Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Phonehead

Are you sure that an EU citizen can waltz into the UK and get all these benefits? Isn't there a 3 month prospect of work assessment carried out?

downcow

murphaph wrote: »

Maciej the Polish plumber lives in the UK. He's legal and has his own business their. Maciej's younger brothers come of age and go to work illegally in GB for their brother.

At British airports the brother's movements into the UK can be tracked. So they fly to Dublin where they have FoM and can come and go as they please and then simply take a trip over the border and a domestic UK flight from Belfast.

Of course this will happen. It is currently happening with non-eu people working illegally in Dublin, Belfast and London. I do think that sometimes this is another tactic of the remainers to go along with their tactic of using the GFA i.e. they try and set the bar at perfection knowing no arrangement could ever possibly meet it

murphaph

downcow wrote: »

That is one circle I have no problem squaring.
Clearly, illegal immigration will continue at a certain level, the super-hard borders on the Mediterranean and indeed between northern France and the British Isles clearly demonstrate that a certain number of legal immigrants (non-EU)will always get through.
Can we agree that that will neither increase nor decrease under Brexit?

Taking back control of our borders I believe (for most Brits) is about controlling the numbers of EU citizens entering the UK.

See my post above. You can't control illegal EU migration post Brexit without a hard border.

How do you tell the settled Pole apart from the one freshly arrived via Dublin and Belfast?

ID cards? For whom? Everyone has to carry one for ID cards to work. Many British citizens speak English with an accent. Can't discriminate based on superficial things like that.

So we're back to policing the border but post Brexit there's a Northern Ireland sized hole in it.

Phonehead

DC - just as an FYI - http://benefitsaware.centralenglandlc.org.uk/eu-nationals-and-genuine-prospect-of-work-issues/

It's kind of easy to research if the opinions you hold are fact or fiction.

First Up

downcow wrote:

Taking back control of our borders I believe (for most Brits) is about controlling the numbers of EU citizens entering the UK. People are feeling swamped (not actually my position I am quite relaxed about the movement of people). Currently these people move into the UK and are entitled to houses, jobs, healthcare, benefits,etc. after Brexit they will become illegal immigrants entitled to none of this (of course not the ones already here). Therefore there will be little attraction to coming into the UK and the hard borders for the movement of people will remain where they are at northern France. People from Ireland and UK can freely move backwards and forwards across the Irish border and indeed the Irish Sea i.e. Dublin Holyhead..

EU passport holders (like everyone else) are already subject to immigration checks on arrival in the UK or Ireland - we are outside Schengen. Brexit will not impose any further entry restrictions on them (unless you are advocating a visa regime).

The UK can withdraw employment rights and social benefits to EU citizens but that has nothing to do with a "hard" border.

The UK is already entitled to deny entry to any non-EU citizens it likes, whether they arrive on the back of a truck through the Chunnel or land at Heathrow. That's an enforcement issue and nothing to do with Brexit.

murphaph

downcow wrote: »

Of course this will happen. It is currently happening with non-eu people working illegally in Dublin, Belfast and London. I do think that sometimes this is another tactic of the remainers to go along with their tactic of using the GFA i.e. they try and set the bar at perfection knowing no arrangement could ever possibly meet it

Don't you understand? Post Brexit FoM in the UK for 500 million people ends, but these 500 million people can still travel without hindrance to the UK via an open border. How long do you think the Daily Express editors would wait after Brexit before calling for checks on people at the border? The CTA doesn't work with one country in a union of hundreds of millions of people with freedom of movement.

10000maniacs

downcow wrote: »

I know there are many of you responding similarly to the above. But we already discovered several pages back that there was not one of you who would accept a similar arrangement for your country i.e. locked into an international agreement that you know sizeable numbers of your citizens seriously dislike and that you could never escape from if any one of 27 nations decided not to let you.
Therefore it is difficult to take your recent comments seriously on the backstop.

Partition is an unnatural creation by the UK and is incompatible with Brexit.
Its the ultimate cake and eat it scenario that needs to be fixed.
It has caused civil war, conflict and death too frequently in it's 100 year history.
Bottom line downcow, basically if you want partition, you can't have Brexit and vice versa. It cannot work. Its a square peg in a round hole.

<snip - cartoons/jokes are not serious debate>

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

No i haven't been to Switzerland and I have not been through the Eurotunnel. Would you be suggesting something like the current hard border between EU mainland and the British Isles?

What else is the Eurotunnel terminal, other than a hard border between the EU and the UK? So yes. Google for images if you don't know what they look like.

downcow wrote: »

Can we agree that that will neither increase nor decrease under Brexit?

Taking back control of our borders I believe (for most Brits) is about controlling the numbers of EU citizens entering the UK. People are feeling swamped (not actually my position I am quite relaxed about the movement of people). Currently these people move into the UK and are entitled to houses, jobs, healthcare, benefits,etc.

Is that a reasonable position to take up on the movement of people, and do you have any problem with it?

Nope, it's not reasonable, because it's wrong. EU citizens have the right to enter the UK and look for work and to buy a house; they have three months in which to do so, otherwise they can - in accordance with EU law - be told to go back to where they came from. For reasons known only to the UK government, the UK government has chosen not to excerise control in this way.

But it doesn't matter, because the English xenophobe voted for Brexit, so tens of thousands of highly qualified, high-earning EU immigrants have decided to pack their bags and go and live in a more tolerant part of the EU.

The natural consequence of this is that there are jobs that desperately need to be filled in the UK, so there is now even more incentive for illegal immigrants to find a way into the country, where they know they'll get work and a tax-free income.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Much appreciated and very helpful.
You seem very well informed so can I ask you another serious question. Is there a clause that allows for special arrangements at a border based on easing the situation and lowering the chances of conflict along the disputed border?

The question is based on a misunderstanding. WTO rules say very little about borders as such; they deal not with borders, but with trade and commerce across borders. All the obligations imposed relate to the trade. As log as you observed the obligations effectively, the WTO doesn't care whether you do that through measures implemented at the border, or through measures implemented away from the border, or through some combination of measures.

Normally, countries do what needs to be done at the border, because it is either impossible or inconvenient to meet WTO obligations without any] controls at borders. But, in theory, if you could devise measures which operated away from the border, and the measures were effective and WTO-compliant, the WTO would have no problem. This is something that some Brexiters assure us can easily be done in the context of the UK border in Ireland, but despite its being very easy they have yet to actually devise a way of doing it which would both meet WTO obligations and satisfy the no-hard-border criteria set out in the Jt Report.

The WA does accommodate the possibility;it provides that if such measures can be devised, they will pre-empt the backstop. However, except among those with a strong ideological motive for believing that such measures can be devised, or for pretending to, thers is widespread scepticism that such a thing is feasible.

To return to your question, would the WTO allow special measures to reduce conflict along a disputed border? Yes, provide the "special measures" were WTO compliant, which among other things means respecting the MFN rule. This means that the "special measures" would have to apply not to trade with Ireland, or to trade with the EU, but to trade with the whole world, provide the point of entry of the goods concerned into the EU was across the border in Ireland. And that would cause considerable practical and political problems for the UK.

My own view, FWIW, is that it's highly unlikely that "special measures" or technological solutions will have much of a role to play in delivering on the no-hard-border guarantee. Most of the heavy lifting is going to be done by including suitable provisions in the future relationship agreement between the EU and the UK. The drawback to this, from a Brexiters point of view, is that such provisions must by definition be agreed between the EU and the UK, and having found that the EU is not the pushover which they so confidently predicted during the referendum campaign they now seem to hold the quasi-Trumpian position that anything to which the EU will agree must, by definition, be unfair to the UK.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

See my post above. You can't control illegal EU migration post Brexit without a hard border.

How do you tell the settled Pole apart from the one freshly arrived via Dublin and Belfast?

ID cards? For whom? Everyone has to carry one for ID cards to work. Many British citizens speak English with an accent. Can't discriminate based on superficial things like that.

So we're back to policing the border but post Brexit there's a Northern Ireland sized hole in it.

Actually, no. The plan, post-Brexit, is that EU citizens will enjoy visa-free access to the UK, just as they do now.



What they won't enjoy is a right of abode or a right to work. But they'll be able to enter the UK quite freely (as tourists or visitors or whatever) without any need to detour via Ireland.


Enforcing the ban on settling and working won't be done at the border, but through "in-country" controls. To take up a job, register for national insurance, register at a GP practice, put your kids in school, rent or buy a home, etc, etc, you'll have to prove your migration status by producing the appropriate residence visa/work permit/whatever.



There's all kinds of objections to this system, many of them starting with the word "Windrush" but nevertheless its what they intend to do. And, however bad it may be in other respects, it's not a system that will be seriously impaired by the ability of Poles to enter the UK via Ireland. The system allows for the fact that Poles can get in easily.

Chips Lovell

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, in theory, if you could devise measures which operated away from the border, and the measures were effective and WTO-compliant, the WTO would have no problem. This is something that some Brexiters assure us can easily be done in the context of the UK border in Ireland, but despite its being very easy they have yet to actually devise a way of doing it which would both meet WTO obligations and satisfy the no-hard-border criteria set out in the Jt Report.

One thing worth stressing is that when/if these measures are devised, the backstop can go away.

If the Brexiteers promoting alternative measures really believe they are feasible, why are they so concerned about the backstop?

Peregrinus

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

One thing worth stressing is that when/if these measures are devised, the backstop can go away.

If the Brexiteers promoting alternative measures really believe they are feasible, why are they so concerned about the backstop?

Because they don't think the EU will agree that the measures are effective and sufficient. They think - or claim to think - that the EU is rubbing its hands and cackling insanely at its ability to keep the UK trapped ij the backstop for ever. It has not occurred to them that the EU has its own reasons for disliking the backstop and wanting to see it averted or superseded if at all possible.

Quin_Dub

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

One thing worth stressing is that when/if these measures are devised, the backstop can go away.

If the Brexiteers promoting alternative measures really believe they are feasible, why are they so concerned about the backstop?

The only quasi-logical thing that I can think of here is that the UK believe that the EU will negotiate in bad faith and that they will never agree to anything not matter how wonderful it might be, simply to keep the UK permanently constrained by the terms of the Backstop.

However , the legitimacy of those possible concerns are most definitely questionable to say they least in my view.

Why would the EU do that ? , not only in terms of the direct implications with the UK but also in terms of the serious damage that would do to their trustworthiness and reputation with all the other countries that they need to do business with.

CelticRambler

First Up wrote: »

The FOM stuff is a minor side-show.

murphaph wrote: »

Post Brexit FoM in the UK for 500 million people ends, but these 500 million people can still travel without hindrance to the UK via an open border.

downcow wrote: »

So it is about EU protecting the integrity of the products enter the market. And you say the FOM of people into the UK.

Could we start with the second one first.
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the travelling between ROI and NI. So I am not clear what you mean by FOM. Why would this affect anyone living in ROI?

Hang on a second. Freedom of Movement isn't about Paddy, Juan and Kurt wandering across the nearest border, having a beer together and dancing with some of the local girls. FoM is the right of any of us as EU citizens to set up a life for ourselves in any other part of the EU (free houses and healthcare not included.)

FoM does not extend to any goods we might want to move across the border, and by that I'm not referring to a lorry load of Tayto. As Gollum might put it, every time you (Downcow) cross the border from March 30th on, a customs officer somewhere will have to ask "what has he got in his pocketses?" :mad: The CTA gives you the right to walk bollock-naked across the border into Ireland, but without a deal, everything you carry on you or with you becomes a potential illegal import into the EU.

Do you remember, back in the Celtic Tiger days, people coming back from the States with suitcases of new clothes being hammered for customs duties if they forgot to take the tags off? That could be you in two months time, on your way back from a trip to Dublin. Do you remember the bad ol' days of the Troubles, and cars being stopped and their boots being opened? That'll be you in two months time. This is what happens right now at borders like those in Andorra, Switzerland and Eurotunnel.

The backstop means none of that would happen at the NI-RoI frontier, but your mates in England have voted against it. And somehow you keep trying to make out that we're the ones being awkward?

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Normally, countries do what needs to be done at the border, because it is either impossible or inconvenient to meet WTO obligations without any] controls at borders. But, in theory, if you could devise measures which operated away from the border, and the measures were effective and WTO-compliant, the WTO would have no problem.

The WTO is less of a player in this. It sets the trading framework for members but compliance is a matter for each country.

The EU requires its member states to enforce compliance of the Single Market, including the Common External Tariff and technical standards. That is a national competence and responsibility.

Some (ERG) have suggested the UK can avoid jams at ports and shortages by "waving through" trucks at Dover etc. while they sort things out. Under WTO rules, they would have to offer the same unchecked freedom to imports from everywhere and that would be enforced by the WTO, probably following some pretty loud and quick protests from US, Australia, Japan, China etc.

spacecoyote

I've been seeing a lot of noise & conflicting info around the whole Article 24 thing. Could anyone clarify please?

I know that JRM & Forage are constantly on about it & how it would allow them to maintain tariff free trade post brexit.

But on the flip side of it, I've seen people stating that Article 24 only exists under GATT, and that the current WTO agreements supersede GATT, so technically it no longer exists, so is pointless to discuss at all as it cannot be used.

So, does anyone have a definitive on it? Is it just more ERG/UKIP codology, or is it a genuine piece of law which could be applied?

Kermit.de.frog

Barnier:

https://twitter.com/everything_fx/status/1094954149303726081

Also said May insists on no extension and wants to leave on 29th.

black forest

There is a brandnew paper done by real experts and out today.


https://twitter.com/hayward_katy/status/1094919177343688704?s=21


Reading these thirty pages should help everybody to understand the different suggestions made last week like Malthouse plus the back stop.


Direct link to the pdf:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Brexit-and-the-backstop-everything-you-need-to-know.pdf


Have to read it again slowly.;)

downcow

10000maniacs wrote: »

Partition is an unnatural creation by the UK and is incompatible with Brexit.
Its the ultimate cake and eat it scenario that needs to be fixed.
It has caused civil war, conflict and death too frequently in it's 100 year history.
Bottom line downcow, basically if you want partition, you can't have Brexit and vice versa. It cannot work. Its a square peg in a round hole.

<snip>

So you have form. You are blaming Brexit it for everything currently. Not surprising as I see you are now claiming partition for being responsible for all the ills of Ireland. Of course the killing just started 100 years ago.

Unfortunately I cannot come back to you on this. I may already be in trouble because it seems remainders on here can distort history however they wish but dare I mention it

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

So you have form. You are blaming Brexit it for everything currently. Not surprising as I see you are now claiming partition for being responsible for all the ills of Ireland. Of course the killing just started 100 years ago.

Why are we discussing any of this? Brexit! Therefore yes brexit is to blame for everything currently.


Also that's a pathetic strawman, that post contained nothing like what you claim.

downcow

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The only quasi-logical thing that I can think of here is that the UK believe that the EU will negotiate in bad faith and that they will never agree to anything not matter how wonderful it might be, simply to keep the UK permanently constrained by the terms of the Backstop.

However , the legitimacy of those possible concerns are most definitely questionable to say they least in my view.

Why would the EU do that ? , not only in terms of the direct implications with the UK but also in terms of the serious damage that would do to their trustworthiness and reputation with all the other countries that they need to do business with.

Yes I think that is certainly one of the main concerns. If it is a ridiculous concern with them why is there nobody on here who would consider a similar arrangement for their own country

Bigus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The only quasi-logical thing that I can think of here is that the UK believe that the EU will negotiate in bad faith and that they will never agree to anything ........

Why would the EU do that ? , not only in terms of the direct implications with the UK but also in terms of the serious damage that would do to their trustworthiness and reputation with all the other countries that they need to do business with.

Sure the logic of Brexit is that the big bad unelected EU is responsible for all Britians woes.

ambro25

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Barnier:

https://twitter.com/everything_fx/status/1094954149303726081

Also said May insists on no extension and wants to leave on 29th.

How fresh and where sourced is that?

I mean, the substance is not exactly news...but today Barnier is here in Luxembourg, meeting with Bettel and then our Parliament for a Brexit Q&A (right as I'm posting this, I believe).

Dytalus

downcow wrote: »

Yes I think that is certainly one of the main concerns. If it is a ridiculous concern with them why is there nobody on here who would consider a similar arrangement for their own country

Were it Ireland leaving the EU we'd have effectively the same issue. And we wouldn't have the option of additional customs checks in the Irish Sea, we'd only have the backstop.

I would absolutely be in favour of that. The backstop is not ideal for Ireland, it is not ideal for the UK, and it is not ideal for the EU. None of the parties want it to continue ad infinitum, and so I would be willing to put up with it for the few years it would take to negotiate a proper trade agreement allowing for its removal.

This idea that it's a sneaky trap to keep the UK and NI in the customs union is ridiculous. The backstop is necessitated by the demands of HMG, and is the EU's compromise. I doubt very much that EU officials want the backstop to last indefinitely any more than the UK politicians do.

Strazdas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because they don't think the EU will agree that the measures are effective and sufficient. They think - or claim to think - that the EU is rubbing its hands and cackling insanely at its ability to keep the UK trapped ij the backstop for ever. It has not occurred to them that the EU has its own reasons for disliking the backstop and wanting to see it averted or superseded if at all possible.

Something that is getting completely overlooked is that nobody on the island of Ireland wants a border of any description and the only reason one would be erected would be to keep the English nationalist Brexiteers happy. Even a 'technological' border would be a nuisance and very unpopular.

Brexiteers are talking as if a working technological border would be fine but it wouldn't be : it would be deeply resented by communities on both sides of the border.

trellheim

This is what happens right now at borders like those in Andorra, Switzerland and Eurotunnel.

Yes I remember being surprised at this when I drove from Andorra into Spain and having to open the boot so Spanish customs could check for cigarette smuggling. This added approx 5 mins to my journey in my rented Ford Focus. One can only imagine the chaos at Newry and Dover

downcow

Dytalus wrote: »

Were it Ireland leaving the EU we'd have effectively the same issue. And we wouldn't have the option of additional customs checks in the Irish Sea, we'd only have the backstop.

I would absolutely be in favour of that. The backstop is not ideal for Ireland, it is not ideal for the UK, and it is not ideal for the EU. None of the parties want it to continue ad infinitum, and so I would be willing to put up with it for the few years it would take to negotiate a proper trade agreement allowing for its removal.

This idea that it's a sneaky trap to keep the UK and NI in the customs union is ridiculous. The backstop is necessitated by the demands of HMG, and is the EU's compromise. I doubt very much that EU officials want the backstop to last indefinitely any more than the UK politicians do.

I am fairly much in agreement with you. I heard to put up the situation for a few years also, but I cannot tolerate an indefinite situation

ambro25

downcow wrote: »

Yes I think that is certainly one of the main concerns. If it is a ridiculous concern with them why is there nobody on here who would consider a similar arrangement for their own country

Because there is nobody (edit: else) on here based in a country facing the same predicament?

Could you please move on from that tired line and progress the debate a bit?

It is not in the EU27's common interest to keep the UK within the backstop indefinitely.

It is not in the EU27's commob interest to give the UK free leverage in future trade negotiations, by granting the UK a unilateral choice to end the backstop.

These positions are not mutually exclusive, so just get your head around them, and move on.

Seth Brundle

black forest wrote: »

There is a brandnew paper done by real experts and out today.


https://twitter.com/hayward_katy/status/1094919177343688704?s=21


Reading these thirty pages should help everybody to understand the different suggestions made last week like Malthouse plus the back stop.


Direct link to the pdf:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Brexit-and-the-backstop-everything-you-need-to-know.pdf


Have to read it again slowly.;)

Given that Dominic Rabb would not read a thirty five page document critical to his role as Brexit Secretary, I can't see the likes of him reading a report of similar size!

Quin_Dub

downcow wrote: »

Yes I think that is certainly one of the main concerns. If it is a ridiculous concern with them why is there nobody on here who would consider a similar arrangement for their own country

I don't think I've seen anyone here saying that wouldn't given the same set of circumstances.

If it was Ireland that had voted to leave the EU and the WA including the backstop was the deal that the Irish Government had negotiated with the EU to mitigate all the same Border/GFA issues then I'm fairly confident the majority of people in Ireland would accept that as the best deal available.

What I have seen people say is that given the current actual circumstances , where is is the UK and not Ireland that voted to leave, then Ireland cannot and will not accept changes to it's access to the EU and its markets etc. to facilitate another countries easy exit or another countries obligations under an existing International agreement (the GFA).

They are quite different things.