Brexit

[Scoobes]

NightlyPoe said:

Scoobes said:

I'm still not seeing how anything you suggested would put the ball back in the EU's court.

They would simply refuse until the UK came up with a suitable insurance policy or a genuine solution to the border issue that didn't break the GFA and international law (which is basically what the EU have been saying all along). The onus would be back on the UK as the party that decided to leave, and international law would be on the EU's side. What realistic alternative amendment to the backstop do you suggest the UK sends?

@ your last point (italics)

You don't see how Britain saying what they will accept and putting it in the EU's hands changes things?  This kinda shows how public perception can be warped.  It's basically the result of months in a row of the kind of rhetoric that we've been seeing in this thread which is because the ball has been in the UK's court this whole time.  The EU can "simply refuse" but the UK "can't say what they'll say yes to".  The EU "

Basically, you've all given a complete pass to the EU's intransigence.  May's accepted it and has corrupted the national dialogue by first signing the agreement that she knew couldn't pass, and then spending months as the de facto ambassador from the EU.

But, in the end, who is the one making a demand?  It's the EU!  They are demanding something from the UK that no country should ever relinquish.  Incidentally, they're also including a provision that makes the UK's bargaining position in the next round untenable ("agree to our terms or we'll impose the backstop").

Sorry, but from my view, it's the EU that has overextended itself.  It's the EU that is pushing them closer to a no deal solution where everyone loses.  All they have really won is in defining the terms in public perception.  That's not good enough for me.  May should never have told the country "It's my deal or no deal" and hardened the notion that it was the best deal they could get.  It's really her greatest failure of all.

It's not just the EU that holds all the cards. This is supposed to be the easy part with our nearest neighbors. How do you think we're going to get deals with other large nations when we've squandered trade with our nearest and largest allies?

Other nations aren't going to want to do trade with one of the largest economies in the world?  Why?

You didn't answer the question. What realistic alternative/amendment would you send back to them?

The UK (May) picked the UK's red lines knowing full well they weren't compatible with the UK's lawful commitments to the GFA. It's not EU intransigence to ensure international law and agreements are upheld. And as I said before, the backstop was the UK's idea, not the EU's. 

I agree with you on Theresa May though. Where we differ is whilst you blame the EU's intransigence, I put 95% of the blame squarely at May and the incompetence of our government. This whole process has been botched up since May got into power. I actually think she genuinely believed the the agreement would pass through parliament. She is just plain deluded. 

@final point

It's not that they won't want trade, it's that they'll hold far more power over us during negotiations as they'll be in trading blocks whilst we're a single Country. The EU negotiations have been proving this for the past 3 years let alone Liam Fox's sham of a department. They'll also still have all their own trade agreements already in place whilst the UK will have erected trade barriers with our closest partners at best and have close to 0 deals at worst. How desperate will the UK look at that point? How much actual sovereignty are you willing to give up for new trade deals?