** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[merseymouth]

Hi all, I agree fully with Al_Yrpal, start throwing abuse at me, some never disappoint!
If something can't be properly discussed, then there is something to hide.
Just been watching a "Doomwatch" episode, they cited a country where 17.5 million people voted for a smooth talking guy, who then proceeded to ignore the vote and took them into serious conflict? A couple of years earlier he was a total laughing stock! Yep, that was Herr Schicklegruber's son, Little Adolf. TTFN MM

[roubaixtuesday]

And here is why the EU is not to be trusted

The EU has said it will consider other solutions to the Irish border problem, but only once the current Brexit deal has been signed off. It has also expressed doubts about a technological solution:

"We looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there's simply no way you can do away with checks and controls," its director-general for trade, Sabine Weyand, said in January.

ergo the would never let the UK leave the backstop? Hardly the behaviour of a friendly group of nations?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48826360

Any way the backstop as to do with the internal market belongs to the trade talks and not before. Maybe an arrangement for the GFA should be part of the Brexit ist stage, but as I repeatedly say that is less demanding than that for the internal market protection. SInce the EU wants to split matters in this way its their fault this problem goes unsolved. Why should the UK suffer because of EU inflexability?

Yet again. The backstop is a concession by the EU. It gives us access to the single market without all the obligations. They don't want us in it, and it was controversial to allow it.

[bovlomov]

The article explains clearly it is the EU rules and regulations that are causing the trouble - not up to dealing with the reallity of the situation. So the UK is supposed to be compromised just due to EU shortcomings.

That's an odd interpretation.

The EU has rules and regulations, as do all trading blocs. The UK helped to draft them. There is no reason why EU rules should now accommodate the UK's weird preoccupations and deviations. There are solutions to the UK's problems that do not conflict with EU rules. The UK does not want them. It wants something different - hence the backstop.

The world does not revolve around the UK.

[mercalia]

And here is why the EU is not to be trusted

The EU has said it will consider other solutions to the Irish border problem, but only once the current Brexit deal has been signed off. It has also expressed doubts about a technological solution:

"We looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there's simply no way you can do away with checks and controls," its director-general for trade, Sabine Weyand, said in January.

ergo the would never let the UK leave the backstop? Hardly the behaviour of a friendly group of nations?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48826360

Any way the backstop as to do with the internal market belongs to the trade talks and not before. Maybe an arrangement for the GFA should be part of the Brexit ist stage, but as I repeatedly say that is less demanding than that for the internal market protection. SInce the EU wants to split matters in this way its their fault this problem goes unsolved. Why should the UK suffer because of EU inflexability?

Yet again. The backstop is a concession by the EU. It gives us access to the single market without all the obligations. They don't want us in it, and it was controversial to allow it.

Yet again no it isnt. If it was a conncession they would say fine drop the backstop. will they ? not on your nelly!

[mercalia]

The article explains clearly it is the EU rules and regulations that are causing the trouble - not up to dealing with the reallity of the situation. So the UK is supposed to be compromised just due to EU shortcomings.

That's an odd interpretation.

The EU has rules and regulations, as do all trading blocs. The UK helped to draft them. There is no reason why EU rules should now accommodate the UK's weird preoccupations and deviations. There are solutions to the UK's problems that do not conflict with EU rules. The UK does not want them. It wants something different - hence the backstop.

The world does not revolve around the UK.

The weird preoccupations and deviations is the GFA I take it? It is the EU that decided to stick its nose in other countries affairs? Had it not done so, we might have had a transitional period of 2 years then should the trade talks had foundered, hte UK could have been free to do what ever it wants one way or the other?

[roubaixtuesday]

And here is why the EU is not to be trusted

The EU has said it will consider other solutions to the Irish border problem, but only once the current Brexit deal has been signed off. It has also expressed doubts about a technological solution:

"We looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there's simply no way you can do away with checks and controls," its director-general for trade, Sabine Weyand, said in January.

ergo the would never let the UK leave the backstop? Hardly the behaviour of a friendly group of nations?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48826360

Any way the backstop as to do with the internal market belongs to the trade talks and not before. Maybe an arrangement for the GFA should be part of the Brexit ist stage, but as I repeatedly say that is less demanding than that for the internal market protection. SInce the EU wants to split matters in this way its their fault this problem goes unsolved. Why should the UK suffer because of EU inflexability?

Yet again. The backstop is a concession by the EU. It gives us access to the single market without all the obligations. They don't want us in it, and it was controversial to allow it.

Yet again no it isnt. If it was a conncession they would say fine drop the backstop. will they ? not on your nelly!

Whether you regard it as a concession isn't the issue. It is a concession. Have a read.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... d-backstop

The two sides reached agreement on a draft Withdrawal Agreement in November 2018, which included a Protocol on Northern Ireland setting out the backstop. The EU made a significant concession in granting a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’, avoiding the need for customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the requirement for regulatory alignment is limited to Northern Ireland.

[mercalia]

Yet again. The backstop is a concession by the EU. It gives us access to the single market without all the obligations. They don't want us in it, and it was controversial to allow it.

Yet again no it isnt. If it was a conncession they would say fine drop the backstop. will they ? not on your nelly!

Whether you regard it as a concession isn't the issue. It is a concession. Have a read.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... d-backstop

The two sides reached agreement on a draft Withdrawal Agreement in November 2018, which included a Protocol on Northern Ireland setting out the backstop. The EU made a significant concession in granting a UK-wide ‘single customs territory’, avoiding the need for customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the requirement for regulatory alignment is limited to Northern Ireland.

yes the conncession was to the WHOLE UK WIDE backstop , NOT THE ORIGINAL Northern Ireland only backstop. BOTH are unacceptable is Boris' claim. Not much of a concession really, since it ties the hands of the UK to make deals with other countries is the claim? or does it? What does the "single customs territory" imply we can or cannot do? And it still means the north dont have a say in the rules it has to follow? its a damp squib. I give you a bar of chocolate that is past its sell by date. Presumably should we get a trade deal with the yanks we couldnt send any of Trumps Chicken to the north? so much for the "single customs territory", or does the regulatory alignment only apply when it comes to Irish exports ( to the EU)? In which case why the need for a backstop at all? Trust the UK not to send Trumps Chicken to the EU?

[pete75]

Every other country in the EU does what the paymasters say. We are opting out of that and the paymasters are throwing toys out of their prams. That's what it's all about, relinquishing control over Britain. Only naivity blinds you to that. They have got the hump!

Al

I thought you supporters of brexit claimed the UK was one of the paymasters. Moreover it's the one throwing toys out of it's pram.

[pete75]

Mercalia I don't know why you're so worked up about the backstop. It'll never come into force as Britain will leave the EU on no deal terms.
Once you realise that you'll be able to stop fretting about it.

[Oldjohnw]

Every other country in the EU does what the paymasters say. We are opting out of that and the paymasters are throwing toys out of their prams. That's what it's all about, relinquishing control over Britain. Only naivity blinds you to that. They have got the hump!

Al

And just a few posts up another Brexiter was saying the opposite: Italy, Iireland, Eastern European countries all doing their own thing.

How does the EU tell us what to do?

[bovlomov]

The weird preoccupations and deviations is the GFA I take it? It is the EU that decided to stick its nose in other countries affairs? Had it not done so, we might have had a transitional period of 2 years then should the trade talks had foundered, hte UK could have been free to do what ever it wants one way or the other?

No. As I've said before, it's about a lot more than the GFA. The UK does not have a coherent plan - one that accommodates EU rules, the GFA, the border issues more generally, WTO, and the DUP and Tory preoccupations.

[Psamathe]

And here is why the EU is not to be trusted

The EU has said it will consider other solutions to the Irish border problem, but only once the current Brexit deal has been signed off. It has also expressed doubts about a technological solution:

"We looked at every border on this Earth, every border the EU has with a third country - there's simply no way you can do away with checks and controls," its director-general for trade, Sabine Weyand, said in January.

ergo the would never let the UK leave the backstop? Hardly the behaviour of a friendly group of nations?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48826360

Any way the backstop as to do with the internal market belongs to the trade talks and not before. Maybe an arrangement for the GFA should be part of the Brexit ist stage, but as I repeatedly say that is less demanding than that for the internal market protection. SInce the EU wants to split matters in this way its their fault this problem goes unsolved. Why should the UK suffer because of EU inflexability?

Yet again. The backstop is a concession by the EU. It gives us access to the single market without all the obligations. They don't want us in it, and it was controversial to allow it.

And the EU wanted it to only apply to Northern Ireland but the UK Government wanted it to apply to the entire UK so the EU compromised yet further and allowed it to include the entire UK.

Ian

[Psamathe]

.....
yes the conncession was to the WHOLE UK WIDE backstop , NOT THE ORIGINAL Northern Ireland only backstop. BOTH are unacceptable is Boris' claim......

In which case why has he voted supporting the agreement?

Ian

[bovlomov]

.....
yes the conncession was to the WHOLE UK WIDE backstop , NOT THE ORIGINAL Northern Ireland only backstop. BOTH are unacceptable is Boris' claim......

In which case why has he voted supporting the agreement?

As did many of his cabinet.
Why?
1) Because they didn't understand it?
2) Because the current drama is all about apportioning blame and nothing to do with sovereignty?
3) Because it was such a great idea that they had to support it?

[mikeonabike]

.....
yes the conncession was to the WHOLE UK WIDE backstop , NOT THE ORIGINAL Northern Ireland only backstop. BOTH are unacceptable is Boris' claim......

In which case why has he voted supporting the agreement?

As did many of his cabinet.
Why?
1) Because they didn't understand it?
2) Because the current drama is all about apportioning blame and nothing to do with sovereignty?
3) Because it was such a great idea that they had to support it?

The plan all along has been not to openly pursue no-deal. If the govt had said at the start that we couldn't agree a backstop so would have to do no-deal, we would have had two years of businesses shifting production out of UK, £ sinking even more, etc. Which would have given time for the majority who oppose no-deal to get their act together.

This has required a little inconsistency from the Leavers, but in these days of fake news, who cares?