So Johnson has 30 days to come up with an alternative to the backstop......

[Bearbehind]

This will be interesting to watch!

Leave the EU with a trade border in the Irish sea . That would do it.

How would a free trade agreement stop border checks? You still have to check that people are following the free trade agreement - I don’t think there is a border anywhere without infrastructure where there are no checks.

How are people going to stop the freedom of movement?

Ok - the solution is Norway plus customs union as PP stated above.
This respects both the referendum and GFA.

The referendum did not say how people wanted to leave and on what terms, so we should go for that one. Maybe if we say this the EU would cut us some slack and give an extension so that all the forms can be filled etc.

Far from being a regional matter, the GFA is an International Treaty. I know that this is hard to comprehend for many Leavers, who seem to think that if International Treaties are inconvenient you rip them up unilaterally. Which you can do if you are a country with clout, as the UK was when it had an Empire, or the US and China are now.

Leave the EU with a trade border in the Irish sea . That would do it.

FGS you are still peddling this here too

What is the point of promoting something that cannot and will not happen?

I genuinely don’t understand this

You might not want to leave and certainly don’t want no deal but ignoring what is and isn’t possible doesn’t help anyone

The only option I can see is the government being truthful about the consequences of no deal in order to try and convince Leavers it’s not worth it but I thinks it’s too late for that

Again. You need to relax. You really are very het up. I am not the only one to suggest a border in the sea. I'm not "peddling " anything. If border in the sea doesn't work? Fuck it. Try something else.
Perhaps it's because I'm Irish descent (Irish born Mum) that I think it is worth trying anything to stop No Deal. Perhaps I'm not as comfy with bad shit happening to people.

@MysteryTripAgain - GFA was a regional vote as opposed to a UK national vote. So how does the UK PM (whoever they are) say:

To the 17.4 Million who voted leave the EU, in a UK national vote with turnout of 72%, your vote is to be ignored in favour of the 2.1 million that voted for GFA, which was not a UK national vote and had a turnout of 63%

It's hard to even know where to start with this nonsense!

First off, the fact you are combining the votes in NI and Ireland suggests you, like many ignorant bigots in England, do not recognise Ireland as an independent country. The vote in Ireland has nothing to do with the UK, other than it meant Ireland was then in a position to go ahead with implementation of the GFA. The vote in Ireland was not about the GFA. It was about removing articles 2 and 3 from the constitution. People in NI had no vote on that. People in Ireland had no vote on the GFA itself.

The GFA is an international peace treaty, not a "regional vote". The impacted people voted in support of this international peace treaty (NI) or to remove an obstacle to its implementation (Ireland). This allowed the 2 governments to go on to ratify it. The UK government has a responsibility in ensuring they uphold the international peace treaty.

The fact they didn't tell the population in advance of the brexit vote that any brexit must be compliant with that treaty is irrelevant. Incompetent, but irrelevant.

There were many things the population were not told before the vote. Voters should have either researched the implications themselves before voting or accept their ignorance and realise that they were not fully clear about what they were voting for.

bellini I’ve started a thread to arbitrate on this argument! 😂

Leave the EU with a trade border in the Irish sea . That would do it.

I suspect that this is what Johnson will do. He only needs to lose one more MP and his majority is gone, so in which case why not chuck the DUP under his red bus? Losing by 11 votes or one vote - either way, it's still a loss.

A border in the sea will antagonise the loyalists, that risks attacks on catholics and igniting the troubles yet again.

Everyone focuses on the nationalist groupings but there is another side in all of this..

The only way to protect the GFA is to revoke, all the tech solutions or moving borders will not work, because they cannot address criminality by companies and organisations, these will have to be countered by a border....

Fair enough @jasjas1973 . I disagree that we should take the UVF threat as a reason not to. But whatever we do , we must preserve GFA.

Loyalist terrorism is a bigger threat to peace in NI than the IRA side of things.

However, it does pose the question "Can we ever leave the EU?" thats a legitimate concern.

Can be answered by leaving the institutions of the EU, the ECJ, CFP and the CAP but staying in a SM and CU, which gives frictionless trade and takes us back to a common market style arrangement.

The huge problem with all of that is we cannot have an independent trade policy, a brexit red line

Its just going around in circles isn't it?

@jasjas1973 - I voted Remain. I want to Revoke. But apparently there was an overwhelming majority for Brexit . I'm just trying to come up with a compromise.

@jasjas1973 - Loyalist terrorism is a bigger threat to peace in NI than the IRA side of things.

I absolutely agree with you on that. However, the economic benefits of NI effectively remaining might be enough to ensure there is insufficient support for them to wage a campaign of any substance.

Perhaps but by the time we find out, it would all be too late, economic benefits would take years to filter through, just as the GFA economic peace dividend hasn't been spread equally across NI.

I'm with Belli on this, all efforts should be on protecting the GFA, tbh the people who are willing to gamble with this are as guilty of murder as the terrorists pulling the trigger.

If we only look at what's possible, with current UK red lines it's straight to no-deal. Unless parliament gets its shit together.

@jasjas1973 - Perhaps but by the time we find out, it would all be too late, economic benefits would take years to filter through

It's more that they won't have the economic negatives of brexit, which I think we'll happen even with a deal. But you're right, the negatives won't kick in until after the transition period so the difference won't be apparent.

The best outcome to protect the GFA while still delivering brexit is Norway plus. That would require rowing back on May's red lines and I really can't see Johnson doing that.

That said, I don't think May's red lines were voted on in parliament either so that's another potential vote.

However, it does pose the question "Can we ever leave the EU?" thats a legitimate concern

That's the punchline. I could never agree that what 17.4 million voted for in 2016 has to be ignored based on an agreement that was made in 1998. UK are party to that agreement, but not all of UK was allowed a say in the referendum that led to the GFA.

The best outcome to protect the GFA while still delivering brexit is Norway plus

Sounds okay, but is the "plus" is being in some form of CU and SM does that not prevent UK from seeking deals with non EU countries?

A Norway system without CU and SM would seem ideal for UK, but does that not then leave the border unsolved?

However, it does pose the question "Can we ever leave the EU?" thats a legitimate concern

That's the punchline. I could never agree that what 17.4 million voted for in 2016 has to be ignored based on an agreement that was made in 1998

We live in a representative democracy, so MPs use their judgement to, hopefully do what they believe is best for the UK.... the electorate then decide if they were right or not at the next election.

Cameron made a promise that the result would be honoured, however, he was not in a position to make that promise, he lied, he would have known Parliament would have to have a say in all of this.

Of course MPs should ignore the eu vote if the NI border cannot be solved, what on earth would a PM say to the mother of a 19 soldier killed in ulster? "oh well tough luck, he shouldn't have joined up"

@MysteryTripAgain - I could never agree that what 17.4 million voted for in 2016 has to be ignored based on an agreement that was made in 1998. UK are party to that agreement, but not all of UK was allowed a say in the referendum that led to the GFA.

And that attitude is why the UK is going to hell in a handbasket. The utter selfishness and self serving attitude that says it doesn't matter what our obligations are, if it doesn't suit our current agenda, let's ignore them.

That is exactly the sort of attitude that has resulted in the levels of poverty you are currently seeing in the UK. It is this attitude that has resulted in the downgrading of the NHS and your education system.

The lack of integrity that says we can ignore an international peace treaty because it no longer suits us does not bode well for the future of your country.

@jasjas1973 - what on earth would a PM say to the mother of a 19 soldier killed in ulster

Please don't use Ulster when you mean NI. Ulster consists of 9 counties, only 6 of which are under British rule.

Please don't use British when you mean the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)

Of course MPs should ignore the eu vote if the NI border cannot be solved

Why? All member states of the UK were invited to vote in the 2016 referendum, but only NI were allowed to take part in the referendum that lead to the GFA.

17.4 million being told they can’t have what they voted for because is does not suit an arrangement made that they had no say in does not meet the definition of democracy.

what on earth would a PM say to the mother of a 19 soldier killed in ulster? "oh well tough luck, he shouldn't have joined up

If Margaret Thatcher was alive she may be able to answer that as apparently wrote to all the families of the soldiers who were killed during the Falklands war. Hopefully your question was hypothetical as opposed to personal experience. If not then I hope time will heal.

@MockersthefeMANist - Please don't use British when you mean the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)

British is the term used by residents of the UK to refer to their nationality so I am simply using the preferred term of citizens of the UK. The terms British and United Kingdom are not equivalent grammatically.

I do not use Britain when I mean UK. However, as there is no UK equivalent to British, there is no alternative term to use.

Stating "under United Kingdon rule" would be poor grammar and I personally prefer to use correct grammar.

@MysteryTripAgain - 17.4 million being told they can’t have what they voted for because is does not suit an arrangement made that they had no say in does not meet the definition of democracy.

17.4 million being told that they must comply with an international peace treaty that their elected representatives signed does, in fact, meet the definition of democracy.