Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,870 comments
- 301,634 views
- 29,376
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It isn't, and that's just as well because the backstop is very unlikely to ever become law - as such, it is not a guarantee of anything, because legally it doesn't exist.
The Good Friday Agreement is far more than a mere signal of 'intent' - it is an international treaty that compels the UK and Ireland to retaining peaceful relations. I'm going to keep saying this - neither Ireland or the UK will erect a hard border in Ireland... so who will?
Unfortunately this is exactly right. The only thing the EU can do to protect the Single Market if Ireland choose not to do what is asked of them is to suspend Ireland. That would be catastrophic for Ireland, and terribly unfair - but unfortunately it is one of the only things that the EU can actually do about the border issue.
Of course, the EU cannot expel or even suspend Ireland from the Single Market - politically it would be suicide for the EU to punish a compliant member state for something it cannot do anything about. It is, therefore, extremely likely that an alternative solution will be found, as if by magic, that avoids this catastrophic outcome for the EU and Ireland. The form that will take will likely be that the EU agrees to maintain the current trading arrangements with the UK (under GATT 24), while expedited negotiations can (finally) begin between the EU and the UK on a sensible and mutually beneficial trade deal. The fact that these negotiations have been ruled out until after Brexit is, frankly, absurd... and, when you think about it, is really the root cause of this entire debacle.
The preconditions for any deal are 1) the Irish border stays open (as demanded by the UK), 2) the Irish border stays open (as demanded by Ireland) and 3) the Irish border stays open (as the EU allegedly wish too, since that was the aim of the backstop all along, right?). With those three things in mind, the UK and the EU can proceed to work on a future relationship that satisfies those requirements first. If that means the UK and the EU must trade with no tariffs and with a common rule book on standards, so be it... isn't that what the UK has asked for since day one?
-
Meanwhile, there are reports that the EU are about to offer the UK a further extension to Article 50...
- 29,376
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
And it'll be our fault
...but it'll be fine....
It is the fault of all involved if common sense is ignored in favour of ideology, stupidity and/or spitefulness.
While I'm not entirely enamored with any 'side', at least the Irish government have the excuse that they are not the ones negotiating Brexit.
But, just like a house that's burning down, it is surely more important to extinguish the fire before trying to determine who started it.
The current boarder situation worked and suited all involved, it didn't need changing because prior to the vote there wasn't any actual meaningful demand to leave the EU.
Now that's changed, but instead of the UK carefully considering what leaving would mean, and the boarder problem. Instead of actually coming up with a solution so that we could leave with no-deal and it wouldn't **** another country or cause another war... we instead rushed into something that was intentionally unplanned for and are going nuclear for no good reason.
It's on us, we decided to make this massive change and do non of the work required to make it happen without huge problems for all involved, including ourselves.
- 29,376
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The UK is, rightly or wrongly, exercising its right to leave the EU - a right enshrined in international law in the Lisbon Treaty.
The UK does have both moral and legal responsibilities, but it is not solely up to the UK to resolve all of the issues caused by exiting the EU... clearly, the EU has legal and moral responsibilities as well, and one of those is to respect the UK's right to leave.
As I've said several times now, it was not possible to 'sort' many (or indeed any) of the issues that exiting the EU would cause prior to Article 50 being triggered, let alone voted for... that is not merely because it was too difficult or the UK couldn't be bothered, but because the EU specifically prohibited any negotiations prior to that. An extension of this is that even if the UK had had the most detailed plan in history, none of it would have counted for anything if and when the EU rejected it, which they pretty much have whenever ideas on how to solve the Irish border issue have been broached thus far.
Why isn't it?
We want this to happen, no one else, so it's on us to get ourselves and our neighbours into a situation where we can exit without ****ing everyone (including ourselves) over.
I'm aware we cannot set up trade agreements for a post EU status, but there seems no reason why we (along with the EU and RI) couldn't have come up with a solution ahead of time, to the hard-boarder issue. It's a unique situation that if unresolved will cause another mini-war, something the EU was specifically designed to avoid.
We instead-as I said-deliberately rushed in without a plan.
- 29,376
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Yes... but it is simply not the case that the UK got to decide how Brexit happened unilaterally - if only it was. On the contrary, it is almost entirely down to what is set out in the Lisbon Treaty, which means that the UK had little choice in terms of how to conduct the Brexit negotiations. That means it is not merely a question of what the UK might want, it is a question of what the EU will allow and whether or not the UK agrees to it.... and if not, it's either no exit or no deal.
I have pointed out what that reason is a few times now...
Triggering Article 50 was a prerequisite for opening negotiations. This meant that the EU refused to allow any negotiations to occur prior to that, which in turn means that issues like the Irish border could not possibly have been resolved in advance of that point. Furthermore, the sequencing of negotiations that the EU came up with (which the UK foolishly accepted) meant that resolving the situation during the Article 50 period was made nigh on impossible as well. How this is solely the fault of the UK is beyond me. That is not to say that we are blameless, but it is beyond harsh to suggest that it is either our fault entirely (when it is evidently not) or that we hold all responsibility for all the problems caused by our exiting the EU (when there is, in fact, not much more that we possibly could have done).
It takes two to tango - it's just a great pity that neither partner can dance.
edit: Apologies for the edits - this post is possibly quite different to the one you first read!
Last edited:
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
This is probably off-topic bum kissing but you have been the best source of brexit information that I've been able to find in the last three years by a very long way. & I watch political news. For me at least, your apology is unnecessary.
Yeah, for Brexit and post EU status negotiations. I’m talking about negotiating a better and more stable relationship with RI before anything happens with Brexit.
The current* situation is only suitable for when we are part of the same trade rules, if we want to change those rules we can’t without ****ing up people’s and our own ****.
I’m aware, just as well as you, that we can’t setup trade talks with RI for a post Brexit/EU situation BEFORE we leave... But, just as we did the Good Friday agreement, we can settle on better terms for both nations.
Except we’ve caused a car accident on the way to the dance hall.
Last edited:
Novalee
(Banned)
- 708
- Earth
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news...urrent-deadline-brexit-remove-no-deal-option/
This will spice things up .
This will spice things up .
- 11,297
- Sweden
- eran0004
Name one other guarantee for an open border?
The backstop is a guarantee. Whether the UK would accept a deal containing the backstop is another thing. But sure, the guarantee wouldn’t apply unless such a deal has been accepted.
It’s intent because it doesn’t give the slightest clue for how the border is supposed to stay open when the UK is leaving the EU. All it says is that the UK and Ireland should try to find a solution - hence intent.
Who will erect the hard border? UK and Ireland will, unless they can find a solution that would make an open border possible.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
A hard border is one that can not be crossed without customs or passport checks. You may keep saying it but how exactly will it be the case that there will be no hard border between the UK and the EU? Rees-Mogg certainly seems content with papers checks for "security" and it's hard to imagine that British business will put up with an open goods border for too long, and the moment there are Crown employees operating on the border we know exactly what will happen.
- 29,376
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Agreement between the EU and the UK to move to Article 24 of the WTO rules would guarantee an open border. Sure, it would not solve all problems, but it would solve by far the most pressing one of keeping the border open.
Implementing Article 24 of the WTO would need to be coupled with other steps in order to make Brexit work though, but then again, if the alternative is No Deal, then it is surely worth serious consideration.
The reason the EU will not (presently) agree to it is because they are insisting on a range of other commitments, including on Irish border, first. But, as David Davis said right at the very start of the Article 50 process, how can the Irish border issue possibly be resolved prior to an agreement on trade? He was right - it cannot - and this has proved to be the fundamental stumbling block.
Agreement on Article 24 would keep the border open and could be agreed tomorrow if they really wanted to. But there would (and should) have to be a legally binding commitment to a future trade deal that respects the UK's divergence from the Customs Union, within a finite time frame (which Article 24 already provides for.)
The net effect would be practically identical to the Withdrawal Agreement/backstop - the UK and the EU would continue to trade as if the UK were still in the Customs Union until a trade deal was signed, but crucially there is a finite time frame and there could also be a legally binding commitment to that time frame, as opposed to the current situation where the Political Declaration (which is not legally binding) states that the EU and the UK would use 'best endeavors' to agree a trade deal.
The major difference is that the current WA/backstop leaves the UK exposed to the possibility of being legally trapped inside the Customs Union permanently, whereas 'alternative arrangements' such as Article 24 and a new Political Declaration with legally binding commitments on a future trade deal, would achieve the same effects as the backstop but without that legal trap.
Except you have that the wrong way round - the border is open already, the question is how to close it when no-one is willing or able to do it.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
And how will customs and passport checks be conducted?
- 13,909
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Really? What happens if they do as you suggest, but do not reach a trade deal agreeable to both parties? There's no requirement to do so, nor does it seem like there's any penalty for failing to do so as far as I can tell. It seems like just another method of kicking the ball down the road, and that's not worked super well for Brexit in general so far. In fact, that's where most of the problems seem to stem from; that there's a defined end goal in mind but nobody is willing to make concessions to achieve it so they stall until it becomes someone else's problem.
The phrase "🤬 or get off the pot" comes to mind.
This is the other problem for the UK. The EU appears to have people who actually understand politics and negotiation running their side of it for the benefit of the EU. The UK has a requirement set by who could yell the loudest, attempting to be implemented by a bunch of spoiled attention-seekers with limited interest beyond their personal wealth and well-being.
- 29,376
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
While either the backstop, the transition period or a ‘standstill’ (under GATT 24) were in place, none would be necessary, so what difference does it make?
The question, of course, is what would happen after these expire - and the trouble with the backstop is that is would not expire.. but it must if the UK’s right to leave the Customs Union is to be respected.
There’s not really any need for passport checks over and above what exists today - perhaps more passport checks on the UK mainland would be necessary, but even without them it wouldn’t change the fact that non-UK (or Irish) citizens without a valid visa would not be in the country legally.
Then we’d be in a similar situation that we are in today, except with the (crucial) difference that the UK would not be compelled by law to remain inside the EU’s jurisdiction. The backstop fundamentally changes the situation from what exists today insomuch as it removes the UK’s ability to choose whether or not to ever leave the EU’s legal orbit, and puts that decision in the hands of the EU instead.
Failure to agree a trade deal after 10 years of negotiation would not be proof that the backstop was necessary, but conversely it would be proof that the backstop would be impossible to remove. Far from undermining the critics arguments against agreeing to the backstop in the first place, such an outcome would vindicate them entirely.
DriftShock
(Banned)
- 190
- Carlton, East Yorkshire
- GSRT_MiraiNG
- GAMERSWORLDxX
So, sitrep
- Boris Johnson is doing his best to screw all of us
- Even the Queen is involved now
- And all three big political parties over here (Conservatives, Labour & Liberal Democrats) literally have no idea what they’re doing
My trust in Politics is decreasing by the millisecond
- Boris Johnson is doing his best to screw all of us
- Even the Queen is involved now
- And all three big political parties over here (Conservatives, Labour & Liberal Democrats) literally have no idea what they’re doing
My trust in Politics is decreasing by the millisecond
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I agree that the backstop or something almost entirely similar has to be in place. But how do we ever actually get out of it? How will customs and passports checks be performed?
There is a need for passport checks. The main platform for the Leave campaign was freedom of movement. If one can still travel to Ireland, home of budget flight, cross the border, take a ferry... nothing will change. Putting a hard border on the mainland will sink the government - they have a working majority of 1 thanks to the DUP's iffy support, that is withdrawn the moment that NI is treated differently from the other three countries of the UK.
How so?
- 87,598
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
DriftShock
(Banned)
- 190
- Carlton, East Yorkshire
- GSRT_MiraiNG
- GAMERSWORLDxX
Boris asked the Queen to Prorogue Parliament, and although it’s not her fault, why would you drag someone into your situation if you have nothing to do with it? It’s just a waste of time and resources
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The same thing happens once a year, it isn't a new or unusual thing. Then she turns up and opens the new session. And it is her fault because she's the constitutional monarch.
DriftShock
(Banned)
- 190
- Carlton, East Yorkshire
- GSRT_MiraiNG
- GAMERSWORLDxX
I guess that’s a good point. But Boris was the one who dragged her into this business in the first place. She could’ve easily said no, but there you go
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
She could have said no, but not easily. It would be extremely unusual for her to refuse the request of a Prime Minister, there's no precedent in her reign for that.
To repeat @Famine's question:
How is Boris doing his best to screw all of us?
DriftShock
(Banned)
- 190
- Carlton, East Yorkshire
- GSRT_MiraiNG
- GAMERSWORLDxX
Maybe I didn’t word that correctly
- 87,598
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
And by doing so created a new session of Parliament, so that things rejected by the previous Parliament can now be considered again.
For some reason people are saying this is Boris preventing the Commons from meeting in order to ram through a No Deal, but now all options - including that Withdrawal Agreement - are back on the table, where they previously weren't.
