How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
slow_poke said:
jsf said:
slow_poke said:
Is there a bit of grasping at straws and claiming premature victory going on here? The EU - Markel, the Eurocrats, the Irish, have always said they want the backstop to protect the GFA. If it's protected in some or any other way, they don't see the need for the backstop. They've been pretty consistent about that. (apart from maybe Macron, the Frenchie. He must've taken on the role of bad cop).
What they've also been doing, is running a hard-line recently in counterpoint to BJ's hard-line. It's good to see everyone backing away from that now because it had the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So, suppose something pops up unexpectedly that satisfies everyone that the GFA is protected. No need for the backstop, everyone happy on that. Is the UK really going to agree to the rest of the WA? Should it?
The GFA is not endangered by a UK independent trade policy. It's been a bullsWhat they've also been doing, is running a hard-line recently in counterpoint to BJ's hard-line. It's good to see everyone backing away from that now because it had the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So, suppose something pops up unexpectedly that satisfies everyone that the GFA is protected. No need for the backstop, everyone happy on that. Is the UK really going to agree to the rest of the WA? Should it?
t play from the start. anonymous said:
[redacted]
It’s not just the British. I live in prime FG territory and I have yet to meet anyone who has a decent word for Varadkar ... He seems universally hated He’s seen very much as being out of touch and very Dublin metro elite centric
Being the only “Englishman in the village” everyone wants to to talk to me about Brexit ( I know it’s bad enough on here ) I tend to try to listen and not engage with any hard opinion .. but believe me there’s lots of venting and most of the comments about Varadkar are unprintable
Most see him as a lightweight that’s completely out of his depth and not acting in Ireland’s best interest
He’s prone to making ill thought comments and actions.
Every week he seems to be apologising for something he has said or done
As one farmer said to me recently “where’s Leo ? There’ll be a pride march somewhere thats where”
I agree about Coveney,, far better and far more astute .. but something a bit sly about him, having said that he is the leader that Ireland should have
Most Irish TD’s are lightweights and many are complete buffoons. There definitely seems a dirth of talent
RTÉ and parts of the Irish media are incredibly biased and I’d suggest some of the most “liberal lefty” biased I have come across
RTÉ news is almost unwatchable as it is so skewed and biased for analysis
It’s very hard to get a balanced view from the media here
But, having said that, there is increasing criticism and critique of Varadkars position and his actions
And on the comments sections on social media if you ignore the usual “f
k the Brits” comments there are more than a few very critical and many calling for Irexit frisbee said:
Zero chance BJ and chumps will come up with anything fundamentally different.
So WA basically unchanged will be back for anther loosing vote in a few weeks. Then the Cons can blame others for, take your pick, for:
a) leave with no-deal
b) cancel Brexit
c) something dumber than anyone can possibly imagine
I'm leaning strongly towards c).
Meanwhile, at Brexit HQ...So WA basically unchanged will be back for anther loosing vote in a few weeks. Then the Cons can blame others for, take your pick, for:
a) leave with no-deal
b) cancel Brexit
c) something dumber than anyone can possibly imagine
I'm leaning strongly towards c).
Earthdweller said:
banjowilly said:
Lovely anecdotes.
Glad you like 
So what do we think Boris will do with his 30 days?
My guess is that he will try and put something in the PD that says “we will aim for this trade relationship” (insert what) and use that to say “don’t worry about the WA backstop anymore as the PD says this about trade and that is our clear objective the EU are agreed on”
The future trade relationship will probably but a carefully reheated summary of all the things leavers thought Davis and co pretended they could deliver - a Canada ++ ish mismash. He may well try and fudge the NI issue or perhaps take a realistic view on the schedule for doing it.
This might be enough to scrape May’s WA over the line in parliament as he has created a certain “I’m unhinged enough to no deal”.
30 days is 21 Sept.
How does that feature in the VoNC options? Quite clever of Boris to grasp this date as others state as it may thwart a VoNC option in early Sep - he’s bought some more time which could be a factor.
My guess is that he will try and put something in the PD that says “we will aim for this trade relationship” (insert what) and use that to say “don’t worry about the WA backstop anymore as the PD says this about trade and that is our clear objective the EU are agreed on”
The future trade relationship will probably but a carefully reheated summary of all the things leavers thought Davis and co pretended they could deliver - a Canada ++ ish mismash. He may well try and fudge the NI issue or perhaps take a realistic view on the schedule for doing it.
This might be enough to scrape May’s WA over the line in parliament as he has created a certain “I’m unhinged enough to no deal”.
30 days is 21 Sept.
How does that feature in the VoNC options? Quite clever of Boris to grasp this date as others state as it may thwart a VoNC option in early Sep - he’s bought some more time which could be a factor.
Johnson has not been ‘given’ 30 days and none of this suggests a concession from Merkel or the EU.
The withdrawal agreement is based on the principals agreed in the Phase 1 Report, which are:
1. Both sides agreed that customs union and single market alignment is essential for the border in NI to operate as it does today.
2. The UK wants to handle this differently in the future, but it has not set out a coherent plan.
3. The withdrawal agreement gives us 2 years to come up with that plan, failing which the backstop (customs union and single market alignment) kicks in.
Johnson has said the withdrawal agreement cannot be approved by the UK parliament without removing the backstop. Merkels response, very obviously, is that the only way of avoiding the backstop is to agree what we want to do in advance, so it is never needed.
That advance agreement could be captured as part of the political declaration allowing the EU to maintain its position regarding changes to the withdrawal agreement.
So Merkel has not changed position or offered a compromise. She has simply pointed out the obvious thing that Johnson needs to do. Something that I am sure has been obvious to everyone involved since Dec 2018, when parliamentary opposition to the backstop crystallised.
Her comments are actually quite dismissive. She pointed out that we said we would need 2 years to solve the problem, but that if we want to get it all sorted by 31st Oct, Johnson will need to get a move on as he only has 30 days.
The withdrawal agreement is based on the principals agreed in the Phase 1 Report, which are:
1. Both sides agreed that customs union and single market alignment is essential for the border in NI to operate as it does today.
2. The UK wants to handle this differently in the future, but it has not set out a coherent plan.
3. The withdrawal agreement gives us 2 years to come up with that plan, failing which the backstop (customs union and single market alignment) kicks in.
Johnson has said the withdrawal agreement cannot be approved by the UK parliament without removing the backstop. Merkels response, very obviously, is that the only way of avoiding the backstop is to agree what we want to do in advance, so it is never needed.
That advance agreement could be captured as part of the political declaration allowing the EU to maintain its position regarding changes to the withdrawal agreement.
So Merkel has not changed position or offered a compromise. She has simply pointed out the obvious thing that Johnson needs to do. Something that I am sure has been obvious to everyone involved since Dec 2018, when parliamentary opposition to the backstop crystallised.
Her comments are actually quite dismissive. She pointed out that we said we would need 2 years to solve the problem, but that if we want to get it all sorted by 31st Oct, Johnson will need to get a move on as he only has 30 days.
DeepEnd said:
So what do we think Boris will do with his 30 days?
My guess is that he will try and put something in the PD that says “we will aim for this trade relationship” (insert what) and use that to say “don’t worry about the WA backstop anymore as the PD says this about trade and that is our clear objective the EU are agreed on”
.
The PD is non binding, as everyone knows. So I don't think changes to the PD alone will cut it. After all, Brussels has always said we could have basically any adjustments we like to the PD - at which point the Attorney General (I think it was he) reluctantly confirmed that the PD is not really worth the paper it's written on, whereas the WA is legally binding (or would be when it's eventually signed by both sides)My guess is that he will try and put something in the PD that says “we will aim for this trade relationship” (insert what) and use that to say “don’t worry about the WA backstop anymore as the PD says this about trade and that is our clear objective the EU are agreed on”
.
Elysium said:
Johnson has not been ‘given’ 30 days and none of this suggests a concession from Merkel or the EU.
The withdrawal agreement is based on the principals agreed in the Phase 1 Report, which are:
1. Both sides agreed that customs union and single market alignment is essential for the border in NI to operate as it does today.
2. The UK wants to handle this differently in the future, but it has not set out a coherent plan.
3. The withdrawal agreement gives us 2 years to come up with that plan, failing which the backstop (customs union and single market alignment) kicks in.
Johnson has said the withdrawal agreement cannot be approved by the UK parliament without removing the backstop. Merkels response, very obviously, is that the only way of avoiding the backstop is to agree what we want to do in advance, so it is never needed.
That advance agreement could be captured as part of the political declaration allowing the EU to maintain its position regarding changes to the withdrawal agreement.
So Merkel has not changed position or offered a compromise. She has simply pointed out the obvious thing that Johnson needs to do. Something that I am sure has been obvious to everyone involved since Dec 2018, when parliamentary opposition to the backstop crystallised.
Her comments are actually quite dismissive. She pointed out that we said we would need 2 years to solve the problem, but that if we want to get it all sorted by 31st Oct, Johnson will need to get a move on as he only has 30 days.
Bold. See my response below - A change to the PD alone is unlikely to fly imho. There would have to be legal recognition that the Backstop will not apply The withdrawal agreement is based on the principals agreed in the Phase 1 Report, which are:
1. Both sides agreed that customs union and single market alignment is essential for the border in NI to operate as it does today.
2. The UK wants to handle this differently in the future, but it has not set out a coherent plan.
3. The withdrawal agreement gives us 2 years to come up with that plan, failing which the backstop (customs union and single market alignment) kicks in.
Johnson has said the withdrawal agreement cannot be approved by the UK parliament without removing the backstop. Merkels response, very obviously, is that the only way of avoiding the backstop is to agree what we want to do in advance, so it is never needed.
That advance agreement could be captured as part of the political declaration allowing the EU to maintain its position regarding changes to the withdrawal agreement.
So Merkel has not changed position or offered a compromise. She has simply pointed out the obvious thing that Johnson needs to do. Something that I am sure has been obvious to everyone involved since Dec 2018, when parliamentary opposition to the backstop crystallised.
Her comments are actually quite dismissive. She pointed out that we said we would need 2 years to solve the problem, but that if we want to get it all sorted by 31st Oct, Johnson will need to get a move on as he only has 30 days.
andymadmak said:
Bold. See my response below - A change to the PD alone is unlikely to fly imho. There would have to be legal recognition that the Backstop will not apply
A change to the PD might be all he can get. Ironic in that he wants the EU to trust him over a vague “as far as possible” plan for NI, but you are completely averse to similar commitment from the EU over a future trading state.
That would seem the achievable goal - put some flesh on the bones in the PD and spell out how the trading and border will be “solved” in due course. Insert a reference to Fujitsu in the PD if it brings comfort. Just be brutally honest and say it’ll take 5-10 years too and tell the ultras to dry their eyes and stop being snowflakes about a gradual exit.
don'tbesilly said:
Earthdweller said:
banjowilly said:
Lovely anecdotes.
Glad you like andymadmak said:
Elysium said:
Johnson has not been ‘given’ 30 days and none of this suggests a concession from Merkel or the EU.
The withdrawal agreement is based on the principals agreed in the Phase 1 Report, which are:
1. Both sides agreed that customs union and single market alignment is essential for the border in NI to operate as it does today.
2. The UK wants to handle this differently in the future, but it has not set out a coherent plan.
3. The withdrawal agreement gives us 2 years to come up with that plan, failing which the backstop (customs union and single market alignment) kicks in.
Johnson has said the withdrawal agreement cannot be approved by the UK parliament without removing the backstop. Merkels response, very obviously, is that the only way of avoiding the backstop is to agree what we want to do in advance, so it is never needed.
That advance agreement could be captured as part of the political declaration allowing the EU to maintain its position regarding changes to the withdrawal agreement.
So Merkel has not changed position or offered a compromise. She has simply pointed out the obvious thing that Johnson needs to do. Something that I am sure has been obvious to everyone involved since Dec 2018, when parliamentary opposition to the backstop crystallised.
Her comments are actually quite dismissive. She pointed out that we said we would need 2 years to solve the problem, but that if we want to get it all sorted by 31st Oct, Johnson will need to get a move on as he only has 30 days.
Bold. See my response below - A change to the PD alone is unlikely to fly imho. There would have to be legal recognition that the Backstop will not apply The withdrawal agreement is based on the principals agreed in the Phase 1 Report, which are:
1. Both sides agreed that customs union and single market alignment is essential for the border in NI to operate as it does today.
2. The UK wants to handle this differently in the future, but it has not set out a coherent plan.
3. The withdrawal agreement gives us 2 years to come up with that plan, failing which the backstop (customs union and single market alignment) kicks in.
Johnson has said the withdrawal agreement cannot be approved by the UK parliament without removing the backstop. Merkels response, very obviously, is that the only way of avoiding the backstop is to agree what we want to do in advance, so it is never needed.
That advance agreement could be captured as part of the political declaration allowing the EU to maintain its position regarding changes to the withdrawal agreement.
So Merkel has not changed position or offered a compromise. She has simply pointed out the obvious thing that Johnson needs to do. Something that I am sure has been obvious to everyone involved since Dec 2018, when parliamentary opposition to the backstop crystallised.
Her comments are actually quite dismissive. She pointed out that we said we would need 2 years to solve the problem, but that if we want to get it all sorted by 31st Oct, Johnson will need to get a move on as he only has 30 days.
In the unlikely event that we could come up with a solution, I think it would probably be captured in a secondary legally binding clarification document. They have done this before:
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/XT-2...
Interesting reading that back now as it shows the EU were very willing to give undertakings. For example to use ‘best endeavours’, which is a legally meaningful phrase, to reach an agreement and to create challenge mechanisms to avoid attempts by either party to make the backstop permanent.
Unfortunately, instead of working on these clarifications to get the deal over the line May chose to go to war with her own Parliament and Johnson has tried to act like a low budget version of Churchill.
However, I do think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that Johnson will propose something in the next 30 days, based mainly on the fact that we have failed to do so through 18 months of negotiations and a subsequent 9 months of self flagellation.
Unfortunately, there is no work around as the backstop has to be there until something is agreed to replace it, so if we never find the answer, it becomes, effectively, permanent.
Crackie said:
toppstuff's juvenile anecdotes were fun but he/she is now conspicuous by their absence; probably out of phone coverage whilst meeting some of the more obscure world leaders. Banjowilly is similarly daft; notable for the recent childish renaming of Pan Pan Pan, Crankedup, Amusingduck and others. Comedy gold.
It's good that you don't dwell on puerile spats in a jejeune fashion & continue to make valued contributions, adding not only to the progress of the debate but also the gaiety of the nation. Well done you.Sway said:
psi310398 said:
andymadmak said:
EDIT.
So preventing the movement of unauthorised product from Uk to Ireland is simply a matter of enforcing existing regs.
Sadly, the converse has proven to be a bit of a problem...but apparently it’s ok to dump adulterated sSo preventing the movement of unauthorised product from Uk to Ireland is simply a matter of enforcing existing regs.
t on us. The type of border with a global average 2% inspections?
Clearly reliance on trucks and drivers, plus placing extra load on the overburdened South East needs to be reviewed in case French customs decide to go into punishment mode. Remember Ze French are our natural enemies.
Joke people.Antwerp, Zeebugge, Rotterdam, from other UK ports outside the congested South East, a boost to Humber and Teeside economies for a start, already a 30% rise on the Humber. It just makes common sense, which has been sadly lacking on all sides for some time.
DeepEnd said:
andymadmak said:
Bold. See my response below - A change to the PD alone is unlikely to fly imho. There would have to be legal recognition that the Backstop will not apply
A change to the PD might be all he can get. Ironic in that he wants the EU to trust him over a vague “as far as possible” plan for NI, but you are completely averse to similar commitment from the EU over a future trading state.
That would seem the achievable goal - put some flesh on the bones in the PD and spell out how the trading and border will be “solved” in due course. Insert a reference to Fujitsu in the PD if it brings comfort. Just be brutally honest and say it’ll take 5-10 years too and tell the ultras to dry their eyes and stop being snowflakes about a gradual exit.
No doubt some will dismiss this as paranoia, but it is the responsibility of Government to protect the nation and its people, and the risk of being locked into a never ending backstop at the whim of the EU is an existential threat to this country imho.
FiF said:
Just for Dover what were some of the report figures, 30% of lorries are empty, so don't need checking,
Which report is this? Sorry if I've missed a link but would like to read this, since it's my profession, I think it's a gross distortion, so would like to offer you the opportunity to show me I'm wrong.Edited by banjowilly on Thursday 22 August 10:59
banjowilly said:
Crackie said:
toppstuff's juvenile anecdotes were fun but he/she is now conspicuous by their absence; probably out of phone coverage whilst meeting some of the more obscure world leaders. Banjowilly is similarly daft; notable for the recent childish renaming of Pan Pan Pan, Crankedup, Amusingduck and others. Comedy gold.
It's good that you don't dwell on puerile spats in a jejeune fashion & continue to make valued contributions, adding not only to the progress of the debate but also the gaiety of the nation. Well done you.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff