7 ms·

Very off topic, but the backstop is only meant to take effect if no other agreement can be made by the end of the transition period. If it does take effect, it'

Very off topic, but the backstop is only meant to take effect if no other agreement can be made by the end of the transition period. If it does take effect, it's meant to be temporary until such time as a more permanent deal is agreed (although it's true it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made).

mrec 8y ago
Yes, but the EU has both the ability and every economic incentive to refuse any permanent agreement that doesn't give them at least the same level of UK lock-in. The "temporary" is a figleaf to try to sell the WA to domestic voters and MPs; I don't think anyone takes it seriously.
- pergadad 8y ago
  You're reading too much bad/biased reporting. Anyone who ever worked in international relations or trade knows that the worst case is uncertainty. It's neither in the UK's not in the EU's interest. It's quite weird to see how much the news and information cycle in the UK is based on rumours and quotes of random MPs. Like, seriously, try to think for a second from the EU's perspective and it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with and that has no clear legal standing. Everything gets more costly and complex - think just of external trade negotiations, import taxes, quality standards and norms, etc which all fall into a place of uncertain "could change at any minute" state in such a situation. The EU is not some weird evil creature.thstsboutnto get you. The EU is the set of countries that for decades have been your closest allies. No one is trying to rip you off. Except, it seems, for the Tories that prefer to divide the UK and insult all their allies over internal power struggles, rather than actually try and act in the country's interest.
  - mrec 8y ago
    > it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with It's very much in the EU's economic interest to keep the UK as a captive market for their exporters. It's very much in the EU's financial interest to put the UK on the hook for any liabilities it cares to dream up. It's very much in the EU's institutional interest to inflict a humiliating defeat so as to dissuade other members from leaving. And I don't see that if the WA goes through there'd be much "uncertainty"; the UK would be screwed, no two ways about it, unless it throws Northern Ireland under the bus. It'd be nice to imagine that broader, fluffier, more forward-thinking interests were being considered as well, but I haven't seen any sign of that so far. I do think a lot of people in Europe and elsewhere are misinterpreting the anger in the UK at the moment. No, the EU isn't evil or malicious; it's acting perfectly rationally according to its interests as it sees them, and those interests make perfect sense in a realist view of IR. It found itself pushing on an open door with Theresa May and it'd be wholly unrealistic to expect it to stop pushing out of some weird sense of fair play. The anger is about the EU, but it's mostly not directed at the EU; it's directed at the UK political establishment.
    - imtringued 8y ago
      The choice of words matters. Any type of self preservation by the EU is demonized as evil self interest. positive wording -> negative wording Keep 4 core principles of the single market as written in the "constitution"? -> EU is strong arming the UK and trying to punish it in negotiations and is not willing to even give small concessions. UK is part of the EU until Brexit negotiations have been concluded -> EU has the upper hand in negotiations. EU wants to avoid a hard border and the potential societal unrest at all costs with the backstop -> EU is trying to tie the UK into the customs union indefinitely with the backstop. / The EU is trying to impose a border between northern Ireland and the mainland. I mean seriously what did you expect? Negotiating the constitution of a country or political union isn't realistic at all. It was never going to happen unless the other party wants to voluntarily self destruct itself. Do you think Russia could renegotiate the abolishment of human rights in the US to arrest political enemies abroad? Because that's just as silly. Heck I've also read this gem recently (paraphrased): Copyright directive passed with significantly more than 70% of the countries voting in favor -> The EU is threatening the sovereignty of member states by passing laws to countries that have voted against them. The problem with the EU in this case isn't the democratic process. It's the fact that countries voted in favor of it at all.
      - mrec 8y ago
        > demonized as evil self interest I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, but I don't think it's me. The word "evil" only appears once in my comment, immediately preceded by the word "isn't".
    - cataphract 8y ago
      Doesn't the backstop apply only to Northern Ireland, though? It's even why the DUP rejects the agreement — because different rules would apply to NY. The EU is actually not that interested in keeping the backstop indefinitely because it sees the risk that NY will be used by UK companies as a backdoor to the single market.
      - ben_w 8y ago
rezeroed 8y ago
"it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made" -- almost sounds like control is entirely in the EU's hands.
- scottie_m 8y ago
  It’s not about control, it’s just that they don’t have to extend anything beneficial to the UK at the EU’s expense. Basically the UK wants a divorce, and they’re pissed that they’re not getting what think they deserve. Whatever control issues exist are due to a treaty the UK freely entered into, and choices (like getting married) have predictable consequences. If you decide freely to marry me, then unilaterally decide to divorce me, you wouldn’t be shocked if the result was a compromise between what you wanted in terms of property and rights, and what I wanted right? Of course the EU is going to push for every inch, and since they don’t even want Brexit that gives them a lot of power. That was (or should have been) obvious from the get-go.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    Yes, it all should have been obvious. But the Brexiters campaigned for it on the promise that they would secure every benefit of EU membership without having to put up with the perceived downsides, and they did this quite vocally. So now much of the opposition to May's plan come from within her own party which does not want to be seen as having failed to deliver on promises that were never realistic to begin with.
  - pergadad 8y ago
    Not at all. You're thinking in antagonistic terms. The EU wants the closest possible link and alliance - this is not furthered by forcing the other party in a position where they are unhappy. What the EU is concerned with is that the 27 other countries don't suffer excessively due to the UK's bad internal political process. The EU wants legal certainty and had committed to protect the good Friday agreement. That's why there is a backstop. Talk to anyone in Ireland and they are convinced that violence will break out the moment the border is back up. That's why there is a backstop. Look at what UK politicians publicly say about how they will act - that's why it's enshrined in the withdrawal agreement - to make clear that the UK doesn't hold the rest of the EU hostage.

mrec 8y ago

Yes, but the EU has both the ability and every economic incentive to refuse any permanent agreement that doesn't give them at least the same level of UK lock-in. The "temporary" is a figleaf to try to sell the WA to domestic voters and MPs; I don't think anyone takes it seriously.

pergadad 8y ago
You're reading too much bad/biased reporting. Anyone who ever worked in international relations or trade knows that the worst case is uncertainty. It's neither in the UK's not in the EU's interest. It's quite weird to see how much the news and information cycle in the UK is based on rumours and quotes of random MPs. Like, seriously, try to think for a second from the EU's perspective and it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with and that has no clear legal standing. Everything gets more costly and complex - think just of external trade negotiations, import taxes, quality standards and norms, etc which all fall into a place of uncertain "could change at any minute" state in such a situation. The EU is not some weird evil creature.thstsboutnto get you. The EU is the set of countries that for decades have been your closest allies. No one is trying to rip you off. Except, it seems, for the Tories that prefer to divide the UK and insult all their allies over internal power struggles, rather than actually try and act in the country's interest.
- mrec 8y ago
  > it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with It's very much in the EU's economic interest to keep the UK as a captive market for their exporters. It's very much in the EU's financial interest to put the UK on the hook for any liabilities it cares to dream up. It's very much in the EU's institutional interest to inflict a humiliating defeat so as to dissuade other members from leaving. And I don't see that if the WA goes through there'd be much "uncertainty"; the UK would be screwed, no two ways about it, unless it throws Northern Ireland under the bus. It'd be nice to imagine that broader, fluffier, more forward-thinking interests were being considered as well, but I haven't seen any sign of that so far. I do think a lot of people in Europe and elsewhere are misinterpreting the anger in the UK at the moment. No, the EU isn't evil or malicious; it's acting perfectly rationally according to its interests as it sees them, and those interests make perfect sense in a realist view of IR. It found itself pushing on an open door with Theresa May and it'd be wholly unrealistic to expect it to stop pushing out of some weird sense of fair play. The anger is about the EU, but it's mostly not directed at the EU; it's directed at the UK political establishment.
  - imtringued 8y ago
    The choice of words matters. Any type of self preservation by the EU is demonized as evil self interest. positive wording -> negative wording Keep 4 core principles of the single market as written in the "constitution"? -> EU is strong arming the UK and trying to punish it in negotiations and is not willing to even give small concessions. UK is part of the EU until Brexit negotiations have been concluded -> EU has the upper hand in negotiations. EU wants to avoid a hard border and the potential societal unrest at all costs with the backstop -> EU is trying to tie the UK into the customs union indefinitely with the backstop. / The EU is trying to impose a border between northern Ireland and the mainland. I mean seriously what did you expect? Negotiating the constitution of a country or political union isn't realistic at all. It was never going to happen unless the other party wants to voluntarily self destruct itself. Do you think Russia could renegotiate the abolishment of human rights in the US to arrest political enemies abroad? Because that's just as silly. Heck I've also read this gem recently (paraphrased): Copyright directive passed with significantly more than 70% of the countries voting in favor -> The EU is threatening the sovereignty of member states by passing laws to countries that have voted against them. The problem with the EU in this case isn't the democratic process. It's the fact that countries voted in favor of it at all.
    - mrec 8y ago
      > demonized as evil self interest I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, but I don't think it's me. The word "evil" only appears once in my comment, immediately preceded by the word "isn't".
  - cataphract 8y ago
    Doesn't the backstop apply only to Northern Ireland, though? It's even why the DUP rejects the agreement — because different rules would apply to NY. The EU is actually not that interested in keeping the backstop indefinitely because it sees the risk that NY will be used by UK companies as a backdoor to the single market.
    - ben_w 8y ago

rezeroed 8y ago

"it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made" -- almost sounds like control is entirely in the EU's hands.

scottie_m 8y ago
It’s not about control, it’s just that they don’t have to extend anything beneficial to the UK at the EU’s expense. Basically the UK wants a divorce, and they’re pissed that they’re not getting what think they deserve. Whatever control issues exist are due to a treaty the UK freely entered into, and choices (like getting married) have predictable consequences. If you decide freely to marry me, then unilaterally decide to divorce me, you wouldn’t be shocked if the result was a compromise between what you wanted in terms of property and rights, and what I wanted right? Of course the EU is going to push for every inch, and since they don’t even want Brexit that gives them a lot of power. That was (or should have been) obvious from the get-go.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  Yes, it all should have been obvious. But the Brexiters campaigned for it on the promise that they would secure every benefit of EU membership without having to put up with the perceived downsides, and they did this quite vocally. So now much of the opposition to May's plan come from within her own party which does not want to be seen as having failed to deliver on promises that were never realistic to begin with.
- pergadad 8y ago
  Not at all. You're thinking in antagonistic terms. The EU wants the closest possible link and alliance - this is not furthered by forcing the other party in a position where they are unhappy. What the EU is concerned with is that the 27 other countries don't suffer excessively due to the UK's bad internal political process. The EU wants legal certainty and had committed to protect the good Friday agreement. That's why there is a backstop. Talk to anyone in Ireland and they are convinced that violence will break out the moment the border is back up. That's why there is a backstop. Look at what UK politicians publicly say about how they will act - that's why it's enshrined in the withdrawal agreement - to make clear that the UK doesn't hold the rest of the EU hostage.