Maybe it's time that the EU came forward with proposals instead of saying No No No every time. If my memory serves me correctly in the begining of all this they did say they would negotiate in good faith and not seek to punish the UK. WHAT A LOAD OF BOL*OCKS
The EU have set out from the start a range of different options depending on what red lines Theresa May wanted to impose. The backstop was inserted into the agreement at the last minute at the UK's request not the EU's. To then turn round and say no we don't want that after all then of course it's on the UK to come up with something else.
Because like the SNP they want to be able to blackmail the country,ruin the country as an example to stop other countries leaving.
This is a good question. The EU is committed to keeping an open border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. We, the U.K. has said we want a controlled border everywhere, so we can control our shores. However, the U.K. also agreed it was committed to keeping the Northern Ireland border open. The EU pointed out that this was (currently) impossible to reconcile. You cannot have closed borders everywhere other than one open border, in the same way you can’t have an umbrella which keeps the rain off everywhere, but has a hole in it. The U.K. there proposed a sensible solution: work it out later, but protect it with a backstop. The idea being that we would try to agree a borders relationship which was a fudge, but both parties knew that there is no current fudge. The EU agreed this was sensible, as it meant they could stay committed to the open Northern Ireland border, either because we find a suitable fudge or because the backstop ensures that the border stays open. Clearly, the U.K. has now resoundingly rejected its proposal. However, the EU remain committed to the open border. As there is no other solution on the table, this means they are committed to the backstop.
Because then it wouldn't be a backstop. It's purpose is to protect an open border between Northern Ireland, a border that we agreed to keep open in an international treaty. The UK are saying that there are other options to keep an open border which are technological, trouble is these don't exist yet and with governments track records of introducing major IT programmes is understandable to be wary of these promises. Some Brexiteers such as Ian Duncan Smith believe that we already have the technology to solve this so then the question would be why are Brexiteers worried about the backstop when the technological solution already exists?
Brexiteers are worried because the EU have the say on what is acceptable and can blackmail us into staying in,as we know they are backstabbing British hating ****s who would do just that.
They voted in,would let them have another,independence and part of EU or if they reject that then may have to go back to a hard border if it can't be solved.Same with the Jocks,give them the same option.England voted out,no need for another vote as without Ireland and Scotland England voted with a massive margin to leave.
No,Brexit now with a 12 month period to have the votes and sort problems,as you backstabbers have made sure nothing is ready,we will be out,so no reason not to get on with the details.
Have to say, I've been wondering for some time, given that both UK and EU state that they never want to have to use the backstop and if they do it mustn't ever be a permanent arrangement, why the EU are so stubbornly opposed to the UK having a unilateral leave option? Agree to that and it's deal done, and it's not as if it's to be implemented anyway, so what have they got to lose?
