Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

SpiderLegs

Takedap wrote: »

And while you're about it, can someone explain why the backstop would have been acceptable it if had had a "legally binding end date"?


A50 had a legally binding end date & that was ignored & rewritten so what difference is there?

Well clearly the issue isn’t a legally binding end date. It is a legally binding exit mechanism.

That may not be a date, it may be a number of checks of process that have to be in place instead. And it must be legally binding in order to ensure that both sides understand and abide by those terms.

The idea that we can go from one legally binding exit mechanism (article 50) to a replacement that has no such option does seem to be a bit bizarre. A classic TM balls up.

Takedap

SpiderLegs wrote: »

Well clearly the issue isn’t a legally binding end date. It is a legally binding exit mechanism.

That may not be a date, it may be a number of checks of process that have to be in place instead. And it must be legally binding in order to ensure that both sides understand and abide by those terms.

The idea that we can go from one legally binding exit mechanism (article 50) to a replacement that has no such option does seem to be a bit bizarre. A classic TM balls up.

My point was that the "legally binding end date" attached to A50 was not worth the paper it was written on. So why would any other agreement be any more binding. We now have a reputation for agreeing to things & then ripping them up.

SpiderLegs

Moby wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2019/apr/11/the-eus-new-october-extension-finishes-off-may-and-her-deal

Her whole strategy has been a total mess. We are where we are because of her. Wonder how bad it has to get before the tory MPs and central office actually grow a pair and get shut.

SpiderLegs

Takedap wrote: »

My point was that the "legally binding end date" attached to A50 was not worth the paper it was written on. So why would any other agreement be any more binding. We now have a reputation for agreeing to things & then ripping them up.

Of course it was. It was changed through choice and agreement of both sides.
Any legal document can be ripped up if those party to it agree.

Herzlos

Takedap wrote: »

And while you're about it, can someone explain why the backstop would have been acceptable it if had had a "legally binding end date"?


A50 had a legally binding end date & that was ignored & rewritten so what difference is there?

The backstop having a legally binding end date in it prevents the fear that the EU will refuse to agree to end it otherwise. Basically it allows the Brexiteers a way to end the backstop without having addressed the border issue, which largely defeats the point of the back stop, which is why the EU won't change it.

I dare say that date could be extended with mutual agreement too.

Takedap

SpiderLegs wrote: »

Of course it was. It was changed through choice and agreement of both sides.
Any legal document can be ripped up if those party to it agree.

Great. So just agree to anything. It doesn't matter as we've no intention of sticking to it....
It looks like international politics has less enforceable regulations than buying a fridge!

Moby

vivatifosi wrote: »

Can I please ask those who favour exiting with no deal what it is a out the Withdrawal Agreement that you object to? I'm asking about the Withdrawal Agreement rather than the backstop, which is separate.



I've read it following the link that gfplux posted a few weeks back, and can't see anything fundamentally wrong with it.

The backstop is not separate to the Withdrawal agreement.....it's the insurance policy in the agreement to keep the Irish Border open in the event of us not reaching a deal.
No dealers hate it because it means we can't leave the Customs Union unilaterally, should negotiations on the trade deal not go well. Also under the Withdrawal Ageement we've also agreed to pay 39 billion up front to the EU instead of tying payments to reaching a new trade deal. May's deal is vassalage because we will be paying for access for things that we now get for free while having no seat at the decision making bodies within the EU and the backstop ensures this position will remain until the EU decides otherwise!

Arklight

The backstop has no Brexit framable solution because for it to be acceptable to the hardline Brexiteers it will require the UK to wield an influence it no longer has, or cede Northern Ireland to the EU / Eire, which neither the EU or Ireland wants at the moment.

There isn't going to be a hard border between NI and Eire, don't worry about that, and there is nothing Westminster can do about it, regardless of how many swivel eyed ERG members stamp their feet.

So that leaves NI as a backdoor hub to EU free trade (which admittedly would bizarrely make Belfast one of the fastest growing parts of the G7) or no exit from the CU by the rest of Britain.

I can't help but feel that Brexit is acting as a long overdue lesson in the UK learning its place.

Malthusian

SpiderLegs wrote: »

Her whole strategy has been a total mess. We are where we are because of her. Wonder how bad it has to get before the tory MPs and central office actually grow a pair and get shut.

May's strategy has been masterful. Against all odds, it is mid-April 2019 and we are still in the EU. We will still be in the EU three years after the referendum result. By electing a Remainer as leader, the Tory parliamentary party indicated she had one job, keep us in the EU, and she has succeeded.

The Tories will only elect a Leaver as leader once the threat of a Labour victory weighs greater on their minds than the threat of Britain leaving the EU. Thanks to May's other masterstroke, calling the 2017 general election and resetting the clock, that threat is not imminent until 2022.

And sacking May to elect another Remainer would be pointless. May has succeeded in her job so far. Better the devil you know.

gfplux

The trade negotiations with the USA have began. Julian Assange for chlorinated chicken. Is that a good deal? Perhaps a no deal is better than a bad deal.