The Backstop

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,368
That scenario hasn't been mentioned before here, its a good point.
I'd say that could work for Boris. Farage might even resign and retire (again) and 90% of the Brexit party could disband. Leaving a lot of grateful floating votes for Boris to scoop up.
The 26 EU states would be delighted to see some sort of deal and an end to the whole saga, so they would jump at the chance. Including Ireland, because we would be in the worst position of all.
With the EU imposing a hard border, and tariffs to all north/south and east/west trade across the Irish sea, we'd probably be facing a general election by then ourselves.
Varadkar and Coveney will never really lose though. The worst case scenario for them is some plumb job in Brussels. With full ministerial pensions from the Irish taxpayer to top up their EU salaries.
The Backstop prevents the imposition of a hard border and maintains free trade.

Is that not the whole point?
 


shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,368
This scenario is also a winner for Boris. Removing the Backstop and then ratifying the Withdrawal Deal would allow an orderly Brexit, no change to NI sovereignty, and ensure frictionless trade goes on at the NI border for at least 2 more years, while the future free trade deal was being negotiated between UK and EU.

He'd have achieved what Teresa May failed to achieve.
The German car makers and chamber of commerce would be delighted. The French could breathe a sigh of relief at Calais.
NI would be a winner.
Britain a winner.
RoI a winner.
Varadkar and Coveney would be political losers having climbed down, but as mentioned above, it would be just a temporary setback. They have made friends in Brussels and there will always be a place for them both there, if all else fails.
Their own personal golden backstop.

The ongoing narrative is then.

Johnson being canonised in the London media.

The oul' no deal Brexit receiving widespread promotion.

Defending the Good Friday Agreement is hysterical.

Boris is being reasonable.

At the same time Boris is complaining about Paddy Murphy causing trouble.

Some of our own opposition pols are also blaming Paddy Murphy for Brexit.

Elections are being promised.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,879
This scenario is also a winner for Boris. Removing the Backstop and then ratifying the Withdrawal Deal would allow an orderly Brexit, no change to NI sovereignty, and ensure frictionless trade goes on at the NI border for at least 2 more years, while the future free trade deal was being negotiated between UK and EU.
The problem with that theory is that the Brexiters are opposed to the entire WA, the backstop is a flag of convenience.
 

death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
18,815
The problem with that theory is that the Brexiters are opposed to the entire WA, the backstop is a flag of convenience.
the problem is the backstop.
The backstop is only there supposedly to prevent a hard border, yet it is the reason Eire will be enforcing a hard border.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,539
The problem with that theory is that the Brexiters are opposed to the entire WA, the backstop is a flag of convenience.
You're a Remainer, right?
If you want to know what the Brexiteers policy is, ask them. Don't ask a Remainer.
Boris has consistently, from his very first speech as PM, made it clear that he wants a workable deal, but he'll leave anyway if one is not available.
A workable deal is one that can pass a parliamentary vote, which is basically the previous WA except with the infamous Backstop clause removed.

Yeah I know... you don't believe anything he says, and you know best... ya de ya....
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,879
You're a Remainer, right?
No, I'm Irish, what the Brits choose is up to them. I read an interview with a member of the ERG who said they objected to the WA which was the basis of my disbelief that the backstop is the issue.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,447
the problem is the backstop.
The backstop is only there supposedly to prevent a hard border, yet it is the reason Eire will be enforcing a hard border.
No it's not.

A deal without the backstop would necessitate a hard border.

No deal would necessitate a hard border.

Any option that doesn't include the backstop, or something with almost identical provisions, would necessitate a hard border. So insisting on the backstop is not what will necessitate the hard border.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,668
No it's not.

A deal without the backstop would necessitate a hard border.

No deal would necessitate a hard border.

Any option that doesn't include the backstop, or something with almost identical provisions, would necessitate a hard border. So insisting on the backstop is not what will necessitate the hard border.

Pointless in telling that idiot AGAIN, he has been given that info 100 times or more sir.
 

death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
18,815
No it's not.

A deal without the backstop would necessitate a hard border.

No deal would necessitate a hard border.

Any option that doesn't include the backstop, or something with almost identical provisions, would necessitate a hard border. So insisting on the backstop is not what will necessitate the hard border.
No it doesn't.
The problem with the backstop is that we are tied into it and can't leave without the EU's permission.
That is totally unconstitutional as that means we could be tied into the EU forever.

With the backstop you get a hard border on the 1st November courtesy if Eire and the EU.
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,368
No it doesn't.
The problem with the backstop is that we are tied into it and can't leave without the EU's permission.
That is totally unconstitutional as that means we could be tied into the EU forever.

With the backstop you get a hard border on the 1st November courtesy if Eire and the EU.
The Brexiteer referendum vote has declared economic war on the rest of the EU and has torn up the Belfast Agreement.

When the consequences are turning out bad Brexiteers and their London media supporters will blame Paddy and his government.

The Irish opposition and their Irish media supporters will probably also blame the Irish government.

That might not be fair but what has being fair got to do with it?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,011
Twitter
No
It's actually a triumph of integration in the UK when Pretty Vacant Patel has so absorbed the dominant culture that she can say "Let's starve the Irish".

Always looking on the bright side, me.
Well, Patel is carrying around a lot of baggage which informs her views. Doubt she knows much about India as she and her family fled Uganda when Amin effectively drove out the Indian middle class in the 70's.

Family classically opened a newsagents/corner shop in Watford and I believe she and her family faced a lot of casual racism from idiots coming and going to the shop down the years. I suspect this is where her very firm attitudes come from.

I know she isn't anti-Irish and is highly unlikely to be racist herself, given some of the experiences she and her family had.

From previous career positions I knew her quite well from around the time she was a Councillor looking for a seat to contest and she did work hard at it. We worked in the same small team for about three or four years. Always very ambitious- I do recall her saying her ambition was to be a Minister. In fairness she did it.

I wouldn't be a voter for her or her party but as an Irishman I'm certain that she doesn't hold personal anti-Irish views. I saw nothing at all like that or heard nothing at all that would indicate she is anti-Irish in any way.

In fact her closest pal I recall in that office was an Irish guy, a very smart Trinity man.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,491
This scenario is also a winner for Boris. Removing the Backstop and then ratifying the Withdrawal Deal would allow an orderly Brexit, no change to NI sovereignty, and ensure frictionless trade goes on at the NI border for at least 2 more years, while the future free trade deal was being negotiated between UK and EU.

He'd have achieved what Teresa May failed to achieve.
The German car makers and chamber of commerce would be delighted. The French could breathe a sigh of relief at Calais.
NI would be a winner.
Britain a winner.
RoI a winner.
Varadkar and Coveney would be political losers having climbed down, but as mentioned above, it would be just a temporary setback. They have made friends in Brussels and there will always be a place for them both there, if all else fails.
Their own personal golden backstop.
I don't believe it is going to happen, the EU would also be humiliated having repeatedly said no to then roll over, it would damage the EU as an institution more than a hard brexit.

It is interesting to see the agents of the British State being rolled out in the Irish media to try and shift Irish public opinion though. Particularly in the INM stable I guess payments from HMSS is a nice top up to the pay and conditions there.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,011
Twitter
No
'Removing the backstop' unilaterally would be a breach of an international agreement, signed.

The UK doesn't have the right to unilaterally cancel the backstop. They would need our agreement on any change there and I would suggest that they should not be offered that opportunity.

There is nothing to be gained for us in allowing such a unilateral move, and we should be prepared to veto any deal proposing such a move in terms of any nascent deal between Brussels and Westminster.

We have quite a lot to gain by insisting the backstop remains in place.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top