How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)

How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Mrr T said:
Since the referendum promised a soft fluffly brexit surely the only option now is a new referendum. Remain or no deal. Should not be difficult for the EC to frame the question.

No deal supports can campaign on the benefits of sovereignty, trade agreement, blue passports, against the costs of a few jobs and cuts in the NHS.

I am sure no deal will get a decisive majorty on PH. Might lose badly in the real world.
No, the referendum option was Leave, not Leave with a deal. You could possibly argue there is no mandate for a deal, but you can't say there is no mandate for only leaving with a deal.
The referendum simply provides a mandate to 'leave'. That could include leaving with a bad deal, leaving with no-deal or continuing to negotiate in the hope of a better deal.

A vote to leave the EU would lead to us following the prescribed process for leaving. The Withdrawal Agreement is the result of that process, so it is clearly a response to the vote. But it is also a bad deal.

It seems to me that most voters, regardless of their decision in the referendum, would have rightly expected Govt to do a better job with the withdrawal agreement, so does that mean that the mandate supports renegotiation?

But how long is it reasonable to negotiate for before we cut our losses and leave with no-deal? Does the mandate tell us that we have reached the point where that is necessary? If so, should we not consider Govts failure to properly plan for that option and the many open-ended situations we would face with the EU that could have been dealt with under a managed no deal? Arguably that might circle us back to a delay and renegotiate option for the good of the country.

All roads are difficult and it is not an easy choice. The mandate provides no guidance on the next steps.

Vanden Saab

13,892 posts

73 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
jonnyb said:
Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option. People were promised an EAA type deal by the official leave campaign. It’s all over their website.

How you can say there’s any mandate for a no deal brexit is utterly delusional.

Ok, things change in the aftermath of the referendum, but let’s try and get vaguely close to what was actually promised.
You have to smile at the knots some people tie themselves up in trying to argue that black is white. Just read back what you wrote.
Why did we have a leave/ remain referendum if leave wasn't an option?

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
jonnyb said:
Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option. People were promised an EAA type deal by the official leave campaign. It’s all over their website.

How you can say there’s any mandate for a no deal brexit is utterly delusional.

Ok, things change in the aftermath of the referendum, but let’s try and get vaguely close to what was actually promised.
You have to smile at the knots some people tie themselves up in trying to argue that black is white. Just read back what you wrote.
Why did we have a leave/ remain referendum if leave wasn't an option?
Leaving without a deal was always a 'possibility', but it was not the 'plan' that was put forward to the electorate.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Mrr T said:
Since the referendum promised a soft fluffly brexit surely the only option now is a new referendum. Remain or no deal. Should not be difficult for the EC to frame the question.

No deal supports can campaign on the benefits of sovereignty, trade agreement, blue passports, against the costs of a few jobs and cuts in the NHS.

I am sure no deal will get a decisive majorty on PH. Might lose badly in the real world.
No, the referendum option was Leave, not Leave with a deal. You could possibly argue there is no mandate for a deal, but you can't say there is no mandate for only leaving with a deal.
So the WA is leaving the EU but is unaceptable. Brexit confuses me.
That's the point I've been trying to make for some considerable time.

Vanden Saab

13,892 posts

73 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
Vanden Saab said:
jonnyb said:
Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option. People were promised an EAA type deal by the official leave campaign. It’s all over their website.

How you can say there’s any mandate for a no deal brexit is utterly delusional.

Ok, things change in the aftermath of the referendum, but let’s try and get vaguely close to what was actually promised.
You have to smile at the knots some people tie themselves up in trying to argue that black is white. Just read back what you wrote.
Why did we have a leave/ remain referendum if leave wasn't an option?
Leaving without a deal was always a 'possibility', but it was not the 'plan' that was put forward to the electorate.
In the same way as ever closer Union joining the Euro and an EU army was never put forward by the remain team you mean?

psi310398

9,036 posts

202 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
sunbeam alpine said:
I'm curious which sectors you think will lower prices. Having spent probably more time in the UK than overseas in the last year (mother suffering with dementia), I'm amazed how cheap a weekly shop is. I always use the same Sainsbury's, and I can't get a full trolley over £100! (I admit I don't buy a lot of alcohol).

The same trolley over here in Belgium would cost at least 50% more. Does this reflect your experience in Italy? (I know you spend quite a lot of time there).
Sorry, just saw this.

Not at all. But I don't really do supermarkets (except for bog paper/bleach/light bulbs etc. on which I tend to stock up in Germany en route - Lidl Germany makes Lidl UK prices look like Waitrose).

This being Italy, where they take food seriously, the quality is generally high and the paperwork non-existent. I buy fresh and seasonal from the local markets most days when I'm there and the fruit and veg is almost invariably half to two thirds of the price I'd be able to buy it in the UK, so long as I'm not after kumquats or other exotica. I buy locally-sourced meat (including game) as well from a bloke who tours the neighbourhood in an Ape.

You also need, ahem, to compare apples with apples. The quality of the produce is light years away from the denatured and tasteless crap you can buy in UK supermarkets. You can get very quality produce in the UK but if I were to price up a similar shopping basket at a specialist greengrocer/butcher with fresh, locally produced seasonal produce, my wallet would be seriously bent over and taken up the chuff.

But, yes, although the market for mass produced ready meals is stuck at about 1970s Vesta/Bejam levels, it is very expensive for the quality. So, if you are living from your fridge and microwave, I'd imagine that a UK basket would be much cheaper. But prices are high and quality low because there is very little demand - most Italians would get something fresh from the local trattoria for less if they couldn't be arsed to cook.

To answer your first question (and to strive to keep broadly on topic), if you are going to buy intensively-produced food, world prices will give you just as good food for less money and the price competition would lower EU-sourced food prices, too, assuming that producers wanted to sell to the UK.

Why would things get cheaper? We don't produce, for example, oranges (although the Spanish and Italians do) so why have tariffs on them? If we dropped tariffs, Israeli or South African oranges, for example, which are already sold here, would drop in price and would also put price pressure on EU producers. (As a consumer, I lose very little sleep worrying about Spanish citrus farmers).

The quality/safety levels of these non-EU oranges are presumably currently at a standard that meets EU requirements (assuming that these are any good or appropriate for consumer rather than producer protection), and there would be nothing stopping a sovereign Parliament setting appropriate standards. We should therefore be able to avoid all the patronising shroud-waving arguments about non-EU sourced food and drink that are really only a pretext for rooking EU consumers and subsidising/protecting EU producers (and one of the motivations for keeping the UK from entering into its own trade deals).

bitchstewie

50,781 posts

209 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
You have to smile at the knots some people tie themselves up in trying to argue that black is white. Just read back what you wrote.
Why did we have a leave/ remain referendum if leave wasn't an option?
You also have to smile at the knots some people tie themselves up in trying to argue that once our name is removed from the list of EU members here https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countrie... we haven't left the EU.

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
Vanden Saab said:
jonnyb said:
Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option. People were promised an EAA type deal by the official leave campaign. It’s all over their website.

How you can say there’s any mandate for a no deal brexit is utterly delusional.

Ok, things change in the aftermath of the referendum, but let’s try and get vaguely close to what was actually promised.
You have to smile at the knots some people tie themselves up in trying to argue that black is white. Just read back what you wrote.
Why did we have a leave/ remain referendum if leave wasn't an option?
Leaving without a deal was always a 'possibility', but it was not the 'plan' that was put forward to the electorate.
In the same way as ever closer Union joining the Euro and an EU army was never put forward by the remain team you mean?
The Govt leaflet expressly ruled out those possibilities. So they would not have been mandated by a remain vote.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
FiF said:
Tuna said:
Elysium said:
ITP said:
No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?
Again your opinion. As an objective fact the withdrawal agreement is about leaving the EU. It is the terms of our withdrawal, as described in article 50.

Are parliament supposed to agree with your irrational argument?
The problem I have with your reply is that ITP lists a set of serious issues with Brexit that could have long term economic consequences on our country, and you choose to debate on whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement is "about leaving the EU"? Yes there's hyperbole in there, but both the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration have been accused of (a) being originated by the EU and (b) committing the UK to an agreement where the EU controls our ability to trade independently.

That's a serious allegation and you choose to completely blank it? I can understand that many Remain supporters think the benefit (of access to the Customs Union) outweigh the consequences, but completely avoiding actually having the discussion about what compromise is being made appears devious and dishonest. From people who obsess about the other side's lies, that comes across very badly.
Yep, couple of good posts from ITP above which sum up the feelings of many.

Then then your short sharp put down of Elysium's response just underlines the issue Remain haven't and aren't listening. What happens next when one party just isn't listening, they become irrelevant or steps are taken to make them irrelevant.
A couple of interesting points in the above posts.

1. I did not engage with ITPs critique of the withdrawal agreement, because I do not disagree with it. In fact I have repeatedly described it as a ‘stty deal’.

2. I don’t think it is correct to describe the deal as ‘Brexit in name only’, but I can see why many think this. What is a step to far, at least in my opinion, is the argument that it is not leaving. That ignores objective fact, which is why I described it as an ‘irrational argument’.

3. I am not ‘remain’ and the suggestion that I am ‘not listening’ is wrong.

I am not debating the pros and cons of Brexit. That debate got stale 2 years ago. I understand why people are unhappy with the EU and I share many of their concerns. I also understand why people are prepared to take a risk on a no-deal exit in order to leave the EU.

I don’t think that risk is worth taking, but that does not mean I am blind to the reasons why others do.

However, i think it is time that we faced reality. There are three options open to Parliament, the deal, no-deal and extending article 50 to try to renegotiate.

They are all bad options for some people, but none of them are contrary to the referendum mandate. Choosing the ‘least bad’ is a judgement call and that is what we have laid at Parliaments door.

They can’t bring themselves to approve the deal, which many leavers on here seem to agree with. They also cannot bring themselves to allow no-deal, regardless of the previous approval of article 50 notification and the withdrawal agreement. So at present we are heading for an extension and renegotiation. I think that will fail, because the EU will insist that they have agreed a deal already. To that extent it is another ‘bad option’

There is a hysterical blaming of Parliament and much talk about remainers blocking Brexit and dishonouring the referendum mandate. I am asking the people who feel this way to explain how one option is demonstrably ‘correct’ as a response to the referendum. No-one can, because it is not a fact based decision.

To that extent, I feel the criticism of Parliament is misplaced. We are being unreasonable in expecting them to solve this. The Govt and Labour leaders have behaved appallingly, and incompetently, but there are individual acts of bravery and sacrifice amongst some MPs who are clearly following their beliefs.

The big question is what we do next and for some weeks I have been convinced that a referendum is the only way to break the deadlock. Particularly if people want to have the possibility of a no-deal exit.

Given the above, it is frustrating to read ill conceived posts that, based purely on bias, dismiss a second referendum as a remain ploy to thwart Brexit.

How else do people think this will get resolved?



Edited by Elysium on Saturday 16th March 08:36
Problem is another referendum isn't going to heal the divide.






More analysis here, behind paywall https://digitaledition.telegraph.co.uk/editions/ed...

Randy Winkman

16,021 posts

188 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
wc98 said:
ITP said:
No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?
best analogy on the thread so far thumbup
Perhaps leaving with no deal is like getting divorced with no arrangements at all about who gets the house and kids? But at least you can have sex with other women.

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
FiF said:
Problem is another referendum isn't going to heal the divide.






More analysis here, behind paywall https://digitaledition.telegraph.co.uk/editions/ed...
In the short term it will break the deadlock and confirm what the majority want.

That won’t make the minority position any easier, but over time we will at least be able to get on with other things.

Parliament deciding to delay for no clear reason, reluctantly leaving with no-deal or holding their nose to take a bad deal, without checking with us to see what we want, will make things worse.

Is there anything that would actually ‘heal the divide’?

jonnyb

2,590 posts

251 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
FiF said:
Elysium said:
FiF said:
Tuna said:
Elysium said:
ITP said:
No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?
Again your opinion. As an objective fact the withdrawal agreement is about leaving the EU. It is the terms of our withdrawal, as described in article 50.

Are parliament supposed to agree with your irrational argument?
The problem I have with your reply is that ITP lists a set of serious issues with Brexit that could have long term economic consequences on our country, and you choose to debate on whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement is "about leaving the EU"? Yes there's hyperbole in there, but both the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration have been accused of (a) being originated by the EU and (b) committing the UK to an agreement where the EU controls our ability to trade independently.

That's a serious allegation and you choose to completely blank it? I can understand that many Remain supporters think the benefit (of access to the Customs Union) outweigh the consequences, but completely avoiding actually having the discussion about what compromise is being made appears devious and dishonest. From people who obsess about the other side's lies, that comes across very badly.
Yep, couple of good posts from ITP above which sum up the feelings of many.

Then then your short sharp put down of Elysium's response just underlines the issue Remain haven't and aren't listening. What happens next when one party just isn't listening, they become irrelevant or steps are taken to make them irrelevant.
A couple of interesting points in the above posts.

1. I did not engage with ITPs critique of the withdrawal agreement, because I do not disagree with it. In fact I have repeatedly described it as a ‘stty deal’.

2. I don’t think it is correct to describe the deal as ‘Brexit in name only’, but I can see why many think this. What is a step to far, at least in my opinion, is the argument that it is not leaving. That ignores objective fact, which is why I described it as an ‘irrational argument’.

3. I am not ‘remain’ and the suggestion that I am ‘not listening’ is wrong.

I am not debating the pros and cons of Brexit. That debate got stale 2 years ago. I understand why people are unhappy with the EU and I share many of their concerns. I also understand why people are prepared to take a risk on a no-deal exit in order to leave the EU.

I don’t think that risk is worth taking, but that does not mean I am blind to the reasons why others do.

However, i think it is time that we faced reality. There are three options open to Parliament, the deal, no-deal and extending article 50 to try to renegotiate.

They are all bad options for some people, but none of them are contrary to the referendum mandate. Choosing the ‘least bad’ is a judgement call and that is what we have laid at Parliaments door.

They can’t bring themselves to approve the deal, which many leavers on here seem to agree with. They also cannot bring themselves to allow no-deal, regardless of the previous approval of article 50 notification and the withdrawal agreement. So at present we are heading for an extension and renegotiation. I think that will fail, because the EU will insist that they have agreed a deal already. To that extent it is another ‘bad option’

There is a hysterical blaming of Parliament and much talk about remainers blocking Brexit and dishonouring the referendum mandate. I am asking the people who feel this way to explain how one option is demonstrably ‘correct’ as a response to the referendum. No-one can, because it is not a fact based decision.

To that extent, I feel the criticism of Parliament is misplaced. We are being unreasonable in expecting them to solve this. The Govt and Labour leaders have behaved appallingly, and incompetently, but there are individual acts of bravery and sacrifice amongst some MPs who are clearly following their beliefs.

The big question is what we do next and for some weeks I have been convinced that a referendum is the only way to break the deadlock. Particularly if people want to have the possibility of a no-deal exit.

Given the above, it is frustrating to read ill conceived posts that, based purely on bias, dismiss a second referendum as a remain ploy to thwart Brexit.

How else do people think this will get resolved?



Edited by Elysium on Saturday 16th March 08:36
Problem is another referendum isn't going to heal the divide.
And this is the main problem for me. At some point our country has to come back together. Which is one reason a hard brexit on WTO terms would be a disaster, how would that heal our country? 17.4m people voted to leave, but 16.2m voted to stay, and we all have to live together afterwards.

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
jonnyb said:
Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option. People were promised an EAA type deal by the official leave campaign. It’s all over their website.

How you can say there’s any mandate for a no deal brexit is utterly delusional.

Ok, things change in the aftermath of the referendum, but let’s try and get vaguely close to what was actually promised.
You have to smile at the knots some people tie themselves up in trying to argue that black is white. Just read back what you wrote.
Why did we have a leave/ remain referendum if leave wasn't an option?
Most of yesterday was spent tying themselves up in knots to such a point that holding any further referendums was pointless as the justification put forward for ignoring the first, equally applied to any subsequent 2nd.

I wonder how many Leave voters even visited the official Leave campaign website?

Googie

1,071 posts

125 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
wc98 said:
ITP said:
No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?
best analogy on the thread so far thumbup
This- Uk likely to spend 10 years negotiating the future relationship and the next 10 trying to rejoin without current opt outs.

Vanden Saab

13,892 posts

73 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
Vanden Saab said:
jonnyb said:
Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option. People were promised an EAA type deal by the official leave campaign. It’s all over their website.

How you can say there’s any mandate for a no deal brexit is utterly delusional.

Ok, things change in the aftermath of the referendum, but let’s try and get vaguely close to what was actually promised.
You have to smile at the knots some people tie themselves up in trying to argue that black is white. Just read back what you wrote.
Why did we have a leave/ remain referendum if leave wasn't an option?
Leaving without a deal was always a 'possibility', but it was not the 'plan' that was put forward to the electorate.
In the same way as ever closer Union joining the Euro and an EU army was never put forward by the remain team you mean?
The Govt leaflet expressly ruled out those possibilities. So they would not have been mandated by a remain vote.
Actually no it didn't what it actually said was this
leaflet said:
UK has secured a special status in a reformed EU: • we will not join the euro • we will keep our own border controls • the UK will not be part of further European political integration •
you see the first point? We have secured special status in a reformed eu? Clever eh...

psi310398

9,036 posts

202 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
jonnyb said:
And this is the main problem for me. At some point our country has to come back together. Which is one reason a hard brexit on WTO terms would be a disaster, how would that heal our country? 17.4m people voted to leave, but 16.2m voted to stay, and we all have to live together afterwards.
At least WTO happens quickly, while the WA (which is in reality a transition agreement) draws out this agony for years. The WA is silent about what kind of trade agreement we end up with at its (indeterminate) end. Absent a swift exit, we probably have four or five more years of debate and division.

In any case, shafting a significant portion of 17.4 million people to soothe the feelings of a significant portion of 16.2 million will probably create more problems than it solves.

Garvin

5,157 posts

176 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But will UK businesses be able to make a slow progression away from the EU under May’s deal and the restrictions on the future relationship included within it?

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You might still get what you want for a couple of reasons.

The EU have to kick the UK out on July 1st if the UK don't hold elections for British MEP's in May in order for them to partake in European Parliamentary elections.

BBC are reporting rumblings of a 4th 'meaningful' vote should the 3rd not succeed, and the Withdrawal Bill is still very much alive and kicking, with plans already in place to frustrate the Bill being changed/amended.

Leaving with 'no deal' despite the votes in Parliament is still a very real prospect.



psi310398

9,036 posts

202 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Garvin said:
But will UK businesses be able to make a slow progression away from the EU under May’s deal and the restrictions on the future relationship included within it?
I guess you could argue that they had a couple more years to diversify their sales away from the EU.

But, on any sober analysis, the whole WA is best characterised as a Remainer smokescreen for locking the UK into a customs union which will prevent the UK from entering into new trade agreements with ROW for the duration of the WA, and it is intended to form the basis of the eventual trade agreement with the EU (as evidenced by Sabine Weyand's triumphalist comments). And we cannot exit the WA with EU permission.

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Saturday 16th March 2019
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
Mrr T said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Mrr T said:
Since the referendum promised a soft fluffly brexit surely the only option now is a new referendum. Remain or no deal. Should not be difficult for the EC to frame the question.

No deal supports can campaign on the benefits of sovereignty, trade agreement, blue passports, against the costs of a few jobs and cuts in the NHS.

I am sure no deal will get a decisive majorty on PH. Might lose badly in the real world.
No, the referendum option was Leave, not Leave with a deal. You could possibly argue there is no mandate for a deal, but you can't say there is no mandate for only leaving with a deal.
So the WA is leaving the EU but is unaceptable. Brexit confuses me.
That's the point I've been trying to make for some considerable time.
So help me to understand.
The WA is leaving the EU, Y/N.
Except the backstop may tie the UK into the EU unless a solution to the Irish border is found , Y/N.
We all agree a customs border in Ireland will have a serious economic affect on both sides, Y/N.
Leavers would agree the WA if the backstop was removed, Y/N.
So leavers want the option to create a customs border in Ireland which they do not want, Y/N.


TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED