Amended Backstop

I reckon if the truth was known the U.K. at the moment does very few revenue type checks on freight from the Republic. Of course checks are carried out for terrorism and drugs.
Because they aren’t required because your in the CU
 
DUP will kick that into touch, and so should the Government of the UK (not Britain note, the UK).
They already did

Remember it was the DUP pressure on PMTM that turned the backstop into keeping the whole of the U.K. in the CU unless a solution could be found to the Irish border..... what was agreed between the EU and U.K. was that it was NI only that would stay in the CU until that solution was found.


The DUP definitely will say never never never .... again

But I wonder if it came to a vote in Westminster would it WA pass with the backstop being NI only?
 
Voters in Great Britiain could care less
Which will in the end, solve the NI issue and probably the UK issue after some time.
 
time to cut away this problem that is Ireland once and for all! 100yrs ago they wanted nothing to do with us and declared their selves a country ((albeit one without their own currency) and have been no friends to Britain ever since even though they never think twice about sucking on the British tit, let them go and stew and see how they get on on their own.
Without NI there wouldn't be a Tory government.
 
Without NI there wouldn't be a Tory government.
No? It would be a minority Conservative government but nobody else got enough votes to take power. Even if the DUP didn't prop up the Conservatives they are never going to go in to coalition with Labour.
No DUP support and May would still be PM. Even a Labour/SNP/LibDem/Sinn Fein coalition would still have fallen short of a beating the Conservatives
 
David Davis then. I know what's coming here as well. Thing is, you need to look at the second part, how's it going to look to any other negotiators if our word means feck all?
The EU signed a trade treaty with Canada and assured us that everything from that point forward was just a matter of formalities. Then Germany decided there was a clause in there they didn't like, and that no the treaty was not going forward, signed by the EU or not. Thereafter followed mad last minute top level negotiations directly between Canada and Germany to find something acceptable to both sides, with the EU then being informed of what had been decided on and the changes were incorporated into the treaty.

Get used to it, it's how the world works and the UK will have to be prepared for this in dealing with anyone else. No treaty text is final until all parities have ratified it in their parliaments. It's not at all unusual for one party to come back and say that there is some unexpected problem which jeopardises their ability to get it ratified. These things are often settled in side letters which don't appear in the treaty text but which supersede treaty provisions for those parties, so you don't necessarily know about them if you just read the treaty itself. Sometimes the issue never gets settled but if the issue is not fundamental to the treaty itself then both sides may go ahead anyway while nullifying that part.

The treaty affected both federal and provincial levels of government in Canada, as well as on the EU side as well. In Canada this was handled by a consultation process which kept provincial governments in the loop and ensured that their agreement on points which were in their jurisdiction was secured in advance. Consultation on the EU side of things seemed to be an absolute train wreck by comparison, see above for just one example. I don't know whether the EU can approve the Brexit withdrawal agreement on their own, or if they need the approval of the parliaments of each EU member. If the latter, then going by Canadian experience don't be surprised if multiple countries raise objections and demand that something be renegotiated. I'm not making any predictions here, just pointing out a potential problem.
 
The EU signed a trade treaty with Canada and assured us that everything from that point forward was just a matter of formalities. Then Germany decided there was a clause in there they didn't like, and that no the treaty was not going forward, signed by the EU or not. Thereafter followed mad last minute top level negotiations directly between Canada and Germany to find something acceptable to both sides, with the EU then being informed of what had been decided on and the changes were incorporated into the treaty.

Get used to it, it's how the world works and the UK will have to be prepared for this in dealing with anyone else. No treaty text is final until all parities have ratified it in their parliaments. It's not at all unusual for one party to come back and say that there is some unexpected problem which jeopardises their ability to get it ratified. These things are often settled in side letters which don't appear in the treaty text but which supersede treaty provisions for those parties, so you don't necessarily know about them if you just read the treaty itself. Sometimes the issue never gets settled but if the issue is not fundamental to the treaty itself then both sides may go ahead anyway while nullifying that part.

The treaty affected both federal and provincial levels of government in Canada, as well as on the EU side as well. In Canada this was handled by a consultation process which kept provincial governments in the loop and ensured that their agreement on points which were in their jurisdiction was secured in advance. Consultation on the EU side of things seemed to be an absolute train wreck by comparison, see above for just one example. I don't know whether the EU can approve the Brexit withdrawal agreement on their own, or if they need the approval of the parliaments of each EU member. If the latter, then going by Canadian experience don't be surprised if multiple countries raise objections and demand that something be renegotiated. I'm not making any predictions here, just pointing out a potential problem.
Any U.K. trade deal has to be ratified by every member state (and some regions within those states).

Not 100% about the WA
 
Any U.K. trade deal has to be ratified by every member state (and some regions within those states).

Not 100% about the WA
I think the problem in the case of the treaty with Canada is that while most of the trade treaty covered areas that were the sole responsibility of the EU itself, some of the provisions overlapped with areas that were the responsibilities of the individual EU members and so had to be agreed to by them. This makes its a "mixed agreement".

Initially the EU tried to approve it as if it wasn't, which meant the EU could approve it on its own. However, some of the EU members kicked up a fuss as they felt it infringed on their powers, and so the EU had to change tack.

However, the deal was provisionally applied prior to ratification, so there wasn't a need to actually wait for each country to actually ratify it before beginning to trade based on the treaty. Ratification objections can be dealt with changes to those areas of the treaty which the objections relate to.
 
Last edited:
Well this bit;s a nonsense
4/5 EU commits to give UK the option to exit the Single Customs Territory unilaterally, while the other elements of the backstop must be maintained to avoid a hard border. UK will not be forced into customs union against its will.

Effectively the EU has devised a new concept of Customs Territory, which If I were other member states I'd be saying "hold on a cotton picking minute, these territories are ours and the customs bit is dependent on us. The other factor is that the EEA appears to have been cherry picked. "The UK will not be forced into a Customs Union against it's will"- "whilst other elements of the Backstop must be maintained to avoid a hard border. " So Ireland actually has no say in it's border with us. Well done Ireland oh well done. Like I say the CTA effectively comes to an end for Ireland.
 
Well this bit;s a nonsense
4/5 EU commits to give UK the option to exit the Single Customs Territory unilaterally, while the other elements of the backstop must be maintained to avoid a hard border. UK will not be forced into customs union against its will.

Effectively the EU has devised a new concept of Customs Territory, which If I were other member states I'd be saying "hold on a cotton picking minute, these territories are ours and the customs bit is dependent on us. The other factor is that the EEA appears to have been cherry picked. "The UK will not be forced into a Customs Union against it's will"- "whilst other elements of the Backstop must be maintained to avoid a hard border. " So Ireland actually has no say in it's border with us. Well done Ireland oh well done. Like I say the CTA effectively comes to an end for Ireland.
CTA is do with people

Customs is to do with goods
 
I think the problem in the case of the treaty with Canada is that while most of the trade treaty covered areas that were the sole responsibility of the EU itself, some of the provisions overlapped with areas that were the responsibilities of the individual EU members and so had to be agreed to by them. This makes its a "mixed agreement".

Initially the EU tried to approve it as if it wasn't, which meant the EU could approve it on its own. However, some of the EU members kicked up a fuss as they felt it infringed on their powers, and so the EU had to change tack.

However, the deal was provisionally applied prior to ratification, so there wasn't a need to actually wait for each country to actually ratify it before beginning to trade based on the treaty. Ratification objections can be dealt with changes to those areas of the treaty which the objections relate to.
EU trade negotiations - Consilium
 

Latest Threads

Top