Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[baldgye]

One shred of good news is that, come a General Election, we will be rid of either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn... or, with a bit of luck, both.

Not sure about that one... god even the thought of another Labour leader election brings a tear to my eye

 

[Touring Mars]

Not sure about that one... god even the thought of another Labour leader election brings a tear to my eye

There's no chance that both will survive the next General Election... so at least that is something.

 

[baldgye]

There's no chance that both will survive the next General Election... so at least that is something.

I don't know. I think BoJo gets a majority after the next GE assuming it's before or the 31st. But I recon Corbs could cling on for a while. The Labour base is kinda a mess and I think the die-hards could allow him to cling onto power.
I'm kinda hoping if there is a GE that Dave Millibean will emerge from the shadows... but maybe that's wishful thinking.

Either way, who ever is the next leader of either party has a pretty thankless task

 

[Daz555]

It looks more likely for Boris to call a snap GE and basically close Parliament on the build up to the cut-off, preventing them from doing anything, securing him a majority and getting the no-deal brexit his and his millionaire friends want..

The Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 removed the PMs powers to call a general election.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 removed the PMs powers to call a general election.

It removed the power to unitarily do so, that's all. Johnson can effectively call one any time he likes, if it be the will of the House.

 

[Touring Mars]

A bloc of Labour MPs are preparing to throw Boris Johnson's plan for a No Deal Brexit a serious curveball by doing something that no-one was expecting...

After months (or even years) of doing absolutely bugger-all, a group of Labour MPs led by Stephen Kinnock (the son of the former Labour leader Neil Kinnock) are readying a 'radical' plan (voting in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement) in order to scupper No Deal.

With all this talk of No Deal, revoking Article 50, government shutdowns, General Elections etc., it was perhaps easy to be blinded to the possibility, however unlikely it was, that Labour might actually do something.

Of course, Hard Brexiteers will be very upset by this because they really don't like the Withdrawal Agreement - or the Political Declaration for that matter - and are far, far more in favour of No Deal... but, there could well be enough 'centrist' Labour and Tory MPs to finally get Theresa May's deal over the line... who would have thunk it?!

 

[TenEightyOne]

it was perhaps easy to be blinded to the possibility, however unlikely it was, that Labour might actually do something.

The difficulty is that the Lib Dems don't appear to be supporting this move, and Corbyn needs support from every party in the house to overturn the Majority Of One. And then he (or whoever asks Her Maj for permission to form a new government) will have 14 days to win a confidence vote himself.

Johnson could always act pre-emptively by polling the house for a GE. I can see that being very likely. Of course, without that step those in cabinet positions will be trying their hardest to ensure that BoJo confidence votes come in thick and fast. That's why Snake-Gove, Mogg et. al. have been given pound seats, Johnson's team have thought this through. Which is terrifying.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well, the phrase too little, too late springs to mind - but at least there is a chance it might work.

As I've argued before (and as is now painfully obvious), Labour have been an utter, unmitigated shambles with regard to Brexit - that's bad enough, but it is even worse knowing that their stated policy (voting down anything that doesn't pass their 'Six Tests', or in other words, voting against anything except for a Labour-negotiated Brexit) was never going to lead anywhere else but to this point.

-

Having discussed this issue ad nauseum now, I'm sad to say that I no longer support the Withdrawal Agreement. While I would rather the UK stayed inside the EU in the first place, the backstop establishes a dangerous new precedent that would leave the whole of the UK out of the EU but legally obliged to follow its rules indefinitely, with no say in what those rules are. While the EU insist that the backstop is not a deliberate ploy, it is a trap - albeit one most likely created by circumstance as opposed to any ill-intent (though I remain slightly sceptical about that too).

Unfortunately, the precondition for avoiding triggering the backstop or ever leaving it is the successful ratification of a new trade deal between the EU and the UK that not only satisfies the current arrangements in Ireland, but also keeps all EU27 member states happy - I'm also sad to say that I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of that happening without the UK being required to effectively switch to a Norway-style agreement, which, in effect, would make the backstop the permanent solution. There is no doubt in my mind that this is what Ireland and the EU want to happen.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is no doubt in my mind that this is what Ireland and the EU want to happen.

It's irrelevant whether or not there's any "want" about it, it's something that's legally forced on them. The Good Friday agreement doesn't allow undertakings that create any kind of border process or facility between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The other EU countries can't vote for something that creates that in Ireland.

The current British approach is to stampede towards No Deal by default, we're the party breaking that agreement.

 

[baldgye]

Tory rebels are looking to support Corbyn’s plot, but I can’t see it working... or helping anyone or anything other than Corbyn’s **** image as a-well piece of ****.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Tory rebels are looking to support Corbyn’s plot, but I can’t see it working... or helping anyone or anything other than Corbyn’s **** image as a-well piece of ****.

It looks like the only way something can be made to give. It's a crap solution but something needs to be done. Leave supporters who think that No Deal is either what they were promised or something that will bring them any benefits must have their heads up their arses.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's irrelevant whether or not there's any "want" about it, it's something that's legally forced on them. The Good Friday agreement doesn't allow undertakings that create any kind of border process or facility between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The other EU countries can't vote for something that creates that in Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement doesn't actually rule out a border or border infrastructure, but the UK and Irish governments have both (rightly) ruled out a 'hard' border, and the GFA does imply that there can be no return to a militaristic border like that imposed previously.

The UK is not breaking any agreement by exerting our right to leave the EU - the argument you present pretty much states that it is not legal for the UK to leave the EU because of the GFA, which isn't (and indeed cannot or should not) be the case.

As I've said all along, it is the EU that are creating a problem where one need not (and indeed, cannot) exist by their steadfast refusal to accept the reality, which is that Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different countries which are soon to have two different customs and trading systems, but a hard border has been ruled out by both countries.

Therefore, if the rights of both the UK and Ireland are to be properly respected and the spirit (if not the text) of the GFA is to be upheld, then the only workable solution is a porous border with customs and other checks carried out away from the border - which is what the UK has argued for for years now, and yet the EU continue to insist (and, by extension, expect Ireland to insist as well) that this isn't possible and thus either NI or the whole of the UK remains inside the EU's legal orbit permanently.

The question is, how long does the EU think the untenable backstop would persist once it is in force, and by what mechanism could the UK ever leave it? The answer to the latter question is a Catch-22... the UK can only leave the backstop once a trade deal between the EU and the UK is done, but a trade deal would need to be unanimously accepted by the EU27, and there would be nothing to stop any EU member state from blocking a deal unless the UK accepts their pre-conditions, one of which is likely to be alignment between Ireland and Northern Ireland i.e. a return to the EU's original backstop idea that has been unanimously rejected by the UK Parliament... hence, no trade deal, hence permanent backstop, hence the UK becomes a de facto EEA member permanently (Soft Brexit).

 

[baldgye]

It looks like the only way something can be made to give. It's a crap solution but something needs to be done. Leave supporters who think that No Deal is either what they were promised or something that will bring them any benefits must have their heads up their arses.

I'm not convinced it is a solution at all. As @Touring Mars has pointed out, it just puts us in a different problem. All the while the extremist right will remain empowered and angry while the rest of us get ****ed.

An actual solution would be to cancel this farce as every promise made about Brexit was a clear lie, the campaigning was illegal and it was funded by foreign powers seeking to weaken our stupid nation.

 

[MatskiMonk]

As I've said all along, it is the EU that are creating a problem where one need not (and indeed, cannot) exist by their steadfast refusal to accept the reality, which is that Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different countries which are soon to have two different customs and trading systems, but a hard border has been ruled out by both countries.

I really don't see this as the EU's fault. The border issue should have been evident when calling the referendum, it's down to the UK and Ireland to address the fact the a border will be required, before taking it to the vote. To look it at it and naively think that we'll vote for what we want and then the EU (which we're leaving) will have to bend the rules for us, is a total **** up by the UK, not the EU -- NI voted to remain, the people of Eire and the ROI did not want this at all. The EU didn't want it, the Scots didn't want it... this is down to the 'people' of England and Wales, the idiocy of all of this is astounding.

 

[Touring Mars]

it's down to the UK and Ireland to address the fact the a border will be required, before taking it to the vote.

No. The UK and Ireland have already legally agreed to keep the border 'peaceful' (the Good Friday Agreement) and have both committed politically to never imposing a hard border. A hard border is not required - a new system to carry out customs checks away from the border and to operate two different customs regimes either side of an otherwise invisible border is what is needed.

As for the (perfectly sensible) idea that all of this should have been sorted out prior to triggering Article 50, that was made impossible by the fact that the EU would not begin to formally discuss the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU until after the Article 50 process had begun... in other words, that is also the fault of the EU. The UK Government sought to begin negotiations prior to triggering Article 50 but were repeatedly rebuffed. Ireland are in the insidious position of not being allowed to address/sort this issue with the UK directly by virtue of the fact that it is the UK and the EU who are negotiating the terms of Brexit, and not London and Dublin.

-

But, the idea/principle that any vote by a member state on whether to leave the EU ought to be contingent upon the result of negotiations that are not allowed to occur under EU law is ridiculous (though I understand the rationale for making that statement). In other words, it was not possible to solve the Irish border issue prior to the referendum. In any event, the UK was perfectly legally (and morally) entitled to hold a referendum on EU membership, irrespective of any other consideration. The fact that the EU's own rules and regulations on how a member state may exit have made the process all but impossible is a point other member states may wish to consider.

To look it at it and naively think that we'll vote for what we want and then the EU (which we're leaving) will have to bend the rules for us, is a total **** up by the UK, not the EU

Though why should a third country - as the UK will be after leaving the EU - be obliged to permanently abide by EU law after it has left? The answer is simple - the UK is not obliged, and it is within our rights to leave the EU. It is the EU that 'requires' a hard border between the NI and the ROI, but that has been ruled out repeatedly by both Ireland and the UK. However, in the (necessary) absence of a hard border, there are only two possible outcomes for Northern Ireland - either it stays inside the EU's legal orbit indefinitely, or there is some form of new system put in place that satisfies both the UK's and the EU's requirements on trade and customs arrangements etc. Given that the former option involves either a) Northern Ireland coming out of the UK's own internal single market or b) the entire UK remaining inside the EU's legal orbit, I'd say it is not tenable. That means it will have to be the latter option, but that is effectively ruled out by the 'deal' being offered by the EU. Hence, No Deal.

 

[MatskiMonk]

edit: As for the (perfectly sensible) idea that all of this should have been sorted out prior to triggering Article 50, that was made impossible by the fact that the EU would not begin to formally discuss the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU until after the Article 50 process had begun... in other words, that is also the fault of the EU.

This is the only bit I'm really taking issue with. A hard border across Ireland (I believe) was always going to be the default position, this is what we should have based our vote on, not a hope that once in negotiations, we'd get our own way. I don't really expect the public to care about this, but when voting on A50, MP's who voted FOR were voting against the GFA in effect - sure maybe in the hope a better arrangement could be found later, but that was the situation we had at the time and they went ahead and did it anyway... that's us, not the EU - We enacted a law to trigger Article 50 that contradicted an existing agreement we had, it's the best analogy of having our cake (the GFA), and eating it (Brexit) there is.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is the only bit I'm really taking issue with. A hard border across Ireland (I believe) was always going to be the default position, this is what we should have based our vote on, not a hope that once in negotiations, we'd get our own way. I don't really expect the public to care about this, but when voting on A50, MP's who voted FOR were voting against the GFA in effect - sure maybe in the hope a better arrangement could be found later, but that was the situation we had at the time and they went ahead and did it anyway... that's us, not the EU - We enacted a law to trigger Article 50 that contradicted an existing agreement we had, it's the best analogy of having our cake (the GFA), and eating it (Brexit) there is.

And it's not hard to see why so many people, including myself, think the entire process should have been done completely differently.

As I said above, however, the referendum vote and even the vote to trigger Article 50 could not have been done any other way within the confines of EU laws and procedures, and both things had to occur in order for formal negotiations to begin - that being the case, neither vote can be said to be 'against the GFA' because the EU's position on the Irish border situation was not set out until after Article 50 was triggered. Conversely, both the UK and Irish governments have been crystal clear on the issue for over 20 years.

The crux of the problem lies in the fact that it is the EU, not Ireland, that is running the show. Ireland and the UK cannot make any bilateral agreements for this reason. Unfortunately, the Good Friday Agreement is a pre-existing bilateral agreement that all parties have little choice but to respect.

The UK and Ireland's position is clear, but the EU's position is contradictory - on the one hand they say that a hard border must be avoided at all costs, but on the other they say that a hard border must be enforced if Northern Ireland leaves the EU's legal orbit. Their answer is for NI to remain inside the EU's legal orbit while the rest of the UK leaves, but that does not respect the UK's sovereignty (and, by extension, threatens the peace and thus conflicts with the GFA). The UK's proposed solution - to implement controls away from the border - is the only way that the whole of the UK can leave the EU while avoiding a hard border in Ireland.

 

[TenEightyOne]

a new system to carry out customs checks away from the border and to operate two different customs regimes either side of an otherwise invisible border is what is needed.

And is impossible. We're not just talking about trucks of washing machines travelling 3,000 miles, we're talking about cash-and-carries feeding stores half a mile away, about cattle crossing the "border" for slaughter, about milk moving from the udder to the tanker to the dairy, about all the trade movements that go on at a town level but with an arbitrary border through the middle. No credible system has been proposed that can electronically or remotely perform veterinary checks on moving animals or people's carrier bags.

the reality, which is that Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different countries which are soon to have two different customs and trading systems

And that's what the war was about. And that's where we're returning to. It doesn't take a big leap of the imagination to think that Crown customs offices are going to be a target. Then the targets have to be protected, and then the British Army are performing "peace patrols", and then the walls come back up (some never came down on certain streets, of course), then we're back to the troubles of the twentieth century.

If parties in the EU want to try to avoid that on behalf of the GFA and honour the spirit of it (no hard border is a clear interpretation of that spirit, imo) then they can only entertain solutions that keep NI in a borderless trading solution. It's not their fault that Brexit was a **** idea based on an ongoing three-year series of inflammatory untruths.

 

[Touring Mars]

And is impossible. We're not just talking about trucks of washing machines travelling 3,000 miles, we're talking about cash-and-carries feeding stores half a mile away, about cattle crossing the "border" for slaughter, about milk moving from the udder to the tanker to the dairy, about all the trade movements that go on at a town level but with an arbitrary border through the middle. No credible system has been proposed that can electronically or remotely perform veterinary checks on moving animals or people's carrier bags.

It's not "impossible" - just fraught with difficulty... but it needn't even be the case.

The EU could have committed to agreeing to maintain the status quo under Article 24 of the WTO rules, which allows an interim trade pact to persist for up to 10 years while a permanent agreement is made. The EU and the UK could then commit to a formal trade deal to guarantee tariff-free trade between the EU and the UK, thus rendering most of the problems with the Irish border moot. But the EU are loathed to do that because they consider that too much like the UK having access to the Single Market without being a member.

The fundamental problem is the fact that Ireland and the UK already have an unbreakable bilateral agreement that scuppers the EU's requirement for a hard border in Ireland. But the authors of the Good Friday Agreement did not take into account the possibility (and indeed the right) of either Ireland or the UK to exit the EU - as a result, it is now a problem for all sides to figure out how to keep the border open when the UK and Ireland's status as EU members is no longer the same.

By far the most sensible solution all along has been for the EU and the UK to strike a new trade deal that eliminates tariffs and keeps as close alignment on standards as possible - not that hard given that the UK is currently an EU member and has all EU standards already incorporated into UK law. Of course, over time there will inevitably be some divergence, but surely it is not beyond the wit of man to figure out a solution that doesn't mean installing a hard border in Ireland. Indeed, it is not a question of 'maybe' - there must be a solution found sooner or later.

It must be remembered that the UK always had and always will have a sovereign right to leave the EU. The EU's own acquis enshrines that very right. Ireland is a special case (though arguably similar problems would arise upon another member's exit) and thus requires special consideration. Frankly, however, the EU's proposed solutions are nothing short of disgraceful and it is no surprise that they've been roundly rejected by the UK Parliament.

And that's what the war was about. And that's where we're returning to. It doesn't take a big leap of the imagination to think that Crown customs offices are going to be a target. Then the targets have to be protected, and then the British Army are performing "peace patrols", and then the walls come back up (some never came down on certain streets, of course), then we're back to the troubles of the twentieth century.

If parties in the EU want to try to avoid that on behalf of the GFA and honour the spirit of it (no hard border is a clear interpretation of that spirit, imo) then they can only entertain solutions that keep NI in a borderless trading solution. It's not their fault that Brexit was a **** idea based on an ongoing three-year series of inflammatory untruths.

Well, exactly.

But a huge part of the problem is the EU's dismissal of the most obvious possible solution and their sequencing of events. As it stands, the EU requires that an exiting member state agree to a permanent default solution (the backstop) before even allowing trade negotiations to begin! Frankly, that's inane - and it is little wonder that the process has been a total failure given that the backstop effectively breaks up the exiting member state.

Worse still, the EU have been pretty clear that they have no intention of offering the UK a free trade deal that keeps trade across the Irish border tariff-free. And even worse still, they have also stated that a No Deal exit means negotiations are over and that any future trade deal requires the UK to accept the unacceptable Withdrawal Agreement first. That is ridiculous, and it is also totally counterproductive to their (supposed) aim of "doing all" to keep the Irish border open.

If the EU were sincere and serious about 'doing all' to keep the Irish border open after Brexit, they should, at the very least, be considering a free trade deal with the UK to be put in place as quickly as is legally possible.

 

[TenEightyOne]

By far the most sensible solution all along has been for the EU and the UK to strike a new trade deal that eliminates tariffs and keeps as close alignment on standards as possible

Which is basically the backstop for the entire UK - that solution effectively keeps us in the EU trade area and all that changes is freedom of movement and a say in the rules. We may as well not leave if that's what we want.

 

[Touring Mars]

Which is basically the backstop for the entire UK - that solution effectively keeps us in the EU trade area and all that changes is freedom of movement and a say in the rules. We may as well not leave if that's what we want.

It is similar, but it is not the same.

The backstop keeps the UK inside the EU's legal orbit indefinitely - but, critically, there is no exit mechanism that the UK can apply - the UK can only legally exit the backstop when the EU says so. That is a world away from having a trade deal that eliminates tariffs.

The backstop is a legal trap from which the UK may never escape. Despite the fact that it is unlikely that the UK would remain in this trap for very long, the fact remains that it is possible (and indeed the legal default) that the UK would be trapped in the backstop with no way out until it satisfies the demands of the EU or any of its member states, irrespective of what they may turn out to be.

For this reason alone, the backstop cannot be accepted unless legally binding guarantees of an exit mechanism were put in place first - but, as discussed previously, the sequencing of events as determined by the EU prevents this.

But even if that were not the case, there would still be a significant problem - the EU have made it clear that there will be no trade deal whatsoever between the EU and the UK without the UK's acceptance of the backstop first. That is a very sad (and ultimately self-defeating) stance, because it basically means that the only sensible, permanent solution for the Irish border issue has been ruled out (by the EU) already... as such, the only avenue available to both sides at the moment is to agree to resort to Article 24 of the WTO rules which will, in effect, create the same conditions as the backstop but, crucially, with a time limit and an independent body to oversee progress on trade talks.

Ultimately, the EU must drop the concept of an indefinite backstop sooner or later - and the sooner the better. The EU needs to wake up and realise that a good, fair, mutually beneficial deal with the UK is far, far preferable than trading on WTO terms, which will be bad for both sides.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It is similar, but it is not the same.

The backstop keeps the UK inside the EU's legal orbit indefinitely - but, critically, there is no exit mechanism that the UK can apply - the UK can only legally exit the backstop when the EU says so. That is a world away from having a trade deal that eliminates tariffs.

Depending on what "legal orbit" means in specifics it's arguable that we remain in that orbit whatever the outcomes. Any trade of goods or services that we undertake with the EU cannot contravene EU rules.

the only avenue available to both sides at the moment is to agree to resort to Article 24 of the WTO rules which will, in effect, create the same conditions as the backstop but, crucially, with a time limit and an independent body to oversee progress on trade talks.

That's really how the backstop is enabled, a deal is made and the Article 24 transition period is undertaken. We don't default to Article 24, we have to have a mutually agreed end-plan in place. Even the pro-Brexit advice states that. I've heard nothing so far from any of the leading negotiation figures that suggests they are exploring an agreement to enable this article. Of course, in reality (i.e. not in the mad post-apocalyptic heaven of Rees-Mogg) very few countries actually trade with the EU solely using WTO rules. It's almost as if the Leave campaign was based on another set of untruths.

Leaving aside the issue of taking away a citizenship that was very important to some of us it's obvious that trade is at the core of Britain's future success. Britain seems to want to leave the trade union while staying in the trade union while leaving the trade union. It's a crap bargaining position and it always was.

 

[Touring Mars]

Depending on what "legal orbit" means in specifics it's arguable that we remain in that orbit whatever the outcomes. Any trade of goods or services that we undertake with the EU cannot contravene EU rules.

A trade deal is a million miles from being inside the EU's legal orbit - the former means we can trade goods and services that comply with each others rules and standards, the latter means accepting EU laws in their entirety, as we do now, but at least as a member of the EU we have a veto over those laws - as a non-member, having to abide by all EU laws without a say in how they are made is completely untenable and undemocratic in the extreme.

That's really how the backstop is enabled, a deal is made and the Article 24 transition period is undertaken. We don't default to Article 24, we have to have a mutually agreed end-plan in place. Even the pro-Brexit advice states that.

Not sure I follow/agree with the first bit, but certainly Article 24 can only be useful by mutual consent.

The argument is, however, that in the absence of any other agreement, it makes no sense for either the EU or the UK to reject Article 24.

Article 24 would recreate much of the conditions of the backstop (by effectively reinstating what would have been the transition period), but critically it would remove the legal trap that the backstop creates, would be time-limited (up to 10 years) and would also create a new, independent forum in which the UK and EU could proceed with future trade talks.

Thus far, the UK has been in a pathetically weak negotiating position because the EU is basically running the show, and this has led directly to the production of a 'deal' that the UK cannot accept. If the UK walks away and leaves the EU without a deal, we will, at the very least, be in a much stronger position, and thus we will be more likely to negotiate a mutually acceptable deal, as opposed to what has happened thus far, which has produced nothing but total failure.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Turns out that the No Deal disaster that Boris Johnson told us would happen (followed by Boris Johnson telling us wouldn't happen) could well happen.

 

[PzR Slim]

Turns out that the No Deal disaster that Boris Johnson told us would happen (followed by Boris Johnson telling us wouldn't happen) could well happen.

The complete and utter stupidity has got to stop. Time to admit that the reality is so far removed from what was promised that it would be suicide to continue down this path.

 

[baldgye]

Time to admit that the reality is so far removed from what was promised that it would be suicide to continue down this path.

That moment was about a year ago

 

[Famine]

Turns out that the No Deal disaster that Boris Johnson told us would happen (followed by Boris Johnson telling us wouldn't happen) could well happen.

Wasn't "Yellowhammer" 'leaked' a year ago?

https://news.sky.com/story/operation-yellowhammer-no-deal-brexit-plans-revealed-11491671

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wasn't "Yellowhammer" 'leaked' a year ago?

https://news.sky.com/story/operation-yellowhammer-no-deal-brexit-plans-revealed-11491671

Yes, but as I understand it (I could be wrong, as you well know) the document presented by the Sunday Times is much more recent. Yellowhammer is the ongoing Brexit assessment working party, I think?

 

[Touring Mars]

I think we'd do well to remember that there is bluff and bluster on both sides of this debacle - and, contrary to what the EU might say publicly, there is almost certainly no way a 'No Deal' situation will persist for long... indeed, I reckon that 'No Deal' is something of a misnomer insomuch as there will have to be a deal, if not for the UK's sake, but for Ireland's.

The real problem with the Irish border issue is not that a No Deal Brexit will create a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland - it won't, but that in the absence of a hard border on Ireland, there will have to be an economic border between Ireland and the rest of the EU...

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, then the EU will have absolutely no way of controlling or deciding how the UK should police the border, Indeed, the UK and Irish governments have already ruled out checks at the border. The EU can only control what its member states do, and hence the only legal leverage the EU will have after a No Deal Brexit is over the Irish Government.

The reason the EU are starting to panic is because they know what this all means - it means that they are going to have to effectively suspend Ireland from the Single Market until a trade deal with the UK is agreed - and it better be quick... but it had better be a good/fair deal for the UK, otherwise there's no reason for the UK to sign it.

I suspect that the EU will have practically no choice but to agree to GATT 24 in order to avoid this scenario from playing out - ironically, that would annoy Hard Brexiteers more than anyone else, as it would effectively keep the UK inside the EU/Single Market (as per the transition period) but the UK would have no say on the rules any more, but the open border situation in Ireland would become a rod for their back and basically force both the UK and the EU to negotiate a permanent trade deal that resolves the situation once and for all... that means no tariffs, no border in Ireland, no border between Ireland and the rest of the EU, and everybody is happy...

 

[Dennisch]

At least you guys will look pretty like Nigella though.