Originally Posted by macadian (Post 12722090)

I have been following this thread with interest. I don't pretend to understand the full implications of leaving the EU however, given the diverse opinions featured here I think I can be excused on that lack of understanding. One question I do have is in relation the apparent stumbling block, the 'backstop' and the Irish border. Boris seems to think it's simply a means of keeping the UK stuck in the EU by hook or by crook. It was pointed out to me the other day that Switzerland is bordered by five EU countries.....and no hard border with any of them. Why the apparent intransigence from the EU wanting to maintain the backstop? On the face of it, does this lend credence to the opinion held by Boris and many others that it's simply a ploy to shackle the UK to the EU after the UK leaves?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722214)

Is anyone in NI seriously proposing cutting ties with Westminster and uniting Ireland and, if so, is anyone taking them seriously?

Does anyone know what process would be required?

I take a very different view to you regarding the border issue giving the EU significant leverage. I believe it will have the exact opposite effect the closer the parties get to October 31, as I don't believe that the likes of Germany will allow their trade with the UK to be tanked by an issue at the Irish border that could be easily overcome. Full marks to the EU for remaining "together" at this time (at least in public) but I would expect that to change the nearer we get to October 31, particularly if the only real issue between the parties is the backstop.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12722235)

Quite a lot of talk about a post-Brexit border poll in NI. Look into it.

I've been hearing how Germany and/or Merckel would pressurise the EU to accommodate Britain for three years now. It's not happening. So much of this current cabinet (and Eurosceptic) view/strategy has been about calling the EU's bluff. Sadly, for the UK, their calling ours and we're about to get roasted.

Originally Posted by bc2015 (Post 12722217)

The backstop only exists because the UK government requested a transition period (which the withdrawal agreement is part of). The backstop is there to ensure that the provisions of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement are upheld. The EU are a co-guarantor for that agreement so they are only doing due diligence. I get the impression that the EU don't actually like the idea of a backstop but it's the best solution to a hard problem - I think the EU would have preferred to skip the transition period and started negotiating on a free trade agreement instead.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722246)

I would bet that, post October 31 and no deal, life in the UK will be affected far less than you believe.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722249)

How do you explain the fact that they have done the exact opposite then, insisting that things can only move forward in a sequence of their making?

Originally Posted by bc2015 (Post 12722254)

Because the UK has yet to offer any feasible alternative. This is the biggest issue right now - all Boris can say is "no backstop!" but doesn't actually have any alternative beyond some handwaving about technological solutions that don't yet exist.

Originally Posted by bc2015 (Post 12722251)

Curious to know why you bet that.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722261)

Well, to be fair, Boris inherited the current position.

I wasn't referring to the current position but to the fact that the EU was the party that determined that, "...this cannot happen, until this happens..." none of which was based in law at all. From what I have seen, they have refused to discuss a trade agreement until the items they wanted to get resolved, were resolved, which, to me, appears to contradict the statement you made that I highlighted above.

Originally Posted by bc2015 (Post 12722265)

The UK wanted a transition period, it could have negotiated a FTA before now but it didn't. If the FTA was completed there would be no need for the backstop. The EU is only holding the UK to account for what it already agreed upon.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722272)

I believe that the EU stated that a trade deal could not be negotiated before a number of other issues were "resolved" which is why the UK requested a transition period.

In any event, the position that both find themselves in is what it is and time will tell how the UK will leave the EU.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722246)

I agree that the EU are doing a far better job of negotiating in public, primarily because, at this time, the interested parties are all singing from the same hymn sheet and are not trying to undercut one another (as the interested parties in the UK are). Time will tell if that continues right up to October 31.

I would bet that, post October 31 and no deal, life in the UK will be affected far less than you believe.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 12722261)

Well, to be fair, Boris inherited the current position.

I wasn't referring to the current position but to the fact that the EU was the party that determined that, "...this cannot happen, until this happens..." none of which was based in law at all. From what I have seen, they have refused to discuss a trade agreement until the items they wanted to get resolved, were resolved, which, to me, appears to contradict the statement you made that I highlighted above.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12722383)

It will become a Canada or Australia on the world stage: relevant, smart, but not particularly powerful. The EU on the other hand...

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12722408)

Well that'll be good news. No more Iraq invasions or Libyan adventures or a temptation for UK politicians to pledge UK limited resources for questionable affairs....