kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Doesn't say whether the NI specific backstop is still there or not. It's suppose to be there as the backstop to the backstop. Barnier says checks could be made at factories by British officials which suggests it is still there.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Actually under the deal as described there there is regulatory checks between GB and NI regardless of any backstop. This can't all be checked at factories in UK. There would have to be expansion in the scale of checks (probably to 100% I would have thought) on animal products that already exist at the ports.
Enzokk wrote: » Seems like the deal is that the whole of the UK will be in a (the) customs union with the EU. This will mean that NI will not be left on its own in the customs union but they will drag the whole UK into the customs union. This is actually a good thing but I doubt the ERG and their trade deals, or Theresa May for that matter, will agree. There will still be a backstop but the Withdrawal Agreement will mean the backstop will not be needed right now. If however after the transition and a trade deal is struck where the UK is not in a customs union any longer then it will be there, in the background. By that time you assume the DUP will not have the influence they have now. This is the same language that the UK has always used, there will need to be a backstop but the deal they will sign with the EU will make it obsolete. Also, as others have mentioned, checks will still be needed but they can be done in factories in the UK. But say it slowly, checks will still be done. It will really come down to if the DUP will throw their toys out of the pram as the deal is basically what we know it will always be, and whether the ERG will be happy about the UK not doing their own trade deals. Then we also have those pesky red lines from May, but they seems to have become more and more opaque as time has gone on.
judeboy101 wrote: » "exit clause" = no backstop
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » It means NI staying in the SM. That's essentially what it means. They can keep a lot checks away from the ports. Can't do it for all of them though. Think we need more info. Downing street describing it as just speculation.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Still does not make much sense for the unionists. UK will diverge inevitably. It's a ticking clock.
Indestructable wrote: » Also its cobbled together from over a dozen sources. I am not sure how reliable that can be.
First Up wrote: » A Customs Union was always the only workable solution and it is what British industry has been imploring the UK government to do. The terms of a CU are clear; it means the UK will give up their first class seat in the Single Market and move to the luggage van but at least they will still be on the train. The problem now is how to explain reality to the Brexiteers.
Angry bird wrote: » Many think that this still means being in the EU, betrayal of Brexit vote etc. They'll never be convinced otherwise. The great betrayal/victim myth began yesterday.
Alan_P wrote: » I hope you don't know and mean the 1918 version of that. I suspect you do.
The controversial businessman Arron Banks may have misled parliament over links between his pro-Brexit campaign and his insurance business during the EU referendum, according to explosive correspondence released by whistleblowers. Hundreds of internal emails leaked by former employees from Eldon Insurance and Rock Services to the Observer reveal that – despite categorical denials by Banks – insurance staff worked on the Leave.EU campaign from their company offices. Any work carried out in the months before the referendum should have been declared under electoral law. They indicate that Eldon and Rock Services staff contacted companies for material for apparent use in the Brexit campaign, and discussed sharing data. In a separate investigation released today, the website Open Democracy also publishes evidence that suggests significant crossover between Banks’s insurance and political staff during the campaign.
Enzokk wrote: » Another day and more revelations of more misconduct from Arron Banks and the Leave campaign. Lets see what Marr actually asks him.Arron Banks faces new claims of misleading MPs over Brexit
Shelga wrote: » Yeah I’m reading the UK version of the Sunday Times on my tablet- what a nice line- “the small print is that Ireland is ****ed”- charming. How exactly are we ****ed?
prawnsambo wrote: » This seems like a very different pov from what's been said so far
prawnsambo wrote: » His use fo the word 'un-superceded' has me confused. He seems to be suggesting that the backstop remains, but the quoted paragraph seems to suggest the opposite.
Seán Óg The backstop will be there, worded in Jargon so the DUP will be able to say it's not THE backstop. The extended transition and breathing space will allow everyone to claim they won and eventually we will get a new GE at which point the HOC arithmetic will change.
