Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

we hear so much about the backstop but what exactly is it?
is it within the eu power to remove it?

[Londonrake]

The EU itself is in the process of implementing a system which, if used in Ireland, would make the so-called “Backstop” unnecessary. Despite all the “unicorn” talk they know that and in fact plan to use it at the port of Calais.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislati ... nformation

IIRC something like 1.6% of inter-Irish trade is involved cross country. A pittance. Moreover, there are already facilities in place between the 2, allowing for the national differences in currency and taxation.

The EU were advised by the likes of Blair and Major to “weaponise” the border issue, in order to trap the UK, potentially in perpetuity, tightly under the Federation’s control, legally unable to exit without the EU’s permission. In essence a colony. May of course fell over herself trying (unsuccessfully) to sell it.

It’s a sham but to admit so would of course mean losing face. So, they could very well throw the economic baby out with the bath water to insist on it. If the Irish wake up next November to find themselves in economic purgatory, due to Varadkar’s grandstanding and being the Brussels patsy, there will be hell to pay.

[Lordo]

the link you gave is bullshit. it applies to the internal market. how will that be possible to apply it to uk when we are not in it?

if you think the backstop can be resolved by simply doing checks in an electronic way, you really have not understood the backstop at all. this sentence gives the whole essence of the backstop.

<<The UK planned to avoid such an outcome via its overall relationship with the EU in future, remaining close enough to the EU that border checks wouldn’t be needed for goods or people. However, the EU insisted on a clause in the joint report of December 2017 which said that if these checks couldn’t be avoided in the way the UK foresaw, “the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”>>

now this was not the eu suggestion, the eu suggestion was that only northern ireland would remain in the backstop till such time as it was resolved, but may changed it to include the whole of the uk.

the word is close enough which means a regulatory allignment. which in turn means being in some sort of customs and free trade agreement. Unless the goods and services are in regulatory allignment between northern ireland and eu there will be no trade allowed never mind checks.

if some bright spark decides to import a load of chlorinated chigen or hormoned beef from the united states and gets them delivered to northern ireland, no amount of checking or efficiency will allow these products move to southern ireland and into the eu.

But why do we need the backstop? why was it negotiated at all? That is the real problem. The answer is very simple. An international agreement the good friday agreement cannot be negated by brexit unless all the signatories to the good friday agreement have agreed.

Another issue is that fact that boris says it is undemocratic. Well the population of northern ireland actually voted to remain in the eu, how exactly is that undemocratic.

so going back to any checks that may solve this problem. even if such a thing was possible and it was somehow accepted by the sinn fein or the southern irish government which it will not be, the ira will put a stop to such offices where ever they may be even if they are in the middle of dublin and london.

you seem to forget what lead to the good friday agreement. it was a single bomb in the city of london in bishopsgate in 1993 which caused the british government to finally sit down and negotiate with the ira.

only fools rpeat the same mistake, ordibary people learn from them, and the best people learn from other people's mistake.

how many people actually realise that no matter what we do with our brexit, backstop is going to be in place?

[Lordo]

this one is for those who are confusing what backstop means and how we got to it.

What does a backstop mean?

Early in the Brexit talks, the UK and EU produced a joint report which set out their commitments about how the UK would leave the EU, which included reference to how a border would be avoided between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

The UK planned to avoid such an outcome via its overall relationship with the EU in future, remaining close enough to the EU that border checks wouldn’t be needed for goods or people. However, the EU insisted on a clause in the joint report of December 2017 which said that if these checks couldn’t be avoided in the way the UK foresaw, “the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”

This commitment is the Irish backstop. The EU fleshed this out into a proposal suggesting only Northern Ireland remain in the EU customs union and regulatory area for goods.

The UK has consistently rejected the EU’s proposal. Talks continue about how to define the backstop in the Withdrawal Agreement, and it has become the central point of contention in reaching a deal.

[Londonrake]

the link you gave is bullshit. it applies to the internal market. how will that be possible to apply it to uk when we are not in it?

You invited comments on the OP? Or, are you just looking for that warm feeling which comes from ranting at people?

The link (Bullshit to use your terminology) is from the EU’s Europa website and outlines Brussels’s plans for regulating the free movement of goods between the Federation’s countries, monitored and controlled by their electronic EFTI. Published in March this year.

When the UK floated the idea of such a system being implemented in Ireland the Commission dismissed it out of hand, calling it “magical thinking” and “unicorns”. Ipso facto, they said that the technology was unavailable. That’s called “a lie”.

The rest of your post is interesting but I don’t have the time right now, which you clearly enjoy, available to slog through it.

I would just add that the GFA was absolutely nothing to do with the EU. It’s an agreement between the UK and ROI. Once again though (can you smell Blair?) its being used as a handy tool against Brexit. If the people of NI want to go back to murdering (mostly each other) in large numbers they don’t need Brexit as an excuse. Somehow I think you’d find that the average person living there, who’s enjoyed a generation of their family living in peace, would find the idea absurd.

It’s all yet more Project Fear hype.

Have a nice day. It’s lovely outside. Get a bit of sunshine.

[Lordo]

as i said you don't really understand what gfa is and how it bounds the eu or any other country involved with northern ireland. international agreement is what it is and remains like a solid rock behind the people who live in ireland.

in fact this is why the attorney general gave the advice that he did, we may never come out of it. there is only one clause in the geneva convention that would allow such a thing and that is article 62 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: foreseeing the unforeseen?

The only way we are allowed to exit from it is if we can prove that we could not have forseen that tgfa would not allow northern ireland to brexit from the southern ireland.

you go to court and expalin how it is unforseen and you will get it removed. good luck with that one.

[Lordo]

here is a bit more to chew on while you are at it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47568883

here is the highlights.

<<Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons, was asked on Thursday if there could be a debate to consider whether there might be a solution to this involving Article 62 of the Vienna Convention.>>

<< Exceptional cases'

The International Court of Justice, which rules on such matters, has been clear that it sets the bar very high.

It ruled in 1997 against the use of Article 62 to get out of a treaty between Hungary and Slovakia to build a dam on the River Danube.

In that judgement, it said that the claim of fundamental changes could only be applied in "exceptional cases".

Hungary had claimed that since the treaty was signed in 1977, there had been profound political changes in the region (such as Czechoslovakia splitting) and a change to the economic systems in force, but the court ruled those were not sufficiently exceptional.>>

not a cat hell chance you would get an exception becasue of brexit.

so you still think gfa is not relevant. you must be joking.

[Lordo]

how many pibol realise the similarity of the backstop with the treaty of guarantee. they are both an insurnance policy. if eu accepts that ireland requires and insurance policy, how can they deny another insurance policy to the tcs. after all insurance policy is what it is, it will only be used if needed.

why are the brits worried about an insurance policy?

should they not have highlighted this situation before the referendum. what do you expect for a couple inbred eaton graduates

[Lordo]

well there you have it

backstop is indespensible. who in their right mind would remove an insurance policy.

what eu is telling bojo is you brexit if you want to but gfa says you cannot force ireland to follow. its only fair tight.

[Kikapu]

how many pibol realise the similarity of the backstop with the treaty of guarantee. they are both an insurnance policy. if eu accepts that ireland requires and insurance policy, how can they deny another insurance policy to the tcs. after all insurance policy is what it is, it will only be used if needed.

why are the brits worried about an insurance policy?

should they not have highlighted this situation before the referendum. what do you expect for a couple inbred eaton graduates

TC’s insurance would be the EU, just as it is now in N. Ireland and Éire. What more can the TCs ask for?