Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[shurlock]

So what? We held a referendum asking us whether we wished to stay in the Common Market after Heath had signed us in. There should have been referenda for each treaty that changed the basis of our membership from a simple trading agreement towards a federal political union. Other countries held referenda for such things, but our lords and masters thought that the British people shouldn't be allowed to have them. The European Act effectively says that we are happy to close the stable doors after the horse has bolted, that we have already allowed four treaties to alter the basis on which we joined, without putting them to the electorate in referenda, but now that they are out of the way, we promise to behave ourselves in future. Of course, it didn't need this Act in order that the government could have arranged referenda previously had they felt so inclined.

 

 

Try reading carefully Les. I was answering a question from Trousers who asked what the country would look like after Remain. What's happened in the past is irrelevant to answering that question. We already know what our relationship with the EU is under Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon. However we do not how our relationship might evolve going forward - to which I pointed out that for numerous reasons, including the 2011 referendum lock, there are significant constraints on what can happen, reducing the degree of uncertainty.

 

I know when you're having a mare, there's a temptation to overcompensate; but in your case, its backfiring pal

[OldNick]

 

Try reading carefully Les. I was answering a question from Trousers who asked what the country would look like after Remain. What's happened in the past is irrelevant to answering that question. We already know what our relationship with the EU is under Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon. However we do not how our relationship might evolve going forward - to which I pointed out that for numerous reasons, including the 2011 referendum lock, there are significant constraints on what can happen, reducing the degree of uncertainty.

 

I know when you're having a mare, there's a temptation to overcompensate; but in your case, its backfiring pal

Shurlock you seem really well up on the whole ins and outs of the laws/terms treaties etc.What is your profession to be so well up on this? You certainly have a great wealth of knowledge and memory to instantly have the more finer details to hand.

I readily admit I know very little and just make my judgement on the finest slither of info.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Can someone please help me with a basic that I appear to have missed. As things stand we leave on 29 March on wto terms / no deal. The main issue with the May deal is the backstop / Irish border. I get all of that. I also get that the EU say that if there is no deal then there will have to be a hard Irish border, but that conflicts with the GFA. However, what I do not understand is what the ROI / EU will actually do if we go on 29 March with no deal. If we say, nah we aint imposing a border cos of the GFA, what then happens? Who imposes the likely ill fated border? Surely not the Irish who want a united Ireland.

 

I asked this a few weeks ago actually - I find it odd that the EU will let us leave without a deal, as that contravenes the GFA, yet they won't make any concessions around the backstop (of course, there is no other way).

 

In theory, if the EU and Ireland are that concerned about the GFA, and I'm sure they are, I think we could see Article 50 extended in perpetuity until there is a technological advancement that allows something to be done. On the other hand, us leaving without a deal, and the backstop being in place as part of the "deal", means that Parliament not agreeing to the deal will contravene the GFA, something that the current Government cannot be seen to do.

 

As I said many, many moons ago, the Irish border and GFA means that Brexit is currently impossible without staying in the customs union.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Massage your ego all you like. I'm not embarrassed at all; this is your typical MO when you get it wrong. Despite your huffing and puffing obfuscation, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in that post I said that the Canada +++ deal was a legal entity on the table.

 

Isn't it odd how Brexiteers think that what Shurlock, Verbal et al say is about massaging their own ego's? It's really not about them, it's about you, and the fact that they're showing you where you're wrong. As soon as you hear something you don't like and can't explain/answer (which happens a lot), suddenly it's about the other person massaging their ego. It's not, it's about making you look stupid.

[doddisalegend]

Tusk and the other Belgians outbursts about Brexitters and hell is hardly the most diplomatic of language. Are cracks appearing or are they just showing what they really are. Iam sure they are as exasperated as Iam with the result but it hardly helps.

The deal is being held up by the Irish backstop, surely there must be a set of words/terms that can be conjured up to ease those concerns. Sadly the damage to Britain is basically done whether we go back in or flop out we will not be as strong as we were before the referendum.

I wonder if we go out with no deal and that is the will of the democratic decision whether my fellow remainers will just get on with things or will some go out on the streets and riot and cause damage etc??

There isn't going to be riots most people, on both sides of the argument, are just normal people who will just try to deal with the fallout of a no deal best they can. It's only a few far right and left loons who seem to be itching for some sort of physical confrontation.

 

Most likely outcome after brexit deal or not, I reckon, will be another push for Scottish independence and then depending on how that goes an attempt at re- unification of Ireland leaving a rump UK of England and Wales.

 

 

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[egg]

I asked this a few weeks ago actually - I find it odd that the EU will let us leave without a deal, as that contravenes the GFA, yet they won't make any concessions around the backstop (of course, there is no other way).

 

In theory, if the EU and Ireland are that concerned about the GFA, and I'm sure they are, I think we could see Article 50 extended in perpetuity until there is a technological advancement that allows something to be done. On the other hand, us leaving without a deal, and the backstop being in place as part of the "deal", means that Parliament not agreeing to the deal will contravene the GFA, something that the current Government cannot be seen to do.

 

As I said many, many moons ago, the Irish border and GFA means that Brexit is currently impossible without staying in the customs union.

 

Thanks, and that's how I see it.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Tusk and the other Belgians outbursts about Brexitters and hell is hardly the most diplomatic of language. Are cracks appearing or are they just showing what they really are. Iam sure they are as exasperated as Iam with the result but it hardly helps.

The deal is being held up by the Irish backstop, surely there must be a set of words/terms that can be conjured up to ease those concerns. Sadly the damage to Britain is basically done whether we go back in or flop out we will not be as strong as we were before the referendum.

I wonder if we go out with no deal and that is the will of the democratic decision whether my fellow remainers will just get on with things or will some go out on the streets and riot and cause damage etc??

 

No, there won't. However there will be a massive split in the country - genuinely, between the people that voted for and continue to promote Brexit, and those that feel their lives have been massively affected by those that voted.

 

It might not seem like a big thing at the moment, but you will see Brexiteers derided, disrespected and sneered at for years to come.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

There isn't going to be riots most people, on both sides of the argument, are just normal people who will just try to deal with the fallout of a no deal best they can. It's only a few far right and left loons who seem to be itching for some sort of physical confrontation.

 

Most likely outcome after brexit deal or not, I reckon, will be another push for Scottish independence and then depending on how that goes an attempt at re- unification of Ireland leaving a rump UK of England and Wales.

 

 

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

Scotland will 100% go for independence.

 

A vote for Brexit was a vote for the breakup of the United Kingdom.

 

Make Britain, sorry, England, great again.

[shurlock]

Isn't it odd how Brexiteers think that what Shurlock, Verbal et al say is about massaging their own ego's? It's really not about them, it's about you, and the fact that they're showing you where you're wrong. As soon as you hear something you don't like and can't explain/answer (which happens a lot), suddenly it's about the other person massaging their ego. It's not, it's about making you look stupid.

 

Sadly Les just reflects the ignorance and insularity of the Brexit debate. As Sabine Weyand, Barnier's no.2, has lamented, much of the debate inside the Tory Party and Westminster has been over the rival strengths and weaknesses of different options -Chequers vs. Norway vs. Canada +++. Its a debate completely divorced from the realities of the negotiations which are all about the terms on which the UK leaves the EU, not its future relationship with the EU. Canada+++ (whatever it actually means) was never offered to us as an alternative to May's deal because the future relationship was never intended to be resolved at this time.

[doddisalegend]

Scotland will 100% go for independence.

 

A vote for Brexit was a vote for the breakup of the United Kingdom.

 

Make Britain, sorry, England, great again.

Yep brexit has given the SNP all the ammo they need to go for independence again. I look forward to another messy divorce settlement in a couple of years.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Shurlock you seem really well up on the whole ins and outs of the laws/terms treaties etc.What is your profession to be so well up on this? You certainly have a great wealth of knowledge and memory to instantly have the more finer details to hand.

I readily admit I know very little and just make my judgement on the finest slither of info.

 

I did some consulting for a couple of prominent remainers in 2017 and 2018 (whose views I don't share FWIW) and they were interested in how the Lisbon Treaty was ratified across EU member states, esp UK and Germany, including its constitutional fallout.

[Highfield Saint]

Well said Dan Hodges

 

“Watching senior Remainers siding with Tusk, I’m genuinely starting to wonder why Brexiteers don’t start campaigning for a 2nd referendum themselves. They’d have a gay old time, and end up smashing it 70-30 or 80-20. Remainers literally don’t have a clue”.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Go for it

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Sadly Les just reflects the ignorance and insularity of the Brexit debate. As Sabine Weyand, Barnier's no.2, has lamented, much of the debate inside the Tory Party and Westminster has been over the rival strengths and weaknesses of different options -Chequers vs. Norway vs. Canada +++. Its a debate completely divorced from the realities of the negotiations which are all about the terms on which the UK leaves the EU, not its future relationship with the EU. Canada+++ (whatever it actually means) was never offered to us as an alternative to May's deal because the future relationship was never intended to be resolved at this time.

 

Exactly. Even leaving with "No deal" doesn't mean we can't negotiate a Canada or Norway style agreement with the EU past the 29th March. It's irrelevant to the Withdrawal Agreement. The withdrawal agreement is an interim measure to allow continued frictionless trade UNTIL we have agreed to a new trading agreement with the EU.

 

This is where the non payment of the £39b doesn't make sense. If we leave with no deal (IE withdrawal agreement), and don't pay it, then the EU will take it back through larger payments to get the Norway or Canada deal.

 

I think they're getting confused that a "deal" is not a future trading deal with the EU, it's an agreement on the interim relationship with the EU.

 

Maybe we should stop talking about deals as it's clearly confusing people.

[shurlock]

Exactly. Even leaving with "No deal" doesn't mean we can't negotiate a Canada or Norway style agreement with the EU past the 29th March. It's irrelevant to the Withdrawal Agreement. The withdrawal agreement is an interim measure to allow continued frictionless trade UNTIL we have agreed to a new trading agreement with the EU.

 

This is where the non payment of the £39b doesn't make sense. If we leave with no deal (IE withdrawal agreement), and don't pay it, then the EU will take it back through larger payments to get the Norway or Canada deal.

 

I think they're getting confused that a "deal" is not a future trading deal with the EU, it's an agreement on the interim relationship with the EU.

 

Maybe we should stop talking about deals as it's clearly confusing people.

 

Yep.

 

The WA is also about settling the terms of departure so that however future trade discussions go (if, for example, they go abysmally), basics such as citizens rights, the Irish border and what the EU views as the UK honouring its past financial commitments won't be sacrificed or thrown by the wayside.

[John B]

How can you lump Leavers and their opinions all together. George Galloway has a different version of Leave than Nigel Fararge. It’s like me saying Remain are all over the place, which version of Remain do you want to follow, Ken Clarke’s or Diane Abbott’s.

 

I was happy with the version of Leave that the leaders of Remain told us would happen. Out of the Single Market and out of the Custom Union, but that’s just me.

 

One thing for certain is a Tory cabinet couldn’t implement a a Socialist agenda and a Remain one couldn’t do similar for a Remain one. May’s deal is the best that a Remainer could deliver, because they started from a position that Brexit was something that needed risk managing rather than embracing. As May said herself, “you can’t deliver Brexit, if you don’t believe in it”. If reports are to be believed (and I’ve seen nobody dispute them) a comprehensive free trade agreement was offered for Britain back in March, to me (and I suspect most Leavers) that’s a far far better deal than the one May signed up for. So it’s just not true that May’s was the only deal available or possible.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Yes you are right there are other deals but not if you don't want Free Movement Single Market Customs Union and No Hard Border in Ireland which is what Mrs May said you wanted

 

My Point is that there was no agreed Description of What Brexit it was going to be .

 

You may think it is easy embracing Brexit but if you do not understand its consequences you find yourself in the position we are today

 

Article 50 should have been delayed whilst it was decided what we actually want to happen after we leave the EU it is so complicated because our prosperity and security has evolved in the last 40 years.

 

I respect you want to leave the EU but changing significantly how we interact and trade with the rest of the world is in the opinion of many of our Allies very risky and will lead to serious problems within our country.

 

WTO rules maybe the answer but who actually knows lots think it will but most trade people think it will be a disaster.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I asked this a few weeks ago actually - I find it odd that the EU will let us leave without a deal, as that contravenes the GFA, yet they won't make any concessions around the backstop (of course, there is no other way).

 

In theory, if the EU and Ireland are that concerned about the GFA, and I'm sure they are, I think we could see Article 50 extended in perpetuity until there is a technological advancement that allows something to be done. On the other hand, us leaving without a deal, and the backstop being in place as part of the "deal", means that Parliament not agreeing to the deal will contravene the GFA, something that the current Government cannot be seen to do.

 

As I said many, many moons ago, the Irish border and GFA means that Brexit is currently impossible without staying in the customs union.

 

David Trimble, who won a Nobel peace prize for his work on the GFA profoundly disagrees. In fact he is taking legal action because the WA contrivances the GFA, as it leaves NI without representation.

 

So on one side we have Nobel prize winning politician that negotiated the GFA and on the other side we have clever **** on football forum. Not surprisingly, I’m going with Trimble on this one.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[egg]

David Trimble, who won a Nobel peace prize for his work on the GFA profoundly disagrees. In fact he is taking legal action because the WA contrivances the GFA, as it leaves NI without representation.

 

So on one side we have Nobel prize winning politician that negotiated the GFA and on the other side we have clever **** on football forum. Not surprisingly, I’m going with Trimble on this one.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

So what does Trimble say wi actually happen if we leave on 29 March without a deal? There will be no backstop. We (Britain) will not implement a hard border. What actually happens on that situation? Do the ROI or EU impose a hard border in contravention of the GFA?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yes you are right there are other deals but not if you don't want Free Movement Single Market Customs Union and No Hard Border in Ireland which is what Mrs May said you wanted

 

My Point is that there was no agreed Description of What Brexit it was going to be .

 

You may think it is easy embracing Brexit but if you do not understand its consequences you find yourself in the position we are today

 

Article 50 should have been delayed whilst it was decided what we actually want to happen after we leave the EU it is so complicated because our prosperity and security has evolved in the last 40 years.

 

I respect you want to leave the EU but changing significantly how we interact and trade with the rest of the world is in the opinion of many of our Allies very risky and will lead to serious problems within our country.

 

WTO rules maybe the answer but who actually knows lots think it will but most trade people think it will be a disaster.

 

I know it seems like a small thing but asking EU importing and exporting businesses to stop and start new processes in relation to customs and excise is a right pain the arse - it's great for people like me who look to define and solve these issues, but for businesses it costs money, takes time and creates disruption. If we go out with No Deal and go onto WTO rules, there's pain point number one. If we then negotiate to go onto a Canada or Norway deal, there's pain point number 2, within a year or two. It sounds small, but it's uphaul and a pain in the arse.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

David Trimble, who won a Nobel peace prize for his work on the GFA profoundly disagrees. In fact he is taking legal action because the WA contrivances the GFA, as it leaves NI without representation.

 

So on one side we have Nobel prize winning politician that negotiated the GFA and on the other side we have clever **** on football forum. Not surprisingly, I’m going with Trimble on this one.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

So what does Trimble reckon will happen on March 29th then? What is his end game solution, because I am sure the Government/EU would love to hear it as it will remove the need for the Backstop.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Do the ROI or EU impose a hard border in contravention of the GFA?

 

Does it though?

 

Not according to the Brussels Broadcasting Cooperation. They stated the following.

 

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

 

A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

 

During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

 

Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of emoving those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

 

The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

 

The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

 

That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Does it though?

 

Not according to the Brussels Broadcasting Cooperation. They stated the following.

 

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

 

A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

 

During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

 

Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of emoving those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

 

The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

 

The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

 

That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But with a hard border it could well lead to a rise in violence as they can no longer move freely across the border, which could result in a return to militarisation of the border.

[trousers]

Taking a step back....Can I ask what might be a daft question or two (just for a change)....?

 

Why were the negotiations between the UK and EU split into 2 mutually exclusive parts in the first place? Isn't that the root cause of the problem here? i.e. the backstop is an attempt to bridge the gap between a withdrawal agreement and a future trading agreement. Wouldn't it have been much more logical to have crafted both agreements in parallel and concluded them both at the same time, thus removing the need to bridge the troublesome gap between the two with this backstop insurance thingamajig?

 

I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of: "there isn't enough time between the triggering of Article 50 and the deadline (2 years?) built into the Article wording to conclude both negotiations".... but....if that is the answer, doesn't it suggest that Article 50 was poorly written in the first place? Logically, surely it would be better for Article 50 to give sufficient time for both a withdrawal agreement and future trading agreement to be drawn up together, rather than setting what seems like an arbitrary timeframe to scupper this happening?

 

Dunno.... Just me thinking out loud, as per usual, and not really knowing much about the mechanics and logistics of the whole Article 50 malarkey....

Edited 7 February, 2019 by trousers

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Can I ask what might be a daft question or two (just for a change)....?

 

Why were the negotiations between the UK and EU split into 2 mutually exclusive parts in the first place? Isn't that the root cause of the problem here? i.e. the backstop is an attempt to bridge the gap between a withdrawal agreement and a future trading agreement. Wouldn't it have been much more logical to have crafted both agreements in parallel and concluded them both at the same time, thus removing the need to bridge the troublesome gap between the two with this backstop insurance thingamajig?

 

I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of: "there isn't enough time between the triggering of Article 50 and the timescale (2 years?) built into the Article wording to conclude both negotiations".... but....if that is the answer, doesn't it suggest that Article 50 was poorly written in the first place? Logically, surely it would be better for Article 50 to give sufficient time for both a withdrawal agreement and future trading agreement to be drawn up rather than setting what seems like an arbitrary timeframe to scupper this happening?

 

Dunno.... Just me thinking out loud, as per usual, and not really knowing much about the mechanics and logistics of the whole Article 50 malarkey....

 

They are two different things though - one is dealing with the legal framework or extracting ourselves from a number of very complex treaties, and the financial, legal and humanitarian result of these. The trading deal part of the withdrawal agreement is actually a bit of a misnomer IMO as it's only an interim before the proper negotiations begin.

 

These then feed into and shape the type of trading deal we can negotiate with the EU after that.

 

Don't forget that Article 50 was written in a way to try to get people NOT to invoke it - and the EU never really saw it being invoked. It is poorly written, but it won't be superseded as it is such a barrier to leaving. The issue was May and the Government didn't understand what they wanted or needed before they invoked it. If they'd have sat back and thought about it then we wouldn't be hurtling towards leaving without a withdrawal agreement.

 

The Backstop agreement is just a start to the issue with the Irish border. The problem is unless we are in the customs union - which is one of May's red lines - the backstop will permanently be in place because there is no technological advancement that allows us to deal with split customs without having a hard border. It's creating an issue now, and it will create an issue in the future negotiations as well as there is no solution to it.

 

That's how I understand it anyway.

Edited 7 February, 2019 by Unbelievable Jeff

[trousers]

They are two different things though - one is dealing with the legal framework or extracting ourselves from a number of very complex treaties, and the financial, legal and humanitarian result of these. The trading deal part of the withdrawal agreement is actually a bit of a misnomer IMO as it's only an interim before the proper negotiations begin.

 

These then feed into and shape the type of trading deal we can negotiate with the EU after that.

 

Yeah, I get that they are separate entities, I just don't get why they can't both be negotiated before leaving the EU...

 

In other words, why not this timeline:

 

AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU

 

Instead of this timeline:

 

AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS

 

?

Edited 7 February, 2019 by trousers

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yeah, I get that they are separate entities, I just don't get why they can't both be negotiated before leaving the EU...

 

In other words, why not this timeline:

 

AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU

 

Instead of this timeline:

 

AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS

 

?

 

Because until we Leave the EU we cannot start negotiating our own trade deals - it's in our interests to leave quicker.

 

But as said above, Article 50 is poorly written, but that's how leaving the EU works...

[trousers]

Because until we Leave the EU we cannot start negotiating our own trade deals

 

I thought we could negotiate trade deals but just not sign them until we've left? I could well be mistaken on that understanding though (again, first time for everything! )

[egg]

Does it though?

 

Not according to the Brussels Broadcasting Cooperation. They stated the following.

 

What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

 

A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

 

During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

 

Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of emoving those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

 

The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

 

The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

 

That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I mean no disrespect, but this page contains pages and pages of diatribe and opposing opinion. I've no interest in getting into long drawn out debate. I'm interested in what it is actually said will happen with the Irish border on 29/3 if we crash out without a deal which as things stand will happen.

 

Will Britain impose a hard border?

If not, will the ROI?

If not, will the EU?

 

My understanding is that nothing has been said re the options above, or an alternative. Thus, by default, nothing will in fact happen. If there's text which clarifies I'd be grateful to be referred to it.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I thought we could negotiate trade deals but just not sign them until we've left? I could well be mistaken on that understanding though (again, first time for everything! )

 

Sorry, I think I used the wrong language - we cannot formally negotiate and sign any trade deals.

 

I guess we'll see what Liam Fox has got up his sleeve on the 29th March...

[badgerx16]

I mean no disrespect, but this page contains pages and pages of diatribe and opposing opinion. I've no interest in getting into long drawn out debate. I'm interested in what it is actually said will happen with the Irish border on 29/3 if we crash out without a deal which as things stand will happen.

 

Will Britain impose a hard border?

If not, will the ROI?

If not, will the EU?

 

My understanding is that nothing has been said re the options above, or an alternative. Thus, by default, nothing will in fact happen. If there's text which clarifies I'd be grateful to be referred to it.

I think both sides are hoping that there will be a last minute arrangement that finesses this problem. I don't know if either has a clear view of what that might be, but in some way that particular can will be hoofed along the highway so that nobody has to take the 'blame'. Perhaps everybody is just waiting to wake up on March 30th to see in the sky falls in.

[Wes Tender]

Now, let me see. I can't for the life of me see where I suggested that a Canada +++ deal was legally on the table. I don't see anywhere where I suggested that the withdrawal agreement wouldn't be required either. Perhaps you will be kind enough to show me where I said either. It's hard to take your insufferable arrogance seriously when you you attack somebody's opinion for being what you want it to be, instead of what it is.

 

Shurlock deosn't seem able to show me where I said either of those things in an earlier post. Instead, all I've got in response are the usual insults and him going off in tangents onto other things, in order to distract interest away from answering the question.

[egg]

I think both sides are hoping that there will be a last minute arrangement that finesses this problem. I don't know if either has a clear view of what that might be, but in some way that particular can will be hoofed along the highway so that nobody has to take the 'blame'. Perhaps everybody is just waiting to wake up on March 30th to see in the sky falls in.

 

That's probably right but if nothing will actually happen from 30/3 if there's no backstop, it makes the EU's lack of flexibility on the backstop issue a farce. In May's shoes I'd call their bluff - be sensible on the backstop or it defaults to no deal and we won't impose a border. The ROI won't implement one.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yeah, I get that they are separate entities, I just don't get why they can't both be negotiated before leaving the EU...

 

In other words, why not this timeline:

 

AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU

 

Instead of this timeline:

 

AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS

 

?

 

Because A50 was deliberately written to 1. Discourage countries from leaving and 2. Give EU the upper hand when it came to negotiating the future. Lord Kerr who drafted it has admitted as much, it was never meant to be used.

 

The sequencing of talks was something the UK couldn’t argue with apart from one important element. There is an argument to be made that the NI border should have been part of the future PD than the WD. The border between Spain & Portugal certainly would have been had the Portuguese been the ones leaving. Surely logic dictates that until you know the future relationship, you don’t know what border requirements are needed. Ireland have a veto on the future relationship so there’s absolutely no reason why we couldn’t have gone into an extendable transition period without the need for a backstop. Agreeing that was May & Robbins biggest error (and they’ve made plenty).

 

But we are where we are and some sort of fudge around the temporality of the BS will probably be enough to get a deal done.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Shurlock deosn't seem able to show me where I said either of those things in an earlier post. Instead, all I've got in response are the usual insults and him going off in tangents onto other things, in order to distract interest away from answering the question.

 

Les it’s been explained to you that Canada+++ could never be offered as an alternative to May’s deal. Youve failed to explain how the UK could have left the single market and the customs union, gone for a FTA like Canada+++ and failing that trade on WTO terms on March 29 because it’s a nonsequitur. Tough luck pal

[shurlock]

I thought this blog has Les and the other gullible grunted and activists down to a tee.

 

http://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-special-place-in-hell.html?m=1

 

That’s what sheep do.

[egg]

Just out of interest, what is the point of endless debate about a) article 50 which has actually been invoked thus debate makes no difference, and b) potential trade deals in circumstances where the only issue is the deal to exit on 29/3 so that we have continuity and then breathing space to look at future deals? I'm staggered that there is 213 pages on this!!

[shurlock]

Just out of interest, what is the point of endless debate about a) article 50 which has actually been invoked thus debate makes no difference, and b) potential trade deals in circumstances where the only issue is the deal to exit on 29/3 so that we have continuity and then breathing space to look at future deals? I'm staggered that there is 213 pages on this!!

 

Eh?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just out of interest, what is the point of endless debate about a) article 50 which has actually been invoked thus debate makes no difference, and b) potential trade deals in circumstances where the only issue is the deal to exit on 29/3 so that we have continuity and then breathing space to look at future deals? I'm staggered that there is 213 pages on this!!

 

We're just debating it - sharing knowledge on a very complex area where very few of us have all the answers.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Looks like lawyers Herbert Smith Freehills agree with my earlier post that the NI border could have been included in the PD rather than the WD.

 

Most papers picked up their analysis that it’s illegal under international law because it has no unilateral withdrawal mechanism, but I also notice they claim it breaks EU law regarding A50. They claim it’s “illegal as a matter of EU law” because A50 only allows the conclusion of an agreement that deals with separation issues, not agreements setting out a future relationship.

 

To my my knowledge that’s 3 legal challenges to the BS.

 

Trimble taking legal action because their will be no NI representation, which breaks the GFA.

 

Illegal treaty because there’s no unilateral withdrawal mechanism.

 

Is illegal under A50 because its part of a future relationship.

 

I’m not saying any of these will be successful, but it may just ramp up the pressure to change the Backstop.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OldNick]

Apparently the news are reporting that over a trillion has left the UK in the last 6months!! The damage this is doing to our nation due to Brexit. It seems that for our financial services to get a licence to trade in the Eu have to transfer their assets there. Frankfurt is stripping us bare. What a death by a 1000 cuts. Self harm of a nation

[Plastic]

I'm perfectly content trading on WTO terms.

 

I’ll bet you are. Remind me what it is you trade exactly?

[OldNick]

Scotland will 100% go for independence.

 

A vote for Brexit was a vote for the breakup of the United Kingdom.

 

Make Britain, sorry, England, great again.

That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship

[shurlock]

That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship

 

What does this mean? patriotic = nationalist?

[OldNick]

What does this mean? patriotic = nationalist?

Probably my bad wording, more likely to wave the Union Jack, I suppose

[Whitey Grandad]

Taking a step back....Can I ask what might be a daft question or two (just for a change)....?

 

Why were the negotiations between the UK and EU split into 2 mutually exclusive parts in the first place? Isn't that the root cause of the problem here? i.e. the backstop is an attempt to bridge the gap between a withdrawal agreement and a future trading agreement. Wouldn't it have been much more logical to have crafted both agreements in parallel and concluded them both at the same time, thus removing the need to bridge the troublesome gap between the two with this backstop insurance thingamajig?

 

I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of: "there isn't enough time between the triggering of Article 50 and the deadline (2 years?) built into the Article wording to conclude both negotiations".... but....if that is the answer, doesn't it suggest that Article 50 was poorly written in the first place? Logically, surely it would be better for Article 50 to give sufficient time for both a withdrawal agreement and future trading agreement to be drawn up together, rather than setting what seems like an arbitrary timeframe to scupper this happening?

 

Dunno.... Just me thinking out loud, as per usual, and not really knowing much about the mechanics and logistics of the whole Article 50 malarkey....

 

Trade agreements tkae typically 7 years as a minimum to negotiate and members of the EU cannot negotiate their own trade agreements therefore we have to leave before we can begin negotiating. Unofficial talks can take place but these are as good as worthless.

 

You are right that Article 50 should never have been invoked until we were all agreed what we wanted and where we wanted to be. Whether the new EU anti money-laundering directives have any bearing on the rush to leave is open to debate.

[ecuk268]

I thought we could negotiate trade deals but just not sign them until we've left? I could well be mistaken on that understanding though (again, first time for everything! )

 

Don't worry about it.

 

Liam Fox promised to sign 40 trade deals the second after we leave the EU. I'm sure that we have every confidence in him going by his record so far (he's managed one in two and a half years).

[Unbelievable Jeff]

That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship

 

"The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war."

 

Sydney J. Harris

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Edit

[John B]

I know it seems like a small thing but asking EU importing and exporting businesses to stop and start new processes in relation to customs and excise is a right pain the arse - it's great for people like me who look to define and solve these issues, but for businesses it costs money, takes time and creates disruption. If we go out with No Deal and go onto WTO rules, there's pain point number one. If we then negotiate to go onto a Canada or Norway deal, there's pain point number 2, within a year or two. It sounds small, but it's uphaul and a pain in the arse.

 

What David Cameron told us about our 'deal' with the EU:

 

 

"WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE?

 

Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.

 

Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market. But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.

 

No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:

• follow EU rules over which they have no real say

• pay into the EU

• accept EU citizens living and working in their country

 

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.[1]"

 

To me, this sounds like a prediction come true. Note the threat of 'less access' to the SM. NOWHERE does the leaflet say that Brexit means leaving the SM or the CU.

 

[1] FROM: "Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK" - with references 2016

 

The rest of the text correctly predicts all the actual effects of a Leave vote. There are no lies in it. Or Project Fear.

[badgerx16]

That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship

And GM classes all remainers as 'traitors'. Personally, if the end game of Brexit is to risk tearing the Union apart, I know who the more traiterous group are.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What David Cameron told us about our 'deal' with the EU:

 

 

"WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE?

 

Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.

 

Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market. But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.

 

No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:

• follow EU rules over which they have no real say

• pay into the EU

• accept EU citizens living and working in their country

 

A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.[1]"

 

To me, this sounds like a prediction come true. Note the threat of 'less access' to the SM. NOWHERE does the leaflet say that Brexit means leaving the SM or the CU.

 

[1] FROM: "Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK" - with references 2016

 

The rest of the text correctly predicts all the actual effects of a Leave vote. There are no lies in it. Or Project Fear.

 

That's a very fair prediction of what has happened.