varadkar and convey are standing up for Irish interests not the EU they will not dump the backstop as it is the only thing on the table at the moment that avoids the hard border . There is nothing to say that a FTA can be drawn up with the UK this is what has the UK spooked as in that case they will have to remain within EU rules . That is the whole point . If a FTA can be drawn up like hey Presto then the backstop will never be used and the UK have nothing to fear . It would be irresposible for them to get rid of the backstop from a Irish interest point of view as that DOES ensure no hard border for a bunch of promises that may or may not happen . The worst case of their current position is a hard border the worst case of dumping the backstop is a hard border they have nothing to lose by sticking to their guns.Why don't Varadkaer and Coveney grow a pair and stop pandering to Juncker's federalist and globalist megalomania.
Dump the backstop veto, get the WA signed, and hey presto... seamless border with free trade.
Looks to me like the Varadkar/Coveney backstop veto is preventing a WA and therefore it causes a hard border.varadkar and convey are standing up for Irish interests not the EU they will not dump the backstop as it is the only thing on the table at the moment that avoids the hard border .
That is true, but at least the WA guarantees free trade for a 2 year transition period.There is nothing to say that a FTA can be drawn up with the UK .
Looks to me like the Varadkar/Coveney backstop veto is preventing a WA and therefore it causes a hard border.
If you think that's in Irelands interests, then you are wrong.
That is true, but at least the WA guarantees free trade for a 2 year transition period.
After that, we know the UK side would want it to continue. If the hard border got introduced in 2 years time, blame Juncker.
Or, if we continue on current misguided strategy, we can have our hard border in only 8 weeks.
Only on this matter?!! The EU is not to be trusted period. Leotard rowing in with these creeps at the risk of blowing bridge with our greatest cultural and economic partner is an act of epic idiocy and national self-sabotage.You may remember that Francois Hollande argued publicly that Britain would need to suffer from Brexit, otherwise "other countries might get the idea of leaving the EU." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/uk-must-pay-price-for-brexit-says-francois-hollande
Although he did not explicitly say so (at least in what I have seen), his meaning seemed to be that if the consequences of leaving were not going to be sufficiently bad, then the EU should act to ensure that they were - i.e. should deliberately act to harm Britain and the British people.
After a little bit of thought, other EU politicians realised how unacceptable it would be to try to do such harm and there were several statements to this effect e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/18/not-punish-britain-shed-illusions-eu-fair-deal
I believed these statements and was happy with the talks and the eventual agreement, including the backstop - although in some ways it was an a unusual thing to ask in negotiations - "I want you to promise that I will not introduce a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland" - and I did wonder about the reluctance of the EU to accept that technology could be accepted to be able to provide a good solution in the longer term
However, there remained in my mind the possibility that the EU (or elements within it) were trying to use the backstop as a way of making Britain pay a "suitable" price for Brexit - see https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/top-eu-diplomat-said-northern-ireland-the-price-to-pay-for-brexit-claims-former-minister-37608318.html
I now no longer trust the EU on the backstop. What has changed my mind is -
1) The EU claims that the backstop is intended to be temporary, but is reluctant to commit to this.
2) The EU claimed that the only motivation for the backstop was to prevent a hard border. But now that its insistence on the backstop seems to be increasing the risk of a hard Brexit and a hard border, the EU insists on sticking to the backstop.
In short, there seems to be a discrepancy between the EU positions in non-binding public statements ("backstop is temporary", "no wish to punish Britain") and the EU positions in legally-binding treaty statements ("backstop is time unlimited") and in private statements.
In consequence, my perception is that the EU is not currently fully trust-worthy on this matter.
So they say. At least for now.The European Parliament will not ratify any WA without the Backstop.