EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

This is correct.

There is, according to current polling, a slight edge for Remain - but that was true three years ago. Another Referendum will solve nothing, and it will feed into the anti-democratic mythos of the EU. If the people give the wrong result in a vote, make them vote again.

What would the question even be?

Take the Deal or leave without one?

Take the Deal or stay?

Two Referendums?

I'm sure Beskar would suggest a three-option referendum but that would be an utter disaster.

There was one side with concrete promises last time, and one side with the freedom to promise whatever they want, without the responsibility of having to keep their promises.



"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." - Nigel Farage, May 2016.

[rory_20_uk]

There was one side with concrete promises last time, and one side with the freedom to promise whatever they want, without the responsibility of having to keep their promises.



"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." - Nigel Farage, May 2016.

Not really.

The EU now is not the same EEC that the population last had the chance to vote on in the 1970's. Each treaty changing things. True, this wasn't promised as much as not mentioned.

[Pannonian]

Not really.

The EU now is not the same EEC that the population last had the chance to vote on in the 1970's. Each treaty changing things. True, this wasn't promised as much as not mentioned.

The Remain side in 2016 had an EU that was tangible, with a complete set of rules and rights. The promises would not only be kept, they have already been kept, and were there for everyone to check up on should they wish, and for everyone to hold to account. Where's the equivalent on Leave's side? Is the promise on the bus going to be kept? What about Farage's promise in May 2016 to keep campaigning should the result be 52-48 in favour of Remain? BTW, if we leave with no deal, would you say that this was what you voted for, and accept responsibility for the results?

[rory_20_uk]

The Remain side in 2016 had an EU that was tangible, with a complete set of rules and rights. The promises would not only be kept, they have already been kept, and were there for everyone to check up on should they wish, and for everyone to hold to account. Where's the equivalent on Leave's side? Is the promise on the bus going to be kept? What about Farage's promise in May 2016 to keep campaigning should the result be 52-48 in favour of Remain? BTW, if we leave with no deal, would you say that this was what you voted for, and accept responsibility for the results?

The Remain side were equally talking about the future not the past. There is not a complete set of anything - the laws and institutions change. Unless you would like to apply this "oh it's not tangeable" to everything. Such as the Euro, admitting Eastern Europe, starting a EU Armed Forces, EU Diplomats...

Hold to account? Don't make me laugh. The EU budget has rarely (if ever) been passed by the auditors. Several members of the Euro break the rules of GDP debt and nothing happens. Greece committed fraud to join and no one seems to care. The ECB massively increased its remit... The list goes on and on.

The no deal vote was taken over 2 years ago. It was pretty obvious to me from day one that there would be nothing from the EU since they can not let people leave and not be worse off - else why pay the protection money? If a system would work with common standards and free trade people might ask all sorts of questions - like why we need so many highly paid bureaucrats!

But the whole two years have been pissed away - a massive amount of time that issues could have been assessed and mitigated. Now we might need another 2 more...

So I am responsible for the fact of leaving, not the process to date of leaving.

[Pannonian]

The Remain side were equally talking about the future not the past. There is not a complete set of anything - the laws and institutions change. Unless you would like to apply this "oh it's not tangeable" to everything. Such as the Euro, admitting Eastern Europe, starting a EU Armed Forces, EU Diplomats...

Hold to account? Don't make me laugh. The EU budget has rarely (if ever) been passed by the auditors. Several members of the Euro break the rules of GDP debt and nothing happens. Greece committed fraud to join and no one seems to care. The ECB massively increased its remit... The list goes on and on.

The no deal vote was taken over 2 years ago. It was pretty obvious to me from day one that there would be nothing from the EU since they can not let people leave and not be worse off - else why pay the protection money? If a system would work with common standards and free trade people might ask all sorts of questions - like why we need so many highly paid bureaucrats!

But the whole two years have been pissed away - a massive amount of time that issues could have been assessed and mitigated. Now we might need another 2 more...

So I am responsible for the fact of leaving, not the process to date of leaving.

Remain had something current to hold up. Such as the single market, which did not exist the last time there was a vote. The loss of access to which has led to the exodus of manufacturing. It remains to see what will happen to customs. One of the ministers has mooted a solution that will severely damage agriculture.

[rory_20_uk]

Remain had something current to hold up. Such as the single market, which did not exist the last time there was a vote. The loss of access to which has led to the exodus of manufacturing. It remains to see what will happen to customs. One of the ministers has mooted a solution that will severely damage agriculture.

So it is fine for the EU to change things but not for the UK to leave.

You not going to refute any aspect of what I mentioned? Perhaps those who wished to remain want to leave the corruption the EU has at its heart.

So when things in the future will be bad they are fact, and when things will be good they are fiction.

[Pannonian]

So it is fine for the EU to change things but not for the UK to leave.

You not going to refute any aspect of what I mentioned? Perhaps those who wished to remain want to leave the corruption the EU has at its heart.

So when things in the future will be bad they are fact, and when things will be good they are fiction.

What good things are there in Brexit? List them. And on corruption: can you explain how that company with no ferries got a multi-million contract to transport supplies across the Channel? Does corruption only exist in the EU? Or do you only apply your standards to the EU, but not Westminster? Unlike you, I apply my standards to all sides.

[Pannonian]

Just seen a government poster warning people planning to drive in the EU after 29th March on what to do if there is no deal. Someone put a sticker over it, saying "Ban Islam". That's the Brexit argument for you. Blaming the EU for things that have nothing to do with it, not having any constructive solutions, but only wanting rid of things and laying the blame on the EU. Like those geniuses who say they voted to leave the EU because they want to stop Muslims from coming here.

[Furunculus]

This is just bile now, pannonian.

invective and rage is poor sustenance for a heAlthy and happy mind.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Calm, down, this is not constructive, or healthy - both of you.

The fact is that one side of the Referendum was advocating Status Quo because "it's good for our economy" whereas the other side was nowhere near the levers of power and therefore would not be the ones effecting change even if "they" won.

The main reason Leave won is actually that they had the better narrative, the more hopeful narrative. The Remain side was arguing for the economic benefits of the EU which most leave voters don't see. For example, Cornwall has an economy which has been in perpetual recession since the closing of the last tin mines thirty years ago - except for the tourism sector. No mines, fewer fishing boats every year, the price of lamb and beef not keeping up with the costs of running a farm... and the only hope for your children is to be tour guides for rich Londoners and Europeans who want to see the !quaint" wreckage of your economy.

No wonder they votes Leave, same with the Welsh and Northern England. The fact is, the British Government has failed these people for half a Century, first by nationalising their industries and driving them into the ground, then by cutting off the Government life-support and devastating their communities. Pretty much all of this happened AFTER we joined the EU, and EU rules makes Government intervention in this area difficult. Sure, EU "structural" money has gone into these regions but these people want more than a bus root, or a new footbridge - they need real, worthwhile jobs.

For miners leaving the EU opens up the prospect of easier emigration to the Commonwealth, particularly Canada and Australia, where there are active, profitable, mines. For Trawlermen the end of the CFP means British waters plied only by British boats, which means more fish per boat. Further, a hard Brexit holds out the hope of a reduction in cheap EU fish imports. For British Farmers the issue is largely the same, no CAP, no cheap Danish Bacon.

The economic argument only works if you're doing well. I was reminded just how much better London is doing when I visited last week, Exeter looked decidedly shabby and run down when I came back. Despite that, Exeter is (in UK terms) doing very well and just behind London.

As for the current impasse - it's really very simple. Nobody believe we can resolve the Irish border question in the short term, which means the Backstop WILL be triggered and remain in place until a solution is found, during which time the UK will be stuck in "Limbo" which will mean no trade deals, no investment. The British Parliament cannot be expected to assent to a Treaty which binds the UK in perpetuity to the EU because, as nted, we are a Law Abiding nations and once we sign that Treaty we will not, in fact, repudiate it.

So, we (the British) need either a time limit or an exit mechanism to prevent perpetual Limbo once negotiations break down. Meanwhile the EU refuses to countenance a Hard Border in Northern Ireland (which the British also don't want) and thereby want to make sure we CAN'T exit the agreement.

As a result of these two diametrically opposed positions May's deal, is, and always was, a non-starter. The paradox here is that it is now the EU's refusal to move which will ensure a hard border in about wo months time (it won't happen on day one) rather than in, say, five years' time if they agreed to a time limit.

If the EU were sensible they would offer the UK a five-year limit on the backstop (subject to votes on extension) which begins AFTER the Withdrawal period, i.e. seven years from now. The Backstop would also only apply to Northern Ireland. In seven years time we might have a Border Poll, or a different referendum on the Irish Question, or people might just get used to the new arrangement and decide to keep it after all.

Right now it is the EU being intransigent, claiming we haven't "said what we want" when everybody knows that "we" want either a time limit or exit mechanism. If this leads to the UK crashing out because the EU will not offer a deal Parliament can reasonable accept (the current one is not reasonable in light of our political settlement) then the EU will be responsible for the failure.

Fact is, the British Government negotiated a Deal, Parliament killed it, all the current delaying tactics are designed to alter something in that arithmetic, because as things stand no number of "reassurances" will get this deal through the Commons, or the Lords.

[Montmorency]

If the EU were sensible they would offer the UK a five-year limit on the backstop (subject to votes on extension) which begins AFTER the Withdrawal period, i.e. seven years from now. The Backstop would also only apply to Northern Ireland. In seven years time we might have a Border Poll, or a different referendum on the Irish Question, or people might just get used to the new arrangement and decide to keep it after all.

If it's sensible, why hasn't Parliament or the government advanced it to the EU? Or did they and the EU refused?

Right now it is the EU being intransigent, claiming we haven't "said what we want" when everybody knows that "we" want either a time limit or exit mechanism. If this leads to the UK crashing out because the EU will not offer a deal Parliament can reasonable accept (the current one is not reasonable in light of our political settlement) then the EU will be responsible for the failure.

There's this sense that Leavers believe only the EU has agency.

[Pannonian]

Right now it is the EU being intransigent, claiming we haven't "said what we want" when everybody knows that "we" want either a time limit or exit mechanism. If this leads to the UK crashing out because the EU will not offer a deal Parliament can reasonable accept (the current one is not reasonable in light of our political settlement) then the EU will be responsible for the failure.

Fact is, the British Government negotiated a Deal, Parliament killed it, all the current delaying tactics are designed to alter something in that arithmetic, because as things stand no number of "reassurances" will get this deal through the Commons, or the Lords.

A time limited backstop is not a backstop. The backstop is needed because the UK government has been telling domestic audiences that they do not intend to honour promises given to the EU. Such as May negotiating an agreement, then a couple of days later the Brexit minister saying that they can unilaterally go back on this promise. That was after May needed to press forward, and the EU27 gave her the wherewithal to press forward, and then Davis tells the domestic press that the UK government does not intend to keep the promises made.

The EU have already offered a number of solutions for May to choose from. There's a graph showing what solution is possible with each set of demands from the UK government. It only has to decide what it wants, look up the appropriate line on the graph, and there is a solution from the EU to suit its needs. The problem is there is no agreement in Parliament for any solution. That's not the EU's problem, nor is it within their power to solve it. Leavers have often complained about the EU encroaching on national sovereignty, with complaints about ever closer union and all that. Finding an agreement within Parliament is not the EU's business. That's the business of the UK government. And I don't see why you're complaining that the UK government has negotiated a deal but it's Parliament's fault for not passing it. Why does Parliament have to pass it, if it does not agree? Should the UK government just override Parliament?

[Husar]

Right now it is the EU being intransigent, claiming we haven't "said what we want" when everybody knows that "we" want either a time limit or exit mechanism. If this leads to the UK crashing out because the EU will not offer a deal Parliament can reasonable accept (the current one is not reasonable in light of our political settlement) then the EU will be responsible for the failure.

The internal British problems with accepting a deal that is acceptable for the EU are not the EU's problem or fault. You sound as if the internal British needs and wishes should somehow trump the internal needs and wishes of the EU, like the EU should just give Britain a deal that is bad for the EU just to make Britain happy because Britain's happiness is "obviously" more important than the happiness of the EU.

Or as Monty said, you can offer another deal that is acceptable to the EU. If you can't find one, the EU will accept a no deal Brexit. Apparently you have a problem with that, so you have to find a solution to your problem. It's not other peoples' job to find solutions to your problems in the competitive environment that you want to create with Brexit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The internal British problems with accepting a deal that is acceptable for the EU are not the EU's problem or fault. You sound as if the internal British needs and wishes should somehow trump the internal needs and wishes of the EU, like the EU should just give Britain a deal that is bad for the EU just to make Britain happy because Britain's happiness is "obviously" more important than the happiness of the EU.

Or as Monty said, you can offer another deal that is acceptable to the EU. If you can't find one, the EU will accept a no deal Brexit. Apparently you have a problem with that, so you have to find a solution to your problem. It's not other peoples' job to find solutions to your problems in the competitive environment that you want to create with Brexit.

It's not that the EU should necessarily bend to Britain's wants or needs, it's that they are currently pretending those needs don't exist.

A British Parliament cannot sign a treaty in good faith if it commits a future Parliament to be bound by a provision of that treaty in perpetuity. This is especially the case if said provision is meant to be temporary but everyone expects it to end up being semi-permanent.

Parliament has indicated it will not accept the treaty negotiated by the Government. The sticking point is the Backstop, the EU wants a perpetual one, the UK wants one it can withdraw from. The middle ground here is a long-ish time limit to the backstop with an option to extend.

In the UK Parliament, not the Government, is Sovereign. The Government serves under the sufferance of Parliament, not the other way around. Under other circumstances we would now be having an election, the only thing stopping that is the impending Brexit.

The leaders of the EU, though not necessarily the Member States, are acting like it's Theresa May's responsibility to get Parliament behind the deal but she can't and they won't.

So, the EU has two options, offer the UK Parliament something it will accept, or accept No Deal and stop going on about it.

Theresa May can absolutely be held responsible for giving Tusk and Junker the impression she was ever in control of this process, because she never was. Frankly, I don't think Tony Blair could have got THIS deal through Parliament in 1997, so there's really no hope now.

The leaders of the EU absolutely DO need to appreciate the constitutional position of the UK and what that makes possible or impossible.

[Pannonian]

It's not that the EU should necessarily bend to Britain's wants or needs, it's that they are currently pretending those needs don't exist.

A British Parliament cannot sign a treaty in good faith if it commits a future Parliament to be bound by a provision of that treaty in perpetuity. This is especially the case if said provision is meant to be temporary but everyone expects it to end up being semi-permanent.

Parliament has indicated it will not accept the treaty negotiated by the Government. The sticking point is the Backstop, the EU wants a perpetual one, the UK wants one it can withdraw from. The middle ground here is a long-ish time limit to the backstop with an option to extend.

In the UK Parliament, not the Government, is Sovereign. The Government serves under the sufferance of Parliament, not the other way around. Under other circumstances we would now be having an election, the only thing stopping that is the impending Brexit.

The leaders of the EU, though not necessarily the Member States, are acting like it's Theresa May's responsibility to get Parliament behind the deal but she can't and they won't.

So, the EU has two options, offer the UK Parliament something it will accept, or accept No Deal and stop going on about it.

Theresa May can absolutely be held responsible for giving Tusk and Junker the impression she was ever in control of this process, because she never was. Frankly, I don't think Tony Blair could have got THIS deal through Parliament in 1997, so there's really no hope now.

The leaders of the EU absolutely DO need to appreciate the constitutional position of the UK and what that makes possible or impossible.

The deal's parameters were set by May's red lines. The EU published a graph a couple of years ago showing what solutions were possible given various demands. Take May's self-imposed red lines, look it up on the graph, and you have the May agreement. The details were determined by May, not the EU. If she wants the details to be different, all she has to do is make different demands, and look up the relevant solution on the graph. If the solution isn't acceptable to Parliament, that's all down to her. The EU didn't set those red lines. The EU set out the possible solutions a couple of years ago. After May made the agreement, the EU said the details were set, and absent any change in position from the UK, the details would not change. The EU hasn't been back at May to pretend to change the agreement; it's been vice versa. EU officials have repeatedly complained that her new meetings are a waste of time, as she hasn't changed her position, and thus there will be no change of details.

BTW, the backstop is there because the UK wants to unilaterally end the GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI. The backstop does have a mechanism for ending: the technological solution that the UK government has promised would handle the cross-border trade. Once that has been realised, there is no need for a backstop. The UK government doesn't like it because there is no technological solution, and its promise is empty. The EU is insisting on the backstop because the RoI holds the UK to its treaty, and the UK government has proved to be untrustworthy, cf. David Davis talking to the domestic press. How is it the EU's fault that the UK government intends to break its promises?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, the UK does NOT want to end the GFA, it just doesn't want to be perpetually shackled to the EU.

The EU's "graph" is emblematic of its "take it or leave it" position.

That's fine, but that's not really negotiation.

Take a look at your own logic here - the EU wants the UK to sign a Treaty because the UK is untrustworthy and liable to break it's promise.

If that's true there's no value in the Treaty. As I recall, David Davis said that what was in the initial agreement could always be reworked further down the line because it was not the final deal and they were still negotiating. A sentiment expressed to reassure the people of Britain we weren't going to be trussed up like a lamb to slaughter.

Anyway, David Davis resigned months ago - prior to the the signing of the final agreement.

No, the EU wants a perpetual Backstop because everybody knows we aren't getting a trade deal any time soon. The UK isn't going to institute a border in Ireland in the short term, not least because it can't. The EU, however, is ideologically committed to its Market - which is why we had to screw over the Commonwealth to join. The EU needs the UK inside that market or it needs a hard border between the UK and the market.

The EU will either impose a border in Ireland or (more likely) one between Ireland and mainland Europe, because they already have the infrastructure. The nasty truth is that the EU will shut Ireland out of the Common Market rather than agree to a time-limited Backstop.

So, we crash out.

[Pannonian]

No, the UK does NOT want to end the GFA, it just doesn't want to be perpetually shackled to the EU.

The EU's "graph" is emblematic of its "take it or leave it" position.

That's fine, but that's not really negotiation.

Take a look at your own logic here - the EU wants the UK to sign a Treaty because the UK is untrustworthy and liable to break it's promise.

If that's true there's no value in the Treaty. As I recall, David Davis said that what was in the initial agreement could always be reworked further down the line because it was not the final deal and they were still negotiating. A sentiment expressed to reassure the people of Britain we weren't going to be trussed up like a lamb to slaughter.

Anyway, David Davis resigned months ago - prior to the the signing of the final agreement.

No, the EU wants a perpetual Backstop because everybody knows we aren't getting a trade deal any time soon. The UK isn't going to institute a border in Ireland in the short term, not least because it can't. The EU, however, is ideologically committed to its Market - which is why we had to screw over the Commonwealth to join. The EU needs the UK inside that market or it needs a hard border between the UK and the market.

The EU will either impose a border in Ireland or (more likely) one between Ireland and mainland Europe, because they already have the infrastructure. The nasty truth is that the EU will shut Ireland out of the Common Market rather than agree to a time-limited Backstop.

So, we crash out.

Do you want WTO rules?

Also, any evidence for the bolded assertion?

[Montmorency]

The leaders of the EU absolutely DO need to appreciate the constitutional position of the UK and what that makes possible or impossible.

Look, it sounds to me like you're saying the EU negotiators should appreciate some unspoken constitutional position of the UK, but the UK's own government need not.

If this is so obvious, shouldn't the government acknowledge it? Has it been mentioned in Parliament? If not, maybe it's not so obvious?

The only possible misunderstanding on my part I see is if these points were raised in the negotiations but the EU rejected them. Is that the case?

[Husar]

The leaders of the EU, though not necessarily the Member States, are acting like it's Theresa May's responsibility to get Parliament behind the deal but she can't and they won't.

Well, then maybe the UK should either send someone who actually knows what the parliament wants or the parliament should go and negotiate with the EU. Now you're acting like it's the EU's fault that Britain is unable to send a negotiator who actually has the power or knowledge to negotiate an actually acceptable deal. Again, this is an internal problem of the UK.

If the EU finds a temporary component of the deal unacceptable, then it has the right to find that temporary component unacceptale. If no deal can be found that is acceptable for both parties, then there cannot be a deal, don't see the problem there. If your parliament cannot accept terms that the EU is unwilling to change, you get the choice to leave without a deal or to stay. The EU is not obliged to make a deal with you in any way. There are other countries on the planet that the EU doesn't have a deal with, North Korea is probably one. Noone would say the EU has a moral obligation to give North Korea a fair deal.

[Beskar]

Also, any evidence for the bolded assertion?

Reminds me of a conservative talking point about the Backstop which was on about how the Backstop is to the benefit of Ireland due to it having access to the rest of the EU via the United Kingdom. Thus the EU should give into the UK demands rather than the UK give into the EU demands on the Ireland Backstop situation as it punishes the EU/Republic of Ireland more than vice-versus.

[CrossLOPER]

Ban the UK.

[Pannonian]

Reminds me of a conservative talking point about the Backstop which was on about how the Backstop is to the benefit of Ireland due to it having access to the rest of the EU via the United Kingdom. Thus the EU should give into the UK demands rather than the UK give into the EU demands on the Ireland Backstop situation as it punishes the EU/Republic of Ireland more than vice-versus.

Brexiters say that the EU needs us more than we need them, then in the same breath say that the EU are bullying us. See the above PFH post where he says that Cornwall has suffered from decades of underinvestment from the UK government, admits that the EU has diverted money there, then underplays said investment by saying it's not really effective. EU funding takes the form of matching private investment with EU-allocated public investment. The EU does not decide to invest in useless things. Someone local has to have decided to raise funding, then apply to the EU for funding which is then granted. And if it's up to Westminster, this funding wouldn't even be granted, hence the decades of underinvestment before the EU started investing in the poorest areas across the EU. Incidentally, within a week of the referendum, Cornwall county council immediately wanted reassurance that the EU's funding would be replaced by Westminster.

It boggles my mind how many Brexiteer arguments fail basic knowledge or even internal logic.

[Furunculus]

BTW, the backstop is there because the UK wants to unilaterally end the GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI.

"Hi Donald!" *waves*

PFH is absolutely right: being stuck forever is unacceptable. We either solve that problem or we have no deal.

Fingers crossed that Cox can get the EU to provide that assuarance, i'm willing to be persuaded...

[rory_20_uk]

Ireland has never stated exactly what the legal issues are with Brexit and the Good Friday agreement beyond that Terrorists might commit terrorism if they're upset. Oh yes, we refer to it as "destabilising peace". Oddly enough the only time we give equal treatment to Terrorists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you want WTO rules?

Also, any evidence for the bolded assertion?

I do not really want WTO rules, though crashing out would be better than May's deal in the Medium or Long Term even if it might be less painful in the Short Term.

I'll go digging for evidence but it might be a few days, I'm supposed to be writing a paper.

Look, it sounds to me like you're saying the EU negotiators should appreciate some unspoken constitutional position of the UK, but the UK's own government need not.

If this is so obvious, shouldn't the government acknowledge it? Has it been mentioned in Parliament? If not, maybe it's not so obvious?

The only possible misunderstanding on my part I see is if these points were raised in the negotiations but the EU rejected them. Is that the case?

What is the foundation of the US Constitution? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The foundation of the British Constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty - this is a known fact.

Well, then maybe the UK should either send someone who actually knows what the parliament wants or the parliament should go and negotiate with the EU. Now you're acting like it's the EU's fault that Britain is unable to send a negotiator who actually has the power or knowledge to negotiate an actually acceptable deal. Again, this is an internal problem of the UK.

If the EU finds a temporary component of the deal unacceptable, then it has the right to find that temporary component unacceptale. If no deal can be found that is acceptable for both parties, then there cannot be a deal, don't see the problem there. If your parliament cannot accept terms that the EU is unwilling to change, you get the choice to leave without a deal or to stay. The EU is not obliged to make a deal with you in any way. There are other countries on the planet that the EU doesn't have a deal with, North Korea is probably one. Noone would say the EU has a moral obligation to give North Korea a fair deal.

All good points.

So, let's agree that the EU is willing to allow a hard border in Northern Ireland and stop pretending otherwise, then. This does rather raise the question of why the EU will refuse to agree a managed transition to a hard border if it's willing to allow one by default.

One hopes that a long-term result of this debacle will be the weakening of the Government in favour of Parliament, to prevent something like this happening again.

[Husar]

This does rather raise the question of why the EU will refuse to agree a managed transition to a hard border if it's willing to allow one by default.

What sort of managed transition are we talking about? There is no managed transition at any other broder, or is there? What would a managed transition change and why do you want one? IIRC the EU was willing to negotiate a transition phase for the entire Brexit thing, what became of that? I will admit I didn't read May's deal, maybe it's already in there.
The ball is in your court though since you want to leave and you are the ones who have to come up with a solution for your country. Perhaps the EU refuses the managed transition because Ireland doesn't want that? Maybe it's the attempt to pressure the UK into a deal without any transitions. If you don't accept the deal, they can blame you for the border being there. This is how politics are played if you "cancel the friendship" I guess. Wasn't my idea...

[Beskar]

You know, there is the legal grey area section. The UK can simply choose not to enforce the border at Northern Ireland. This means there are no checks in and out on the Northern Ireland side of it.

It would put all the responsibility upon the EU/Republic of Ireland if they want to enforce it.

[Pannonian]

You know, there is the legal grey area section. The UK can simply choose not to enforce the border at Northern Ireland. This means there are no checks in and out on the Northern Ireland side of it.

It would put all the responsibility upon the EU/Republic of Ireland if they want to enforce it.

If the UK does not enforce tariffs with the EU, then by WTO rules it cannot enforce tariffs with any other country. Which means other countries can import tariff free into the UK, but are free to impose whatever tariffs they want on UK exports. This is effectively what Liam Fox (trade minister) has suggested will happen. Michael Gove (agriculture minister) has told farmers this will not happen, as imports would thus undercut UK produce but UK produce will be uncompetitive abroad, meaning severe damage to the UK agriculture industry. I'm not sure what the latest line is, but that's two contradictory positions from the UK government in the space of a week. When the EU complains about the UK government not knowing what it wants, this is an example of it, saying mutually exclusive things to different audiences. And in case any Leaver wants to blame the EU for this, this is two cabinet ministers talking to UK audiences.

[Pannonian]

Do Leavers have any opinion on US demands for lower standards of food safety? Remainers said this would happen, as this is usually the first demands of any US government in negotiations with weaker countries/blocs, but this was poh-poohed as Project Fear, and the US would cut the UK in on a good deal. Now the US government is formally making these demands if the UK wants a UK-US trade deal.

[Furunculus]

Do Leavers have any opinion on US demands for lower standards of food safety? Remainers said this would happen, as this is usually the first demands of any US government in negotiations with weaker countries/blocs, but this was poh-poohed as Project Fear, and the US would cut the UK in on a good deal. Now the US government is formally making these demands if the UK wants a UK-US trade deal.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053791272

in principle I don't have a problem with chlorine washed chicken or hormone grown beef on a food safety basis. this is mainly because unless an area of activity is subject to catastrophic harm, over a time period that cannot be easily dealt with within the normal political horizon, then I prefer regulating based on demonstrable harm rather than the precautionary principle. food standards is a separate point entirely, but there is no food safety issue.