frmrCapCadet wrote:

The UK seems to me to be demanding that the border be open to goods between NI and the ROI. That is simply asking for a border open to smuggling. It is likely that the Tory leader knows it and plans on using it for the benefits of his supporters. Goods moving into the ROI from NI must meet EU standards and pay EU tariffs. Brexiters claim ignorance. They are, and maliciously so.

Actually, they are demanding that Ireland will be cut off the EU. The EU will not stand for an open back door, so the UK blackmails the ROI in keeping the border open for the interest of peace. Just like they did for the ROI not joining Schengen because the UK didn't want to join.

AeroVega wrote:

By "we" I mean the EU and the UK. Not you and me. It is up to the EU and the UK to find an acceptable solution for both sides.

But for the sake of discussion, the withdrawal agreement already contains a clause that states that "Ireland and the UK may continue to make arrangements between themselves relating to the movement of persons between their territories”. Why can they not try to make arrangements for goods as well? Why must the UK first sign away their sovereign rights? That is what I object to.

It is not an Irish border perse, it is an outer EU border or at least that is what the UK is making of it by doing a Brexit. Or are you suggesting Ireland should leave the EU too because it is an inconvenience to the UK?

Dutchy wrote:

Since you like to get all law like with us: what is the immediate aftermath, one month, one year, 2 years, 3 years, and aftermath of what? The vote or Brexit?
.

immediate aftermath is self explanatory: Something that results or follows from an event

Dutchy wrote:

As for labor laws, Alexander Boris Johnson says it himself:

Although we will remain committed to world-class environment, product and labour standards, the laws and regulations to deliver them will potentially diverge from those of the EU. That is the point of our exit and our ability to enable this is central to our future democracy.

Diverge means less strict, that is the point of Brexit, more money to be made if laws in certain areas are more relaxed.

No not at all diverge does not mean less strict; But in this case it means to follow in a different direction from a common point or in other words move from the jurisdiction of the EU

A101 wrote:

immediate aftermath is self explanatory: Something that results or follows from an event

Fine, I concur, then the event is the actually Brexit date and the aftermath is the first year out of the EU. So the jury is still out if the 3million jobs will be lost because of the vote.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Although we will remain committed to world-class environment, product and labour standards, the laws and regulations to deliver them will potentially diverge from those of the EU. That is the point of our exit and our ability to enable this is central to our future democracy.

Diverge means less strict, that is the point of Brexit, more money to be made if laws in certain areas are more relaxed.

No not at all diverge does not mean less strict; But in this case it means to follow in a different direction from a common point or in other words move from the jurisdiction of the EU

Phhh, as I said, if the UK wanted stricter laws, they could have, since they don't the only logical conclusion is that Diverge means less strict thus will be worse for the UK worker. Just follow a simple logical train of thought. Of course you want to follow a different explanation, not supported by logic.

par13del wrote:

A fair bit of smuggling takes place between another British Territory and mainland EU, and no GFA agreements exist there, so is smuggling a red herring that's only known about when you have border checks but without is just open trade?

Isn't one of the reason why Spain wants to get a hold on Gibraltar is to end the smuggling of tobacoo?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

immediate aftermath is self explanatory: Something that results or follows from an event

Fine, I concur, then the event is the actually Brexit date and the aftermath is the first year out of the EU. So the jury is still out if the 3million jobs will be lost because of the vote.

In the context of this discussion now about lies told during the campaign immediate aftermath is the results from the referenda, but you go right ahead and move the goal posts to support your position

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Diverge means less strict, that is the point of Brexit, more money to be made if laws in certain areas are more relaxed.

No not at all diverge does not mean less strict; But in this case it means to follow in a different direction from a common point or in other words move from the jurisdiction of the EU

Phhh, as I said, if the UK wanted stricter laws, they could have, since they don't the only logical conclusion is that Diverge means less strict thus will be worse for the UK worker. Just follow a simple logical train of thought. Of course you want to follow a different explanation, not supported by logic.

No as of this point in time no one has said they will lower standards below what is currently law, what we want to do is remove EU jurisdiction over national and domestic law. The UK intends to rollover standards where applicable, do you really think that the electorate will stand by with parliament lowering worker protections, who ever does that won’t last long at the next GE

A101 wrote:

No not at all diverge does not mean less strict; But in this case it means to follow in a different direction from a common point or in other words move from the jurisdiction of the EU

Not necessarily, but you only have to listen the people behind the whole thing to know which direction the wind is blowing.

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

No not at all diverge does not mean less strict; But in this case it means to follow in a different direction from a common point or in other words move from the jurisdiction of the EU

Not necessarily, but you only have to listen the people behind the whole thing to know which direction the wind is blowing.

Can you give examples please

A101 wrote:

In the context of this discussion now about lies told during the campaign immediate aftermath is the results from the referenda, but you go right ahead and move the goal posts to support your position

Nope, it stands to reason that in this context it means 3million jobs will be lost after the Brexit actually occurs, there was always a minimum of two years grace period. Nobody would claim that 3 million jobs would be lost in the first 1/2 year when the UK was still a member of the EU, heck article 50 wasn't even triggered in the first months, so not even you would interpret this in such a way. So no goalposts are moved, just common sense applied.

A101 wrote:

No as of this point in time no one has said they will lower standards below what is currently law, what we want to do is remove EU jurisdiction over national and domestic law. The UK intends to rollover standards where applicable, do you really think that the electorate will stand by with parliament lowering worker protections, who ever does that won’t last long at the next GE

Given that the current hardliners are deadset on screwing with the future of the country, 30 years before Brexit becomes economically positive according to Farage or even 50 years according to Rees-Mogg, it stands to reason that if the economy goes south, everything is being looked at, so the additional cost of Brexit needs to come from somewhere, so why not from the English worker in the form of lowering the standards to improve productivity levels. Given that the blue color worker will be more afraid of losing his job than to the working standards, I do not think that that will be an issue in the upcoming General Election. Furthermore the people behind Brexit are not so concerned with the general public, just lining their own pockets. So yes, it stands to reason that the standards will be lowered.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

No not at all diverge does not mean less strict; But in this case it means to follow in a different direction from a common point or in other words move from the jurisdiction of the EU

Not necessarily, but you only have to listen the people behind the whole thing to know which direction the wind is blowing.

Can you give examples please

The core Brexiteer faction within the Tory party is organised around the ERG which advocates mass deregulation in labour, food safety, environmental policies, etc.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

In the context of this discussion now about lies told during the campaign immediate aftermath is the results from the referenda, but you go right ahead and move the goal posts to support your position

Nope, it stands to reason that in this context it means 3million jobs will be lost after the Brexit actually occurs, there was always a minimum of two years grace period. Nobody would claim that 3 million jobs would be lost in the first 1/2 year when the UK was still a member of the EU, heck article 50 wasn't even triggered in the first months, so not even you would interpret this in such a way. So no goalposts are moved, just common sense applied.

Yep goalpost were moved in principle to the context of the discussion, now you are speculating that trade between the EU/UK will totally collapse, the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated 3.1 million UK jobs were linked to trade with the EU.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No as of this point in time no one has said they will lower standards below what is currently law, what we want to do is remove EU jurisdiction over national and domestic law. The UK intends to rollover standards where applicable, do you really think that the electorate will stand by with parliament lowering worker protections, who ever does that won’t last long at the next GE

Given that the current hardliners are deadset on screwing with the future of the country, 30 years before Brexit becomes economically positive according to Farage or even 50 years according to Rees-Mogg, it stands to reason that if the economy goes south, everything is being looked at, so the additional cost of Brexit needs to come from somewhere, so why not from the English worker in the form of lowering the standards to improve productivity levels. Given that the blue color worker will be more afraid of losing his job than to the working standards, I do not think that that will be an issue in the upcoming General Election. Furthermore the people behind Brexit are not so concerned with the general public, just lining their own pockets. So yes, it stands to reason that the standards will be lowered.

There you go opinion present as fact.the 50 years is for the greatest impact to the economy not that it will take 50 years to see any benefits. You are suggest that the UK economy is as good as it gets and if we stay the course with the EU is the only way the economic activity can increase, there are certain members who would dispute otherwise

AeroVega wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

The backstop is an obstacle because it prevents the UK from unilaterally ending it. It does not make any sense for the UK to trigger Article 50 and then sign away their right to stop following EU regulations.

I'll make you a deal then, thee UK accepts the backstop, the EU accepts that the UK can break with the backstop, but the consequence is that the UK leaves without a deal.

I would almost agree, except that I think it is in the interest of both the EU and the UK to try to hammer out a deal. So I would prefer a time limited backstop where both sides make a best effort to solve the Irish border issue. If no deal is reached after, say, five years, then Hard Brexit it is. Of course, if the EU is not willing to work with the UK to find an alternative solution for the Irish border problem then we might as well have the Hard Brexit on October 31st.

Brexit is a purely UK (actually primarily english) project and the full responsibility for its outcome rests with its proponents and supporters. The EU is merely insisting on its own interests as the UK government is scorching the earth around it.

As specifically to the backstop, it insures Ireland and the GFA against exactly those unilateral violations the UK government is trying to get absolution for. And such absolution can not and will not be given by Ireland and thus by the European Union.

The whole idea of getting dispensation from the requirements at the basis of the GFA are insane and completely unrealistic – it is based on the assumption that the other 26 EU member states will throw Ireland under the bus at the request of the UK government.

And that will simply not happen.

But given that the backstop is just a transparent pretense to have an excuse for directly pursuing the crash-out Brexit people like Rees-Mogg have always been pushing for in order to further their own financial interests this is mainly about trying to get ahead in the blame game for the domestic UK audience.

Which may not be entirely as receptive to that, however, as Boris and his toxic posse hope.

A101 wrote:

And as I said Irish border is already electronic and had been for a number of years and I posted a video not long ago of Automatic Number Plate Recognition System at the border on the M1. The ROI/EU is opposed to any new infrastructure and that automatically triggers the backstop

That kind of thing would be completely insufficient to the much harsher border requirements post Brexit.

Even the norwegian and the swiss borders are fully controlled with full stop, cargo compliance checks and often thorough car checks – and both countries are even in Schengen with no anticipated divergence!

So no, none of those fluffy, superficial proposals holds up even just remotely to the harsh reality of the post-Brexit irish border. It's all just the usual chaff dispersed to sow confusion among the UK domestic audience (or at least among the shrinking subsection that's still receptive to that kind of thing) but it's just about as solid as a house of cards in a winter storm.

A101 wrote:

The Irish border as it stands is an electronic border now for VAT excise and goods declarations,

That is exactly what the EU does: It builds consistency in standards and regulations to the point where exactly that becomes even possible.

And by pursuing Brexit the UK government is now making exactly that impossible again for the then-new EU external border in Ireland, so these light-touch controls become completely insufficient with Brexit and the ensuing divergence of standards and regulations.

It is quite simple to understand, really.

This is exactly what Brexit does: Resurrecting the difficulties, the overhead and the red tape which the EU has painstakingly eliminated through the decades. Isn't nostalgia fun?

A101 wrote:

Wow I knew you had a dislike for BJ but this whole tirade shows how much contempt you have for him.

He's been working consistently at earning my contempt, so who am I to deprive him of the fruits of his labour?

And more and more this personal reputation of his irradiates the entire UK government and the country as such, so you can all share in it. Isnt that exactly what you've ever dreamed of?

Klaus wrote:

The total difference is in the fact that Boris is actively taking the country into its darkest days ahead on purpose without any external forces pushing it there whatsoever!

Churchill back then reacted to an external threat – Boris Johnson is the threat himself!

Nope, BJ didn’t start the process for the referenda that was all Cameron. BJ is only trying to clean up the mess left by Cameron & May

That is so utterly, breathtakingly ahistorical and such an aggressive distortion of reality that you should really check if there's a black hole in your living room warping the space-time continuum completely out of whack.

You've come to a completely orwellian view of reality by now, have you?

Klaus wrote:

Hook, line and sinker.

What? doing exactly what parliment expects and they have made it LAW

And because Boris is supposedly doing exactly what Parliament has told him to, he's now threatening to prorogue it, right? It could be funny if it wasn't very real.

Klaus wrote:

Early 1989 when he was installed as the Daily Telegraph's Brussels correspondent after already having been fired from the Times for lying – the DT knew what they got with him, but they just didn't care because his lies sold well, so they chose to sell blatant lies.

He has used blatantly and shamelessly lying about the EU and the UK's relation to the EU to build his career, not caring in the slightest about the damage mostly to the UK he was doing, and that career path culminated for him in the Brexit referendum and now in becoming PM – all on the back of his lies and deceptions related to the EU.

As long as the UK public laps it up, he's golden

What’s that got to do with the current situation, but geez he must have a good crystal ball to know back then he would one day become PM and withdraw the UK from the EU.

Man, you're shredding even the last remains of your own credibility here. Is there anything left you won't stoop down to?

Boris has consistently been lying about the EU and pushing hateful propaganda to further his own personal career since at least the 1980s and he's been completely consistent about that. Becoming PM without actually being competent or really working hard was his primary goal (and getting some cushy, well-paid and above all undemanding retirement position afterwards, of course) and he has at least achieved his primary objective at this point.

It's almost funny to watch him now reeling under the expectations that he'd have some real grasp of actual issues down to actual, real solutions which are quite impervious to his usual bluff-and-bluster approach for some reason.

But I suggest if you really want to look at the genesis of Brexit you should go back to Norman Lamont.

It is telling how extremely allergic to any form of responsibility and accountability you lot consistently are.

Just why, oh why, if Brexit is such a brilliant project that absolutely everybody should want to take credit for it...?

The term is reality displacement – coupled with still trying to keep an escape hatch open for when the victims of your project will come calling.

And they will.

You personally may feel safe enough after absconding literally to the other side of the planet. Others won't have that opportunity and will have to deal with the fallout of that insane project in real life.

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

how did the immediate Brexit recession pan out if we voted for leave

gosh aren´t you a terrible liar...... the Brexit Recession prediction was if Art. 50 was triggered right away. Which it wasn´t.

lying by omission is still a lie

The EU was completely truthful about options and legal impossibilities.

best regards
Thomas

Gosh the second person to call me a liar, it was published by HM Treasury before the referenda:

That is because you are ... we have been over this just a few weeks ago and yet you are still here and lie about the content to lie about the validity of the study.....

The study describes what would have happened if Art. 50 was triggered the next day, so this

Notice it say’s a vote to leave and not invoke Article 50

is another lie. And since that had just been discussed you either have a terrible bad memory, or you know that you are lying when you state nonsense like that.

The Document lays out what would happen in the two years between the Vote and leaving the EU, which requires vote and Art. 50 notification to by synonymous. Its right in the Foreword.

And the last time we have been over that very same document, it was also clear that they got many things smack on right, even with Art. 50 triggered much later and the UK still being in the EU.

They expected everyone to lose 4300 pounds after 15 years, relative to peers the UK is already missing 2000 USD GDP/Capita/PPP and Brexit hasn´t even happened yet. The average UK citizen is already 4% poorer than they otherwise would have been.....

best regards
Thomas

AeroVega wrote:

But for the sake of discussion, the withdrawal agreement already contains a clause that states that "Ireland and the UK may continue to make arrangements between themselves relating to the movement of persons between their territories”. Why can they not try to make arrangements for goods as well?

Lets assume for a moment that the EU treaties would allow Ireland to do that, and the RoI and the UK would make a deal along those lines....

The the days following that the 136 WTO members, that are not the UK or members of the EU, will notify the UK and RoI governments that they don´t feel "most favored" anymore, and demand changes to their trade agreements giving them just as much a benefit as the UK just got.

Open trade borders with China....... you really think the RoI would do that even if they could?

Why must the UK first sign away their sovereign rights? That is what I object to.

It doesn´t have to sign away its sovereign rights first, they already did sign that particular piece of sovereignty away when they signed the GFA. The backstop is only a written guarantee that they UK will abide that particular sovereign decision.

But by making such a deal the RoI, or rather since it can´t make its own trade deal the EU, would sign away its sovereign rights to determine its own trade deal with 136 other countries, because the EU has signed that particular piece of sovereignty away when they joined the WTO.

So, we can have:

1) The UK keeps its legally binding word, that they have freely given in the GFA and their WTO membership.
2) The EU and its members violate their legally binding word, that they have freely given with their WTO membership.

So, what you are essentially saying is: "Why do have to adjust our campaign promises to reality, if you 28 entities could just violate treaties instead?".

best regards
Thomas

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

Misery may love company, but company doesn't necessarily love misery just as much...

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

So RoI needs to sign its sovereignty away so a UK minority can have its will? Haha....

Northern Ireland could just join the RoI, which has no one sign away their sovereignty ..... and is in fact the most simple and efficient solution to UK government ink on paper being worthless.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

So RoI needs to sign its sovereignty away so a UK minority can have its will? Haha....

Northern Ireland could just join the RoI, which has no one sign away their sovereignty ..... and is in fact the most simple and efficient solution to UK government ink on paper being worthless.

best regards
Thomas

That would be unacceptable to British sovereignty. It is much easier for Ireland to become a vassal state of the UK. #solvingproblemstheBrexitway

seahawk wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

So RoI needs to sign its sovereignty away so a UK minority can have its will? Haha....

Northern Ireland could just join the RoI, which has no one sign away their sovereignty ..... and is in fact the most simple and efficient solution to UK government ink on paper being worthless.

best regards
Thomas

That would be unacceptable to British sovereignty

With NI becoming part of the RoI British sovereignty is not concerned anymore, that is the beauty of it.....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

So RoI needs to sign its sovereignty away so a UK minority can have its will? Haha....

Northern Ireland could just join the RoI, which has no one sign away their sovereignty ..... and is in fact the most simple and efficient solution to UK government ink on paper being worthless.

best regards
Thomas

Ireland is like Poland a pure success story in EU. Today Ireland have higher GDP per capita then UK. In reality for NI joining ROI over time means higher living standards. And this is compared to a UK where London adds so much to GDP meaning that the country side in England and Wales if far off the Level of ROI.


Second, inside EU ROI has got equal power as UK, and after A50 even stronger position. English politicions has serious problems to understand that they perhaps should agree with ROI before calling Berlin, Paris or god forbid Brussels. UK see European politics as it was in 1939, bussiness between russia, germany, France and UK. With EU small nations like Denmark, sweden and god forbid ROI got a voice. When will London wake up to this new reality?



Ireland without oil is an example for Scotland. Oil will end in 20 years to add to Scottish economy and then it can choice to become a north England, or become an ROI. I would choice ROI path.

In the end it is all internal politics in the UK. The demands for a deal are not aiming to reach a deal, BJ is aiming to put the blame on the EU and portrait himself as the guy who did not give in to Brussels. This will transfer votes from the Brexit party back to the Torries, which then have a chance to win the next general election, by presenting themselves as protectors of Brexit. Especially when parliament stops the no-deal Brexit, which would trigger a new general election and another extension.

A101 wrote:

Yep goalpost were moved in principle to the context of the discussion, now you are speculating that trade between the EU/UK will totally collapse, the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated 3.1 million UK jobs were linked to trade with the EU.

Only in your mind were goalposts moved. If we can't apply common sense, we all just speaking in terms of unicorns, not just the Brexiteers.
And you are giving the perfect example, nowhere did I say that all trade will collapse, but 3million jobs lost, primary trade-related plus secondary jobs because of the self-inflicted downturn, is very feasible. But tell me, since you concede that the hard Brexit you want will lead to a downturn in economics, how many jobs do you see disappearing because of your wishes? And thus you think is perfectly acceptable. Although we do not know what you actually do, so we do not know if you actually benefit from a hard Brexit, all we know is that you have a way out, when the sh!t hits the fan.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

No as of this point in time no one has said they will lower standards below what is currently law, what we want to do is remove EU jurisdiction over national and domestic law. The UK intends to rollover standards where applicable, do you really think that the electorate will stand by with parliament lowering worker protections, who ever does that won’t last long at the next GE

Given that the current hardliners are deadset on screwing with the future of the country, 30 years before Brexit becomes economically positive according to Farage or even 50 years according to Rees-Mogg, it stands to reason that if the economy goes south, everything is being looked at, so the additional cost of Brexit needs to come from somewhere, so why not from the English worker in the form of lowering the standards to improve productivity levels. Given that the blue color worker will be more afraid of losing his job than to the working standards, I do not think that that will be an issue in the upcoming General Election. Furthermore the people behind Brexit are not so concerned with the general public, just lining their own pockets. So yes, it stands to reason that the standards will be lowered.

There you go opinion present as fact.the 50 years is for the greatest impact to the economy not that it will take 50 years to see any benefits. You are suggest that the UK economy is as good as it gets and if we stay the course with the EU is the only way the economic activity can increase, there are certain members who would dispute otherwise

Well, this opinion is expressed by Farage and Rees-Mogg, those two aren't the ones whom I would have guessed you cast doubt on their opinion since it doesn't help their case. But glad you think these two aren't trustworthy, I agree with that assessment. As for the time to get some benefit for it, my guess is that they took this at least 30 years because they will be out of office by then and perhaps dead. As for your other assertions, the EU isn't the only way to increase the economy size, but if you effectively cut yourself off from the 27 closest trading partners (and 80plus other trade deals with 20 on their way), it will have a significant effect, and it isn't apparent to me (and no one except the ones believing in unicorns), how cutting yourself of from the rest of the world increases your wealth. It will take at least ten years to have the same number of trade deals and in the meantime, you will have a negative effect for sure. If it is only 1% less economic cumulative growth per year - that is the conservative estimate, very conservative - it will put the UK at a disadvantage of a great percentile and that first needs to be taken back before we could see some benefits, so 30 years stands for reason. But I am eager to hear your estimate and your train on though that it isn't a true estimate and the benefits will be more apparent much sooner than that. (not expecting an answer though, you consistently refuse to answer the hard questions, so why would you answer these, you just criticize, nothing more.)

olle wrote:

Ireland without oil is an example for Scotland. Oil will end in 20 years to add to Scottish economy and then it can choice to become a north England, or become an ROI. I would choice ROI path.

Indeed the choice is clear for Northern Ireland and Scotland. Brexiteers want such an unattractive deal fro Scotland and Northern Ireland that the path forward is clear and no one else is to blame than the Brexitremist. They sure will try to shift blame, but it is clear for anyone.

Meanwhile, Brexit's biggest international supporter, D. Trump has given us some insight in how he sees international relationships and state visits…

Going by his insane offer to buy Greenland from Denmak, he genuinely thinks he can just make an unsolicitated offer to buy a piece of a sovereign country during a state visit and subsequently cancel the visit when it turns out his offer is kindly going to be rejected? So state visits are actually just shopping excursions in his opinion, where he gets to pick off the best bits from the hosting country, be it a territory, it's natural resources or it's economic markets?

Weird he didn't offer to buy part of the UK when being there a few weeks ago, although in all fairness, he's pretty sure to be getting all of it and completely for free even, looking at the pathetic way in which the UK government is basically throwing itself into his arms all because of Brexit, so why still pay for it, right?

I'm sure any UK-US deal is going to be a fantasic deal indeed like he has been saying all along... for the US: I wonder if the UK is already contemplating given him the Shetland Islands or anything like that, just as a compementary gift to any fabulous deal?

sabenapilot wrote:

I wonder if the UK is already contemplating given him the Shetland Islands or anything like that, just as a compementary gift to any fabulous deal?

Looking at a map Shetland Islands are no comparison to Greenland and we all know Trump is only interested on something he sees as huge. Maybe Scotland instead or perhaps Trump has his eyes on London City and the deal is immediately off if he is insulted by saying it is not for sale.

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

Seems that’s the UK government has the same idea.

From the guardian today....

Newton Dunn says the PM believes the backstop problem could be solved not by Northern Ireland remaining in the EU single market, but by Ireland leaving it (temporarily).



At least minister Patel has stepped back from starving ireland into submission.

BestWestern wrote:

Newton Dunn says the PM believes the backstop problem could be solved not by Northern Ireland remaining in the EU single market, but by Ireland leaving it (temporarily).

And that is what I meant by the UK exporting their problems and making it a problem for another country.

BestWestern wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

Seems that’s the UK government has the same idea.

From the guardian today....

Newton Dunn says the PM believes the backstop problem could be solved not by Northern Ireland remaining in the EU single market, but by Ireland leaving it (temporarily).

At least minister Patel has stepped back from starving ireland into submission.

If you want to force the Hard Brexit, suggest this and demand an extension based on this idea.

BestWestern wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

Seems that’s the UK government has the same idea.

From the guardian today....

Newton Dunn says the PM believes the backstop problem could be solved not by Northern Ireland remaining in the EU single market, but by Ireland leaving it (temporarily).

Why stop there? Let's dissolve the EU.

The British PM visited Mrs. Merkel in Berlin today. In a nutshell:

1- the PM was told by Mrs Merkel that the onus to find an acceptable alternative to the backstop is on him; not the EU, not both parties together, but on him alone.
The PM accepted, meaning he's effectively given up on the concept to blame failure on the EU: if there's a Brexit crash landing in November, it's now entirely because BoJo FAILED to deliver an acceptable alternative… Not sure he fully realized what he just did there, because Merkel just made him the sole owner of any future failure by this single line!
Well played by her.

2- Mrs. Merkel said something quite complicated and open to a lot of interpretation, which translates in English as:
"The backstop would only come into effect if no other solution could be agreed that would protect the integrity of the single market. If one is able to solve this conundrum in NI, we have always said it would probably be found it in the next two years to come but it can also maybe be found it in the next 30 days to come. If so, then we are one step further in the right direction and we have to obviously put our all into this."
Which BoJo understood as being given a 30 day deadline to rework the backstop, while it could and probably has to be interpreted as just pointing out the backstop can be replaced by something else right until the very moment it kicks in, something which thus leaves the 2 years of the transition period in case of a Brexit with a deal, or indeed just 30 days from now in case of a no deal Brexit (because that's the date of last EU summit to sign any alternative of on).
Merkel at her best again… Just stating the dead obvious options on the table and BoJo falling for it as if it's a new way out being offered to him.
Poor performance by BoJo there, who clearly doesn't master the timeline of the EU, while Merkel clearly knows it to perfection and can use it to her benefit.

3- Merkel finished by explicitly saying she thinks the way to solve the issue with the backstop is closer integration between, which can easily be laid down in the political declaration, making the activation of the backstop totally unnecessary.
In other words: she's saying once again the UK has to give up it's red lines or own the consequences.

Conclusion: Berlin didn't move an inch, BoJo looked for a straw to hold on to and took the option of a 30 day ultimatum which wasn't even given to him (it it would, it would be greatly humiliating even, yet so is the state of British desperation now that even such an implicit ultimatum is thus accepted by the UK!)

Tomorrow President Macron.

JJJ wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Or Ireland could leave the EU and join a common market with the UK.. That would be simple, efficient.

Seems that’s the UK government has the same idea.

From the guardian today....

Newton Dunn says the PM believes the backstop problem could be solved not by Northern Ireland remaining in the EU single market, but by Ireland leaving it (temporarily).

Why stop there? Let's dissolve the EU.

I know of some people/countries who would like just that.

sabenapilot wrote:

The British PM visited Mrs. Merkel in Berlin today. In a nutshell:

1- the PM was told by Mrs Merkel that the onus to find an acceptable alternative to the backstop is on him; not the EU, not both parties together, but on him alone.
The PM accepted, meaning he's effectively given up on the concept to blame failure on the EU: if there's a Brexit crash landing in November, it's now entirely because BoJo FAILED to deliver an acceptable alternative… Not sure he fully realized what he just did there, because Merkel just made him the sole owner of any future failure by this single line!
Well played by her.

2- Mrs. Merkel said something quite complicated and open to a lot of interpretation, which translates in English as:
"The backstop would only come into effect if no other solution could be agreed that would protect the integrity of the single market. If one is able to solve this conundrum in NI, we have always said it would probably be found it in the next two years to come but it can also maybe be found it in the next 30 days to come. If so, then we are one step further in the right direction and we have to obviously put our all into this."
Which BoJo understood as being given a 30 day deadline to rework the backstop, while it could and probably has to be interpreted as just pointing out the backstop can be replaced by something else right until the very moment it kicks in, something which thus leaves the 2 years of the transition period in case of a Brexit with a deal, or indeed just 30 days from now in case of a no deal Brexit (because that's the date of last EU summit to sign any alternative of on).
Merkel at her best again… Just stating the dead obvious options on the table and BoJo falling for it as if it's a new way out being offered to him.
Poor performance by BoJo there, who clearly doesn't master the timeline of the EU, while Merkel clearly knows it to perfection and can use it to her benefit.

3- Merkel finished by explicitly saying she thinks the way to solve the issue with the backstop is closer integration between, which can easily be laid down in the political declaration, making the activation of the backstop totally unnecessary.
In other words: she's saying once again the UK has to give up it's red lines or own the consequences.

Conclusion: Berlin didn't move an inch, BoJo looked for a straw to hold on to and took the option of a 30 day ultimatum which wasn't even given to him (it it would, it would be greatly humiliating even, yet so is the state of British desperation now that even such an implicit ultimatum is thus accepted by the UK!)

Tomorrow President Macron.

Indeed all stating the obvious. Well done mrs. Merkel for pointing them out again.

Dutchy wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

The British PM visited Mrs. Merkel in Berlin today. In a nutshell:

1- the PM was told by Mrs Merkel that the onus to find an acceptable alternative to the backstop is on him; not the EU, not both parties together, but on him alone.
The PM accepted, meaning he's effectively given up on the concept to blame failure on the EU: if there's a Brexit crash landing in November, it's now entirely because BoJo FAILED to deliver an acceptable alternative… Not sure he fully realized what he just did there, because Merkel just made him the sole owner of any future failure by this single line!
Well played by her.

2- Mrs. Merkel said something quite complicated and open to a lot of interpretation, which translates in English as:
"The backstop would only come into effect if no other solution could be agreed that would protect the integrity of the single market. If one is able to solve this conundrum in NI, we have always said it would probably be found it in the next two years to come but it can also maybe be found it in the next 30 days to come. If so, then we are one step further in the right direction and we have to obviously put our all into this."
Which BoJo understood as being given a 30 day deadline to rework the backstop, while it could and probably has to be interpreted as just pointing out the backstop can be replaced by something else right until the very moment it kicks in, something which thus leaves the 2 years of the transition period in case of a Brexit with a deal, or indeed just 30 days from now in case of a no deal Brexit (because that's the date of last EU summit to sign any alternative of on).
Merkel at her best again… Just stating the dead obvious options on the table and BoJo falling for it as if it's a new way out being offered to him.
Poor performance by BoJo there, who clearly doesn't master the timeline of the EU, while Merkel clearly knows it to perfection and can use it to her benefit.

3- Merkel finished by explicitly saying she thinks the way to solve the issue with the backstop is closer integration between, which can easily be laid down in the political declaration, making the activation of the backstop totally unnecessary.
In other words: she's saying once again the UK has to give up it's red lines or own the consequences.

Conclusion: Berlin didn't move an inch, BoJo looked for a straw to hold on to and took the option of a 30 day ultimatum which wasn't even given to him (it it would, it would be greatly humiliating even, yet so is the state of British desperation now that even such an implicit ultimatum is thus accepted by the UK!)

Tomorrow President Macron.

Indeed all stating the obvious. Well done mrs. Merkel for pointing them out again.

Haven’t you worked it out yet? The government is playing for No Deal. It seems Boris has recognised that it is the best way to neutralise the Brexit Party and win an election. It seems he is correct; No Deal is on the agenda and the Conservatives are ahead in the polls. One poll out today from Kantar has the Tories on 42%, Labour on 28 and the Brexit Party on 5. That’s landslide territory.

He’s not clutching at straws or performing poorly, just going through the motions.

KLDC10 wrote:

Haven’t you worked it out yet? The government is playing for No Deal.

Everybody has worked it out. I don't remember much of anybody believing BoJo when he has insisted he wants a deal and insisted again that no deal is bad which nobody wants and is 1:1000000 sure does not happen.

I don't understand how somebody could find it acceptable that somebody promises things like that just a month ago to win vote for a PM position and immediately afterwards dump those promises in such a way that people could be mocked for ever believing him and "not working it out yet". But I am not a brexiteer so maybe that does explain that.

KLDC10 wrote:

He’s not clutching at straws or performing poorly, just going through the motions.

He has been trying to pin blame about no deal happening on EU and now he has failed that today and now he owns it all. Getting the no deal is not difficult. It is how you get it and exactly what the no deal is.

I am sure there are things that could be done even for no deal scenario between UK and EU to smooth out some little things that could make a big difference in the endgame for the good of the country but nobody is interested in that and time has already been running way too late for planning those details for the scenario that BoJo is playing for.

Everybody is just playing games and burning bridges like talking about Ireland leaving EU together with UK which pretty much only solidifies those opinions that UK is not working with good intentions on the border issue and nothing good is going to come out from giving even an inch to UK. That is also what has happened today.

KLDC10 wrote:

It seems Boris has recognised that it is the best way to neutralise the Brexit Party and win an election. It seems he is correct; No Deal is on the agenda and the Conservatives are ahead in the polls. One poll out today from Kantar has the Tories on 42%, Labour on 28 and the Brexit Party on 5. That’s landslide territory.

Another thing I don't understand is how it is all about personal and party benefiting about things and nobody talks about what is good for the country. That does not enter the equation anywhere.

tommy1808 wrote:

So, what you are essentially saying is: "Why do have to adjust our campaign promises to reality, if you 28 entities could just violate treaties instead?".

best regards
Thomas

No need to put words in my mouth. You can literally read what I am saying right here:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1419951&start=2800#p21599779.

tommy1808 wrote:

It doesn´t have to sign away its sovereign rights first, they already did sign that particular piece of sovereignty away when they signed the GFA. The backstop is only a written guarantee that they UK will abide that particular sovereign decision.

So the EU does not trust the written guarantee that the UK gave when they signed the GFA? And as a solution the EU requires the UK, whose written guarantee they do not trust, to make another written guarantee? Yes, makes perfect sense!

AeroVega wrote:

So the EU does not trust the written guarantee that the UK gave when they signed the GFA?

Not any more since it became official UK governemnt policy to walk back the foundational commitments given back then.

And as a solution the EU requires the UK, whose written guarantee they do not trust, to make another written guarantee? Yes, makes perfect sense!

The commitments given back then were reliable and were trusted.

The commitment of BoJo to abandon those firm commitments and to "replace" them with mere fluff and unconcrete declarations of intent obviously destroys that original trust, however.

If I unilaterally rip up a firm contract between us and merely tell you that I will probably still hold up my end of the original but only if it doesn't inconvenience me too much at the time, how would you view that kind of behaviour?

That is exactly what the UK government is trying to do here.

Will all the bullshit over the past two years, would you trust the tories?

So far the only workable solutions seem to be

Trust us
Starve the paddies into submission.
Get the murphies to leave too.
Pinky promise.

Ertro wrote:

I am sure there are things that could be done even for no deal scenario between UK and EU to smooth out some little things that could make a big difference in the endgame for the good of the country but nobody is interested in that and time has already been running way too late for planning those details for the scenario that BoJo is playing for.

Offer up a solution for the backstop and we are good to go...that is the primary stumbling block, they even have hardliners willing to compromise on the divorce bill.

AeroVega wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

So, what you are essentially saying is: "Why do have to adjust our campaign promises to reality, if you 28 entities could just violate treaties instead?".

best regards
Thomas

No need to put words in my mouth. You can literally read what I am saying right here:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1419951&start=2800#p21599779.

Its not "words in your mouth", it is exactly what what you are saying means in practice. Of can you demonstrate how your idea can be put into practice without the "translation" becoming true?

best regards
Thomas

AeroVega wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

It doesn´t have to sign away its sovereign rights first, they already did sign that particular piece of sovereignty away when they signed the GFA. The backstop is only a written guarantee that they UK will abide that particular sovereign decision.

So the EU does not trust the written guarantee that the UK gave when they signed the GFA? And as a solution the EU requires the UK, whose written guarantee they do not trust, to make another written guarantee? Yes, makes perfect sense!

If the UK goes onto a trajectory that means violating a peace treaty, that makes its word useless, if they don´t, like by staying in the customs union or signing the backstop, it proofs they are serious about their legally binding commitments and can be trusted. You are right, it makes perfect sense.

Same with the divorce payment having to be ticked off before any trade negotiations can take place. If the UK breaks previous commitments, they can´t be trusted, and hence there is no point negotiating a trade deal. If they pay what they committed to pay, they uphold there word, even if grudgingly, and can be trusted with a trade deal.

best regards
Thomas

sabenapilot wrote:

The British PM visited Mrs. Merkel in Berlin today. In a nutshell:

1- the PM was told by Mrs Merkel that the onus to find an acceptable alternative to the backstop is on him; not the EU, not both parties together, but on him alone.
The PM accepted, meaning he's effectively given up on the concept to blame failure on the EU: if there's a Brexit crash landing in November, it's now entirely because BoJo FAILED to deliver an acceptable alternative… Not sure he fully realized what he just did there, because Merkel just made him the sole owner of any future failure by this single line!
Well played by her.

2- Mrs. Merkel said something quite complicated and open to a lot of interpretation, which translates in English as:
"The backstop would only come into effect if no other solution could be agreed that would protect the integrity of the single market. If one is able to solve this conundrum in NI, we have always said it would probably be found it in the next two years to come but it can also maybe be found it in the next 30 days to come. If so, then we are one step further in the right direction and we have to obviously put our all into this."
Which BoJo understood as being given a 30 day deadline to rework the backstop, while it could and probably has to be interpreted as just pointing out the backstop can be replaced by something else right until the very moment it kicks in, something which thus leaves the 2 years of the transition period in case of a Brexit with a deal, or indeed just 30 days from now in case of a no deal Brexit (because that's the date of last EU summit to sign any alternative of on).
Merkel at her best again… Just stating the dead obvious options on the table and BoJo falling for it as if it's a new way out being offered to him.
Poor performance by BoJo there, who clearly doesn't master the timeline of the EU, while Merkel clearly knows it to perfection and can use it to her benefit.

3- Merkel finished by explicitly saying she thinks the way to solve the issue with the backstop is closer integration between, which can easily be laid down in the political declaration, making the activation of the backstop totally unnecessary.
In other words: she's saying once again the UK has to give up it's red lines or own the consequences.

Conclusion: Berlin didn't move an inch, BoJo looked for a straw to hold on to and took the option of a 30 day ultimatum which wasn't even given to him (it it would, it would be greatly humiliating even, yet so is the state of British desperation now that even such an implicit ultimatum is thus accepted by the UK!)

Tomorrow President Macron.

EU27 will miss ms Merkel when she retires.

One super woman with dignity, honestly, trustworthy, super intelligent with deeply understanding of details meetin Boris..... How bad could it go?

It also confirms that this thread on A.net has better understanding of EU27 politics then uk government. Perheps uk forreign office shall come here for advice?

After reading a few article in german press not the brittish, I have impression that the messige was,


Please boris. Come back after holidays! We give you something to tell the press. The most obvious that has been EU ploicy from day one, come up with someting better like joining single market and the backstop is gone!

We go on holiday now so please find your way out.

The way Merkel actually said it it was like "If you have that great solution which makes the backstop redundant then just cough it up – can't be that hard then, right? No need to dawdle! But it's all on you to solve this – we've already gone as far as we could have."

And Boris indeed acknowledged that a solution would be all up to him, which being on the record should undermine his undoubtedliy intended blame-shifting once he has intentionally put the UK into the ditch.

That Merkel gave Boris a "30 day deadline" is not true – UK journalists have completely misinterpreted her statement.

The actual deadline is the same as it's ever been. It's just the UK wanting to walk back from the already existing agreement with the reason given that they want to walk back from the foundations of the GFA as well, and the EU27 have already exhausted their options for compromise so Boris has a very clear and very stark choice.

But its Boris' choice to make. No question about it.

Klaus wrote:

But its Boris' choice to make. No question about it.

It's obvious from Boris's letter that he has nothing apart from vagueness and empty catchphrases.

Come to think of it, that's all the Brexiteers have ever had from day one. Meanwhile, the rich 1%ers that stand to gain from a hard Brexit are rubbing their hands with glee as Oct 31st approaches.

scbriml wrote:

Klaus wrote:

But its Boris' choice to make. No question about it.

It's obvious from Boris's letter that he has nothing apart from vagueness and empty catchphrases.

Yeah, and that may be enough for his specific domestic audience, but the EU27 dont accept such a wet noodle as a statically valid replacement for the removal of a steel girder.

Come to think of it, that's all the Brexiteers have ever had from day one. Meanwhile, the rich 1%ers that stand to gain from a hard Brexit are rubbing their hands with glee as Oct 31st approaches.

When Jacob Rees-Mogg keeps prattling on about cheaper clothing or footwear for the poor and for some strange reason completely neglects to even mention his own hedge funds (parts of which he's already moved to Ireland, of all places!) I could puke.