rusty the athlete wrote: » I doubt it. She must have repeated at least 100,000 times since A50 passed that "We will be leaving the SM, .. the CU .. on March 29th 2019". The hole she has dug herself into over his is simply too deep to get out of now.
Hurrache wrote: » EU apparently don't want her over.https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1087280640465293313 Although Katya Adler seems to be coming from an odd angle, maybe one of her sources it trying to dictate her narrative as this is an odd thing to say, for which she has been pulled up on.https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1087280315939332096
Mr.Wemmick wrote: » But like many posters have written on this thread: she will blame Ireland and NI problem for not allowing her a clear exit, so extend A50.. through no fault of her own. Bless. What choice does she have? Brexit is undeliverable.
seamus wrote: » Katya Adler has been pushing a strongy one-sided narrative of late. Same person who last week that got pulled up on claiming that Varadkar was on shaky ground at home - i.e. that his brexit hardline was weakening his support. Her defence was that she worded it badly and she meant the opposite - that he was holding onto the backstop in order to maintain home support. Clearly based on her recent tweets though, the original meaning was the implied meaning. She's pushing the narrative that the reason a deal can't be reached is EU failures and intransigence, and it's the EU in trouble if a deal can't be reached.
MrMusician18 wrote: » I suspect all Katya's sources in the commission are British, and she is not looking critically at what she's being fed. She had been extremely poor on Brexit since this all began anyway. She won't be winning awards on her coverage.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It is if they had any faith or courage in their convictions of the UK's stated place in the world. They are afraid to Brexit is the bottom line here.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What time is she in the HOC?
Leroy42 wrote: » Lets try to follow this 'bi-lateral talks' idea. So UK and Ireland have talks, aimed at coming to a specific arrangement which removes the need for a backstop. But even if the EU, through the prize of continued peace in NI, allowed this to happen, they are no going to allow it to be the agreement for the entire EU. So in effect it will be limited to NI and possibly trade with Ireland/UK. So in effect the UK are saying that they are opening to treating NI differently than the rest of the UK, which if I am not mistaken is the entire basis for the DUP raging against the deal.
LeinsterDub wrote: » https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1087320272003366917 If true expect the EU 26 to put them back in their box right fast.
josip wrote: » What's Poland's angle on this?Genuine interest in achieving a May Deal Brexit for its own citizens in UK? Historical resentment to EU regarding border issues because of the previously mentioned Ukraine border. Trouble making because the EU are censuring their purge on the judiciary?
FreudianSlippers wrote: » All why the EU wouldn't likely capitulate to this - it would undermine the fundamental core of the EU. As an aside, would Polexit be significantly damaging to anyone other than Polish nationals living in the EU?
seamus wrote: » Kind of irrelevant anyway. 5 years may as well be indefinite for Brexiteers. They'd never accept anything longer than a few months. But ultimately it doesn't address the issue. The purpose of the backstop is to answer the question of "what do we do if our agreed border position breaks down"? If you add a 5-year expiry to the backstop, then you just create a new question: "What happens after that?"
First Up wrote: » The UK has always seen Ireland as a source of leverage in negotiations with the EU. The hope is that the desire for a borderless Ireland will outweigh everything else and "force" the EU to concede a free trade deal without strings attached.
mrbrianj wrote: » We have to steer clear of Bi-lateral talks on an open border. The UK will try to "flip" us into an open border with NI/UK but with a border in the sea between us and the EU. Gives then exactly what they want and screws us out of the EU.
josip wrote: » What's Poland's angle on this? [*]Trouble making because the EU are censuring their purge on the judiciary? [/LIST]
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Would it be that bad of an idea? The amount of goods that might seek to enter mainland EU via Ireland from the UK must be very small. It would be easy enough to implement, would bring customs jobs to Wexford and Cork, and carrying out an adminstrative check "in the celtic sea" is far less politically sensitive as an administrative check "in the Irish sea". If France and Benelux play ball and it wont be too onerous, why not look into it? It may mean sacrificing national pride, but I think we are above such petty squabbling, especially if it means extra EU money to pay our civil servants.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » I presume the net benefit is the only reason Law and Justice is currently pro-EU.
J Mysterio wrote: » What are the Polish at? Seems some of the UK lobbying is finally making inroads. I'm sure the UK made the Poles some promises for this. UK strategy is obviously to pressurise Ireland right now, which looks like another calamitous error in Judgement by May. 5 years is a completely arbitrary timeline and resolves nothing, kicking the can down the road in just the way that May likes. I hope our boys will be telling their Foreign minister whats what as well as that we dont appreciate their butting their heads in an area that is fundamental to our interests. If May is just going to be stubborn on this, and not propose any fresh ideas other than attacking the backstop, I see No Deal Brexit ahead. The EU have been clear all along, as have we, that the WA must have the backstop. May has admitted so much a few times now. What the hell are they thinking?