Nearly a decade of austerity topped by Brexit. What a fecking shit show.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I'm not saying the EU negotiators don't see it as a bargaining chip down the road. But the backstop is primarily designed to protect the GFA, and i think a lot of these politicians especially British ones seem to be forgetting that.
Even I am shocked at how bad our MPs are .
The bargaining chip isn't the backstop though and that's clearly quoted. The bargaining chip is the fact that the UK wants a lot more from future relationship.
On another note, how fecking bad is Theresa May?
The real problem is unless theres a decent turnout of 18-25 year olds in the next election I can totally see the Tories winning again. I'm not even sure how much Labour want to win an Election in any case, they probably think its a poison chalice right now. Hatd to disagree as well given the state the Tories will leave this country in by the time of the next Election.
I was expecting there to have been more calls for a Referendum so it seems like even the MPs have given up and accepted our fate of nose diving towards oblivion. Liberal Democrats could have been the genuine winners here if they'd got a leader with some flair and passion. Sigh.
Technically, the GFA does not rule out a hard border. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46988529
In reality, all hell would break loose.
She reminds me of that substitute teacher you'd get at school. She walks through the door everyone looks at each other and thinks "sweet, easy lesson". Useless. Granted she's been given a shit show situation but she's absymal, she's actually a European joke right now. When I talk to my friends they all laugh about her and call her the robot.
They're tied together. The bargaining chip is 'the UK want a lot more from a future relationship [than they achieve through remaining in the backstop]'.
Aye, there are technicalities and there are political realities and the latter is really what we're dealing with in this scenario.
Which is different to your first claim. The EU's leverage(bargaining chip) is the nature of the future relationship, the backstop is what Ireland through the EU wants from that advantageous position. And that's clearly stated in the quote that you provided, that's literally the last sentence.
Yeah true i wasn't saying i think that, the guy i was replying to feels the EU see the backstop as a bargaining chip down the road for negotiations on the future relationship.
The referendum is dead in the water without a GE. You can't really blame MPs residing in leave constituencies for not wanting to support it.
The People's vote should be funding local polls for all those seats to persuade them the seat is no longer leave but that won't be the case for all of them anyway. Without a huge tory rebellion it isn't going to happen.
The fact the UK wants 'more from a future relationship' is true with or without a backstop. The indefinite backstop is what turns this into significant leverage for the EU, as once the backstop is activated, the EU would be broadly happy with the status quo and have no incentive to concede to any UK demands in the future trade negotiations.
I've been thinking about it this morning. I think the solution to the backstop would be to solve the leverage problem, which is basically that, if activated, it creates a tolerable situation for the EU but a potentially intolerable one for the UK, which skews the future trade talks unfairly.
If the UK is to sign up to an indefinite backstop (which keeps it in the customs union), then there should be something added to the deal which makes remaining in the backstop long-term uncomfortable to the EU as well. That way both parties have a real incentive to get the trade negotiations finalised and exit the backstop arrangements, and it wouldn't be relying on good faith.
It's the MAD doctrine basically. The backstop needs to be equally problematic to both parties to ensure we don't get stuck in it forever.
Last edited:
What is particularly intolerable? And do you think that the EU wants to have anything to do with a joint committee on the long term?
But this sounds like handing over an unnecessary concession to the UK, if it's tolerable to the EU but not to the UK. Why would the 27 nations do that?
Imagine spending the best part of two years negotiating a deal with someone, and then them agreeing to it, after you've already made concessions that you won't give anyone else, and then they come back to you and go "actually.. nah, doesn't work for me, let's renegotiate". In no scenario is that acceptable, let alone in something of the scale of Brexit.
The Tories have shown themselves to be untrustworthy pricks, yet no doubt will spin this now as "the big bad EU won't make a deal, aren't they terrible", and half the British media and public will probably gobble it up.
The Tories have shown themselves to be untrustworthy pricks, yet no doubt will spin this now as "the big bad EU won't make a deal, aren't they terrible", and half the British media and public will probably gobble it up.
Run away, far away, whilst you still can.
Brexit will turn your braincells into mush.
Ditto Labour
There are many risks to the UK of remaining in the backstop and associated minimalist customs union long-term, but I consider the main ones to be:
1. The danger of being in a customs union but not automatically a member of FTAs negotiated by the EU. For example, the UK would suffer economic contraction if TTIP were signed as American goods would enter the UK tariff-free but UK goods would potentially continue to face American tariffs as currently applied. This is a real issue and would likely have caused Turkey to exit its customs union with the EU had TTIP been signed - under the backstop the UK would not have this unilateral withdrawal mechanism.
2. The UK would be prevented from setting its own external tariffs and customs policies, and therefore could not finalise any deep trade deals.
3. The Attorney General's legal advice states that the text of the Withdrawal Agreement allows for the replacement of the backstop with alternative measures 'in whole or in part'. The reference to 'in part' leaves open the possibility that the EU could later apply to say that only NI need remain in the customs union, and the rest of the UK should leave. This would put a customs border in the Irish Sea.
To avoid a potential 'no deal'?
Plenty of people talking sense on Bexit, but the people who matter, i.e. the Government, only taking shite.
I don't need that cnut to tell me what is obvious to any right thinking person.
To be honest, our government is a mess cause he people they represent are.
If we're heading down the no deal route then a general election should be held. This government has proven itself inept and untrustworthy to negotiate any future trade deals.
Labour really isn't that much better and in some ways equally responsible for this mess but the blame will be laid at the Conservatives' door
Labour really isn't that much better and in some ways equally responsible for this mess but the blame will be laid at the Conservatives' door
The vote to pass last nights bill passed by 15 or so votes. The ERG voted for it on the basis that the Withdrawal Agreement would be reopened AND the backstop would be removed. So were not talking about concessions on the backstop, were talking about it being removed and other nameless concessions elsewhere. Part of their agreement is based on them being able to reject it in 2 weeks time also. So its a bullshit majority that will collapse again in 2 weeks time. Backstop negotiations are a total dead end.
The issue there is that the EU and the UK have different expectations for the backstop.
The UK is insisting that the backstop will not be needed at all. The EU (and particularly Ireland) obviously do not share that confidence and feel they are more likely to need the backstop. As such, it makes no sense for the EU to tie themselves equally to some punishment related to the backstop being used.
Both sides can agree that the backstop is temporary until a better solution is negotiated but that doesn't mean both sides actually have equal confidence in the liklihood of that better solution being found.
It's also worth remembering that the backstop has been designed around the UK's own red lines, it isn't by any means the EU's preffered option. If the EU were going to build a punishment mechanism for themselves into a deal then I would imagine they'd expect to recieve more than they're getting from the backstop.
Oh yeah, I agree. I was thinking about what would actually make sense from the perspective of rational negotiation and a fair compromise. I'm pretty sure we're going to crash out with no deal in reality.
Alright, so we can't have a hard boarder in Ireland, ipso facto we can't have no deal, which implies there has to be a hard boarder between the UK and the rest of Europe.
Solution, cancel Brexit
Solution, cancel Brexit
That, again, hurts the UK way way more than it hurts the EU. So why give a concession to someone who wants to cut off their nose to spite their face? Especially someone who has been arrogant, dismissive and self-destructive in 2yrs of negotiations.
It already is a fair compromise. Scotland, England and Wales can drop out whenever they feel like it. The Northern Irish assembly is always going to be given priority over their future. Neither you or we can make any decisions for them because it'd be immediately rejected and fought against by 50% of the NI politicians. So it maintains the status quo in Northern Ireland until Stormont can make a decision on their future. Realistically they cant stay in 2 different contradictory legal jurisdictions indefinitely.
Well exactly. Hence I think we're heading for no deal.
It was never going to be fair though? Its easy to sit here and say this and that would even it up but this was always the likely scenario before the vote.
The UK people can't vote for something then cry about the repercussions. It simply doesn't make sense.
I love the mindset this morning that the EU needs to bow to democracy and behave in a fair manner when 3/4 of the last two years have been full of British politicians and commentators calling for the EU to feck Ireland over and for us to know our place.
Where's the fairness in the UK putting the GFA at risk when Ireland gave up its claim to NI to facilitate said agreement? Now Ireland has to agree to give up a backstop which, by definition, means Britain can erect a border and smash the GFA anytime they want.
This whole mess hurts my head.
The EU want a deal but not at any cost. They will reluctantly watch us lurch out without a deal before they renogotiate the removal of the backstop as they view no deal as the lesser of 2 evils. That is my take.
Mine too. Both sides think the other is bluffing. Neither is.
They have, but nobody in the UK is listening.
The only way they'll entertain further is if the UK sign up to an amended political declaration for its intention to go for a softer Brexit i.e. staying in the Customs Union and Single Market but as that was ruled out by not sanctioning the deal it seems very unlikely to happen.
All this talk of amendments, GE and referendum changes nothing.
Either the UK signs up to the WA, it cancels Brexit or it leaves with no deal. The only thing that can possibly change is the wording of the political declaration and the UK don't look remotely likely doing that.
Philippe Lamberts, a Belgian Green MEP and a member of the European parliament’s Brexit steering group, told Sky News this morning that he thought hard Brexiters in the UK were suffering from “delusion” if they thought the EU was going to abandon the backstop. He explained:
"We are not going to say that we surrender the backstop or, conversely, that we accept that we will make no checks at the borders, even though the United Kingdom might significantly diverge in terms of sanitary standards, social standards, environmental standards. And then we should let a 500 kilometre door open to the single market, without any checks? Just as if you, as a Brexiter, would say, ‘Okay, we do not want [freedom of movement], but we accept that we will not make any border checks on people. Would they do that? Of course not ...
I think there is an underestimation in the United Kingdom ... that the cost of hurting the single market is judged, on this side of the channel, as much bigger than the cost of a no-deal Brexit. Yes, a no-deal Brexit will be damaging, not just to the UK - massively so - but also to the European Union. But accepting a gigantic backdoor into the single market would be even more damaging. So the calculus is quite obvious; if we have to choose, we will choose the lesser of two evils, and that’s a no-deal Brexit"
Like i said, if Ireland rolled over then the rest of the EU would still reject removing the backstop.
"We are not going to say that we surrender the backstop or, conversely, that we accept that we will make no checks at the borders, even though the United Kingdom might significantly diverge in terms of sanitary standards, social standards, environmental standards. And then we should let a 500 kilometre door open to the single market, without any checks? Just as if you, as a Brexiter, would say, ‘Okay, we do not want [freedom of movement], but we accept that we will not make any border checks on people. Would they do that? Of course not ...
I think there is an underestimation in the United Kingdom ... that the cost of hurting the single market is judged, on this side of the channel, as much bigger than the cost of a no-deal Brexit. Yes, a no-deal Brexit will be damaging, not just to the UK - massively so - but also to the European Union. But accepting a gigantic backdoor into the single market would be even more damaging. So the calculus is quite obvious; if we have to choose, we will choose the lesser of two evils, and that’s a no-deal Brexit"
Like i said, if Ireland rolled over then the rest of the EU would still reject removing the backstop.
Exactly, the EU will never compromise the 4 freedoms which has been said since day one but the UK just won't accept it.
The first point isn't correct, it goes under article 18 of the withdrawal agreements under Safeguards.
The second point is just strange, if you ultimately don't want a border we will have to respect the same sets of rules, there is no way to go around it. So UK politicians should stop talking nonsense when it comes to that topic.
The third point is also not correct, at least the terms used and the interpretation isn't. The actual name is Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and reviewing mechanism involves both parties and the joint committee.