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.
BoatMad wrote: » Again you haven't read the agreement , The UK has agreed to abide by the VAT directives and goods in the UK will be regarded as in free circulation within the EU , thats a fundamental tenant of the Single Market ,( The CU laws largely deals with goods entering into and going out of the CU ) they have also agreed to regulatory alignment in most areas, again such a deal will completely handcuff the UK What you refer to is the backstop , but the backstop will not be activated during the transition period
charlie14 wrote: » If that was his thinking then I don`t see why they would not have done it as part of this agreement. Same outcome as far as DUP support goes and there would have been no need to tie themselves into this CU which is looking like the straw that will break this deal as far as the Tory`sat least are concerned.
charlie14 wrote: » They may have agreed to some SM alignments but they are not remaining in the SM under this agreement. Only NI is. That is where they are handcuffed. They cannot leave the CU "unless and until" they can come up with a mechanism that satisfies the EU that NI remains effectively within the SM.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » I don't think Fox's attitude would be May's attitude. May is a genuine unionist based on the way she speaks about the 'precious union' and realises there has to be some way of avoiding a hard border to safeguard the union's future. I believe she's pinning her hopes on achieving an open border through a future EU/UK deal. Privately I suspect she would not like NI to be in a different orbit to the UK, but the possibility that it could be looks like it was enough to convince Fox that his plans can be achieved long-term. This is why I think the DUP are playing a dangerous game. A few weeks back the ERG were talking up a possible Super Canada style deal, which hit the rocks due to the fantasy stuff about technology solving the border issue. For most of these ERG types, the border is something they don't care about or understand. With that being the case, are the DUP really unconcerned about toppling a genuinely, passionate unionist like May and potentially have her replaced with a more token unionist figure whose main priority would not be unionist unity, but rather big international deals - with chlorinated chickens and whatnot - that would necessitate NI being pulled closer to the EU sphere and away from the UK sphere? Do they really think a PM Johnson or Gove is going to rebuff a glitzy trade deal with the US that would necessitate such divergence, in order to satisfy 200,000 plus voters in NI, whose influence is gradually going to reduce anyway due to the inevitable demographic changes under way? I think they're making poor long-term calculations, with supporting Brexit being the biggest one of all.
BoatMad wrote: » The DUP are now faced with an invidious choice, potentially aid in preventing this deal passing , and therefore risk a nuclear cliff face brexit . A cliff face brexit is , as we can see, something the UK has bent over backwards to prevent , hence the nett effect of forcing GBs hand , may be that NI is cast adrift by any future UK Gov , in order to allow the rest of the UK do a deal with the EU Hence pulling down this deal could result in a far worse "unintended consequence " in the future
daheff wrote: » Not sure they would. Theres a sizeable sentiment in EU that are fed up with the UK attitude to EU. I think at this point if the UK want to stay, then they are going to have to go all in....including accepting the EURO.
Seth Brundle wrote: » DUP would cut off their nose to spite their face. Expect anything!
Folkstonian wrote: » Telling Britain ‘no thanks’ would be an interesting position for the Europeans to take. Especially so, considering a number of high profile politicians (Macron and Verhofstadt most notably) have highlighted the threat of Russian interference in European politics and highlighted Brexit as the most impactful example of how they are trying and succeeding to destabilize and weaken the EU. For the EU, given these acknowledgements, to then do a complete about turn if Britain wanted to stay by saying ‘nope, Russians or not, you bought it you own it’ would be quite weird, and wholly counterproductive for a continent apparently keen to assert itself more effectively on the global stage
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » While Russia will want Brexit to happen and cause maximum collateral damage. I think it is spurious to suggest Russia had much to do with it. If we're going to list the reasons why Brexit was voted through you need to start with Rubert Murdoch, British Tabloids, Nigel F, Johnson, Jingoistic history taught in schools, Poppy's, UKIP, BNP, Immigration, 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup, hating the French, the Commonwealth, the Empire, Britannia ruling the waves and on and on and on. The Russians are the Americans problem!!! The Russians didn't cause Brexit ffs.
prinzeugen wrote: » People vote. I voted against Scottish Devolution. It happened. Did not cry or protest. It was the will of the people. The UK voted leave. Cry babies out in force! If you love the EU move to Germany. The country that requires ID at all times! "Your papers please"
The country that requires ID at all times!
blanch152 wrote: » If there was a hard Brexit and it came down for us to staying in the EU or keeping solidarity with NI nationalists and leave the EU, we would shaft the NI nationalists and put in a hard border. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
littlemac1980 wrote: » that this Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until <b> an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed </b> The obvious text missing from this section is reference to avoiding a hard border, eg “... scenario which avoids a hard border” which should be inserted after, otherwise this sentence can be interpreted to mean anything agreed down the line could be acceptable.
BoatMad wrote: » I see no issue with allowing the flexibility that by agreement with all parties an alternative scenario could be considered in the future .
littlemac1980 wrote: » That depends on what the definition of “all parties” is - I’m on a phone so I can’t check, if Ireland are included then that’s OK - if not - then the backstop is temporary and will be subject to being overwritten on a political whim at any stage in future negotiations between the UK and EU negotiating on something as benign as Mutual recognition of driving licenses.
BoatMad wrote: » at the end of the day , we cant " force " the EU into providing us with the wherewithal to maintain no border with NI . We can only do it with the agreement of the other member states. Today we have a backstop( well in draft form ) , that in effect handcuffs the whole UK. I see no problem , Ireland is not a signatory to this deal as a single country , the deal is between the UK and the EU . Ireland cant deliver no border on its own , Hence the review allows the UK and the EU , collectively to revise the backstop with the provision for an independent arbitrator to decide if its not needed
littlemac1980 wrote: » I appreciate that, but there is a difference between demanding something (which we aren’t doing) and being told that it is guaranteed that hat something will be delivered in the process of negotiating, or else there will be no deal, and then not being given what was guaranteed to be included - which may well be the case from the language above. Bottom line is - unless this is specifically dealt with and addressed elsewhere in the text - that ain’t no backstop - it doesn’t refer to the border (or rather requirement for no hard border)
BoatMad wrote: » I dont think the phase " hard border " is valid legalese , The protocol does set out what it regards as the criteria , the preservation of the GFA, the maintenance of and all island economy etc I dont think we need to see " hard border " whatever that means , actually mentioned per se
littlemac1980 wrote: » I think everyone understands what “hard border” means. I’m not saying it has to state “hard border” I use that phrase here for the sake of brevity - I’m on my phone - I would expect a 500+ page agreement to include specific references to what is intended to be avoided e.g. customs checks/identification checks etc. This isn’t a backstop - it’s the EU and UK saying to each other - “Don’t worry we’ll work that out between us down the road”
BoatMad wrote: » The protocol makes it clear that the EU and the UK are together committed to (a) ensuring the continuance of the GFA, ensuring an all-island economy and in the event that the UK diverges from the arrangements in the transition agreement , after the end of such a period , that it ( the UK ) is legally committed to ensuring the North remains in compliance with the EU CU and SM. for the life of me I cant see what you are arguing about . The english is plain
littlemac1980 wrote: » Well I didn't think I was arguing. I was pointing out that in my opinion the language in bold is too vague and isn't the backstop that was stated to be included:This Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed As is clear from the italics text the words "unless and until" are clearly included, but the operative part of the text is what comes after that, which is the very vague phrase" "an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed" 1. Agreed between whom? 2. What scenario? 3. What alternative arangement? Everything before the words "unless and until" are only effective upto the agreement to implement another arrangement. This "backstop" is as clear as mud. Not having clarity on this critical point in this critical agreement is, in my opinion, a disaster.
RECALLING that the Joint Report from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal from the European Union of 8 December 2017 outlines three different scenarios for protecting North-South cooperation and avoiding a hard border, but that this Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed,
BoatMad wrote: » Actually during the transition period the UK is abiding by, in essence all the directives establishing the CU/SM ( including the VAT directive ) .it is in essence not actually leaving the current SM/CU remember this agreement is solely concerned with the transition period , it does not detail what will happen if ( ever) the transition period ends !
lawred2 wrote: » I've lived in Germany and didn't show one piece of ID the whole time. What are you on about?
