The European Union recorded a trade deficit of 2748.90 EUR Million in February of 2019. Balance of Trade in European Union averaged -7588.02 EUR Million from 1999 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 21400.30 EUR Million in December of 2016 and a record low of -34765.70 EUR Million in January of 2008.
More trolling from an idiot, and no sensible debate, still waiting for Tikay to warn the idiot about trolling.
The usual method of Moderation here is by PM, & that will continue to be the case.
To others in the thread & on the Forum, this is a private matter between Sky Poker & QPROBBO, & I'd ask you not to tease, bait or do anything to provoke a response from him.
It'd be a really good thing if we could now get back on topic & debate in an adult manner.
More trolling from an idiot, and no sensible debate, still waiting for Tikay to warn the idiot about trolling.
The usual method of Moderation here is by PM, & that will continue to be the case.
To others in the thread & on the Forum, this is a private matter between Sky Poker & QPROBBO, & I'd ask you not to tease, bait or do anything to provoke a response from him.
It'd be a really good thing if we could now get back on topic & debate in an adult manner.
TIA.
So are you saying QPROBBO is not welcome to post on this thread ? Bit disappointing if that is the case as he/she is only one of a few people who are interested in supporting/putting a leave spin on things , for want of a better phrase . I have no idea what this private matter between the person and sky is or could be , but I do know that someone came onto the thread and posted a ridiculous comment about Nuremberg ( prob the least funny thing I've ever read and in pretty poor taste ) and QPR challenged him over it and all of a sudden cryptic posts are in abundance . If i'm missing something blatently obvious , then please enlighten me .
No deal Brexit BOOST: Remainers increased chances of a no deal EU exit says William Hague
WILLIAM HAGUE, the former Tory leader, has attacked Remainers for having “blown” the European elections and increasing the chance of a no deal Brexit. Mr Hague explained the outcome of the European elections is “more likely to be a reassertion of support for Brexit than a defeat for it.”
He said in the Daily Telegraph: “That in turn will push more Conservative MPs into wanting a no deal Brexit whatever the consequences.
“Meanwhile, in the chancelleries of Europe, the message received from such results in the European elections will be that there is little prospect of pro-Remain forces co-ordinating successfully, and that October 31 should be treated as a hard deadline for withdrawal, with no further extension allowed.
“So a “hard Brexit" might well become more likely.” The European election coming up now might be the most influential of all.
“It was a crucial chance for a true “Remain Alliance” to emerge and genuinely change the UK’s political landscape, but they have blown it.”
Mr Hague went on to suggest changes in the political landscape.
He said: “This failure to overcome differences in the centre of politics tells us something else as well, further into the future. “It suggests that if and when a realignment of parties takes place in Britain, there is a strong prospect it will look more like Spain after Sunday’s general election than France after the election of Macron.
“Spaniards have been waking up to a new parliament with five national parties plus various nationalist and regional ones, in place of the two-party system of the last few decades.
“New parties have emerged on the Left and the Right, pulling the two old parties to more hardline positions, rather than a reformed or united centre providing a real alternative.”
He added voters are “increasingly attracted” to new political forces rather than “moderate ones”.
EU elections: Brexit Party kicks off campaign in Wales The Brexit Party's lead candidate in Wales has called for leave supporters to use their European election vote to send a "strong message" to Westminster.
Welsh MEP Nathan Gill said people in Wales had been "betrayed".
The Brexit Party kicks off its campaigning in Wales on Tuesday, with visits from leader Nigel Farage and former Tory MP Anne Widdecombe.
It is one of eight parties fighting the European elections in Wales, taking place on 23 May.
The Brexit Party has been formed by Mr Farage to fight the European elections, campaigning for the UK to leave the EU straight away.
"People are angry, people need to know what they can do," Mr Gill, who was elected for UKIP in 2014, said. "And we're saying to them, you can have another vote.
"You can go to the ballot box and you can reiterate that message that you gave in 2016 that you just want to leave the EU."
UKIP came a close second to Labour at the last European elections in Wales in 2014.
Mr Gill then led the party into elections in the Welsh Assembly, but after party rows left UKIP in the assembly and then the assembly itself. He quit UKIP last year, following Mr Farage's decision to leave the organisation. "We have none of the past problems that UKIP had," Mr Gill, who leads the Brexit Party list for Wales, said.
"We are just about making sure that Brexit is delivered, and that's what people voted for, that's what they wanted, that's what they expected.
"That's what we all thought was going to happen on the 29th of March, and here we are, three years after we voted to leave, and we're being asked to vote in the European election - it's unbelievable."
Lets hope Tom Watson wins the battle with Corbyn . A clear message Labour back a 2nd referendum , will send another 4 million or so over to the brexit party . Happy days .
What is today’s Irish Question? Let us firstly be clear firstly what it doesn’t include: people. The Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland dates from a full fifty years before the countries’ entry into the then-EEC, and guarantees freedom of movement for British and Irish citizens over the whole territory of the UK and Ireland, including full rights to work and vote. These arrangements date from long before the EU even existed, and are guaranteed to continue.
The issue is one of trade – specifically, goods. From the EU’s perspective, the concern is to preserve the integrity of its single market and customs union. Yet in the sensitive Northern Irish context, 100% border compliance is something of a pipe dream, as existing practice demonstrates. Smuggling across the Irish border already takes place, since Ireland and the UK have different rates of VAT and excise duty. Anti-smuggling measures are conducted, but in a way that is sensitive to the border context. In other words, the tail does not wag the dog. Policy on tax and excise comes first, then enforcement is developed appropriately.
So, what will happen with the border in the event of ‘no deal’? This has been presented as a great unknown, an uncertainty so acute that it throws the past two decades of peace in Northern Ireland into doubt. Fortunately, examining the overriding political incentives of all the actors involved gives us a pretty good idea of what will happen in practice. And the outcome can be summarised in one word: nothing.
There will not be a hard border in the sense of new infrastructure at the border. We can say this with absolute certainty. The UK government has repeatedly said it will not install border infrastructure. The Irish government has also repeatedly said it will not install border infrastructure. Is there any reason to doubt these statements? No – quite the opposite, in fact. Both countries – and, importantly, the EU too – have an overwhelming geopolitical incentive to refrain from doing anything that could be perceived as hardening the border. It is hard to imagine a worse form of reputational damage than being the side to risk ‘bringing violence back to Northern Ireland.’ Taking such a risk, even though it is in truth remote, is unthinkable.
But what about both sides’ legal commitments? It is not only the integrity of the EU’s precious single market that is at stake, but compliance with WTO rules, which preclude the UK and the EU from granting each other de facto trading privileges, even if those privileges only applied to one tiny province. Failure to enforce goods checks and tariffs at the Northern Ireland border while continuing to do so at other borders would constitute a breach of the WTO’s ‘most favoured nation’ rule, which prevents such special treatment. So, what will happen on 30 March 2019, when the UK and Ireland are in breach of WTO rules? Again, absolutely nothing.
Contrary to popular myth, the WTO does not have clipboard-carrying inspectors checking borders for possible infractions of WTO rules. In fact, the WTO does not have inspectors at all. The WTO itself does not take any action against its members for breaches of its rules. It is a member-driven organisation: a complaint against one country can only be brought by another member country.
At this point, realpolitik once again trumps formal rules. Imagine if a third country brought a complaint to the WTO that it was being discriminated against due to the UK and Ireland not imposing checks at the Northern Ireland border. This would be international relations dynamite. Given the internationally-recognised delicacy of the border issue, such a move would be considered an act of extreme diplomatic aggression against the UK, Ireland and EU, on a par with imposing sanctions on a hostile regime. Again, which country is prepared to risk the condemnation of the international community as the provocateur prepared to risk ‘bringing violence back to Northern Ireland’?
Even in the unlikely event that another WTO member – Russia, say – did decide on such a provocation, the UK, Ireland and the EU would most likely cite in their defence Article XXI of the GATT. This states that, ‘Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed… to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests… taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations.’ In other words, WTO rules can be waived if a security risk is present. Given that the UK, Ireland and the EU all maintain that infrastructure on the Irish border would create such a security risk, Article XXI would seem to fully exempt them from constructing such infrastructure.
None of this is to say that the UK and Ireland will not take any action whatsoever in respect of the border in the event of ‘no deal’. There will be expectations from fellow WTO members that all sides will make ‘best efforts’ to abide by its rules – to the extent that security concerns permit. And of course, the EU will still be concerned with the integrity of its single market and customs union. If and when ‘no deal’ happens, Ireland and the EU will have no alternative but to work with the UK on the available practical solutions.
Contrary to what is commonly asserted, it is not the lack of technical solutions that is the problem. The main hindrance to solving the border issue to date has been the fact that it has become ensnared in the politically-charged withdrawal negotiations. This was never going to be conducive to a solution. UK and Irish officials have been prevented from working together on potential solutions since this could be seen as constituting ‘negotiation’, and the EU will only allow its own officials to negotiate. Most crucially, once the Irish government made the political decision to unconditionally support the EU’s negotiating position, Irish officials were prohibited from developing technical solutions, lest they undermine a ‘political solution’. In other words, both the EU and Irish feared that the availability of technical solutions could strengthen the UK’s negotiating hand. Ironically, making the border issue part of the withdrawal negotiations meant that it was in Ireland’s interests to repress technical solutions – which is exactly what happened.
Once the border is freed from the stifling political constraints of the withdrawal negotiations, practical compromises will be possible. The UK has already proposed a customs waiver for small and medium-sized businesses, which account for around 80% of cross-border trade and for the most part trade only in local markets. There is also the potential for the EU to invoke the “frontier traffic exception” in Article XXIV(3) of the GATT, to declare the whole territory of Northern Ireland as a border region to the EU customs union. In strict legal terms, such measures would represent a **** (albeit a microscopic one in terms of value) in the wall of the EU’s Common External Tariff. But if the EU is serious about its commitment to no hard border in Ireland, it should be prepared to make such small compromises, just as the UK and Irish authorities have done since 1998. To use its own favourite phrase, the EU cannot ‘have its cake and eat it.’
For transport of plants and animals, given the obvious reality that diseases are incapable of transmitting themselves across huge bodies of water, a single sanitary and phytosanitary zone on the island of Ireland would make sense. Unlike the imposition of foreign regulatory and customs regimes, this would not have any constitutional implications. The EU already has a ‘common veterinary space’ with Switzerland, so there is no reason why it should not consent to one with Northern Ireland.
There is always a solution if the political will is there – the Good Friday Agreement itself is testament to that. The Good Friday Agreement also teaches us that it is only possible to reach solutions by de-dramatising the negotiating context and ensuring that all affected communities get to play their part – in other words, the very opposite of what is possible in the context of the UK-EU withdrawal negotiations. The Withdrawal Agreement’s backstop, with its indefinite nature and potential to undermine the Union, provides the very opposite of certainty for Northern Ireland. Only when the border issues are removed from the highly politicised context of the Brexit negotiations can the political posturing end and work on practical solutions begin. At present, only a ‘no deal’ outcome offers such a hope.
Nigel Farage slammed over 'dangerous' comments about black people in Oldham The Brexit Party leader made the 'dangerous and inaccurate' comments in a speech to a right-wing youth movement in the US
Nigel Farage has been slammed over 'dangerous and inaccurate' comments about black people in Oldham. The Brexit party leader claimed there was a street in Oldham where one side was populated by black people and the other entirely by white people.
He claimed it was the kind of "divided society" where "resentments grow". At the time of the last UK census in 2011, 2% of the population of Oldham was black, lower than the national average of 3.5%.
Mr Farage told the crowd on Friday night : "Let me take you to a town called Oldham in the North of England where literally on one side of the street everybody is white and on the other side of the street everybody is black.
Oldham MP Jim McMahon responded to the speech on Twitter writing: "Oldham is not defined by Farage, or anyone else looking to stoke up tensions and create division.
Nazir Afzal , former chief prosecutor in Greater Manchester, and now chairman at Rochdale's Hopwood Hall College, said Mr Farage was 'stoking racial tension'.
He said: "I know Oldham very well and this is dangerous scaremongering again from Farage, 'integration' is not 'assimilation'. "All towns have their problems, but none are improved by him stoking racial tension. "He’s a man with no answers, just bigotry.
And Oldham Labour councillor Cath Ball, who has lived in the town for 63 years said: "That's rubbish. His comments are dangerous and inacurrate because there are no streets in Oldham like that."
It's not the first time he's been accused of using spurious anecdotes to stir up racial tensions.
In 2014, Mr Farage was accused of making a "racial slur" when he said he would be concerned if Romanians moved in next door to him. He told LBC Radio: “I was asked if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned? And if you lived in London, I think you would be.” Asked whether he would also object to living next to German children, he said: “You know the difference.”
And also in 2014, he said he felt "awkward" on a train journey in London, claiming he had only heard foreign languages spoken around him. He said: "I got the train the other night, it was rush hour, from Charing Cross, it was the stopper going out. We stopped at London Bridge, New Cross, Hither Green. "It wasn't until after we got past Grove Park that I could actually hear English being audibly spoken in the carriage. Does that make me feel slightly awkward? Yes."
The Brexit Party is holding a rally in Newport. Join the Brexiteer fightback! About this Event Join us at the Neon Theatre Newport at 7:00pm on Tuesday 30th April.
Farage’s Brexit party eyes seat of disgraced ex-Labour MP, Fiona Onasanya
Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party plans to capitalise on its poll ratings with a tilt at a Westminster seat.
It will stand in Peterborough if a by-election is triggered later this week by a “recall” petition against the disgraced MP Fiona Onasanya.
The former Ukip leader’s new group has startled the main parties after polls put it on course to win the European parliament elections on May 23. Surveys have also suggested that large numbers of Conservative activists and even Tory councillors plan to vote for the Brexit Party.
I’m standing for the Brexit Party to stop the EU overturning democracy as they did in my native Denmark
I am a European living in this country and I have just put myself forward as a candidate for the Brexit Party in the North West. I want to offer my experience of how the EU treats people who don’t agree with it. In June 2016, unlike most in this country, I felt that I had seen it all before. It took me back to 2nd June 1992 when the Danish people stood up to the might of the European establishment and voted ‘No’ to the undemocratic Maastricht Treaty. I was part of that campaign in Denmark and the sense of relief and elation in 2016 was on par with what I had felt over two decades before. The relief, however, was short-lived. We were lulled into a false sense of victory by the political class. What is happening in the UK now also happened in Denmark in 1992: the establishment did not like the answer the people gave them, so we were forced to vote again based on threats and spurious promises. The arguments in 1992 are the same as the arguments in 2019: the EU has a huge democratic deficit and Brussels is unaccountable, secretive and distant. This takes power away from people: a healthy democracy is when you bump into your elected representative in your local corner shop, not when you have to fly to Brussels to lobby them. The power in the EU does not lie with the elected politicians, it lies with the bureaucrats – and who is overseeing the bureaucrats? This is not democracy; do we really want a system in which money equates to political influence? And can anybody understand why the Labour Party is in favour of this? This is the Labour Party which was founded for the purpose of defending working-class communities against the elite. Now we find the Labour Party siding with the establishment and turning its back on those very communities. Five million Labour Leave voters have been left politically homeless and I say to those people: the Brexit Party will speak up for you. I have worked as an NHS dentist for over 20 years with people from all over the world, both from inside and outside the EU. At one point we had staff from more than thirteen countries – and that’s without counting the different countries from which our 130,000 patients come. Working with different people enriches your life and it is important that after leaving the EU we can still get the workforce from abroad we need. For this we need a system which allows immigration but which makes sure we get the immigration we need.
I am European; I even have an Italian rescue dog! I am far from being one of the 17.4 million xenophobes whom Chuka Umunna has claimed are among his fellow citizens. Support for Brexit is not only to be found on the right of the political spectrum, it is across the board, and the Brexit Party is a perfect example of that. Far-right parties do not speak for me, nor do they speak for the majority of this country. Having come here as a European immigrant over twenty years ago, I can safely say that the rhetoric which comes from those on the far right does not represent what I have experienced; Britain has been open and welcoming to me. The Brexit Party brings together people from all backgrounds and challenges the dangerous stereotype which media outlets like the BBC push. We Brexiteers are not a monolithic group of ignorant and uneducated voters who blindly supported Brexit because they liked Boris Johnson. How will they marry up the idea of me – a socialist, NHS dentist and trade union representative, who used to live in a commune – with being a Brexiteer? Britain is my home, I have brought my children up in this country and have worked, paid taxes and created jobs here for over 20 years. What happened in Denmark was that democracy was overturned, voters ignored and the decision of the people cast aside. I will not let that happen to the country I now call home. Voting for the Brexit Party is the way we can stop history repeating itself
Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen is a candidate on the Brexit Party list in North West England at the 2019 European election. He is an NHS Dentist and a trade union representative who is a Danish national and was Co-Chair of the ‘No’ campaign during the Danish referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.
Brexit Britain attracts BILLIONS from businesses as UK tops Europe for foreign investment
BRITAIN attracted more business investment from overseas last year than any other country in Europe, new figures revealed last night. Data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) showed more than £1,400billion-worth of investment stock flowed into the UK from abroad during 2018. Only the US and China attracted more foreign capital and loans than this country during the 12-month period, the figures confirmed. International Trade Secretary Liam Fox MP said the total - more than the foreign investment in Germany, Spain and Poland combined - showed that doom mongers who predicted an economic downturn after the 2016 referendum vote to quit the EU had been proved wrong again. “The latest OECD figures show the UK remains one of the world’s most attractive destinations for foreign investment.
“Those who would talk down Britain’s economic performance are proven wrong once again,” the Tory Cabinet minister said.
He added: “We are the investment capital of Europe attracting far more than any of our closest competitors.
“International investors continue to recognise the fundamental strengths of our economy – everything from our predictable legal system to our world-leading financial services.
“Foreign direct investment creates jobs, deepens ties with key markets around the world and underpins Britain’s credentials as the global champion of free trade.
“My international economic department will ensure the benefits of foreign direct investment continue to be felt right across the country.”
Data from the OECD also showed foreign investment in the UK increased by 5 percent during 2018 compared with the previous year.
The OECD figures showed that, as of December 2018, Germany held £920billion inward investment stock while Spain held £500billion and Poland held £177billion. Yesterday’s figures followed a survey published by the financial firm EY earlier this month which said the UK had defied Brexit uncertainty to become the most attractive country in the world for business investment over the coming year.
“While the UK’s position may surprise some, given current uncertainty, mergers and acquisitions activity during the period since the 2016 EU referendum has remained strong,” the EY survey said.
The fall in the value of the pound since the 2016 Brexit referendum was not a major driver of foreign investment in Britain, according to the report.
“By and large, deals are driven by strategic rationale not currency movements,” said Steve Krouskos, EY’s global vice chair for transaction advisory services.
“What hasn’t changed is that the UK has great companies, great talent, great tech and great investment potential. These assets attract capital. Also, remember the UK isn’t the only country dealing with significant geopolitical challenges.”
The biannual EY survey was based on responses from more than 2,900 senior executives from around the world.
Comments
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/balance-of-trade
The usual method of Moderation here is by PM, & that will continue to be the case.
To others in the thread & on the Forum, this is a private matter between Sky Poker & QPROBBO, & I'd ask you not to tease, bait or do anything to provoke a response from him.
It'd be a really good thing if we could now get back on topic & debate in an adult manner.
TIA.
Bit disappointing if that is the case as he/she is only one of a few people who are interested in supporting/putting a leave spin on things , for want of a better phrase .
I have no idea what this private matter between the person and sky is or could be , but I do know that someone came onto the thread and posted a ridiculous comment about Nuremberg ( prob the least funny thing I've ever read and in pretty poor taste ) and QPR challenged him over it and all of a sudden cryptic posts are in abundance .
If i'm missing something blatently obvious , then please enlighten me .
It's not intended to be cryptic, but it's a private matter between Sky Poker and QPROBBO, and is being handled this way with very good reason.
WILLIAM HAGUE, the former Tory leader, has attacked Remainers for having “blown” the European elections and increasing the chance of a no deal Brexit.
Mr Hague explained the outcome of the European elections is “more likely to be a reassertion of support for Brexit than a defeat for it.”
He said in the Daily Telegraph: “That in turn will push more Conservative MPs into wanting a no deal Brexit whatever the consequences.
“Meanwhile, in the chancelleries of Europe, the message received from such results in the European elections will be that there is little prospect of pro-Remain forces co-ordinating successfully, and that October 31 should be treated as a hard deadline for withdrawal, with no further extension allowed.
“So a “hard Brexit" might well become more likely.”
The European election coming up now might be the most influential of all.
“It was a crucial chance for a true “Remain Alliance” to emerge and genuinely change the UK’s political landscape, but they have blown it.”
Mr Hague went on to suggest changes in the political landscape.
He said: “This failure to overcome differences in the centre of politics tells us something else as well, further into the future.
“It suggests that if and when a realignment of parties takes place in Britain, there is a strong prospect it will look more like Spain after Sunday’s general election than France after the election of Macron.
“Spaniards have been waking up to a new parliament with five national parties plus various nationalist and regional ones, in place of the two-party system of the last few decades.
“New parties have emerged on the Left and the Right, pulling the two old parties to more hardline positions, rather than a reformed or united centre providing a real alternative.”
He added voters are “increasingly attracted” to new political forces rather than “moderate ones”.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1120735/brexit-news-latest-no-deal-leave-eu-remain-william-hague-theresa-may-brexit-party
The Brexit Party's lead candidate in Wales has called for leave supporters to use their European election vote to send a "strong message" to Westminster.
Welsh MEP Nathan Gill said people in Wales had been "betrayed".
The Brexit Party kicks off its campaigning in Wales on Tuesday, with visits from leader Nigel Farage and former Tory MP Anne Widdecombe.
It is one of eight parties fighting the European elections in Wales, taking place on 23 May.
The Brexit Party has been formed by Mr Farage to fight the European elections, campaigning for the UK to leave the EU straight away.
"People are angry, people need to know what they can do," Mr Gill, who was elected for UKIP in 2014, said. "And we're saying to them, you can have another vote.
"You can go to the ballot box and you can reiterate that message that you gave in 2016 that you just want to leave the EU."
UKIP came a close second to Labour at the last European elections in Wales in 2014.
Mr Gill then led the party into elections in the Welsh Assembly, but after party rows left UKIP in the assembly and then the assembly itself. He quit UKIP last year, following Mr Farage's decision to leave the organisation.
"We have none of the past problems that UKIP had," Mr Gill, who leads the Brexit Party list for Wales, said.
"We are just about making sure that Brexit is delivered, and that's what people voted for, that's what they wanted, that's what they expected.
"That's what we all thought was going to happen on the 29th of March, and here we are, three years after we voted to leave, and we're being asked to vote in the European election - it's unbelievable."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-48098512
A clear message Labour back a 2nd referendum , will send another 4 million or so over to the brexit party . Happy days .
What is today’s Irish Question? Let us firstly be clear firstly what it doesn’t include: people. The Common Travel Area between the UK and Ireland dates from a full fifty years before the countries’ entry into the then-EEC, and guarantees freedom of movement for British and Irish citizens over the whole territory of the UK and Ireland, including full rights to work and vote. These arrangements date from long before the EU even existed, and are guaranteed to continue.
The issue is one of trade – specifically, goods. From the EU’s perspective, the concern is to preserve the integrity of its single market and customs union. Yet in the sensitive Northern Irish context, 100% border compliance is something of a pipe dream, as existing practice demonstrates. Smuggling across the Irish border already takes place, since Ireland and the UK have different rates of VAT and excise duty. Anti-smuggling measures are conducted, but in a way that is sensitive to the border context. In other words, the tail does not wag the dog. Policy on tax and excise comes first, then enforcement is developed appropriately.
So, what will happen with the border in the event of ‘no deal’? This has been presented as a great unknown, an uncertainty so acute that it throws the past two decades of peace in Northern Ireland into doubt. Fortunately, examining the overriding political incentives of all the actors involved gives us a pretty good idea of what will happen in practice. And the outcome can be summarised in one word: nothing.
There will not be a hard border in the sense of new infrastructure at the border. We can say this with absolute certainty. The UK government has repeatedly said it will not install border infrastructure. The Irish government has also repeatedly said it will not install border infrastructure.
Is there any reason to doubt these statements? No – quite the opposite, in fact. Both countries – and, importantly, the EU too – have an overwhelming geopolitical incentive to refrain from doing anything that could be perceived as hardening the border. It is hard to imagine a worse form of reputational damage than being the side to risk ‘bringing violence back to Northern Ireland.’ Taking such a risk, even though it is in truth remote, is unthinkable.
But what about both sides’ legal commitments? It is not only the integrity of the EU’s precious single market that is at stake, but compliance with WTO rules, which preclude the UK and the EU from granting each other de facto trading privileges, even if those privileges only applied to one tiny province. Failure to enforce goods checks and tariffs at the Northern Ireland border while continuing to do so at other borders would constitute a breach of the WTO’s ‘most favoured nation’ rule, which prevents such special treatment. So, what will happen on 30 March 2019, when the UK and Ireland are in breach of WTO rules? Again, absolutely nothing.
Contrary to popular myth, the WTO does not have clipboard-carrying inspectors checking borders for possible infractions of WTO rules. In fact, the WTO does not have inspectors at all. The WTO itself does not take any action against its members for breaches of its rules. It is a member-driven organisation: a complaint against one country can only be brought by another member country.
At this point, realpolitik once again trumps formal rules. Imagine if a third country brought a complaint to the WTO that it was being discriminated against due to the UK and Ireland not imposing checks at the Northern Ireland border. This would be international relations dynamite. Given the internationally-recognised delicacy of the border issue, such a move would be considered an act of extreme diplomatic aggression against the UK, Ireland and EU, on a par with imposing sanctions on a hostile regime. Again, which country is prepared to risk the condemnation of the international community as the provocateur prepared to risk ‘bringing violence back to Northern Ireland’?
Even in the unlikely event that another WTO member – Russia, say – did decide on such a provocation, the UK, Ireland and the EU would most likely cite in their defence Article XXI of the GATT. This states that, ‘Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed… to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests… taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations.’ In other words, WTO rules can be waived if a security risk is present. Given that the UK, Ireland and the EU all maintain that infrastructure on the Irish border would create such a security risk, Article XXI would seem to fully exempt them from constructing such infrastructure.
None of this is to say that the UK and Ireland will not take any action whatsoever in respect of the border in the event of ‘no deal’. There will be expectations from fellow WTO members that all sides will make ‘best efforts’ to abide by its rules – to the extent that security concerns permit. And of course, the EU will still be concerned with the integrity of its single market and customs union. If and when ‘no deal’ happens, Ireland and the EU will have no alternative but to work with the UK on the available practical solutions.
1/2
Once the border is freed from the stifling political constraints of the withdrawal negotiations, practical compromises will be possible. The UK has already proposed a customs waiver for small and medium-sized businesses, which account for around 80% of cross-border trade and for the most part trade only in local markets. There is also the potential for the EU to invoke the “frontier traffic exception” in Article XXIV(3) of the GATT, to declare the whole territory of Northern Ireland as a border region to the EU customs union. In strict legal terms, such measures would represent a **** (albeit a microscopic one in terms of value) in the wall of the EU’s Common External Tariff. But if the EU is serious about its commitment to no hard border in Ireland, it should be prepared to make such small compromises, just as the UK and Irish authorities have done since 1998. To use its own favourite phrase, the EU cannot ‘have its cake and eat it.’
For transport of plants and animals, given the obvious reality that diseases are incapable of transmitting themselves across huge bodies of water, a single sanitary and phytosanitary zone on the island of Ireland would make sense. Unlike the imposition of foreign regulatory and customs regimes, this would not have any constitutional implications. The EU already has a ‘common veterinary space’ with Switzerland, so there is no reason why it should not consent to one with Northern Ireland.
There is always a solution if the political will is there – the Good Friday Agreement itself is testament to that. The Good Friday Agreement also teaches us that it is only possible to reach solutions by de-dramatising the negotiating context and ensuring that all affected communities get to play their part – in other words, the very opposite of what is possible in the context of the UK-EU withdrawal negotiations. The Withdrawal Agreement’s backstop, with its indefinite nature and potential to undermine the Union, provides the very opposite of certainty for Northern Ireland. Only when the border issues are removed from the highly politicised context of the Brexit negotiations can the political posturing end and work on practical solutions begin. At present, only a ‘no deal’ outcome offers such a hope.
2/2
The Brexit Party leader made the 'dangerous and inaccurate' comments in a speech to a right-wing youth movement in the US
Nigel Farage has been slammed over 'dangerous and inaccurate' comments about black people in Oldham.
The Brexit party leader claimed there was a street in Oldham where one side was populated by black people and the other entirely by white people.
He claimed it was the kind of "divided society" where "resentments grow".
At the time of the last UK census in 2011, 2% of the population of Oldham was black, lower than the national average of 3.5%.
Mr Farage told the crowd on Friday night : "Let me take you to a town called Oldham in the North of England where literally on one side of the street everybody is white and on the other side of the street everybody is black.
Oldham MP Jim McMahon responded to the speech on Twitter writing: "Oldham is not defined by Farage, or anyone else looking to stoke up tensions and create division.
Nazir Afzal , former chief prosecutor in Greater Manchester, and now chairman at Rochdale's Hopwood Hall College, said Mr Farage was 'stoking racial tension'.
He said: "I know Oldham very well and this is dangerous scaremongering again from Farage, 'integration' is not 'assimilation'.
"All towns have their problems, but none are improved by him stoking racial tension.
"He’s a man with no answers, just bigotry.
And Oldham Labour councillor Cath Ball, who has lived in the town for 63 years said: "That's rubbish. His comments are dangerous and inacurrate because there are no streets in Oldham like that."
It's not the first time he's been accused of using spurious anecdotes to stir up racial tensions.
In 2014, Mr Farage was accused of making a "racial slur" when he said he would be concerned if Romanians moved in next door to him.
He told LBC Radio: “I was asked if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned? And if you lived in London, I think you would be.”
Asked whether he would also object to living next to German children, he said: “You know the difference.”
And also in 2014, he said he felt "awkward" on a train journey in London, claiming he had only heard foreign languages spoken around him.
He said: "I got the train the other night, it was rush hour, from Charing Cross, it was the stopper going out. We stopped at London Bridge, New Cross, Hither Green.
"It wasn't until after we got past Grove Park that I could actually hear English being audibly spoken in the carriage. Does that make me feel slightly awkward? Yes."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-slammed-over-dangerous-14968841
The Brexit Party is holding a rally in Newport. Join the Brexiteer fightback!
About this Event
Join us at the Neon Theatre Newport at 7:00pm on Tuesday 30th April.
Date And Time
Tue, 30 April 2019
19:00 – 21:00 BST
Location
The NEON
Clarence Place
Newport
NP19 7AB
United Kingdom
Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party plans to capitalise on its poll ratings with a tilt at a Westminster seat.
It will stand in Peterborough if a by-election is triggered later this week by a “recall” petition against the disgraced MP Fiona Onasanya.
The former Ukip leader’s new group has startled the main parties after polls put it on course to win the European parliament elections on May 23. Surveys have also suggested that large numbers of Conservative activists and even Tory councillors plan to vote for the Brexit Party.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/farag-s-brexit-party-eyes-seat-of-disgraced-ex-labour-mp-fiona-onasanya-z3gqj8pk5
Here is a full list of candidates by region:
Scotland
Louis Stedman-Bryce
Karina Walker
Jim Ferguson
Stuart Waiton
Paul Aitken
Calum Walker
West Midlands
Rupert Lowe
Martin Daubney
Andrew Kerr
Vishal Khatri
Nikki Page
Laura Kevehazi
Katharine Harborne
North West
Claire Fox
Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen
Dr David Bull
Gary Harvey
Ajay Jagota
Elizabeth Babade
Sally Bate
John Kelly
North East
Brian Monteith
John Tennant
Richard Monaghan
Wales
Nathan Gill
James Wells
Gethin James
Julie Price
Yorkshire
John Longworth
Lucy Harris
Jake Pugh
James Heartfield
Andrew Allison
Christopher Barker
1/2
South West
Ann Widdecombe
James Glancy
Christina Jordan
Ann Tarr
Roger Lane-Nott
Nicola Darke
East Midlands
Annunziata Rees-Mogg
Jonathan Bullock
Matthew Patten
Tracy Knowles
Anna Bailey
London
Ben Habib
Lance Forman
Graham Shore
Alka Sehgal Cuthbert
Adefolajimi Ogunnusi
Simon Marcus
Ajay Jogata
Aileen Quinton
Eastern
Richard Tice
Michael Heaver
June Mummery
Paul Hearn
Priscilla Huby
Sean Lever
Edmund Fordham
South East
Nigel Farage
Alexandra Phillips
Robert Rowland
Belinda De Lucy
James Bartholomew
Chris Ellis
John Kennedy
Matt Taylor
George Farmer
Peter Wiltshire
I am a European living in this country and I have just put myself forward as a candidate for the Brexit Party in the North West. I want to offer my experience of how the EU treats people who don’t agree with it. In June 2016, unlike most in this country, I felt that I had seen it all before. It took me back to 2nd June 1992 when the Danish people stood up to the might of the European establishment and voted ‘No’ to the undemocratic Maastricht Treaty. I was part of that campaign in Denmark and the sense of relief and elation in 2016 was on par with what I had felt over two decades before. The relief, however, was short-lived. We were lulled into a false sense of victory by the political class. What is happening in the UK now also happened in Denmark in 1992: the establishment did not like the answer the people gave them, so we were forced to vote again based on threats and spurious promises. The arguments in 1992 are the same as the arguments in 2019: the EU has a huge democratic deficit and Brussels is unaccountable, secretive and distant. This takes power away from people: a healthy democracy is when you bump into your elected representative in your local corner shop, not when you have to fly to Brussels to lobby them. The power in the EU does not lie with the elected politicians, it lies with the bureaucrats – and who is overseeing the bureaucrats? This is not democracy; do we really want a system in which money equates to political influence? And can anybody understand why the Labour Party is in favour of this? This is the Labour Party which was founded for the purpose of defending working-class communities against the elite. Now we find the Labour Party siding with the establishment and turning its back on those very communities. Five million Labour Leave voters have been left politically homeless and I say to those people: the Brexit Party will speak up for you. I have worked as an NHS dentist for over 20 years with people from all over the world, both from inside and outside the EU. At one point we had staff from more than thirteen countries – and that’s without counting the different countries from which our 130,000 patients come. Working with different people enriches your life and it is important that after leaving the EU we can still get the workforce from abroad we need. For this we need a system which allows immigration but which makes sure we get the immigration we need.
I am European; I even have an Italian rescue dog! I am far from being one of the 17.4 million xenophobes whom Chuka Umunna has claimed are among his fellow citizens. Support for Brexit is not only to be found on the right of the political spectrum, it is across the board, and the Brexit Party is a perfect example of that. Far-right parties do not speak for me, nor do they speak for the majority of this country. Having come here as a European immigrant over twenty years ago, I can safely say that the rhetoric which comes from those on the far right does not represent what I have experienced; Britain has been open and welcoming to me. The Brexit Party brings together people from all backgrounds and challenges the dangerous stereotype which media outlets like the BBC push. We Brexiteers are not a monolithic group of ignorant and uneducated voters who blindly supported Brexit because they liked Boris Johnson. How will they marry up the idea of me – a socialist, NHS dentist and trade union representative, who used to live in a commune – with being a Brexiteer? Britain is my home, I have brought my children up in this country and have worked, paid taxes and created jobs here for over 20 years. What happened in Denmark was that democracy was overturned, voters ignored and the decision of the people cast aside. I will not let that happen to the country I now call home. Voting for the Brexit Party is the way we can stop history repeating itself
https://brexitcentral.com/im-standing-for-the-brexit-party-to-stop-the-eu-overturning-democracy-as-they-did-in-my-native-denmark/
Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen is a candidate on the Brexit Party list in North West England at the 2019 European election. He is an NHS Dentist and a trade union representative who is a Danish national and was Co-Chair of the ‘No’ campaign during the Danish referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.
BRITAIN attracted more business investment from overseas last year than any other country in Europe, new figures revealed last night.
Data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) showed more than £1,400billion-worth of investment stock flowed into the UK from abroad during 2018. Only the US and China attracted more foreign capital and loans than this country during the 12-month period, the figures confirmed. International Trade Secretary Liam Fox MP said the total - more than the foreign investment in Germany, Spain and Poland combined - showed that doom mongers who predicted an economic downturn after the 2016 referendum vote to quit the EU had been proved wrong again.
“The latest OECD figures show the UK remains one of the world’s most attractive destinations for foreign investment.
“Those who would talk down Britain’s economic performance are proven wrong once again,” the Tory Cabinet minister said.
He added: “We are the investment capital of Europe attracting far more than any of our closest competitors.
“International investors continue to recognise the fundamental strengths of our economy – everything from our predictable legal system to our world-leading financial services.
“Foreign direct investment creates jobs, deepens ties with key markets around the world and underpins Britain’s credentials as the global champion of free trade.
“My international economic department will ensure the benefits of foreign direct investment continue to be felt right across the country.”
Data from the OECD also showed foreign investment in the UK increased by 5 percent during 2018 compared with the previous year.
The OECD figures showed that, as of December 2018, Germany held £920billion inward investment stock while Spain held £500billion and Poland held £177billion.
Yesterday’s figures followed a survey published by the financial firm EY earlier this month which said the UK had defied Brexit uncertainty to become the most attractive country in the world for business investment over the coming year.
“While the UK’s position may surprise some, given current uncertainty, mergers and acquisitions activity during the period since the 2016 EU referendum has remained strong,” the EY survey said.
The fall in the value of the pound since the 2016 Brexit referendum was not a major driver of foreign investment in Britain, according to the report.
“By and large, deals are driven by strategic rationale not currency movements,” said Steve Krouskos, EY’s global vice chair for transaction advisory services.
“What hasn’t changed is that the UK has great companies, great talent, great tech and great investment potential. These assets attract capital. Also, remember the UK isn’t the only country dealing with significant geopolitical challenges.”
The biannual EY survey was based on responses from more than 2,900 senior executives from around the world.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1120639/brexit-news-eu-negotiation-uk-business-investment-latest-update-liam-fox