Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Capt'n Midnight

devnull wrote: »

He's just stated that there's already a border between NI and ROI and if it gets a bit harder it won't cause many problems,

Yeah, we tried that before

There were 27,000 troops and still 40% of the vehicle fuel in the entire province was smuggled or laundered.

And 3,000 people died.

Kermit.de.frog

Bambi wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the pool has a deep end for NI, if the backstop is temporary and has mutual review clause then its just an inflatable paddling pool that the Brits can pack up.

Unless there's a proper backstop then the EU used the peace process to screw as much out of the UK as they could before they shafted Varadker.

Apparently the text includes the words "unless and until" relating to the NI border.

But we don't know yet.

Nody

Bambi wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the pool has a deep end for NI, if the backstop is temporary and has mutual review clause then its just an inflatable paddling pool that the Brits can pack up.

Unless there's a proper backstop then the EU used the peace process to screw as much out of the UK as they could before they shafted Varadker.

Every month there appears to be someone on here claiming how "EU is shafting Ireland" over some UK spread rumour of this or that; to date every single time it's been proven wrong. Now yet again we're having people coming out claiming Ireland is shafted based on BS out of the UK; when will people learn to actually get a real source (since apparently all of UK are high on fairy dust these days based on what they are claiming as facts and arguments) before panicking?

Kermit.de.frog

Telegraph reporting in tomorrows paper that the ECJ will have a significant role in the review mechanism for the backstop.

Water John

Nody, really agree with you on that. Drives me to pull out my hair, what little is left of it. Of course one watches one's back when negotiating.

LeinsterDub

Bambi wrote: »

It doesn't matter if the pool has a deep end for NI, if the backstop is temporary and has mutual review clause then its just an inflatable paddling pool that the Brits can pack up.

Unless there's a proper backstop then the EU used the peace process to screw as much out of the UK as they could before they shafted Varadker.

You do know mutual means we both have to agree?

Dyr

Nody wrote: »

Every month there appears to be someone on here claiming how "EU is shafting Ireland" over some UK spread rumour of this or that; to date every single time it's been proven wrong. Now yet again we're having people coming out claiming Ireland is shafted based on BS out of the UK; when will people learn to actually get a real source (since apparently all of UK are high on fairy dust these days based on what they are claiming as facts and arguments) before panicking?

I'm basing that off RTE's reporting, specifically:

"The backstop will come in the form of a temporary UK-wide customs arrangement, with specific provisions for Northern Ireland, which go deeper on the issue of customs and alignment on the rules of the single market than for the rest of the UK.

It is understood the text has an agreed review mechanism."

That's fairly stark.

prawnsambo

Bambi wrote: »

I'm basing that off RTE's reporting, specifically:

"The backstop will come in the form of a temporary UK-wide customs arrangement, with specific provisions for Northern Ireland, which go deeper on the issue of customs and alignment on the rules of the single market than for the rest of the UK.

It is understood the text has an agreed review mechanism."

That's fairly stark.

What's the problem with that? We agreed to a review mechanism before. What we didn't agree to was a unilateral one which the UK wanted.

LeinsterDub

Bambi wrote: »

I'm basing that off RTE's reporting, specifically:

"The backstop will come in the form of a temporary UK-wide customs arrangement, with specific provisions for Northern Ireland, which go deeper on the issue of customs and alignment on the rules of the single market than for the rest of the UK.

It is understood the text has an agreed review mechanism."

That's fairly stark.

Possible review mechanism
UK : We've discovered unicorns, can we leave now?
EU : No you haven't away with ye.
UK : Okay we'll talk again in six months

Kermit.de.frog

Bambi wrote: »

I'm basing that off RTE's reporting, specifically:

"The backstop will come in the form of a temporary UK-wide customs arrangement, with specific provisions for Northern Ireland, which go deeper on the issue of customs and alignment on the rules of the single market than for the rest of the UK.



It is understood the text has an agreed review mechanism."

That's fairly stark.

But to avoid a land border that has to mean full alignment north and south. No matter how the British try to sell it that is the reality.

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

NI will be staying in the Single Market and will have "deeper" customs alignment than GB.

What more do you want?

If not have it called a NI specific backstop gets it over the line - that is just language.

If the upshot is, as seems to be the case, that the UK as a whole will be kept in a customs union in the medium term until something better comes along through a future trade deal, and at the same time there will be full north south alignment, then I would call that complete victory for the Irish position over the desires of the hardline Brexiteers.

Mr.Nice Guy

Tom Newton Dunn now claiming there will be an independent arbitration panel:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1062473626165960705

I'm worried about this as I can detect echoes of the shambolic Boundary Commission that Lloyd George sold Collins and the Irish delegates on.

I agree with Peter Foster that what's crucial is whether or not the UK can leave the backstop.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1062480946237263873

Dyr

prawnsambo wrote: »

What's the problem with that? We agreed to a review mechanism before. What we didn't agree to was a unilateral one which the UK wanted.

A temporary backstop with a review is a far cry from that cast iron guarantee. Recall Varadkers comments that a temporary backstop is not a backstop at all. Apparently it may be now


Then cast your mind back the that anonymous British civil servants comment that everyone guffawed at:


“The PM will be able to say there’s no more backstop, we’ve got rid of that — success,” a senior Whitehall source said. “It is UK-wide — success. There’s an exit mechanism — success. And you’ve got Canada. The small print is that Ireland is f*****.”

Sounds like he might have been more on the money that we thought :eek:

prawnsambo

Bambi wrote: »

A temporary backstop with a review is a far cry from that cast iron guarantee. Recall Varadkers comments that a temporary backstop is not a backstop at all. Apparently it may be now


Then cast your mind back the that anonymous British civil servants comment that everyone guffawed at:


“The PM will be able to say there’s no more backstop, we’ve got rid of that — success,” a senior Whitehall source said. “It is UK-wide — success. There’s an exit mechanism — success. And you’ve got Canada. The small print is that Ireland is f*****.”

Sounds like he might have been more on the money that we thought :eek:

Varadkar's comments were in relation to a time-limited backstop. A review mechanism was never an issue except if it was unilateral. Leinster Dub paraphrased a joke that went around twitter about the unicorn farm when that was first mooted.

And you're basing all this on some tweets that are at best second hand and probably more likely to be third hand. Most of them don't even agree with each other.

CelticRambler

Could Theresa be hedging her bets? It's obvious to everyone (surely including TM?) that too many red lines have made any kind of "clean" or simple Brexit unworkable. So what to do? Based on what we know of her personality, she likes - needs -time to think through her options, and the only way she can play for more time is to get a "status quo" type Withdrawal Agreement.

Even if it triggers a lot of ranting and raving on behalf of the ERG, she can probably mollify them with a promise that she hasn't sold the UK's soul to the EU, and if they'll just cooperate for another couple of years (even if that means hollering at her from the sidelines) the Tories can stay in power long enough to prove that they are The Greatest British Party and win the next election.

In the meantime, they can use that time to remove the most troublesome part of the whole process - that parasitic province that costs so much and that nobody in England really cares about.

So keep the whole of the UK in the CU for now, and leave NI in the SM (east-west checks if necessary) with the intention of encouraging the local population to think seriously about a UI when England goes her own way at the end of the transition period.

As for the DUP ...? Feck 'em.

boardise

It's a beautiful Brexit Sundae -pure creamy fudge encased in spongy marshmallow and tastefully topped off with nuts....but nutters guaranteed not to like it.

Dyr

prawnsambo wrote: »

Varadkar's comments were in relation to a time-limited backstop. A review mechanism was never an issue except if it was unilateral. Leinster Dub paraphrased a joke that went around twitter about the unicorn farm when that was first mooted.

And you're basing all this on some tweets that are at best second hand and probably more likely to be third hand. Most of them don't even agree with each other.

I'm basing it on the wording RTE used, which is probably straight from the Government Press Office.

Tomorrow will tell. The backstop detail is crucial. Arbitration, mutual review etc. can be utterly meaningless by design. I suspect the EU blinked massively or watered down the backstop in return for something that they really wanted.

prawnsambo

Yeah, the DUP are not happy. They've even written a strongly worded letter. And BoJo is appalled at the vassallage. And JRM is working up a suitably obscure latin reference to the Punic wars or Carthage that everyone can admire for its literacy.

Everyone's happy.

Mr.Nice Guy

Bambi wrote: »

Then cast your mind back the that anonymous British civil servants comment that everyone guffawed at:


“The PM will be able to say there’s no more backstop, we’ve got rid of that — success,” a senior Whitehall source said. “It is UK-wide — success. There’s an exit mechanism — success. And you’ve got Canada. The small print is that Ireland is f*****.”

Sounds like he might have been more on the money that we thought :eek:

I've been thinking about that comment myself the last few hours.

All comes down to the manner of the exit mechanism. If the UK has a right to a unilateral exit, or something so hollow that it may as well amount to that, then Ireland will have been dealt a huge blow.

Irish cabinet said to be meeting at 9:30am tomorrow so we should know more around then.

Imreoir2

Bambi wrote: »

A temporary backstop with a review is a far cry from that cast iron guarantee. Recall Varadkers comments that a temporary backstop is not a backstop at all. Apparently it may be now


Then cast your mind back the that anonymous British civil servants comment that everyone guffawed at:


“The PM will be able to say there’s no more backstop, we’ve got rid of that — success,” a senior Whitehall source said. “It is UK-wide — success. There’s an exit mechanism — success. And you’ve got Canada. The small print is that Ireland is f*****.”

Sounds like he might have been more on the money that we thought :eek:

I think we are very easily been taken in by optics to soften the blow for the British.

The origional backstop proposal was always intended to be temporary, only being used if necessary and only until the a deal was agreed with the UK that would supersede the backstop. The backstop being temporary is nothing new, the only question was if there would be a specific end date. Clearly this was unacceptable and it seems obvious that the UK has conceeded on this point.

As for a review, again this was always the case. Nothing new here either. The backstop was always intended to exist unless and untill it was superseded by some other arnagement. Obviously it was always the case that should the backstop come into force, a review would be needed to determine if a future trade arangement was sufficient to replace the backstop. If this implyed review process is explicitly spelled out in the agreement then I really can't see how this could be a problem for us. The only question is if this review allows the UK to unilaterally walk away from the backstop regardless of it being needed. I think it is clear enough that the UK won't ba able to unilaterally walk away, so another win for us.

If the UK is willing to spin issues that were part of the proposal from the outset as a concession and as a win for the UK, the best of luck to them, god knows they have little enought to crow about.

Strazdas

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Tom Newton Dunn now claiming there will be an independent arbitration panel:

The overall deal sounds terrible for the UK. If I was a British MP, I would vote against it myself. The UK could end up trapped for ten years or more in a "temporary" bargain basement customs union, with no way out of it or back into the EU.

Water John

A time limited back stop was what was not wanted. A review mechanism is fine. I presume both sides have to agree that sufficient progress is made so it's not unilateral.

prawnsambo

Bambi wrote: »

I'm basing it on the wording RTE used, which is probably straight from the Government Press Office.

Tomorrow will tell. The backstop detail is crucial. Arbitration, mutual review etc. can be utterly meaningless by design. I suspect the EU blinked massively or watered down the backstop in return for something that they really wanted.

You're still pushing the betrayal angle. Seriously get a grip.

Before it even gets to the EU Council and the MEPs, it has to get through the cabinet and the HoC. There are 500 pages in it. I guarantee you that nobody in the press has read those 500 pages or even seen them.

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

The overall deal sounds terrible for the UK. If I was a British MP, I would vote against it myself. The UK could end up trapped for ten years or more in a "temporary" bargain basement customs union, with no way out of it or back into the EU.

Yeah. This is the 'vassallage" that BoJo was complaining about.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. This is the 'vassallage" that BoJo was complaining about.

I should stress I am totally blaming the Brexiteers for this fiasco, but it's still a very bad deal for them.

Mr.Nice Guy

Laura Kuenssberg's blog tonight would worry the DUP's base.

But there is, in the agreement, the potential for a different regime for Northern Ireland. Sources close to the process admit privately that they haven't managed to remove the controversy.

How could they when for months, the difficulties of the conundrums have been plain for all to see.

Northern Ireland will, according to one insider familiar with the contents, under the backstop essentially be in the single market and therefore under the rules of the EU courts and the Commission.

The DUP's fury is already obvious tonight and that's even before they have seen that detail. But it's suggested that the final draft is worse for them than the speculation that had already made them fume.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46203429

Wednesday is going to be fascinating. Anything could happen.

Econ__

The independent arbitration mechanism will be nothing more than a fig leaf for Brexiters. They know this well, hence their anger. You can't arbitrate whether or not a party is behaving in bad faith with regards working towards creating an alternative unicorn solution.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

The overall deal sounds terrible for the UK. If I was a British MP, I would vote against it myself. The UK could end up trapped for ten years or more in a "temporary" bargain basement customs union, with no way out of it or back into the EU.

There is a way out of it. In fact there are two ways out of it; they are set out in the Joint Report, and they are the ways that the UK itself wanted to have out of it.

(Of course, we haven't see the draft Agreement yet. It's possible that it now rules out those two ways out. But I would be astonished if that were the case; there has been no hint of it anywhere, and there is no reason why the EU would seek this, or the UK accept it.)

As for no way back into the EU, of course there is. Post-Brexit, the UK can become a candidate for membership any time it likes.

I get that the backstop arrangement is not a terribly comfortable place for the UK. But, then, it's not a terribly comfortable place for the EU either. It's not supposed to be. It's a temporary arrangement, remember; it's supposed to be superseded by more permanent arrangements, but the incentive to develop these (and to make the compromises necessary to agree them) is weaker if the temporary arrangement is too comfortable. So this is more a feature than a bug.

How would what seems to have been written do against Labour's six tests?

Rhineshark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How would what seems to have been written do against Labour's six tests?

Falls on the first hurdle - as literally any option bar Remain would.