The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:47:51 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Tim Browning"] in theory it should be easier to fill up with electricity than finding a petrol station.[/quote]

But.... filling up with petrol takes a couple of minutes; charging up with electricity takes, how long?

[/quote]

Varies depending on the charging point, fastest is 30 minutes at a 'rapid charge' point as found at motorway service stations, the fastest home charging points will take 4 hours, a normal plug socket will take 12 hours.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Beats — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:52:58 GMT

In case you missed it on Friday night, dependent on your sense of humour (and national-identity), you may enjoy the quips about backstops and backpassages, making it hard and making it soft and other in-your-end-os.

[new series of soft border patrol https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09tnc2x ]

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:40:18 GMT

[quote user="Tim Browning"] in theory it should be easier to fill up with electricity than finding a petrol station.[/quote]

But.... filling up with petrol takes a couple of minutes; charging up with electricity takes, how long?

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Tim Browning — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:18:28 GMT

The new Hyundai Kona electric does around 3OO miles and is well under thirty grand. Real range anxiety is going to decline pretty soon with better batteries.

Finding a charging point anxiety is a different matter and there needs to be higher visibility of provision. As electricity is available at every lamp post and many car parks, garages etc and doesn't need big smelly tanks at petrol stations, in theory it should be easier to fill up with electricity than finding a petrol station.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Clive Ansell — Tue, 05 Feb 2019 22:10:33 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]So much investment has gone into diesel as that was what we were encouraged to buy. VW group fiddle the results and the bottom drops out of the market. Out of the blue diesel becomes public enemy number one, rightly or wrongly![/quote]

I don't buy into the diesel is bad bullsh1t. I remember reading that diesel cars consume only about 1-2% of all heavy oil (Diesel), most of it is used in lorries, buses, trains, and ships. Therefore even if all diesel cars were scrapped, globally, it wouldn't make a jot of difference.

I'm currently looking at replacing my car, and have been looking at electric models with some enthusiasm, but so far the cost is prohibitive (JLR's iPace = about £75k) and the technology just isn't there yet in terms of range, cold weather battery performance and charge times. Then there is the environmental question mark over used battery disposal too, not to mention mining of heavy and toxic metals in developing countries to manufacture them in the first place.

A friends hybrid BMW uses more fuel and churns out more CO2 than his previous diesel model did, so not really sold on hybrids either.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Clive Ansell — Tue, 05 Feb 2019 21:49:30 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]If Nissan have dropped their plans to build a new vehicle in the UK why should they still get government money?[/quote]

Why should they get any money at all, anyway? What ever happened to the right wing ideology of the free market will rule mantra.

It used to be commonly known as socialism

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Christina Smith — Tue, 05 Feb 2019 21:37:34 GMT

[quote user="GrooveJet"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I have wondered whether keeping NI within the EU might have become a little goldmine. Companies based in Great Britain able to move a small base there and work freely within the EU. Presumably having a vote on UK and EU affairs simultaneously.[/quote]

That's a really interesting idea!

N.I. could become the Monaco of the UK!!!

I don't know much about Irish history, so not sure how that would go down locally but if the Withdrawal Date were postponed by a few months, perhaps it would give all parties time to consider and come up with a workable solution...?

[/quote]Then Scotland also would need to be considered for remaining in the EU. Then the issues of a backstop on that border

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:06:28 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Perhaps a little less energy spent on blame and a bit more reorganising business to cope is in order.

[/quote]

You would say that about Westminster MPs too. Currently, the law making of the country is paralysed and spent on the Brexit agenda.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Bob Russell — Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:41:24 GMT

The motor industry is going to use a lot of name calling. Some of it justified.

So much investment has gone into diesel as that was what we were encouraged to buy. VW group fiddle the results and the bottom drops out of the market. Out of the blue diesel becomes public enemy number one, rightly or wrongly!

If Nissan have dropped their plans to build a new vehicle in the UK why should they still get government money?

Chinese growth drops so they buy cheaper (non-Jaguar) cars and the iPhone stops being the must have accessory.

Perhaps a little less energy spent on blame and a bit more reorganising business to cope is in order.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

vetbl.locum — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 22:44:34 GMT

The blame has started:

Comment: The row over Nissan and Brexit is just a taster of the great blame game to come

'Blame Brussels, not Britain, if we crash out of the EU without a deal' says Chris Grayling

Articles in Telegraph.

Think Mr Grayling's track record is good at shifting blame.

More telegraph news:

David Trimble to launch legal challenge against Theresa May's Brexit deal in next few days

Perhaps a snap General Election might help clarify matters?

RGds

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Bob Russell — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 17:52:34 GMT

[quote user="vetbl.locum"]

[quote user="Iain Richards"] (Dyson in Singapore for instance)[/quote]

Singapore signed free trade deal with EU in Oct 2018.

Not sure what influence that had on Dyson's decision to move.

Rgds

[/quote]

Dyson have moved because the EU is a mature market for them. Growth is in the Asia areas and it makes sense to be there.

There is a limit to where a Dyson can go from here. The older Dysons are so repairable that they go on for ever. They are often fixed after being thrown out then resold. Ebay is full of them and very good they are too!

It is not moving to be cheaper (that was done when manufacture moved) and much of the research and development is staying put in the UK.

I don't see much room for criticising Dyson for these decisions and suspect Brexit did not play a part in the move.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Sarah Jane Denny — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 17:44:33 GMT

^ If only. Unfortunately, the DUP have alot of form in saying 'No'. They refused to take part in the Good Friday Agreement negotiations and treaty signing remember?

Their current position is even more contrarian than normal for the DUP. Even their own electorate want a soft Brexit, not a hard Brexit and certainly not a No-deal.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Miriam Lodewyks — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 16:42:11 GMT

That's a really interesting idea!

N.I. could become the Monaco of the UK!!!

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Vet2Vet — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 13:49:19 GMT

Lol , because thar would cause alienation of the unionists and they would definitely fight back .

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Bob Russell — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 11:36:12 GMT

[quote user="Tim Browning"]

I do not understand why Irish republicans aren't using this uncertainty to call for a united Ireland again and solve the problem for us. Apparently the Unionists are now outnumbered demographically in the North by Republican sympathisers so would could easily win a referendum especially now with the pro EU voters of all cultural loyalties.

Of course would be tricky politically but I understand NI receives a lot of subsidies from the UK government (and EU historically). So would be a win win situation. Put it on the side of a bus, but don't drive it through East Belfast. Who has the bottle to talk to Arlene Foster about this?

[/quote]

And a guaranteed return to violence, this time by a group of extremest Unionists!

I have wondered whether keeping NI within the EU might have become a little goldmine. Companies based in Great Britain able to move a small base there and work freely within the EU. Presumably having a vote on UK and EU affairs simultaneously.

Seems a missed opportunity rather than a problem. NI could be very much in favour and having the best of both worlds. There would still be a border and it would be at the Irish sea but triggering so much growth in NI.

Not a cause of break up but perhaps more than a little pride at being better than Ireland and GB!!

Blot on the landscape might be the return of a superpowered Stormont!

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Tim Browning — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:44:18 GMT

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 04 Feb 2019 07:46:34 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

The leavers keep talking about the better conditions for international trade by being outside the EU. Yet I'm not aware that there are any restrictions on international trade anyway (Dyson in Singapore for instance).

[/quote]

These are two different things.

The Leavers claim is true on the subject that the UK is unable to negotiate trade deals by itself. Any trade deal is negotiated by the EU as a whole. Although it is my belief that the UK would have better terms that way due to the power of the EU economy and number/wealth of consumers, it is also true that UK might be unhappy with some of these because what another EU country wants might be different from what the UK wants in a trade deal so a compromise has to be made.

(AFAIK, not entirely sure) Dyson is moving to Singapore as a brand and it is 'becoming' a Singaporean brand therefore it would benefit from the EU-Singapore trade deal (this trade deal doesn't have to be the reason or the only reason for the move, tax regulations could also be a reason). After Brexit, Dyson can continue these terms with the EU regardless of how the UK exits.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

vetbl.locum — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 22:23:35 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"] (Dyson in Singapore for instance)[/quote]

Singapore signed free trade deal with EU in Oct 2018.

Not sure what influence that had on Dyson's decision to move.

Rgds

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

vetbl.locum — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 22:20:03 GMT

I think the 'back stop ' is a political smoke screen. It gives May an excuse and someone to blame if (when) it all goes wrong. It was unhelpful EU that prevented my (May) deal, will be her claim.

It deflects people from examining her plan in detail, which is not thought to be a 'good' deal by anyone except Mrs May and her inner circle.

Now she is off the battle for Britain........Scotland & NI voted to stay as did London.

I despair at the way May has behaved : Unwilling to built a consensus

Cynically running down clock

Childish pantomime attics

Buying DUP

At a time, when UK needed leadership, we have May & Corbyn (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtUiCYYzFjk

Rgds

PSBrexit means Brexit means ........??? 54 days to go and we are still don't know.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Iain Richards — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 22:03:03 GMT

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 21:59:11 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

can someone explain why UK companies can't export to non EU countries (as the remainers seem to suggest)

[/quote]

Under which scenario?

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

what it is they can do better once we've left the EU?

[/quote]

In theory, the UK can negotiate on behalf of those UK companies for regulations more beneficial to itself, rather than relying on the EU wide common good.

The other side of the argument is that the UK is a smaller economy with less consumers and therefore it'd wield less leverage on those negotiations. Also the EU has made trade arrangements already with most world's prosperous countries so it would start from behind in this race.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Iain Richards — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 21:33:39 GMT

WHile we are on with tricky questions, can someone explain why UK companies can't export to non EU countries (as the remainers seem to suggest) or what it is they can do better once we've left the EU? I keep getting stuck on this.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Beats — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 20:12:29 GMT

You'll regret asking..

https://i.imgur.com/l5JD5aT.png

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 19:45:35 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]

I'm assuming from what you say that the CU is a bad thing then?

[/quote]

Well, my personal opinion is that it is good for trade. Apparently many JIT (just in time) manufacturers like car makers rely on parts of cars being moved around from different parts of the EU before the cars are finally assembled. This seems to be happening quite fast and factories worry they might have to wait for borders checks to be cleared before parts are moved in or out of the UK. I'm not sure (because I'm not in that trade) how much of that is really true.

It also (I assume) ensures that food clears customs from Calais to Dover and viceversa without checks, which is why they made a little 'theatrical' queue of how they would manage that under no-deal. https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/government-lorry-test-prepare-no-deal-brexit-traffic/

On the other hand, while we are in the CU, we are unable to sign treaties with other countries because we rely on the existing EU treaties.

The Backstop can be a very bad thing if the UK has to comply to EU regulations but have no say on them (no seat at the main table in Brussels because we would be no longer members of the EU). The EU doesn't seem to want the backstop either because it means the country would be almost effectively in the EU without making contributions to the budget (AFAIK).

[quote]

It's hard to see how the EU could compromise on that. So it's likely to be No Deal then? Which, to be fair, is what I assumed the Brexiteers had voted for in the referendum.

[/quote]

Not all Brexiters wanted a no-deal Brexit, in fact, many 'hard' brexiters in parliament argue that without the Backstop they would be prepared to compromise and sign the Withdrawal Agreement.

Remainers who voted down the WA, did so (I think) because they hope another referendum would give them a win to stay in the EU. And they thought the government would go for another referendum instead of allowing a no-deal.

At the end, the current (default) position is that we leave the EU at the end of March. And unless the government passes a deal that is approved by the majority of MPs or finds another way to extend the Article 50 period, we are leaving with no deal.

The EU has repeatedly said that the will not change the deal (but this is politics, we never know) and would only accept an extension of A50 under certain circumstances. I suspect like a general election or a referendum.

I also suspect many hard Brexiters don't really want a deal. They are saying they want one, but are happy to let time pass so when the deadline comes, they can blame no-deal consequences on the other side for not coming up with a good enough deal.

But I need to stop now because I was trying to be unbiased and I'm clearly going towards my pro-EU stance now.

RE: The 'Backstop Issue': please explain!

Jo Dyer — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 19:10:41 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]I gather the so called "backstop" is a fallback or contingency plan for a border and its regulation, in the event we leave the EU without a deal in place - whatever that may be. [/quote]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]The backstop will then come into place if a solution has not been found after the end of the transition period. This backstop will keep the UK inside the EU CU (a bit like Turkey is right now) until that solution is found, and therefore bound (without a say) to EU CU rules.[/quote]

It's definitely not straightforward is it?!

Of course the Conservatives having to get into bed with the DUP doesn't help, I'm guessing? (I think it was shortly after that happened that I stopped listening).