Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Inquitus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, they don't. It would only be the EU and UK (the EU as a single customs territory) who would agree and submit the agreement to the WTO. The WTO may impose conditions but this would not prevent it happening.

The difference between a customs union and free trade area is that while the customs union is a type of free trade area, it has common external tariffs.

And why would the EU do that? Answer is they won't, hence this is more Unicorns and Rainbows. The UK voted to leave the enhanced FTA that is the EU, and if they leave with no deal, they will be subject to the full force of WTO trading terms.

Junkyard Tom

Inquitus wrote: »

And why would the EU do that? Answer is they won't, hence this is more Unicorns and Rainbows. The UK voted to leave the enhanced FTA that is the EU, and if they leave with no deal, they will be subject to the full force of WTO trading terms.

And if you listen to the Brexit fundamentalists you'd think going from the EU to WTO is getting off one ship and getting on another when it's more like jumping into the water and having to give all the sharks a fair go at you.

Strazdas

Inquitus wrote: »

Relevant snippet of the article, what sort of tossers do they have writing for that paper these days, sigh!

Someone in the comments section hits straight back and says the peace process and the 3000+ deaths was never of the slightest interest to the Brexiteers when they were campaigning for their vanity project : it's a bit rich to be talking about it now.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Even with the CTA the UK is no longer as attractive to us as it used to be.


CBI chief economist Rain Newton-Smith said: "Since the [Brexit] referendum, the UK has become a less attractive place to work.

I wouldn't put too much stock into Indeeds clicks on tracking this. They are the job site of choice for SeeTec etc. certainly no professional worth their salt would use it.

That said I don't think they are wrong in their findings here.

Mr.Nice Guy

briany wrote: »

The moment Ireland does erect any kind of border control, whether it be in a piecemeal fashion or not, Mogg and co. will be claiming, "Ireland breached the GFA by putting up a border and after all their crying about it being so important not to. Guess they have to obey their EU masters. Well, no use crying over spilled milk now. Might as well put our own border up as well."

That's the strategy. How will Ireland and the EU deal with it?

There would be one way of countering that narrative: call for a border poll. Bertie Ahern has been mooting it as a possibility the last few days despite only a year ago saying he'd not see one in his lifetime.

If there is a crash out Brexit and talk of erecting infrastructure, opinion polls north and south will shift in favour of holding a referendum. If multiple polls indicate that a majority would want to see a border poll, then that would be a compelling case for the Secretary of State Karen Bradley to call one under the GFA. If a Taoiseach were to add support for this it would be difficult for the British government to deny it without being accused of breaking the spirit of the agreement. In fact, if they were to try and deny a poll it would make them look like they wanted infrastructure on the border.

The advantage of this from the Irish state's point of view is that it can point to the referendum as evidence of the desire to avoid infrastructure. They could not be accused of abandoning people north of the border to checks since under a unity vote - which they would be championing - this would do away with the need for them. It could also potentially buy the government some time from EU partners with regards having to erect barriers. "We must see the result of the referendum before we can plan infrastructure that may not be necessary" etc.

Of course a successful unity vote would present multiple challenges economically, culturally etc. and we're forced to confront them far sooner than we might like to without Brexit being on the agenda. I feel a way around this would be to make it clear that there would be a long transition phase, perhaps two to three decades even, in which to sort out the most contentious issues. But in the meantime, NI would continue to enjoy what it has currently and would remain in the EU's single market and customs union. In other words, we maintain the status quo for the immediate future and kick everything else into the long grass until we're good and ready to deal with it.

robindch

tuxy wrote: »

The UK papers are now latching on to anything they can find offensive, in fairness they know their audience

Amongst other things, Brexit is a result of a frighteningly effective, media-led outrage machine built upon three well-tested tropes - fear, sh*te and ignorance.

The outrage machine needs feeding and as its consumers become habituated to hating people far away, inevitably, it turns on people closer to home to keep the dopamine rushing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline)

ThePanjandrum

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Of course a successful unity vote would present multiple challenges economically, culturally etc. and we're forced to confront them far sooner than we might like to without Brexit being on the agenda. I feel a way around this would be to make it clear that there would be a long transition phase, perhaps two to three decades even, in which to sort out the most contentious issues. But in the meantime, NI would continue to enjoy what it has currently and would remain in the EU's single market and customs union. In other words, we maintain the status quo for the immediate future and kick everything else into the long grass until we're good and ready to deal with it.

The Good Friday Agreement doesn't give you that choice. If people vote to unite then you cannot impose a long waiting period nor say what happens in the meantime.

You would also have to find the money to support Northern Ireland and this would be unlikely to be the EU as it will have lost its second largest donor. You would also have to hope that it did not disrupt trade with the UK, otherwise the cost would be far higher.

And I almost forgot to add, you will have to change Northern Ireland's currency as well as ride out the impending Eurozone recession. Plus the boys with the smuggling businesses might object.

jochenstacker

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

And I almost forgot to add, you will have to change Northern Ireland's currency as well as ride out the impending Eurozone recession. Plus the boys with the smuggling businesses might object.

I think you misspelled British.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

But it plays right into JRM's strategy.

JRM, Boris, Farage etc. etc. are the UK's problem now, not the EU's.

Zubeneschamali

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The difference between a customs union and free trade area is that while the customs union is a type of free trade area, it has common external tariffs.

The thing they have in common is that No Deal UK won't be in either of them with the EU.

volchitsa

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement doesn't give you that choice. If people vote to unite then you cannot impose a long waiting period nor say what happens in the meantime.

Here is the text of the GFA : where exactly does it say that there can be no planned waiting period or preparatory stage?

You would also have to find the money to support Northern Ireland and this would be unlikely to be the EU as it will have lost its second largest donor. You would also have to hope that it did not disrupt trade with the UK, otherwise the cost would be far higher.

And I almost forgot to add, you will have to change Northern Ireland's currency as well as ride out the impending Eurozone recession. Plus the boys with the smuggling businesses might object.

This is all speculation. My view is that in the longer term, a United Ireland within the EU is likely to be far stronger economically than both bits separately. It's speculation too of course, but just as valid as yours.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement doesn't give you that choice. If people vote to unite then you cannot impose a long waiting period nor say what happens in the meantime.

True. But the process would still take a very long time. I'm basing that on the eight years it took to complete Welsh devolution; a much simpler task that also took two Acts of parliament.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You would also have to find the money to support Northern Ireland and this would be unlikely to be the EU as it will have lost its second largest donor. You would also have to hope that it did not disrupt trade with the UK, otherwise the cost would be far higher.

Economist David McWilliams (he who predicted the property crash) had a look at this last year and concluded that even without the NI GDP, it would be quite affordable. Iirc, less than 10% of our GDP. You are also wildly overstating the UK's contribution. With rebates and direct payments, it's a distant third biggest. That £10 billion figure that's bandied about, doesn't include EU direct payments back into the UK (roughly £5 billion). The actual extra cost per person in the remaining 27, of the UK's contribution is calculated to be €12 pa.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

And I almost forgot to add, you will have to change Northern Ireland's currency as well as ride out the impending Eurozone recession. Plus the boys with the smuggling businesses might object.

Well at least you have a sense of humour.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

And I almost forgot to add, you will have to change Northern Ireland's currency as well as ride out the impending Eurozone recession. Plus the boys with the smuggling businesses might object.

If there is a eurozone recession (what does that mean though? Is it if one country in the euro has a recession? Or half?) then you know it will affect the UK as that is where the UK has almost half of its trade. Add in slower growth in any case in the UK you cannot all of a sudden wish away that there will also in most likelihood be a recession in the UK at the same time.

As for Article 24 of GATT of the WTO, has anyone here actually tried to read it and understood it? I couldn't make head or tail of it to be honest with the way it is written.

1. The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to the metropolitan customs territories of the contracting parties and to any other customs territories in respect of which this Agreement has been accepted under Article XXVI or is being applied under Article XXXIII or pursuant to the Protocol of Provisional Application. Each such customs territory shall, exclusively for the purposes of the territorial application of this Agreement, be treated as though it were a contracting party; Provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not be construed to create any rights or obligations as between two or more customs territories in respect of which this Agreement has been accepted under Article XXVI or is being applied under Article XXXIII or pursuant to the Protocol of Provisional Application by a single contracting party.

The original GATT Article XXIV, complemented by an “Ad Art XXIV”, has been updated in 1994 with an Understanding.
Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947)

I don't know if that is even the article that Brexiters are talking about when they say that they can have tariff free trade for up to 10 years while the UK and EU are busy negotiating their trade deal.

What I have heard from the Remainiacs podcast was that that provision has never been used by any other countries before and also that both countries need to agree to it before it can come into force. So why would the EU agree up to 10 years of free trade with the UK?

With that interesting BBC series about the EU the second part was about the eurozone crises and Greece. The EU were prepared to have Greece exit the eurozone to protect the currency. They were willing and almost voted to let one of their members leave the euro for the good of the rest of the eurozone. I have no doubt that while Ireland will suffer in the short term if it is good for the rest of the EU that there is no open borders while they are busy negotiating with the UK for a trade deal then that is what will happen. This time we are in the firing line, next time it will be another country, but the integrity of the EU is of most importance to the EU leaders.

woohoo!!!

With regards to a UI. I would expect bilateral negotiations of 2 years with a transition period of 10 years. I would also expect a radical change in the way the state organise itself and a new constitution.

woohoo!!!

The nice thing about when the WA is signed or there's a no deal, we can go back to completely ignoring the like of JRM, purely a UK problem.

Gerinspain

Re: Article 24 - I heard a discussion about it (will try to find link) explained by this guy
https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines

If 2 countries have been in negotiations for a few years and are close to agreement both sides can go to the WTO to ask for the agreements so far to be ratified so they can start trading.

Call me Al

Brokenshire talking with Andrew Marr this morning. He's being challenged on his vote in favour of the Brady amendment despite saying that the UK needs the backstop. Lots of bluster and obfuscation.

Interestingly he had an Austrian govt rep on. She was asked if Austria would support an extension of Art 50 and her response was quite emphatic. Paraphrasing but: that decision would be discussed and decided on a 27 country basis. They would come to a decision as a single entity. But that it was pointless for the UK govt to approach with that request without a specific aim or plan in place.

Sam Russell

Call me Al wrote: »

Brokenshire talking with Andrew Marr this morning. He's being challenged on his vote in favour of the Brady amendment despite saying that the UK needs the backstop. Lots of bluster and obfuscation.

Interestingly he had an Austrian govt rep on. She was asked if Austria would support an extension of Art 50 and her response was quite emphatic. Paraphrasing but: that decision would be discussed and decided on a 27 country basis. They would come to a decision as a single entity. But that it was pointless for the UK govt to approach with that request without a specific aim or plan in place.

She was the Austrian Foreign Minister. She gave no solace to the UK Gov stance.

gooch2k9

May to make plea to MPs for time to change deal

More can kicking. She has been told the deal is not being renogotiated.

She's talking about a vote with a month until the deadline which will include an option of an extension. She knows rightly the EU won't entertain that if the UK still haven't decided what they want.

Call me Al

Sam Russell wrote: »

She was the Austrian Foreign Minister. She gave no solace to the UK Gov stance.

Thanks, I turned in midway through so wasn't quite sure what office she had.
And yes, no solace to the UK.

Akrasia

gooch2k9 wrote: »

May to make plea to MPs for time to change deal

More can kicking. She has been told the deal is not being renogotiated.

She's talking about a vote with a month until the deadline which will include an option of an extension. She knows rightly the EU won't entertain that if the UK still haven't decided what they want.

And Labour's big plan is another vote to make May hold another vote in 2 weeks.

Its comical.

May is lying to parliament with no consequences. She's pretending that she is getting concessions from Europe in private talks, when every single public statement from the EU is that the current deal will not be renegotiated without May changing her red lines.

Infini

gooch2k9 wrote: »

May to make plea to MPs for time to change deal

More can kicking. She has been told the deal is not being renogotiated.

She's talking about a vote with a month until the deadline which will include an option of an extension. She knows rightly the EU won't entertain that if the UK still haven't decided what they want.

She wants to put the vote in that article around m
March 21st. Labour apparently pushing for it to be at the end of this month. Shes just wasting time tbh and everyones fed up with it. Think crashout will be the default assumption at this stage as theyre in total dissarray.

Gerinspain

Found the link about WTO Article 24

https://t.co/nJA0swgKjf

serfboard

robindch wrote: »

The outrage machine needs feeding and as its consumers become habituated to hating people far away, inevitably, it turns on people closer to home to keep the dopamine rushing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline)

To me this is the headline that clearly marked a turn toward Facism in England - the idea that judges, who make decisions that you don’t like, and thus uphold the (unwritten) constitution, are “Enemies of the people” is frightening.

What’s equally interesting is that, according to that Wikipedia item, the person who wrote that headline, James Slack, is now the Downing Street Press Secretary and the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson ...

fly_agaric

Discussion on unification any time soon is somewhat moot.
It is plain (to me) the Conservatives would never allow a vote on it in NI, certainly not because some agreement they hold in contempt had a line about it somewhere. Imagine most of the UK politicians have learned well from the mistakes of David "lets have referenda" Cameron - they must have had a heart attack when the Scots almost voted for independence.
Labour may be more likely to allow holding of such a vote (especially if current leader/those around him are still there next time they are in power?).

Water John

TM is doing the blindingly obvious. Going to the last minute and telling HOC to back Her Deal or No Deal. It's up to the HOC at this point, to put a stop to this charade.
Find a mechanism to rule out No Deal and vote it trough. The argument, shallow and all that it was, that she needed No Deal as a bargaining chip with Brussels, no longer holds.

Infini

serfboard wrote: »

To me this is the headline that clearly marked a turn toward Facism in England - the idea that judges, who make decisions that you don’t like, and thus uphold the (unwritten) constitution, are “Enemies of the people” is frightening.

What’s equally interesting is that, according to that Wikipedia item, the person who wrote that headline, James Slack, is now the Downing Street Press Secretary and the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson ...

The truth is that there's a significant amount of toxicity in the English Media but expecially from the Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph to name the 3 biggest offenders. Headline's like that would be deserving of a lawsuit for inciting violence in other countries but when the leavers won their vote by a tiny margin the place lost the plot a fair bit.

That being said a ton of problems with England as has been noted its down to an exteremely unacceptable level of ignorance amongst the population not to mention a tendancy to refuse to accept when they're wrong even when presented with actual facts *points at Hoey*.

Noone can ultimately stop them from crashing if they really go full retard in the end but they'll pay a huge diplomatic and economic costs from it and they'll really have to do a huge load of soulsearching afterwards because in the end none of it was necessary or needed it was simply the machinations of those who could not accept reality and made an utter mess of things.

Infini

fly_agaric wrote: »

Discussion on unification any time soon is somewhat moot.
It is plain (to me) the Conservatives would never allow a vote on it in NI, certainly not because some agreement they hold in contempt had a line about it somewhere. Imagine most of the UK politicians have learned well from the mistakes of David "lets have referenda" Cameron - they must have had a heart attack when the Scots almost voted for independence.
Labour may be more likely to allow holding of such a vote (especially if current leader/those around him are still there next time they are in power?).

It all ultimately depends both on the situation on the ground and what ultimately the kind of Brexit we get. Remember there's still a few over there who'd simply love to get rid of NI if they can. The GFA does provide for one of course but the simple truth is that UI will only become a significant possibility if the UK utterly abandons reason and sanity and actually drives itself off the cliff. At that point it's a game changer because NI will be economically and politically paralysed and a UI become's essentially the OUT option not just for nationalists but middle grounders who dont care about sides only their own livelyhoods and even those on the Unionist side who are hammered by this and effectively have to reevaluate their views because of the UK's failure to avoid this. It's the last resort option but it's essentially the most likely outcome if theres a crashout Brexit.

eagle eye

It's not a likely option because there are lots against it. This is not a majority rules type situation. There will be paramilitaries in operation if you try to have a United Ireland.
I'm in the Republic and I'd be against it because of the threat of a return to the troubles and also from a financial point if view too.

fly_agaric

Infini wrote: »

It all ultimately depends both on the situation on the ground and what ultimately the kind of Brexit we get. Remember there's still a few over there who'd simply love to get rid of NI if they can. The GFA does provide for one of course but the simple truth is that UI will only become a significant possibility if the UK utterly abandons reason and sanity and actually drives itself off the cliff. At that point it's a game changer because NI will be economically and politically paralysed and a UI become's essentially the OUT option not just for nationalists but middle grounders who dont care about sides only their own livelyhoods and even those on the Unionist side who are hammered by this and effectively have to reevaluate their views because of the UK's failure to avoid this. It's the last resort option but it's essentially the most likely outcome if theres a crashout Brexit.

I'd agree opinion on a united Ireland in NI is likely to shift in that scenario. I just do not see the Conservatives allowing a vote to be held on the issue, even if some of them might have the odd moan about NI or the money it costs to run etc. I don't think they would give a hoot about public opinion in NI on the issue.
edit: Despite all that has gone on, it is still likely Conservatives could be in govt. again after next election. I do wonder if even a disorderly Brexit would change that as it will be all blamed on Ireland betraying them, EU vengeance and spite, Theresa May being a bad negotiator etc etc. The narratives are all ready to go and will be lapped up by alot of people.