Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

First Up

downcow wrote:

You are aware the backstop has not yet been agreed between Eu and WM. aren’t you??

You think the disarray in Westminster is a negotiating strength?

First Up

tuxy wrote:

Her plan has to be to run down the clock and hope the MPs panic and back her deal. I really can't see any other logic behind it, very dangerous game to play.

Its flattering to call it a plan.

bobmalooka

Inquitus wrote: »

Definition of Insanity........

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/11/may-to-ask-mps-for-further-fortnights-grace-in-brexit-talks

Theresa May hopes to convince the House of Commons on Tuesday to give her another fortnight’s grace to keep pushing for changes to the Irish backstop – despite the insistence of Michel Barnier that it is Britain that must compromise.

There’s a reason the ERG have pointed to the backstop as the issue - they’ve identified that as the point at which the EU (us) have exhausted their (our) room for manouver/compromise.

I’d say desperation rather than insanity. May is clearly running down the clock, she must know the substantive issue of the backstop can’t move - all I could guess is

a) she’s going to use the lack of time as a way to try and bulldoze through WA as it is or

b) announce some sort of rehash of the backstop that achieves the same objective and claim it’s a concession with little time to be called out in it

downcow

Inquitus wrote: »

Definition of Insanity........

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/11/may-to-ask-mps-for-further-fortnights-grace-in-brexit-talks

What else can she do. A permanent backstop is not happening. So she is doing her best to get Eu to compromise. No compromise no deal.
I don’t see options.

ZeroThreat

First Up wrote: »

Its flattering to call it a plan.

it's more like a plan on the same level as wearing underpants on your head and sticking pencils up your nostrils to try convince people you're mad.

Inquitus

bobmalooka wrote: »

a) she’s going to use the lack of time as a way to try and bulldoze through WA as it is or

b) announce some sort of rehash of the backstop that achieves the same objective and claim it’s a concession with little time to be called out in it

a) This is very risky, it risks a chaotic no deal, it also potentially risks Brexit itself at least in the short term, if the Commons has a rational moment at some point.

b) The EU will not re-open the legal agreement, as they have stated repeatedly, they might add some flowery words to the political declaration but that in itself has no substance. It is possible that flowery words and a focusing of minds against the spectre of chaotic no deal may get it through the HoC but back to a) its incredibly risky and far from guaranteed.

First Up

bobmalooka wrote:

b) announce some sort of rehash of the backstop that achieves the same objective and claim it’s a concession with little time to be called out in it

The EU has not presented the backstop as an end in itself. It is just the only way anyone has found (so far) through which an open border can be maintained after Brexit. The sooner a better way is found, the sooner it goes away.

If the backstop is time limited without a better plan, then so is the UK's commitment to an open border.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

What else can she do. A permanent backstop is not happening. So she is doing her best to get Eu to compromise. No compromise no deal.
I don’t see options.

I've lost count of the number of times that people have told you that the backstop is the compromise!!!

First Up

downcow wrote:

What else can she do. A permanent backstop is not happening. So she is doing her best to get Eu to compromise. No compromise no deal. I don’t see options.

Compromise on what? This is about maintaining an open border, which everyone says they want and to which the UK has signed up in an international agreement.

Is that what she is asking the EU and everyone else to compromise?

bobmalooka

Inquitus wrote: »

bobmalooka wrote: »

a) she’s going to use the lack of time as a way to try and bulldoze through WA as it is or

b) announce some sort of rehash of the backstop that achieves the same objective and claim it’s a concession with little time to be called out in it

a) This is very risky, it risks a chaotic no deal, it also potentially risks Brexit itself at least in the short term, if the Commons has a rational moment at some point.

b) The EU will not re-open the legal agreement, as they have stated repeatedly, they might add some flowery words to the political declaration but that in itself has no substance. It is possible that flowery words and a focusing of minds against the spectre of chaotic no deal may get it through the HoC but back to a) its incredibly risky and far from guaranteed.

First Up wrote: »

bobmalooka wrote:

b) announce some sort of rehash of the backstop that achieves the same objective and claim it’s a concession with little time to be called out in it

The EU has not presented the backstop as an end in itself. It is just the only way anyone has found (so far) through which an open border can be maintained after Brexit. The sooner a better way is found, the sooner it goes away.

If the backstop is time limited without a better plan, then so is the UK's commitment to an open border.

I think we can be in little doubt about the current UK Gov’s commitment to NI and an open border, that’s why we won’t see any change to the substance of the backstop.

Kermit.de.frog

Barnier says (again) tonight after meeting the British Brexit Sec that they will not be reopening the agreement.

Couldn't be clearer.

tuxy

downcow wrote: »

What else can she do. A permanent backstop is not happening. So she is doing her best to get Eu to compromise. No compromise no deal.
I don’t see options.

It's not a permanent backstop, it's a backstop with no time limit(the time limit would make it pointless and ineffective) that ensures the UK will keep their word on finding a solution to the Irish border. The EU has nothing to gain by keeping the UK in a customs union, in fact the backstop was a concession made by the EU.(please read the last bit in bold a few times)

A Dub in Glasgo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I've lost count of the number of times that people have told you that the backstop is the compromise!!!

Which is exactly why I give up on this... this feigned neutral is anything but

This is the definitive answer to the type

woohoo!!!

The EU and Ireland know perfectly well that a large element of Brexiteers want a hard border, no deal crash out. They couldn't care less about anyone in Ireland, north or south. Thing is though, when they get their way, the British public will learn for quickly at ports and airports what this means. They will learn after stocks have ran out, that things are getting scarce, are more expensive and their purchasing power is weakened. They will learn with businesses closing down, a recession starts to bite and a vicious cycle on a downward trajectory, they will learn about the reality of no deal Wto and they will turn sooner or later on Brexiteer lies.

A no deal will quite rapidly lead to huge upheaval across the pond and it is that which will be truly unpredictable as to where it all leads up. Someone or something will step into the void.

No deal is a massive bluff but it could we'll end up happening cos they've not figured out the alternative. Absolutely appalling leadership on full show in Westminster

bobmalooka

First Up wrote: »

downcow wrote:

What else can she do. A permanent backstop is not happening. So she is doing her best to get Eu to compromise. No compromise no deal. I don’t see options.

Compromise on what? This is about maintaining an open border, which everyone says they want and to which the UK has signed up in an international agreement.

Is that what she is asking the EU and everyone else to compromise?

It’s been explained to this poster countless times - he’ll keep presenting the same words in a manner that suggests they mean something, they’ll continue not to.

It’s been clear for some time (since the schedule of negotiations at least) that the EU identified the border as something UK negotiators would attempt to take hostage.
They were right. The EU know they were right, the UK know they were right and they each understand it.

Carrying the border unresolved into trade negotiations would allow UK to dictate everything and we’ve learned that the tories won’t think twice about demanding the RU harms itself. That’s why there won’t be a softening on it, the Uk will have no trade deal till it’s off the table

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I've lost count of the number of times that people have told you that the backstop is the compromise!!!

Help me here. The bit I don’t get is that many on here seem to be very concerned about a hard border yet you won’t swallow your pride to suggest that you may have some responsibility in finding a solution. All the stuff you say about me I fairly much feel about southerners who won’t countenance any renegotiation of the backstop. Even though it is that very renegotiation that could prevent a hard border.
You are playing a very risky game

Inquitus

downcow wrote: »

Help me here. The bit I don’t get is that many on here seem to be very concerned about a hard border yet you won’t swallow your pride to suggest that you may have some responsibility in finding a solution. All the stuff you say about me I fairly much feel about southerners who won’t countenance any renegotiation of the backstop. Even though it is that very renegotiation that could prevent a hard border.
You are playing a very risky game

The backstop is only of use in preventing a hard border if it is not time limited and cannot be exited unilaterally, this has been explained to you dozens of times. It is pointless in anything bar its current form, which is why it cannot be amended or changed.

johnnyskeleton

tuxy wrote: »

Her plan has to be to run down the clock and hope the MPs panic and back her deal. I really can't see any other logic behind it, very dangerous game to play.

Equally, it could be said that that is the ERG's plan too. They vote against her deal but have full confidence in her government. They know she wont get any changes. Even if she does, they wont accept them. So theyre hoping to run down the clock for a no deal. TM will have to reach out to the opposition to get the deal through.

I wouldve thought the Lib Dems and SNP would vote for it at this stage, just to avoid the calamity of a hard brexit

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

What else can she do. A permanent backstop is not happening. So she is doing her best to get Eu to compromise. No compromise no deal.
I don’t see options.

Nobody is insisting on a permanent backstop.

Inquitus

Hurrache wrote: »

Nobody is insisting on a permanent backstop.

Exactly, it must however remain in place until both sides agree that any alternative arrangements are fit for purpose and continue to avoid the need for a border.

Hurrache

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Which is exactly why I give up on this... this feigned neutral is anything but

This is the definitive answer to the type

He's been called out on his claims to be initially neutral, and now a moderate, numerous times and yet persists.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Help me here. The bit I don’t get is that many on here seem to be very concerned about a hard border yet you won’t swallow your pride to suggest that you may have some responsibility in finding a solution. All the stuff you say about me I fairly much feel about southerners who won’t countenance any renegotiation of the backstop. Even though it is that very renegotiation that could prevent a hard border.
You are playing a very risky game

Like the Brexiteers you don't suggest anything practical but spend your time complaining about the one compromise on offer.
Like the Brexiteers you provide no constructive solutions to offer the discussion yet blame those who don't want you to leave for not having the answers.

bobmalooka

downcow wrote: »

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I've lost count of the number of times that people have told you that the backstop is the compromise!!!

Help me here. The bit I don’t get is that many on here seem to be very concerned about a hard border yet you won’t swallow your pride to suggest that you may have some responsibility in finding a solution. All the stuff you say about me I fairly much feel about southerners who won’t countenance any renegotiation of the backstop. Even though it is that very renegotiation that could prevent a hard border.
You are playing a very risky game

I’ll play your game if you can explain how any compromise on the backstop doesn’t change the backstop into something that’s not a backstop.

It’s nit a game.
The risk is in allowing the tories free reign on the border.

Until my question is answered I think any talk about compromise/risky ‘game’ in the context of the backstop is just meaningless word spaghetti

ThePanjandrum

First Up wrote: »

Compromise on what? This is about maintaining an open border, which everyone says they want and to which the UK has signed up in an international agreement.

Is that what she is asking the EU and everyone else to compromise?

The immediate question is

This is about maintaining an open border, which everyone says they want and to which the UK has signed up in an international agreement.

Didn't Ireland sign up to it as well?

Why doesn't the necessity of maintaining an open border seem to apply to Ireland?

Where does it say in the agreement that an open border is a sine qua non?

Seth Brundle

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The immediate question is



Didn't Ireland sign up to it as well?

Why doesn't the necessity of maintaining an open border seem to apply to Ireland?

Where does it say in the agreement that an open border is a sine qua non?

I don't recall Ireland walking away from the agreement. When did this happen?

Dytalus

downcow wrote: »

Help me here. The bit I don’t get is that many on here seem to be very concerned about a hard border yet you won’t swallow your pride to suggest that you may have some responsibility in finding a solution. All the stuff you say about me I fairly much feel about southerners who won’t countenance any renegotiation of the backstop. Even though it is that very renegotiation that could prevent a hard border.
You are playing a very risky game

Seriously, how many times does it have to be said?

The backstop is the solution. There are only two ways to allow no border controls between NI and Ireland that also allow the UK to leave the EU.

One of these ways involved a border in the Irish Sea so that NI can stay in the single market. Have the checks between NI and Britain. This was roundly shouted down by the DUP and Brexiteers.

The other way is the backstop - the UK in the customs union to avoid checks in the Irish Sea while allowing NI to keep its border to Ireland open. This cannot have a hard time limit, because the only thing that further avoids a hard border is a trade agreement and if the UK can simply wait for the time limit to expire then there is nothing which guarantees such an agreement coming into place. Then all the backstop will have done is delay the hard border, not prevented it.

There are no other options. The UK has its 'red lines' - no special status for NI, no FOM, no hard border. The backstop is the only legally and politically possible solution to what the UK has asked for. This is the compromise the EU came up with (note, the EU did the work for HMG on this) to account for the UK's demands. The EU's preferred solution for no hard border is checks in the Irish Sea.

I'm guessing you won't be okay with that either?

downcow

Hurrache wrote: »

He's been called out on his claims to be initially neutral, and now a moderate, numerous times and by yet persists.

And I guess you reckon your position is moderate.
In all honesty. The two sides in this now remind me of the worst accesses of intrasagence during the troubles. Two sides locked in thinking they are the reasonable ones and the others are the problem.
I at least can recognise how I have got sucked in but I fear many of you don’t see how you have your heels stuck in. It’s like drumcree or the hunger strikes all over again. Each side now thinks they are the lambs and the others are the lions. And you know where both drumcree and the hunger strikes ended up. Rationality is fast disappearing out the window. We might pick up the pieces in ten years.

bobmalooka

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Compromise on what? This is about maintaining an open border, which everyone says they want and to which the UK has signed up in an international agreement.

Is that what she is asking the EU and everyone else to compromise?

The immediate question is

This is about maintaining an open border, which everyone says they want and to which the UK has signed up in an international agreement.

Didn't Ireland sign up to it as well?

Why doesn't the necessity of maintaining an open border seem to apply to Ireland?

Where does it say in the agreement that an open border is a sine qua non?

1. Correct,Ireland did sign up.
2. It does, Ireland have kept the necessary conditions to maintain an open border.
3. Implied in strand 2, Pro brexit people seem to struggle with this - Hense the need for explicit language in the WA.

bobmalooka

downcow wrote: »

Hurrache wrote: »

He's been called out on his claims to be initially neutral, and now a moderate, numerous times and by yet persists.

And I guess you reckon your position is moderate.
In all honesty. The two sides in this now remind me of the worst accesses of intrasagence during the troubles. Two sides locked in thinking they are the reasonable ones and the others are the problem.
I at least can recognise how I have got sucked in but I fear many of you don’t see how you have your heels stuck in. It’s like drumcree or the hunger strikes all over again. Each side now thinks they are the lambs and the others are the lions. And you know where both drumcree and the hunger strikes ended up. Rationality is fast disappearing out the window. We might pick up the pieces in ten years.

Except the majority in NI dont want the position you support - and that majority comes from both mainstream communities. It’s not an ‘us and them’ no matter how much you present it as.

You could of course clear it all up by attempting to answer the simple questions put to you that if you could answer would validate your position.
Until then you represent the extreme fringe position of NI and are rightly being challenged

ThePanjandrum

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I don't recall Ireland walking away from the agreement. When did this happen?

I don't remember the UK doing so either as Parliament has not made an agreement.