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

[Planigale]

You are wrong. The backstop is only replicating things that are already present when you have EU membership. Since it’s already included in EU membership, no special agreement is required. It’s only when you try to reproduce these things for a non-EU member that you need an agreement like the backstop.

People above have given an example of how countries within the Schengen area can unilaterally introduce border controls with other Schengen area countries e.g. from Germany into Denmark.
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/w...sas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control_en
The EU positively requires there to be border controls between EU countries where one is within the Schengen area and the other is not.e.g. Gibraltar / Spain border. The EU does not require open borders between EU nations as evidenced above, indeed in some situations it requires border restrictions with identity checks.

THE EU is permissive of an open border between Ireland and NI it is not directive. Either the UK or Ireland could introduce border controls and not be in breach of EU law.

The backstop in requiring bilateral agreement ie giving the EU a veto on the UK introducing border controls is requiring a higher level of 'openness' than is required under the Schengen arrangement. Pointing this out does not mean I am arguing for Brexit or against an open border; I just believe that the Backstop is not the best solution to the issue at present.

 

[Vixen]

The UK has no way to deliver this as it doesn't have a record of EU citizens currently resident in the UK. It would mean basically extending freedom of movement to EU citizens for the next couple of years.

It should do. All passports are scanned at the UK border for everybody who comes and goes.

 

[Vixen]

So will the Brexit Party and LibDem MEP's have to forfeit their comfortable salaries and expenses?

British Government Ministers, diplomats and other officials are set to stop attending EU meetings including events in Helsinki and Brussels organised by Finland during its Presidency of the European Council.

Boris Johnson’s government made the announcement on Tuesday afternoon, saying that from 1st September Britain will only be represented at EU meetings “where the UK has a significant national interest in the outcome of discussions, such as on security.”

It’s likely that Finnish officials don’t yet know which meetings the UK will attend, and which they won’t, however the British government has said that Finland will take the UK’s vote at EU meetings where there are no British officials present.

Although the UK has already confirmed its attendance at the upcoming ‘Gymnich’ meeting of foreign ministers in Helsinki on 28th August, other ministerial meetings held in Finland 1st September might not have any British representation including meetings of economic and financial affairs ministers, and agriculture ministers.

From News Now Finland

 

[Degeneve]

People above have given an example of how countries within the Schengen area can unilaterally introduce border controls with other Schengen area countries e.g. from Germany into Denmark.
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/w...sas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control_en
The EU positively requires there to be border controls between EU countries where one is within the Schengen area and the other is not.e.g. Gibraltar / Spain border. The EU does not require open borders between EU nations as evidenced above, indeed in some situations it requires border restrictions with identity checks.

THE EU is permissive of an open border between Ireland and NI it is not directive. Either the UK or Ireland could introduce border controls and not be in breach of EU law.

The backstop in requiring bilateral agreement ie giving the EU a veto on the UK introducing border controls is requiring a higher level of 'openness' than is required under the Schengen arrangement. Pointing this out does not mean I am arguing for Brexit or against an open border; I just believe that the Backstop is not the best solution to the issue at present.

You're mixing up different things.

Schengen agreements are for the free circulation of persons. If Member States can impose some temporary restrictions an check people at the border, they are still not allowed to impose customs check at the borders.

The backstop is not about Schengen agreement, but about customs union and customs checks at the border. It would not change anything for people check at the Irish/Northern Ireland border since the UK is not member of the Schengen agreement.

The only way to prevent the backstop is to propose an workable alternative. The EU is still waiting (since now 2 years) for a realistic proposal from the UK. Until now they just got a few unicorns.

 

[The Don]

So will the Brexit Party and LibDem MEP's have to forfeit their comfortable salaries and expenses?

From News Now Finland

Why single out the LibDems ?

 

[lomiller]

To be clear I am not in favour of Brexit, I am in favour of open borders. but my opposition to the backstop is pragmatic for the reasons below.

I see nothing pragmatic about your reasoning. The backstop is there to address very real issues. There is no possible way the EU can sign any agreement that does not address these issues because it would allow the UK to compel bypass and undermine a wide swath of EU law and most of it’s international agreements.

There is NO possible way the EU can sign off on an agreement that does not address these issues. There never has been and there never will be.

A majority of UK MPs have voted against the May deal with backstop three times and the speaker has said there will be no further vote allowed unless there is a substantive change.

A majority of MP’s have voted against a no deal Brexit as well.

It appears the objections of many of those MPs who voted against the May deal and Backstop were to the Backstop and would vote in favour of the May deal without Backstop.

The things the backstop addresses still need to be addressed in any Brexit deal. If the UK won’t agree to the backstop, then it needs some alternative to accomplish the same thing and at this point no such alternative exists.
From the EU’s perspective, not addressing these issues undermines their own democratic processes internal relationships and international trade agreements. There is no possibility they would ever agree to a deal that does not address these issues, and they are being perfectly reasonable in that stance.

It appears generally agreed the May deal results with things continuing as they are so under the May deal the NI / Ireland border remains open. This being the case the backstop is redundant to the May deal.

No. The EU certainly does not agree, in fact from their perspective the backstop is the only reason the May deal is acceptable. It’s not something the EU could ever agree to without seriously undermining its own democratic structures and international trade agreements.

 

[GlennB]

It should do. All passports are scanned at the UK border for everybody who comes and goes.

.
Leaving the UK doesn't mean you're resident and entitled to come back.

The UK introduced a registration scheme, but the chances of those who haven't yet signed up doing so before Oct 31st are zero. Zero chance of even the majority of the them managing it even if the Home Office were remotely competent to process these things. People were expecting a transition period, but then Patel started drooling and blathering.

 

[Vixen]

Why single out the LibDems ?

Are not the LibDems and Brexit Party the bulk of UK's MEP's? I should think the Lib Dems, being remainers, will be furious at this new edict, for very different reasons from Farage and Widdecombe et al.

 

[Vixen]

.
Leaving the UK doesn't mean you're resident and entitled to come back.

The UK introduced a registration scheme, but the chances of those who haven't yet signed up doing so before Oct 31st are zero. Zero chance of even the majority of the them managing it even if the Home Office were remotely competent to process these things. People were expecting a transition period, but then Patel started drooling and blathering.

Apparently, of the three million or so EU citizens in the UK, only one million have registered for settled status, with a view to claiming citizenship after five years' residence in the UK. I would guess the other two million are ambivalent about applying for residency/citizenship or they just drift with the tide like a drunken boat like the vast majority of the population, who rarely bother with officialdom unless required to.

ETA It's remarkable that Priti 'Dreadful' Patel can be so vicious towards EU citizens in the UK given how generous the UK were to her parents, forced to flee Uganda. Maybe she should ask them how it felt to be in an actively hostile environment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The importance of the backstop is to ensure the NI/Ireland border remains open with the final / permanent deal, therefore the backstop should be part of the negotiations for the final / permanent deal between the UK and the EU. Insisting on the backstop now may result in a hard border 'now'. Deferring the backstop to future negotiations may or may not stop a hard border in future, but a possible problem in the future is better than the same problem 'now'.

The backstop is only there until a permanent deal is reached, so if they could reach one in the time allowed for in the deal there is no need for the backstop to ever go into effect. It only triggers if the time limit on this deal runs out with out a permanent deal in place, it then prevents a hard border.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It should do. All passports are scanned at the UK border for everybody who comes and goes.

And here people said there were no check points on the Irish border. Or is this yet another "The Irish don't count as being EU members" thing?

 

[jimbob]

The backstop is only there until a permanent deal is reached, so if they could reach one in the time allowed for in the deal there is no need for the backstop to ever go into effect. It only triggers if the time limit on this deal runs out with out a permanent deal in place, it then prevents a hard border.

Exactly, the Leavers should only "fear" the backstop if they worry that a deal isn't possible. Which they assured us was not the case.

It's like the argument against holding a second referendum - it is undemocratic to see if the people have changed their collective mind, but perfectly reasonable to change the government's policy from what they promised in the election with a change of leader.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly, the Leavers should only "fear" the backstop if they worry that a deal isn't possible. Which they assured us was not the case.

It's like the argument against holding a second referendum - it is undemocratic to see if the people have changed their collective mind, but perfectly reasonable to change the government's policy from what they promised in the election with a change of leader.

The problem with the backstop is that it shows they have no solution to the Irish border and never gave it any thought and still can't come up with anything remotely workable. So they scream and yell about how the EU is being unreasonable.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It should do. All passports are scanned at the UK border for everybody who comes and goes.

Which has nothing to do with whether EU citizens are resident in the UK or not.

 

[Planigale]

The backstop is only there until a permanent deal is reached, so if they could reach one in the time allowed for in the deal there is no need for the backstop to ever go into effect. It only triggers if the time limit on this deal runs out with out a permanent deal in place, it then prevents a hard border.

Yes the backstop is to prevent a problem in the future but is causing one now.

Some people here say that the UK could unilaterally exit the backstop, but you appear to be saying that once signed up to the backstop this locks the UK into a relationship with the EU as defined by the EU. That is certainly the legal advice the UK government has received.

 

[Vixen]

Which has nothing to do with whether EU citizens are resident in the UK or not.

Surely they can match them up digitally with those who've applied for settled status?

If your application for residence requires your passport number then what is the problem matching 'em up?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Surely they can match them up digitally with those who've applied for settled status?

If your application for residence requires your passport number then what is the problem matching 'em up?

There's no requirement to have applied for settled status yet.

You are basically saying that a scheme for registering EU citizens with a right to residence would exist if they had already put in place the scheme for registering EU citizens with a right of residence.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes the backstop is to prevent a problem in the future but is causing one now.

The UK Government is causing a problem now.

Some people here say that the UK could unilaterally exit the backstop, but you appear to be saying that once signed up to the backstop this locks the UK into a relationship with the EU as defined by the EU. That is certainly the legal advice the UK government has received.

Then the UK Government needs to present an alternative solution it is willing to accept that is also acceptable to the EU.

What is that alternative solution? Because I haven't heard one whimper from BJ on what it is.

 

[lomiller]

People above have given an example of how countries within the Schengen area can unilaterally introduce border controls with other Schengen area countries e.g. from Germany into Denmark.

They haven’t said that, but more importantly it’s completely irrelevant. The EU and it’s common customs and travel areas is what allows them to NOT have border checkpoints. Without these, there would need checkpoints at every single border.

The EU positively requires there to be border controls between EU countries where one is within the Schengen area and the other is not.e.g. Gibraltar / Spain border.

If the UK were to stay in both the common customs and travel agreements a border would not be required. This isn’t what the UK wants to do, hence the requirement for either a border or the backstop.

The backstop in requiring bilateral agreement ie giving the EU a veto on the UK introducing border controls is requiring a higher level of 'openness' than is required under the Schengen arrangement.

International agreements regularly put restrictions on both sides. The EU has a responsibility to to look out for one of it’s member states and it’s doing so. How it would deal with a dispute between two member states becomes irrelevant after Brexit.

 

[jimbob]

Yes the backstop is to prevent a problem in the future but is causing one now.

Some people here say that the UK could unilaterally exit the backstop, but you appear to be saying that once signed up to the backstop this locks the UK into a relationship with the EU as defined by the EU. That is certainly the legal advice the UK government has received.

The backstop, or something like that is needed for the UK to keep to its side of the GFA. Personally, I think that sectarian violence and bombing campaigns are worse than economic growth, peace and stability. I also think that reneging on treaty obligations is not a particularly good idea before starting to negotiate scores of trade treaties, but then those are a couple of areas where I differ from the current government.