Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Bit cynical

Merkel:

"The moment we have a practical arrangement on how to preserve the Good Friday agreement and at the same time define the borders of the (European Union's) internal market, we would not need the backstop anymore," Merkel told a news conference during a visit to Iceland.

"This means we would naturally think about practical solutions. And I've always said that when one has the will to find these solutions, one can do so in a short period of time. The EU is ready to find a solution."

This also provides an out for Coveney and Varadkar.

54and56

trellheim wrote: »

you're buying German goods from a .de website, what'd you expect ?

I expected exactly what I received. I'm not complaining. Just curious / qualifying what Sam Russell said about goods being supplied here.

If "supply" means goods offered for sale within the RoI say for e.g. by a .ie website then they must have a 3 pin plug that makes sense but if "supply" means electrical goods delivered to an RoI purchaser by an EU based trader must have a 3 pin plug that would be something else and mean 2 prong plugged items purchased from a .de website would be in breach.

Dytalus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Merkel:

"The moment we have a practical arrangement on how to preserve the Good Friday agreement and at the same time define the borders of the (European Union's) internal market, we would not need the backstop anymore," Merkel told a news conference during a visit to Iceland.

"This means we would naturally think about practical solutions. And I've always said that when one has the will to find these solutions, one can do so in a short period of time. The EU is ready to find a solution."

This also provides an out for Coveney and Varadkar.

Does it? It looks more like it provides an out for Johnson and the UK. Ireland needs the backstop, and any 'practical solution' would require the UK to come forward and work towards it as well.

But Ireland doesn't need an 'out' to the backstop - we've been saying all along that as soon as a viable alternative presents itself the backstop will end. But until such a time, the country needs it in place as insurance. If a practical solution is possible, as the UK insists it is, then nobody in HMG should be worrying about the backstop.

Just present the solution.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Merkel:

"The moment we have a practical arrangement on how to preserve the Good Friday agreement and at the same time define the borders of the (European Union's) internal market, we would not need the backstop anymore," Merkel told a news conference during a visit to Iceland.

"This means we would naturally think about practical solutions. And I've always said that when one has the will to find these solutions, one can do so in a short period of time. The EU is ready to find a solution."

This also provides an out for Coveney and Varadkar.

Not sure what this means. I don't think anyone here has ever stated otherwise. It's written in the agreement after all; that the backstop goes when the alternative arrives.

Edit: In fact the backstop never even gets implemented if the alternative arrives before the end of the TP.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not sure what this means. I don't think anyone here has ever stated otherwise. It's written in the agreement after all; that the backstop goes when the alternative arrives.

Well I think the position was that the backstop had to be in place before alternatives could be looked for and agreed. The UK always had a problem with this position.

peter kern

Valhallapt wrote: »

Malta officially follows the same 3 pin British standard, but in practice most homes have dual sockets. Simply because of supply chains coming via Italy. It’ll be the same officially we’ll be three pin, but over time we’ll start questioning why we don’t have 2 pin sockets.

Just look at saorview play, very few TVs support it but almost every tv in Ireland supports freeview, its U.K. equivalent. If the U.K. deviates from EU standards, it won’t be worth while manufactures providing a three pin plug when more than 99% of consumers use 2 pin plugs.

i just use a pen when i plug in 2 pin plugs lol

the main point of my question was to show how differetnt things can go in the future, by using a plug as an example .

kowloon

I noticed earlier in the BBC article about the letter to Tusk that there was one of their snippet videos explaining what te backstop was. It didn't mention anything in relation to the GFA. Is this suggestive that the BBC are taking a definite line here?

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the position was that the backstop had to be in place before alternatives could be looked for and agreed. The UK always had a problem with this position.

No, the commitment for a backstop had to be agreed. The backstop doesn't even kick in until after the TP and only if the future relationship either (a) hasn't been agreed or (b) excludes a situation that negates the need for a backstop.

That left at least two years to look for an alternative and there was even a clause for external arbitration if the UK felt the EU was being capricious.

The UK's problem (really the ERG) was that they could be 'trapped' iin the backstop. While simultaneously arguing that there were sufficiently workable alternative arrangements.

Edit: I think your reading of it is that the backstop could have been kicked down the road into the TP and left on an equal footing with some nebulous alternative arrangements until the brick wall is reached. And then what?

Quin_Dub

54&56 wrote: »

Does that mean that when Amazon Germany sell me (for delivery to Dublin) an electrical device with a 2 pin plug that they are breaking EU consumer law?

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the position was that the backstop had to be in place before alternatives could be looked for and agreed. The UK always had a problem with this position.

Not at all..

The wording says "Unless and Until"

So , the Backstop comes into force unless alternatives are agreed or until they are agreed.

So the UK could never have the backstop for even a second if they could produce these "alternative arrangements" they keep talking about now.

But they don't , because they don't exist.

The UK knows this , but they don't want to admit it , because admitting it means accepting that it is their Red lines that are preventing them from leaving the EU , not anything from the EU side.

54and56

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the position was that the backstop option had to be in place before alternatives could be looked for and agreed. The UK always had a problem with this position.

Fixed that for ya :-)

It's a small but critical condition.

No one wants the back stop to be "in place" i.e. active but the EU wants the option of the backstop in case a future trade agreement between the UK and EU which removes any need for a hard border in Ireland cannot be agreed by the end of the 2 year transition period AND alternative arrangements which remove the need for a hard border have not only been hypothetically identified but tested to the satisfaction of the EU and capable of being implemented before the end of the 2 year transition period.

Laois_Man

prawnsambo wrote: »

You're falling for the rhetoric from the likes of Mark Francois and JRM. For a start JRM has been bought. Francois is sidelined. And the ERG have held all possible positions on brexit from the start. Some of them have even voted for the WA. And they know that Corbyn is praying for them to crash out with no deal because he'll reap the rewards without accepting any of the blame.

And you're falling for the excuse that the backstop is the thing that is stopping the WA from going thru

If it wasn't the backstop, it would still never have passed! The backstop was only ever an excuse!

Bit cynical

Dytalus wrote: »

Does it? It looks more like it provides an out for Johnson and the UK. Ireland needs the backstop, and any 'practical solution' would require the UK to come forward and work towards it as well.

But Ireland doesn't need an 'out' to the backstop - we've been saying all along that as soon as a viable alternative presents itself the backstop will end. But until such a time, the country needs it in place as insurance. If a practical solution is possible, as the UK insists it is, then nobody in HMG should be worrying about the backstop.

Just present the solution.

Well not quite. Until the Merkel announcement, the position was that the WA had been agreed and signed and that was that. The hard border could only be avoided with the UK first ratifying the WA. Then if down the line the UK came up with something better than the backstop, the EU could consider it.

The problem here is that this left the UK in a weak negotiating position. What incentive would the EU have to consider alternatives to the backstop? What solution would be "better" than the backstop from the EU perspective. The UK could be tied into it indefinitely. Hence, the UK's rejection of it in parliament.

This all changes with Merkel's announcement. Yes it gives an out to Johnson who had been saying that alternative solutions could be found, but it also gives an out to Coveney and Varadkar who were forced to insist on the WA despite doing so no longer making sense.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Edit: I think your reading of it is that the backstop could have been kicked down the road into the TP and left on an equal footing with some nebulous alternative arrangements until the brick wall is reached. And then what?

Not sure what you mean exactly but I think the problem from the UK side was that the backstop, once agreed to, could be kept in place by the EU simply rejecting indefinitely any alternative proposals if they wished.

Obviously from our side, the backstop, had it been ratified would have been a fantastic solution. The problem is that it was not going to be ratified leading to the current deadlock and a worse situation than had it never been proposed in the first place.


Merkel's announcement changes this. Obviously Johnson will be pleased but I think also our leaders who had dug themselves into a bit of a hole. We have been given permission to no longer insist on the WA as the only solution to NI border.

Kermit.de.frog

What Merkel has said is already the case.

The WA will not be reopened. Backstop practical solutions are only available in the Political Declaration and only when they are ready.


i.e never

prawnsambo

Laois_Man wrote: »

And you're falling for the excuse that the backstop is the thing that is stopping the WA from going thru

If it wasn't the backstop, it would still never have passed! The backstop was only ever an excuse!

I'm not. The backstop is the easy target. There has also been some kicking up about the level playing field measures. But the backstop creates the most problems. It ties the UK into the CU indefinitely and pushes the brexit fire sale/trade deals with the US over the horizon. There are three solutions to this:

1. Hard brexit (the downside of which is almost certain annihilation at the next election and a Corbyn government)
2. Go with the current agreement (complete anathema because of above)
3. Dump the DUP and jettison NI. Ticks all the boxes and leaves Britain free to sell the NHS and buy chlorinated chicken by the shipload.


I don't for a minute believe they want no deal. It would destroy the Tory party.

trellheim

Can we all calm down for a minute, still having palpitations from someone misquoting Merkel above

Quin_Dub

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well not quite. Until the Merkel announcement, the position was that the WA had been agreed and signed and that was that. The hard border could only be avoided with the UK first ratifying the WA. Then if down the line the UK came up with something better than the backstop, the EU could consider it.

The problem here is that this left the UK in a weak negotiating position. What incentive would the EU have to consider alternatives to the backstop? What solution would be "better" than the backstop from the EU perspective. The UK could be tied into it indefinitely. Hence, the UK's rejection of it in parliament.

This all changes with Merkel's announcement. Yes it gives an out to Johnson who had been saying that alternative solutions could be found, but it also gives an out to Coveney and Varadkar who were forced to insist on the WA despite doing so no longer making sense.

I'm not following your thinking at all.

Merkels statement changes nothing.. It's always been the case that the backstop was only to be used in the absence of alternative solutions.

If the UK suddenly announce some magical alternative solution that everybody is happy with, they still aren't going to re-negotiate the WA.

What will happen is that as part of the signing , all parties will agree that the backstop is not currently needed and nothing will be implemented.

The EU are still going to want the option of the backstop , in case the UK renege on whatever solution they put forward.

The backstop , including the "unless and until" caveat will always be part of the WA.

It's a Fire extinguisher - If the fire never starts or is successfully put out quickly, then it's not needed , but no one is going to accept not having one handy.

bobmalooka

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well not quite. Until the Merkel announcement, the position was that the WA had been agreed and signed and that was that. The hard border could only be avoided with the UK first ratifying the WA. Then if down the line the UK came up with something better than the backstop, the EU could consider it.

The problem here is that this left the UK in a weak negotiating position. What incentive would the EU have to consider alternatives to the backstop? What solution would be "better" than the backstop from the EU perspective. The UK could be tied into it indefinitely. Hence, the UK's rejection of it in parliament.

This all changes with Merkel's announcement. Yes it gives an out to Johnson who had been saying that alternative solutions could be found, but it also gives an out to Coveney and Varadkar who were forced to insist on the WA despite doing so no longer making sense.

I don’t think Merkels comments undermine the WA or backstop in any way - to me it reads to be restating the fact that the backstop can go once a practical alternative is found that preserves the GFA and the SM.

Which is exactly what the backstop is - the fallback position in a scenario where arrangements that preserve the GFA and SM have not yet been found.

Kermit.de.frog

And today's award for winding up Brexiters goes to Lewis Goodall of Sky News.

It's like red meat to a bear pit.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1163763558871703552

Bit cynical

54&56 wrote: »

Fixed that for ya :-)

It's a small but critical condition.

No one wants the back stop to be "in place" i.e. active but the EU wants the option of the backstop in case a future trade agreement between the UK and EU which removes any need for a hard border in Ireland cannot be agreed by the end of the 2 year transition period AND alternative arrangements which remove the need for a hard border have not only been hypothetically identified but tested to the satisfaction of the EU and capable of being implemented before the end of the 2 year transition period.

Strictly speaking that is the case. What the EU had been insisting upon was that the agreement concerning the backstop had to be in place before further discussion could occur and this was the problem that the UK had.

Tell me how

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's a Fire extinguisher - If the fire never starts or is successfully put out quickly, then it's not needed , but no one is going to accept not having one handy.

And this is why they want it out, because they haven't a foggiest idea how to avoid it. They are caught in the terrible position (for them) that the more they say they don't want it, the more it enforces that it is necessary.

It really was a check mate move which they proposed and that makes it all the more interesting to see them struggle with it.

Bit cynical

bobmalooka wrote: »

I don’t think Merkels comments undermine the WA or backstop in any way - to me it reads to be restating the fact that the backstop can go once a practical alternative is found that preserves the GFA and the SM.

It doesn't undermine the WA. That is more or less dead anyway. But on the issue of the border, it means that practical solutions can be discussed by both sides. Hitherto, only Johnson was suggesting this was the case. We were forced to insist that the WA (which had been rejected in the UK parliament) was the only way.

J Mysterio

Financial Times: Punishing Ireland’s economy will backfire on Brexiters

https://amp.ft.com/content/eaae31b2-c004-11e9-9381-78bab8a70848?__twitter_impression=true

lawred2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And today's award for winding up Brexiters goes to Lewis Goodall of Sky News.

It's like red meat to a bear pit.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1163763558871703552

that thread is some craic

especially this lad who thinks power can only exist in one realm

https://twitter.com/MAN_TOGA_SRS_AJ/status/1163766704293515264

them are their comic book gunboat fantasies

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not sure what you mean exactly but I think the problem from the UK side was that the backstop, once agreed to, could be kept in place by the EU simply rejecting indefinitely any alternative proposals if they wished.

Obviously from our side, the backstop, had it been ratified would have been a fantastic solution. The problem is that it was not going to be ratified leading to the current deadlock and a worse situation than had it never been proposed in the first place.

Merkel's announcement changes this. Obviously Johnson will be pleased but I think also our leaders who had dug themselves into a bit of a hole. We have been given permission to no longer insist on the WA as the only solution to NI border.

Merkel's announcement starts with the statement that the WA will not be re-opened. That's where the backstop is. Now explain to me where it is in the rest of what she's said that changes this. Because I'm scratching my head to see what's different about saying (what's already in the WA) that the backstop can be replaced by something else.

Quin_Dub

Tell me how wrote: »

And this is why they want it out, because they haven't a foggiest idea how to avoid it. They are caught in the terrible position (for them) that the more they say they don't want it, the more it enforces that it is necessary.

It really was a check mate move which they proposed and that makes it all the more interesting to see them struggle with it.

The path out is clear - Shift on their totally incompatible Red Lines or go for the Irish sea border option.

They have all the options - If the EU make any adjustments to the WA they compromise the EU and the SM so they cannot and will not change.

If the UK want out , they have to make the move.

bobmalooka

Bit cynical wrote: »

It doesn't undermine the WA. That is more or less dead anyway. But on the issue of the border, it means that practical solutions can be discussed by both sides. Hitherto, only Johnson was suggesting this was the case. We were forced to insist that the WA (which had been rejected in the UK parliament) was the only way.

Or a change in the UK’s position. - widely reported.

The insistence that the WA was closed was in the context of UK red lines being closed.

It’s more of the same really - show us your workable solution Borris.

Kermit.de.frog

Finland, which currently holds the EU's rotating presidency, has also ruled out reopening the WA today.

A spokesperson for the Finnish PM Antti Rinne said that the EU would not re-negotiate the existing agreement.

Finland has poured cold water on a bid by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to re-negotiate a deal brokered by his predecessor Theresa May to manage the country’s departure from the European Union.

On Tuesday, Finnish premier Antti Rinne said through a spokesperson that the EU has no intention of revisiting the separation agreement that May finalised in November 2018, following UK citizens’ 2016 vote to leave the regional bloc.

The spokesperson indicated that the matter had been discussed on Monday. Finland began its presidency of the Council of the European Union on 1 July.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finland_eu_reject_uk_pms_bid_to_re-open_brexit_deal/10930044

Varta

prawnsambo wrote: »

Merkel's announcement starts with the statement that the WA will not be re-opened. That's where the backstop is. Now explain to me where it is in the rest of what she's said that changes this. Because I'm scratching my head to see what's different about saying (what's already in the WA) that the backstop can be replaced by something else.

That's because you couldn't see that when she said it she was sitting on an invisible unicorn with a secret message written on its backside. Expect a lot of brexiters attempting to twist EU statements over the next while.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Merkel's announcement starts with the statement that the WA will not be re-opened. That's where the backstop is. Now explain to me where it is in the rest of what she's said that changes this. Because I'm scratching my head to see what's different about saying (what's already in the WA) that the backstop can be replaced by something else.

I may not be following you but my reading of Merkel's statement is that although the WA won't be reopened, the EU who would previously have refused to discuss practical solutions to the border on the basis that the border issue was already settled in the WA, can now move on from the WA and discuss practical solutions.

Is it reopening the WA? No. The WA will remain as a piece of text unaltered (and unratified by the UK). But both sides will now move on from it at least in the area of the border.

If we recall, both Varadkar and Coveney were in the strange position of not being able to talk about what they were going to do on our side of the border in the event of no deal. They had to continually insist that the solution would come from the UK ratifying the WA. Now it can be discussed.