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

[ceptimus]

You're missing the point. The backstop means that the UK can't negotiate ANY trade deal with ANY other country. That is clearly unacceptable.

The EU have been told over and over again that keeping to the GFA does not necessitate the onerous backstop - but it doesn't suit their negotiating position to accept that, so they just keep saying, 'Non.'

 

[lomiller]

I'm rather interested in whether the backstop objection is made in good faith. I have serious doubts.

Hanlon’s razor applies. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” IMO they are just oblivious and don’t understand what leaving the EU actually entails. They are used to the way trade works with the EU, and they think that’s normal. They forget that it’s the common market and customs area are why it works that way, so it doesn’t quite register that if they leave things won’t work that way anymore. It’s a little like anti-vaxers that think because they no longer see the diseases vaccinations prevent, we can just stop the vaccinations.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

You're missing the point. The backstop means that the UK can't negotiate ANY trade deal with ANY other country. That is clearly unacceptable.

The EU have been told over and over again that keeping to the GFA does not necessitate the onerous backstop - but it doesn't suit their negotiating position to accept that, so they just keep saying, 'Non.'

I think I see where your confusion lies. It was the UK that demanded that the backstop should apply to the whole of the UK. Accepting that represented a serious concession by the EU.
It would certainly not be a problem for the EU if the UK dropped that demand. But that is an internal UK matter.

 

[ceptimus]

I think I see where your confusion lies. It was the UK that demanded that the backstop should apply to the whole of the UK. Accepting that represented a serious concession by the EU.
It would certainly not be a problem for the EU if the UK dropped that demand. But that is an internal UK matter.

Yeah the EU offer us the choice of annexing part of our country, or being bound by their trade rules in perpetuity (potentially). Not much of choice is it? Who would have thought leaving a club would be so hard?

Luckily there is another option - just leave. That's what our current government is intent on doing.

 

[Planigale]

No, the EU did not demand that. The EU only demands that the UK keep the committments it made in the GFA. Nothing more.

All the GFA says about the border is it should be demilitarised. The current backstop the EU insists on has nothing to do with what the GFA says. The border currently has different taxes on each side one cannot freely move goods across the border.

Now the reason for the backstop may be well meaning, the concern that paramilitaries will find that the perfectly legal and normal custom and passport inspections (as occurs within the EU when you move in and out of the Schengen area), an excuse for violence. But it is not required by the GFA.

To be clear whether the backstop applies to part or whole of the UK (one might conceive Scotland choosing to opt in to the backstop), what it means is that in perpetuity the UK government surrenders authority to make laws to the EU and judgement to the ECJ. A complete abrogation of democracy. No country would willingly do this. If we look at the arguments for independence in Scotland or Catalonia areas with full democratic participation in the greater political body how much greater will be the demand when there is no democratic participation or representation. What happens if the ECJ rules that Pounds Sterling or mph are a barrier to free movement of goods then in whole or part the UK has to give up its currency and speed limits. What happens if Ireland joins the Schengen area, then the UK in whole or part has to do so. That an internal border would need to be introduced in the way within a nation is something that only occurs in martial law situations or in totalitarian states. Yet this is what the EU proposes to become. Whilst it may be thought just deserts for the UK to become effectively a colony of the New Roman Empire again after 2000 years, what it is is a route to anti EU insurrection.

Now before you all pile into me. I am an EU enthusiast, pointing out the obsession with sticking with the backstop is antidemocratic and likely to precipitate the very thing it is intended to avoid does not mean one is pro-Brexit.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yeah the EU offer us the choice of annexing part of our country, or being bound by their trade rules in perpetuity (potentially). Not much of choice is it? Who would have thought leaving a club would be so hard?

Luckily there is another option - just leave. That's what our current government is intent on doing.

All we need to do is negotiate a trade deal and the backstop goes away.

 

[The Don]

Yeah the EU offer us the choice of annexing part of our country, or being bound by their trade rules in perpetuity (potentially). Not much of choice is it? Who would have thought leaving a club would be so hard?

Luckily there is another option - just leave. That's what our current government is intent on doing.

Leaving a club is easy.

Leaving a club and retaining most or all of the benefits of membership is the hard part.....

 

[ceptimus]

All we need to do is negotiate a trade deal and the backstop goes away.

And, of course, negotiating the trade deal means getting the EU's approval of it. What if they prefer to just string us along, not agree the trade deal, and keep us in the backstop? What then is the exit mechanism? There doesn't seem to be one, short of declaring war.

 

[ceptimus]

Leaving a club is easy.

Leaving a club and retaining most or all of the benefits of membership is the hard part.....

Exactly. And that is why the current government is committed to just leaving on Halloween - whether or not the EU wish to grant us any benefits after we leave. We can and should leave by the easy route. It's what I've advocated from the start - just walk away.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

All the GFA says about the border is it should be demilitarised. The current backstop the EU insists on has nothing to do with what the GFA says. The border currently has different taxes on each side one cannot freely move goods across the border.

Actually, there's a lot of coordination of VAT collection in the EU.
Leaving that is not really compatible with the committment to an all-island economy made in the GFA.

To be clear whether the backstop applies to part or whole of the UK (one might conceive Scotland choosing to opt in to the backstop), what it means is that in perpetuity the UK government surrenders authority to make laws to the EU and judgement to the ECJ.

That is what the UK government at the time wanted. It is certainly not a demand by the EU.

Now before you all pile into me. I am an EU enthusiast,[...]

You may be an EU enthusiast but you have swallowed a lot of lies.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

And, of course, negotiating the trade deal means getting the EU's approval of it. What if they prefer to just string us along, not agree the trade deal, and keep us in the backstop? What then is the exit mechanism? There doesn't seem to be one, short of declaring war.

Don't be hysterical. The UK does not have to declare war to break the GFA now, it does not have to declare war to violate the backstop, should it ever want to.

 

[The Don]

The UK is assuming that the French preparations will ease a no-deal Brexit:

The government is assuming that French preparations for customs and regulatory checks have markedly decreased the anticipated trade disruption from a no-deal Brexit, the BBC has learned.

"Reasonable worst case scenarios" still anticipate long disruption to about half the freight crossing the Channel.

But the assumption, the basis for a lot of the government's no-deal planning, has been upgraded twice recently,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49270872

IOW, as usual Brexiteers expect everyone else to to their heavy lifting

 

[lomiller]

The EU have been told over and over again that keeping to the GFA does not necessitate the onerous backstop - but it doesn't suit their negotiating position to accept that, so they just keep saying, 'Non.'

It’s not the GFA that requires the backstop it’s Brexit. If the UK isn’t in the EU there needs to be a border with customs and immigration checks. This is how international travel works in the absence of a common trade, customs and travel area like the one in the EU. It’s an international norm, it’s how countries and borders work unless you are a failed state or part of a larger economic union like the EU.

Brexit means having borders and having to enforce them. Get used to it.

 

[Hellbound]

It’s not the GFA that requires the backstop it’s Brexit. If the UK isn’t in the EU there needs to be a border with customs and immigration checks. This is how international travel works in the absence of a common trade, customs and travel area like the one in the EU. It’s an international norm, it’s how countries and borders work unless you are a failed state or part of a larger economic union like the EU.

Brexit means having borders and having to enforce them. Get used to it.

This.

Wanting to be able to not follow EU rules and still not have any sort of border control is basically "We want you to agree to let us smuggle whatever we want into your countries."

The EU isn't the ones being unreasonable.

 

[catsmate]

So what would be a sensible plan should agreement not be negotiated in time?

Obviously the EU should give whatever group is running the UK on that day whatever they want. Simples....

 

[catsmate]

Is there any good reason to think that the UK parliament would accept the WA without the backstop? Something like a resolution?

Oh he'll no. It's all just a smokescreen by the Brexiteers. If it wasn't the backstop they'd find something else to whine about the EU oppressing them over.

 

[a_unique_person]

You're missing the point. The backstop means that the UK can't negotiate ANY trade deal with ANY other country. That is clearly unacceptable.

The EU have been told over and over again that keeping to the GFA does not necessitate the onerous backstop - but it doesn't suit their negotiating position to accept that, so they just keep saying, 'Non.'

I'm curious. What is this alternative to the backstop?

 

[Darat]

Because the EU insist that their rules mean they can't even talk to us about trade until after we've left. It's one of their most effective red lines.

May did negotiate a transition period, or whatever you want to call it - which is what I'm suggesting. But the EU only agreed it providing the ludicrous anti-democratic backstop was also included - which is why the current 'deal' (treaty really) has failed to pass the house of commons.

We need EU permission to come up with a proposal? Wow.

 

[GlennB]

Nice to see Johnson has things under control :

"One Conservative insider said that Cummings had in effect demanded control over Johnson’s operation as his price for entering government and proceeded to sideline more moderate advisers, such as ex-City Hall stalwart Sir Eddie Lister, while installing a team of “true believers” in hard Brexit largely from the former Vote Leave campaign.

The source described Cummings’ grip over No 10 as a “reign of terror”, with advisers petrified about keeping their jobs and being told they are expected to be working flat out to deliver Brexit come what may by the 31 October deadline."

 

[Darat]

Nice to see Johnson has things under control :

"One Conservative insider said that Cummings had in effect demanded control over Johnson’s operation as his price for entering government and proceeded to sideline more moderate advisers, such as ex-City Hall stalwart Sir Eddie Lister, while installing a team of “true believers” in hard Brexit largely from the former Vote Leave campaign.

The source described Cummings’ grip over No 10 as a “reign of terror”, with advisers petrified about keeping their jobs and being told they are expected to be working flat out to deliver Brexit come what may by the 31 October deadline."

To be fair, twice in a day! That is exactly what Johnson campaigned to be leader on.