[Kaiserschmarrn]

Embarrass myself?

Yes, B0ycey, you are embarrassing yourself. We are talking about a treaty, also sometimes called an international agreement.

It is what it is Kaiser. It's a bloody backstop. When the UK no longer wants to negotiate everything is over. This agreement is over.

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. It makes no sense.

Stop acting as if the EU is a bully because it wants to protect its Single Market.

In case you haven't noticed my issue is with the UK govt as much as it is with the EU. And could you please stop with the self-flagellation and platitudes?

Not this backstop Kaiser, another. This one is the UK making because May was asked to come up with an idea that stops the border being in the Irish Sea. This was her solution. But it is important to note the backstop remains as long as negotiations are still taking place. It is the target to get these negotiations finalised before a backstop is required BTW. And if the EU drag their feet (your claim) it is up to the UK to decide what they want to do about how far they want to take talks isn't it? This isn't as fixed as you think it is. Only if the goal is to maintain an open Irish border.

Yes, the UK-wide backstop was the UK govt's idea in response to the EU's NI backstop.

And again, under this agreement the EU has zero incentives to negotiate anything and it can prevent the UK from withdrawing.

[B0ycey]

Yes, B0ycey, you are embarrassing yourself. We are talking about a treaty, also sometimes called an international agreement.

The trade relationship nor the permanent Irish border solution have been agreed to yet. The backstop is an agreement if negotiations have not been finalised - in other words it is an insurance policy to keep the border open until they are. I don't know why this isn't getting understood. Perhaps you just like arguing for the sakes of arguing. You do that a lot.

[noemon]

The NI backstop originates with the EU. This (insane) backstop covering the whole of the UK was put forward in response to it.

The NI backstop is both the UK's request and proposal. The EU is not locking the UK down to anything, the UK is locking itself to the EU in its own bespoke and personalised terms once again.

[Rugoz]

The backstop is an agreement if negotiations have not been finalised it is an insurance policy to keep the border open until they are.

With the backstop in place the EU has far less interest in finalizing the negotiations than the UK. It's an attempt to secure the EU's bargaining power for the future. Plain obvious.

[B0ycey]

With the backstop in place the EU has far less interest in finalizing the negotiations than the UK. It's an attempt to secure the EU's bargaining power for the future. Plain obvious.

After spending a bit of time over this, I have come to the conclusion that this is debatable. Although true the UK would have to adhere the EU standards (something I suspect would mostly be maintained even under Hard Brexit anyway), it allows the UK excess to the single market without many of the obligations. You could argue it is in the EUs interest to get this finalised because a more integrated trade relationship (Canada+++) could require financial contributions amongst other desirable issues and help any future budget concerns.

And let's be clear too, that Labour want to remain in the customs union. I suspect many of the British public do so also. When those things are considered perhaps this isn't actually as bad as what every one thinks it is. The only real issue is that until a solution to the Irish border is found the deal cannot be unilaterally ended whilst negotiations are on going. But it doesn't take into account that all the Brexiteers have been saying technology is the final answer here. Are they truly worried they are wrong and as such the EU will prolong talks just so the UK will keep to their standards in trade? I believe there is a sentence for that. #projectfear.

[Nonsense]

It's funny how 'Remainer's' like Labour & the SNP are constantly pushing the line that we must stay in the CUSTOMS UNION-SINGLE MARKET, the E.U will NOT allow that.

The fundamental core of the E.U is the 'FOUR FREEDOMS', that is that any 'deal' that impeaches on those 4F's will not hold water in the E.U that is, simply because, if you allow better terms to an outsider(U.K), then members would also see no reason to 'Remain' within the Bloc.


BREXIT is ONLY a TEMPORARY or INTERIM agreement, should a PERMAMENT TRADE DEAL FOLLOW IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE DEALS OUTSIDE OF THE E.U.

If BREXIT is rejected, we are out with no further ado, we are out anyway.

We can trade with the E.U under WTO, once we are out, we can only do a deal with the E.U-NOT individual E.U countries.

That's because the E.U is a trading 'Bloc', which favours it's own members rather than outside countries when it comes to trade between it's members & countries under WTO.

That could\should be classed as 'protectionist' under WTO, simply because E.U members get preferential treatment compared to WTO traders.

Being a SUBORDINATED 'Client' State under E.U rules, paying customs to them, without equally enabled to charge the same customs to them, is NOT 'honouring' the 2016 Referendum, that's why 'Zero Tariffs' are a must pre-condition for any future deal, as well as freedom to make outside deals in parallel.

[Beren]

Raab said: “If we cannot close this deal on reasonable terms we need to be very honest with the country that we will not be bribed and blackmailed or bullied and we will walk away. I think there is one thing that is missing and that is political will and resolve. I am not sure that message has ever landed.”

I'm not sure if his great revelation about the Dover-Calais crossing has ever landed, but if it has, then he could be the perfect challenger to May as he can still stick to his mantra despite being fully aware of reality, and he may even have the political will to abide by it. He's also younger and better-looking than BoJo or Mogg and doesn't have as much to lose.


If neither no deal nor May's deal will get parliament's support and a second referendum won't be called either, then what?

[Nonsense]

If neither no deal nor May's deal will get parliament's support and a second referendum won't be called either, then what?

NONSENSE - We simply 'LEAVE', which is what the people decided in the referendum & we revert to WTO, including our trade with the E.U Bloc.
We trade with 24 outside countries under WTO & with 68 other countries, within the current E.U - WTO arrangements, it's just that those 64 will need renegotiating once we leave, plus seeking more deals.

Dover difficulties are of our own making, we do not have proper border controls or adequate customs processing infrastructure to meet current demand, that's what happens under a Tory government determined to trash the welfare state, in favour of tax cuts for the rich & better-off.

We can either live on our feet, or die on our knees as a subordinate state under the jackboot of E.U rules.

We fought two world wars to preserve the freedoms that the world enjoys today, the world just forgets the cost of that freedom that impoverished this country,which the E.U dominated by Germany wants to trash.

The E.U is conservative by nature, as all institutions are, they are elitist, aloof & autocratic.

[B0ycey]

It's funny how 'Remainer's' like Labour & the SNP are constantly pushing the line that we must stay in the CUSTOMS UNION-SINGLE MARKET, the E.U will NOT allow that.

FYI, the Customs union is different to the Single market and as such has different rules. I suspect the EU will only negotiate further if this is the change of course and the customs union comes into play.

Nonetheless it is clear the difference between Sturgeon and Charabarti on how one is a fantasy cake eater and the other has a plan that could work. I almost feel sorry for Labour MPs that they even believe their own BS that by agreeing to an aligned workers rights and environment commitments somehow the EU will just ignore all other custom rules and let the UK negotiate free trade deals.

[Beren]

NONSENSE - We simply 'LEAVE', which is what the people decided in the referendum & we revert to WTO, including our trade with the E.U Bloc.

It's no deal, which parliament will not support.

[Nonsense]

FYI, the Customs union is different to the Single market and as such has different rules. I suspect the EU will only negotiate further if this is the change of course and the customs union comes into play.

Nonetheless it is clear the difference between Sturgeon and Charabarti on how one is a fantasy cake eater and the other has a plan that could work. I almost feel sorry for Labour MPs that they even believe their own BS that by agreeing to an aligned workers rights and environment commitments somehow the EU will just ignore all other custom rules and let the UK negotiate free trade deals.

Nonsense - The customs union is, like the Single Market, INTEGRAL to the E.U, there is no difference, they are each part of the whole(Four Freedoms), they are all inseparable, you have to abide by ALL FOUR to be an E.U member & they will NOT allow any country to cherry pick which they like\dislike.

[B0ycey]

Nonsense - The customs union is, like the Single Market, INTEGRAL to the E.U, there is no difference, they are each part of the whole(Four Freedoms), they are all inseparable, you have to abide by ALL FOUR to be an E.U member & they will NOT allow any country to cherry pick which they like\dislike.

Is that true for Turkey?

[Nonsense]

It's no deal, which parliament will not support.

Parliament is NOT sovereign, the people are, politicians are trying to doctor the referendum result through the device that they invented themselves post referendum, what they dub, BREXIT.

It is that process that allows the likes of the Labour Party, Nicola STURGEON et al, to argue their alternative that we 'remain' in the Customs Union or Single Market, that is to say, they want the people who voted 'Leave' in 2016 to REMAIN, because they, the politicians know better.

The Article 50 has been passed within parliament, when March 2019 passes & we are OUT the people's mandate(referendum)will be completed.
We then have the 'divorce' arrangements & future trading deal to negotiate.

The THREE processes should be settled in their proper chronological order, not in a parallel rush.

There should have been a period of FIVE years in which to complete the divorce & future trade deal.

In that FIVE years, we would continue as per membership, retaining membership rules & conditions.

Crucially, there would NOT be any legal, constitutional political arrangement, device, or procedure, to negotiate, either UK-EU or within the U.K, to reverse in any shape or form the decision to Leave, by retaining any part or in whole form, the constituent parts of the E.U.

'Leave' means LEAVE, NOT one foot IN , one foot OUT.

[Nonsense]

Post by B0ycey » 18 Nov 2018, 11:38

Is that true for Turkey?

It's true for 'Turkey's' or chickens,

[Rugoz]

And let's be clear too, that Labour want to remain in the customs union.

Labor wants to remain in the customs union, but not without a seat at the table. The latter is not part of the backstop.

Being in the customs union not only forces the UK to accept EU trade deals, without having a say in making them, it also doesn't guarantee that third countries will respect those deals wrt the UK. So the UK still has to negogiate trade agreements, but with the EU deal as a basis from which the UK cannot deviate, but the third party can.

I think there's a reason none of the EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland) wanted to be part of it.

Regarding Turkey:

But under current rules, Turkey must negotiate its own agreement with countries the EU signs preferential trade agreements with. This puts Turkey at a significant disadvantage, as the EU-Turkey Customs Union is structured to allow these countries to access Turkish markets without having to reciprocate by opening their own markets. As long as these agreements were signed with countries that had smaller economies, the cost to Turkey was negligible. But the EU has recently begun negotiating and signing trade agreements with countries that have relatively large economies and high volumes of foreign trade, including Canada, Japan, India, Korea and Mexico. Most of these countries have exports that compete with Turkish ones. Thus, it’s a “lose-lose” situation: Turkey faces greater competition in the EU as well as in its own domestic market without enjoying preferential access to these other markets.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/dont ... th-turkey/

[B0ycey]

Labor wants to remain in the customs union, but not without a seat at the table. The latter is not part of the backstop.

Being in the customs union not only forces the UK to accept EU trade deals, without having a say in making them, it also doesn't guarantee that third countries will respect those deals wrt the UK. So the UK still has to negogiate trade agreements, but with the EU deal as a basis from which the UK cannot deviate, but the third party can.

I think there's a reason none of the EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland) wanted to be part of it.

Labour are headless chickens. They are useless but I have not understood just how bad they are until today when I watched a clueless Charabarti stumble to answer simple questions of realistic obstacles that will arise if this deals gets voted down - as the option of another election isn't even a realistic outcome.

However it makes sense for the SNP to back a customs union and push for support of this notion as free trade is imperative for them if Scotland leave the UK and join the EU. It is one of the reasons I am thinking of moving to Scotland as I think their strategy is absolute. Labour are still in fantasy. They are cake eaters and have no sensible alternative to May's plan.

But you are correct, the Customs Union is even worse than May's plan in many ways if your objective is to negotiate trade deals around the world as the EU will just laugh at Corbyn when he asks for his "Six Tests" with the sweeteners on top. So if I was Corbyn I would back this withdrawal agreement on the amendment that Parliament have a meaningful vote once the trade agreement has been sorted out after the transition period or vote it down and pursue a "Peoples Vote". They are the only realistic options for him. Their current strategy is pissed poor at best and only increases the odds of 'No deal' further.

[Beren]

Labour to force amendments that would block a no-deal Brexit

Keir Starmer says he has backing from Tory MPs and ministers to prevent disaster if Theresa May’s deal is voted down

Toby Helm and Michael Savage

Sun 18 Nov 2018 08.59 GMT

Keir Starmer is concerned that Labour could be blamed for any chaos if it votes against Theresa May’s
deal. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images

Labour is planning to force a Commons vote within weeks that would make it impossible for Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal, as fears grow about a disastrous hard Brexit if parliament rejects Theresa May’s agreement.

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is working on plans to amend key elements of Brexit legislation that still have to pass through the Commons, in order to prevent parliament ever approving the option.

He says he has had assurances from a number of Tory MPs who say they would help push his amendments through parliament to avoid chaos. It is understood that some of them are serving Conservative ministers.

With Labour, the 10 Democratic Unionist party MPs, and upwards of 40 Tory MPs ready to vote down May’s deal, senior Labour figures are aware that they need to avoid the possibility of being blamed for rejecting a Brexit agreement that was on the table and helping to trigger chaos that could lead to “no deal”.

Starmer told the Observer that Labour would make sure parliament offered a legislative route to make “no deal” impossible. “If the prime minister’s deal is rejected – and that’s looking increasingly likely – parliament will not just sit back and allow her to proceed with no deal,” he said.

“There are plenty of Conservative MPs who have come up to me to say that they will not countenance the UK crashing out of the EU without an agreement. There is a clear majority in parliament against no deal, and Labour will work across the Commons to prevent no deal. On the government’s own analysis, over 50 changes to legislation would be needed for a no-deal outcome, so there will be no shortage of opportunities to pass binding votes on this issue.”

Many Labour MPs in Leave constituencies had flirted with the idea of backing May’s deal on the grounds that their constituents want to see Brexit delivered, and that the alternatives of crashing out of Europe without an agreement or holding a second referendum would be unacceptable to many voters.

Labour whips are now confident, however, that very few – if any – Labour MPs will back May’s deal because they have concluded it would also be disastrous for their constituents, leaving Britain locked into the EU’s economic system for the foreseeable future but with no say in setting the rules that govern it. Two Labour MPs who had suggested they might back May’s deal, Gareth Snell and Ruth Smeeth, both said last week that they would not back it.

Analysis by the Institute for Government reveals that the Brexit department’s no-deal technical notices commit the government before next March to the creation or expansion of 15 quangos, further legislation in 51 areas and the negotiation of 40 new international agreements either with the EU or other countries.

Labour’s current policy is to push for a general election to resolve the Brexit deadlock, but only after May’s deal is voted down. If it fails it is keeping “all options open”, including a second referendum. Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act an early general election can only come about if a no-confidence motion is tabled in the government and at least two-thirds of the whole House backs it – highly unlikely, as Tory MPs would vote against – or, more likely, if a motion of no confidence is passed by a simple majority and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.

A debate is now under way at the top of the party over how soon Labour should table a motion of no confidence in the government. Some believe that anger among the DUP at the Brexit deal could open the way for the government to lose a confidence vote. At present, the DUP is relied upon to prop up May’s minority administration.

Some insiders believe the best moment to strike will be immediately after May loses a vote on her Brexit deal. Launching a no confidence motion against her would also fulfil Jeremy Corbyn’s pledge that he will seek a general election before backing other options, such as a second referendum.

Should the government lose a no confidence motion, Labour would have a 14-day period to attempt to form a new administration or an election is called. However, while some senior figures say the time for such a putsch is “getting close”, others are warning that it could backfire.

“Any false move by us will have possibly dire consequences if we misunderstand the mood in the country,” said one shadow cabinet member. “Any premature attempt by us which fails will look like either we want to overturn the referendum result or more likely that we see it as an opportunity to make an unprincipled dash to grab power.”

Meanwhile, Labour backers of a second referendum believe that the leadership is now facing a “tidal wave” of demands for the party to back the idea once May’s deal has been voted down.

“From every part of the party, unions, MPs and members, there are growing demands,” said one senior MP. “Huge parts of the parliamentary party now talk supportively of it, and it has to be where we end up.”

The Brits seem to be upgrading their constitutional monarchy in such a way that even the prime minister is a symbolic figure hanging on in vacuum while parliament is completely spontaneous and self-propelling.

[Nonsense]

Any attempt by any MP to frustrate the will of the people as expressed in the referendum will result in defeat for them in the ballot box.

[B0ycey]

Any attempt by any MP to frustrate the will of the people as expressed in the referendum will result in defeat for them in the ballot box.

The will of the people is changing Nonsense. As the UK is an elected representation democracy, MPS will vote in the way their constitutents tell them to vote. Especially in an important issue like Brexit.

[Beren]

It seems rather likely the people will be asked once again by a Labour government if what the hell they really want, however, I have no idea what to expect if a Tory government will be elected.