View Poll Results: 10 days left, what'll it be?

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hard Brexit (crash out)

    45 48.91%
  • No Brexit (Remain by revoking A50)

    24 26.09%
  • Withdrawal Agreement (after a new session is called)

    0 0%
  • Extension + Withdrawal Agreement

    3 3.26%
  • Extension + Crashout

    9 9.78%
  • Extension + Remain

    11 11.96%
  1. #20361
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    If you go with a WTO deal it'll be the WTO sueing you for not having a backstop. Genius plan.
    The backstop has absolutely nothing to do with the WTO nor would they sue the UK.

  2. #20362
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    The backstop has absolutely nothing to do with the WTO nor would they sue the UK.
    Wrong.

    You would be breaking one of the few WTO rules, namely that you need to apply the same rules for trade for every nation.

    A judicial panel would need to be formed at WTO level to handle the complaints and it could result in fines or getting expelled from the WTO as being declared a rogue state, for not adhering to WTO rules.

  3. #20363
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    Wrong.

    You would be breaking one of the few WTO rules, namely that you need to apply the same rules for trade for every nation.

    A judicial panel would need to be formed at WTO level to handle the complaints and it could result in fines or getting expelled from the WTO as being declared a rogue state.
    No it is not.

    The backstop is a potential bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU has nothing to do with most favoured nation clause.

    The WTO certainly deal with complaints however do not sue nations, as you claimed, nor do they fine nations although they negotiate mutually acceptable compensation (which is not defined), if compensation is not agreed then they may grant retaliatory measures. However this is all moot since the backstop has nothing to do with the WTO.

  4. #20364
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bouncing coins off my witcher.
    Posts
    45,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    No it is not.

    The backstop is a potential bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU
    The reason for it needing to exist in the first place are WTO rules that would preclude the UK unilaterally leaving the border with Ireland open.

    You're gonna get to China at this rate.

    Delenda Est.

  5. #20365
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    20,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    No it is not.

    The backstop is a potential bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU has nothing to do with most favoured nation clause.

    The WTO certainly deal with complaints however do not sue nations, as you claimed, nor do they fine nations although they negotiate mutually acceptable compensation (which is not defined), if compensation is not agreed then they may grant retaliatory measures. However this is all moot since the backstop has nothing to do with the WTO.
    You are aware that we're talking about a world without the backstop?

    So an entirely open border between the EU and the UK without any agreement between them whatsoever.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before.

    A bunch of times actually.

  6. #20366
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    No it is not.

    The backstop is a potential bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU has nothing to do with most favoured nation clause.

    The WTO certainly deal with complaints however do not sue nations, as you claimed, nor do they fine nations although they negotiate mutually acceptable compensation (which is not defined), if compensation is not agreed then they may grant retaliatory measures. However this is all moot since the backstop has nothing to do with the WTO.
    Not having a border or backstop with Ireland breaks basic WTO laws. Same goes for Ireland.

  7. #20367
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    The reason for it needing to exist in the first place are WTO rules that would preclude the UK unilaterally leaving the border with Ireland open.

    You're gonna get to China at this rate.
    What does your post have to do with mine? Where did I mention anything about the reasons why it was needed? And why have you clipped the end of my sentence which states that the backstop has nothing to do with most favoured nation clause in order to go on about the most favoured nation clause?

  8. #20368
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    20,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    Not having a border or backstop with Ireland breaks basic WTO laws. Same goes for Ireland.
    Not according to WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell. It could, however, lead to a bunch of complaints.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before.

    A bunch of times actually.

  9. #20369
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    Wrong.

    You would be breaking one of the few WTO rules, namely that you need to apply the same rules for trade for every nation.

    A judicial panel would need to be formed at WTO level to handle the complaints and it could result in fines or getting expelled from the WTO as being declared a rogue state, for not adhering to WTO rules.
    The WTO would not sue anyone because that is not their job. If the border was kept open, other nations would press complaints in the WTO against the UK. If the RoI also did not guarantee their border, they'd also get complaints and very heavy complaints within the EU. It would be a mess but let's not confuse the WTO; it's an arbitrator and its rulings are only binding by mutual acceptance of the members (which is why it is so easy to undermine the WTO as the US is flagrantly doing right now).

    There could be any number of other legal concerns of course, primarily by the citizens of NI who by the GFA have a right to call upon the ECJ
    Hail Lilith and see you in Hell!

  10. #20370
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    Not having a border or backstop with Ireland breaks basic WTO laws. Same goes for Ireland.
    No. it doesn't. Without an agreement, whether that is a bilateral agreement, trilateral, full FTA, etc, then under WTO terms the UK must treat all nations equally. The UK if it wishes to can choose not to enforce its border with the ROI, this is not a breach of WTO rules, however it must then do the same for all other nations. The backstop is simply an agreement between two trading bodies it has nothing to do with the WTO.

  11. #20371
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    Not having a border or backstop with Ireland breaks basic WTO laws. Same goes for Ireland.
    To reiterate on what @Pann says, there is no ruling that expressly requires a border. What is needed is a comprehensive method of tariff collection. Of course we don't really have such a method beyond an enforced border but in legal terms if alternative arrangements could be made that would satisfy all stakeholders it would be OK.
    Also the WTO does not have "laws" it's not a legal body. It has rules.
    Hail Lilith and see you in Hell!

  12. #20372
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bouncing coins off my witcher.
    Posts
    45,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    No. it doesn't. Without an agreement, whether that is a bilateral agreement, trilateral, full FTA, etc, then under WTO terms the UK must treat all nations equally. The UK if it wishes to can choose not to enforce its border with the ROI, this is not a breach of WTO rules, however it must then do the same for all other nations.
    What the fuck is the point of Brexit then?

    It's almost like you lot ran into this without thinking about a) how you were going to get there or b) what the result would be.

    Delenda Est.

  13. #20373
    It is also worth noting that no Backstop means no trade deal with the US, so maybe it would be worthwhile to reconsider ones priorities.

  14. #20374
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    20,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    No. it doesn't. Without an agreement, whether that is a bilateral agreement, trilateral, full FTA, etc, then under WTO terms the UK must treat all nations equally. The UK if it wishes to can choose not to enforce its border with the ROI, this is not a breach of WTO rules, however it must then do the same for all other nations. The backstop is simply an agreement between two trading bodies it has nothing to do with the WTO.
    You're not making much sense here.

    The backstop can't be something that prevents complaints from WTO members and at the same time has nothing to do with the WTO.
    Last edited by Mayhem; 2019-06-21 at 04:17 PM. Reason: figured 1 at the same time is enough ^^
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before.

    A bunch of times actually.

  15. #20375
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bouncing coins off my witcher.
    Posts
    45,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    You're not making much sense here.

    The backstop can't at the same time be something that prevents complaints from WTO members and at the same time has nothing to do with the WTO.
    It's almost as good as "the WTO can't sue the UK because it's not legally binding".

    Okay. Does that make being kicked out for being a rogue state a preferable option, then? At this rate we're going to end up with the Democratic People's Republic of England being bordered by EU states.

    Delenda Est.

  16. #20376
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    What the fuck is the point of Brexit then?

    It's almost like you lot ran into this without thinking about a) how you were going to get there or b) what the result would be.
    What's the point of your post? It has nothing do with anything I have written.

  17. #20377
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    20,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    To reiterate on what @Pann says, there is no ruling that expressly requires a border. What is needed is a comprehensive method of tariff collection. Of course we don't really have such a method beyond an enforced border but in legal terms if alternative arrangements could be made that would satisfy all stakeholders it would be OK.
    Also the WTO does not have "laws" it's not a legal body. It has rules.
    Pann is nitpicking about the need for a border, you know because he needs to be correct. That it's not relevant to the problem, the discussion, or anything really doesn't matter, because, in the end, he can claim to be right about something he brought up.

    /golfclap
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before.

    A bunch of times actually.

  18. #20378
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bouncing coins off my witcher.
    Posts
    45,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    What's the point of your post? It has nothing do with anything I have written.
    That you're playing a fairly stupid game of semantics to try and blunt the fact that a WTO trade agreement is bad and would necessitate a hard border with Ireland unless the entire point of Brexit is nullified entirely.

    You're literally arguing that the threat of a WTO deal is toothless because England has the recourse of opening its borders completely if they don't get their way on Brexit.

    Which is about as sensible a strategy as Brexit itself, so I can see the connection.

    Delenda Est.

  19. #20379
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    That you're playing a fairly stupid game of semantics to try and blunt the fact that a WTO trade agreement is bad and would necessitate a hard border with Ireland unless the entire point of Brexit is nullified entirely.

    You're literally arguing that the threat of a WTO deal is toothless because England has the recourse of opening its borders completely if they don't get their way on Brexit.

    Which is about as sensible a strategy as Brexit itself, so I can see the connection.
    No, I am not. Nor is what you have written in any way factual. WTO terms are what nations trade on in the absence of a trade agreement nor would trading on WTO require a border, as has been explained.

    Again no I am not.

    Don't try to put words in my mouth because you do not understand what is being talked about!

  20. #20380
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    20,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    No, I am not. Nor is what you have written in any way factual. WTO terms are what nations trade on in the absence of a trade agreement nor would trading on WTO require a border, as has been explained.
    That while true is a useless post because trading on WTO without being able to impose any quotas or tariffs on anything makes it not really trading on WTO at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before.

    A bunch of times actually.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •