PM Johnson on the Irish Backstop

So Single White Female Trump may be what leads to unification of Ireland.


No, I never said that. I said that if she and Corbyn weren’t there then there would be an easier path to a caretaker government. (Nor did I say that Corbyn wasn’t fit to lead such a government, only that such a government was less likely to form while he was the putative leader because others would not be willing to join under him.)

These two factors - Corbyn’s dmand to be the leader, and Swinson’s unwillingness to endorse a plan with Corbyn as leader - are both impediments, whether or not one agrees with one of them.


What I find puzzling about these “alternate measures” (and suspect is one reason why nobody seems willing to discuss them in detail) is how they are supposed to square the circle of being an EU/UK border without being a border border.

Unless you are willing to move the goalposts with some fairly massive ‘personal use’ tariff/regulation exemptions and build a customs barrier that pretty much isn’t a barrier at all (except for the very most auditable firms who keep honest shipping records and can be punished after the fact); the requirements of a customs barrier and a barrier barrier aren’t obviously different.

Customs barriers have a somewhat fuzzier reputation just because they are more likely to be in largely peaceful borders where most travelers cooperate without any direct coercion and any defiance is limited to attempts to sneak stuff through, while border borders include a lot of historical examples involving machine gun nests, razor wire; and equilibria maintained only by naked force; but that’s a difference in context rather than a difference between border types.

Given that this border has poor odds of remaining the kind where everyone voluntarily and politely queues up to present their phytosanitary certificates purely out of respect for the rules; it’s hard to see how a customs border won’t end up looking pretty border-border-y; which isn’t considered an acceptable outcome.

Even if they do go for(and stick to) a modernized take on Igloo White/Muscle Shoals; it will still end up being a fairly imposing (in the sense that people feel oppressed by; and resent) because gathering all that sensor data doesn’t actually stop, enforce, tax, etc. anyone or anything unless you follow up on sensor hits; with ‘follow up on’ likely implying something between the systems that robomail red light camera tickets and a giant stop-and-frisk zone.

Even assuming no issues in implementation; has anyone been nailed down on a proposal for an EU/UK land border that is somehow also Good Friday compliant? I see vague references to ‘technology’ and ‘alternative’; but nobody seems to have even a stupid plan they are willing to talk about; much less a plausible one.


Because it’s impossible, that’s why.

The venn diagram of Brexit still applies:

As does the EU’s “Brexit in one slide” powerpoint, which shows how the Tories have painted themselves directly into the no deal corner with their own set of red lines.

Any possible deal means changing these lines or cancelling A50, otherwise, it’s over the cliff on Halloween And then, the only positive from that situation is that it might be possible to salvage something from the smashed wreckage that was once the UK.


Why remove both of them? You just need to remove Corbyn, Swinson wouldn’t be an impediment to the formation of a caretaker government if Corbyn wasn’t there, Swinson isn’t the only one who would object to a Corbyn led government either, so by your logic half the MPs in the house should resign as well. You’ve not thought this one through.

And you’re not focusing. I’m not saying we should remove either of them, let alone both, that’s not my call. Right now the leaders of the 2nd and 4th largest parties in the UK are objecting to the other’s vision of a caretaker coalition. If they weren’t doing that the chance of such a coalition would be greater. You and I might have opinions over who is the bigger problem right now, we might even agree, but right now both of them are standing firm on things the other won’t accept.


if the meat says it has travelled from Germany or the Netherlands or especially Southern Ireland it goes back on the shelf to be replaced by something wholesome from the UK.

“Southern Ireland”. See, that’s how you win the hearts and minds of your neighbors.


Oh, and another great quote:

As an EU member, Germany cannot strike its own trade deals without the approval of the rest of the bloc. Who are these new found customers German food producers have found elsewhere?

Err…. In all the other countries the EU have various trade deals with?

[largest trading partners of the EU]
(http://List of the largest trading partners of the European Union)

Free Trade Agreements


This is fine. /s


This is were we have to agree to disagree.

The court’s ruling came with provisions.

So in the unlikely case of the UK revoking Article 50, an interested party could sue to have the Court decide if those provisions are met.

All it takes is one member country that’s vulnerable to a disgruntled populist party.

Sound familar?

Predicted this the moment the Brexit referendum was announced.
UK votes “leave”
Good Friday Accords are shitcanned
Republicans say “Told you not to trust the fucking British.”
IRA gets all the recruits it can handle


There’s no agreeing to disagree, this isn’t a matter of opinion. The matter has already been ruled on, the ECJ is under no obligation to hear the case again. If a case was brought again, and they referred the applicant back to the original ruling then there’s nothing they could do about it, it would be the end of the matter, doesn’t matter how disgruntled any particular member state might be.

The court ruled that X is legal if Y and Z apply. That makes it a matter of opinion and it would be up to the court to decide.

And if the talk of reunification continues, does that mean there will be a similar movement on the other side?

1 Like

Damfino. I was just making a prediction back then. It looks like it was correct


All I’m saying is that they’re under no obligation to even hear the case.

Also, I can’t imagine a scenario where Y and Z don’t apply (the only even slightly believable situation where article 50 gets revoked would be followed by a general election and/or a new referendum, either of which prevent ‘unequivocal and unconditional’ being relevant, any new triggering of article 50 following either of those events would be an entirely separate situation, with a new democratic mandate).

No level of disgruntlement from anyone opposed to the revocation will be able to influence their decision either, either there’s grounds to reopen the case or there’s not, the only situation where there would be one would be Johnson attempting to revoke as a delaying tactic (with the deliberate intention of triggering it again in the same government), but he’s never going to do that, and even then, it’s hard to see how anyone could legally object without possessing a crystal ball.