badgerx16

I think the proposal is that there will be a "technological solution" that precludes the need for physical infrastructure or deployment of manpower. The fact that nobody has any idea whether such a solution is possible within years, let alone 2 months, is irrelevant.

Post #13219; BoJo said before the referendum vote that the Irish border would "remain absolutely unchanged". "There's been a free travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland for, I think, getting on for 100 years, there's no reason at all why that should cease to be the case." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452 "Theresa Villiers, then Northern Ireland secretary, said the border would “remain as free-flowing after a Brexit vote as it is today” and anyone suggesting otherwise was “scaremongering”." http://www.irishnews.com/news/2016/04/18/news/irish-border-concerns-over-brexit-scaremongering-theresa-villiers-489126/

Boris is playing a game. He has previously said that the Irish border will remain exactly as it is now, disregarding the changes that must occur if we leave the EU. His position is that if the UK doesn't impose controls, Eire daren't. Delusion or bravado ?

Instant hero.

Yes, but you have to put the Brexiteer spin on things.

But they are saying that this proposal shows that the EU side is beginning to give ground.

I suppose, as Saints fans, we are at least used to our team playing a side without a win in 13 matches and losing.

Hope our batting turns up, because the bowling certainly hasn't.

This is the opinion of Roberto Azevedo, Director General of the WTO; ( https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/jumping-from-league-one-to-league-three-wto-insiders-scathing-assessments-of-a-wto-brexit ) "What is the truth of the matter? Alarmingly, when I put this question to Azevêdo, he said Gatt 24 would simply not apply with a no-deal outcome. “Article XXIV of the GATT is simply the provision of global trade law under which free trade agreements and customs unions are concluded,” he explained. The problem is that it only kicks in in the event of such a deal being struck. “If there is no agreement, then Article XXIV would not apply, and the standard WTO terms would.”"

Make up your own minds and interpretations, this is GATT Article 24. To my mind, para © stating "shall include" is pretty definitve; 5. Accordingly, the provisions of this Agreement shall not prevent, as between the territories of contracting parties, the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area or the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area; Provided that: (a) with respect to a customs union, or an interim agreement leading to a formation of a customs union, the duties and other regulations of commerce imposed at the institution of any such union or interim agreement in respect of trade with contracting parties not parties to such union or agreement shall not on the whole be higher or more restrictive than the general incidence of the duties and regulations of commerce applicable in the constituent territories prior to the formation of such union or the adoption of such interim agreement, as the case may be; (b) with respect to a free-trade area, or an interim agreement leading to the formation of a free-trade area, the duties and other regulations of commerce maintained in each of the constituent territories and applicable at the formation of such free–trade area or the adoption of such interim agreement to the trade of contracting parties not included in such area or not parties to such agreement shall not be higher or more restrictive than the corresponding duties and other regulations of commerce existing in the same constituent territories prior to the formation of the free-trade area, or interim agreement as the case may be; and © any interim agreement referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall include a plan and schedule for the formation of such a customs union or of such a free-trade area within a reasonable length of time.

And yet you still voted leave !

The Department for Education guidance contains " worst case" scenarios that include a lack of food for school dinners due to panic buying and price hikes post October 31st.

Now that is where Brexiteers hold the advantage, as we would almost certainly have to join as a new member state, and consequently demonstrate "the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union".

The current Parliamentary session was intended to run until Brexit had been "delivered", and was initially slated to run until July 25th 2019, and return for a new session on 3rd September 2019. Ironically, now that BoJo has requested prorogation, all the Brexit related bills currently being processed will now be suspended and have to be restarted in the new session.

Blackpool had their own version of a financial meltdown with the Oyston's creaming off the money that the club didn't spend on players, including a fair chunk of the parachute payments. During their one season in the Premier League the club, "owned" by Karl Oyston, paid a company owned by his father Owen, who was barred from owning any football club, 11 million pounds.

If the Scots get independence, would the Welsh try to follow suit ? So much for the Conservative and Unionist party.

You have to take account of the effect that Scotland's IndeyRef2 would have on the numbers, plus the potential for NI moving politically closer to Eire. As the thread title suggests, BoJo may well be presiding over the 'Death of the United Kingdom'.

If ever a post required a childish put down, it is this one. However, I cannot lower myself to your level in order to deliver it.

If you believe we will leave an open border, you are deluded.

What an excellent way to demonstrate how we will be restoring the sovereignty of Parliament. ( And point 'd' in Whitey's post above is probably the single most important issue in considering the economic cost of Brexit ).

Have to admit this is a finesse of the highest order, and shows up the disastrous approach and tactics of the opposition, who have been more obsessed with fighting each other than presenting a united front, and should have seen this coming. Looks like "no-deal" is coming, Cassandra is going to find out how accurate her prophesies will prove to be.

Who ? ;-)

What's the point in having a first strike capability if you are not willing to use it ?

The thread title says it all. ( Thank goodness for a very poor umpiring decision, and a very poor Australian review in the over before it ).