Re: PM Boris
 

Those issues could have been resolved in parallel, but the UK triggered article 50 without having any clue what it wanted from the negotiations and then decided to have an election in the middle of it all. A better prepared government could have done a better job.

Re: PM Boris
 

I'm not expecting huge calamities on Nov 1 or even in the weeks that follow. However 6-12 months down the line I think there will be plenty of disruption, both negative and positive. Personally, I don't like seeing Britain turning away from Europe.

Re: PM Boris
 

Perhaps because if history or because some of the 27 are very small countries, Britain believes it calls all the shots. What it has not learned after all these years is that the EU as a group has far more negotiating power and has a huge motive for internal cohesion. It threatens to withhold international funding obligations (pathetic) despite the fact that such action would torpedo its trade interests and are unlikely to be deemed legal. Britain will need to get used to it's diminished influence once it Brexits. It will become a Canada or Australia on the world stage: relevant, smart, but not particularly powerful. The EU on the other hand...

Re: PM Boris
 

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. Remember Hague jumping up and down encouraging recognition of the Syrian thuggish opposition still in it's infancy, well that turned out well.
Ahh... I hear you say, the UK will have diminished influence and I say that will be a good thing.
Let the EU form their federal forces and park them where the UK used to park theirs, no doubt they'll cause as much trouble as the UK did.
Mao had it right when he described the UK as a paper tiger, the trouble is that nobody in the UK listened to him.

Re: PM Boris
 

Why would that be? How would not being part of the EU interfere with the UK's doing the USA's bidding special relationship?

Re: PM Boris
 

I appreciate that the EU wishes to maintain cohesion amongst its members, at least at this time.

The comments I made above were in response to the suggestion that the EU wanted to deal with all matters at the same time (including discussing a trade agreement), something that the facts show is demonstrably untrue.

I accept that, from a trade perspective, the EU is way more powerful than the UK is, in some ways. One could argue that its size restricts it from being as flexible as the UK on its own.

But, one only has to look at how it has reacted to issues such as Iran breaching its nuclear obligations (which the EU seems to accept that the US is correct about) to see that, like other huge organisations such as the UN, it lacks the will to do anything other than "strongly condemn" Iran's actions. Of course, history shows that states such as Iran always give in to such condemnation.

Re: PM Boris
 

You're joking right? We'll be America's chief lapdog post Brexit. Already happening the Gulf.

Re: PM Boris
 

Are you glued to Fox News? Absolute nonsense on Iran. Bolton is forcing Iran into a corner, something that would be far less likely to happen were Britain not nervous about Brexit and fully committed to the EU.

Re: PM Boris
 

That remains to be seen, but I remember that the UK said No to the US in a meaningful expression of independence when Harold Wilson refused to send troops to Vietnam.. and the UK wasn't then part of the EU. I suspect that Wilson still remembered how badly the US had treated the UK following WW2 and recognised the US for what it was.
We'll have to see whether backbone is still present in UK political circles these days, they could certainly do with a few lessons on history.

Re: PM Boris
 

Boris, backbone? Not in this context, he's prone before any of Trump's courtiers.

Re: PM Boris
 

Are you suggesting that it is nonsense that Iran has breached its obligations or that the EU has admitted that Iran has?

Re: PM Boris
 

I have to disagree with this. The vote was for the UK to leave the EU, not parts of it.

I am from NI, and a unionist. I have, however, long been of the opinion that if there was a case for a united Ireland, I would be prepared to listen. No party, Northern or Southern, that desires a united Ireland, has put forth any kind of reason or vision beyond "Brits Out". The SNP at least have a vision and reasons they believe are routed in economic and political reality. They produced that rather large tome, erroneous though some of its assumptions were. No Irish party has done anything like that work. So, long winded way of saying, especially in light of the Brexit shambles, a united Ireland is a very long way off, if ever. Varadkar realises that.

None of which is to say that Boris and co, and our rubbish parliamentarians, don't need to pull the finger out.

Re: PM Boris
 

As we have seen, the major problem with referenda is that outcomes are frequently uncertain, dependant as they are on a number of factors.
When I was a teenager I shared a few drinks with a pair of catholics from NI. I have to say two things stamped themselves on my memory. The first was the shocking emotional invective that they showed, the second was a description of the discrimination they said was their experience. Thus would have been before the troubles in about 1965 and they may or may not have been telling the truth.
We all know what's happened in the years since then and today we have a system at Stormont that betrays the inability of either side to accommodate the other, something that's now echoed in Brexit.
As with brexit, there comes a point when people say enough is enough and for whatever reason, logical or not, they seek tp follow a way that normalises everyday life and this could say 'yes' to a united Ireland.
But, as you all out there realise, I'm writing from the point of view as a vaguely interested outsider and as such simply can't understand, much as I couldn't understand my two catholics, views that arise from decades of personal experience that are alien to me.
But referenda.... they should carry a health notice... 'Referenda can seriously damage your perception of reality'

Re: PM Boris
 

Like it not, Boris turns the screw....
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49493632
Move puts Remainers into check threatens checkmate.....

Re: PM Boris
 

It's more likely to topple King Boris.

Re: PM Boris
 

VoNC. Pre-Brexit election. Anyone's guess what happens after that. Cameron really has been the ruin of the country.

Re: PM Boris
 

Speaking of which:

Re: PM Boris
 

Ha! Can't argue with any of that.

Re: PM Boris
 

Re: PM Boris
 

Absolutely, but at last the UK has a negotiating position with a clear exit.
Remember, the UK parliament voted to leave on 31st October (after the 6 month extension after the two week extension).
And all of this following three failed votes on an agreed bad deal and umpteen failed votes on alternative arrangements.
As I've often observed, people don't know what they want until they see what they don't want. MP's are no different and have shown themselves, so far, to be unable to make any decision that could conceivably rebound on them personally.
All being well, on 1st November either the EU will have conceded a technological solution to the Irish Border problem or everyone will be coming to terms with a no deal.
All not being well, then Remainers will have thrown a spanner at Boris and we'll be back where we were with MPs who never, in their wildest nightmares, thought that the PEOPLE would vote to leave the EU and still refuse to accept it.
One wonders whether Remainers, having learned their lesson from the referendum, dare open the Pandora's Box that'll be a General Election.
I strongly suspect that they'll bleet 'Undemocratic' but act ineptly so as to allow Boris to get his no deal in order to shout out loud 'I Told You So' if it all goes pear shaped and to make sure it does if at all possible, but then I've always been a cynic.
Either way, it'll all make very interesting TV.

Re: PM Boris
 

Kindly explain how this would work. Just to be clear, I don't believe any such technology exists and I don't believe there is any such non-border border anywhere in the world. I think the idea is a fantasy.

Re: PM Boris
 

I'm old enough to remember John Kennedy declaring that the US would land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth.
This wasn't possible at that moment but he brought forth a political will that resulted in a technological solution to the problem.
Your comments could very likely flow from an EU negotiator. Can't be done, it's a fantasy, so I'm not even going to think about it.
The point being put is that once politicians provide a goal to be achieved and resources to achieve it, yes a rare event I concede, then whereas choruses of 'can't be done' that once filled the space suddenly become 'we can do it, but it'll cost!'.
The problem with the Irish border is that too many politicians don't see it in their personal interest to see the issue solved and like the Stormont power sharing problem are too happy to concede nothing at all.
If you provide leadership and resources then even a man can be returned from the moon, even where the technology needs to be invented. You don't know what you can do until you try... and it's this that's been lacking in brexit negotiations until now.
To misquote Chairman Mao, Even the longest march begins with a single step... but you must want to take that step.

Re: PM Boris
 

So you don't know how it would work.

Re: PM Boris
 

I don't believe I ever said that I did.. but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible.
Even I don't claim to know everything.

Re: PM Boris
 

If it's possible then why not accept the truth that, if the WA passed, there'd be about two years (minimum) of transition period to develop it? The backstop would only kick when it becomes clear that no "technological" or any other "fix" will be available.

The only useful and foolproof fix is to revoke A50 and stay in Europe.

Re: PM Boris
 

Ok, we are where we are.I don't pretend that I fully understand how we got here. It does seem to some that the losers in General election desire the authority to represent those that lost in a referendum making the promise of giving the losers of another referendum the opportunity of of gaining Independence whilst stomping on those that won the first referendum?
So now we have Boris suspending Parliament rubber stamped by Her Majesty. The remoaners are moaning enmass, reaching a crescendo, toys flying out of collective prams.
You couldn't make it up.....

Is not democracy in action fascinating?

Re: PM Boris
 

I'd suggest that this is the wrong way around. Having the backstop as the default, like developing an equitable trade arrangement, doesn't introduce any sense of having to provide solutions satisfactory to both parties simply because the backstop is too one sided.
If, however, the WA was passed with a change that accepted that the backstop would be time limited to the two year transition. This would allow time for a technological breakthrough (even if it's imperfect when initially implemented) and would introduce a degree of urgency to actually getting it up and running.
But the backstop was conceived as a political fix, by politicians for politicians, and like a great many political fixes does absolutely nothing but roll that can along the road.

Re: PM Boris
 

I'll tell you when we have it back.

Re: PM Boris
 

It's interesting but I don't know that it's democracy. About half the population wants a radical change, the other half doesn't. 50%+1 might be a sufficient majority in choosing a pub for lunch but it doesn't seem to me to enough to warrant wrecking the economy and offering the national pussy to Donald.

Re: PM Boris
 

Sorry Dave but that's gibberish. Limiting a backstop to the transition period isn't a backstop at all. It has to be the backstop if nothing else can be implemented in the transition period.

Re: PM Boris
 

Eh?

How do goods pass across any border? When you order stuff from the US and it is delivered to you in Canada, what happens other than you have to pay a fee to a delivery agent? Why couldn't something similar be introduced to deal with the Irish border issue?

Who, really, gives a crap about people going back and forth across the border? One assumes that, if their status needs to be determined once they come to the UK, a simple border check when they do so could be easily implemented. That would resolve the "terrorist" issue of such a thing being so bad in the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland that people will resort to shooting one another and blowing things up again if a physical check is required.

With the right will, it could be easily resolved, me thinks!

Re: PM Boris
 

I fetched goods from America last weekend. The procedure was fairly typical for an international crossing, I queued at a border post, chatted with the border guard, was redirected to an office, waited a hour or so, paid the taxes on the goods and went on my way. Had I been traveling with animals they would have been inspected. The same could certainly be implemented in Ireland as it will be at Dover. It's just the magic of the virtual tax payment and produce inspections without border posts that I can't imagine. How, for example, would the Irish prevent chlorinated chickens being trucked in if there was no physical border?

Re: PM Boris
 

A few million people who voted for Brexit apparently. :nod:

Re: PM Boris
 

What the backstop does is to ensure that the UK is secured to the single market until such time as a trade agreement agreeable to the EU has been accepted by both sides. Should the UK attempt to agree terms that the EU decides it doesn't want then the UK has no way to object.
It's clear that there is no incentive for the EU to agree to anything within any time frame and this cannot be in the interests of the UK.
The EU will only agree to a new trade arrangement when subject to an incentive to do so.
If the backstop must be implemented then it's simple common sense to coerce those involved to adopt other, as yet undefined, schemes that aren't so patently one sided when the backstop disappears.
But of course you'll know this already and are arguing as a europhile. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't get us anywhere.
So, you ask, what happens if at the end of the transition period we have no border arrangement that negates the need for a backstop?
No-Deal is the answer, but two years will have passed during which every man and his dog will know precisely what will happen, and could even, should the commons wish it, result in any number of brexit related antics, among which could be the revoking of A50. I simply don't understand why this isn't on the table.

Re: PM Boris
 

From one of the other threads

Re: PM Boris
 

Are you seriously suggesting that those few million gave a crap about anyone travelling from Ireland to Northern Ireland in the context of what is being talked about in relation to the "backstop"?

Re: PM Boris
 

No, but your "who cares" comment followed your reference to "any border" and then an example of America to Canada, so it didn't seem unreasonable to allow the possibility it might have meant any or all borders rather than only one specific one.

But mainly it was for humour.

Re: PM Boris
 

The EU suggested a backstop for Northern Ireland only. It's to preserve the Good Friday agreement: border-less movement.

Theresa May couldn't go along with this because she relied on the confidence of the DUP.

So she made the backstop cover the whole of the UK, so as to avoid a border appearing between NI and mainland UK.

If there's an election triggered by a VoNC or Boris calling one, resulting in DUP votes no longer needed, the backstop will likely be limited to just NI again. Everyone will declare a victory (except DUP), and withdrawal agreement will be passed.

Then island of Ireland will continue towards reunification, and Scotland could perhaps achieve independence second time round. Wales voted for leave, so they'll have to stick with England, but Westminster will be completely dominated by Conservative MPs given historical election results.

Re: PM Boris
 

I'm sure you're not as naive as this post makes you seem.

There's not some sort of magic fairy that waves a wand and makes goods from the US appear on a delivery truck in Canada. They've cleared customs, either with duty pre-paid at the point of purchase, or paid cash-on-delivery to the agent (Canada Post or a courier company) contracted to act on behalf of Canada's revenues agency. Any such shipment is also liable to be held at the border for inspection, with potentially unpredictable and irritating delays to delivery as a result. There are sure as hell any number of hard-border infrastructure facilities along the US-Canada border, both for freight and for people in cars.

The UK and Irish governments have decided (largely as a result of the terms of the various Northern Ireland peace accords) that such customs and border services infrastructure is not acceptable (not to mention seriously impractical) along the Irish land border. But there still needs to be a mechanism to inspect goods and people, as there will be a structure of duties and tariffs for goods, and immigration controls for people, who cross this border. Your assumption in bold above is the crux of this paradox. You can't have "a simple border check" without border infrastructure; yet the governments on both sides of the border in Ireland have said that such infrastructure is not acceptable.

To pretend that this challenge can be resolved simply be relying on the goodwill of those on both sides of the border is hopelessly unrealistic. And, of course, would be the furthest thing imaginable from the "taking back control" so beloved in the rhetoric of some of the ant-EU campaigning of the last 4 years or so. As dbd suggests, the technology to manage these required border controls seamlessly simply does not exist today. To imagine otherwise is to ignore the magnitude of the challenge.

Re: PM Boris
 

If Boris's scheme reaches fruition then the Irish border will become an experiment in open borders. Criminal elements who profited in years gone by will no longer be able to exploit an open border to the same extent (as a guarded one) that'll be free to anyone wanting to move across a line in the road.
'But what about all those chlorinated chickens' I hear you cough as you detect some in your mouth.
Well if, if they are allowed into the UK, I suspect that punitive fines imposed on Irish traders would quickly squash that, and other similar traceable, activities.
The problem with trading in the 21st century is the existence of the 'paper trail' and who wants to smuggle chickens when there are much easier, less easily traceable, goods available.
That's not to say that small scale smuggling won't be endemic, but that's a small price to pay when the alternative is a reversion to the small scale conflict that was the Irish Madness (a more apt epithet than 'troubles').
I suspect that the police on both sides of the border will be on the lookout for large scale smuggling, and Ireland, being the island that it is, won't be the open door, but it might be a little ajar, to the EU that they bleat about.