10. Migrant camps would appear throughout South East England In 2003, the Le Touquet Agreement was signed between Britain, France and Belgium. This was an agreement saying that border controls would take place before boarding a train or ferry, as opposed to on arrival after disembarkation.
During the referendum campaign, prominent Remainers claimed that a vote for Brexit would lead to France cancelling the agreement, and as a result the notorious Calais migrant camp known as ‘The Jungle’ would move to Kent. It was claimed that up to 50,00 asylum seekers from Calais could enter the UK every year.
This has since been shown to be wildly sensationalised. After the Brexit vote was delivered, the French did indeed seek a renegotiation of the accord, and a new treaty was announced in 2017. However far from scrapping the Le Touquet agreement as the Remainers claimed would happen, the British have agreed to pledge more money on securing Calais, as well as a speeding up of the asylum process, and the agreement remains in force.
11. Families would be £4,300 worse off if Britain left the EU If the “£350m per week” slogan on the bus was misleading, then Osborne’s claim that households would be £4,300 worse off if they voted to leave the EU was far worse.
To get this figure, HM Treasury forecast that in 2030 the UK economy would be 6% smaller if we voted to leave, compared to if we voted to Remain (37% growth if we Remain, compared to 30% growth if we leave). They then divided this 6% of UK GDP by the number of households in Britain to obtain £4,300 per household. This was incredibly misleading, and ultimately a lie. Firstly, GDP growth is not the same thing as household spending. A rise in GDP does not necessarily mean all households have more spending power.
Secondly, although the wording sounded like people would be worse off, in reality the forecast stated that people would be better off – it would just be by 6% less compared to if a Remain vote was returned. This figure was also seen as overly pessimistic (studies for The Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics put the figure at 1.3 – 2.6%. A report by Open Britain even claimed the UK could be better off by 1.3%, mainly by cutting EU red tape. This was all ignored in the Treasury’s campaigning to the public.
Contrary to what Remainers constantly say about the Leave campaign misleading the people, it is clear that the Remain campaign lied just as much, if not far more. Fortunately, the wisdom of the British people prevailed, and they saw through most of the lies to vote for Brexit in numbers never before seen in a nationwide election
Brexit: Home truths - no deal and the Irish border
In Strasbourg the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said that in the event of no deal "there will be no hard border…" but that "there are going to have to be checks carried out somewhere."
Barely had Michel Barnier spoken than Brexiteers seized on his remarks.
The campaign group Leave.eu tweeted: "Michel Barnier has confirmed that there would be no hard border in Ireland under a no-deal Brexit - destroying the case for the backstop, and destroying the case against a clean WTO Brexit. Will Remoaners apologise for their nasty Irish border fibs?!"
As you are a headlines person, I would have a massive bet that you haven't read this article, let alone understand it. One problem is that the DUP, will definitely wear this bit.
"Let there be no doubt in this House or in Westminster that when I talk about special arrangements I mean treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK. It is the UK government's proposal to do exactly that."
Mention the need to protect the single market and there is a clamour that this means a hard border; mention that all sides will find ways to avoid such a border, and there is a clamour that the backstop is unnecessary. "It’s this endless ping-pong between these two messages which are neither helpful nor right," says one exasperated diplomat. "We need to continue to flesh out that middle ground so that people understand." But the middle ground is confused. There’s an absence of hard facts as to how Ireland and the EU are going to reconcile the two imperatives.
In general, this means checking either on the factory floor, or at a distribution depot, or on a supermarket shelf, or somewhere in between all these points (just not on the actual border). Checking on the factory floor seems problematic, as it would mean Irish Revenue officers having to check goods before they leave factories or depots in Northern Ireland.
"Say I have a Hi-Ace van and I’m bringing something across from Newry to Dundalk to drop it off at a shop," says one official. "If the controls are away from the border, where on my journey between Dundalk and Newry have I been away from the border far enough so that I can be controlled? That means then a different structure that might be required. Maybe administrative, maybe documentary. I don’t know." Officials are also looking at the somewhat misleading option of "transit". Typically, transit refers to a consignment being shipped from one country to another, but passing through another country, or countries, in between.
The Brexit Party is holding a rally in Nottingham with Nigel Farage and other speakers to be announced. Join the Brexiteer fightback! About this Event Join us in Albert Hall Conference Centre, Nottingham, N Circus Street, NG15AA for 13:15 when doors open to start at 14:00.
Nigel Farage and other Brexit Party representatives will speak. It's not one to miss!
Remoaners will fall for anything Jan 8th 2019 Remain Twitter is awash with fake news.
Since the Brexit vote, elitist Remainers have tried to dismiss the demand from 17.4million Brits to leave the EU as a product of lies and irrationality. Gullible voters are said to have swallowed pro-Brexit propaganda from BoJo’s bus and Russian bots. It was ‘fake news’ wot won it, Remainers claim.
But of late, the Remain Twittersphere has been excitedly spreading its own fake news. Last weekend a leaflet purporting to be from the NHS went viral. It warned that in the event of a No Deal Brexit, ‘you could be unable to get your usual prescription’ from your doctor or pharmacist and advised patients to start stockpiling drugs.
Famed Remoaner Gary Lineker posted the leaflet, saying ‘maybe it’s time for a rethink’ on leaving the EU. Over 9,000 people retweeted him. A Remainer comedian tweeted the leaflet and claimed that No Deal means ‘actual deaths due to lack of medicine’, earning 2,000 retweets. Another Remainer simply said ‘**** this’.
But the NHS had issued no such leaflet. The Department of Health said the leaflet was fake and that preparations have already been made to ensure uninterrupted medical supplies and prescriptions in the event of No Deal. Life will continue after 29 March 2019.
So why did Remainers fall for this? Because they have swallowed Project Fear wholesale. In fact, a leaflet suggesting that you might need to stock up on your prescription is a fairly mild form of scaremongering when compared with the regular drip-feed of horror stories around No Deal. In recent months, we have been warned that No Deal could lead to a recession, food shortages and new diseases like super-gonorrhoea, or that Brexit Britain could be overrun by child-sex offenders. No wonder so many believed the fake NHS leaflet was credible.
A day later, a photo of a group of pro-Brexit protesters, penned in by police outside a Greggs, went viral. A tweeter jokingly claimed that the Brexiteers were protesting against Greggs’ new vegan sausage roll. But this joke was treated as a fact by prominent Remainers. Labour MP David Lammy shared the photo, tweeting ‘No it’s not a parody. Monty Python, Alan Partridge and David Brent are now running the country.’ Many others joined in to mock what they saw as stupid pro-Brexit plebs seeing red over a mock-sausage roll. A (very funny) photoshop of an English Defence League Facebook post was used by some to back up the claim that it was an anti-vegan protest. ‘The vegan leftist Greggs has now crossed the line. It’s time to take our country back’, it said. But again, many Remainers fell for the joke. Its exasperated creator had to take to Twitter to say ‘Jesus Christ, please stop asking if this is real, it is clearly not real’.
Also at the weekend, the Telegraph revealed that the anti-Brexit People’s Vote campaign had hugely exaggerated the number of people in attendance at its march in October 2018. At the time, campaigners claimed that over 700,000 had taken to the streets of London to call for a second EU referendum. But a document by the Greater London Authority put the numbers at 250,000 – just a third of the number claimed by the organisers.
The vastly inflated numbers allowed second-referendum enthusiasts to portray their middle-class hissy fit against democracy as a nascent mass movement. Organisers tried to say the People’s Vote march was as significant as the demonstrations against the Iraq War. After falling for so much fake news themselves, leading Remainers should think twice about labelling Brexiteers as gullible dupes.
Remoaners will fall for anything Jan 8th 2019 Remain Twitter is awash with fake news.
Since the Brexit vote, elitist Remainers have tried to dismiss the demand from 17.4million Brits to leave the EU as a product of lies and irrationality. Gullible voters are said to have swallowed pro-Brexit propaganda from BoJo’s bus and Russian bots. It was ‘fake news’ wot won it, Remainers claim.
But of late, the Remain Twittersphere has been excitedly spreading its own fake news. Last weekend a leaflet purporting to be from the NHS went viral. It warned that in the event of a No Deal Brexit, ‘you could be unable to get your usual prescription’ from your doctor or pharmacist and advised patients to start stockpiling drugs.
Famed Remoaner Gary Lineker posted the leaflet, saying ‘maybe it’s time for a rethink’ on leaving the EU. Over 9,000 people retweeted him. A Remainer comedian tweeted the leaflet and claimed that No Deal means ‘actual deaths due to lack of medicine’, earning 2,000 retweets. Another Remainer simply said ‘**** this’.
But the NHS had issued no such leaflet. The Department of Health said the leaflet was fake and that preparations have already been made to ensure uninterrupted medical supplies and prescriptions in the event of No Deal. Life will continue after 29 March 2019.
So why did Remainers fall for this? Because they have swallowed Project Fear wholesale. In fact, a leaflet suggesting that you might need to stock up on your prescription is a fairly mild form of scaremongering when compared with the regular drip-feed of horror stories around No Deal. In recent months, we have been warned that No Deal could lead to a recession, food shortages and new diseases like super-gonorrhoea, or that Brexit Britain could be overrun by child-sex offenders. No wonder so many believed the fake NHS leaflet was credible.
A day later, a photo of a group of pro-Brexit protesters, penned in by police outside a Greggs, went viral. A tweeter jokingly claimed that the Brexiteers were protesting against Greggs’ new vegan sausage roll. But this joke was treated as a fact by prominent Remainers. Labour MP David Lammy shared the photo, tweeting ‘No it’s not a parody. Monty Python, Alan Partridge and David Brent are now running the country.’ Many others joined in to mock what they saw as stupid pro-Brexit plebs seeing red over a mock-sausage roll. A (very funny) photoshop of an English Defence League Facebook post was used by some to back up the claim that it was an anti-vegan protest. ‘The vegan leftist Greggs has now crossed the line. It’s time to take our country back’, it said. But again, many Remainers fell for the joke. Its exasperated creator had to take to Twitter to say ‘Jesus Christ, please stop asking if this is real, it is clearly not real’.
Also at the weekend, the Telegraph revealed that the anti-Brexit People’s Vote campaign had hugely exaggerated the number of people in attendance at its march in October 2018. At the time, campaigners claimed that over 700,000 had taken to the streets of London to call for a second EU referendum. But a document by the Greater London Authority put the numbers at 250,000 – just a third of the number claimed by the organisers.
The vastly inflated numbers allowed second-referendum enthusiasts to portray their middle-class hissy fit against democracy as a nascent mass movement. Organisers tried to say the People’s Vote march was as significant as the demonstrations against the Iraq War. After falling for so much fake news themselves, leading Remainers should think twice about labelling Brexiteers as gullible dupes.
Unprecedented drug shortage linked to Brexit, NHS bosses say
Hospitals across England are experiencing medicine shortages because of "stockpiling and price pressure as the Brexit deadline approaches", NHS Providers has told BBC Newsnight. The trade association warned some trusts had seen shortages of up to 160 different drugs in the past six weeks. This was compared with just 25 to 30 drugs in normal times, it said.
10. Migrant camps would appear throughout South East England In 2003, the Le Touquet Agreement was signed between Britain, France and Belgium. This was an agreement saying that border controls would take place before boarding a train or ferry, as opposed to on arrival after disembarkation.
During the referendum campaign, prominent Remainers claimed that a vote for Brexit would lead to France cancelling the agreement, and as a result the notorious Calais migrant camp known as ‘The Jungle’ would move to Kent. It was claimed that up to 50,00 asylum seekers from Calais could enter the UK every year.
This has since been shown to be wildly sensationalised. After the Brexit vote was delivered, the French did indeed seek a renegotiation of the accord, and a new treaty was announced in 2017. However far from scrapping the Le Touquet agreement as the Remainers claimed would happen, the British have agreed to pledge more money on securing Calais, as well as a speeding up of the asylum process, and the agreement remains in force.
11. Families would be £4,300 worse off if Britain left the EU If the “£350m per week” slogan on the bus was misleading, then Osborne’s claim that households would be £4,300 worse off if they voted to leave the EU was far worse.
To get this figure, HM Treasury forecast that in 2030 the UK economy would be 6% smaller if we voted to leave, compared to if we voted to Remain (37% growth if we Remain, compared to 30% growth if we leave). They then divided this 6% of UK GDP by the number of households in Britain to obtain £4,300 per household. This was incredibly misleading, and ultimately a lie. Firstly, GDP growth is not the same thing as household spending. A rise in GDP does not necessarily mean all households have more spending power.
Secondly, although the wording sounded like people would be worse off, in reality the forecast stated that people would be better off – it would just be by 6% less compared to if a Remain vote was returned. This figure was also seen as overly pessimistic (studies for The Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics put the figure at 1.3 – 2.6%. A report by Open Britain even claimed the UK could be better off by 1.3%, mainly by cutting EU red tape. This was all ignored in the Treasury’s campaigning to the public.
Contrary to what Remainers constantly say about the Leave campaign misleading the people, it is clear that the Remain campaign lied just as much, if not far more. Fortunately, the wisdom of the British people prevailed, and they saw through most of the lies to vote for Brexit in numbers never before seen in a nationwide election
Farage's Brexit Party DECIMATING 'vulnerable' Tories ahead of European elections
NIGEL FARAGE’s new Brexit Party is displaying “significant pulling power” over the “vulnerable” Tory electorate, according to a leading political expert.
A YouGov poll suggested that the Conservatives only had 15 percent of the vote ahead of the European elections, whereas the combined score of UKIP and the Brexit Party had shot to 34 percent. Political expert Matthew Goodwin told TalkRADIO: “If you look at the polls that came out yesterday - the Brexit Party and UKIP combined are on 34 percent. So that suggests to me that the Brexit Party still have a few more points to climb as it eats into that UKIP vote “The Conservatives are way down on 15 percent.
“We might actually see them tumble even lower.
“I think it tells us that Nigel Farage still has significant pulling power in British politics.
“This is a brand new party that even now is attracting more than one in four voters
“And I think that’s a reflection of Farage’s appeal and resonance in British politics.
“And I think the second thing it shows is just how fluid and vulnerable that Conservative Party electorate is.
“I drilled down into the numbers yesterday and more than half of Britsh leavers are now planning to vote for the Brexit Party.
“The Conservatives have completely lost the Leave electorate and that’s problematic for them given that the Conservatives now are very dependent on leave voters.
“They cannot afford to allow Leave voters to start a new relationship with a new political party.”
Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has said Nigel Farage's new Brexit Party has "moderated" British politics and taken votes away from Ukip.
He told BBC Radio 4's World At One: "I think the one really good thing about it (the Brexit Party) is that it has taken votes away from Ukip now Ukip is allied to Tommy Robinson.
"I think Tommy Robinson reflects a type of politics that, I think, is unattractive and not usual in Britain, and that therefore in that way the new Brexit Party has moderated British politics from an extremist route that we were in danger of going down.
"Am I sorry they're taking votes from the Conservatives? Yes, of course I am - I would encourage all people at all times to vote Conservative in all elections."
How to avoid a hard Irish border (and remain outside the Customs Union and Single Market)
The issue of the Irish border is becoming the major sticking-point in negotiations and, consequently, undermining our ability to reach the mutually-beneficial relationship with the EU that we all want to see. Whilst in no way wanting to diminish or trivialise the concerns that exist – especially those living either side of the border – it is clear that the threat and intractability of this issue has been both exaggerated and exploited. This question is thus in desperate need of sober reflection. BACK TO BASICS: WHAT ARE OUR OBJECTIVES? There are two reasons why a ‘hard’ economic border with Ireland is of particular concern (i.e. more so than the rest of the UK’s external border): It could undermine the Good Friday Agreement (i.e. the 1998 Belfast Agreement); and It could provoke violence. For reasons I will state momentarily, I believe achieving an invisible border is not just achievable, but overwhelmingly likely. However, it is also a mistake to automatically assume that the worst-case scenario of a ‘hard’ border would preclude the attainment of our two stated aims. OBJECTIVE 1: GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT Quite simply, when it comes to our aim of upholding the terms of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), a hard border poses no threat whatsoever. As Andrew Lilico correctly points out: “There is nothing in the Belfast Agreement that says there cannot be customs duties payable on crossing the border (whether payable at the border itself or in some other way), different regulatory compliance requirements on opposite sides of the border, or even, if required, the stopping of goods at the border.” This verdict has been repeated by multiple authorities ranging from Lord Trimble (former First Minister of Northern Ireland and one of the architects of the GFA), to the UK Supreme Court, which – in a judgement surprisingly under-reported – ruled in 2017 that the Belfast Agreement was entirely unaffected by the Brexit process. Thus, a worst-case-scenario hard-border does nothing to undermine our first objective of upholding the GFA. However, this is not the same as saying that a hard-border would not undermine ‘peace’. OBJECTIVE 2: PEACE The factors that might credibly pose a risk to peace are complex, and there is a clear need to tread lightly here. However, as Gary Cahalane points out, there are good reasons for believing that the threat has been overstated. For example, if economic divergence between the North and South is a threat to peace, why have Dublin governments spent the last 18 years diverging from Northern Ireland on tax, currency, interest rates and excise duties? Indeed, divergence on excise duties has led to arrests, detentions and convictions along the border (all, it will be noted, without outbreaks of terrorist violence). It seems strange that, until now, divergence has been considered completely unproblematic for peace and stability, yet future divergence (on, for example, customs or product standards) is deemed unacceptable. Likewise, it should be noted that physical infrastructure in the form of cameras already exist at the border. It is not obvious why the introduction of a few more cameras would be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. As I say, however, I am in no position to predict the actions of would-be terrorists. Let us assume, then, for the sake of argument, that peace is contingent upon an open economic border. Does an open border necessitate membership of a customs union or single market? Not in the slightest. Let us start by separating the issue of the movement of people with that of goods. MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE Worries about the free movement of people across the Irish border is a non-starter. The Common Travel Area between Ireland and Northern Ireland – which enables citizens to travel, reside and vote – predates EU membership by a good 50 years. In response to this, many have pointed out that because the UK and Ireland joined the EU at the same time in 1973, we have never had a situation in which one country has been inside the EU, and the other out. This is a problem – goes the argument – because Northern Ireland would become a back door for illegal immigration to the UK from the EU (and vice versa). However, as Hugh Bennett notes, this argument is a complete red herring: “If anyone was intending to stay in the UK illegally, they could simply do it by entering the UK directly and overstaying their visa, rather than taking the convoluted route of entering via Ireland.” Those making this argument also seem to be persisting with the erroneous belief that modern immigration controls are (primarily) policed at borders. Immigration control is far more about ‘what’ an individual can do once they’ve already entered a country, not ‘whether’ they can get in in the first place. I can travel to nearly any country as a tourist. What prevents me from living and working there, however, are controls limiting my ability to open a bank account, obtain a national insurance number, buy or rent accommodation, and so on. MOVEMENT OF GOODS As for the movement of goods, it has been the consistent view of Jon Thompson, Chief Executive of HMRC, that there will not be any requirement for physical infrastructure between Ireland and Northern Ireland under any circumstances. This is also the conclusion of the former Director of the World Customs Organization, Lars Karlsson, who authored a report on the issue of the Irish Border for the European Parliament. So, what makes these two customs experts so certain that that a hard border is avoidable outside a customs union and single market? The first crucial thing to understand is that customs ‘controls’ (which are inevitable once we leave the EU) do not equate to customs ‘checks’ or ‘infrastructure’.
The Irish border is already a legal economic border for excise (i.e. alcohol, tobacco, fuel duty), VAT, immigration, visas, vehicles, dangerous goods and security. None of these border functions requires physical infrastructure. Once we leave the EU, to this already long list of functions we will need to add ‘customs’ (i.e. tariffs or rules of origin) and ‘product standards’. The arrangements that allow for an invisible border now will be the same that provide for one in the future. This is because – as Shankar Singham explains – “in practice, most of the necessary formalities are conducted electronically, with checks taking place pre-arrival, followed up in a small minority of cases at warehouses, or even in the market and payments made on account.” Thus, no formalities need actually take place at the physical border. But, you may reasonably ask, what prevents traders from falsely declaring what they are transporting across the border? Without verifying customs declarations against the actual physical consignment to ensure they match, how do you prevent smuggling? Well, in the same way you stop nearly all of the 10 million people who submit self-assessment tax returns each year from defrauding the Government: the fear of audit and, if guilty, the fear of punishment. As with anything, the Government can do little to pre-emptively stop crimes from taking place, but they can certainly investigate fraud on an intelligence-led basis and deter non-compliance with the threat of sanction. Of course, unless you really are prepared to check every consignment at the border (something no country does) then you are always exposed to the risk of smuggling. But what does this mean in practice? Some lost tax revenue and the occasional product in circulation with marginally different standards? If this is the price for peace on the Irish border, it is one I’m certainly willing to pay. The only goods that present an additional problem outside a single market are animal products. This is because they are required to go through specific entry points with border inspection posts (BIPS) where veterinary checks can be done by accredited handlers and vets. The need for these specific checks at borders, however, could be easily obviated if the EU would agree to mutual recognition of sanitary measures for meat and animals. It’s difficult to see how the EU could justify not agreeing to this given that we are starting from a point of regulatory alignment and they have similar agreements in place already with Canada and New Zealand. SO, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? At the risk of being accused of cynicism, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Irish border is becoming a problem of ‘choice’ rather than necessity. Let’s review some of the facts: When the UK’s proposals were first published last summer, they were welcomed by Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney, who stated that he “agreed with the vast majority of them” and that they employed “a lot of the language that the Irish government has been using”. It is also worth remembering that – at roughly the same time – the head of the Irish tax authorities, Niall Cody, said he was “practically 100% certain” that no new customs posts would be necessary along the border – thereby agreeing with the UK position. However, the Irish Government did an about-turn in November 2017 when Leo Varadkar became the new Taoiseach. Varadkar cancelled all work by Irish civil servants on an electronic border and terminated meetings between civil servants in Ireland and Northern Ireland. His rhetoric over the Irish border also hardened, which had nothing to do, I’m sure, by the fact that each anti-Brexit remark was invariably followed by a boost in domestic popularity. As Alexander Redpath reminds us: “The Taoiseach does not have his own mandate and is keeping one eye on an inevitable Irish general election. Mr Varadkar is aware that Brexit is intensely unpopular amongst the Irish electorate and there is political gain from being seen to oppose it.” Ireland is also hugely dependent on the UK for trade, and they’ve understandably arrived at the conclusion that the UK’s membership of the Single Market and Customs Union would suit them, even if it wouldn’t suit us. As for the EU, it is no secret that they are desperate for us to remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. The reason, of course, is that Brussels is terrified that the UK will become a “super-competitive country” on its doorstep. This perennial worry of theirs rises embarrassingly to the surface whenever they propose the absurd requirement that any future partnership agreement would need to include a ‘fair-competition’ clause – essentially precluding the UK’s managed divergence of regulations. Somewhat irresponsibly, then, the EU are exploiting fears about peace in Northern Ireland to keep the UK uncompetitively tethered to the single market and customs union. But how can I justify such depressing cynicism? Well, if peace in Northern Ireland really were Brussels’ overriding concern, then proposing the effective annexation of Northern Ireland (as they did in their draft Withdrawal Agreement) was an odd way of demonstrating this. How separating Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom would ensure peace is anyone’s guess. Such an action would also – it’s worth noting – directly (and ironically) violate the terms of the GFA.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Against an emotive back-drop and in difficult circumstances, I think the British Government is managing the situation remarkably well. However, we need to exhibit more confidence in our own position that divergent customs and product standards can be managed without the need for physical infrastructure. Ministers should also challenge Brussels when the latter claim that such arrangements are impossible. After all, it is not just that such technological arrangements are ‘possible’, it is that the EU has international legal obligations under the WTO’s Agreement on Trade Facilitation to implement them. We also need to tone down the rhetoric, and treat with scepticism those who feel comfortable abusing such an emotive issue to advance their own political or economic objectives. The sad truth is that hard borders in Northern Ireland would not be the logical consequence of any one policy position; they would be the result of a conscious political decision to erect them.
Nero Fiddled while Rome burnt ........May takes pay rise goes on holiday.
What's the origin of the phrase 'Fiddling while Rome burns'?
The source of this phrase is the supposed story that Nero played the fiddle (violin) while Rome burned, during the great fire in AD 64.
There are two major flaws with the story. Firstly, there was no such instrument as the fiddle (violin) in first century Rome. If Nero played anything during the Rome fire, it was probably the lyre. Secondly, the story may be completely false and Nero may very well not have neglected his duty at all.
Think he was the first to leg-it ........did you know there are endangered species on Sky Poker and protected one's to.......... conservationists doing good job.
The Irish border is already a legal economic border for excise (i.e. alcohol, tobacco, fuel duty), VAT, immigration, visas, vehicles, dangerous goods and security. None of these border functions requires physical infrastructure. Once we leave the EU, to this already long list of functions we will need to add ‘customs’ (i.e. tariffs or rules of origin) and ‘product standards’. The arrangements that allow for an invisible border now will be the same that provide for one in the future. This is because – as Shankar Singham explains – “in practice, most of the necessary formalities are conducted electronically, with checks taking place pre-arrival, followed up in a small minority of cases at warehouses, or even in the market and payments made on account.” Thus, no formalities need actually take place at the physical border. But, you may reasonably ask, what prevents traders from falsely declaring what they are transporting across the border? Without verifying customs declarations against the actual physical consignment to ensure they match, how do you prevent smuggling? Well, in the same way you stop nearly all of the 10 million people who submit self-assessment tax returns each year from defrauding the Government: the fear of audit and, if guilty, the fear of punishment. As with anything, the Government can do little to pre-emptively stop crimes from taking place, but they can certainly investigate fraud on an intelligence-led basis and deter non-compliance with the threat of sanction. Of course, unless you really are prepared to check every consignment at the border (something no country does) then you are always exposed to the risk of smuggling. But what does this mean in practice? Some lost tax revenue and the occasional product in circulation with marginally different standards? If this is the price for peace on the Irish border, it is one I’m certainly willing to pay. The only goods that present an additional problem outside a single market are animal products. This is because they are required to go through specific entry points with border inspection posts (BIPS) where veterinary checks can be done by accredited handlers and vets. The need for these specific checks at borders, however, could be easily obviated if the EU would agree to mutual recognition of sanitary measures for meat and animals. It’s difficult to see how the EU could justify not agreeing to this given that we are starting from a point of regulatory alignment and they have similar agreements in place already with Canada and New Zealand. SO, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? At the risk of being accused of cynicism, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Irish border is becoming a problem of ‘choice’ rather than necessity. Let’s review some of the facts: When the UK’s proposals were first published last summer, they were welcomed by Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney, who stated that he “agreed with the vast majority of them” and that they employed “a lot of the language that the Irish government has been using”. It is also worth remembering that – at roughly the same time – the head of the Irish tax authorities, Niall Cody, said he was “practically 100% certain” that no new customs posts would be necessary along the border – thereby agreeing with the UK position. However, the Irish Government did an about-turn in November 2017 when Leo Varadkar became the new Taoiseach. Varadkar cancelled all work by Irish civil servants on an electronic border and terminated meetings between civil servants in Ireland and Northern Ireland. His rhetoric over the Irish border also hardened, which had nothing to do, I’m sure, by the fact that each anti-Brexit remark was invariably followed by a boost in domestic popularity. As Alexander Redpath reminds us: “The Taoiseach does not have his own mandate and is keeping one eye on an inevitable Irish general election. Mr Varadkar is aware that Brexit is intensely unpopular amongst the Irish electorate and there is political gain from being seen to oppose it.” Ireland is also hugely dependent on the UK for trade, and they’ve understandably arrived at the conclusion that the UK’s membership of the Single Market and Customs Union would suit them, even if it wouldn’t suit us. As for the EU, it is no secret that they are desperate for us to remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. The reason, of course, is that Brussels is terrified that the UK will become a “super-competitive country” on its doorstep. This perennial worry of theirs rises embarrassingly to the surface whenever they propose the absurd requirement that any future partnership agreement would need to include a ‘fair-competition’ clause – essentially precluding the UK’s managed divergence of regulations. Somewhat irresponsibly, then, the EU are exploiting fears about peace in Northern Ireland to keep the UK uncompetitively tethered to the single market and customs union. But how can I justify such depressing cynicism? Well, if peace in Northern Ireland really were Brussels’ overriding concern, then proposing the effective annexation of Northern Ireland (as they did in their draft Withdrawal Agreement) was an odd way of demonstrating this. How separating Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom would ensure peace is anyone’s guess. Such an action would also – it’s worth noting – directly (and ironically) violate the terms of the GFA.
2/3
WTO rules That would include the basic rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO), something which many Brexit supporters say they would be perfectly happy with. But it is worth pointing out that no other major trading partner of the EU trades with it on WTO terms alone. Many businesses - especially those that rely on just-in-time manufacturing supply chains - have also been lobbying hard against it. Falling back on WTO rules would also mean the imposition of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit. ... “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit. ... “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin
One expert warned that it would fall either to the UK or EU - not the WTO - to set up border checks in order to protect the integrity of their internal markets from illegal activity and divergent trade rules.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit. ... “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin
The UK, the EU and the Irish Government insist they have no intention of putting up a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but a no deal Brexit would create a vacuum of uncertainty around how different trading rules would be policed along a frontier between two different economic blocs. “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit. ... “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin
“The WTO will not intervene unless one of its members brought a case,” said Mr Rockwell. “If they [the UK] do not apply any duties or customs procedures against other trading partners and they do not have a trade agreement, some people might not be happy about that and they can bring a dispute settlement case.”
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit. ... “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin
In circumstances where duties or customs are not enforced, a major beef producer such as the US or Argentina could lodge a complaint if the UK decided to import Irish beef duty free to avoid a customs border.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit. ... “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin
Edgar Morgenroth, professor of economics at Dublin City University, said the WTO’s position on the Irish Border was “utterly irrelevant” as, in the absence of a deal, the onus would be on the EU and UK to protect their own respective markets against smuggling or divergent rules on the opposite side of a border. “The WTO rules are neither here nor there. They don’t require you to protect your border,” said Prof Morgenroth. “What does require you to protect your border is protecting the integrity of your single market; it needs to be preserved. Ireland would be required by EU law to do so and it is in Ireland’s interests to do that. Ultimately, it is about protecting jobs.”
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit. ... “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin
He used the example where the UK might agree a deal with Brazil resulting in Irish beef farmers being confronted with tariff-free Brazilian beef imports to the UK across the Border in Northern Ireland. “That beef could easily go across the Border without checks, you have an incentive to do so,” he said.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit. ... “There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin
Prof Morgenroth used this as an example too about why technological solutions, which the UK government is keen to examine, will not solve the Border issue either as “you cannot look into trucks”. At present, more than half of all Irish beef is exported to the UK. “I can’t see a tractable solution to the border issue if the UK wants to deviate sufficiently strongly from the status quo,” said the DCU academic.
Comments
In 2003, the Le Touquet Agreement was signed between Britain, France and Belgium. This was an agreement saying that border controls would take place before boarding a train or ferry, as opposed to on arrival after disembarkation.
During the referendum campaign, prominent Remainers claimed that a vote for Brexit would lead to France cancelling the agreement, and as a result the notorious Calais migrant camp known as ‘The Jungle’ would move to Kent. It was claimed that up to 50,00 asylum seekers from Calais could enter the UK every year.
This has since been shown to be wildly sensationalised. After the Brexit vote was delivered, the French did indeed seek a renegotiation of the accord, and a new treaty was announced in 2017. However far from scrapping the Le Touquet agreement as the Remainers claimed would happen, the British have agreed to pledge more money on securing Calais, as well as a speeding up of the asylum process, and the agreement remains in force.
11. Families would be £4,300 worse off if Britain left the EU
If the “£350m per week” slogan on the bus was misleading, then Osborne’s claim that households would be £4,300 worse off if they voted to leave the EU was far worse.
To get this figure, HM Treasury forecast that in 2030 the UK economy would be 6% smaller if we voted to leave, compared to if we voted to Remain (37% growth if we Remain, compared to 30% growth if we leave). They then divided this 6% of UK GDP by the number of households in Britain to obtain £4,300 per household.
This was incredibly misleading, and ultimately a lie. Firstly, GDP growth is not the same thing as household spending. A rise in GDP does not necessarily mean all households have more spending power.
Secondly, although the wording sounded like people would be worse off, in reality the forecast stated that people would be better off – it would just be by 6% less compared to if a Remain vote was returned. This figure was also seen as overly pessimistic (studies for The Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics put the figure at 1.3 – 2.6%. A report by Open Britain even claimed the UK could be better off by 1.3%, mainly by cutting EU red tape. This was all ignored in the Treasury’s campaigning to the public.
Contrary to what Remainers constantly say about the Leave campaign misleading the people, it is clear that the Remain campaign lied just as much, if not far more. Fortunately, the wisdom of the British people prevailed, and they saw through most of the lies to vote for Brexit in numbers never before seen in a nationwide election
http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/the-many-lies-of-the-remain-campaign/
One problem is that the DUP, will definitely wear this bit.
"Let there be no doubt in this House or in Westminster that when I talk about special arrangements I mean treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK. It is the UK government's proposal to do exactly that."
Mention the need to protect the single market and there is a clamour that this means a hard border; mention that all sides will find ways to avoid such a border, and there is a clamour that the backstop is unnecessary.
"It’s this endless ping-pong between these two messages which are neither helpful nor right," says one exasperated diplomat. "We need to continue to flesh out that middle ground so that people understand."
But the middle ground is confused. There’s an absence of hard facts as to how Ireland and the EU are going to reconcile the two imperatives.
In general, this means checking either on the factory floor, or at a distribution depot, or on a supermarket shelf, or somewhere in between all these points (just not on the actual border).
Checking on the factory floor seems problematic, as it would mean Irish Revenue officers having to check goods before they leave factories or depots in Northern Ireland.
"Say I have a Hi-Ace van and I’m bringing something across from Newry to Dundalk to drop it off at a shop," says one official. "If the controls are away from the border, where on my journey between Dundalk and Newry have I been away from the border far enough so that I can be controlled? That means then a different structure that might be required. Maybe administrative, maybe documentary. I don’t know."
Officials are also looking at the somewhat misleading option of "transit".
Typically, transit refers to a consignment being shipped from one country to another, but passing through another country, or countries, in between.
The Brexit Party is holding a rally in Nottingham with Nigel Farage and other speakers to be announced. Join the Brexiteer fightback!
About this Event
Join us in Albert Hall Conference Centre, Nottingham, N Circus Street, NG15AA for 13:15 when doors open to start at 14:00.
Nigel Farage and other Brexit Party representatives will speak. It's not one to miss!
Date And Time
Sat, 20 April 2019, 14:00 BST
Location
Albert Hall Conference Centre
North Circus Street
Nottingham
NG1 5AA
Tickets just £2.50
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-brexit-party-rally-nottingham-tickets-60419492328
Remain Twitter is awash with fake news.
Since the Brexit vote, elitist Remainers have tried to dismiss the demand from 17.4million Brits to leave the EU as a product of lies and irrationality. Gullible voters are said to have swallowed pro-Brexit propaganda from BoJo’s bus and Russian bots. It was ‘fake news’ wot won it, Remainers claim.
But of late, the Remain Twittersphere has been excitedly spreading its own fake news. Last weekend a leaflet purporting to be from the NHS went viral. It warned that in the event of a No Deal Brexit, ‘you could be unable to get your usual prescription’ from your doctor or pharmacist and advised patients to start stockpiling drugs.
Famed Remoaner Gary Lineker posted the leaflet, saying ‘maybe it’s time for a rethink’ on leaving the EU. Over 9,000 people retweeted him. A Remainer comedian tweeted the leaflet and claimed that No Deal means ‘actual deaths due to lack of medicine’, earning 2,000 retweets. Another Remainer simply said ‘**** this’.
But the NHS had issued no such leaflet. The Department of Health said the leaflet was fake and that preparations have already been made to ensure uninterrupted medical supplies and prescriptions in the event of No Deal. Life will continue after 29 March 2019.
So why did Remainers fall for this? Because they have swallowed Project Fear wholesale. In fact, a leaflet suggesting that you might need to stock up on your prescription is a fairly mild form of scaremongering when compared with the regular drip-feed of horror stories around No Deal. In recent months, we have been warned that No Deal could lead to a recession, food shortages and new diseases like super-gonorrhoea, or that Brexit Britain could be overrun by child-sex offenders. No wonder so many believed the fake NHS leaflet was credible.
A day later, a photo of a group of pro-Brexit protesters, penned in by police outside a Greggs, went viral. A tweeter jokingly claimed that the Brexiteers were protesting against Greggs’ new vegan sausage roll. But this joke was treated as a fact by prominent Remainers. Labour MP David Lammy shared the photo, tweeting ‘No it’s not a parody. Monty Python, Alan Partridge and David Brent are now running the country.’ Many others joined in to mock what they saw as stupid pro-Brexit plebs seeing red over a mock-sausage roll.
A (very funny) photoshop of an English Defence League Facebook post was used by some to back up the claim that it was an anti-vegan protest. ‘The vegan leftist Greggs has now crossed the line. It’s time to take our country back’, it said. But again, many Remainers fell for the joke. Its exasperated creator had to take to Twitter to say ‘Jesus Christ, please stop asking if this is real, it is clearly not real’.
Also at the weekend, the Telegraph revealed that the anti-Brexit People’s Vote campaign had hugely exaggerated the number of people in attendance at its march in October 2018. At the time, campaigners claimed that over 700,000 had taken to the streets of London to call for a second EU referendum. But a document by the Greater London Authority put the numbers at 250,000 – just a third of the number claimed by the organisers.
The vastly inflated numbers allowed second-referendum enthusiasts to portray their middle-class hissy fit against democracy as a nascent mass movement. Organisers tried to say the People’s Vote march was as significant as the demonstrations against the Iraq War.
After falling for so much fake news themselves, leading Remainers should think twice about labelling Brexiteers as gullible dupes.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/01/08/remoaners-will-fall-for-anything/
Unprecedented drug shortage linked to Brexit, NHS bosses say
Hospitals across England are experiencing medicine shortages because of "stockpiling and price pressure as the Brexit deadline approaches", NHS Providers has told BBC Newsnight.
The trade association warned some trusts had seen shortages of up to 160 different drugs in the past six weeks.
This was compared with just 25 to 30 drugs in normal times, it said.
NIGEL FARAGE’s new Brexit Party is displaying “significant pulling power” over the “vulnerable” Tory electorate, according to a leading political expert.
A YouGov poll suggested that the Conservatives only had 15 percent of the vote ahead of the European elections, whereas the combined score of UKIP and the Brexit Party had shot to 34 percent. Political expert Matthew Goodwin told TalkRADIO: “If you look at the polls that came out yesterday - the Brexit Party and UKIP combined are on 34 percent. So that suggests to me that the Brexit Party still have a few more points to climb as it eats into that UKIP vote
“The Conservatives are way down on 15 percent.
“We might actually see them tumble even lower.
“I think it tells us that Nigel Farage still has significant pulling power in British politics.
“This is a brand new party that even now is attracting more than one in four voters
“And I think that’s a reflection of Farage’s appeal and resonance in British politics.
“And I think the second thing it shows is just how fluid and vulnerable that Conservative Party electorate is.
“I drilled down into the numbers yesterday and more than half of Britsh leavers are now planning to vote for the Brexit Party.
“The Conservatives have completely lost the Leave electorate and that’s problematic for them given that the Conservatives now are very dependent on leave voters.
“They cannot afford to allow Leave voters to start a new relationship with a new political party.”
Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has said Nigel Farage's new Brexit Party has "moderated" British politics and taken votes away from Ukip.
He told BBC Radio 4's World At One: "I think the one really good thing about it (the Brexit Party) is that it has taken votes away from Ukip now Ukip is allied to Tommy Robinson.
"I think Tommy Robinson reflects a type of politics that, I think, is unattractive and not usual in Britain, and that therefore in that way the new Brexit Party has moderated British politics from an extremist route that we were in danger of going down.
"Am I sorry they're taking votes from the Conservatives? Yes, of course I am - I would encourage all people at all times to vote Conservative in all elections."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1116306/brexit-news-brexit-party-nigel-farage-ukip-european-elections-conservative-party-talkradio
The issue of the Irish border is becoming the major sticking-point in negotiations and, consequently, undermining our ability to reach the mutually-beneficial relationship with the EU that we all want to see. Whilst in no way wanting to diminish or trivialise the concerns that exist – especially those living either side of the border – it is clear that the threat and intractability of this issue has been both exaggerated and exploited. This question is thus in desperate need of sober reflection. BACK TO BASICS: WHAT ARE OUR OBJECTIVES? There are two reasons why a ‘hard’ economic border with Ireland is of particular concern (i.e. more so than the rest of the UK’s external border):
It could undermine the Good Friday Agreement (i.e. the 1998 Belfast Agreement); and
It could provoke violence.
For reasons I will state momentarily, I believe achieving an invisible border is not just achievable, but overwhelmingly likely. However, it is also a mistake to automatically assume that the worst-case scenario of a ‘hard’ border would preclude the attainment of our two stated aims. OBJECTIVE 1: GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT Quite simply, when it comes to our aim of upholding the terms of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), a hard border poses no threat whatsoever. As Andrew Lilico correctly points out: “There is nothing in the Belfast Agreement that says there cannot be customs duties payable on crossing the border (whether payable at the border itself or in some other way), different regulatory compliance requirements on opposite sides of the border, or even, if required, the stopping of goods at the border.” This verdict has been repeated by multiple authorities ranging from Lord Trimble (former First Minister of Northern Ireland and one of the architects of the GFA), to the UK Supreme Court, which – in a judgement surprisingly under-reported – ruled in 2017 that the Belfast Agreement was entirely unaffected by the Brexit process. Thus, a worst-case-scenario hard-border does nothing to undermine our first objective of upholding the GFA. However, this is not the same as saying that a hard-border would not undermine ‘peace’. OBJECTIVE 2: PEACE The factors that might credibly pose a risk to peace are complex, and there is a clear need to tread lightly here. However, as Gary Cahalane points out, there are good reasons for believing that the threat has been overstated. For example, if economic divergence between the North and South is a threat to peace, why have Dublin governments spent the last 18 years diverging from Northern Ireland on tax, currency, interest rates and excise duties? Indeed, divergence on excise duties has led to arrests, detentions and convictions along the border (all, it will be noted, without outbreaks of terrorist violence). It seems strange that, until now, divergence has been considered completely unproblematic for peace and stability, yet future divergence (on, for example, customs or product standards) is deemed unacceptable.
Likewise, it should be noted that physical infrastructure in the form of cameras already exist at the border. It is not obvious why the introduction of a few more cameras would be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. As I say, however, I am in no position to predict the actions of would-be terrorists. Let us assume, then, for the sake of argument, that peace is contingent upon an open economic border. Does an open border necessitate membership of a customs union or single market? Not in the slightest. Let us start by separating the issue of the movement of people with that of goods. MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE Worries about the free movement of people across the Irish border is a non-starter. The Common Travel Area between Ireland and Northern Ireland – which enables citizens to travel, reside and vote – predates EU membership by a good 50 years. In response to this, many have pointed out that because the UK and Ireland joined the EU at the same time in 1973, we have never had a situation in which one country has been inside the EU, and the other out. This is a problem – goes the argument – because Northern Ireland would become a back door for illegal immigration to the UK from the EU (and vice versa). However, as Hugh Bennett notes, this argument is a complete red herring: “If anyone was intending to stay in the UK illegally, they could simply do it by entering the UK directly and overstaying their visa, rather than taking the convoluted route of entering via Ireland.” Those making this argument also seem to be persisting with the erroneous belief that modern immigration controls are (primarily) policed at borders. Immigration control is far more about ‘what’ an individual can do once they’ve already entered a country, not ‘whether’ they can get in in the first place. I can travel to nearly any country as a tourist. What prevents me from living and working there, however, are controls limiting my ability to open a bank account, obtain a national insurance number, buy or rent accommodation, and so on. MOVEMENT OF GOODS As for the movement of goods, it has been the consistent view of Jon Thompson, Chief Executive of HMRC, that there will not be any requirement for physical infrastructure between Ireland and Northern Ireland under any circumstances. This is also the conclusion of the former Director of the World Customs Organization, Lars Karlsson, who authored a report on the issue of the Irish Border for the European Parliament. So, what makes these two customs experts so certain that that a hard border is avoidable outside a customs union and single market? The first crucial thing to understand is that customs ‘controls’ (which are inevitable once we leave the EU) do not equate to customs ‘checks’ or ‘infrastructure’.
1/3
SO, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? At the risk of being accused of cynicism, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Irish border is becoming a problem of ‘choice’ rather than necessity. Let’s review some of the facts: When the UK’s proposals were first published last summer, they were welcomed by Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney, who stated that he “agreed with the vast majority of them” and that they employed “a lot of the language that the Irish government has been using”. It is also worth remembering that – at roughly the same time – the head of the Irish tax authorities, Niall Cody, said he was “practically 100% certain” that no new customs posts would be necessary along the border – thereby agreeing with the UK position. However, the Irish Government did an about-turn in November 2017 when Leo Varadkar became the new Taoiseach. Varadkar cancelled all work by Irish civil servants on an electronic border and terminated meetings between civil servants in Ireland and Northern Ireland. His rhetoric over the Irish border also hardened, which had nothing to do, I’m sure, by the fact that each anti-Brexit remark was invariably followed by a boost in domestic popularity. As Alexander Redpath reminds us: “The Taoiseach does not have his own mandate and is keeping one eye on an inevitable Irish general election. Mr Varadkar is aware that Brexit is intensely unpopular amongst the Irish electorate and there is political gain from being seen to oppose it.” Ireland is also hugely dependent on the UK for trade, and they’ve understandably arrived at the conclusion that the UK’s membership of the Single Market and Customs Union would suit them, even if it wouldn’t suit us. As for the EU, it is no secret that they are desperate for us to remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. The reason, of course, is that Brussels is terrified that the UK will become a “super-competitive country” on its doorstep. This perennial worry of theirs rises embarrassingly to the surface whenever they propose the absurd requirement that any future partnership agreement would need to include a ‘fair-competition’ clause – essentially precluding the UK’s managed divergence of regulations. Somewhat irresponsibly, then, the EU are exploiting fears about peace in Northern Ireland to keep the UK uncompetitively tethered to the single market and customs union. But how can I justify such depressing cynicism? Well, if peace in Northern Ireland really were Brussels’ overriding concern, then proposing the effective annexation of Northern Ireland (as they did in their draft Withdrawal Agreement) was an odd way of demonstrating this. How separating Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom would ensure peace is anyone’s guess. Such an action would also – it’s worth noting – directly (and ironically) violate the terms of the GFA.
2/3
3/3
https://brexitcentral.com/avoid-hard-irish-border-remain-outside-customs-union-single-market/
That would include the basic rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO), something which many Brexit supporters say they would be perfectly happy with.
But it is worth pointing out that no other major trading partner of the EU trades with it on WTO terms alone.
Many businesses - especially those that rely on just-in-time manufacturing supply chains - have also been lobbying hard against it.
Falling back on WTO rules would also mean the imposition of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44904619
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136
In circumstances where duties or customs are not enforced, a major beef producer such as the US or Argentina could lodge a complaint if the UK decided to import Irish beef duty free to avoid a customs border.
“The WTO rules are neither here nor there. They don’t require you to protect your border,” said Prof Morgenroth.
“What does require you to protect your border is protecting the integrity of your single market; it needs to be preserved. Ireland would be required by EU law to do so and it is in Ireland’s interests to do that. Ultimately, it is about protecting jobs.”
“That beef could easily go across the Border without checks, you have an incentive to do so,” he said.
At present, more than half of all Irish beef is exported to the UK.
“I can’t see a tractable solution to the border issue if the UK wants to deviate sufficiently strongly from the status quo,” said the DCU academic.