[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[zealo]

The EU is not going to get a backstop, it either removes it for the deal to work on Oct 31st in which case it hasn't got a backstop, or the UK leaves with no deal and the EU still hasn't got a backstop or £39bn.

The backstop is dead. The EU needs to forget about it, it doesn't have a choice. It really is surprising that after all this time the EU and our eurochums here still don't understand that.

That you want the EU to forget about the backstop doesn't mean the EU are going to drop the backstop.

That's something the UK will have to come to terms with if they want trade deals.

[dribbles]

That you want the EU to forget about the backstop doesn't mean the EU are going to drop the backstop.

That's something the UK will have to come to terms with if they want trade deals.

Then we just go with a WTO deal, the EU won't have a backstop and won't get £39bn either.

[Mayhem]

The EU is not going to get a backstop, it either removes it for the deal to work on Oct 31st in which case it hasn't got a backstop, or the UK leaves with no deal and the EU still hasn't got a backstop or £39bn.

The backstop is dead. The EU needs to forget about it, it doesn't have a choice. It really is surprising that after all this time the EU and our eurochums here still don't understand that.

If the backstop is dead, does that mean the UK is erecting a border with Ireland or are you taking back control by not controlling your only land border?

[Pann]

Another chance for the Brexit party, in a leave voting constituency to prod Boris de Pfeffel in the right direction in case he is wavering... These deselections are going to start coming thick and fast now as the swamp is drained and leave voting constituencies start removing remain MP's, turning the tide of parliament towards representing the people who pay its wages.

Lab held Peterborough and they had a much slimmer majority so it is entirely conceivable that the Cons will hold Brecon and Radnorshire. It is worth noting that Brecon and Radnorshire only marginally voted to leave (51.86% Leave to 48.14% Remain) so I don't think that the Brexit Party would be likely to be elected and their running may result in the opposite to your desired outcome by splitting the Tory vote and letting the LDs in by the back door.

[Pann]

If you go with a WTO deal it'll be the WTO sueing you for not having a backstop. Genius plan.

The backstop has absolutely nothing to do with the WTO nor would they sue the UK.

[Pann]

Wrong.

You would be breaking one of the few WTO rules, namely that you need to apply the same rules for trade for every nation.

A judicial panel would need to be formed at WTO level to handle the complaints and it could result in fines or getting expelled from the WTO as being declared a rogue state.

No it is not.

The backstop is a potential bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU has nothing to do with most favoured nation clause.

The WTO certainly deal with complaints however do not sue nations, as you claimed, nor do they fine nations although they negotiate mutually acceptable compensation (which is not defined), if compensation is not agreed then they may grant retaliatory measures. However this is all moot since the backstop has nothing to do with the WTO.

[Elegiac]

No it is not.

The backstop is a potential bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU

The reason for it needing to exist in the first place are WTO rules that would preclude the UK unilaterally leaving the border with Ireland open.

You're gonna get to China at this rate.

[Mayhem]

No it is not.

The backstop is a potential bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU has nothing to do with most favoured nation clause.

The WTO certainly deal with complaints however do not sue nations, as you claimed, nor do they fine nations although they negotiate mutually acceptable compensation (which is not defined), if compensation is not agreed then they may grant retaliatory measures. However this is all moot since the backstop has nothing to do with the WTO.

You are aware that we're talking about a world without the backstop?

So an entirely open border between the EU and the UK without any agreement between them whatsoever.

[Pann]

The reason for it needing to exist in the first place are WTO rules that would preclude the UK unilaterally leaving the border with Ireland open.

You're gonna get to China at this rate.

What does your post have to do with mine? Where did I mention anything about the reasons why it was needed? And why have you clipped the end of my sentence which states that the backstop has nothing to do with most favoured nation clause in order to go on about the most favoured nation clause?

[Mayhem]

Not having a border or backstop with Ireland breaks basic WTO laws. Same goes for Ireland.

Not according to WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell. It could, however, lead to a bunch of complaints.

[Pann]

Not having a border or backstop with Ireland breaks basic WTO laws. Same goes for Ireland.

No. it doesn't. Without an agreement, whether that is a bilateral agreement, trilateral, full FTA, etc, then under WTO terms the UK must treat all nations equally. The UK if it wishes to can choose not to enforce its border with the ROI, this is not a breach of WTO rules, however it must then do the same for all other nations. The backstop is simply an agreement between two trading bodies it has nothing to do with the WTO.

[Elegiac]

No. it doesn't. Without an agreement, whether that is a bilateral agreement, trilateral, full FTA, etc, then under WTO terms the UK must treat all nations equally. The UK if it wishes to can choose not to enforce its border with the ROI, this is not a breach of WTO rules, however it must then do the same for all other nations.

What the fuck is the point of Brexit then?

It's almost like you lot ran into this without thinking about a) how you were going to get there or b) what the result would be.

[Gibblewink]

It is also worth noting that no Backstop means no trade deal with the US, so maybe it would be worthwhile to reconsider ones priorities.

[Mayhem]

No. it doesn't. Without an agreement, whether that is a bilateral agreement, trilateral, full FTA, etc, then under WTO terms the UK must treat all nations equally. The UK if it wishes to can choose not to enforce its border with the ROI, this is not a breach of WTO rules, however it must then do the same for all other nations. The backstop is simply an agreement between two trading bodies it has nothing to do with the WTO.

You're not making much sense here.

The backstop can't be something that prevents complaints from WTO members and at the same time has nothing to do with the WTO.

[Elegiac]

You're not making much sense here.

The backstop can't at the same time be something that prevents complaints from WTO members and at the same time has nothing to do with the WTO.

It's almost as good as "the WTO can't sue the UK because it's not legally binding".

Okay. Does that make being kicked out for being a rogue state a preferable option, then? At this rate we're going to end up with the Democratic People's Republic of England being bordered by EU states.

[Pann]

What the fuck is the point of Brexit then?

It's almost like you lot ran into this without thinking about a) how you were going to get there or b) what the result would be.

What's the point of your post? It has nothing do with anything I have written.

[Mayhem]

To reiterate on what @Pann says, there is no ruling that expressly requires a border. What is needed is a comprehensive method of tariff collection. Of course we don't really have such a method beyond an enforced border but in legal terms if alternative arrangements could be made that would satisfy all stakeholders it would be OK.
Also the WTO does not have "laws" it's not a legal body. It has rules.

Pann is nitpicking about the need for a border, you know because he needs to be correct. That it's not relevant to the problem, the discussion, or anything really doesn't matter, because, in the end, he can claim to be right about something he brought up.

/golfclap

[Elegiac]

What's the point of your post? It has nothing do with anything I have written.

That you're playing a fairly stupid game of semantics to try and blunt the fact that a WTO trade agreement is bad and would necessitate a hard border with Ireland unless the entire point of Brexit is nullified entirely.

You're literally arguing that the threat of a WTO deal is toothless because England has the recourse of opening its borders completely if they don't get their way on Brexit.

Which is about as sensible a strategy as Brexit itself, so I can see the connection.

[Pann]

That you're playing a fairly stupid game of semantics to try and blunt the fact that a WTO trade agreement is bad and would necessitate a hard border with Ireland unless the entire point of Brexit is nullified entirely.

You're literally arguing that the threat of a WTO deal is toothless because England has the recourse of opening its borders completely if they don't get their way on Brexit.

Which is about as sensible a strategy as Brexit itself, so I can see the connection.

No, I am not. Nor is what you have written in any way factual. WTO terms are what nations trade on in the absence of a trade agreement nor would trading on WTO require a border, as has been explained.

Again no I am not.

Don't try to put words in my mouth because you do not understand what is being talked about!

[Mayhem]

No, I am not. Nor is what you have written in any way factual. WTO terms are what nations trade on in the absence of a trade agreement nor would trading on WTO require a border, as has been explained.

That while true is a useless post because trading on WTO without being able to impose any quotas or tariffs on anything makes it not really trading on WTO at all.