Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

LeinsterDub

Anthracite wrote: »

A Brexiteer speaks his mind:

https://mobile.twitter.com/skynews/status/1053662098574716929

I wonder what tariff will be applied to imported stout?

Nody

pH wrote: »

I don't understand the question. Let's say there's a 20% import tariff into the UK on EU milk (agreed in a trade deal, the EU is taxing UK Cheddar at 20% too!) You don't have to stand at the border checking milk lorries, the tax can be added when the milk arrives at a food processing plant etc. People trying to avoid the tax would need to be discovered and prosecuted. Yes it's not as efficient a means of enforcing the tax as border checks and queues of lorries, but it is possible to do away from the border, especially assuming that both the UK and EU were going to stay pretty aligned and have something close to a free-trade deal, so the amount of checking needed was at a minimum.

And how do you know that the milk in the tanker is NI milk? How do you know it's not milk imported from UK from a third party country that's at a lower standard than the milk required by EU or contaminated in some way? In short how do you ensure all NI products meet the EU standards?

Answer is one of two ways; either a) you are in the single market and have approved controls done regularly meeting the EU required standards or b) you get to have 100% controls on every tanker at the border. Now b) can be reduced down depending on how well EU judges your local processes to be but b) ALWAYS will involve some level of control at the border (ironically this type of checks are already done for NI farm goods coming into UK anyway as NI is not physically connected to UK and hence have a different risk profile and hence the 10% check rate).

An Ciarraioch

Interesting - in the continuing absence of Stormont, an NI Bill at Westminster has been amended to take on abortion and SSM legislation, with voting on Wednesday. Surely Arlene will welcome NI rules being brought into line with the rest of the UK!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/21/labour-mps-plot-ambush-northern-ireland-abortion-law

Igotadose

Panrich wrote: »

Raab is going to cut the EU off without a deal by the sounds of that interview.

Raab is so slimey. "What alternatives do you have?" "Well, we're waiting on the EU to propose them." Loser. And I could see his nose Pinocchioing when he said "everything else is resolved." Uhuh. Your crack negotiating team has handled all the airline, medicine and security issues, but nothing shared yet. Surrrrrre.

And what they'll provide, is 'direction' for when they put 'meat on the bones.' So, that implies a transition period to me, since nothing's been negotiated fully, it sounds like they're years away but maybe have a 'direction' acceptable to the EU.

I'm skeptical. These bumblers have yet to come up with anything substantial since the referendum, and what the MP's will get is a 'like it or lump it' vote at the end - whatever Raab and May have negotiated, or hard Brexit. No chance at amending it.

Roanmore

I don't know who's more deluded, that guy going on about the British Empire or the bunch of young Conservatives on Sky News this morning who said Northern Labour voters respect JRM and would vote for him, they see he is a good man.

Rhineshark

brickster69 wrote: »

I'm not sure of the exact text people are claiming commits the UK to an open (trade) border, but I would be grateful if someone would link me the text.

Here you go 
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/full_text.html

Also interested to see where having border controls for goods breaks this agreement. Because it is not there !

Yes, it's a pity it wasn't explicitly stated but a) no-one thought either country would unilaterally leave with no regard for the border or each other and b) No-one thought anyone would be stupid enough to argue that the GFA, reliant on and based on no border as it bloody blatantly is, doesn't need a lack of border to be able to operate.

It's peoole like that that mean every T&C needs to be 43 pages long to cover every eventuality, no matter how silly it is.

Tell you what, brickster, why don't you explain *exactly* how it works with a hard border, regulatory differences and tariffs? I'll start you off with an example, taken from the cross-border initiatives underpinned by the GFA. How will the all-island agricultural market work? I'll make it easy and limitbut to just milk.

Go for it.

Rjd2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Who is going to be willing to take on the role at this point?

Davies has been talked out but in all honesty whomever the new leader, the decision they will be faced with are the same decisions facing TM, except that they will be the leader because of the hard brexiteers and as such will probably have to deliver a no deal (is achieving nothing still called delivering?)

Even JRM accepts that a no deal is chaos, what leader wants to be the one held responsible for that.

TM is going nowhere

Johnson is obviously desperate for the job, but he for various reasons he has alienated plenty on both sides over the years, Davis has been talked about previously when it comes to the crunch doubt he gets it done.

The younger and less reviled Brexiters such as Raab etc will play the waiting game.


Maybe Javid might be able to muster enough support from both sides, but can't think of anyone else atm.

pH

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I can only assume you know the answer to this hence why you keep raising it. It was implied in the GFA but not explicitly stated. Which is why we such a clause now because a hard border fundamentally changes the situation

Exactly, and the 'spirit' of the GFA means that we have given up claims to NI (we explicitly removed the claim from the constitution) until such a time as a referendum is held and they decide to unify the country. The irish governments perceived attempts at 'economic annexation' are as much contrary to the spirit of the GFA as the UK governments.

Professor Moriarty

Rjd2 wrote: »

Johnson is obviously desperate for the job, but he for various reasons he has alienated plenty on both sides over the years, Davis has been talked about previously when it comes to the crunch doubt he gets it done.

The younger and less reviled Brexiters such as Raab etc will play the waiting game.


Maybe Javid might be able to muster enough support from both sides, but can't think of anyone else atm.

Javid didn't do himself any favours yesterday with a tweet about Asian paedophiles.

Strazdas

Anthracite wrote: »

A Brexiteer speaks his mind:

https://mobile.twitter.com/skynews/status/1053662098574716929

More typical of your average voter than might be imagined. A couple of opinion polls this year showed that British people are completely disengaged from politics and don't know the first thing about it. An average of 3m people tuned in for the Brexit debates and GE 2017 debates. That would be the equivalent of around 230k viewers for a debate in Ireland .....Pat Kenny's presidential debate on Wednesday had an average of 434k viewers.

briany

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting - in the continuing absence of Stormont, an NI Bill at Westminster has been amended to take on abortion and SSM legislation, with voting on Wednesday. Surely Arlene will welcome NI rules being brought into line with the rest of the UK!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/21/labour-mps-plot-ambush-northern-ireland-abortion-law

No, sorry. She only favours being like the rest of the UK when it suits her and her voters. She's in a great position to get that piece of legislation thrown out by threatening a withdrawal of DUP support for the current UK government. If this was Stormont that was voting, that could get voted through. Can't let that happen.

PeadarCo

pH wrote:

Exactly, and the 'spirit' of the GFA means that we have given up claims to NI (we explicitly removed the claim from the constitution) until such a time as a referendum is held and they decide to unify the country. The irish governments perceived attempts at 'economic annexation' are as much contrary to the spirit of the GFA as the UK governments.

The problem is perceived. Its not simple One community perceives it as annexation, the other just see it as the Irish government standing up for N Ireland. Remember the majority in Northern Ireland voted to stay in the Eu. So it can be quite legitimately argued that what the UK government is against the

Either way the UK signed up to the backstop last December. Given the dire consequences of a hard brexit for the UK(thus very weak negotiating position) its hard to see how a backstop can be avoided if the UK wants a deal going forward. Remember the UK economy is already suffering as a result of the vote and Brexit hasn't happened.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Javid didn't do himself any favours yesterday with a tweet about Asian paedophiles.

It would depend on what part you're trying to curry favours with; Boris "slips" are exactly the same vein for the same reason to try curry favours with the right wingers.

trellheim

It should be noted the Government of UK will try and ram through the Northern Ireland bill on Thursday. ( Gives powers to keep the lights on while they try and get the institutions back up and runnning). Some fun amendments have been lobbed in

See

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0275/amend/niefeoF_rm_cwh_1019.1-7.html

Steve Baker ( he of ERG fame ) is using it to try and kill the backstop by stealth. There are other interesting ones in there as well especially to do with abortion.

RobMc59

Anthracite wrote: »

A Brexiteer speaks his mind:

https://mobile.twitter.com/skynews/status/1053662098574716929

That is embarrassing and not the opinion of most people in Britain,that's just an alf garnett clone!

pH

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is perceived. Its not simple One community perceives it as annexation, the other just see it as the Irish government standing up for N Ireland. Remember the majority in Northern Ireland voted to stay in the Eu. So it can be quite legitimately argued that what the UK government is against the

Either way the UK signed up to the backstop last December. Given the dire consequences of a hard brexit for the UK(thus very weak negotiating position) its hard to see how a backstop can be avoided if the UK wants a deal going forward. Remember the UK economy is already suffering as a result of the vote and Brexit hasn't happened.

And due to the DUP's last minute involvement a guarantee was also given in December of no border in the Irish sea. And May has repeatedly said that the referendum result means leaving both the single market and customs union.

So all the current position means is no withdrawal agreement - which makes March 2019 a huge disaster - biggerst for the UK, but Ireland gets badly hit too.

With no withdrawal agreement we will see a really hard Brexit, there is no deal in place for citizens living in the other area, there is a £38bn hole in the EU finances, and we would have in effect trade gridlock.

An Ciarraioch

Brexit as a prisoners' dilemma:

http://twitter.com/Bruegel_org/status/1053726320574775307

Capt'n Midnight

prinzeugen wrote: »

When did you put an X on a ballot paper to elect an EU president? Never.

In the FPTP systems of the UK the PM is almost always the leader of the largest party. And the fate of the Lib Dems suggests it will remain so, well that and their absence on critical Brexit votes.

In the US the person who gets the most votes isn't always the President. Because democracy

Most of the rest of the EU governments are by consensus so no there's far less certainty on who will be the PM. Both France and Italy are close enough to a government a year since WWII, Belgium went without a government for ages. In Ireland we even have the concept of a rotating Taoiseach going back to 1992 where the proposal was to take turns between two parties. All alien concepts in the UK.

prinzeugen wrote: »

No. The EU vote was a UK one and the result was leave. Scotland and NI are NOT recognised independent countries.

The sad truth is that Scotland would be recognised more by Westminster if they left the UK. In light of the Indyref that was sold on the basis they'd stay in the the EU what has Westminster done for Scotland concerns since ?

BTW even though NI is front and centre on the European stage right now, the government in Westminster hasn't met the other NI parties yet, just the DUP and then only when the majority was lost.

PeadarCo

pH wrote:

With no withdrawal agreement we will see a really hard Brexit, there is no deal in place for citizens living in the other area, there is a £38bn hole in the EU finances, and we would have in effect trade gridlock.

So what 38 billion is a tiny portion of the EU economy. The UK has already done a song and dance about not paying and after their tantrum they signed up to the bill. The backstop will be the exact same. Remember the scheduling of the talks was supposed to be the row of the summer. The UK capitulated in a few hours.

The backstop last December was the exact same. To get through to phase 2 the UK government capitulated on the border. A hard uncontrolled Brexit would be a disaster for the UK. Its something any reputable body says including the UK civil service.

The story of these talks has been the UK acting like a 3 year old. They stand around throw a tantrum but end up signing up to whatever the EU wants them to. While they may act like 3 year olds, May and people like Davis are not stupid. They know a hard brexit will be a disaster and they don't want to be remembered for that. So after they do their song and dance they do the only thing they can do accept what the EU offers. After a year and a half I can't see that pattern changing.

brickster69

Rhineshark wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

I'm not sure of the exact text people are claiming commits the UK to an open (trade) border, but I would be grateful if someone would link me the text.

Here you go 
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/full_text.html

Also interested to see where having border controls for goods breaks this agreement. Because it is not there !

Yes, it's a pity it wasn't explicitly stated but a) no-one thought either country would unilaterally leave with no regard for the border or each other and b) No-one thought anyone would be stupid enough to argue that the GFA, reliant on and based on no border as it bloody blatantly is, doesn't need a lack of border to be able to operate.

It's peoole like that that mean every T&C needs to be 43 pages long to cover every eventuality, no matter how silly it is.

Tell you what, brickster, why don't you explain *exactly* how it works with a hard border, regulatory differences and tariffs? I'll start you off with an example, taken from the cross-border initiatives underpinned by the GFA. How will the all-island agricultural market work? I'll make it easy and limitbut to just milk.

Go for it.

No chance Rhineshark.
 Yes, it's a pity it wasn't explicitly stated . I wonder how many agreements in the world certain parties wish they added clauses to cover every eventuality.
 You can see plainly that all of this crap has been used as a distraction by all sides.  Do you think all sides don't know the legalities of  the GFA, of course they do and always have.
The only reason the UK and Ireland were able to have an open border was because both countries were in the EU already, otherwise the EU would have to open up all borders for free trade to everyone.

brickster69

Here are the EU's legal responsibilities under it's own treaties.
Under Article 50(2), they shall negotiate and conclude the withdrawal agreement

Under Article 3(5):

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.


Under Article 8:

1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In the FPTP systems of the UK the PM is almost always the leader of the largest party. And the fate of the Lib Dems suggests it will remain so, well that and their absence on critical Brexit votes.

In the US the person who gets the most votes isn't always the President. Because democracy

Most of the rest of the EU governments are by consensus so no there's far less certainty on who will be the PM. Both France and Italy are close enough to a government a year since WWII, Belgium went without a government for ages. In Ireland we even have the concept of a rotating Taoiseach going back to 1992 where the proposal was to take turns between two parties. All alien concepts in the UK.


The sad truth is that Scotland would be recognised more by Westminster if they left the UK. In light of the Indyref that was sold on the basis they'd stay in the the EU what has Westminster done for Scotland concerns since ?

BTW even though NI is front and centre on the European stage right now, the government in Westminster hasn't met the other NI parties yet, just the DUP and then only when the majority was lost.

The population of the EU elects the President of the Commission by proxy. He/she is nominated by the Council, in effect the elected heads of state, and the nomination is ratified by the European Parliament whose members are elected. Seems legit to me.

Capt'n Midnight

pH wrote: »

There's a big difference between a net GDP figure and money received in taxes, the UK take about 34% of GDP in taxes, so if they lose £0.5bn per week that's a loss of GDP of £25bn, which is a loss to the exchequer of £8bn. You've got to remember that £38bn is actual cold hard cash, which represents the taxes in the UK on GDP of £140bn (ish)

The £500 a week isn't GDP, it's lost tax revenue , so cold hard cash that's gone as UK growth has lagged by 2.5% since the referendum.

BTW the £20Bn promised to the NHS will only pay for debt servicing.

Anthracite

RobMc59 wrote: »

That is embarrassing and not the opinion of most people in Britain,that's just an alf garnett clone!

Yeah, see how all his buddies immediately shut him down...


oh, no wait they didn't.

Anthracite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The sad truth is that Scotland would be recognised more by Westminster if they left the UK. In light of the Indyref that was sold on the basis they'd stay in the the EU what has Westminster done for Scotland concerns since ?

Well they've dragged them out of the EU against the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people, so there's that...

Anthracite

brickster69 wrote: »

Here are the EU's legal responsibilities under it's own treaties.

I'm not seeing any reason to let the UK benefit from all the good bits of the EU without making any of the compromises - which bit should I be looking at specifically?

Rhineshark

brickster69 wrote: »

No chance Rhineshark.
 Yes, it's a pity it wasn't explicitly stated . I wonder how many agreements in the world certain parties wish they added clauses to cover every eventuality.
 You can see plainly that all of this crap has been used as a distraction by all sides.  Do you think all sides don't know the legalities of  the GFA, of course they do and always have.
The only reason the UK and Ireland were able to have an open border was because both countries were in the EU already, otherwise the EU would have to open up all borders for free trade to everyone.

There's "not leaving loopholes" vs having to make laws like "do not eat this giraffe" and "Do not shove moose out of airplanes".

The GFA is passively broken by just not being operable under this braindead move by the UK. Even if they argue themselves blue in the face that just because it doesn't specify "which is, of course, only possible by remaining in the EU and not creating a circumstance in which a hard border becomes neccessary...obviously", it doesn't mean they are making a lick of sense.

These cross-border areas would normally be covered by the British/Irish Council. But because the Assembly is no longer running - and it is not remotely convenient for it to run for the DUP now - there is no B/I Council. Isn't that convenient.

The DUP really got a perfect storm of events to become relevent.

Kermit.de.frog

SNIP. Cut out the Twitter dumps.

Rhineshark

brickster69 wrote: »

Here are the EU's legal responsibilities under it's own treaties.
Under Article 50(2), they shall negotiate and conclude the withdrawal agreement

Under Article 3(5):

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.


Under Article 8:

1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.

Yes? None of A8 means that the EU is bound to create a deal, free trade or otherwise, that is a liability to it merely because a neighbouring country wants one and is throwing a strop.

However, A3(5) is bang in line with protecting an international peace agreement in one of its member states.

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

Here are the EU's legal responsibilities under it's own treaties.
Under Article 50(2), they shall negotiate and conclude the withdrawal agreement

Under Article 3(5):

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.


Under Article 8:

1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.

Nice sidestep on the GFA agreement and what a border would mean on its implementation. I would guess you would easily be able answer that there would be no impact even if there is a border if it was stated in the agreement that a border is not an impediment.

Seeing that almost all of the comment we have had is that the GFA agreement and a border doesn't go together, seeing that the UK has agreed already that there will not be a border and they keep stating this I think we can safely assume that the GFA works because there isn't a border. Even JRM keeps saying that the UK will not put up a border, because even he seems to recognize that you cannot put up a border unless things really go bad and there is a total breakdown of talks. I suspect even if that were to happen that an agreement could be reached where NI is kept in the SI and CU while the UK is out of everything else as the UK will not want to send their troops back to Belfast to face the violence again.

So we can agree the GFA is as previously stated left vague enough for everyone to take what they can from it but essentially it works because there is no borders. If you want to dispute that I look forward to your arguments.

As to your quoted post, would you please expand on what you are trying to point out? It seems that at the moment you are taking us to a forest and pointing at the trees but not telling us what we should be looking for.

I will point out though that, "The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation." shows that it is not written in stone that the EU will make a deal. They will aim to have a special relationship with the party leaving. I have not seen any indication that the EU has said they will walk away or threatened to break talks.

So it seems to me that they have not gone against the spirit of article 50 as they have not stopped negotiations and is trying to ensure everyone is well of. It is the UK that is pursuing a deal that will make them and one of the EU members a lot worse off than if they didn't leave.