told to believe your own truth

    Firstly, this is still a proposal by one side, so your initial "both sides have agreed to let through for a period of 9 months" is false.
    Secondly, this has bugger all to do with customs checks and doesn't actually help in the slightest with our capacity issue

    The British Army is trained to land overseas, I am sure they can deal with clipboards and filling in customs forms. We already do this on non-EU.
    By that logic someone could code their own operating system in binary since it's only ones and zeroes
    you've oversimplified it to help your point despite you never having worked in customs, yet everywhere I read says it takes months to train an officer... who am I to believe????

    With will, temporary posts can easily be set up. In any case, do remember this - some haulage that comes through Dover is heading towards the Irish Republic, so when we're prioritising lorries coming through, Mr Varadkar's republic is going to be - as Obama said - at the back of the queue. From that moment onwards, the Republic will be needing to charter its exports/imports entirely via containers.

    A situation entirely avoidable had the Irish and the EU dropped the backstop that Parliament (rightly) finds unacceptable.
    that's a really dodgy way to try and quote Obama there to the extent I don't think it really works
    but basically what you've just said is screw Ireland, lovely

    remember when it was said this would be the easiest trade deal ever
    how did that go
    yet remain are the liars.......

  2. #22
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is online now Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cdiz, Kingdom of Spain
    Posts
    25,191
    Tokens
    2,064
    View Awards

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    if that's the case then why is nissan just moving production rather than cancelling it
    your idea of common sense is ignoring what you are told to believe your own truth
    I literally pointed out in a tweet on page two of this thread how the new EU-Japan FTA remove tariffs on cars built in Japan, so it is hardly surprising a Japanese company is prioritising production in Japan than elsewhere. I would expect the same of any British company in a similar situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Firstly, this is still a proposal by one side, so your initial "both sides have agreed to let through for a period of 9 months" is false.
    Secondly, this has bugger all to do with customs checks and doesn't actually help in the slightest with our capacity issue
    So you've now accepted the EU will waiver haulage from Britain for a period of nine months, so do you now accept that in the situation of a No Deal it would be prudent for Britain to unilaterally also waiver checks for a period of time, if need be. Thus solving any issues at Dover.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    By that logic someone could code their own operating system in binary since it's only ones and zeroes
    you've oversimplified it to help your point despite you never having worked in customs, yet everywhere I read says it takes months to train an officer... who am I to believe????
    You use your brain and ask yourself is it really beyond us a a country to expand customs checks at our border when we already process customs at all our sea ports and at our borders on non-EU products. It isn't rocket science or brain surgery, it's a basic function of government.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    that's a really dodgy way to try and quote Obama there to the extent I don't think it really works
    but basically what you've just said is screw Ireland, lovely
    It's the Irish who are screwing themselves by insisting on the backstop.

    Or are you saying we should accept the backstop? You haven't told us what you would/wouldn't accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    remember when it was said this would be the easiest trade deal ever
    how did that go
    yet remain are the liars.......
    It should be easy, but we're dealing here with an entity that seems to think it can demand endless payments, parts of our country and our territorial waters as price for agreeing a trade deal. I know of no comparable example in the world where this has been the case. I will admit that even I did not imagine the EU would be so arrogant and unreasonable - but all this simply adds to the case for leaving.

    Can you imagine India demanding fishing access to the territorial waters of Australia in order to sign an FTA?

    Can you imagine Australia, as the price for an FTA with Indonesia, agreeing to New South Wales being carved out of it's Customs zone and being made a part of the Indonesian customs zone?

    It's unthinkable and Parliament has rightly rejected it - yet that is what the Eurocrats are demanding.
    Last edited by -:Undertaker:-; 10-02-2019 at 03:10 PM.
    wicked snakes, inside a place you thought was dignified

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,143
    Tokens
    28,660
    View Awards

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    I literally pointed out in a tweet on page two of this thread how the new EU-Japan FTA remove tariffs on cars built in Japan, so it is hardly surprising a Japanese company is prioritising production in Japan than elsewhere. I would expect the same of any British company in a similar situation.
    but equally from the very beginning Japanese companies have said brexit will make the uk a far less attractive country

    So you've now accepted the EU will waiver haulage from Britain for a period of nine months, so do you now accept that in the situation of a No Deal it would be prudent for Britain to unilaterally also waiver checks for a period of time, if need be. Thus solving any issues at Dover.
    uh, no? The EU hasn't accepted anything yet as I don't believe the UK has accepted anything and none of this proposal is about waivering checks, it's about the licensing of haulage companies. If you actually go and read the documents, customs procedures is the next paragraph below which basically states checks will be enforced day 1.

    You use your brain and ask yourself is it really beyond us a a country to expand customs checks at our border when we already process customs at all our sea ports and at our borders on non-EU products. It isn't rocket science or brain surgery, it's a basic function of government.
    I never claimed it was, I just want you to be clear that it's not something someone can just waltz into and takes a degree of preparation, which our gov. is woefully lacking on. Really this isn't even a Brexit issue as such. Obviously if it wasn't for Brexit this conversation wouldn't be happening, but it is more a failing of government.

    It's the Irish who are screwing themselves by insisting on the backstop.

    Or are you saying we should accept the backstop? You haven't told us what you would/wouldn't accept.
    They're not insisting on a backstop, they're insisting on no hard border

    It should be easy, but we're dealing here with an entity that seems to think it can demand endless payments, parts of our country and our territorial waters as price for agreeing a trade deal. I know of no comparable example in the world where this has been the case. I will admit that even I did not imagine the EU would be so arrogant and unreasonable - but all this simply adds to the case for leaving.

    Can you imagine India demanding fishing access to the territorial waters of Australia in order to sign an FTA?

    Can you imagine Australia, as the price for an FTA with Indonesia, agreeing to New South Wales being carved out of it's Customs zone and being made a part of the Indonesian customs zone?

    It's unthinkable and Parliament has rightly rejected it - yet that is what the Eurocrats are demanding.
    Surely the people promising that it was going to be easy should have foreseen such a thing? Or maybe they shouldn't have promised it to begin with?
    Just saying it should be easy doesn't actually make it so

  4. #24
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is online now Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cdiz, Kingdom of Spain
    Posts
    25,191
    Tokens
    2,064
    View Awards

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    but equally from the very beginning Japanese companies have said brexit will make the uk a far less attractive country
    A lot of corporations say this, and from their perspective this can be true in that when large corporations lobby governments, it is much easier to lobby and influence one government than twenty eight different governments. So yes, corporations may say this but my response is "so what?" - the right of sovereignty and self-government of my country trumps over the preferences of large foreign corporations.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    uh, no? The EU hasn't accepted anything yet as I don't believe the UK has accepted anything and none of this proposal is about waivering checks, it's about the licensing of haulage companies. If you actually go and read the documents, customs procedures is the next paragraph below which basically states checks will be enforced day 1.
    Even if the EU did insist on immediate customs checks we could still unilaterally waiver lorries through our end, meaning the queues would be at Calais and not the Port of Dover. It would be a problem for the French then, and not us in terms of queues/delays.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    I never claimed it was, I just want you to be clear that it's not something someone can just waltz into and takes a degree of preparation, which our gov. is woefully lacking on. Really this isn't even a Brexit issue as such. Obviously if it wasn't for Brexit this conversation wouldn't be happening, but it is more a failing of government.
    My feeling is we're prepared. I remember long before talks of No Deal, a family member who works for HMRC said the Civil Service had started work on post-Brexit arrangements. Facing No Deal anyway, we'll no doubt have a series of emergency mini-agreements in the days leading up to the 29th March, and some have been done already like on aviation. I'm not in the slightest bit worried.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    They're not insisting on a backstop, they're insisting on no hard border
    Yes, which means the backstop. They are refusing to re-open the Withdrawal Agreement to reconfigure or put a time limit on the backstop. Ironically this is to stop a hard border, which we're most likely to now get as a direct result of them refusing to remove the backstop. If the backstop remains, the WA doesn't get through Parliament and it's a No Deal - and immediately the Irish Republic would be compelled by the European Union to erect border controls to protect the European Single Market.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Surely the people promising that it was going to be easy should have foreseen such a thing? Or maybe they shouldn't have promised it to begin with?
    Just saying it should be easy doesn't actually make it so
    Nobody had a crystal ball. I and most Brexiteers wanted a FTA with the EU like it has with Canada, but it has made this impossible. We even accepted the transitional period as a compromise - but we will not, as will many Remainers not, surrender a part of this realm to a foreign power along with our fishing waters in return for an FTA. It's completely unacceptable and that's why it was voted down by the largest majority in Commons history.

    wicked snakes, inside a place you thought was dignified

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,143
    Tokens
    28,660
    View Awards

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    A lot of corporations say this, and from their perspective this can be true in that when large corporations lobby governments, it is much easier to lobby and influence one government than twenty eight different governments. So yes, corporations may say this but my response is "so what?" - the right of sovereignty and self-government of my country trumps over the preferences of large foreign corporations.
    nout to do with all the trade arrangements about to be binned off then

    Even if the EU did insist on immediate customs checks we could still unilaterally waiver lorries through our end, meaning the queues would be at Calais and not the Port of Dover. It would be a problem for the French then, and not us in terms of queues/delays.
    so you admit your original statement was incorrect and you misread it

    also doesnt just letting anything in just open us up to more of this illegal immigration as, as far as I'm aware, we would have to do it for all countries

    My feeling is we're prepared. I remember long before talks of No Deal, a family member who works for HMRC said the Civil Service had started work on post-Brexit arrangements. Facing No Deal anyway, we'll no doubt have a series of emergency mini-agreements in the days leading up to the 29th March, and some have been done already like on aviation. I'm not in the slightest bit worried.
    how can you think we're prepared when so many sources state we do not have the capacity for customs checks
    waiving them through isnt being prepared
    bringing the army in isnt prepared
    its last minute duct tape

    we are not prepared
    i could argue it further but to be honest i think you're slightly deluded about it

    Yes, which means the backstop. They are refusing to re-open the Withdrawal Agreement to reconfigure or put a time limit on the backstop. Ironically this is to stop a hard border, which we're most likely to now get as a direct result of them refusing to remove the backstop. If the backstop remains, the WA doesn't get through Parliament and it's a No Deal - and immediately the Irish Republic would be compelled by the European Union to erect border controls to protect the European Single Market.
    no it doesn't, just our government and parliament hasn't actually suggested any alternative

    Nobody had a crystal ball. I and most Brexiteers wanted a FTA with the EU like it has with Canada, but it has made this impossible. We even accepted the transitional period as a compromise - but we will not, as will many Remainers not, surrender a part of this realm to a foreign power along with our fishing waters in return for an FTA. It's completely unacceptable and that's why it was voted down by the largest majority in Commons history.

    no, but every brexit (ex)cabinet minister seems so incompetent it's beyond a joke
    i think you also need to take a step back and realise most brexiteers just end up parroting what the likes of rees mogg say, you can see this when the narrative of anti-eu groups moved from "no deal" to "wto" a lot of people followed or maybe how (as a recent example) an MP called out Guy Verhofstadt for being unelected, which he isn't
    and quite frankly it's a bit gas lighty for you to say that's what you wanted a canada style fta when I don't even believe it's ratified yet but somehow the talk about being like Norway, Switzerland etc. the 10 years before isn't what was suggested

    also i cant actually find any source they wanted access to waters in an fta

  6. #26
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is online now Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cdiz, Kingdom of Spain
    Posts
    25,191
    Tokens
    2,064
    View Awards

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    nout to do with all the trade arrangements about to be binned off then
    Not really, Britain has committed to replicating existing EU-Other treaties upon leaving (after transition or after No Deal). It is also worth remembering that for car exporters in Britain, the only markets that really matter are Europe and the United States - and at the moment we [in the EU] do not have an FTA with the Americans so that leaves only Europe. FTAs with India and Angola matter very little in regards to car exports from Britain.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    so you admit your original statement was incorrect and you misread it
    Both sides have pretty much admitted that under No Deal, full measures will not be brought in immediately when it comes to border crossings. In any case, if Dover and Calais were to struggle even with full-on customs procedures being waivered, the army could be brought in. Alternatively other methods of importing and exporting that we already use could be expanded, such as air cargo and via our ports.

    Remember, the Channel Tunnel was only opened in the 1990s. It's not a lifeline or in any way fundamental to the British economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    also doesnt just letting anything in just open us up to more of this illegal immigration as, as far as I'm aware, we would have to do it for all countries
    No as this is covered by an Anglo-French treaty concerning illegal immigrants.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    how can you think we're prepared when so many sources state we do not have the capacity for customs checks
    waiving them through isnt being prepared
    bringing the army in isnt prepared
    its last minute duct tape
    Because like I said, all of this isn't rocket science and last minute measures can be brought in. Look past the headlines and scare stories and you'll see the fundamentals which is what I did when looking at leaving in the first place - none of what we're facing is actually new in anyway, as most countries around the world already trade with another on WTO terms and deal with borders and customs. We're not facing some alien life form here.

    And if it is shown we're not capable of that then that only goes to prove just how EU membership has hollowed out our government over these past 40 years and just how much control it has exercised over this realm, where we're led to the situation that we're unable to do what even newly-independent second world countries like Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, the Ukraine were able to do after the (violent) collapse of Soviet power. If tinpot countries, some of who had never been independent, were able to set up systems of government after 74 years of Soviet governance, I think we as a great power will be able to handle some customs management that we've had 3 years anticipation over.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    no it doesn't, just our government and parliament hasn't actually suggested any alternative
    And that is exactly why the EU has demanded the backstop, and we haven't been able to put forward an alternative. David Davis MP when he was Brexit Secretary wanted to sequence withdrawal talks alongside the future relationship, but Brussels vetoed this and our Civil Service caved in. This is because Brussels knows full well that by trapping us in a backstop which we cannot unilaterally leave, when it comes to talks in the future relationship it will have an effective veto to demand whatever it wants. President Macron of France has already been public as to how he will use the backstop to demand continued French access to our fishing waters even after we've left the EU *and* left the transition period.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    no, but every brexit (ex)cabinet minister seems so incompetent it's beyond a joke
    You say this yet every major decision here has been taken by Remainers - in the European Union, in Downing Street, in the Civil Service and in Parliament. If you recall, virtually every Brexiteer has resigned after coming up against the mysterious Olly 'Wormtongue' Robbins.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    i think you also need to take a step back and realise most brexiteers just end up parroting what the likes of rees mogg say, you can see this when the narrative of anti-eu groups moved from "no deal" to "wto" a lot of people followed or maybe how (as a recent example) an MP called out Guy Verhofstadt for being unelected, which he isn't
    Like I said earlier, many Brexiteers wanted an FTA but the behaviour of Brussels has turned us towards No Deal/WTO terms as being preferable. Again as I said, I was prepared to swallow the transition to reach the end goal - but I am not prepared to hand over Northern Ireland on a plate.

    If the choice is a part of our kingdom vs vague promises of an FTA with the EU, i'll take the unity of our country every single time.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    and quite frankly it's a bit gas lighty for you to say that's what you wanted a canada style fta when I don't even believe it's ratified yet but somehow the talk about being like Norway, Switzerland etc. the 10 years before isn't what was suggested
    I always said in terms of preference: FTA < EFTA < EEA < EU, although if an FTA isn't achievable then there's no *need* to sign one.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    also i cant actually find any source they wanted access to waters in an fta
    As above, for more details type in "Macron backstop fishing".

    I don't blame him for wanting to use it to give access to the largest territorial fishing waters in Europe to his own fishing fleet, of course he's simply protecting his national interest. But similarly, why would we sign something giving him this leverage when it is against our national interest?
    Last edited by -:Undertaker:-; 12-02-2019 at 12:27 AM.
    wicked snakes, inside a place you thought was dignified

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,143
    Tokens
    28,660
    View Awards

    Default

    undertaker you can't even admit you were wrong about the source you brought to the table and you're actually claiming something in contrary to the very source you provided
    any further discussion is just pointless

    i will say though, i agree that FTA < EU

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO