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

[Psamathe]

I was not saying ONLY the EU would be culable - it would joint culpability. Not as it is at the moment ONLY the UK. Your paraphrase is one version. Another might be, we are leaving, if you want to interfere in Anglo-Irish politics then you will have to cooperate with the UK over the border and stop insisting on protecting your single market as if the GFA didnt exist.

I suspect "culpability" would depend on what the UK sought and if it sought something compatible with an open border the reasons for the negotiations failing. For example, at the moment our Brex-iteer politicians are talking about a Canada style trade deal - which (it is reported) is incompatible with open borders on Ireland. So if we only ask for something that requires a hard border then we can hardly blame the EU when a hard border becomes necessary.

The EU is a Single Market and the EU has to protect it's single market (apparently German manufacturer tell their government they are worried about a hard Brexit but they also tell their Government they are more worried about maintaining the integrity of the Single Market (which is more important to them). UK Brexit politicians seem to be singing about the wonders of hormone fed beef and chlorine washed chicken and UK moving in that direction is going to ensure the EU cannot allow trade treaties that allow open borders. Much of the outcome of the trade negotiations is in the hards of the UK or rather in the hands of an over-entitled public school boy with no experience of negotiations.

Ian

well I think your characterisation of the UK panting for chlorinated chicken is over cooked. If the EU is so adamant about its single market it should come clean and say that the GFA is of only secondary importance which will have to be sacrificed. It needs to stop thinking it can have it both ways at the UKs expence? My take is that the alternative measures soln using electronics is the only way ahead but is clearly a work in progress so protecting the single market with a borderless Ireland is some thing that will only work to a degree at the start, but will improve over time. But the EU insists on a soln that works 100% from day one. Thats the impossible demand thats causing all the trouble. Which is why politicians not bureacrats should have been in the driving seat in the EU., who would then have recommended amendments to EU rules. The fact of the GFA with its constructive ambiguity suggests a unique soln is needed rather than some thing from the rule book?

So Leaving the EU with no GFA considered is just a technical matter; with the GFA is a political matter.

It's not the UK panting for chlorine washed chicken, it's the Hard-Brexit supporting UK politicians (e.g. ERG).

It's not just the EU that would be requiring a hard border to protect the single market. Under WTO rules we would also need one.Ignoring the WTO Rules requirement for a hard border, the EU has a single market and member states will quite understandably not allow that single market to be destroyed because the UK has chosen to leave it. The Single Market is a massive benefit to member states and losing it would big impact - so it always was going to be a big problem from a trade/borders perspective and it was the Leave campaigners that really didn't understand the EU that decided the UK would be getting everything it wished without problems.

As for the GFA I don't think I understand enough about the massive complexities to argue the case. But I did hear one fascinating interview with an N Irish politician where she was discussing how in NI the border (or lack of it) is about far more than trade but the crucial matter of "identity". She was explaining that the absence of a border allows republicans to feel they have a degree of identity with the south. So add a border even with technology checks away from the physical border and it would still have a massive impact on the perceived "identity" felt by republicans. In effect it would be dragging them back into the Union where at the moment they have a degree of feeling of being part of the south. This has nothing to do with the EU.

Ian

[pete75]

It's not just the EU that would be requiring a hard border to protect the single market. Under WTO rules we would also need one.Ignoring the WTO Rules requirement for a hard border, the EU has a single market and member states will quite understandably not allow that single market to be destroyed because the UK has chosen to leave it. The Single Market is a massive benefit to member states and losing it would big impact - so it always was going to be a big problem from a trade/borders perspective and it was the Leave campaigners that really didn't understand the EU that decided the UK would be getting everything it wished without problems.

Many are talking about a hard border in customs terms but what will really require a hard border is the desire to "take back control" for immigration purposes. Patel has already said that she wants to end free movement on the 1st November. This will involve checks at every border and particularly the one in Ireland as it is currently Britain's only land border. If there are no controls there every EU citizen who wants to come and live in the UK can just walk across from the Republic. There is no possible way the government can implement their immigration policies without a hard border between Ireland and Ulster unless, of course, there is one between the whole of Ireland and Great Britain. If that were to happen the best and most sensible thing would be for Ireland to reunite.

[mercalia]

I suspect "culpability" would depend on what the UK sought and if it sought something compatible with an open border the reasons for the negotiations failing. For example, at the moment our Brex-iteer politicians are talking about a Canada style trade deal - which (it is reported) is incompatible with open borders on Ireland. So if we only ask for something that requires a hard border then we can hardly blame the EU when a hard border becomes necessary.

The EU is a Single Market and the EU has to protect it's single market (apparently German manufacturer tell their government they are worried about a hard Brexit but they also tell their Government they are more worried about maintaining the integrity of the Single Market (which is more important to them). UK Brexit politicians seem to be singing about the wonders of hormone fed beef and chlorine washed chicken and UK moving in that direction is going to ensure the EU cannot allow trade treaties that allow open borders. Much of the outcome of the trade negotiations is in the hards of the UK or rather in the hands of an over-entitled public school boy with no experience of negotiations.

Ian

well I think your characterisation of the UK panting for chlorinated chicken is over cooked. If the EU is so adamant about its single market it should come clean and say that the GFA is of only secondary importance which will have to be sacrificed. It needs to stop thinking it can have it both ways at the UKs expence? My take is that the alternative measures soln using electronics is the only way ahead but is clearly a work in progress so protecting the single market with a borderless Ireland is some thing that will only work to a degree at the start, but will improve over time. But the EU insists on a soln that works 100% from day one. Thats the impossible demand thats causing all the trouble. Which is why politicians not bureacrats should have been in the driving seat in the EU., who would then have recommended amendments to EU rules. The fact of the GFA with its constructive ambiguity suggests a unique soln is needed rather than some thing from the rule book?

So Leaving the EU with no GFA considered is just a technical matter; with the GFA is a political matter.

It's not the UK panting for chlorine washed chicken, it's the Hard-Brexit supporting UK politicians (e.g. ERG).

It's not just the EU that would be requiring a hard border to protect the single market. Under WTO rules we would also need one.Ignoring the WTO Rules requirement for a hard border, the EU has a single market and member states will quite understandably not allow that single market to be destroyed because the UK has chosen to leave it. The Single Market is a massive benefit to member states and losing it would big impact - so it always was going to be a big problem from a trade/borders perspective and it was the Leave campaigners that really didn't understand the EU that decided the UK would be getting everything it wished without problems.

As for the GFA I don't think I understand enough about the massive complexities to argue the case. But I did hear one fascinating interview with an N Irish politician where she was discussing how in NI the border (or lack of it) is about far more than trade but the crucial matter of "identity". She was explaining that the absence of a border allows republicans to feel they have a degree of identity with the south. So add a border even with technology checks away from the physical border and it would still have a massive impact on the perceived "identity" felt by republicans. In effect it would be dragging them back into the Union where at the moment they have a degree of feeling of being part of the south. This has nothing to do with the EU.

Ian

I dont see that it answers what I say. other than WTO not really a possibility for the reasons given in the 2nd paragraph.
The EU's soln clearly doesnt give the UK what it wants in some peoples views, but what it think it should want, that suits the EU. Doesnt address the political consequences. Some times a political compromise means you cant have all you want eg in this case a fully protected single market or maybe treating the UK as you would any other country leaving the EU. Maybe you have to give the UK a borderless access to the EU, but depend on the UK policing its imports to make sure that in the case of chlorinated chicken etc they dont end up in the EU? . ie allow the UK to have dual standards. "For export only the the EU" As for the GFA nothing to do with the EU, well they have made it their business? What price is the EU willing to pay to satisfy your 2nd para?

There was an interesting argument between the deputy prime minister of Ireland, Simon Coveney, & Stephen Barclay

On Wednesday he and Stephen Barclay clashed at a Paris conference after the Brexit secretary criticised the original sequencing of talks, demanding the backstop should be dumped from the withdrawal agreement and made part of future trade talks instead.
Thats the issue I think?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... onvenience

[Psamathe]

well I think your characterisation of the UK panting for chlorinated chicken is over cooked. If the EU is so adamant about its single market it should come clean and say that the GFA is of only secondary importance which will have to be sacrificed. It needs to stop thinking it can have it both ways at the UKs expence? My take is that the alternative measures soln using electronics is the only way ahead but is clearly a work in progress so protecting the single market with a borderless Ireland is some thing that will only work to a degree at the start, but will improve over time. But the EU insists on a soln that works 100% from day one. Thats the impossible demand thats causing all the trouble. Which is why politicians not bureacrats should have been in the driving seat in the EU., who would then have recommended amendments to EU rules. The fact of the GFA with its constructive ambiguity suggests a unique soln is needed rather than some thing from the rule book?

So Leaving the EU with no GFA considered is just a technical matter; with the GFA is a political matter.

It's not the UK panting for chlorine washed chicken, it's the Hard-Brexit supporting UK politicians (e.g. ERG).

It's not just the EU that would be requiring a hard border to protect the single market. Under WTO rules we would also need one.Ignoring the WTO Rules requirement for a hard border, the EU has a single market and member states will quite understandably not allow that single market to be destroyed because the UK has chosen to leave it. The Single Market is a massive benefit to member states and losing it would big impact - so it always was going to be a big problem from a trade/borders perspective and it was the Leave campaigners that really didn't understand the EU that decided the UK would be getting everything it wished without problems.

As for the GFA I don't think I understand enough about the massive complexities to argue the case. But I did hear one fascinating interview with an N Irish politician where she was discussing how in NI the border (or lack of it) is about far more than trade but the crucial matter of "identity". She was explaining that the absence of a border allows republicans to feel they have a degree of identity with the south. So add a border even with technology checks away from the physical border and it would still have a massive impact on the perceived "identity" felt by republicans. In effect it would be dragging them back into the Union where at the moment they have a degree of feeling of being part of the south. This has nothing to do with the EU.

Ian

I dont see that it answers what I say. other than WTO not really a possibility for the reasons given in the 2nd paragraph.
The EU's soln clearly doesnt give the UK what it wants in some peoples views, but what it think it should want, that suits the EU. Doesnt address the political consequences. Some times a political compromise means you cant have all you want eg in this case a fully protected single market or maybe treating the UK as you would any other country leaving the EU. Maybe you have to give the UK a borderless access to the EU, but depend on the UK policing its imports to make sure that in the case of chlorinated chicken etc they dont end up in the EU? . ie allow the UK to have dual standards. As for the GFA nothing to do with the EU, well they have made it their business? What price is the EU willing to pay to satisfy your 2nd para?

There is and never was and chance of the EU trusting any 3rd country e.g. UK to safeguard the EU's interests when that would be to the 3rd countries detriment. UK would love to export goods into EU without having to conform to anything without having to pay anything without any European court resolving legal issues, etc.

I don't think it is for the EU to jeopardise their Single Market because the UK has decided to leave and will not ratify a compromise negotiated agreement. It is the UK who decided to leave and thus for the UK to resolve the issues. As I understand it the GFA is an international agreement between the UK and Irish Governments. It is quite proper for the EU to require the GFA be safeguarded as Ireland is a member of the EU. I suspect that the UK issues about the "Backstop" are being blown-up due to the dependence of the Conservatives on the support of the DUP - after all the DUP was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.

UK created this mess through its decision to leave and lack of any realistic plan so I believe it's wrong to start blaming the EU when it defends systems it has in place that are crucial to it's member states (e.g. the Single Market). UK's current attitude has reverted to the totally unrealistic "cake and eat it" stance.

Ian

[mercalia]

It's not the UK panting for chlorine washed chicken, it's the Hard-Brexit supporting UK politicians (e.g. ERG).

It's not just the EU that would be requiring a hard border to protect the single market. Under WTO rules we would also need one.Ignoring the WTO Rules requirement for a hard border, the EU has a single market and member states will quite understandably not allow that single market to be destroyed because the UK has chosen to leave it. The Single Market is a massive benefit to member states and losing it would big impact - so it always was going to be a big problem from a trade/borders perspective and it was the Leave campaigners that really didn't understand the EU that decided the UK would be getting everything it wished without problems.

As for the GFA I don't think I understand enough about the massive complexities to argue the case. But I did hear one fascinating interview with an N Irish politician where she was discussing how in NI the border (or lack of it) is about far more than trade but the crucial matter of "identity". She was explaining that the absence of a border allows republicans to feel they have a degree of identity with the south. So add a border even with technology checks away from the physical border and it would still have a massive impact on the perceived "identity" felt by republicans. In effect it would be dragging them back into the Union where at the moment they have a degree of feeling of being part of the south. This has nothing to do with the EU.

Ian

I dont see that it answers what I say. other than WTO not really a possibility for the reasons given in the 2nd paragraph.
The EU's soln clearly doesnt give the UK what it wants in some peoples views, but what it think it should want, that suits the EU. Doesnt address the political consequences. Some times a political compromise means you cant have all you want eg in this case a fully protected single market or maybe treating the UK as you would any other country leaving the EU. Maybe you have to give the UK a borderless access to the EU, but depend on the UK policing its imports to make sure that in the case of chlorinated chicken etc they dont end up in the EU? . ie allow the UK to have dual standards. As for the GFA nothing to do with the EU, well they have made it their business? What price is the EU willing to pay to satisfy your 2nd para?

There is and never was and chance of the EU trusting any 3rd country e.g. UK to safeguard the EU's interests when that would be to the 3rd countries detriment. UK would love to export goods into EU without having to conform to anything without having to pay anything without any European court resolving legal issues, etc.

I don't think it is for the EU to jeopardise their Single Market because the UK has decided to leave and will not ratify a compromise negotiated agreement. It is the UK who decided to leave and thus for the UK to resolve the issues. As I understand it the GFA is an international agreement between the UK and Irish Governments. It is quite proper for the EU to require the GFA be safeguarded as Ireland is a member of the EU. I suspect that the UK issues about the "Backstop" are being blown-up due to the dependence of the Conservatives on the support of the DUP - after all the DUP was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.

UK created this mess through its decision to leave and lack of any realistic plan so I believe it's wrong to start blaming the EU when it defends systems it has in place that are crucial to it's member states (e.g. the Single Market). UK's current attitude has reverted to the totally unrealistic "cake and eat it" stance.

Ian

well it isnt just the matter of the backstop per se but also the sequencing of talks and where the backstop is , as I added at the end .

There was an interesting argument between the deputy prime minister of Ireland, Simon Coveney, & Stephen Barclay

On Wednesday he and Stephen Barclay clashed at a Paris conference after the Brexit secretary criticised the original sequencing of talks, demanding the backstop should be dumped from the withdrawal agreement and made part of future trade talks instead.

Thats one of the issues I think? the separation of the backstop agreement from the trade talks not just the nature of the backstop.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/01/ireland-says-it-will-not-act-for-boris-johnsons-political-convenience

[Psamathe]

.......
well it isnt just the matter of the backstop per se but also the sequencing of talks and where the backstop is , as I added at the end .

There was an interesting argument between the deputy prime minister of Ireland, Simon Coveney, & Stephen Barclay

On Wednesday he and Stephen Barclay clashed at a Paris conference after the Brexit secretary criticised the original sequencing of talks, demanding the backstop should be dumped from the withdrawal agreement and made part of future trade talks instead.

Thats one of the issues I think? the separation of the backstop agreement from the trade talks not just the nature of the backstop.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/01/ireland-says-it-will-not-act-for-boris-johnsons-political-convenience

The "Backstop" relates to the future relationship between the UK and EU and thus needs to be included in the departure agreement. Depending on what future agreement may be negotiated several parts of the departure agreement may be superseded or may not depending on what the UK decides it wants and what is negotiated. For example, if Boris turns to his mate Trump and starts bringing in hormone fed beef and chlorine washed chicken there would be no agreements covering the Irish border. It is a safeguard in case no other solutions are found. The transition agreement is getting ever shorter (it's not 2 years but has an already agreed end date so is getting shorter every day). It is very unlikely that any trade deal with the EU can be agreed before the end of the transition period which would leave the Irish border question without agreement. Similarly the UK may elect to go for a Canada type deal which would again create border issues. Hence the "Backstop" has to be part of the departure agreement (it affects what happens after we depart). UK Government agreed with this.

Just because. Brexit-eer who wants the "Backstop" dropped thinks it should be dropped does not make his argument right.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Well that was a well thought out plan. More seriously it is rather worrying that the current set of Ministers seem to not be thinking things through at all! What confidence can we have about all this "no deal planning" when they fail to plan as per this example

Government 'abandons Priti Patel plan to end EU free movement'

The government has reportedly scrapped plans to end freedom of movement on 31 October after being told by lawyers that imposing the rule change on EU nationals could scupper no-deal planning and leave ministers at risk of legal action.

Ian

[mercalia]

.......
well it isnt just the matter of the backstop per se but also the sequencing of talks and where the backstop is , as I added at the end .

There was an interesting argument between the deputy prime minister of Ireland, Simon Coveney, & Stephen Barclay

On Wednesday he and Stephen Barclay clashed at a Paris conference after the Brexit secretary criticised the original sequencing of talks, demanding the backstop should be dumped from the withdrawal agreement and made part of future trade talks instead.

Thats one of the issues I think? the separation of the backstop agreement from the trade talks not just the nature of the backstop.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/01/ireland-says-it-will-not-act-for-boris-johnsons-political-convenience

The "Backstop" relates to the future relationship between the UK and EU and thus needs to be included in the departure agreement. Depending on what future agreement may be negotiated several parts of the departure agreement may be superseded or may not depending on what the UK decides it wants and what is negotiated. For example, if Boris turns to his mate Trump and starts bringing in hormone fed beef and chlorine washed chicken there would be no agreements covering the Irish border. It is a safeguard in case no other solutions are found. The transition agreement is getting ever shorter (it's not 2 years but has an already agreed end date so is getting shorter every day). It is very unlikely that any trade deal with the EU can be agreed before the end of the transition period which would leave the Irish border question without agreement. Similarly the UK may elect to go for a Canada type deal which would again create border issues. Hence the "Backstop" has to be part of the departure agreement (it affects what happens after we depart). UK Government agreed with this.

Just because. Brexit-eer who wants the "Backstop" dropped thinks it should be dropped does not make his argument right.

Ian

Of course , but as some one at the sharp end of all this an opnion that cant be rejected out right. And as an remainer ( I assume ) dont make your views right either

some kind of transitional arrangement yes, but not this particular one is the point that Barclay would make I think, since it potentially describes future arrangments to the UKs detriment eg The UK couldnt decide to abandon the GFA as being out of date and therefore install borders since that would then require the permission of the EU, whereas the GFA is between the UK and Ireland ? It introduces a third party. I am not sure that as it stands the backstop would allow importing Trumps Chickens? The Backstop as part of the transitional agreement goes too far? As far as safeguards are concerned, one might argue they should be bridges that are crossed when and only when the need arises and not before ie if or when the trade talks reach stalemate. I am sure there would be plenty of time to find one, maybe at the same time as the trade talks? Unless of course that also ends in stalemate... As it stands deciding it now now releaves any pressure from the EU to compromise, later, since the backstop satisfies the EUs main interest ie protecting the single market? And we keep on seeing this from the EU now. Just because the govt agreed to dont make it right. Mrs May gave too much away, which has left it to her successor to get tough to try and claw back what was lost.

It might be interesting to do a what if and suppose that the GFA requirements are left to the period when the trade talks are being discussed. We are in a transitional period where nothing changes. we have left but follow EU rules so the borderlessness is intact. We can extend this period by mutual consent. The EU has to struggle with squaring its single market with the GFA. It cant demand the UK stays in the status quo as we have left the EU, we are a third country? How would it proceeed? Bullishly assert the primacy of the single market? Then Ireland has been abandoned? I suspect the GFA would have to be reopened. Its not as if all the violence has ended in the the North? The orignal grouse that ignited it all has gone viz that the Unionists tried to exclude the Siin Fein supporters from power in the North. Very messy, but some times life is like that, thats the reality that the EU wants to avoid at the UKs cost

[Psamathe]

A different aspect to the current Westminster farce is a theory proposed by Gauke (rebel Conservative?)

Brexit: Boris Johnson 'wants to lose' to rebels as excuse to 'purge' moderate Conservatives and stage snap election, Tory ex-minister says

Boris Johnson wants to “purge” moderate Tory MPs ahead a snap general election he will fight as a “Brexit party”, a rebel former cabinet minister has alleged.

David Gauke said the prime minister – far from preparing to defy parliament with a crash-out Brexit on 31 October – was “goading” Tory MPs to help pass legislation to block a no-deal departure.

If he is right (and I have no idea) I suspect it's Piffle trying to create a win-win situation. Rebels get defeated he wins, rebels block no-deal and he purges moderate Conservatives to replace them with more extreme candidates for taking on the Brexit Party in an election that he probably knows is happening soon.

Ian

[mercalia]

A different aspect to the current Westminster farce is a theory proposed by Gauke (rebel Conservative?)

Brexit: Boris Johnson 'wants to lose' to rebels as excuse to 'purge' moderate Conservatives and stage snap election, Tory ex-minister says

Boris Johnson wants to “purge” moderate Tory MPs ahead a snap general election he will fight as a “Brexit party”, a rebel former cabinet minister has alleged.

David Gauke said the prime minister – far from preparing to defy parliament with a crash-out Brexit on 31 October – was “goading” Tory MPs to help pass legislation to block a no-deal departure.

If he is right (and I have no idea) I suspect it's Piffle trying to create a win-win situation. Rebels get defeated he wins, rebels block no-deal and he purges moderate Conservatives to replace them with more extreme candidates for taking on the Brexit Party in an election that he probably knows is happening soon.

Ian

They use metal detectors to enter the Parliament buildings? I wonder how many knives they are confiscating?

if only Julius had installed metal detectors at the forum?

[georgew]

For those who believe that there exists a technical solution to the backstop problem....we have this.

"All potential solutions to the post-Brexit Irish border are fraught with difficulty and would leave smaller businesses struggling to cope, experts have said, as leaked government papers outline major concerns just two months before Britain is due to leave the EU."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -by-issues

[broadway]

It might be interesting to do a what if and suppose that the GFA requirements are left to the period when the trade talks are being discussed. We are in a transitional period where nothing changes. we have left but follow EU rules so the borderlessness is intact. We can extend this period by mutual consent. The EU has to struggle with squaring its single market with the GFA. It cant demand the UK stays in the status quo as we have left the EU, we are a third country? How would it proceeed? Bullishly assert the primacy of the single market? Then Ireland has been abandoned? I suspect the GFA would have to be reopened. Its not as if all the violence has ended in the the North? The orignal grouse that ignited it all has gone viz that the Unionists tried to exclude the Siin Fein supporters from power in the North. Very messy, but some times life is like that, thats the reality that the EU wants to avoid at the UKs cost

Does Ireland not have a say?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -by-issues

[Psamathe]

I get the impression No 10 is "all over the place" (Cummings out of his depth?) given latest reports

... Expectations of a snap general election have risen sharply, after Boris Johnson summoned his cabinet to a surprise meeting on the eve of an expected rebel bid to block no-deal Brexit.
...
a Number 10 source said: "They will discuss the Government’s response to MPs seeking to take control of legislative agenda away from the Government and handing it to the opposition and (Jeremy) Corbyn without the consent of the people.

"The view is that tomorrow’s possible vote is an expression of confidence in the Government’s negotiating position to secure a deal and will be treated as such."

However, it is not thought likely that any challenge would be framed in such a way that it would automatically trigger an early election under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.

(re part in red) I find it beyond weird that our elected representatives taking steps to ensure their (our) voices are heard becomes a "without the consent of the people". Particularly when Piffle has effectively prevented our elected representatives from expressing their (our) wishes. They (or Cummings) seem to regard anything they/he does as automatically "the wishes of the people" and anything anybody else does as contrary to the wishes of the people. Maybe they (he) should remember that we have elected our MPs.

Ian

[mercalia]

It might be interesting to do a what if and suppose that the GFA requirements are left to the period when the trade talks are being discussed. We are in a transitional period where nothing changes. we have left but follow EU rules so the borderlessness is intact. We can extend this period by mutual consent. The EU has to struggle with squaring its single market with the GFA. It cant demand the UK stays in the status quo as we have left the EU, we are a third country? How would it proceeed? Bullishly assert the primacy of the single market? Then Ireland has been abandoned? I suspect the GFA would have to be reopened. Its not as if all the violence has ended in the the North? The orignal grouse that ignited it all has gone viz that the Unionists tried to exclude the Siin Fein supporters from power in the North. Very messy, but some times life is like that, thats the reality that the EU wants to avoid at the UKs cost

Does Ireland not have a say?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -by-issues

yes but the problem is really with the EU?

A report summarising the findings of the government’s official “alternative arrangements” working groups concluded that there are issues with all the scenarios put forward to try to replace the backstop arrangement. There are also specific concerns over whether any technological solution could be delivered to monitor cross-border trade.


Thats only a problem if you insist it has to work 100% rather than as a work in progress? What degree of porousness would be acceptable? The EU says none?

The report should have said there are issues with all the scenarios, including those that envisage the backstop . That would have been a fairer summary of the complete situation, rather than to make out the UKs current position is somehow untenable.

[broadway]

It might be interesting to do a what if and suppose that the GFA requirements are left to the period when the trade talks are being discussed. We are in a transitional period where nothing changes. we have left but follow EU rules so the borderlessness is intact. We can extend this period by mutual consent. The EU has to struggle with squaring its single market with the GFA. It cant demand the UK stays in the status quo as we have left the EU, we are a third country? How would it proceeed? Bullishly assert the primacy of the single market? Then Ireland has been abandoned? I suspect the GFA would have to be reopened. Its not as if all the violence has ended in the the North? The orignal grouse that ignited it all has gone viz that the Unionists tried to exclude the Siin Fein supporters from power in the North. Very messy, but some times life is like that, thats the reality that the EU wants to avoid at the UKs cost

Does Ireland not have a say?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -by-issues

yes but the problem is really with the EU?

A report summarising the findings of the government’s official “alternative arrangements” working groups concluded that there are issues with all the scenarios put forward to try to replace the backstop arrangement. There are also specific concerns over whether any technological solution could be delivered to monitor cross-border trade.


Thats only a problem if you insist it has to work 100% rather than as a work in progress? What degree of porousness would be acceptable? The EU says none?

The report should have said there are issues with all the scenarios, including those that envisage the backstop . That would have been a fairer summary of the complete situation, rather than to make out the UKs current position is somehow untenable.

That's not what the Irish are saying.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... onvenience