Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

GM228

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have they said when a verdict will be delivered or do we just have to man the airwaves?

Hopefully "early next week'.

GM228

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Supreme Court have absolutely no powers to order Parliament to act in any way. That would be a matter for Parliament itself, or even the government, who shut it down in the first place.

The Supreme Court could make a mandatory order or interlocutor requiring Johnson to advise the Queen to recall Parliament.

Bit cynical

Valhallapt wrote: »

It’s just astounding that BBC are allowed to put this nonsense on tv, totally unchallenged.

The E.U. changing their stance on the WA..... it’s literally written into the WA that the backstop can be replaced at a point in the future.

Well I think previously the backstop was considered a sort of insurance policy that would pay out, as it were, if during the transition period no alternative could be found; the payout being that NI is put into a customs union. But the insurance policy itself until recently was non-negotiable. It would be in force and legally binding from the moment the UK left the EU and remain in effect in perpetuity.

What I think is relatively new (around the time Johnson won the Tory leadership) is the idea that an alternative to this insurance policy itself could be put in place before the UK actually left the EU.

Of course it still depends on the UK coming up with this alternative to the backstop insurance policy.

Christy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think previously the backstop was considered a sort of insurance policy that would pay out, as it were, if during the transition period no alternative could be found; the payout being that NI is put into a customs union. But the insurance policy itself until recently was non-negotiable. It would be in force and legally binding from the moment the UK left the EU and remain in effect in perpetuity.

What I think is relatively new (around the time Johnson won the Tory leadership) is the idea that an alternative to this insurance policy itself could be put in place before the UK actually left the EU.

Of course it still depends on the UK coming up with this alternative to the backstop insurance policy.

That option was there 2 years ago. It is why the UK thought they were ok simply saying technology as they thought that constituted an idea.

The EU's stance has not changed.

If the backstop could be replaced at any time in the future that obviously includes 1 second after the backstop coming into force so the UK was always invited to come up with ideas. If the UK found a good alternative before the backstop it was always going to come into force asap. Why wouldn't it?

Bit cynical

Christy42 wrote: »

That option was there 2 years ago. It is why the UK thought they were ok simply saying technology as they thought that constituted an idea.

The EU's stance has not changed.

If the backstop could be replaced at any time in the future that obviously includes 1 second after the backstop coming into force so the UK was always invited to come up with ideas. If the UK found a good alternative before the backstop it was always going to come into force asap. Why wouldn't it?

Well of course two years ago the WA was not finalised so, yes, the UK could put forward whatever they wanted. However since the WA was signed earlier this year the EU stance had been that the backstop as written into the WA was fixed and no longer negotiable. Of course it was always the case that if, during the transition period, a deal was worked out that meant that the measures in the backstop need not be implemented, then those measures would not come into effect even though the policy would remain.

But since the WA was signed, this insurance policy was permanent and non-negotiable. There was no suggestion until quite recently that an alternative to it would be entertained by the EU.

I would grant that there's a degree of ambiguity in what is meant by the backstop. For some it is the insurance policy and for others it is the measures that are brought into effect when the insurance policy pays out. So when the EU were saying that they hoped they would not need the backstop they were saying that they hoped they would not have insist the UK keep NI in the customs union, i.e. the payout. But the insurance policy, the thing that allows the EU to insist on this, was until recently non-negotiable. It is a subtle but important shift.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would grant that there's a degree of ambiguity in what is meant by the backstop. For some it is the insurance policy and for others it is the measures that are brought into effect when the insurance policy pays out. So when the EU were saying that they hoped they would not need the backstop they were saying that they hoped they would not have insist the UK keep NI in the customs union, i.e. the payout. But the insurance policy, the thing that allows the EU to insist on this, was until recently non-negotiable. It is a subtle but important shift.

I don't think it is a particularly important shift at all. The position has essentially gone from "the backstop is necessary so that if we can't find a solution during the transition period the GFA is protected" to "solve the issue right now and we won't need the backstop". Essentially all they have done is say, sure if you want to solve this incredibly complicated issue immediately rather than over two years of negotiations then go nuts.

Zubeneschamali

Would Parliament vote for an NI only Ackbay Opstay? I'd have to say unlikely. Passing Mays deal is a bad deal for the UK (in Labours eyes) but it would be a disaster for Corbyn, since Johnson would go into the election as The Man Who Delivered Brexit. The Brexit Party would shout about BRINOs and treachery, but no-one much will care. The Tories would get their Hard Brexit and a thumping majority too.


Better for Corbyn to reject whatever deal Johnson brings, force an extension and then fight the election with Johnson as The Man Who Failed To Deliver Brexit, the Brexit Party fighting the Tories from the Right, the LibDems from the centre.

Imreoir2

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't think it is a particularly important shift at all. The position has essentially gone from "the backstop is necessary so that if we can't find a solution during the transition period the GFA is protected" to "solve the issue right now and we won't need the backstop". Essentially all they have done is say, sure if you want to solve this incredibly complicated issue immediately rather than over two years of negotiations then go nuts.

Indeed, to use Bit Cynicals phrasing, the UK is allowed to "pay out" up front so as to avoid being trapped in the insurance policy which might require them to pay out later.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't think it is a particularly important shift at all. The position has essentially gone from "the backstop is necessary so that if we can't find a solution during the transition period the GFA is protected" to "solve the issue right now and we won't need the backstop". Essentially all they have done is say, sure if you want to solve this incredibly complicated issue immediately rather than over two years of negotiations then go nuts.

The EU stance, if we recall, was very much: "We are not reopening negotiations on the backstop. You signed the agreement upon which the transition period would be based and that is that. It is not our fault that your parliament did not ratify it. As far as we're concerned the matter is closed". But now they are negotiating and entertaining alternatives to the text of the backstop. Presumably, if agreed, something would be written into the declaration on the future relationship to the effect that the earlier backstop text is now deemed unnecessary and will no longer come into effect.

Also there is no method in the WA as it stands for terminating the backstop as an insurance policy. All it says is that its provisions don't kick in if some other agreement is deemed sufficient that the provisions are not necessary. But the insurance policy goes on. This is what I think elements within the UK consider unacceptable.

But as I said earlier it depends on Johnson coming up with something that the EU can agree to. I'm sure very few of us here are holding our breath!

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

But as I said earlier it depends on Johnson coming up with something that the EU can agree to. I'm sure very few of us here are holding our breath!

I have little faith that he can come up with something and less that he can deliver a ratified deal even if he does come up with something. Johnson is essentially a lame duck right now, I think everyone is playing at discussions until the clock ticks down to an inevitable extension, a UK election and a reset one way or the other.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Indeed, to use Bit Cynicals phrasing, the UK is allowed to "pay out" up front so as to avoid being trapped in the insurance policy which might require them to pay out later.

Basically yes. However, no insurance policy then exists. And this changes the nature of negotiations during the transition period. It is not something held over the UK while negotiations are ongoing.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Also there is no method in the WA as it stands for terminating the backstop as an insurance policy. All it says is that its provisions don't kick in if some other agreement is deemed sufficient that the provisions are not necessary. But the insurance policy goes on. This is what I think elements within the UK consider unacceptable.

And now the EU are saying that if you can come up with an agreement right now that is sufficient then we don't need the insurance policy in the first place. They are essentially shifting to say the the WA is open only to make things more restrictive for the UK. Instead of a "backstop" that kicks in at the end of the transition period they are agreeing to terms akin to it that will kick in immediately.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I have little faith that he can come up with something and less that he can deliver a ratified deal even if he does come up with something. Johnson is essentially a lame duck right now, I think everyone is playing at discussions until the clock ticks down to an inevitable extension, a UK election and a reset one way or the other.

I would agree with this assessment.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Basically yes. However, no insurance policy then exists. And this changes the nature of negotiations during the transition period. It is not something held over the UK while negotiations are ongoing.

Yeah, the UK will have already given up on it They are losing leverage by agreeing to something now rather than during the transition period.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Basically yes. However, no insurance policy then exists. And this changes the nature of negotiations during the transition period. It is not something held over the UK while negotiations are ongoing.

You don't need an insurance policy when the other party has already paid out with permenant agreed arangements.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

And now the EU are saying that if you can come up with an agreement right now that is sufficient then we don't need the insurance policy in the first place. They are essentially shifting to say the the WA is open only to make things more restrictive for the UK. Instead of a "backstop" that kicks in at the end of the transition period they are agreeing to terms akin to it that will kick in immediately.

My reading of it may be incorrect but I don't think that the previous stance was that the insurance policy would be terminated even if its provisions were not needed at a given point in time. It would continue in perpetuity. So something at the end of the transition period might have been agreed but if the situation changed years after that, the UK could be compelled to put NI into a formal customs union, i.e., the insurance policy would still be in effect.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

My reading of it may be incorrect but I don't think that the previous stance was that the insurance policy would be terminated even if its provisions were not needed at a given point in time. It would continue in perpetuity. So something at the end of the transition period might have been agreed but if the situation changed years after that, the UK could be compelled to put NI into a formal customs union, i.e., the insurance policy would still be in effect.

I dont think so, the position was that the backstop would apply unless and until other arangements were agreed. Legally the backstop cant be a permenant arangement. Essentially the UK is being allowed to avoid a temporary arangement by agreeing a permenant one with the same effect.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

My reading of it may be incorrect but I don't think that the previous stance was that the insurance policy would be terminated even if its provisions were not needed at a given point in time. It would continue in perpetuity. So something at the end of the transition period might have been agreed but if the situation changed years after that, the UK could be compelled to put NI into a formal customs union, i.e., the insurance policy would still be in effect.

No, I'm relatively sure the backstop becomes defunct once an alternative acceptable agreement has been put in place. It is alive "unless and until" that agreement arises, but then it is dead. The UK government is basically giving themselves a win for cutting two years off their timetable for solving the issue.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You don't need an insurance policy when the other party has already paid out with permenant agreed arangements.

Well of course we'll have to see what they put forward. Like I said, like most people here I will not be holding my breath.

Tell me how

Latest Brexitcast didn't mention Laura's travails on Twitter this week or even Johnson's trip to the hospital. (I was wondering would they have mentioned it if Laura had not ended up being so involved).

First item of focus was again back to the Luxembourg (or the country which is the size of Dorset with the same population as Leeds) PM insulting Johnson.
They are pretty sure that there are serious negotiations going on between the EU and the UK but still leaning towards there being no deal.

I suspect if they weren't recording it for television, it wouldn't have been on today, there wasn't a huge amount new to discuss since their last one.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I dont think so, the position was that the backstop would apply unless and until other arangements were agreed. Legally the backstop cant be a permenant arangement. Essentially the UK is being allowed to avoid a temporary arangement by agreeing a permenant one with the same effect.

Podge_irl wrote: »

No, I'm relatively sure the backstop becomes defunct once an alternative acceptable agreement has been put in place. It is alive "unless and until" that agreement arises, but then it is dead. The UK government is basically giving themselves a win for cutting two years off their timetable for solving the issue.

Well even so, assuming this is correct, it is still a sort of win at least for Johnson if he, unlike May, can get some sort of agreement passed and leave on the stated day and it is probably better for the UK to have the border issue sorted early rather than drag out till the end of the transition period.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well even so, assuming this is correct, it is still a sort of win at least for Johnson if he, unlike May, can get some sort of agreement passed and leave on the stated day and it is probably better for the UK to have the border issue sorted early rather than drag out till the end of the transition period.

It is not a win. The UK's position over the last three years has gone from
- We will sort out the Irish border situation during the transition period while negotiating an FTA
- We will sign up to a NI specific backstop as part of a WA so the Irish border issue can't be used during FTA negotiations
- We will sign up to an all UK backstop
- We will attempt to agree in isolation right now to measures that will legally keep the border open

It is essentially activating the backstop early and turning it from an insurance policy into reality. It is not a million miles away from being so annoyed about having to pay premiums for car insurance that you just set your car alight now...

I'm an expat. I work with an Iranian and Filipana expat at the moment. I'm friends with a Nigerian expat. Even a Cuban expat nurse. There are expats from everywhere living here. But we won't be buried here. If we get sick, we will go back to out home countries. My grandkids won't study here. We can only get visas or temporary residency cards.

It's pretty basic and it's a useful word to describe millions of people's living status.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not a win. The UK's position over the last three years has gone from
- We will sort out the Irish border situation during the transition period while negotiating an FTA
- We will sign up to a NI specific backstop as part of a WA so the Irish border issue can't be used during FTA negotiations
- We will sign up to an all UK backstop
- We will attempt to agree in isolation right now to measures that will legally keep the border open

It is essentially activating the backstop early and turning it from an insurance policy into reality. It is not a million miles away from being so annoyed about having to pay premiums for car insurance that you just set your car alight now...

The thing is, however, that the insurance policy will pay out. It is not a case of "in the unlikely event that nothing else is agreed" the CU will come in to effect. If the UK enters into a transition period on the basis of the WA, the result is that NI will end up being in a customs union. It is really only a pretence that some alternative can be agreed. I think we can all agree that nothing beats a customs union from our point of view here in Ireland and therefore we will not agree to anything less.

Better therefore from the UK's point of view (continuing the insurance policy analogy) to "pay out" now. Then the issue is out of the way politically. If the DUP have to be thrown under a bus eventually, better to throw them under the bus now and put this to the UK parliament. If rejected then no deal and the UK negotiates free of any obligation. If accepted, then the DUP are already thrown under the bus and Johnson is still in a better position.

I don't think there would be a problem from the EU's point of view given it is merely, as pointed out, the insurance policy paying up.

The worst thing from the UK's perspective would be to enter in to the transition period under the WA as is, pretending to find a solution that would nullify the backstop where one does not exist.

I should add that I don't expect Johnson to go this far with his proposal. The point is that even if he did, he would be in a better position afterwards given his intention to leave on the 31st of next month.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU stance, if we recall, was very much: "We are not reopening negotiations on the backstop. You signed the agreement upon which the transition period would be based and that is that. It is not our fault that your parliament did not ratify it. As far as we're concerned the matter is closed". But now they are negotiating and entertaining alternatives to the text of the backstop. Presumably, if agreed, something would be written into the declaration on the future relationship to the effect that the earlier backstop text is now deemed unnecessary and will no longer come into effect.

Also there is no method in the WA as it stands for terminating the backstop as an insurance policy. All it says is that its provisions don't kick in if some other agreement is deemed sufficient that the provisions are not necessary. But the insurance policy goes on. This is what I think elements within the UK consider unacceptable.

But as I said earlier it depends on Johnson coming up with something that the EU can agree to. I'm sure very few of us here are holding our breath!

I think the EU's position is in part being driven by an interest of:
1.not being seen to have caused a no deal Brexiter through intransigence;
2. being seen to being open to alternative arrangements; and
3. at least pretending that it believes such alternative arrangements exist just around the next corner.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Would Parliament vote for an NI only Ackbay Opstay? I'd have to say unlikely. Passing Mays deal is a bad deal for the UK (in Labours eyes) but it would be a disaster for Corbyn, since Johnson would go into the election as The Man Who Delivered Brexit. The Brexit Party would shout about BRINOs and treachery, but no-one much will care. The Tories would get their Hard Brexit and a thumping majority too.


Better for Corbyn to reject whatever deal Johnson brings, force an extension and then fight the election with Johnson as The Man Who Failed To Deliver Brexit, the Brexit Party fighting the Tories from the Right, the LibDems from the centre.

Labour would most likely be presented with a deal worse than May's deal, which they rejected. No permanent Customs Union, no protection of workers rights or keeping the same standards as the EU, so I cannot see how they possibly could back her deal with some stuff taken out.

Tell me how wrote: »

I suspect if they weren't recording it for television, it wouldn't have been on today, there wasn't a huge amount new to discuss since their last one.

You mean unless you remove her from the news there wasn't a lot to discuss. Only the Supreme Court and Johnson openly lying once again, which may play a role in a election that will determine what happens with Brexit. Other than that, nothing much in the eyes of the journalists I suppose.

Valhallapt

The main problem with the backstop is that it is being mis sold.

The WA acknowledges that the NI border issues is a hard nut to crack. The backstop allows U.K. time to solve it, it essentially pauses negotiations on NI border until a FTA is in place.

Even a Canada- deal would solve a lot of the issues, couple this with an all island approach to agriculture (like we currently do) then the actual differences between GB and NI are minimal. A Canada ++ deal would improve this again.

The backstop is temporary by nature, Eventually the U.K. and EU will agree an FTA, the scope backstop is then massively reduced.

beggars_bush

Valhallapt wrote: »

The main problem with the backstop is that it is being mis sold.

The WA acknowledges that the NI border issues is a hard nut to crack. The backstop allows U.K. time to solve it, it essentially pauses negotiations on NI border until a FTA is in place.

Even a Canada- deal would solve a lot of the issues, couple this with an all island approach to agriculture (like we currently do) then the actual differences between GB and NI are minimal. A Canada ++ deal would improve this again.

The backstop is temporary by nature, Eventually the U.K. and EU will agree an FTA, the scope backstop is then massively reduced.

It's the huge uncertainty that is causing the issues and the UK continually changing their position

Even the DUP have changed their tune recently when they saw how the wind was blowing

10000maniacs

Every time a Tory politician appears in the media, an inevitable torrent of untruths ensue.
Kwasi Kwarteng on Radio 4 this morning saying two years ago the EU would never discuss alternatives to the backstop and two years later they are now willing to do so.
The only thing is I don't remember any occasion where the EU refused to discuss alternatives to the backstop.

lawred2

Valhallapt wrote: »

The main problem with the backstop is that it is being mis sold.

The WA acknowledges that the NI border issues is a hard nut to crack. The backstop allows U.K. time to solve it, it essentially pauses negotiations on NI border until a FTA is in place.

Even a Canada- deal would solve a lot of the issues, couple this with an all island approach to agriculture (like we currently do) then the actual differences between GB and NI are minimal. A Canada ++ deal would improve this again.

The backstop is temporary by nature, Eventually the U.K. and EU will agree an FTA, the scope backstop is then massively reduced.

No FTA can succeed the backstop without adequate consideration for NI. Whatever is agreed during the Withdrawal period must deliver over and above what is the default worse case maintained by the backstop. Can't see how that 'pauses' negotiations until after a FTA. A FTA might not come remotely close to maintaining what is intended to be preserved by the backstop.

The current UK government giving adequate consideration for NI seems a long shot.