Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Kermit.de.frog

Doesn't say whether the NI specific backstop is still there or not.

It's suppose to be there as the backstop to the backstop.

Barnier says checks could be made at factories by British officials which suggests it is still there.

Indestructable

Also its cobbled together from over a dozen sources. I am not sure how reliable that can be.

An Ciarraioch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Doesn't say whether the NI specific backstop is still there or not.

It's suppose to be there as the backstop to the backstop.

Barnier says checks could be made at factories by British officials which suggests it is still there.

Sounds basically like a summary of the last week's stories, so the NI backstop "wouldn't have to be used", but must be included in the text for Ireland to sign off on it.

Kermit.de.frog

Actually under the deal as described there there is regulatory checks between GB and NI regardless of any backstop.

This can't all be checked at factories in UK. There would have to be expansion in the scale of checks (probably to 100% I would have thought) on animal products that already exist at the ports.

judeboy101

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Doesn't say whether the NI specific backstop is still there or not.

It's suppose to be there as the backstop to the backstop.

Barnier says checks could be made at factories by British officials which suggests it is still there.

"exit clause" = no backstop

Kermit.de.frog

So I take this to mean -


UK gets an exit clause as major concession.

BUT if the UK acts on that exit clause the backstop will kick in - thus NI is treated differently at that point if that happened.


That's got to be the way it will work?

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Actually under the deal as described there there is regulatory checks between GB and NI regardless of any backstop.

This can't all be checked at factories in UK. There would have to be expansion in the scale of checks (probably to 100% I would have thought) on animal products that already exist at the ports.

Seems like the deal is that the whole of the UK will be in a (the) customs union with the EU. This will mean that NI will not be left on its own in the customs union but they will drag the whole UK into the customs union. This is actually a good thing but I doubt the ERG and their trade deals, or Theresa May for that matter, will agree.

There will still be a backstop but the Withdrawal Agreement will mean the backstop will not be needed right now. If however after the transition and a trade deal is struck where the UK is not in a customs union any longer then it will be there, in the background. By that time you assume the DUP will not have the influence they have now. This is the same language that the UK has always used, there will need to be a backstop but the deal they will sign with the EU will make it obsolete.

Also, as others have mentioned, checks will still be needed but they can be done in factories in the UK. But say it slowly, checks will still be done.

It will really come down to if the DUP will throw their toys out of the pram as the deal is basically what we know it will always be, and whether the ERG will be happy about the UK not doing their own trade deals.

Then we also have those pesky red lines from May, but they seems to have become more and more opaque as time has gone on.

Kermit.de.frog

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems like the deal is that the whole of the UK will be in a (the) customs union with the EU. This will mean that NI will not be left on its own in the customs union but they will drag the whole UK into the customs union. This is actually a good thing but I doubt the ERG and their trade deals, or Theresa May for that matter, will agree.

There will still be a backstop but the Withdrawal Agreement will mean the backstop will not be needed right now. If however after the transition and a trade deal is struck where the UK is not in a customs union any longer then it will be there, in the background. By that time you assume the DUP will not have the influence they have now. This is the same language that the UK has always used, there will need to be a backstop but the deal they will sign with the EU will make it obsolete.

Also, as others have mentioned, checks will still be needed but they can be done in factories in the UK. But say it slowly, checks will still be done.

It will really come down to if the DUP will throw their toys out of the pram as the deal is basically what we know it will always be, and whether the ERG will be happy about the UK not doing their own trade deals.

Then we also have those pesky red lines from May, but they seems to have become more and more opaque as time has gone on.

It means NI staying in the SM. That's essentially what it means. They can keep a lot checks away from the ports. Can't do it for all of them though.


Think we need more info. Downing street describing it as just speculation.

Enzokk

judeboy101 wrote: »

"exit clause" = no backstop

We don't know if this article is close to the deal but if the UK has an exit clause from the customs union and there is no backstop then there is no reason for us to agree to anything. The reason we want a backstop is to guarantee no border. If there is a customs union with the whole of the UK then the backstop is not needed. It doesn't mean it isn't there. I still think there will be one but they will sell the WA as not needing it, even if it is there.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It means NI staying in the SM. That's essentially what it means. They can keep a lot checks away from the ports. Can't do it for all of them though.


Think we need more info. Downing street describing it as just speculation.

That is how I read it as well. The article is not anything new that the EU has offered, the customs union and single market options has always been there for the UK to choose.

If this article is accurate I find it fascinating that they are trying to sell a deal that was there all along as a concession. But I guess they need to do that to get it through, I do fear that with the rhetoric of May this is still not possible though. She will have to walk back substantially to get this through.

Kermit.de.frog

The backstop will indeed still be there according to reporters/

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1058847879350177792

Still does not make much sense for the unionists. UK will diverge inevitably.

It's a ticking clock.

Kermit.de.frog

The Irish version of the Sunday Times seems to have a little extra detail but can't squint my eyes enough.

Mr.Nice Guy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Still does not make much sense for the unionists. UK will diverge inevitably.

It's a ticking clock.

I see Nigel Dodds has retweeted that from Nick Gutteridge which would appear to suggest he shares that assessment. DUP about to go in hard against this in the coming days I wonder?

Imreoir2

judeboy101 wrote: »

"exit clause" = no backstop

That largely depends on the clause itself, if it is: you can leave if and when there is a successor agreement that ensures no hard border, then we get what we want and they technically have an exit clause.

Strazdas

Indestructable wrote: »

Also its cobbled together from over a dozen sources. I am not sure how reliable that can be.

Some people are speculating that far from it being a "deal", it is little more than a plan that has been cobbled together by May herself to be submitted to her Cabinet ie. just another version of Chequers and the EU haven't agreed to it at all.

In that case, we may still be some way off any progress.

murphaph

I'll wait until Barnier confirms anything but if true it pushes yet more red tape onto British industry. Brexit will be responsible for checks on potential employees entering a factory and goods leaving it! What a joke.

First Up

A Customs Union was always the only workable solution and it is what British industry has been imploring the UK government to do.

The terms of a CU are clear; it means the UK will give up their first class seat in the Single Market and move to the luggage van but at least they will still be on the train.

The problem now is how to explain reality to the Brexiteers.

Angry bird

First Up wrote: »

A Customs Union was always the only workable solution and it is what British industry has been imploring the UK government to do.

The terms of a CU are clear; it means the UK will give up their first class seat in the Single Market and move to the luggage van but at least they will still be on the train.

The problem now is how to explain reality to the Brexiteers.

Many think that this still means being in the EU, betrayal of Brexit vote etc. They'll never be convinced otherwise. The great betrayal/victim myth began yesterday.

Alan_P

Angry bird wrote: »

Many think that this still means being in the EU, betrayal of Brexit vote etc. They'll never be convinced otherwise. The great betrayal/victim myth began yesterday.

I hope you don't know and mean the 1918 version of that. I suspect you do.

Angry bird

Alan_P wrote: »

I hope you don't know and mean the 1918 version of that. I suspect you do.

No, that would be too much of a stretch. I mean a sort of political and English civil war between remainders and leavers. That'll be played out over the next decade or so, with the union under threat. Throw in a recession and it's all very unpredictable.

Mc Love

Anyone see Andrew Maxwell on politics live. It is hilarious

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1058342177607041024?s=19

And the follow up,


https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1058341895515004928?s=19

Enzokk

Another day and more revelations of more misconduct from Arron Banks and the Leave campaign. Lets see what Marr actually asks him.

Arron Banks faces new claims of misleading MPs over Brexit

The controversial businessman Arron Banks may have misled parliament over links between his pro-Brexit campaign and his insurance business during the EU referendum, according to explosive correspondence released by whistleblowers.

Hundreds of internal emails leaked by former employees from Eldon Insurance and Rock Services to the Observer reveal that – despite categorical denials by Banks – insurance staff worked on the Leave.EU campaign from their company offices.

Any work carried out in the months before the referendum should have been declared under electoral law.

They indicate that Eldon and Rock Services staff contacted companies for material for apparent use in the Brexit campaign, and discussed sharing data. In a separate investigation released today, the website Open Democracy also publishes evidence that suggests significant crossover between Banks’s insurance and political staff during the campaign.

Rhineshark

Enzokk wrote: »

Another day and more revelations of more misconduct from Arron Banks and the Leave campaign. Lets see what Marr actually asks him.

Arron Banks faces new claims of misleading MPs over Brexit

There's a link in the sidebar to a piece by Cadwalladr which is also worth reading. She mostly avoids doing so but if anyone deserves to say "I told you so..", she does! Banks is a nasty piece of work.

ancapailldorcha

Unfortunately, this sort of anti-intellectualism is thriving here and there's never a shortage of token Irish Eurosceptics who think they can make a quick buck. The idea that the Irish aren't "Superfans", whatever that term is meant to mean based on his parents voting No to Lisbon is the sort of material one might see in a parody from years ago and the BBC have put him on so how he can rant about how the EU has treated Ireland terribly because of reasons.

Fair play to Maxwell for that followup. He's bang on.

prawnsambo

This seems like a very different pov from what's been said so far

Shelga

Yeah I’m reading the UK version of the Sunday Times on my tablet- what a nice line- “the small print is that Ireland is ****ed”- charming. How exactly are we ****ed?

prawnsambo

Shelga wrote: »

Yeah I’m reading the UK version of the Sunday Times on my tablet- what a nice line- “the small print is that Ireland is ****ed”- charming. How exactly are we ****ed?

His use fo the word 'un-superceded' has me confused. He seems to be suggesting that the backstop remains, but the quoted paragraph seems to suggest the opposite.

Capt'n Midnight

prawnsambo wrote: »

This seems like a very different pov from what's been said so far

Here's a different POV
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1058872825036111872


Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Looks like the can has been kicked.

Nothing is agreed until Everything is agreed.

Water John

Listening to Banks, don't think he could lie straight in bed. Would not answer what co the money originally came from, just plenty whataboutery.

Capt'n Midnight

prawnsambo wrote: »

His use fo the word 'un-superceded' has me confused. He seems to be suggesting that the backstop remains, but the quoted paragraph seems to suggest the opposite.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/11/04/breakthrough-on-the-backstop-claims-the-sunday-times/

Seán Óg
The backstop will be there, worded in Jargon so the DUP will be able to say it's not THE backstop. The extended transition and breathing space will allow everyone to claim they won and eventually we will get a new GE at which point the HOC arithmetic will change.

Wouldn't agree with the GE bit though.

Labour and Lib Dems , like everyone's school report , could try harder. An inanimate carbon rod might have been more useful because at least the public would know it wouldn't help.