UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But so what? We all have reasons for voting one way or another. People often vote Conservative because they want low taxes, which will benefit them and their family.

The point being made by you and the originator of this comment is designed to imply that these people were campaigning for Brexit for inappropriate reasons, when in actual fact, with or without that tax, they would have voted Brexit anyway.

But these people either funded, or were drivers behind, Leave - huge difference between that and voting.

I see we’re just going back to the silly arguments so now I’m implementing the following policy.

Keep this thread to discussion on News on Brexit Developments only. That’s why I opened this debate again.

I don’t want to see the petty arguments about the merits of Brexit. We’ve argued over 3 years over this.

I do not want to see stupid arguments about who funded who’s group/side. It is just irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------

The Current Brexit News Developments are as follows:

1. Finland and France give Boris Johnson until 30th September to come up with proposals with alternatives to Irish Backstop, or it is over.
   
2. Brexit Secretary, Steve Barclay heading to Brussels Fri for urgent Brexit talks.
   
3. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and it’s 11 Justices are expected to release their decision on the case of whether Boris Johnson legally advised Queen to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9113451.html

The European Union has rejected a request from the British government for a Brexit deal without a Irish backstop in.

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay on Thursday said the UK should be given until the end of 2020 to come up with a replacement for the policy – instead of the end of September deadline set by EU leaders.

The minister travelled to Brussels on Friday to meet with Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator – but was told that the EU could not consider a deal without a backstop or replacement in.

Following the meeting, a spokesperson for the European Commission told reporters that it is "essential that there is a fully workable and legally operational solution included in the withdrawal agreement".

They added that the EU was "willing and open to examine any such proposals that meet all the objective of the backstop".

Without a withdrawal agreement there will be no transition period, and the UK would leave without a deal at the end of October, barring a further extension.

The EU’s position is odd. They insist on advance agreement of a technical solution for a problem that may never arise, despite abundant evidence that it is politically impossible for the British to accept it, and at the imminent risk of actually creating the border problems they claim to want to avoid.

It’s almost as if there’s a greater prize to be had in getting the British side to agree to a mechanism that it cannot later exit without the EU’s permission - permission that would be being sought right about the time each side was trying to get the best concessions out of the other in a permanent trade deal. I wonder, to what extent the EU side is still trying to assess how likely we are to push the nuclear button and leave on 31 October, before making a final judgment about what it wants most - an actual shed-load of real headaches on their desks about 6 weeks from now, or a 2 year break in which the border problem can be solved along with everything else.

[Sephiroth]

"Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay has said the UK and EU share a "common purpose" in reaching a new withdrawal deal, after a meeting in Brussels with chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49764546

A pity that those weren't Barnier's words.

[Carth]

I'm at a loss as to who is trying to fool who here?

The EU want (need, desire, expect) a backstop type arrangement or it's no deal.

However, if a no deal is what happens, where does that leave the EU and their trading complexities without the 'desired' backstop?

If the EU are capable of managing with no deal, then surely the backstop isn't such a big thing . . . apart from the ties it then binds us with

Originally Posted by Carth

I'm at a loss as to who is trying to fool who here?

The EU want (need, desire, expect) a backstop type arrangement or it's no deal.

However, if a no deal is what happens, where does that leave the EU and their trading complexities without the 'desired' backstop?

If the EU are capable of managing with no deal, then surely the backstop isn't such a big thing . . . apart from the ties it then binds us with

If my wife lost her job, we could manage - but we’d prefer not to have to...

[jfman]

The backstop protects the integrity of the Single Market. No deal and a hard border has the same result for the EU.

Originally Posted by jfman

The backstop protects the integrity of the Single Market. No deal and a hard border has the same result for the EU.

Not quite. Whatever apocalyptic queues, shortages and general sky-falling occurs on the island of Great Britain, will occur also on the island of Ireland, most of which is remaining in the EU. A withdrawal agreement without a backstop provides vital continuity for a vulnerable member state, at the trivial cost of deferring a solution to border management - a solution that isn’t required on 31 October *if* there’s a withdrawal agreement to ensure temporary continuity.

This is so eye-poppingly obvious that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the EU prizes the backstop not for its theoretical safeguards two years down the road, but because it creates a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not quite. Whatever apocalyptic queues, shortages and general sky-falling occurs on the island of Great Britain, will occur also on the island of Ireland, most of which is remaining in the EU. A withdrawal agreement without a backstop provides vital continuity for a vulnerable member state, at the trivial cost of deferring a solution to border management - a solution that isn’t required on 31 October *if* there’s a withdrawal agreement to ensure temporary continuity.

This is so eye-poppingly obvious that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the EU prizes the backstop not for its theoretical safeguards two years down the road, but because it creates a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations.

While I do accept your thoughtful input into the thread, and unlike others you do accept invitation to "agree to disagree" to avoid circular arguments, it would be my view the EU would be better placed to mitigate for an island of 4m people than we can two islands of 66m.

Everything is, and always will be a bargaining chip, that'll be the case until capitalism collapses.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If my wife lost her job, we could manage - but we’d prefer not to have to...

But what if it was up to your wife whether she lost her job or not? Would she voluntarily leave her job if she didn’t have to?

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Not quite. Whatever apocalyptic queues, shortages and general sky-falling occurs on the island of Great Britain, will occur also on the island of Ireland, most of which is remaining in the EU. A withdrawal agreement without a backstop provides vital continuity for a vulnerable member state, at the trivial cost of deferring a solution to border management - a solution that isn’t required on 31 October *if* there’s a withdrawal agreement to ensure temporary continuity.

This is so eye-poppingly obvious that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the EU prizes the backstop not for its theoretical safeguards two years down the road, but because it creates a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations.

The problem is, is that the backstop has now become Brexit.

Neither side will climb down now, so now they would have to Engineer a solution that both keeps and removes the backstop so both sides can claim a win.

[nomadking]

Link

Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said: "It's not enough on its own.
"We would need a single Irish economic zone, or whatever you would like to call it, to cover more than agriculture and food."

What is that supposed to mean? Everything short of that is going to blocked by the EU.


Seems strange and quite sinister that Ireland are blocking things. They have a massive amount to lose.
Eg Link

Around two-thirds of the products on Irish supermarket shelves are made in the UK or come through that country.

[jfman]

Or a lot to gain in trade terms by freezing the UK out.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But what if it was up to your wife whether she lost her job or not? Would she voluntarily leave her job if she didn’t have to?

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

The problem is, is that the backstop has now become Brexit.

Neither side will climb down now, so now they would have to Engineer a solution that both keeps and removes the backstop so both sides can claim a win.

The Withdrawal Agreement is just an interim arrangement, making the backstop a de facto ongoing Brexit arrangement It is the thing that would be in place beyond 2020.

[jfman]

Protecting the Single Market isn’t “sinister” any more than the UK wouldn’t entertain closing the border but allowing immigrants to walk the Channel Tunnel freely.