Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Imreoir2

Water John wrote: »

By not placing a Nov date they have taken away the false pressure that comes with deadlines. They want the negotiating teams to continue to work hard. They seemed to have made good progress in other areas over the last two weeks. That leaves one issue, the backstop.

The problem is that there is one very hard, very real deadline fast approaching. It takes three months for a treaty like this to be ratified. If the deal is not agreed by the end of the year, then it won’t be agreed at all. May has shown up to several EU council meetings with nothing to offer. If there is no meeting in November, then the December meeting is the last chance to do a deal. Without a November deadline, there is only one deadline left, and if a deal is not done then, the deal is dead. In avoiding a false deadline with false pressure, they are facing straight into a real deadline with real pressure.

There is no point in talking about extending Article 50 or any other measure to give more time. As Michele Barnier has said, lack of time is not the problem, it's a lack of decisions from the UK government. The issues faced by TM will be no different in November than they are now, they will be the same in December and they will be the same in January. If she can’t agree a deal now with five months to go, then giving her another few months won’t make any difference.

MrMusician18

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The problem is that there is one very hard, very real deadline fast approaching. It takes three months for a treaty like this to be ratified. If the deal is not agreed by the end of the year, then it won’t be agreed at all. May has shown up to several EU council meetings with nothing to offer. If there is no meeting in November, then the December meeting is the last chance to do a deal. Without a November deadline, there is only one deadline left, and if a deal is not done then, the deal is dead. In avoiding a false deadline with false pressure, they are facing straight into a real deadline with real pressure.

There is no point in talking about extending Article 50 or any other measure to give more time. As Michele Barnier has said, lack of time is not the problem, it's a lack of decisions from the UK government. The issues faced by TM will be no different in November than they are now, they will be the same in December and they will be the same in January. If she can’t agree a deal now with five months to go, then giving her another few months won’t make any difference.

If a deal is done in January say, art. 50 will be extended to allow time for ratification.

Indeed once the sides are still talking time will be made for the later necessities.

Spook_ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You know the way the live and neutral pins have some plastic on them to stop you getting electrocuted if you touch one while a plug is half way in or out ?

EU rules.

I sseem to recall 3 pin square plugs replacing the old round pins long before the EU.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

I sseem to recall 3 pin square plugs replacing the old round pins long before the EU.

1947 ish according to Quora



https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-UK-change-from-three-round-pin-electrical-plug-to-three-rectangular-pins

CrabRevolution

Spook_ie wrote: »

1947 ish according to Quora

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-UK-change-from-three-round-pin-electrical-plug-to-three-rectangular-pins

I don't think it was the rectangular pins themselves that the poster was referring to, but the plastic sleeve covering on the pins.

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

Will the UK be excluded from those votes? Or included by deign of the fact that they are still members of the EU?

Or does article 50 preclude the leaving nation from partaking in those votes?

Excluded, for the reason you suggest. In all matters relating to the negotiation and implementation of Brexit EU processes operate as though the UK were already a third state. This makes sense, and suits both sides.

Spook_ie

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I don't think it was the rectangular pins themselves that the poster was referring to, but the plastic sleeve covering on the pins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets:_British_and_related_types#Pin_insulation

Pin insulation
Initially, BS 1363 did not require the line and neutral pins to have insulating sleeves. Plugs made to the recent revisions of the standard have insulated sleeves to prevent finger contact with pins, and also to stop metal objects (for example, fallen window blind slats) from becoming live if lodged between the wall and a partly pulled out plug. The length of the sleeves prevents any live contacts from being exposed while the plug is being inserted or removed. An early method of sleeving the pins involving spring-loaded sleeves is described in the 1967 British Patent GB1067870.[46] The method actually adopted is described in the 1972 British Patent GB1292991.[47] Plugs with such pins were available in the 1970s, a Southern Electricity/RoSPA safety pamphlet from 1978 encourages their use.[48] Sleeved pins became required by the standard in 1984.

For reference AFAIK the equivalent EU coding to BS1363 would be EN 60950 which was in 2005

Spook_ie

I noticed in a few replies references to a document with green text from March about the backstop, which document is that as all i seem to come up with is the December declaration which has the caveat "nothings agreed until it's all agreed" on the first page

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf

Remarks: This report is put forward with a view to the meeting of the
European Council (Article 50) of 14-15 December 2017. Under the
caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the joint
commitments set out in this joint report shall be reflected in the
Withdrawal Agreement in full detail. This does not prejudge any
adaptations that might be appropriate in case transitional
arrangements were to be agreed in the second phase of the
negotiations, and is without prejudice to discussions on the
framework of the future relationship.

and a draft coloured agreement dated 19th March were the section refering to Ireland is still yellow and the only reference to a backstop is actually in "blue"

The colouring of the text corresponds to the following meanings: text in green is agreed at
negotiators' level, and will only be subject to technical legal revisions in the coming weeks. For text in
yellow, negotiators agreed on the policy objective. Drafting changes or clarifications are still
required. Text in white corresponds to text proposed by the Union on which discussions are ongoing.
With respect to the DRAFT PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND, the negotiators agree
that a legally operative version of the “backstop” solution for the border between Northern Ireland
and Ireland, in line with paragraph 49 of the Joint Report, should be agreed as part of the legal text of
the Withdrawal Agreement, to apply unless and until another solution is found.
The negotiators have reached agreement on some elements of the draft Protocol. They further agree
that the full set of issues related to avoiding a hard border covered in the draft reflect those that
need to be addressed in any solution. There is as yet no agreement on the right operational
approach, but the negotiators agree to engage urgently in the process of examination of all relevant
matters announced on 14 March and now under way.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_agreement_coloured.pdf


reference Paragraph 49 from the joint report which reads

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to
its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible
with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve
these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible,
the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique
circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United
Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the
Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland
economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

That is subject to the caveat of "

Under the
caveat that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,

Neither of which read to me as TM etc. agreeing to a backstop but that they should be discussing a backstop?

Peregrinus

The green text is the text of the draft Withdrawal Agreements which the parties have agreed is settled, and should not be revisited.

It's not legally binding, because no part of the Withdrawal Agreement is legally binding until the whole text is settled, signed as between the Commission and the UK, and ratified by the European Parliament and the Westminster Parliament.

But it's politically binding in this sense; if the UK seeks to revisit that text they are inviting the UK to "unpick" the parts of the draft treaty that they have previously accepted as settled, and go back to an earlier stage of the negotiations. This would be bad enough at any point in the process but right now, when there is so little time left, a suggestion that the process should actually go into reverse - which is what this amounts to - is very unlikely to be acceptable. To some, it would look like the kind of tactic a state might use when it wishes to terminate negotiations but doesn't with to be seen to be the party that terminates them.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

The green text is the text of the draft Withdrawal Agreements which the parties have agreed is settled, and should not be revisited.

It's not legally binding, because no part of the Withdrawal Agreement is legally binding until the whole text is settled, signed as between the Commission and the UK, and ratified by the European Parliament and the Westminster Parliament.

But it's politically binding in this sense; if the UK seeks to revisit that text they are inviting the UK to "unpick" the parts of the draft treaty that they have previously accepted as settled, and go back to an earlier stage of the negotiations. This would be bad enough at any point in the process but right now, when there is so little time left, a suggestion that the process should actually go into reverse - which is what this amounts to - is very unlikely to be acceptable. To some, it would look like the kind of tactic a state might use when it wishes to terminate negotiations but doesn't with to be seen to be the party that terminates them.

But where is it in green, certainly not in March 2018's document that google threw up, so which document is it in?

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

But where is it in green, certainly not in March 2018's document that google threw up, so which document is it in?

No, that's the document. Large parts of the Ireland protocol are yellow or white, right enough, but what's in green is Art 15, which provides that the backstop is superseded by "a subsequent agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom which addresses the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, avoids a hard border and protects the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions". That's the language that precludes the "time-limited backstop" that some in the UK have started to mutter about lately; hence the recent references to green text.

No updated text has been published since March but work has continued, and the negotiators recently said that 80%, and later 90% of the text of a draft agreement is now in green. So it's likely that a good deal more of the Irish Protocol is now green, but we don't know exactly how much, or what it says.

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

But where is it in green, certainly not in March 2018's document that google threw up, so which document is it in?

I posted a screen shot of it with it in green and the reference to the document earlier in this thread. On mobile so it's too much of a pain to try search for it at the moment.

Leroy42

Ireland certainly believes they had a commitment, the EU certainly believes they had a commitment and the UK, up until relatively recently, talked about the backstop. The UK also continue to state that they are committed to no hard border which the backstop was designed to deal with.

Johnson and others in the cabinet at the time say that they were lied to in regards to the real meaning of the backstop.

So all the available evidence would suggest that the backstop was certainly agreed and moved on from.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

No updated text has been published since March but work has continued, and the negotiators recently said that 80%, and later 90% of the text of a draft agreement is now in green. So it's likely that a good deal more of the Irish Protocol is now green, but we don't know exactly how much, or what it says.

I seen some commentators say that the Backstop has not been part of the negotiations since March on the request of the UK as it seen as so contentious and they wanted to try to revolve the other areas, and also in case of any leaks which would place massive pressure on TM.

So it could be that everything but NI is sorted but that NI backstop hasn't moved one inch since March.

Nody

Now I know this is highly unlikely but is May going to use the "threat" of the extension to swing the Irish backstop through? Basically tell the ERG et al that either we need to extend the negotiations ("costing us billions") or we accept the back stop for now while working on the technical solution which we know is not going to be ready by March anyway. So really it's not a permanent thing only a minor hold over to save billions and it will go away once our technology solution is in place anyway so while it's not time limited on paper it will be in practice (which is never but hey they think they can swing it). It would give her some leverage to get them to accept the current EU deal and provide the ERG with a win to use as the excuse for accepting the deal towards their voters because let's be honest here; they could not care less about NI at the end of the day.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Now I know this is highly unlikely but is May going to use the "threat" of the extension to swing the Irish backstop through? Basically tell the ERG et al that either we need to extend the negotiations ("costing us billions") or we accept the back stop for now while working on the technical solution which we know is not going to be ready by March anyway. So really it's not a permanent thing only a minor hold over to save billions and it will go away once our technology solution is in place anyway so while it's not time limited on paper it will be in practice (which is never but hey they think they can swing it). It would give her some leverage to get them to accept the current EU deal and provide the ERG with a win to use as the excuse for accepting the deal towards their voters because let's be honest here; they could not care less about NI at the end of the day.

Good thinking. A very clever strategy if true.

Inquitus

Nody wrote: »

Now I know this is highly unlikely but is May going to use the "threat" of the extension to swing the Irish backstop through? Basically tell the ERG et al that either we need to extend the negotiations ("costing us billions") or we accept the back stop for now while working on the technical solution which we know is not going to be ready by March anyway. So really it's not a permanent thing only a minor hold over to save billions and it will go away once our technology solution is in place anyway so while it's not time limited on paper it will be in practice (which is never but hey they think they can swing it). It would give her some leverage to get them to accept the current EU deal and provide the ERG with a win to use as the excuse for accepting the deal towards their voters because let's be honest here; they could not care less about NI at the end of the day.

Massive scope Government IT Projects lol, we all know how they end up, they'll be in the EU forever!

Nody

Inquitus wrote: »

Massive scope Government IT Projects lol, we all know how they end up, they'll be in the EU forever!

Well this is sales pitch for the backstop for NI; UK could then move on and NI remain in SM/CU while the technological solution is being worked out. I'd agree it's a big white elephant of money drain but it's not about reality as much as giving a plausible excuse to move on. Having said that I don't think May will use it that way but I think she potentially could use it that way but May has a tendency to disapoint when it comes to the initiative side of things.

swampgas

Nody wrote: »

Now I know this is highly unlikely but is May going to use the "threat" of the extension to swing the Irish backstop through? Basically tell the ERG et al that either we need to extend the negotiations ("costing us billions") or we accept the back stop for now while working on the technical solution which we know is not going to be ready by March anyway. So really it's not a permanent thing only a minor hold over to save billions and it will go away once our technology solution is in place anyway so while it's not time limited on paper it will be in practice (which is never but hey they think they can swing it). It would give her some leverage to get them to accept the current EU deal and provide the ERG with a win to use as the excuse for accepting the deal towards their voters because let's be honest here; they could not care less about NI at the end of the day.

Interesting idea - but what if the ERG actually wants a no-deal Brexit? If JRM and others can profit from a hard Brexit then I wouldn't put it past them to try to make it happen. While pretending the opposite of course.

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

Interesting idea - but what if the ERG actually wants a no-deal Brexit? If JRM and others can profit from a hard Brexit then I wouldn't put it past them to try to make it happen. While pretending the opposite of course.

ERG wants a Canada-style deal, and no backstop.

They don't call for a no-deal Brexit, but they do argue that it could be managed if it had to be. The thinking here is to persuade the EU that the UK will accept a crash-out rather than the backstop, so the EU decides to drop the backstop in order to get a deal.

briany

swampgas wrote: »

Interesting idea - but what if the ERG actually wants a no-deal Brexit? If JRM and others can profit from a hard Brexit then I wouldn't put it past them to try to make it happen. While pretending the opposite of course.

After an 'a la carte' Brexit, no-deal may be a fitting consolation for the ERG. Their position has been that they in no way want the UK to be 'trapped' by the EU's institutions.

It'll be some spectacle watching May convince the public to spend another 10bn to stay in the CU for a year.

Guardian has someone quoting Daily Mail for that.

Imreoir2

swampgas wrote: »

Interesting idea - but what if the ERG actually wants a no-deal Brexit? If JRM and others can profit from a hard Brexit then I wouldn't put it past them to try to make it happen. While pretending the opposite of course.

As far as I can see, very few members of the ERG actually want a no deal. They want a Free Trade Deal with the EU. Some of them may think that accepting a no-deal is a necessary step to getting to a Free Trade Deal as the EU will be forced to make lots of "no-deal deals" to mitigate the damage because the UK is such an important country that the damage to the EU would be far to great no to do such deals. With those mini deals in the bag, the UK could then take its time, get a Free Trade Deal with the EU, and with the rest of the world too, and then presumanbly build statues to their Brexiteer national heros once the Brexit dream has been realised.

Water John

'Five Conservative ex-cabinet ministers, including Boris Johnson and David Davis, have signed a letter to Theresa May urging her to reject both an Northern Ireland backstop and, crucially, an all-UK version. Johnson and Davis have signed it even though they were in cabinet when the government published its own plan for a UK-wide backstop.

The other three former cabinet ministers who have signed the letter are Priti Patel, Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Paterson. And Jacob Rees-Mogg, chair of the European Research Group of pro-Brexit Tory backbenchers, is also a signatory.'
Jessica Elgot, Guardian

So now two ministers at the time who agreed to the backstop, one of whom negotiated it, wanted it rejected. Two have ambitions to be PM and negotiate Brexit with the EU.

Inquitus

Gove for PM with a Norway for now supposedly, the reporting on Brexit is getting a bit like the Football Transfer stories before the season starts, make up anything and you can't go wrong!

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1052817405951569921

LuckyLloyd

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/28/the-norway-option-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-britain

Useful reminder of what the Norway option would entail.

flatty

Inquitus wrote: »

Gove for PM with a Norway for now supposedly, the reporting on Brexit is getting a bit like the Football Transfer stories before the season starts, make up anything and you can't go wrong!

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1052817405951569921

Crikey, anything, but anything to prevent a democratic vote. You literally would struggle to make it up. It's GUBU.

Imreoir2

Water John wrote: »

'Five Conservative ex-cabinet ministers, including Boris Johnson and David Davis, have signed a letter to Theresa May urging her to reject both an Northern Ireland backstop and, crucially, an all-UK version. Johnson and Davis have signed it even though they were in cabinet when the government published its own plan for a UK-wide backstop.

The other three former cabinet ministers who have signed the letter are Priti Patel, Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Paterson. And Jacob Rees-Mogg, chair of the European Research Group of pro-Brexit Tory backbenchers, is also a signatory.'
Jessica Elgot, Guardian

So now two ministers at the time who agreed to the backstop, one of whom negotiated it, wanted it rejected. Two have ambitions to be PM and negotiate Brexit with the EU.

Might not be the worst thing, if the UK wide backstop becomes just as unacceptable to the hard Brexiteers then the issue moves away from one of the constitutional integrity of the UK. Easier for the Government to sign up to a backstop if the public perception of doing so is no longer entirely associated with dividing the UK.

Winters

Why are they still talking about "negotiations" when its now simply down to Theresa May choosing either SM&CU or backstop.

First Up

Winters wrote:

Why are they still talking about "negotiations" when its now simply down to Theresa May choosing either SM&CU or backstop.

The negotiations are in London.

Imreoir2

flatty wrote: »

Crikey, anything, but anything to prevent a democratic vote. You literally would struggle to make it up. It's GUBU.

I am not convinced a second referendum is the best option at this point. There is no certainty that remain would win. If they can't agree a deal and get it through Parliament, and go for a peoples vote to try to get themselves out of this mess, what happens if leave wins again? There wont be any deal, and you can be sure the Brexiteers will use another referendum win to push through the hardest possible Brexit, deal or no-deal.

Even if remain did win, and we get an eleventh hour halt, Brexit won't just go away. I worry that in such a scenario a last minute remain vote might become a temporary stay of execution leading to a worse outcome later, like Chamberlins bit of paper and "peace in our time" avoiding a small war with Germany only leading to a much worse war later.

Mc Love

Inquitus wrote: »

Gove for PM with a Norway for now supposedly, the reporting on Brexit is getting a bit like the Football Transfer stories before the season starts, make up anything and you can't go wrong!

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1052817405951569921

https://twitter.com/ShelaghFogarty/status/1052866873761648642?s=20

ECO_Mental

Inquitus wrote: »

Gove for PM with a Norway for now supposedly, the reporting on Brexit is getting a bit like the Football Transfer stories before the season starts, make up anything and you can't go wrong!

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1052817405951569921

The Brexiters wont have that...all the EU rules, still pay money to the EU, have border checks to slow down trade and then have no say on the rules that are imposed on them.....

barry181091

https://twitter.com/gordonrayner/status/1052879905690722304

This is absolutely bonkers. So they will accept extra time only if the EU accept their backstop proposal? What? How in gods name does that add up for the EU? Am I stupid?

Water John

That was my understanding of what the UK were offering last night, and extension but take out the whole backstop issue in UK's favour.
The UK Press then just went with the first part and ignored the second part. That then became the false narrative. No better lads to frame the narrative.
Absolute non runner from an EU POV.

Enzokk

barry181091 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gordonrayner/status/1052879905690722304

This is absolutely bonkers. So they will accept extra time only if the EU accept their backstop proposal? What? How in gods name does that add up for the EU? Am I stupid?

I am also struggling to find the positives for the EU in an extended transition period that would make them give up their backstop. If anything it is better for the UK surely if they have more time to negotiate a deal with the EU and essentially being in the EU.

Leroy42

All this meetings and letters and hand wringing from Tories in pretty much an mdeia outlet you can think of shows just how little power TM actually has.

Everyone knew she was going to Brussels and, I assume, the cabinet at the least were aware of the plan and thus had gamed out the likely outcomes. She hasn't even finished the meetings and already we have calls for her to resign etc. It is completely untenable and the EU must know that May has no ability to agree to anything.

It is hardly surprising the reaction from the EU. That they have learnt from Salzburg and opted for the softly nicely approach rather than the truth shows that the EU are trying to help TM.

kuro68k

She is crazy. The EU rightly wants a proper backstop with no time limit, and she is offer a few months at most?!

Leroy42

barry181091 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gordonrayner/status/1052879905690722304

This is absolutely bonkers. So they will accept extra time only if the EU accept their backstop proposal? What? How in gods name does that add up for the EU? Am I stupid?

Sounds like a load of rubbish. Why would TM not state this when she mentioned the extended transition period to the reporters this morning? Did it just slip her mind to tell everyone what she had got as a benefit.

Water John

Both things are UK saviours. Like saying I'll stop harming myself if you give me the cocaine.

First Up

kuro68k wrote:

She is crazy. The EU rightly wants a proper backstop with no time limit, and she is offer a few months at most?!

That's not what she offered. The few months are an extension to the transition period to buy more time for trade negotiations. Her line is still that the backstop won't be needed and she reportedly assured Varadkar last night that (if needed) the backstop will be permanent.

She is caught between reality and the delusions of the Brexiteers in her own cabinet and party. It doesn't cost the EU anything to give her more time to try to reconcile the two.

Professor Moriarty

The real danger is that a tipping point is reached by the EU where they begin to change their attitude and planning towards no deal. The momentum shift will harden minds further against the UK's prevarication and will make any possible compromise much more difficult.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The real danger is that a tipping point is reached by the EU where they begin to change their attitude and planning towards no deal. The momentum shift will harden minds further against the UK's prevarication and will make any possible compromise much more difficult.

I think that point was past in June when the UK turned up with nothing to offer.

Extending the transition will be needed because negotiating a trade deal will take a decade.

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

Extending the transition will be needed because negotiating a trade deal will take a decade.

Or perhaps no transition will be needed because they are going to go the full Mad Max.

Winters

First Up wrote: »

That's not what she offered. The few months are an extension to the transition period to buy more time for trade negotiations. Her line is still that the backstop won't be needed and she reportedly assured Varadkar last night that (if needed) the backstop will be permanent.

She is caught between reality and the delusions of the Brexiteers in her own cabinet and party. It doesn't cost the EU anything to give her more time to try to reconcile the two.

If her red lines stay the same then the backstop will definitely be required. I wish Barnier and Varadkar would stop tip toeing around that fact.

Leroy42

Winters wrote: »

If her red lines stay the same then the backstop will definitely be required. I wish Barnier and Varadkar would stop tip toeing around that fact.

My reading of it is that the EU know that TM sees the reality and, to a large degree accepts that the EU have all the cards.

But they also are aware that there is a significant amount of people within her own party on across the HoC can are still wedded to the fantasy, either through ignorance or not being able to accept that their dream doesn't exist.

They are therefore trying to help TM to carry this through, and know that TM is probably the only person within the Tories can even has a chance of doing that.

Just look at comments from the EU leaders yesterday. All positive, without saying anything really. I think they know that the reaction in Salzburg, whilst totally correct, led to significant increase on TM to become more hard line.

First Up

Winters wrote:

If her red lines stay the same then the backstop will definitely be required. I wish Barnier and Varadkar would stop tip toeing around that fact.

Tiptoeing? They have never been anything other than completely blunt about that.

May's (last?) throw of the dice is that she can get her own party to accept reality and agree to enough compliance with EU conditions to allow a Customs Union. That's the only way the backstop wouldn't be needed.

Giving her a few more months to bring the slow learners on board is reasonable; the UK political landscape is almost sure change in the meantime anyway.

Lemming

Mc Love wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qks Coveney on Radio4 this morning, from 2hr 10mins in, and things get heated from 2:18 onwards.

Anyone got a non-bbc link as it keeps trying to prompt me to sign up in order to listen to it?

Akrasia

They could at least point out the fact that it is a complete contradiction to say 'A backstop won't be needed because we'll have the a technical soluton implemented that won't need any infrastructure at the border"

And "We must have a time limit on the backstop"

The implementation of a satisfactory border arrangement is the time limit to the backstop. The brexiters are claiming they'll get that done quickly, in which case, they won't need a time limit. The EU are saying they're living in dream land and the backstop is needed to protect the peace in NI.

Any brexiter who says that their plan avoids the requirement of a hard border in Ireland should have absolutely no problem with accepting an open ended backstop.

Unless, of course, they are all a bunch of lying cretins who are trying to engineer a way for them to weasel out of all their commitments without any consideration for the lives it will cost when the NI peace process breaks down.

First Up

Akrasia wrote:

They could at least point out the fact that it is a complete contradiction to say 'A backstop won't be needed because we'll have the a technical soluton implemented that won't need any infrastructure at the border"


And "We must have a time limit on the backstop"

They are.