Hard Brexit

[Francis Albert]

Just now, jake said:

Many European politicians calling for the EU to stop punitive action against the democratic will of the UK.

Also fierce opposition to.the EU's idea that loss of UK funding should simply be met by increasing contributions from remaining members. No scaling back to reflect the scaling back of the EU. This is just the beginning of the inevitable break up of the 27 nation common front against the UK.

 

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

We will leave. The nature and shape of that departure is the responsibility of a minority government which will need as broad a parliamentary support as possible to get a final decision through Parliament.

 

 

The United Kingdom is first and foremost a parliamentary democracy.  With that in mind, should the final shape of an agreement between the UK and the EU be approved by Parliament or by voters?

[JamboX2]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

The United Kingdom is first and foremost a parliamentary democracy.  With that in mind, should the final shape of an agreement between the UK and the EU be approved by Parliament or by voters?

 

Parliament. Folk on here banging on about what people voted for should recall the Leavers wanted a return to parliamentary sovereignty. That was won. They must now accept that means you elect an MP and let them get on with it.

 

If you don't like their choices there's another chance to vote in 4 or 5 years time.

[JamboX2]

8 hours ago, jake said:

Many European politicians calling for the EU to stop punitive action against the democratic will of the UK.

 

What punitive actions?

 

All I see is an EU willing to negotiate within the rules which govern how it acts with a UK government which evidently seems lost at sea on what it wants in terms of a deal.

[JamboX2]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

So what do you think a reasonable response to the Leave vote would be? A Brexit in name only where we remain to.all intents and purposes except having no say? The last election did not remotely represent a soft brexit vs hard brexit choice and labour did not campaign for soft brexit or brexit in name only.

 

 

But Labour returned lots of soft-Brexit MPs. As did the Tories. Both main parties had a platitude Brexit policy which can be twisted and contorted. A jobs based Brexit. A Brexit fit for Britain.

 

To me, the minute you chose to leave a club you've chosen not to be a rule maker. But in an interconnected world you need a very close relationship with your neighbours. EU nations are that for us. Added to that the GFA is a vital part of a constituent part of the UK.

 

Personally I'd go for a Norway deal. Which failing Switzerland. 

 

If we don't like following rules then we should look to withdraw from every major international organisation: NATO, ICJ, UN, WTO... fact is we have these bodies and we've limited national sovereignty for decades for a very good reason. To avoid the mistakes of old. In the EUs case interdependence between nations has brought a sustained period of peace between the member states and a long peripd of prosperity.

 

So yes. I'd go for a soft Brexit.

[JamboX2]

8 hours ago, jake said:

The people's representative is not on balance the parliament of Europe.

It is Westminster who voted through brexit on behalf of a vote who voted brexit.

That is the bottom line.

 

Out of a corrupt union that is the mechanism of the haves over the have nots.

The facts speak for themselves.

 

Shall I list the facts.

Or shall you list the myth of peace in europe

 

Your first part makes no sense. My point is we have an elected parliament in the UK. If it wants a soft brexit then we shall have it - that is Parliamentary Sovereignty. You and me in that system (like lots of other nations) are sovereign decision makers once every 5 years on election day.

 

Your havering again. When the facts of the UK government show huge drops in economic output in the poorest regions of the UK due to Brexit which will become a union of haves and have nots? 

 

When that EU development money - allocated on need - which goes to community projects in the poorer parts of Britain dries up, the UK government will not step in and replace that funding. Austerity mind?

 

As Uly says you're shifting your goal posts to suit the mental gymnastics you play with this to keep your position sound in your head. 

[Francis Albert]

16 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Your first part makes no sense. My point is we have an elected parliament in the UK. If it wants a soft brexit then we shall have it - that is Parliamentary Sovereignty. You and me in that system (like lots of other nations) are sovereign decision makers once every 5 years on election day.

 

Your havering again. When the facts of the UK government show huge drops in economic output in the poorest regions of the UK due to Brexit which will become a union of haves and have nots? 

 

When that EU development money - allocated on need - which goes to community projects in the poorer parts of Britain dries up, the UK government will not step in and replace that funding. Austerity mind?

 

As Uly says you're shifting your goal posts to suit the mental gymnastics you play with this to keep your position sound in your head. 

What "facts of the UK government" are you referring to?  The fifteen year projection of growth rates by region by the same people who can"t forecast with any accuracy the next quarter's national growth rate?

Whether the UK replaces EU development funding will be up to the government of the uk and the legislators in our parliamentay democracy. Since we are substantial net contributors to the EU we will if we choose be able to do so and our democratically elected parliament rather than EU bureacrats can determine which funds go where.

 

 

[JamboX2]

9 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

What "facts of the UK government" are you referring to?  The fifteen year projection of growth rates by region by the same people who can"t forecast with any accuracy the next quarter's national growth rate?

Whether the UK replaces EU development funding will be up to the government of the uk and the legislators in our parliamentay democracy. Since we are substantial net contributors to the EU we will if we choose be able to do so and our democratically elected parliament rather than EU bureacrats can determine which funds go where.

 

 

 

Ah. So the stats are now wrong. Wing and prayer Brexit.

[Francis Albert]

43 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Ah. So the stats are now wrong. Wing and prayer Brexit.

They were not stats. Forecasts are not stats. And they certainly aren't facts.

And they are forecasts by people who get much simpler forecasting spectacularly wrong such as the forecast of an immediate recession not after withdrawal but after a Leave vote. Or was that a fact but we have just failed to recognise the fact of the recession?

 

[Ulysses]

The EU Commission have drafted a proposal to table to the UK that Northern Ireland be treated as if it is still part of the EU customs union territory after Brexit.

 

That's to reflect the "backstop" or "default" position in the December agreement on how to avoid a hard border on this island.  The "backstop" position is the one that will be required to apply automatically in the even that a hard border isn't avoided by a trade agreement between the UK and the EU or else through specific proposals made by the UK government.

 

In order for NI to be treated as if it is still part of the EU customs union territory, it will be described in language making it a "new regulatory space", and the Commission will propose that joint EU-UK customs teams will be needed to check goods coming from the UK into the new regulatory space.

 

RTÉ News: Draft text: NI may be considered part of EU customs territory post-Brexit

[JamboX2]

13 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

They were not stats. Forecasts are not stats. And they certainly aren't facts.

And they are forecasts by people who get much simpler forecasting spectacularly wrong such as the forecast of an immediate recession not after withdrawal but after a Leave vote. Or was that a fact but we have just failed to recognise the fact of the recession?

 

 

They are statistics. Hence stats.

 

You're right though, all this will be proven in time.

 

Growth since we voted Leave is lower than was previously forecast. Business has 0 idea what is round the corner for a post-Brexit UK. It's a bad place for us to be.

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

The EU Commission have drafted a proposal to table to the UK that Northern Ireland be treated as if it is still part of the EU customs union territory after Brexit.

 

That's to reflect the "backstop" or "default" position in the December agreement on how to avoid a hard border on this island.  The "backstop" position is the one that will be required to apply automatically in the even that a hard border isn't avoided by a trade agreement between the UK and the EU or else through specific proposals made by the UK government.

 

In order for NI to be treated as if it is still part of the EU customs union territory, it will be described in language making it a "new regulatory space", and the Commission will propose that joint EU-UK customs teams will be needed to check goods coming from the UK into the new regulatory space.

 

RTÉ News: Draft text: NI may be considered part of EU customs territory post-Brexit

 

EU kindly doing the UK's job there. As meanwhile Foreign Secretary Johnson referred to that border being the same as something like Kensington and Chelsea.

 

A boy in a man's job.

[Boris]

9 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

EU kindly doing the UK's job there. As meanwhile Foreign Secretary Johnson referred to that border being the same as something like Kensington and Chelsea.

 

A boy in a man's job.

 

Hard border of sorts looking more likely.

 

Still, at least we will be able to make fabulous trade deals.

 

The UK is going down the pan at an increasing rate.

[JamboX2]

13 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Hard border of sorts looking more likely.

 

Still, at least we will be able to make fabulous trade deals.

 

The UK is going down the pan at an increasing rate.

 

None of the UK's institutions (including devolved institutions) have dealt with this well at all.

 

First and foremost it is an issue of national importance and to me it is being treated like a political football. 

 

I was full of praise for Scotland's parliament and government. But the Continuity Bill is a knee jerk response which has been brought just as they are on the verge of a deal. 

 

A shameful state of affairs. Cameron should've formed a national government as soon as possible or some form of national committee to handle this. 

 

From day 1 this has been mishandled by all.

[Francis Albert]

I am a bit puzzled about how no barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the uk can be consiistent with custom controls between the rest of the UK and the new regulatory area of Northern Ireland. Am I missing something?

[Boris]

50 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

None of the UK's institutions (including devolved institutions) have dealt with this well at all.

 

First and foremost it is an issue of national importance and to me it is being treated like a political football. 

 

I was full of praise for Scotland's parliament and government. But the Continuity Bill is a knee jerk response which has been brought just as they are on the verge of a deal. 

 

A shameful state of affairs. Cameron should've formed a national government as soon as possible or some form of national committee to handle this. 

 

From day 1 this has been mishandled by all.

 

I pretty much agree with most that you have written, although I'm less cynical about the Continuity Bill.  I thought this was quite a good piece about it by Brian Taylor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43213515

 

BUt above everything, yes, a national government to negotiate Brexit may well have been in the best interests of the country.

[Francis Albert]

23 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

I pretty much agree with most that you have written, although I'm less cynical about the Continuity Bill.  I thought this was quite a good piece about it by Brian Taylor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43213515

 

BUt above everything, yes, a national government to negotiate Brexit may well have been in the best interests of the country.

 I agree a national government might have been the answer but only if the majority of MPs accepted the outcome of the referendum preferably by something on the scale they voted to hold one. But Remain rebranded itself as Soft Brexit (what exactly are the material differences between the two?) and co timues the internal war in support of Brexit in name only or ideally reversal of the  referendum vote) and ignore the so called racist views on issues like control of borders.

[Boris]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

 I agree a national government might have been the answer but only if the majority of MPs accepted the outcome of the referendum preferably by something on the scale they voted to hold one. But Remain rebranded itself as Soft Brexit (what exactly are the material differences between the two?) and co timues the internal war in support of Brexit in name only or ideally reversal of the  referendum vote) and ignore the so called racist views on issues like control of borders.

 

I think the lack of clarity surrounding Brexit, hard or soft, etc is down to the reason that the actual referendum question itself didn't stipulate what the consequences of a Leave vote actually meant.  Many on the leave side were happy to say that we would still be in the single market etc.  

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

I pretty much agree with most that you have written, although I'm less cynical about the Continuity Bill.  I thought this was quite a good piece about it by Brian Taylor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43213515

 

BUt above everything, yes, a national government to negotiate Brexit may well have been in the best interests of the country.

 

Now likely to be a devolution issue on the Continuity Bill as it is deemed out with parliament's competence to pass the Bill.

 

Lord Advocate thinks otherwise.

 

Could be referred to the UKSC for a decision.

 

An utter mess.

[JamboX2]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I am a bit puzzled about how no barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the uk can be consiistent with custom controls between the rest of the UK and the new regulatory area of Northern Ireland. Am I missing something?

 

No. This is a consequence of a hard Brexit. Either the UK as a whole has the same access for all to EU markets or you Balkanise Britain with internal barriers due to different relationships. 

 

All this was stated in the referendum by Remain. Described as nonsense. Now being proven.

 

It is frankly incredible that the Conservative Party is playing fast and loose with the Union. Major and Blair - joint British architects of peace in NI warned leaving would affect the GFA. Now we have a government willingly playing games with the peace process in NI. 

[Boris]

41 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

It is frankly incredible that the Conservative Party is playing fast and loose with the Union. Major and Blair - joint British architects of peace in NI warned leaving would affect the GFA. Now we have a government willingly playing games with the peace process in NI. 

 

Agree entirely. 

 

Ironic that Northern Ireland voted to remain as well. The DUP are equally narrow and obstructive. Fan dans the lot of them!

[JamboX2]

11 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Agree entirely. 

 

Ironic that Northern Ireland voted to remain as well. The DUP are equally narrow and obstructive. Fan dans the lot of them!

 

The move to hardline politics of SF and DUP from the SDLP and UUP has been mental and near destroyed devolution there.

 

This is now aided by the likes of Bojo - the Foreign Secretary, holder of one of the 4 Great Offices of State in the UK - saying the government should abandon retaining the open border in NI. This would be catastrophic for the NI economy and destroy the GFA. 

 

Honestly, we must call a halt to this. Brexit yes - folk voted for it. But christ, not like this. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by JamboX2

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

No. This is a consequence of a hard Brexit. Either the UK as a whole has the same access for all to EU markets or you Balkanise Britain with internal barriers due to different relationships. 

 

All this was stated in the referendum by Remain. Described as nonsense. Now being proven.

 

It is frankly incredible that the Conservative Party is playing fast and loose with the Union. Major and Blair - joint British architects of peace in NI warned leaving would affect the GFA. Now we have a government willingly playing games with the peace process in NI. 

So the EU proposal is incompatible with Article 50 of the eu/UK agreement?

And still no response to my question about the material differences between soft brexit and remain.

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So the EU proposal is incompatible with Article 50 of the eu/UK agreement?

And still no response to my question about the material differences between soft brexit and remain.

 

 

 

I'll give you it FA. There is no difference as we'll still be under the Brussels unelected bureaucrat's expensive Italian made loafers! 

[Seymour M Hersh]

51 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The move to hardline politics of SF and DUP from the SDLP and UUP has been mental and near destroyed devolution there.

 

This is now aided by the likes of Bojo - the Foreign Secretary, holder of one of the 4 Great Offices of State in the UK - saying the government should abandon retaining the open border in NI. This would be catastrophic for the NI economy and destroy the GFA. 

 

Honestly, we must call a halt to this. Brexit yes - folk voted for it. But christ, not like this. 

 

Well the EU have caught you hook line and sinker with their Irish border red herring! 

[Boris]

31 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I'll give you it FA. There is no difference as we'll still be under the Brussels unelected bureaucrat's expensive Italian made loafers! 

I guess the difference would be had we remained we could influence eu decision making.

[Boris]

30 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Well the EU have caught you hook line and sinker with their Irish border red herring! 

So what is the solution?

Edited February 28, 2018 by Boris

[Seymour M Hersh]

5 minutes ago, Boris said:

I guess the difference would be had we remained we could influence eu decision making.

 

But we voted to leave. No hard/soft option just leave. And you saw how much influence we had when Cameron went cap in hand to get concessions and came back with the imprint of an expensive Italian made loafer on his arse! 

[Seymour M Hersh]

10 minutes ago, Boris said:

So what is the solution?

 

I've not given it any thought as it really isn't a big deal when it comes down to it. However this attempt by Barneir and his pals could be construed as an attempt to annex part of the UK into the EU permanently. Taking it to an extreme it could be seen as an act of aggression.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Seymour M Hersh

[Boris]

17 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

But we voted to leave. No hard/soft option just leave. And you saw how much influence we had when Cameron went cap in hand to get concessions and came back with the imprint of an expensive Italian made loafer on his arse! 

I get the vote was to leave, but as you say no thought as to whether it would be hard or soft. As mentioned earlier, many leavers insisted membership of the single market would still happen.

 

Regards influence, your example of Cameron isn't what I was getting at. One member wanting a better deal for themselves would , naturally I think, be viewed with disdain. My thought was more to put the UK front centre of Europe and drive policy by forging agreement among the majority.

[Francis Albert]

20 minutes ago, Boris said:

I guess the difference would be had we remained we could influence eu decision making.

Thanks and you are spot on. Soft Brexit is Remain minus any say. And those who claim to respect the referendum vote see this as a legitimate response to the outcome of the refrendum MPs voted 6 to 1 to hold.

[Boris]

17 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I've not given it any thought as it really isn't a big deal when it comes down to it. However this attempt by Barneir and his pals could be construed as an attempt to annex part of the UK into the EU permanently. Taking it to an extreme it could be seen as an act of aggression.

But it is a big deal. May has committed the uk to it by her previous statement in December, let alone that it goes against the good Friday agreement should a hard border come back.

 

interesting that the eu statement was simply a statement of what the uk govt had previously agreed via Mays statement indecember. So the eu haven't made anything up, it's the Brits that have moved the goalposts it would seem.

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks and you are spot on. Soft Brexit is Remain minus any say. And those who claim to respect the referendum vote see this as a legitimate response to the outcome of the refrendum MPs voted 6 to 1 to hold.

As legitimate as any other outcome, wouldn't you say? Given there was no definition on what leave actually meant?

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 minutes ago, Boris said:

I get the vote was to leave, but as you say no thought as to whether it would be hard or soft. As mentioned earlier, many leavers insisted membership of the single market would still happen.

 

Regards influence, your example of Cameron isn't what I was getting at. One member wanting a better deal for themselves would , naturally I think, be viewed with disdain. My thought was more to put the UK front centre of Europe and drive policy by forging agreement among the majority.

 

Nonsense Boris. People knew it was leave or stay no fudging of that. Every household got the pamphlet (put together by retainers) that said leave means leave. Out of the customs union and single market there was no grey area this has been manufactured by defeated remainers.

[Francis Albert]

9 minutes ago, Boris said:

As legitimate as any other outcome, wouldn't you say? Given there was no definition on what leave actually meant?

Come on. On no possible interpretation could it mean remaining but just without whatever influence we had.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Boris]

16 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Nonsense Boris. People knew it was leave or stay no fudging of that. Every household got the pamphlet (put together by retainers) that said leave means leave. Out of the customs union and single market there was no grey area this has been manufactured by defeated remainers.

 

So why all the leavers saying we would remain in the single market?

 

Remainers may well have been right, but that isn't to say leave was economical with the truth!

[Boris]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Come on. On no possible interpretation could it mean remaining but just without whatever influence we had.

So why did leavers say we would definitely still be in the single market?

 

My point was that there was no explicit statement saying if we leave then it would mean x,y,z.

 

What we have is a mandate to leave but know one has a clue as to how to go about it, what the ramifications will be, but most odiously it is being driven by the free marketers of the Tory party which, if experience is anything to go by, means no good will come of it.

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

So why all the leavers saying we would remain in the single market?

 

Remainers may well have been right, but that isn't to say leave was economical with the truth!

 

What leavers were saying that?

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

What leavers were saying that?

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

15 minutes ago, Boris said:

So why did leavers say we would definitely still be in the single market?

 

My point was that there was no explicit statement saying if we leave then it would mean x,y,z.

 

What we have is a mandate to leave but know one has a clue as to how to go about it, what the ramifications will be, but most odiously it is being driven by the free marketers of the Tory party which, if experience is anything to go by, means no good will come of it.

 

My recollection is that they said that we'd still have access to the single market, not that we'd still be in the single market.

 

[Francis Albert]

32 minutes ago, Boris said:

So why did leavers say we would definitely still be in the single market?

 

My point was that there was no explicit statement saying if we leave then it would mean x,y,z.

 

What we have is a mandate to leave but know one has a clue as to how to go about it, what the ramifications will be, but most odiously it is being driven by the free marketers of the Tory party which, if experience is anything to go by, means no good will come of it.

I thought free markets (and all things they deem must go with free markets, not all of which necessarily do) are at the very heart of the EU project. So when Corbyn is elected he won't in a soft brexit/ remain be able to subsidise companies in manufacturing industry to try to rebalance the economy and uk job opportunities from.the City and Canary Wharf to the former industrial heartlands of the UK. The one thing other than bloated bureaucracy and lack of democratic control that the eu guarantees is free markets!

Edited February 28, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Boris]

24 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

My recollection is that they said that we'd still have access to the single market, not that we'd still be in the single market.

 

 

Perhaps that is where the confusion lies. Every nation in the world has access to the eu single market, assuming a trade deal is reached. 

 

The assumption, rightly or wrongly, inferred perhaps that access meant being in it, to some at least.  And that mis comprehension wasn't clarified.

[Boris]

15 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I thought free markets (and all things they deem must go with free markets, not all of which necessarily do) are at the very heart of the EU project. So when Corbyn is elected he won't in a soft brexit/ remain be able to subsidise companies in manufacturing industry to try to rebalance the economy and uk job opportunities from.the City and Canary Wharf to the former industrial heartlands of the UK. The one thing other than bloated bureaucracy and lack of democratic control that the eu guarantees is free markets!

Not sure I agree with that, as as it stands the debate is simply about customs union, rather than single market membership so not sure that would tie Corbyn's hands?

[Francis Albert]

47 minutes ago, Boris said:

Not sure I agree with that, as as it stands the debate is simply about customs union, rather than single market membership so not sure that would tie Corbyn's hands?

Not sure either. But Norway is in the single market but not the customs union. Can you be the other way round?

Either way sounds like cherry picking in the eu's current  terms. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

Not sure I agree with that, as as it stands the debate is simply about customs union, rather than single market membership so not sure that would tie Corbyn's hands?

 

Jeremy Corbyn hasn't said that the UK should be in the EU customs union.  He has said that there should be a UK-EU customs union.  That gives the UK some degree of control and influence over the nature, scope and range of the customs union - as long as it can get the other side to agree with it about the parameters when establishing the union in the first place.

 

While Corbyn is showing some flexibility of thinking about the issue by picking up on the idea that there are other options apart from a simplistic "in" or "out", he is missing one angle.  That's no great surprise, but it would help matters if he picked up on it.  And that angle is that the UK doesn't actually need to be in a UK-EU customs union.  The EU and the UK can create a deal whereby they act as if they are in a customs union by having a very high level of customs co-ordination.  However the differences are that it takes more than one agreement or treaty to achieve, and it doesn't automatically cover all products, services and sectors - the parties have to specifically agree what economic areas are in and which ones are out of the arrangements.  It also gives the UK more independence of the EU in terms of negotiating trade deals - but only up to a point.  That's the way the EU does business with EFTA countries. e.g. Norway.  Specific sectors are excluded, which means that the EU applies tariffs to those goods and services.  However, EFTA countries can impose their own tariffs on imports from outside the EU, and although their trade policies have to be aligned with the EU they can do some independent trade agreements of their own (don't ask me for exact details, but I think most of the freedoms relate to those goods and services that are excluded from the EU-EFTA deal). 

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

But it is a big deal. May has committed the uk to it by her previous statement in December, let alone that it goes against the good Friday agreement should a hard border come back.

 

interesting that the eu statement was simply a statement of what the uk govt had previously agreed via Mays statement indecember. So the eu haven't made anything up, it's the Brits that have moved the goalposts it would seem.

Sorry to come back late but your second paragraph is the opposite of the truth. In what was previously agreed there was to be no barrier to trade between NI and the rest of the UK. The latest eu proposal says their must be  joint EU and UK customs controls  between NI and the UK, which surely represents a barrier to trade.

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, Boris said:

But it is a big deal. May has committed the uk to it by her previous statement in December, let alone that it goes against the good Friday agreement should a hard border come back.

 

interesting that the eu statement was simply a statement of what the uk govt had previously agreed via Mays statement indecember. So the eu haven't made anything up, it's the Brits that have moved the goalposts it would seem.

 

 

The Commission draft is an attempt to put text on something that the UK has already committed to, and that the EU has acknowledged.  To fully understand the status of the draft, there are three things that have to be kept in mind.

 

1. The draft is for something that is a "backstop" that both sides agree should only happen in the event that the other options (an overall agreement or specific policy and operational proposals by the UK that are acceptable to the EU) don't work out. 

 

2. The draft is the Commission's view of how to put that "backstop" in place.  The Commission expects the UK to have its own view, and if those views are not in alignment they will have to be negotiated.

 

3. The draft deals with something that the UK committed to and that the EU acknowledged - i.e. that NI would not be a different regulatory space to the rest of this island.  It deals with that commitment fully and completely.

[Ulysses]

Europe is a complicated place, isn't it?

 

 

[Ulysses]

The above diagram doesn't even take into account those places (e.g. the Channel Islands) that have a special relationship with the EU/EEA but that aren't part of the EU or EEA.

[Ulysses]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

The above diagram doesn't even take into account those places (e.g. the Channel Islands) that have a special relationship with the EU/EEA but that aren't part of the EU or EEA.

 

 

And it doesn't take account of the many territories and areas of EU member states that have either a special status within the EU or a special status within the member state.

 

You can read more here - it gets quite complicated.