Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

the backstop being applied to the northern ireland even if we do crash out with no deal?

Do you mean whats to stop the backstop being applied, without the UK's consent, to the northern ireland even if we do crash out with no deal?

Or do you mean whats to stop the EU insisting on such after a no deal and in the absence of any form of trade that means it is not necessary ?

yep exactly this.

Do you mean whats to stop the backstop being applied, without the UK's consent, to the northern ireland even if we do crash out with no deal?

and another of course is
is it in the eu power to remove the backstop with any deal?

[erolz66]

the backstop being applied to the northern ireland even if we do crash out with no deal?

Do you mean whats to stop the backstop being applied, without the UK's consent, to the northern ireland even if we do crash out with no deal?

Or do you mean whats to stop the EU insisting on such after a no deal and in the absence of any form of trade that means it is not necessary ?

yep exactly this.

Do you mean whats to stop the backstop being applied, without the UK's consent, to the northern ireland even if we do crash out with no deal?

and another of course is
is it in the eu power to remove the backstop with any deal?

The 'backstop', what it requires, can not be applied without the UK consent / agreement. The first version of the Backstop said in the event of a failure to agree a future trading arrangement that does not force the NI/RoI border status to 'harden' then the UK will agree to allow NI to remain in the customs union with the EU and the rest of the UK does not, which requires, and the Uk government has to agree with, then a customs border between NI and the rest of the UK must exist. This was not acceptable to the DUP. So the second version was in such a scenario the whole of the UK is required to remain in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed that does not require a hardening of the border between RoI / NI. If some other means is found, that would allow the border to between NI and RoI to not have to harden that does not require specific forms of trade agreements between EU and UK, then the conditions the backstop requires (the UK staying in a customs union) would be dropped. But given such 'solutions' do not yet exists, anywhere in the world the conditions of the backstop will apply until such time as such technical solutions can be shown to exist and work.

[Lordo]

really can uk simply ignore it? what about the little matter of the good friday agreement. can they just ignore it? I think not.

infact attorney general's advice and he gave it. we may never be able to remove it. the gfa states that there must be freedom of movement between north and south of ireland and sale of goods too. putting checkpoints away from the border does not make it legal. infact northern ireland has to remain close to the regulations of the eu to even have trade with or without checks. international agreements cannot be just negated so easily. there has been a lot of fools in the past here who claimed the the guarantee agreement was dead because of 1974. and yet here we are anastasides asking for them to be removed.

backstop is almost impossible to remove except applying for the article 62. and even than it has to be an unforseen situation. you can hardly describe the gfa as unforseen. a young irish man told me recently that brexit will far more for irish unity than ira ever did

https://hsfnotes.com/brexit/2019/03/15/the-backstop-and-article-62-of-the-vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties/

[erolz66]

really can uk simply ignore it? what about the little matter of the good friday agreement. can they just ignore it? I think not.

Governments can and do ignore such things when it is expedient for them. There would be all sorts of fall out and consequences if they were to do such but they could. The biggest problem if they were to do that would be getting a trade deal agreed with the US, where congress have made it absolutely clear that if they were to do that in response they would refuse to ratify any trade deal between the UK and the US. On the basis that the UK was breaking the Good Friday agreement by doing such. In effect congress' power over ratifying a UK USA trade deal would become the 'policeman' for the Good Friday agreement. One of the problems with 'international law' (compared to national law) is that there really is not clear means of 'judging' if an agreement has been broken and even when there is (because that is written in to the agreement) there still is not a mean of applying effective sanction against a country that has broken such an agreement. In this case congress become the 'judge' (and they have already given their ruling on if they think the UK leaving the EU in such a way that it endangers the Good Friday agreement, would be to break that agreement' and they can apply and effective sanction for such a reaking - namely to veto any trade deal that Trump and Johnson might cook up between themselves.

[erolz66]

really can uk simply ignore it? what about the little matter of the good friday agreement. can they just ignore it? I think not.

infact attorney general's advice and he gave it. we may never be able to remove it. the gfa states that there must be freedom of movement between north and south of ireland and sale of goods too. putting checkpoints away from the border does not make it legal. infact northern ireland has to remain close to the regulations of the eu to even have trade with or without checks. international agreements cannot be just negated so easily. there has been a lot of fools in the past here who claimed the the guarantee agreement was dead because of 1974. and yet here we are anastasides asking for them to be removed.

backstop is almost impossible to remove except applying for the article 62. and even than it has to be an unforseen situation. you can hardly describe the gfa as unforseen. a young irish man told me recently that brexit will far more for irish unity than ira ever did

https://hsfnotes.com/brexit/2019/03/15/the-backstop-and-article-62-of-the-vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties/

Free movement of people really is not an issue. The UK could leave in any way it wants and the issue of maintaining the free movement of people between NI and RoI as 'openly' as it is today is not a problem. The problems are all about trade.

[erolz66]

There seem to be an idea that if an issue is about trade, then it is is all about political choices and political will. This is just not correct.

For example there seems to be the idea that with a customs union the requirement that all members of it must agree to make external trade deals communally and not singularly is something that could be changed , with sufficient political will and via political choice. To think this is to fundamentally misunderstand. It is like thinking that with the right political choice and will you could have a trade deal where gravity works differently in different areas. It is just not about political choice it is just about the fundamental way something like a customs union works, in a way what it even is. The fundamental mechanics of it. These fundamental mechanics are not about choice, they are about fundamental mechanics of how it works. You can make any choice you want but doing so does not and can not change the fundamental mechanics of how a custom union works.

[erolz66]

Another misunderstanding that appears to be flying around here is the idea that 'free movement of people' is about borders and what does or does not happen at them and the like. It is not. It is about what rights people from one country have to go to another country (which may or may not require going through a hard border) without restriction and to live there and work there. The UK has had bi lateral agreements that give Irish citizens the right to freely go to the uk, to live there and to work there and visa versa the pre date the good Friday agreement and the UK joining the EEC. The hardness of the border between NI and RoI was never a consequence of Irish citizens having the right to freely live and work in the UK. It was a consequence primarily of the needs (with need dictated by different fundamental mechanics of how different trading systems work not political choice )of how trade is conducted between the Uk and Ireland (and therefore by extension the EU) and the needs of security.

The UK as a member of the EU has and gives rights to people to live and work freely in the Uk and gets the same for UK citizens in the other countries. To enter the UK even as a EU citizen or for that matter a UK one there is till a 'hard border' to pass through.

[erolz66]

Londonrake you still out there ? Still waiting for the next response to this little exchange below. Anyone ? The silence is beyond deafening now.

Is there any leaver out there with the honesty to address this ?

Come ON guys give me something. Where are all these 'democratic' leavers who have been shouting so loudly for so long ? What is the problem here ? You have had three years to understand your position ? What are you doing in the face of the statement below ? How are you trying to cope with the cognitive dissonance the statement must be causing you ? Give me some clue ? Are you still trying to convince yourself that the statement is some kind of of 'trick' that you just have not yet managed to work out how the trick is being done ? Or is silence and denial the way you are trying to deal with the statement below, in your own head, whilst maintaining the fictions you have been telling yourself and others now for so long ? fictions that you, the leavers are the democrats and remainers are the anti democrats. Come on just give me a clue as to how you are trying to handle the statement below. Something. Anything. Paphitis ? CG ? Londonrake ? where are you all ?

If you're truly a "democrat", it's actually so simple.

Yes it really is very very simple. The people should NEVER have anything imposed on them that a majority of them do not want. If there is even marginal doubt on what it really is that the people do or do not want in majority it should be tested and not assumed.

Would you not agree as a 'democrat' with the above ? If not why not ?

[erolz66]

Hello darkness my old friend

[Paphitis]

In the end, the majority of the voters decide, as they have with Brexit, so the next referendum would have nothing to do with Brexit, but only should the UK re entering the EU or not. Totally different referendum altogether.

Well, that has got to be the most ridiculous sentence ever posted on the subject!

So the referendum to immediately reverse Brexit would have nothing to do with Brexit?

You know, Leavers like my good self have a phrase for the madness that seems to overtake some Remainers, we call it Brexit Derangement Syndrome...

You may well laugh as what I have written being ridiculous, but there isn’t anything ridiculous about it. Surely you must believe in Democracy and that the majority vote rules, no? You will get your Brexit implemented, so where is the faul play? Surely you do not want to deny others democratic right to vote should the UK become an EU member or not, once the UK is no longer an EU member once Brexit has been implemented? Well?

I do believe in democracy...

So...

There is no point re-running a vote until the demos have had a chance to see if their decision was correct....

Your position is akin to going to the supermarket, choosing between various brands of baked beans, buying one and then taking the unopened tin back because 'you don't like them'...

People return goods back to the store all the time for many reasons for refund, exchange or credit. What’s your point?

I’m not even suggesting returning anything back to the store for refund, exchange or credit, but want to buy something else along next to what was already bought! Totally different transaction altogether, no?

This is dangerous turf Kikapu which will disenfranchise 17 million people even more.

Once you decide on the terms of the referendum, you are bound by it. You can't go back or change those terms. It's a complete mockery.

But, there is nothing wrong with the people requesting another referendum. They need to be sensible though and wait and I would say a minimum of 10 years and probably 20 even.

But by that time there wouldn't be a need for Britain to join the EU. Britain will have Free Trade with the EU (if it still exists) and every European country as well as other countries like USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and India.

And it will continue to keep its currency. If the Brits want to return to the EU they would probably need to enter the Eurozone and that in my opinion will be a huge mistake. Do you really believe the Brits will abandon the Sterling for the Euro. One of the biggest travesties Cyprus did was join the Eurozone and abandon the Pound. What a mistake that was. They abandoned the Pound for the EU Peso! You got to laugh....

There are so many countries outside of the EU - Switzerland is not in the EU. Neither is Norway and look at them. Austria is beginning to become Euroskeptical and might want to leave soon, followed by Hungary and maybe even Poland.