Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

By the way you misunderstood what I said. I stated the fact, not my opinion, that currently the UK will not sign up to the backstop unless there are guarantees on length of time and also they can walk away unilaterally.

Again, this is the position of the HoC, its a fact not an opinion.

It would be lovely if suddenly a large number of MPs changed their minds and voted the other way. But there is no evidence this is going to happen, not now and not in 6 months time. May's deal is dead as a do-do. She needs a new one to get it through the HoC.

You saying "yeh but its the HoC's fault" isn't going to make any difference but keep saying it.

I say it because it is true. The backstop is the only way to guarantee that there is no hard border on this island (unless of course you can come up with some other method?). If the HoC refuses to agree a deal that includes a backstop and decide to go ahead with a no-deal Brexit then yes, we get a hard border, there is not much we can do about that.

Our only choice is to get a hard border because of no-deal, or accept a deal that would result in a hard border. Given those choices, I would take no-deal.

lawred2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said legal guarantees on the backstop.

As we all know, no deal = hard border.

Apologies. I must have missed that post. It's hard enough to keep track on a mobile device.

Suppose you'd never drop a post link?

I know you don't have to but I'd like to read the list of legal guarantees you think would break the impasse..

ToBeFrank123

Laois_Man wrote: »

And as we all know, deal without a backstop = hard border!

And did I say drop the backstop? Or did I say offer legal guarantees on the backstop?

As for Ireland negotiating from a position of strength it doesn't really look that way now, especially if tariffs are involved. There will be no winners, only losers and a lot of job losses in the south.

swampgas

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

By the way you misunderstood what I said. I stated the fact, not my opinion, that currently the UK will not sign up to the backstop unless there are guarantees on length of time and also they can walk away unilaterally.

Again, this is the position of the HoC, its a fact not an opinion.

It would be lovely if suddenly a large number of MPs changed their minds and voted the other way. But there is no evidence this is going to happen, not now and not in 6 months time. May's deal is dead as a do-do. She needs a new one to get it through the HoC.

You saying "yeh but its the HoC's fault" isn't going to make any difference but keep saying it.

That's a decision by the UK HoC, and the UK HoC have to own that decision. If it means that they cannot uphold the GFA and an open border, that's a consequence they must take responsibility for.

It is absurd to expect the EU and/or Ireland to appease a dysfunctional UK parliament simply because that UK parliament can't get its act together.

The reasons for the UK's incompetence are irrelevent: it's a sovereign state and must take responsibility for its actions. Right now the UK seems to be trying to use its own internal chaos and political paralysis as an excuse to avoid its international obligations. That doesn't fly in international diplomacy - not for long anyway.

RobMc59

Calina wrote: »

We want legal guarantees that there will be no border.

Is the UK prepared to offer those?

To a normal minded person that is very reasonable and to a normal minded person the prospect of a border is horrific but the tories aren't really normal.

An Ciarraioch

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And did I say drop the backstop? Or did I say offer legal guarantees on the backstop?

As for Ireland negotiating from a position of strength it doesn't really look that way now, especially if tariffs are involved. There will be no winners, only losers and a lot of job losses in the south.

There can be legal guarantees on the temporary nature of the backstop, and that it will be superseded by an FTA, but there can't be a time limit, or a unilateral withdrawal.

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And did I say drop the backstop? Or did I say offer legal guarantees on the backstop?

As for Ireland negotiating from a position of strength it doesn't really look that way now, especially if tariffs are involved. There will be no winners, only losers and a lot of job losses in the south.

You need to be more specific, what legal guarantees? If it's a time limit, or a unilateral exit, then you have to be able to answer the question what happens to the border after the time limit, or if the UK chooses to walk away?

J Mysterio

downcow wrote: »

Thanks helpful advise.
I suppose in a nutshell the modified public position of roi gov to me feels like Co-operation. It makes me feel warmer towards them and makes me want my gov to acknowledge roi governments more positive position. I suppose it’s the first tiny point in many weeks where I feel the downward spiral of fear from all has been slowed

This is so bizarre. The Irish government are preparing for potential Nl Deal chaos brought on by their wild, untrustworthy, unreliable neighbour. They are forced to do this because the UK are so unpredictable they might go the nuclear route. They are not doing this out of some warm feelings or to 'help' negotiations in any way, this is quite incidental to the negotiations. Your comment is truly strange.

Also, I can't help but to have noticed that when you refer to Northern Ireland, it is 'NI, but when you refer to Ireland, it is 'roi'. Noteworthy to an extent.

ToBeFrank123

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I say it because it is true. The backstop is the only way to guarantee that there is no hard border on this island (unless of course you can come up with some other method?). If the HoC refuses to agree a deal that includes a backstop and decide to go ahead with a no-deal Brexit then yes, we get a hard border, there is not much we can do about that.

Our only choice is to get a hard border because of no-deal, or accept a deal that would result in a hard border. Given those choices, I would take no-deal.

We all agree there should be a backstop. The difference in opinion is related to its length of time and legal guarantees. At this stage all we can hope for is buying time to put off a hard border and get a deal over the line in the HoC in the short term. And then hope idiots like Johnson and Rees Mogg move on to something else.

Calina

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We all agree there should be a backstop. The difference in opinion is related to its length of time and legal guarantees. At this stage all we can hope for is buying time to put off a hard border and get a deal over the line in the HoC in the short term. And then hope idiots like Johnson and Rees Mogg move on to something else.

Buying time is pointless. And not in our interest.

Laois_Man

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And did I say drop the backstop? Or did I say offer legal guarantees on the backstop?

As for Ireland negotiating from a position of strength it doesn't really look that way now, especially if tariffs are involved. There will be no winners, only losers and a lot of job losses in the south.

There's no difference between dropping the backstop now and saying we'll drop it in 5 years if the UK won't stay in the CU, which is against their stated position!

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

get a deal over the line in the HoC in the short term. And then hope idiots like Johnson and Rees Mogg move on to something else.

Naive in the extreme!

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We all agree there should be a backstop. The difference in opinion is related to its length of time and legal guaranteese.

You don't even understand what the backstop is

Strazdas

It should be added that many within the ERG for example privately favour No Deal : much of the debate around the backstop is a red herring

blanch152

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yes. Its not like its difficult to read back someone's posts on here.

What's your alternative by the way? And please don't say "we pressure the Brits hard enough they back down". Because that's just inviting more entrenchment from both sides which is the last thing we need.

My alternative can be summed up as throwing May a few scraps to get the deal through the HoC.

There are plenty of people on here willing to knock down other people's ideas, but have precious little suggestions to offer themselves.

That is not an alternative unless you are more specific.

ToBeFrank123

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You need to be more specific, what legal guarantees? If it's a time limit, or a unilateral exit, then you have to be able to answer the question what happens to the border after the time limit, or if the UK chooses to walk away?

Not a legal expert here so that's for the experts to figure out. Plus I don't have time to post here.

What's your alternative to a no deal?

megaten

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not a legal expert here so that's for the experts to figure out. Plus I don't have time to post here.

What's your alternative to a no deal?

The backstop is the alternative.

murphaph

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not a legal expert here so that's for the experts to figure out. Plus I don't have time to post here.

What's your alternative to a no deal?

So you have no ideas. Sorry but you can't criticise the government without at least some suggestions of what could be done. I think they have done all they can do.

ToBeFrank123

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I say it because it is true. The backstop is the only way to guarantee that there is no hard border on this island (unless of course you can come up with some other method?). If the HoC refuses to agree a deal that includes a backstop and decide to go ahead with a no-deal Brexit then yes, we get a hard border, there is not much we can do about that.

Our only choice is to get a hard border because of no-deal, or accept a deal that would result in a hard border. Given those choices, I would take no-deal.

There's more to a no deal than just a hard border as others have pointed out. Also talking about tariffs on our products into the UK and vice versa. A bigger issue imo.

ToBeFrank123

murphaph wrote: »

So you have no ideas. Sorry but you can't criticise the government without at least some suggestions of what could be done. I think they have done all they can do.

Did you bother to read my posts?

And what's your ideas for an alternative to a no deal?

J Mysterio

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And did I say drop the backstop? Or did I say offer legal guarantees on the backstop?

As for Ireland negotiating from a position of strength it doesn't really look that way now, especially if tariffs are involved. There will be no winners, only losers and a lot of job losses in the south.

Except it's not 'the south'. Unless of course you want to say 'South, West and East'. Easier to call it Ireland. And that's not how it looks, Ireland is booming atm, and we should cope admirably.

ToBeFrank123

megaten wrote: »

The backstop is the alternative.

ok thread is being joined by posters not bothering to read back previous posts of other posters specifically about the backstop.

Makes me wonder why bother if others don't bother.

A Dub in Glasgo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not a legal expert here so that's for the experts to figure out. Plus I don't have time to post here.

What's your alternative to a no deal?

Bluff & bluster

With regards to your question, there are two obvious answers that will provide no border

1. Accept the negotiated WA
2. Revoke article 50 (which the UK can do unilaterally)

An Ciarraioch

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not a legal expert here so that's for the experts to figure out. Plus I don't have time to post here.

What's your alternative to a no deal?

As Barnier himself has said, there's little point in the EU making concessions if the HoC cannot clarify what it is prepared to adopt (the Brady amendment doesn't mean that a majority would vote for the WA without a backstop).

ToBeFrank123

J Mysterio wrote: »

Except it's not 'the south'. Unless of course you want to say 'South, West and East'. Easier to call it Ireland. And that's not how it looks, Ireland is booming atm, and we should cope admirably.

3.5% loss of GDP predicted. Put us very close to recession. Yep sure we will cope admirably. You clearly know something the Central Bank don't!

lawred2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not a legal expert here so that's for the experts to figure out. Plus I don't have time to post here.

What's your alternative to a no deal?

Bit of a cop out really. You claimed to have offered an alternative.

Turns out that that's not the case.

J Mysterio

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not a legal expert here so that's for the experts to figure out. Plus I don't have time to post here.

What's your alternative to a no deal?

From what I can see, you have been posting here all day.

Imreoir2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not a legal expert here so that's for the experts to figure out. Plus I don't have time to post here.

What's your alternative to a no deal?

There are several alternatives that would prevent a hard border. The UK could stay in the EU, the UK could agree a deal that includes the backstop, the UK could drop some of it's red lines and stay in the customs union and single market. If the UK chooses no-deal over these alternatives, there is not much we can do about that, but that is their choice not ours.

The notion that we should surrender on the nature of the backstop now to prevent a no-deal is rather short sighted, if the UK would rather cause itself huge damage than abide by its commitments under the GFA regarding an open border, then what possible reason is there for thinking that letting them have their way now will change things in a few years time? If anything it will only make things worse, they will justifiably believe that if they dig their heels in again, we will just surrender on the issue again.

ToBeFrank123

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Bluff & bluster

With regards to your question, there are two obvious answers that will provide no border

1. Accept the negotiated WA
2. Revoke article 50 (which the UK can do unilaterally)

Neither is going to happen. Try harder.

Mortelaro

Interesting to hear Sammy Wilson on Sky news harp on with 'Aha theres no legislation for border infrastructure ' by the free state
He neglects to mention it isnt needed
All he was interested in was misinforming

The DUP line on media reminds me of the tactics used by the Soviets during the 1980s
The only thing they're not doing from that playbook yet is claiming their ear piece doesn't work
I suspect that they'll use that tool on March 30th

mcbert

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

ok thread is being joined by posters not bothering to read back previous posts of other posters specifically about the backstop.

Makes me wonder why bother if others don't bother.

I should not feed the trolls, but I've read back and you have suggested nothing except to paraphrase 'leave the details to the experts'. But every time you ask where the other ideas are, and dismiss that the backstop IS the other idea...