Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

road_high wrote: »

Don't lnow but with No Deal don't we end up with something even worse than No backstop?

With No backstop we are essentially agreeing that no matter what the UK can avoid their commitments and that we will take the consequences.

A no deal at least gives the chance for future agreements to remove the border.

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

But I thought the HoC had not only voted down her deal but told her to go back on renegotiate a new deal without the backstop?

Now she is saying that she has no intention of removing the backstop? But she wants a time limit?

But both the ERG and DUP have stated that they will accept no Backstop at all.

I don't think she has said that.
As recent as yesterday:

The prime minister has also tasked attorney general Geoffrey Cox to formulate proposals to introduce a time limit or a unilateral exit mechanism to the backstop.

So she wasn't seeking to get rid of the backstop per se. Others want it gone though.

Peregrinus

road_high wrote: »

Don't lnow but with No Deal don't we end up with something even worse than No backstop?

No. Either way, we end up with a hard border in Ireland. But if that's the result of a Withdrawal Agreement, we have accepted the terms that give rise to a hard border, and the hard border is likely permanent. But if the British crash-out with no deal, we haven't accepted or agreed to the hard border. Plus, the British still badly need a deal, and there is therefore continuing pressure on them to meet the EU's requirements for a deal. So there are still avenues through which we can press to have the border opened again.

Gmol

To be honest Backstop or no backstop, it doesn't matter,she'll never get it through HoC. There are too many vested interests in a Hard Brexit and they'll shift the goalposts if there is any agreement on the backstop. It's either Hard brexit or withdraw A50 as the only choices.

lawred2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think she has said that.
As recent as yesterday:


So she wasn't seeking to get rid of the backstop per se. Others want it gone though.

time limited backstop is the effective removal of a backstop from the agreement

FrancieBrady

lawred2 wrote: »

time limited backstop is the effective removal of a backstop from the agreement

Unfortunately, not in their blinkered eyes. I agree with you, as does the rest of the EU.

4068ac1elhodqr

Even buying a property with a ground freehold of 50 long years is a laughable concept, mortgage companies would 'rather not' consider that application.

Imreoir2

road_high wrote: »

Don't lnow but with No Deal don't we end up with something even worse than No backstop?

Not at all, accepting a hard border by treaty would be much worse than having one happen because the UK crashed out without a treaty. The UK can't just sail off into the sunset, they absoutely must have a strong tradeing relationship with the EU. If they can't accept the deal, backstop included, before their economey crashes, they will accept it soon enough after it does.

josip

Although there are many criticisms leveled at Theresa May, I struggle to think of anyone who I would have preferred to have become leader of the Tory party instead of her.
She really does seem to be the 'least worst' option.

briany

Maybe you could accept a time limit on the backstop, provided it was a certain amount of time, and the UK must commit to implementing an innovative solution to keep the border open afterwards. And if they fail to do this on time, then the standing arrangement between the EU and UK becomes null and void at that point.

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

With No backstop we are essentially agreeing that no matter what the UK can avoid their commitments and that we will take the consequences.

A no deal at least gives the chance for future agreements to remove the border.

... And a backstop with a time limit means we do all this again in 2-3 years time - but where the UK has 2-3 more years to prepare.

fash

El Weirdo wrote: »

Barney the Dinosaur?

Gove perhaps? Brexity enough for the Brexiters, yet realistic enough to support the WA?
(Others may know better)

Quin_Dub

briany wrote: »

Maybe you could accept a time limit on the backstop, provided it was a certain amount of time, and the UK must commit to implementing an innovative solution to keep the border open afterwards. And if they fail to do this on time, then the standing arrangement between the EU and UK becomes null and void at that point.

So - A time limited backstop , backstopped by another backstop if the 1st backstop doesn't get the job done??

robindch

lawred2 wrote: »

time limited backstop is the effective removal of a backstop from the agreement

Yes, the backstop is an insurance policy which prevents the UK and the EU from doing anything which produces a hard border. Essentially, it requires that, within the agreed timeframe, the UK and the EU will come to a full Trade Agreement (TA) which supersedes the temporary Withdrawal Agreement.

If the UK, or at least the Brexit ultras, don't want the backstop in place, then essentially they are saying that either a) they do not trust that the UK and the EU will agree a TA within the agreed timeframe or b) they want to use the threat of the reintroduction of hard border in order to force concessions from the EU side.

Given that the Brexit ultras are currently running down the clock in order to force concessions from the EU, it seems that option b), the grossly cynical option, is the real reason that they're objecting to the backstop.

jm08

Hurrache wrote: »

Even more so considering this from the Times

Fake news.

Martin Selmayr‏Verified account @MartinSelmayr Feb 4




Replying to @adamfleming @CommonsEUexit
On the EU side, nobody is considering this. Asked whether any assurance would help to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons, the answers of MPs were ... inconclusive .... The meeting confirmed that the EU did well to start its no deal preparations in December 2017.

Christy42

briany wrote: »

Maybe you could accept a time limit on the backstop, provided it was a certain amount of time, and the UK must commit to implementing an innovative solution to keep the border open afterwards. And if they fail to do this on time, then the standing arrangement between the EU and UK becomes null and void at that point.

So no deal in a few years instead of now? The current backstop already ends whenever the the UK comes with something innovative to keep the border open. I see no need for a specific time limit if they are confident of finding one. And if not then any time limit on the backstop would be a hard border.

robindch

josip wrote: »

Although there are many criticisms leveled at Theresa May, I struggle to think of anyone who I would have preferred to have become leader of the Tory party instead of her.

Ken Clarke or Anna Soubry are two Conservative MP's who would, in every way I can think of, exceed the abilities and honesty of the weak, untalented and dishonest Mrs May.

spacecoyote

josip wrote: »

Although there are many criticisms leveled at Theresa May, I struggle to think of anyone who I would have preferred to have become leader of the Tory party instead of her.
She really does seem to be the 'least worst' option.

I don't think a large proportion of people in the UK, who's lives were ruined by the whole Windrush mess that she pretty much instigated as home secretary, would agree with you there.

Obviously she's a better option than someone like Boris or JRM, but there must be a better moderate conservative MP that would have been a better person for the job.

Leroy42

For those that think a time limit would work lets follow the practicality.

WA is agreed now, with a time limit in, say 3 years.

2 years and 11 monhts later, no FTA as the UK keep saying that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. But in a few days a hard border will be required. The UK then say that if the EU want a border then go ahead, but it won't be the UK doing it. Leo (or whomever) is told that he(she) is letting EU bully them against the needs of the Irish economy.

UK stick their heels in knowing that the EU will cave as they did it 3 years ago.

Only way to avoid hard border is allow the UK open access to the EU through the ROI.

Why would the UK seek to do anything else? THey will have proved that the EU always cave, that the EU needs the UK, all the power is in the UK hands.

robindch

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would the UK seek to do anything else?

They might want to do something else because they might want to be seen as honest brokers, rather than a shower of dishonest gits who specifically run down the clock in order to force concessions from the other side.

In this, they are behaving entirely as a group of disreputable narcissists and this impression of the UK unfortunately will stick and which will be remembered when people come to put their hands in their pockets to buy things.

Strazdas

robindch wrote: »

They might want to do something else because they might want to be seen as honest brokers, rather than a shower of dishonest gits who specifically run down the clock in order to force concessions from the other side.

In this, they are behaving entirely as a group of disreputable narcissists and this impression of the UK unfortunately will stick and which will be remembered when people come to put their hands in their pockets to buy things.

They've effectively gone rogue. This is no normal wheeling and dealing that you see in negotiations, they're acting like a bunch of spivs.

Leroy42

robindch wrote: »

They might want to do something else because they might want to be seen as honest brokers, rather than a shower of dishonest gits who specifically run down the clock in order to force concessions from the other side.

In this, they are behaving entirely as a group of disreputable narcissists and this impression of the UK unfortunately will stick and which will be remembered when people come to put their hands in their pockets to buy things.

But the current carry on would suggest the exact opposite.

They have lied continuously about what they are planning. Lied about the EU. Lied about Ireland. TM has gone back on here word on two agreements, and has continually failed to deliver on promises to the EU.

Hurrache

jm08 wrote: »

Fake news.

Martin Selmayr‏Verified account @MartinSelmayr Feb 4




Replying to @adamfleming @CommonsEUexit
On the EU side, nobody is considering this. Asked whether any assurance would help to get the Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons, the answers of MPs were ... inconclusive .... The meeting confirmed that the EU did well to start its no deal preparations in December 2017.

Yeah, I posted that yesterday.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If they can't accept the deal, backstop included, before their economey crashes, they will accept it soon enough after it does.

How soon?

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

How soon?

Well sterling will crash immediately, which will have an immediate effect on pretty much everything since the previous crash in 2016 has pared everything to the bone. And consumer prices will also rise immediately as tariffs start to bite. Couple that with (again immediate) food shortages and I'd suspect that soon would mean a few months. At most.

Spanish Eyes

Three year limit on the backstop? You've got to be joking.

We are nearly three years into the Brexit process and nothing has been decided, in fact every day another proposal emerges.

If there is ever to be a backstop it should be for the same period that the GFA has been in existence, say 20 years. That's limited surely? There will be a change of Government in the meantime, and a younger more mobile and educated population who will only think of the war in terms of history, not the Spirit of the Blitz, or whatever jingoistic issue is being peddled now.

The British need a kick up the backside now, and I really, sincerely hope that the EU does not stitch the ROI up. I'm hoping they won't, but God and Mammon and all that.

Seth Brundle

Having previously moved £13billion to the netherlands, speculation is that RBS will shift an additional £120 billion (will there be any money left in the UK by March 29th?)...

https://twitter.com/EveryCountry/status/1092826636427423750


Elsewhere, it looks like the UK will strengthen it's trade by slashing tariffs to zero percent. I'm curious to know how that will create a platform to attract trade deals but one can assume that they've considered this carefully...
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-secret-plan-to-slash-tariffs-on-all-post-brexit-imports_uk_5c587b08e4b00187b553da30?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter&guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL2hWdWZHdVBjREc&guce_referrer_cs=42v7ZKRrjplmSwoW3FdlvQ

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

But I thought the HoC had not only voted down her deal but told her to go back on renegotiate a new deal without the backstop?

Now she is saying that she has no intention of removing the backstop? But she wants a time limit?

But both the ERG and DUP have stated that they will accept no Backstop at all.

This is what happens when the only thing the HOC could vote in favour of, was an amendment that only said what they were opposed to.

It doesn't really matter anyway, I'm increasingly convinced that A50 will be withdrawn in the week before March 29 when there is no longer any prospect of a good faith extension to A50 and no hope of achieving any deal or passing any of the required legislation for an orderly withdrawal from the EU.

A few weeks of people panic buying fuel, medicines, bread, milk, flour and eggs will empty the supermarket shelves and the fuel depots. The airways will become saturated with people pleading for food to feed their babies or oil to heat their homes, and people will start being put on notice from their employers that their factories are shutting down production due to breaks in their supply chain and distribution networks.

People will worry about missing their mortgage payments, their rent, their loans, while they are getting letters from the NHS saying that their procedures are being cancelled due to staff shortages and letters from their travel agents saying that their holidays are being cancelled due to brexit...

The UK think the EU will blink first? It's inconceivable when you realise that the majority of the British public already oppose Brexit, and this is before the very real consequences of a crash out begin to materially affect their day to day lives. When people get a taste of what is in store for them, the 700 thousand person, peaceful march to oppose brexit last October could become a several million person march accompanied by civil disobedience and riots on the streets.

Tell me how

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Not at all, accepting a hard border by treaty would be much worse than having one happen because the UK crashed out without a treaty. The UK can't just sail off into the sunset, they absoutely must have a strong tradeing relationship with the EU. If they can't accept the deal, backstop included, before their economey crashes, they will accept it soon enough after it does.

I'm not so sure. If things proceed on the current path and there is no deal on the 30th of March then the hard Brexiteers will switch in to a different mode.

Government should have been planning for this.
Industry should have been planning for this.
These are teething problems.
The EU is waging war on UK in enforcing hardship on its peoples.
We need leaders who have the same belief in the country as the people have.

This may be a very obvious statement but the next UK general election could see anarchy at the ballot boxes and a ramshackle House of Commons after it when the dust settles leading to more years of poor governance and guidance.
What is interesting about this though is that that could be the case whether they sign a deal or crash out.

prawnsambo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Elsewhere, it looks like the UK will strengthen it's trade by slashing tariffs to zero percent. I'm curious to know how that will create a platform to attract trade deals but one can assume that they've considered this carefully...
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-secret-plan-to-slash-tariffs-on-all-post-brexit-imports_uk_5c587b08e4b00187b553da30?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter&guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL2hWdWZHdVBjREc&guce_referrer_cs=42v7ZKRrjplmSwoW3FdlvQ

If they go for that option, then that's it for British farming and industry. No protection, no possibility of a FTA with anyone, market flooded with all kinds of crap and no control whatsoever on standards or even safety. That's the full on, no holds barred, blood on the streets disaster that the Rees-Moggs et al are salivating for.