Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

kowloon

lawred2 wrote: »

Sure who else would she say it's up to?

You're missing my point: I heard Johnson say the onus was on the UK, but don't remember Merkel saying it, so I'm wondering if they're putting his words in her mouth as people might consider admitting responsibility for the solution to be a mistake on Johnson's part.

Seth Brundle

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, today, Merkel has dozens of civil servants running around trying to cobble together an answer to the backstop? No.

At any point, has the British government had dozens of civil servants running around trying to cobble together an answer to the backstop?

murphaph

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The Brexit Party will stand by Nothern Ireland and Boris knows that if he crosses the Party, he is faced with a General Election where he will lose many seats.

But NI doesn't want the one thing the BXP does.

VinLieger

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The Brexit Party will stand by Nothern Ireland and Boris knows that if he crosses the Party, he is faced with a General Election where he will lose many seats.

They will stand by Northern Ireland by going against the popular vote during the referendum to remain as well as every opinion poll since then being against leaving, no deal and a hard border?

Professor Moriarty

Seth Brundle wrote: »

At any point, has the British government had dozens of civil servants running around trying to cobble together an answer to the backstop?

They will have plenty of free time now that they're not attending EU meetings.

Enzokk

kowloon wrote: »

From the BBC this morning:


Is this correct? I heard Johnson say the onus was on the UK, and it is, but are they trying to reframe his slip up? Did Merkel also say it?

Yes, they are ignoring that Johnson himself took responsibility for this and not that it is a UK solution to a UK problem. All this time the UK has been trying to shift the blame but Johnson put it back squarely on them again and it is being missed by the UK media.

brickster69 wrote: »

Well she did say we and not you.


"If one is able to solve this conundrum, if one finds this solution, we said we would probably find it in the next two years to come but we can also maybe find it in the next 30 days to come.

Yes, like in the discussions that will take place between two partners, the UK and EU will be "we". So together they will look for alternative solutions as the EU has promised they would while discussing the future relationship after the UK has left the EU.

But she did put the challenge to Johnson to find it in the next 30 days and then the process would be further ahead. The problem is the WA with the backstop will still need to be signed in case the solutions doesn't resolve the problems or the solutions itself is incompatible with the future relationship. We will only know if those solutions will satisfy the criteria of keeping the borders clear of checks once we know what relationship the UK wants and what the challenges are.

We will not know this until the UK has left the EU and unless they leave without a deal then it means signing up to the WA and backstop. I feel like I am repeating myself here now.

Dytalus

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, they are ignoring that Johnson himself took responsibility for this and not that it is a UK solution to a UK problem. All this time the UK has been trying to shift the blame but Johnson put it back squarely on them again and it is being missed by the UK media.

"missed" is a funny way of saying "intentionally ignored". They don't want to accept accountability. They want to be able to blame someone else when it all goes south.

54and56

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

All Merkel said was that Brexit is a British problem requiring British solutions and Britain need to propose a credible alternative solution to the backstop. I am baffled at how the British press and Brexiteers have tried to present this as a “victory”.

100%. From day 1 everyone in the EU has said if the UK (or anyone else) can identify and demonstrate something which will avoid a hard border, keep trade flowing freely whilst maintaining the integrity of the Single Market there won't be any need for a backstop provision.

If Merkel re-affirming that is some sort of victory for the UK then happy days.

Of course what will actually happen is that on Sept 21st when no alternative arrangements proposed by the UK have been demonstrated to work BoJo and Co will start crying that they gave it their best shot, made some reasonable proposals which with imagination and flexibility on the EU side could have worked but the EU and in particular Varadkar are being intransigent so what can the UK do but leave with no deal.

So boringly predictable.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Enough of the name calling please. Post deleted.

prawnsambo

54&56 wrote: »

100%. From day 1 everyone in the EU has said if the UK (or anyone else) can identify and demonstrate something which will avoid a hard border, keep trade flowing freely whilst maintaining the integrity of the Single Market there won't be any need for a backstop provision.

That's not strictly true. It would mean that the backstop wouldn't need to be triggered, not that it would be removed.

Quin_Dub

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not strictly true. It would mean that the backstop wouldn't need to be triggered, not that it would be removed.

Exactly - The backstop will never be removed from the WA , but if the UK don't want to have it ever actually implemented then they have to put forward their acceptable solution before October 31st.

Making the backstop a non-issue is 100% down to the UK.

Their continuing insistence on its removal is their recognition that they will never be able to find a workable solution to the problem as long as they maintain their red lines and the backstop is UK wide.

swampgas

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Their continuing insistence on its removal is their recognition that they will never be able to find a workable solution to the problem as long as they maintain their red lines and the backstop is UK wide.

This is the issue in a nutshell.

Theresa May walked the UK into this position by creating multiple incompatible red lines. Rather than accept that reality and adapt to it, Johnson is trying to weasel out of the restraints of the GFA rather than admit that the UK screwed up.

ilovesmybrick

The Atlantic has an interesting article outlining how the Brexit discourse in the UK has gotten progressively more entrenched and polarised over the past three years.

How Brexit Got Harder

prawnsambo

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

The Atlantic has an interesting article outlining how the Brexit discourse in the UK has gotten progressively more entrenched and polarised over the past three years.

How Brexit Got Harder

No offence to The Atlantic, but we've been watching this happen in slow motion on ten iterations of this thread:


Brexit will be great, we can have all these things without paying for them
Yippee we've voted for brexit
Ok, let's write it down
...
...
We don't like that one, there are no cherries
...
...
Hard brexit doesn't have to be written down. Cherries are over there

---

>
Yippee, let's have that then.

Tell me how

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

The Atlantic has an interesting article outlining how the Brexit discourse in the UK has gotten progressively more entrenched and polarised over the past three years.

How Brexit Got Harder

It's has set up at least a generation of conversation being influenced by actual Brexit events or the stance people held in the Brexit conversation.

If they do leave, it will actively dominate conversations on future trade negotiations, if they don't leave, the Brexiteers will scream that democracy was railroaded. Even if there was another referendum, and the option to remain was selected even by say a 60-40 margin, they would still scream that democracy was manipulated and that they should have left.

There has always been a negative voice towards the EU in the UK, this exercise has only ensure that that is going to continue.

Can you imagine if you told people in 1945 that 75 years later, Germany would be seen to be the nation most advocating for unity in Europe and the UK would be screaming that it should be disbanded.
(although, to be fair, if you told them in 1918 that they'd be on the cusp of another great war in 20 years they might not have believed that either)

murphaph

I speak German pretty well having a German missus and bilingual kids and German friends. Been here over 10 years too. Frau Merkel's 30 day comment was completely off the cuff. It was literally meaningless. She simply restated the EU position.

Macron will hopefully be a little more direct today.

The Brits need to realise that they are not the only ones prepared for a little economic hardship to preserve something perceived as more important and to the average German at least, the EU is exceptionally important.

Robert McGrath

Is it not clear from Merkel’s tone that 30 days was a completely arbitrary figure? She was explaining that the backstop can be removed at any point if a solution is found, and 30 days was simply a short timeframe to contrast to the 2 years of he transitional period under the WA. If she had said “a solution may be found in 2 years or in 2 days” it would have meant exactly the same thing but presumably no one would have thought she was setting a deadline. How is this being interpreted in any other way?

Tell me how

murphaph wrote: »

I speak German pretty well having a German missus and bilingual kids and friends. Been here over 10 years too. Frau Merkel's 30 day comment was completely off the cuff. It was literally meaningless. She simply restated the EU position.

Macron will hopefully be a little more direct today.

The Brits need to realise that they are not the only ones prepared for a little economic hardship to preserve something perceived as more important and to the average German at least, the EU is exceptionally important.

I'm really expecting that given how the British media went with the comments from yesterday.

murphaph

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Is it not clear from Merkel’s tone that 30 days was a completely arbitrary figure? She was explaining that the backstop can be removed at any point if a solution is found, and 30 days was simply a short timeframe to contrast to the 2 years of he transitional period under the WA. If she had said “a solution may be found in 2 years or in 2 days” it would have meant exactly the same thing but presumably no one would have thought she was setting a deadline. How is this being interpreted in any other way?

Exactly. You could replace 30 days with 30 minutes and the meaning would not be altered.

Laois_Man

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Is it not clear from Merkel’s tone that 30 days was a completely arbitrary figure? She was explaining that the backstop can be removed at any point if a solution is found, and 30 days was simply a short timeframe to contrast to the 2 years of he transitional period under the WA. If she had said “a solution may be found in 2 years or in 2 days” it would have meant exactly the same thing but presumably no one would have thought she was setting a deadline. How is this being interpreted in any other way?

It's a good thing that they have interpreted it this way. We now expect a detailed report on Friday, September 20th on how the border can be managed. One that nobody can pick holes the size of the Grand Canyon in.

Knock yourselves out UK!

Tell me how

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Is it not clear from Merkel’s tone that 30 days was a completely arbitrary figure? She was explaining that the backstop can be removed at any point if a solution is found, and 30 days was simply a short timeframe to contrast to the 2 years of he transitional period under the WA. If she had said “a solution may be found in 2 years or in 2 days” it would have meant exactly the same thing but presumably no one would have thought she was setting a deadline. How is this being interpreted in any other way?

Because if you were looking for a glimmer of positivity or an angle to support your position that the EU agree with the UK's position, then this was it.

She'd have been better is she had said 2 days rather than 30 days because her point would have still being that made that they UK solutions could be accepted if they were workable but no one could have suggested she thought it would happen before the weekend.

The fact that they are still talking about hypothetical solutions instead of arguing the feasibility of real world options shows still how impossible this is.
It would be very different if the UK had a workable but undesirable option but that does not even exist.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/LiveSquawk/status/1164495151240228864

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LiveSquawk/status/1164495151240228864

Whatever about Brexit, it's important to remember that Johnson, as a right-wing populist, is an anathema to Macron.

Silent Running

I wonder if Macron will whisper in BJ's ear: "I will make sure zer are no more of ze extensions"

Laois_Man

So Johnson in his press conference with Macron has pointed everyone to THIS PAPER by Greg Hands and Nicky Morgan as the replacement to the backstop

So at the end of 30 days, his proposed solution will be exactly this - with a new cover on it!

EDIT: Seems like the server has crashed in the last few minutes. Try later!

54and56

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not strictly true. It would mean that the backstop wouldn't need to be triggered, not that it would be removed.

I guess you are technically correct but if, and obviously it's a big "if", some arrangement was identified and accepted by the EU 27 as removing the need for a backstop why would the EU not remove a redundant requirement from the WA in order to allow it pass the HoC?

Again questionable if even removing the backstop would get the WA through the HoC but in principle why force the UK to accept a backstop if it's no longer needed? Politically the backstop would be dropped fairly sharpish if genuine alternative arrangements were proposed which satisfied the EU27.

prawnsambo

Noticing the particular use of the word 'at' in Johnson's much repeated undertaking that there will be no checks or controls at the border. Because of course, many of the so-called alternative arrangements require mobile patrols and other checks away from the border.

prawnsambo

54&56 wrote: »

I guess you are technically correct but if, and obviously it's a big "if", some arrangement was identified and accepted by the EU 27 as removing the need for a backstop why would the EU not remove a redundant requirement from the WA in order to allow it pass the HoC?

Again questionable if even removing the backstop would get the WA through the HoC but in principle why force the UK to accept a backstop if it's no longer needed? Politically the backstop would be dropped fairly sharpish if genuine alternative arrangements were proposed which satisfied the EU27.

It's a bit more than a technical issue. The text of the agreement says "unless and until" such arrangements can be put in place. There are no such arrangements that could be put in place before October 31st, so it would be an unacceptable risk to remove the backstop from the WA without such arrangements being in place.

Laois_Man

ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE IRISH BORDER REPORT & PROTOCOLS

18th July 2019


File attached!

Professor Moriarty

Laois_Man wrote: »

ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE IRISH BORDER REPORT & PROTOCOLS

18th July 2019


File attached!

Senator Neale Richmond described their suggestions as " “beyond pie in the sky”.