Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[ceptimus]

The problem wasn't with the transition period - it was obvious that we'd not be able to complete new trade deals while still in the single market and customs union.

The problem was that the backstop didn't have an end date or an exit mechanism. If the EU were so confident that the backstop was only needed temporarily, they could have specified an end date, but they weren't able, or willing, to do that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

becausea deal might not have been reached by that date.

 

[Tolls]

And there was/is an exit.
Our Prime Minister is currently planning on using the very mechanism that was always available to us to leave the backstop.

So why, exactly, is he doing that now if the backstop is the only thing that is an issue?

Because it isn't.
It's an excuse.

 

[ceptimus]

And there was/is an exit.
Our Prime Minister is currently planning on using the very mechanism that was always available to us to leave the backstop.

So why, exactly, is he doing that now if the backstop is the only thing that is an issue?

Because it isn't.
It's an excuse.

I don't think you understand.

The backstop hasn't begun yet and won't begin unless we agree to the Withdrawal Agreement. If we do agree to the WA, the backstop still doesn't kick in until after the transition period (maybe two years?) and only then if the EU says a solution to the Northern Ireland border hasn't been agreed. If and when the backstop does ever kick in then there's no exit mechanism: it stays in force until the EU says otherwise.

MPs aren't prepared to accept the WA. Many of them say they would accept it if the backstop was removed, but the EU say they can't/won't remove it.

If the WA isn't signed off by Halloween (and the PM doesn't request an extension that is then granted by the EU) then we leave without a deal, and the backstop, in its current form, dies - though the EU say they will still demand something similar before any trade negotiations can begin.

It's complicated isn't it?

 

[lomiller]

No the backstop does not go away. The backstop remains. What it requires is that whatever changes there are in the EU in future the UK passively follows. If the EU decides to ban US goods or make Disney characters illegal* then the UK has to follow.

.

Obviously, and it’s a perfectly reasonable demand on their part. The border is how they would enforce such a ban on US products therefore you need to either agree to implementing the same ban or agree to implementing controls at the border. You can choose one or the other but you can't have it both ways and no other country in the world would not make the same demand.


Once again it’s not the EU being unreasonable here, rather it Breixiters acting like spoiled whiny children finding out for the first time that the word doesn’t work exactly how they want.

 

[lomiller]

If the backstop had an exit mechanism, I would support the WA.

It has 2 exit mechanisms
1) Come to a mutual agreement on trade, customs and travel
2) Implement customs and travel checkpoints at the border.

This isn’t rocket science. The whole world works this way.

 

[Planigale]

Well, he's right on the GMO and Disney character thing. However I doubt Disney characters can be made into fearmongering propaganda quite as easily. Maybe when Disney makes a human-mouse hybrid that looks like Mickey and uses them as slaves in their parks, but that's twenty years away, maybe thirty.

Those ears need a support structure that is both light and stiff and convincing the metabolism to build it out of titanium is going to be tricky.

McHrozni

OK it was an attempt at hyperbole. The point I was trying to make was that the backstop ties the UK into the EU decisions in the future, with no participation in the decision making mechanism. In essence it appears to require the UK to remain functionally part of the EU, but with no political participation. If Ireland changes its status with regards to Schengen, then the UK would have to do so. The UK would be subject to EU laws and the ECJ, as they are now and as they become in the future. With no equivalent to article 50, it is the Hotel California option. This is certainly not what people who voted for Brexit wanted.

Just to be clear, I think remaining in the EU is the best option, pointing out that the backstop as is, is undemocratic is not arguing for Brexit. If the current transition arrangements meet the backstop requirements then the backstop is unnecessary at present. If insisting on the backstop results in a hard border due to a hard Brexit and dropping the backstop (deferring agreement on implementation?) for the transition agreement results in a transparent border then the pragmatic thing is to kick the issue into the long grass, and come back to it as part of the post Brexit agreement.

 

[Planigale]

It has 2 exit mechanisms
1) Come to a mutual agreement on trade, customs and travel
2) Implement customs and travel checkpoints at the border.

This isn’t rocket science. The whole world works this way.

I may be misunderstanding you. The backstop does not allow a mutual agreement, it means a unilateral agreement as defined by the EU view on free trade and movement. Agreement to the backstop does not legally allow the UK to have checkpoints at the border with the EU.

The backstop is currently not agreed. The agreement was that it was not agreed until all ( the complete transition arrangement) was agreed. The imbalance is that the UK is being asked to sign up to a permanent precondition on future relationships with the EU in return for a transitional arrangement. Once signed up the UK cannot exit in the two ways you give.

 

[lomiller]

The problem wasn't with the transition period - it was obvious that we'd not be able to complete new trade deals while still in the single market and customs union.

You could negotiate the deals you just couldn’t bring them into effect for somewhat obvious reasons.

If the EU were so confident that the backstop was only needed temporarily, they could have specified an end date, but they weren't able, or willing, to do that.

It's the Brexiters that claimed such a deal would only be needed temporarily because they had some magic technology that would solve everything. The EU, pretty clearly felt they were spouting nonsense but was still willing to offer them a chance to try.

 

[Planigale]

Obviously, and it’s a perfectly reasonable demand on their part. The border is how they would enforce such a ban on US products therefore you need to either agree to implementing the same ban or agree to implementing controls at the border. You can choose one or the other but you can't have it both ways and no other country in the world would not make the same demand.


Once again it’s not the EU being unreasonable here, rather it Breixiters acting like spoiled whiny children finding out for the first time that the word doesn’t work exactly how they want.

If we take the case of e.g. Norway or Switzerland and their arrangements with the EU, if the EU develops a new trade policy, then Norway or Switzerland have the option of renegotiating their arrangements with the EU or ceasing current arrangements, the backstop does not allow this option. The UK cannot legally withdraw without EU consent.

 

[lomiller]

No. The backstop is there solely because the UK doesn’t want a controlled border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK has claimed that it can develop another solution that would work for both sides. EU is obviously doubtful but willing to let the UK try provided EU borders are not compromised. The backstop is how the EU will protect it’s borders while awaiting the UK’s “solution” and obvious cannot end until the “solution” exists.

Should the UK agree to a controlled border the backstop is moot and no longer required. Doing so would allow the UK to exit the backstop agreement at any time with no other consequences.

The imbalance is that the UK is being asked to sign up to a permanent precondition on future relationships with the EU in return for a transitional arrangement.

Border controls are always a permanent precondition for having independent trade/travel/customs rules the world over. Being in the EU is the only reason you don’t have them already. When you ask for Brexit, borders are an implicit part of what you are asking for and always have been.

 

[Planigale]

You seem to be saying that immigration is the problem. Truth is, we have a divided world: the rich world and the poor world. As long as that is the case, the poor world will be susceptible to exploitative dictatorships, civil wars, poverty, hunger, natural disasters (infrastructures that crumble at first sign of severe weather, earthquakes or flooding), so of course, there is economic migration. If you were born by an accidental of birth on the flood plains of Bangladeshi, you too, would be keen to get out and try your hand at an 'Indian' Restaurant in Soho or a sweatshop tailors in the East End.

In the meantime, first world countries are crying out for menial labourers, cleaners, agricultural workers, construction workers or even doctors, nurses and engineers because there is a shortage of such staff in their own country with the indigenous population preferring light service 9 to 5 work.

So Merkel may or may not have made a huge mistake allowing in over a million or so asylum seekers from war torn Syria and Afghanistan and there is the reasonable fear that we in the UK will be obliged to take in large numbers when lack of housing is already near crisis point. Truth is, migration is nothing new. It is as old as mankind itself. Even if the UK were to leave with deal or no deal it still has a humanitarian obligation to admit asylum seekers.

Stopping immigration doesn't solve anything much as they are often vital to the wealth of the country.

The problem starts when the immigrants become 'ghetto'-ised into certain areas and become associated with crime and poverty.

Then there is a perception they are a burden on the welfare service.

'Taking back control of our borders' isn't going to solve this.

As a BME woman whose parents came to the UK from what you describe as the flood plains of Bangladesh, I can assure you I am personally very aware of the issues of racism and migration. What I was trying to say was that people had many reasons (some imho irrational) for voting for Brexit, concerns over migration was I believe a factor in the minds of many who voted for Brexit. The recent EU election suggests that despite the issues now perhaps being clearer about the consequences of Brexit, many who voted for Brexit would still vote for Brexit. I realise that one only needs a 10% shift in Brexit voters to change the outcome if there was a second referendum, but I am not convinced that most of those who voted for Brexit would change their vote.

At this point if the UK fails to leave the EU then the issue just becomes a worsening ulcer in the body politic. Even a second referendum with a change in vote to remain would not deal with the issue unless the vote was very clearly in favour of remain e.g. >60%.

 

[lomiller]

If we take the case of e.g. Norway or Switzerland and their arrangements with the EU, if the EU develops a new trade policy, then Norway or Switzerland have the option of renegotiating their arrangements with the EU or ceasing current arrangements, the backstop does not allow this option.

Those countries have agreements with the EU on borders and customs that protect both sides when they deal with third parties. The UK explicitly rejected similar agreements.

The UK cannot legally withdraw without EU consent.

This is nonsensical. Countries cancel agreements all the time, all that happens is that the other side is no longer bound by them either. In this case that means the EU would resume it's requirement for customs and travel checkpoints at border crossings.

 

[Planigale]

No. The backstop is there solely because the UK doesn’t want a controlled border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK has claimed that it can develop another solution that would work for both sides. EU is obviously doubtful but willing to let the UK try provided EU borders are not compromised. The backstop is how the EU will protect it’s borders while awaiting the UK’s “solution” and obvious cannot end until the “solution” exists.

Should the UK agree to a controlled border the backstop is moot and no longer required. Doing so would allow the UK to exit the backstop agreement at any time with no other consequences.

Border controls are always a permanent precondition for having independent trade/travel/customs rules the world over. Being in the EU is the only reason you don’t have them already. When you ask for Brexit, borders are an implicit part of what you are asking for and always have been.

I feel we are arguing past each other, I am obviously missing something, and it may be my ignorance of the issue, so I am happy to be corrected. The backstop is a precondition of the EU because the EU says that no future arrangements between the UK and the EU should result in a 'policed' land border. The EU will not enter into negotiations that would result in a 'policed' border. The only way that the EU currently can conceive of the land border is if the common travel and trade areas exist in the UK, which if the UK agreed to would prevent the UK from e.g. growing GMO plants, entering into trade agreements with non EU countries.

The UK has offered as an alternative a networked' border where instead of having a customs post on the border customs forms are completed on line. Currently the tax regimes differ across the border between NI and Ireland. Smuggling occurs. The customs officers stop vehicles once they cross the border or when they unload if they suspect smuggling. What is proposed is an extension of current arrangements. I do not know if this would work, it could perhaps be trialled during the transition period with an agreed definition of success. The EU has refused to consider this option.

 

[Garrison]

I feel we are arguing past each other, I am obviously missing something, and it may be my ignorance of the issue, so I am happy to be corrected. The backstop is a precondition of the EU because the EU says that no future arrangements between the UK and the EU should result in a 'policed' land border. The EU will not enter into negotiations that would result in a 'policed' border. The only way that the EU currently can conceive of the land border is if the common travel and trade areas exist in the UK, which if the UK agreed to would prevent the UK from e.g. growing GMO plants, entering into trade agreements with non EU countries.

The UK has offered as an alternative a networked' border where instead of having a customs post on the border customs forms are completed on line. Currently the tax regimes differ across the border between NI and Ireland. Smuggling occurs. The customs officers stop vehicles once they cross the border or when they unload if they suspect smuggling. What is proposed is an extension of current arrangements. I do not know if this would work, it could perhaps be trialled during the transition period with an agreed definition of success. The EU has refused to consider this option.

That is not an extension of current arrangements, there is currently an open border between NI and the Republic courtesy of the CTA. This is the reason why the practical necessity of a hard border between an EU and Non-EU country is such an issue, and one greatly magnified by the political implications of such a border in terms of a future united Ireland.

 

[ceptimus]

It has 2 exit mechanisms
1) Come to a mutual agreement on trade, customs and travel
2) Implement customs and travel checkpoints at the border.

This isn’t rocket science. The whole world works this way.

2) is in contravention of the GFA
1) the 'mutual' part means that the EU have a veto on ending the backstop - so they can keep it forever if they wish.

Unacceptable

 

[GnaGnaMan]

OK it was an attempt at hyperbole. The point I was trying to make was that the backstop ties the UK into the EU decisions in the future, with no participation in the decision making mechanism. In essence it appears to require the UK to remain functionally part of the EU, but with no political participation.

That is a choice the UK is making. The GFA is only relevant to northern ireland. It is purely an internal UK decision to extend the backstop to the whole of the UK.

If Ireland changes its status with regards to Schengen, then the UK would have to do so.

Can you try to justify that assertion?

 

[Planigale]

2) is in contravention of the GFA
1) the 'mutual' part means that the EU have a veto on ending the backstop - so they can keep it forever if they wish.

Unacceptable

Re 2) No The GFA does not say anything about the border other than it should be demilitarised; it would not be in contravention to the GFA.

 

[lomiller]

2) is in contravention of the GFA

That isn’t the EU’s fault so why would it be up to the EU to solve the problem for you?

1) the 'mutual' part means that the EU have a veto

No *****. Of course the EU is going to require a veto on something that could violate the integrity of it’s borders. How dumb would you need to be to think there is any possibility they would not make it a requirement.

Unacceptable

If using standards that are accepted the world over for travel between friendly countries that are not part of a common trade/customs/travel area isn’t acceptable maybe you should reconsider if being outside such an area is what you really want.

 

[The Don]

According to the UK Prime Minister, compromise is a one way street...

The EU should show "common sense" and agree to make changes to the Brexit withdrawal deal, Boris Johnson has told the BBC.

The prime minister said there was "bags of time" for the EU to compromise on the Irish border backstop plan before the Brexit deadline of 31 October.

Of course there's no need for the UK to assess any of its red lines - only foreigners need to do that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49280689