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

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Of course you can tear it up, just like all those pesky laws ensuring free movement to the Irish got torn up by Brexit. Tearing up agreements unilaterally is in now. Just stop pretending the people didn't tear up the GFA when they voted for brexit. Hey that is another agreement the UK unilaterally tore up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Damn you and your linear time!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

While considering which options and players are anti-democratic it is worth bearing in mind that the people of Northern Ireland voted to stay in the customs union and free movement area by staying in the EU but were told they couldn't by a government that is beholden to the DUP who they bribed for their votes.

 

[lomiller]

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.

It’s obvious the UK could exit the backstop agreement without coming to any agreement with the EU. Doing so would probably nullify most other agreements with the EU and leave the UK in more or less the same place as a no-deal Brexit so doing so would be a terrible idea, but no less terrible then just going ahead with a no-deal Brexit right now.

 

[abaddon]

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?

Crossed it 4 times last weekend. Didn't even bring my passport. No checks at all. This will be unlikely post Oct. 31.

 

[GlennB]

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?

The majority haven't, because nobody told them they'd have to by Oct 31. That's just Patel's delirium that could, say, on first view of her statement, leave a German brain surgeon who lives and works in the UK stranded abroad.

And of "Surely they can" ... do you seriously think the Home Office has sussed how to do this, even if it offered a solution (which it doesn't)?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Johnson* tells Tusk one reason the backstop is undemocratic is that it affords the people of Northern Ireland no influence over the legislation which applies to them.

Of course Johnson's No-Deal-Crash-Out "plan" applies to them even though they voted no to Brexit. So all hope may be dead but at least irony is not.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49410475

*Or rather, one assumes, Cummings speaking through Johnson.

 

[Giordano]

I am in the USA, so I hesitate to offer my opinion. But so what, I offer uninformed opinions all the time.

From my perspective and understanding it appears that a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland would inevitably stir up the issues, and possibly the violence, associated with the Troubles. The practical problems would be enough to create strong anger in the Irish population and likely damage their economy. The way many Tories have publicly minimized these issues hasn't helped.

But more so, having both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the EU, by producing a very soft political border, significantly toned down the enormously sensitive issue of Irish unity. It made the political division between the two Irelands less part of peoples' day to day experience. Those who wished to could even pretend that it was a step toward the ultimate unification of Ireland without having to actually do so and thereby avoiding a strong counter-response from Northern Ireland. But a hard border would reverse this, and imposed by the UK, would surely be viewed by those in the Republic as yet another a slap in their face. It would highlight the continued separateness of Northern Ireland and in a confrontational way that would be evident every day for those seeking to cross between the two countries for personal or economic reasons.

I see this as an enormous risk for violence, with the most radical arms of the IRA being the only ones who will benefit. IMO this is why a backstop is crucial.

Are my concerns shared or stupid?

 

[Hungry81]

The best solution to the backstop is for the U.K to give back Northern Ireland. Then they dont have to worry about this mess at all. Until of course Scotland tells them to get stuffed.

 

[a_unique_person]

I am in the USA, so I hesitate to offer my opinion. But so what, I offer uninformed opinions all the time.

From my perspective and understanding it appears that a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland would inevitably stir up the issues, and possibly the violence, associated with the Troubles. The practical problems would be enough to create strong anger in the Irish population and likely damage their economy. The way many Tories have publicly minimized these issues hasn't helped.

But more so, having both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the EU, by producing a very soft political border, significantly toned down the enormously sensitive issue of Irish unity. It made the political division between the two Irelands less part of peoples' day to day experience. Those who wished to could even pretend that it was a step toward the ultimate unification of Ireland without having to actually do so and thereby avoding to a strong counter-response from Northern Ireland. But a hard border would reverse this, and imposed by the UK, would surely be viewed by those in the Republic as yet another a slap in their face. It would highlight the continued separateness of Northern Ireland and in a confrontational way that would be evident every day for those seeking to cross between the two countries for personal or economic reasons.

I see this as an enormous risk for violence, with the most radical arms of the IRA being the only ones who will benefit. IMO this is why a backstop is crucial.

Are my concerns shared or stupid?

I think it also just shows the utter contempt England still has for Ireland in some areas of the political spectrum. They will take a massive risk in Ireland for the sake having complete control over what is left of their Empire. MEGA.

 

[dudalb]

They do. They just don't care.

"Let Them Eat Cake"...…
Gee, that worked out so great for the French Nobility.
As stated, they are playing with dynamite and don't know what the hell they are doing.

 

[dudalb]

I think it also just shows the utter contempt England still has for Ireland in some areas of the political spectrum.

Looks like Boris might single handled bring back "The Troubles".

 

[dudalb]

The best solution to the backstop is for the U.K to give back Northern Ireland. Then they dont have to worry about this mess at all. Until of course Scotland tells then to get stuffed.

Not sure the Republic wants the headache of the North, and a bunch of angry Orangemen.
Don't kid yourself, you hear, in the south, a lot of rhetoric about a 32 Counry Republic, and a lot of singing of rebel songs and shouting of "Four Green Fields" but few in the South really want all the problems they would get with Ulster.

 

[dudalb]

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.

As stated, Boris and company might just bring about the third round of "The Troubles".
Their contempt for the Irish is almost palpable.

 

[catsmate]

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

Really? I've entered and left the UK without a passport.

 

[a_unique_person]

Has DUP had anything to say on the current course of action?

 

[McHrozni]

Reasons for insisting on the backstop now appear to be because people believe it might result in:
a) parliament deferring the exit date from 31/10/19 but this does not solve the impasse that the May / Backstop deal cannot be voted on again.
b) parliament will cause article 50 to be repealed. The UK remains in the EU, whilst this may be better than Brexit, I believe it would be politically bad as the Brexit issue would remain live and parliament would be seen to have overridden the referendum. I do not believe there would be a parliamentary majority to repeal article 50.
c) In case of a) or b) above the delay will result in a further referendum (but there is no guarantee that people will get the answer they hope for so it might just leave the issue as is but a few months down the line with a small pro Brexit majority). Even if the referendum resulted in a remain result unless it was very clear (e.g. >60% remain) it would not solve the Brexit issue. A 51% pro-remain vote would just result in continued pressure for a best of three vote.

The referendum legislation can stipulate another Brexit referendum can be held 10 years hence, if Remain wins. That should stick a potato in the Brexiteer mouthpieces.

I believe that the best way to solve the Brexit issue at this point is for the UK to leave with the best deal possible (which pragmatically I would accept as the May deal), for people to realise that the EU is the better option, and unlike last time we joined the EU for there to be a referendum on joining the EU and hopefully a clear majority in favour. (I accept some will say why would the EU take the UK back, but I would say because it would be of benefit to the EU and because philosophically the raisom d'être of the EU is the union of European nations.)

Given what we've seen from UK in the past couple of years EU might offer a Norway-style deal, where UK is subjeted to EU rules but has no official say in making them.

Would it really be so bad if UK were like Norway? If it was good enough for Farage is really should be good enough for Britain.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Given what we've seen from UK in the past couple of years EU might offer a Norway-style deal, where UK is subjeted to EU rules but has no official say in making them.

Would it really be so bad if UK were like Norway? If it was good enough for Farage is really should be good enough for Britain.

McHrozni

I don't think Nigel Farage wanted a Norway style deal so much as Norway style benefits (membership of the EEA with all that confers) but without the responsibilities (recognising the four freedoms, adhering to EU standards over which you now have no control, contributing to the EU budget and so on).

 

[McHrozni]

I don't think Nigel Farage wanted a Norway style deal so much as Norway style benefits (membership of the EEA with all that confers) but without the responsibilities (recognising the four freedoms, adhering to EU standards over which you now have no control, contributing to the EU budget and so on).

Here's a summary:



He happily endorsed Norway as the model for Brexit Britain half a dozen times. He's fine with contributing money to the EU, so long as it doesn't go through Brussels. He said it's not true Norway has no say in rulemaking, that it doesn't have to abide all the ruled and made no mention of the four freedoms.

I'd call that a devoted fan of the Norway option.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Here's a summary:



He happily endorsed Norway as the model for Brexit Britain half a dozen times. He's fine with contributing money to the EU, so long as it doesn't go through Brussels. He said it's not true Norway has no say in rulemaking, that it doesn't have to abide all the ruled and made no mention of the four freedoms.

I'd call that a devoted fan of the Norway option.

McHrozni

The things he apparently likes about a Norway style solution is that they don't have to abide by all the rules and they have control over their fishing rights. We know this because he kept mentioning it.

The fact that he doesn't mention the four freedoms, claims (erroneously) that Norway's contributions go directly to poorer EU countries without Brussels being involved and doesn't mention the vast range of EU rules that Norway does have to abide by means that deliberately, or through ignorance, or a combination of both he is still promoting an "all the advantages and none of the responsibilities" relationship with the EU.

Also, those comments were made a couple of years ago, the equivalent to several lifetimes ago in human years.