Brexit meets reality. Again.

Yesterday, I reported that the Brexit Minister, Raab, "demanded that the backstop for the Irish border be limited to last just three months. That the UK is in no position to demand anything is another matter. But the thing about the backstop is that it is only used when all else fails, including all of DD and Boris' high tech solutions of drones and the such.

Ian Dunt at the politics.co.uk website put it like this today:

"Leavers' claims that they could solve the Irish border issue with high-tech solutions or an 'ambitious' trade deal were addressed in the joint report with the EU last December. The manner in which they were addressed was the now-infamous backstop.

It was the legal equivalent of parents trying to placate a tyrannical toddler. It said that - OK, fine - you can try your tech solutions. And then, if that doesn't work, you can try an ambitious free trade deal. But if by any chance that fails too, the backstop will apply.

There was then a monstrous panic attack when people realised what this entailed, which was a trading border down the Irish Sea. It was a telling moment, because it answered the vexing question of whether Tory Brexiteers were idiots or liars.

If they were idiots, they would have accepted the backstop. After all, it only applied if all the solutions they'd spent the previous year defending did not work. If they were really confident about them, they'd have signed up that very day. But they didn't. They condemned it. Because they were not idiots. They were liars."

Any backstop cannot be time limited because otherwise what would happen then? So it surprised no one that this morning Ireland refused this, also refused to allow the UK to unilaterally leave the backstop.

I wrote a lot about good faith in relation to the A50 being extended or cancelled, in that the EU would have to believe the UK was acting in good faith to do so; or believe the story. In trying to row back on what was agreed with the EU last December, and confirmed in March, the UK is creating a whole load of bad faith in the EU, and all the more reason for any WA to be legally watertight, so even harder to negotiate.

If you look at Ian Dunt's article (http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/11/06/backstop-breakdown-is-a-product-of-the-oldest-brexit-lie) he eays that the PM's problems stem from the initial big lie that negotiations would involve a trade off. Anyone who has conducted business or trade negotiations will tell you that you just don't go into a room and demand and get all of what you want, you give ground, some things you get, some things you give. And so on. Having cake and eating it was always a lie, and was never going to happen.

But all the problems stem from that, lies of lesser magnitude, but lies nonetheless that UK could have the benefits of membership of the EU without the responsibilities. Or non membership with opt ins rather and membership with opt outs. The EU have increasingly taken the line that Brexit means Brexit and leaving means leaving. This allows Brexiteers and their cheerleaders to shout about how unfair the EU was being, but in reality was just a result of the UK becoming a 3rd country.

UK through May's inability to admit the lies and subsequent actions of hardened our closest allies and trading partners attitude, a failure of monumental proportions.

In other news, it emerged that maybe only a thousand permits allowing UK hauliers to operate in the EU post Brexit would be available, even with a deal, and that allocation of them would possibly by a ballot. Meaning that for most companies, they would be unable to cross the Channel to pick up or deliver a load.

Taking back control?