In order to get a transition we need to agree to an open border backstop.
If we agree to an open border backstop then a hard Brexit means an Irish sea border.
No we don't and even May has not said there will be an entirely open border backstop in Ireland, the Chequers Deal and staying in the single market for goods was what was she intended to be the solution to the Irish backstop issue
It doesn't matter what she intends since she backs down every time. She's got the spine of a jellyfish in these negotiations. The EU have been crystal clear: no open border backstop, no transition. May has made clear she won't walk away so that's it. Either she goes or we have an open border backstop.
Show me one quote from Barnier demanding an open border backstop?
No, no confusion about it. Once the BINO transition ends so does the backstop agreed as no Deal was agreed
Oh dear... When the penny drops you will rapidly change your position on this.
No I won't, once fully out of the EU after the transition period expires and with the EEC Treaty fully repealed Westminster will once again be fully sovereign and can do what it likes.
The Good Friday Agreement is effectively dead anyway and has been since Sinn Fein pulled out of the Stormont Executive
The backstop would be enshrined in the withdrawal agreement. It will form part of an international treaty between us and the EU and there will be no exit clause from it.
And it will not be an open border backstop as I set out below
May has already said it will be. Unless she rejects the transition of May gets her deal that will be it. May has to go now to prevent it. After March is too late.
Only on the basis of the Chequers Deal being agruded
The Chnough.
No, the Chequers Deal has effectively already been rejected by Barnier this week so it will be a BINO transition deal in which we stay in the single market and customs union but almost certainly with no FTA agreed by 2021, likely ultimately leading to hard Brexit though the EU will try and push a permanent transition or reversal of Brexit.
As May will agree to stay in the single market and customs union before the transition period is agreed the precise terms of the backstop will be irrelevant
In order to get a transition we need to agree to an open border backstop.
If we agree to an open border backstop then a hard Brexit means an Irish sea border.
No we don't and even May has not said there will be an entirely open border backstop in Ireland, the Chequers Deal and staying in the single market for goods was what was she intended to be the solution to the Irish backstop issue
Have you not noticed that Chequers has been rejected?
In which case the backstop is still to be negotiated along with everything else
A transition period with single market and customs union is not a vote on any deal just kicking the issue into the long grass and only the ERG and Labour Leavers will vote against that.
That's what the vote pre-March will be about. It's a treaty that contains the settlement on money, citizens' rights, the Irish backstop and the transition. It all comes as a single package. No backstop, no transition. No money, no transition.
And the backstop is still completely undefined as to what it will look like and how it will be implemented
A transition period with single market and customs union is not a vote on any deal just kicking the issue into the long grass and only the ERG and Labour Leavers will vote against that.
That's what the vote pre-March will be about. It's a treaty that contains the settlement on money, citizens' rights, the Irish backstop and the transition. It all comes as a single package. No backstop, no transition. No money, no transition.
And the backstop is still completely undefined as to what it will look like and how it will be implemented
It's pretty well defined if you read the text. It isn't yet agreed, which is not the same thing.
A transition period with single market and customs union is not a vote on any deal just kicking the issue into the long grass and only the ERG and Labour Leavers will vote against that.
If you really think the EU are going to cave in and agree CETA for the whole UK and no backstop you are a braver man than me
I am absolutely sure that I am a braver man than you....I would have no issue with No Deal for example, so really it is up to the EU - CETA now and a soft NI border; or No Deal now, a soft NI border and then CETA later.
The most critical issue that needs to be remembered is that the EU will get a soft NI border anyway if we end up with No Deal.
At which point they have achieved nothing but their leverage is gone. We would have the money, the NI border will be soft ipso facto and whatever pain we were going to get from No Deal would be incurred. We would then be able to do CETA at our leisure - we would simply say that once it is ratified we will pay the Brexit bill. If May was not a jellyfish, as PT says, she would be shouting this from the rooftops.
If the EU do not agree CETA now, why would they do so later? Especially as they insist CETA equates to a hard border in NI
Do you understand what the backstop is and what its purpose is? It doesn't sound like it.
The backstop is nothing but a demand from the EU for some commitment from the UK to avoid a hard border in Ireland, nothing more, nothing less, how it is implemented is still entirely up in the air
No, you're conflating the general commitment to no hard border with the specific commitment that in the absence of an agreement, the UK will maintain full alignment in Northern Ireland in order to avoid one.
A transition period with single market and customs union is not a vote on any deal just kicking the issue into the long grass and only the ERG and Labour Leavers will vote against that.
That's what the vote pre-March will be about. It's a treaty that contains the settlement on money, citizens' rights, the Irish backstop and the transition. It all comes as a single package. No backstop, no transition. No money, no transition.
And the backstop is still completely undefined as to what it will look like and how it will be implemented
It's pretty well defined if you read the text. It isn't yet agreed, which is not the same thing.
'Pretty well defined' ie in real terms not at all and isn't yet agreed as there is no agreement as to what it will be to the satisfaction of the UK and EU
Do you understand what the backstop is and what its purpose is? It doesn't sound like it.
The backstop is nothing but a demand from the EU for some commitment from the UK to avoid a hard border in Ireland, nothing more, nothing less, how it is implemented is still entirely up in the air
No, you're conflating the general commitment to no hard border with the specific commitment that in the absence of an agreement, the UK will maintain full alignment in Northern Ireland in order to avoid one.
That was just the text to move to stage 2 and if we effectively stay in the single market and customs union during the transition anyway makes zero difference
In order to get a transition we need to agree to an open border backstop.
If we agree to an open border backstop then a hard Brexit means an Irish sea border.
No we don't and even May has not said there will be an entirely open border backstop in Ireland, the Chequers Deal and staying in the single market for goods was what was she intended to be the solution to the Irish backstop issue
It doesn't matter what she intends since she backs down every time. She's got the spine of a jellyfish in these negotiations. The EU have been crystal clear: no open border backstop, no transition. May has made clear she won't walk away so that's it. Either she goes or we have an open border backstop.
Show me one quote from Barnier demanding an open border backstop?
Do you understand what the backstop is and what its purpose is? It doesn't sound like it.
The backstop is nothing but a demand from the EU for some commitment from the UK to avoid a hard border in Ireland, nothing more, nothing less, how it is implemented is still entirely up in the air
No, you're conflating the general commitment to no hard border with the specific commitment that in the absence of an agreement, the UK will maintain full alignment in Northern Ireland in order to avoid one.
That was just the text to move to stage 2 and if we effectively stay in the single market and customs union during the transition anyway makes zero difference
You're either delusional or you don't know what you're talking about.
Do you understand what the backstop is and what its purpose is? It doesn't sound like it.
The backstop is nothing but a demand from the EU for some commitment from the UK to avoid a hard border in Ireland, nothing more, nothing less, how it is implemented is still entirely up in the air
No, you're conflating the general commitment to no hard border with the specific commitment that in the absence of an agreement, the UK will maintain full alignment in Northern Ireland in order to avoid one.
That was just the text to move to stage 2 and if we effectively stay in the single market and customs union during the transition anyway makes zero difference
Text that has to be formalised into a treaty to move onto a transition.
In order to get a transition we need to agree to an open border backstop.
If we agree to an open border backstop then a hard Brexit means an Irish sea border.
No we don't and even May has not said there will be an entirely open border backstop in Ireland, the Chequers Deal and staying in the single market for goods was what was she intended to be the solution to the Irish backstop issue
It doesn't matter what she intends since she backs down every time. She's got the spine of a jellyfish in these negotiations. The EU have been crystal clear: no open border backstop, no transition. May has made clear she won't walk away so that's it. Either she goes or we have an open border backstop.
Show me one quote from Barnier demanding an open border backstop?
In order to get a transition we need to agree to an open border backstop.
If we agree to an open border backstop then a hard Brexit means an Irish sea border.
No we don't and even May has not said there will be an entirely open border backstop in Ireland, the Chequers Deal and staying in the single market for goods was what was she intended to be the solution to the Irish backstop issue
It doesn't matter what she intends since she backs down every time. She's got the spine of a jellyfish in these negotiations. The EU have been crystal clear: no open border backstop, no transition. May has made clear she won't walk away so that's it. Either she goes or we have an open border backstop.
Show me one quote from Barnier demanding an open border backstop?
We must have a detailed and legally operational backstop solution in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Prime Minister Theresa May has committed to this, as have all EU Member States and institutions - I think here of the Parliament.
It is urgent to work on the text of an operational backstop. For that, I asked Dominic and his team to provide us with the data necessary for the technical work which we need to do now on the nature, location and modality of the controls that will be necessary.
This backstop is critical to conclude the negotiations, because as I've already said, without a backstop, there is no agreement.
In order to get a transition we need to agree to an open border backstop.
If we agree to an open border backstop then a hard Brexit means an Irish sea border.
No we don't and even May has not said there will be an entirely open border backstop in Ireland, the Chequers Deal and staying in the single market for goods was what was she intended to be the solution to the Irish backstop issue
It doesn't matter what she intends since she backs down every time. She's got the spine of a jellyfish in these negotiations. The EU have been crystal clear: no open border backstop, no transition. May has made clear she won't walk away so that's it. Either she goes or we have an open border backstop.
Show me one quote from Barnier demanding an open border backstop?
We must have a detailed and legally operational backstop solution in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Prime Minister Theresa May has committed to this, as have all EU Member States and institutions - I think here of the Parliament.
It is urgent to work on the text of an operational backstop. For that, I asked Dominic and his team to provide us with the data necessary for the technical work which we need to do now on the nature, location and modality of the controls that will be necessary.
This backstop is critical to conclude the negotiations, because as I've already said, without a backstop, there is no agreement.
So yet again the details of the backstop and the location and mode of the backstop controls are still to be agreed and there is no requirement from Barnier of an open borders backstop before an agreement is reached as long as there is a backstop with mutually agreed controls
In order to get a transition we need to agree to an open border backstop.
If we agree to an open border backstop then a hard Brexit means an Irish sea border.
No we don't and even May has not said there will be an entirely open border backstop in Ireland, the Chequers Deal and staying in the single market for goods was what was she intended to be the solution to the Irish backstop issue
It doesn't matter what she intends since she backs down every time. She's got the spine of a jellyfish in these negotiations. The EU have been crystal clear: no open border backstop, no transition. May has made clear she won't walk away so that's it. Either she goes or we have an open border backstop.
Show me one quote from Barnier demanding an open border backstop?
We must have a detailed and legally operational backstop solution in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Prime Minister Theresa May has committed to this, as have all EU Member States and institutions - I think here of the Parliament.
It is urgent to work on the text of an operational backstop. For that, I asked Dominic and his team to provide us with the data necessary for the technical work which we need to do now on the nature, location and modality of the controls that will be necessary.
This backstop is critical to conclude the negotiations, because as I've already said, without a backstop, there is no agreement.
So yet again the details of the backstop and the location and mode of the backstop controls are still to be agreed and there is no requirement from Barnier of an open borders backstop before an agreement is reached as long as there is a backstop with mutually agreed controls
He means controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in case that wasn't clear to you.
Do you understand what the backstop is and what its purpose is? It doesn't sound like it.
The backstop is nothing but a demand from the EU for some commitment from the UK to avoid a hard border in Ireland, nothing more, nothing less, how it is implemented is still entirely up in the air
No, you're conflating the general commitment to no hard border with the specific commitment that in the absence of an agreement, the UK will maintain full alignment in Northern Ireland in order to avoid one.
That was just the text to move to stage 2 and if we effectively stay in the single market and customs union during the transition anyway makes zero difference
You're either delusional or you don't know what you're talking about.
A transition period with single market and customs union is not a vote on any deal just kicking the issue into the long grass and only the ERG and Labour Leavers will vote against that.
If you really think the EU are going to cave in and agree CETA for the whole UK and no backstop you are a braver man than me
I am absolutely sure that I am a braver man than you....I would have no issue with No Deal for example, so really it is up to the EU - CETA now and a soft NI border; or No Deal now, a soft NI border and then CETA later.
The most critical issue that needs to be remembered is that the EU will get a soft NI border anyway if we end up with No Deal.
At which point they have achieved nothing but their leverage is gone. We would have the money, the NI border will be soft ipso facto and whatever pain we were going to get from No Deal would be incurred. We would then be able to do CETA at our leisure - we would simply say that once it is ratified we will pay the Brexit bill. If May was not a jellyfish, as PT says, she would be shouting this from the rooftops.
If the EU do not agree CETA now, why would they do so later? Especially as they insist CETA equates to a hard border in NI
Because they want a trade deal and they want the money. They always have. The issue is that with May, they can have that and keep the UK in vassal status. Once we leave with No Deal, the EU have no way of forcing us to do anything so then we can have a sensible discussion about trade.
The potential consequences for the world economy are quite serious.
I did, and I read that article, and "tweeted" the author already
There is nothing particularly surprising about the industry being cash negative right now.
Imagine you can drill an oil well for $100 today, and it will return $60 this year, $30 next year, $15 the year after, etc. (I make the numbers up, but they are for illustrive purposes only.) That well is profitable, and you - the oil company - will borrow money to drill it.
The question is, if you (the oil company) ceased drilling new wells, would you be able to pay back the money you borrowed.
And the answer to that is... complicated. (For the record, the oil companies will ask: why the hell would I do that? I can drill profitable wells and increase production...)
With oil in the $60 to $80 range, the answer is probably yes. Now, sure there will be companies where wells perform less well in years two or three than expected. But there will also be ones where they perform better. And there is a lot of evidence that decline rates tail off pretty quickly over time.
There is another thing the author misses: world oil production is only growing because of all these wells. If they cannot drill anymore (because no one will lend them money), then production will likely drift downwards, and therefore oil price up.
The potential consequences for the world economy are quite serious.
I did, and I read that article, and "tweeted" the author already
There is nothing particularly surprising about the industry being cash negative right now.
Imagine you can drill an oil well for $100 today, and it will return $60 this year, $30 next year, $15 the year after, etc. (I make the numbers up, but they are for illustrive purposes only.) That well is profitable, and you - the oil company - will borrow money to drill it.
The question is, if you (the oil company) ceased drilling new wells, would you be able to pay back the money you borrowed.
And the answer to that is... complicated. (For the record, the oil companies will ask: why the hell would I do that? I can drill profitable wells and increase production...)
With oil in the $60 to $80 range, the answer is probably yes. Now, sure there will be companies where wells perform less well in years two or three than expected. But there will also be ones where they perform better. And there is a lot of evidence that decline rates tail off pretty quickly over time.
There is another thing the author misses: world oil production is only growing because of all these wells. If they cannot drill anymore (because no one will lend them money), then production will likely drift downwards, and therefore oil price up.
Thanks for the prompt response. I do wonder if your response is a little too sanguine. I quite take the point about borrowing naturally increasing as the industry grows, but what I’m not clear at all on is how much room there is to accommodate any significant rise in interest rates, or tightening of credit.... your “probably yes” isn’t entirely reassuring. An oil price spike is just as much an economic risk as a round of industry failure, of course.
Do you understand what the backstop is and what its purpose is? It doesn't sound like it.
The backstop is nothing but a demand from the EU for some commitment from the UK to avoid a hard border in Ireland, nothing more, nothing less, how it is implemented is still entirely up in the air
No, you're conflating the general commitment to no hard border with the specific commitment that in the absence of an agreement, the UK will maintain full alignment in Northern Ireland in order to avoid one.
The U.K. hasn’t agreed to maintain full alignment - just in the 4 or 5 areas covered by the GFA
Comments
'Pretty well defined' ie in real terms not at all and isn't yet agreed as there is no agreement as to what it will be to the satisfaction of the UK and EU
That was just the text to move to stage 2 and if we effectively stay in the single market and customs union during the transition anyway makes zero difference
In fact you just proved my point as Barnier says what still needed to be worked on was what controls were needed at the border and where they would be
We must have a detailed and legally operational backstop solution in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Prime Minister Theresa May has committed to this, as have all EU Member States and institutions - I think here of the Parliament.
It is urgent to work on the text of an operational backstop. For that, I asked Dominic and his team to provide us with the data necessary for the technical work which we need to do now on the nature, location and modality of the controls that will be necessary.
This backstop is critical to conclude the negotiations, because as I've already said, without a backstop, there is no agreement.
https://twitter.com/DouglasCarswell/status/1036655611583315968
Something they have in common with the Ultra Brexiters - tho they add 'no-deal' to the mix.....
@rcs1000 , would be very interested in your opinion on this article which suggests the entire US fracking industry might be an unsustainable bubble only kept inflated by the current availability of cheap borrowing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/opinion/the-next-financial-crisis-lurks-underground.html
The potential consequences for the world economy are quite serious.
There is nothing particularly surprising about the industry being cash negative right now.
Imagine you can drill an oil well for $100 today, and it will return $60 this year, $30 next year, $15 the year after, etc. (I make the numbers up, but they are for illustrive purposes only.) That well is profitable, and you - the oil company - will borrow money to drill it.
The question is, if you (the oil company) ceased drilling new wells, would you be able to pay back the money you borrowed.
And the answer to that is... complicated. (For the record, the oil companies will ask: why the hell would I do that? I can drill profitable wells and increase production...)
With oil in the $60 to $80 range, the answer is probably yes. Now, sure there will be companies where wells perform less well in years two or three than expected. But there will also be ones where they perform better. And there is a lot of evidence that decline rates tail off pretty quickly over time.
There is another thing the author misses: world oil production is only growing because of all these wells. If they cannot drill anymore (because no one will lend them money), then production will likely drift downwards, and therefore oil price up.
I do wonder if your response is a little too sanguine. I quite take the point about borrowing naturally increasing as the industry grows, but what I’m not clear at all on is how much room there is to accommodate any significant rise in interest rates, or tightening of credit.... your “probably yes” isn’t entirely reassuring.
An oil price spike is just as much an economic risk as a round of industry failure, of course.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1036900674573934592