I mean, I'm hardly precious about a thread created by a now ex member who created it to whine about "separatists", but there's no reason to help those who hold the same views by linking Scottish independence to bombs and violence.

I think the link is post-Brexit threats to the union, but yeah, better in the Brexit thread.

How many more Tory ministers do I have to watch saying "yellow hammer is a worst case scenario" and then offering nothing, absolutely nothing to suggest that they have any detailed plans to avoid that scenario. Yellow hammer is what would happen if we left without a deal and without lots of measures and arrangements in place and there is nothing to report on either of those.

Boris Johnson accused of having 'no negotiating strategy' after reiterating Brexit demand to scrap backstop

In his four-page letter to the European Council president, he outlined his Brexit red lines, and said the backstop “cannot form part of an agreed withdrawal agreement”.
“This is a fact we must both acknowledge,” he wrote. “I believe the task before us is to strive to find other solutions, and I believe an agreement is possible.”

In his four-page letter to the European Council president, he outlined his Brexit red lines, and said the backstop “cannot form part of an agreed withdrawal agreement”.
“This is a fact we must both acknowledge,” he wrote. “I believe the task before us is to strive to find other solutions, and I believe an agreement is possible.”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/b ... spartandhp

Yes Boris, you should "strive to find solutions" not just kick the can and hope someone will be able to sort it out later.

The backstop essentially says that the UK needs to stay harmonised with the EU (on trade etc) until it comes up with a plan for the Irish border, because the current (non-)border is not fit for purpose to separate states with non-harmonised regulations and trade deals.

By its nature, the backstop expires once the UK comes up with a workable plan that allows non-harmonisation. Sure, that's not so easy to do given the Good Friday Agreement, but the UK isn't even trying. No point blaming others for the UK's failure in this regard, and nonsensical to reject the backstop without a plan for how the border would work.

OlivierK wrote:The backstop essentially says that the UK needs to stay harmonised with the EU (on trade etc) until it comes up with a plan for the Irish border, because the current (non-)border is not fit for purpose to separate states with non-harmonised regulations and trade deals.

By its nature, the backstop expires once the UK comes up with a workable plan that allows non-harmonisation. Sure, that's not so easy to do given the Good Friday Agreement, but the UK isn't even trying. No point blaming others for the UK's failure in this regard, and nonsensical to reject the backstop without a plan for how the border would work.

That's basically right but there are subtle aspects to it.
The backstop doesn't apply until the end of the withdrawal period IF no agreement has been reached that avoids a border. It could never have any affect if BJ had a workable plan (if he believed what he says he can do he would have no problem with the backstop).

The WA keeps us as semi-members for two years while we withdraw and sort out our future relationship with the EU.

As you say, if the backstop is activated, it would terminate as soon as a new arrangement was implemented.

I can see three reasons they reject the backstop:
1. They think the EU will refuse to agree alternative arrangements in order to keep the UK tied into the customs union indefinitely.

2. They fear that some EU statues will hold out on ratifying any agreement as a bargaining tactic to get something they want from the UK. This seems a legitimate fear. Macron said as much regarding fishing rights. in what seems like a spectacularly stupid move by him. Similar concerns could apply to the Gibraltar issue.

3. They know full well they won't be able to work out a solution to the Irish border making activation of the backstop inevitable and indefinite and Brexit impossible.

GrahamH wrote:

OlivierK wrote:The backstop essentially says that the UK needs to stay harmonised with the EU (on trade etc) until it comes up with a plan for the Irish border, because the current (non-)border is not fit for purpose to separate states with non-harmonised regulations and trade deals.

By its nature, the backstop expires once the UK comes up with a workable plan that allows non-harmonisation. Sure, that's not so easy to do given the Good Friday Agreement, but the UK isn't even trying. No point blaming others for the UK's failure in this regard, and nonsensical to reject the backstop without a plan for how the border would work.

That's basically right but there are subtle aspects to it.
The backstop doesn't apply until the end of the withdrawal period IF no agreement has been reached that avoids a border. It could never have any affect if BJ had a workable plan (if he believed what he says he can do he would have no problem with the backstop).

The WA keeps us as semi-members for two years while we withdraw and sort out our future relationship with the EU.

As you say, if the backstop is activated, it would terminate as soon as a new arrangement was implemented.

I can see three reasons they reject the backstop:
1. They think the EU will refuse to agree alternative arrangements in order to keep the UK tied into the customs union indefinitely.

2. They fear that some EU statues will hold out on ratifying any agreement as a bargaining tactic to get something they want from the UK. This seems a legitimate fear. Macron said as much regarding fishing rights. in what seems like a spectacularly stupid move by him. Similar concerns could apply to the Gibraltar issue.

3. They know full well they won't be able to work out a solution to the Irish border making activation of the backstop inevitable and indefinite and Brexit impossible.

My bold. Nobody can keep the UK doing what the UK does not want or?

As for #2 yes, in theory. But the EU could have done it already during the negotiations over WA or?

As for #3, well, did not Mr. Johnson say something along the lines that there is a number of technical solutions to the Irish border?

The ball in on the UK side, as it has been for I dunno how long.

tuco wrote:
The ball in on the UK side, as it has been for I dunno how long.

Yes, but the UK side are fucking idiots.

tuco wrote:
My bold. Nobody can keep the UK doing what the UK does not want or?



As for #2 yes, in theory. But the EU could have done it already during the negotiations over WA or?

Well, it depends whether the UK respects international law and honours it's own treaty obligations. I regard it as conspiracy theory but I guess the logic of it would be to get the UK to ratify a withdrawal agreement committing to the terms of a backstop then lock us in by failing to agree anything that would nullify the backstop.


If the UK then reneged on it's obligations that would be bad for our standing in the world. The UK would be a "rogue nation".

tuco wrote:
As for #3, well, did not Mr. Johnson say something along the lines that there is a number of technical solutions to the Irish border?

Sure, but who doesn't think he is talking through his arse about that?

tuco wrote:
The ball in on the UK side, as it has been for I dunno how long.

Yes it is, as it always was. It's on the UK side and BJ keeps dropping it and complaining that the other side isn't helping him score goals.

What happened to Ken Clarke and Harriet Harman for PM campaigns in the week they were names for the role? Is there a groundswell of support for them? Almost all the news I find is a week old. There doesn't seem to be any momentum behind it.


Graham Hughes on YouTube is moaning about Corbyn "He must stand down!" but what use is that? Surely only more chaos as the opposition would be distracted by leadership elections instead of doing what needs to be done right now.


I seems like just about everyone is doing all they can to get us to a no deal exit, including those who say they are most opposed to that outcome.

GrahamH wrote:What happened to Ken Clarke and Harriet Harman for PM campaigns in the week they were names for the role? Is there a groundswell of support for them? Almost all the news I find is a week old. There doesn't seem to be any momentum behind it.


Graham Hughes on YouTube is moaning about Corbyn "He must stand down!" but what use is that? Surely only more chaos as the opposition would be distracted by leadership elections instead of doing what needs to be done right now.


I seems like just about everyone is doing all they can to get us to a no deal exit, including those who say they are most opposed to that outcome.

it was an off-the-cuff panic suggestion from Jo The Tory after she was found to be not *that* interested in stopping no-deal brexit after all, if it meant a non-Tory getting to be PM.

ronmcd wrote:

GrahamH wrote:What happened to Ken Clarke and Harriet Harman for PM campaigns in the week they were names for the role? Is there a groundswell of support for them? Almost all the news I find is a week old. There doesn't seem to be any momentum behind it.


Graham Hughes on YouTube is moaning about Corbyn "He must stand down!" but what use is that? Surely only more chaos as the opposition would be distracted by leadership elections instead of doing what needs to be done right now.


I seems like just about everyone is doing all they can to get us to a no deal exit, including those who say they are most opposed to that outcome.

it was an off-the-cuff panic suggestion from Jo The Tory after she was found to be not *that* interested in stopping no-deal brexit after all, if it meant a non-Tory getting to be PM.

Indeed, but having suggested it, and Clarke saying he was prepared to do it, it's disappointing to so little movement. We have heard from a few that they are open to Corbyn's suggestion, and others saying anyone but Corbyn, but nothing that looks like "confidence of the house". It looks so far as if Corbyn is the best hope we have and more effort is going into attacking him than doing anything positive. Maybe they are all keeping their powder dry and will rush into action in six weeks or so.

I think it all depends on what you'd expect this "government of national unity" to do.

If it were to lead the country for a substantial amount of time, pass the withdrawal agreement, cancel Brexit or legislate for a referendum - all of which we know that the current Parliament isn't going to vote for - the leader matters. Anyone but Corbyn is a tricky sell.

On the other hand, if all it's going to do is ask for another extension and dissolve itself to hold a general election - that being about all Parliament would vote for - pretty much anyone who is against no deal could do the job. It's a career burner though, so a job for someone like Soubry or Clarke.

Matt_B wrote:I think it all depends on what you'd expect this "government of national unity" to do.

If it were to lead the country for a substantial amount of time, pass the withdrawal agreement, cancel Brexit or legislate for a referendum - all of which we know that the current Parliament isn't going to vote for - the leader matters. Anyone but Corbyn is a tricky sell.

On the other hand, if all it's going to do is ask for another extension and dissolve itself to hold a general election - that being about all Parliament would vote for - pretty much anyone who is against no deal could do the job. It's a career burner though, so a job for someone like Soubry or Clarke.

Well that's another fuck-up. Corbyn proposed a sensible sequence of events but Clarke's initial take was very different. There isn't even a basic strategy agreed. Clarke to renegotiate a withdrawal deal isn't going to fly, is it? Is the sensible Corbyn plan now toxic because it came from Corbyn?

BJ hits a new low of arrogant shittyness.

Boris Johnson wants Ireland to leave EU trade rules and form a new union with the UK after Brexit

Boris Johnson reportedly wants Ireland to agree to temporarily leave it's trading union with the EU and join with the UK instead after Brexit.
The Sun newspaper reports that Downing Street is considering asking Ireland to voluntarily diverge from EU rules in order to
prevent a hard border between the two countries after Britain leaves the EU.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/b ... ar-AAG7c6A

What's his next cunning plan, that the other 26 EU member states also leave the EU and join a union with the UK? Will it be called Great Britain and Europe? British Empire Strikes Back?

Well the Brexiteers have wet dreams about that scenario as it was always the intention.
Merkel has told Blond "Cloth Ears" Scrotum that HE has 30 days to find a solution to the back stop.

Another populist government took a nose dive.

Ludicrous. The UK can ask all it wants, but it's perfectly clear that it's impossible for the Irish government to say yes. It would be political suicide - support for leaving the EU is 11% in Ireland.

Just a thought...Why cant lorries have a bar code on their roofs that can be picked up by those cameras that monitor your speed on roads? The bar code could give information about where the cargo came from and where its destination is...Check the cargo at its destination, both sides of the border. no hard border.

james1v wrote:Just a thought...Why cant lorries have a bar code on their roofs that can be picked up by those cameras that monitor your speed on roads? The bar code could give information about where the cargo came from and where its destination is...Check the cargo at its destination, both sides of the border. no hard border.

Lorries already have unique number plates that can be tracked, so there's no need for barcodes.

However, there's no guarantee under such a system that cargoes actually match their paperwork at the border. For instance there seems nothing to stop illegal cargo being added after departure and offloaded prior to arrival.

Rather, you'd also need the ability to inspect cargoes in transit, and if you're not going to do that at the border, where are you going to do it?

Most are real time GPS tracked. It's the cargo.