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: » No Brexit deal, no transition without Irish backstop - Barnierhttps://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1NB229?__twitter_impression=true
Strazdas wrote: » It's good that he is holding firm. There were accusations in the Dail today from SF and FF that the Taoiseach is wavering on the backstop, but they're nearly forgetting that Barnier is the chief negotiator, not Varadkar.....he has no more input into the talks than Merkel, Macron or anyone else.
Faugheen wrote: » That annoyed me today. Two differing statements were released but yet instead of questioning Theresa May they go after Varadkar and accuse him of all sorts. I’m no Leo fan, but him and Coveney have been excellent with this in the sense that they have not budged on what they wanted. But no, FF and SF take May’s word for it.
listermint wrote: » Well did Leo not say he would be open to discussing a review of the backstop. I think he did say that, a planned review of it. So i think they were querying that . tbf
listermint wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » That annoyed me today. Two differing statements were released but yet instead of questioning Theresa May they go after Varadkar and accuse him of all sorts. I’m no Leo fan, but him and Coveney have been excellent with this in the sense that they have not budged on what they wanted. But no, FF and SF take May’s word for it. Well did Leo not say he would be open to discussing a review of the backstop. I think he did say that, a planned review of it. So i think they were querying that . tbf
An Ciarraioch wrote: » The UK won't sign up if it's officially described as permanent, but the review could only result in deactivation if a better agreement than the backstop were to be reached, and to keep the Border soft, that would require the whole UK to adhere to the Single Market. Given that's unlikely to happen, the review would conclude that the backstop would still be required.
prawnsambo wrote: » What I find funny about all this wriggling around the backstop and reviews and every whole thing is that a backstop is only necessary if other mechanisms fail. So when the UK say that they want a time-limited backstop or a review process or some other cobbled together mechanism to end it, what they're really saying is that they know they can't come up with a workable alternative and don't want any kind of backstop at all. Because the backstop is actually going to be the status quo immediately.
listermint wrote: » Whats being said is there are forces within the negotiations that actually want hard brexit come what may. They dont care, Why they want it, well thats up for interpretation. Some of it is obviously because some stand to benefit from it financially. Others its jingoism. But if i was a betting man its Money / Power that is core to those that want clear hard brexit. hence all the pretend fudging
megatron989 wrote: » Have to say that I'm very impressed with Barnier, how he keeps his cool is beyond me. How many times can he enter a room and say the same thing again and again only for the other side to simply ignore him and continue with their own version of reality. I'd likely have been sacked for assault or locked up for pulling my own hair out. He seems to keep his cool no matter what.
RobMc59 wrote: » Is Leo Varadkar deputy negotiator for the EU as I was under the impression Barnier was the only one?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » No we don't have a veto.
prawnsambo wrote: » It's a qualified majority vote in the council of ministers. 55% of states representing 65% of the EU population afaik.
prawnsambo wrote: » Not sure what your point is here. Every time there's a fart in the wind from London, Varadker or Coveney or both are asked what they think/say/interpret from it. Either by the press, in the Dail etc. Repeat ad nasueum.
EdgeCase wrote: » That's actually still unclear as technically speaking, it requires a new deal with the UK which is basically like all other EU trade deals. That would potentially require unanimity in a Council vote. There are areas where QMV does not apply namely: tax, foreign policy, defence and social security.
charlie14 wrote: » I can see where the temptation is to reply to some of the ridiculous questions they are asked, but if memory serves me correct was it not just a matter of a few weeks ago when diplomats and government ministers were told that if attempts were made to them to engage on anything to do with Brexit by their British counterparts the stock answer was to be along the lines "Take it up with the EU. They represent us on any and all issues in relation to Brexit" ?
judeboy101 wrote: » We had a veto last dec/jan and we didn't use it. The whole process should have stopped then.
