Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

MrMusician18

S.M.B. wrote: »

Decent bit of commentary from the Irish Times today.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dublin-must-be-open-to-a-last-minute-compromise-on-backstop-1.3952922#.XSbwEwQPLFc.twitter

If Ireland is meant to compromise on the backstop can the author point to a workable alternative solution?

There backstop was the compromise.

Saying that Ireland must compromise to facilitate the UK is essentially saying that Ireland must either agree to a physical border or must extract itself from the single market.

maynooth_rules

We will give way a little on the backstop. The current backstop is a mess. We will agree to go back to the original Northern Ireland backstop. That's it. No time limit, no technology noncense.

trellheim

It could take much longer, and we might have to do quite a bit of lateral thinking to fashion a fig-leaf with which to hide their climbdown.

It's important not to approach this on the basis that we will grind them beneath our chariot wheels until we hear the lamentations of their women. That would be emotionally satisfying and entirely understandable, but it's probably not the best way to get to where we need to b

See my proposal re Silicon Drogheda ( or more interestingly Silicon Newry ) made only half in jest . The NI trade numbers are awful with no possible way of getting them pumped, a border which we will have to erect means we are very probably going to have to do some sort of economic refugee stuff to avoid some sort of economic collapse up there as if farming goes as well its utter basket case stuff ..... get them to ask for economic asylum

Christy42

S.M.B. wrote: »

Decent bit of commentary from the Irish Times today.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dublin-must-be-open-to-a-last-minute-compromise-on-backstop-1.3952922#.XSbwEwQPLFc.twitter

What possible compromise?!? Nothing is being offered and nothing of merit has been suggested by the UK. I don't see the point in speculating about what Dublin should do if the UK finds a unicorn.

As it stands compromise on the backstop would be agreeing to a hard border because we don't want a hard border. Rather self defeating.

MrMusician18

Christy42 wrote: »

What possible compromise?!? Nothing is being offered and nothing of merit has been suggested by the UK. I don't see the point in speculating about what Dublin should do if the UK finds a unicorn.

As it stands compromise on the backstop would be agreeing to a hard border because we don't want a hard border. Rather self defeating.

It's actually a ridiculous article. He says that because the DUP won't compromise, the Irish government must. And since no realistic alternative exists, the undefined "compromise" will be detrimental to the Irish national interest.

Now forgive me, but the DUP are only a bit player in this and they cannot dictate terms to other governments.

A Dub in Glasgo

S.M.B. wrote: »

Decent bit of commentary from the Irish Times today.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dublin-must-be-open-to-a-last-minute-compromise-on-backstop-1.3952922#.XSbwEwQPLFc.twitter

Why is it decent?

The EU holding firm on the need for the backstop and this commentary says Ireland must compromise....

Stop moaning ffs

It has been pointed out by many that of the backstop wasn’t the issue, even if we ‘compromised’ it would quickly be something else the matter.
That’s how they’ve been doing this whole thing. Ineptitude and exceptionalism

Professor Moriarty

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's actually a ridiculous article. He says that because the DUP won't compromise, the Irish government must. And since no realistic alternative exists, the undefined "compromise" will be detrimental to the Irish national interest.

Now forgive me, but the DUP are only a bit player in this and they cannot dictate terms to other governments.

Just to play Devil's advocate. Rather than sticking it to the Brits or not wanting to be seen as giving in, what's the harm in taking a pragmatic approach. How about saying okay to, say, a time limited backstop of ten years? The global, European and British political landscape will have completely changed by then. Would it be in our interest to simply get out of the way just right now? I have no doubt that this would completely wrong foot Johnson, the DUP and their ERG pals.

lawred2

S.M.B. wrote: »

Decent bit of commentary from the Irish Times today.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dublin-must-be-open-to-a-last-minute-compromise-on-backstop-1.3952922#.XSbwEwQPLFc.twitter

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What compromise exactly? This is just more Brexiteer type talk.

MrMusician18

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just to play Devil's advocate. Rather than sticking it to the Brits or not wanting to be seen as giving in, what's the harm in taking a pragmatic approach. How about saying okay to, say, a time limited backstop of ten years? The global, European and British political landscape will have completely changed by then. Would it be in our interest to simply get out of the way just right now? I have no doubt that this would completely wrong foot Johnson, the DUP and their ERG pals.

One only has to look at Hong Kong to see how little can change over long periods. When the UK agreed that 50 year plan for HK in the mid 80s China appeared at the time to be beginning to set out on a road to democracy.

Now look where they are. A time limit of any length is not in the national interest. 10 years would be considered too long by the brexiters anyway and the technology they talk of is such pie in the sky stuff it will likely never exist.

maynooth_rules

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just to play Devil's advocate. Rather than sticking it to the Brits or not wanting to be seen as giving in, what's the harm in taking a pragmatic approach. How about saying okay to, say, a time limited backstop of ten years? The global, European and British political landscape will have completely changed by then. Would it be in our interest to simply get out of the way just right now? I have no doubt that this would completely wrong foot Johnson, the DUP and their ERG pals.

It would be a death sentence to Fine Gael, and would be pushed as a victory for Boris by the British press over the difficult paddies.

Professor Moriarty

MrMusician18 wrote: »

One only has to look at Hong Kong to see how little can change over long periods. When the UK agreed that 50 year plan for HK in the mid 80s China appeared at the time to be beginning to set out on a road to democracy.

Now look where they are. A time limit of any length is not in the national interest. 10 years would be considered too long by the brexiters anyway and the technology they talk of is such pie in the sky stuff it will likely never exist.

Well if it's not accepted then we will have been seen to have tried by all concerned. Personally, I think it's meaningless because the likes of Johnson would break any treaty if it suits them - as your Hong Kong example illustrates. I'm ambivalent as to how important it is. I think pragmatism should rule how we proceed. Who cares what they think and how they portray Ireland in the Tory press? Once the backstop is removed, they'll move on to blame Macron, Merkel, von der Leyen, Beethoven....

lawred2

It's not an Irish Backstop anyway - it's an EU backstop that involves the Britain/EU border on the island of Ireland

Professor Moriarty

maynooth_rules wrote: »

It would be a death sentence to Fine Gael, and would be pushed as a victory for Boris by the British press over the difficult paddies.

Leave him off. Ireland will never win in The Telegraph anyway.

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

It's not an Irish Backstop anyway - it's an EU backstop that involves the Britain/EU border on the island of Ireland

Then let the EU decide to keep it as a sticking point.

trellheim

ummm... they always have ?

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just to play Devil's advocate. Rather than sticking it to the Brits or not wanting to be seen as giving in, what's the harm in taking a pragmatic approach. How about saying okay to, say, a time limited backstop of ten years? The global, European and British political landscape will have completely changed by then. Would it be in our interest to simply get out of the way just right now? I have no doubt that this would completely wrong foot Johnson, the DUP and their ERG pals.

The best way to avoid a hard border will be to force the UK to the trade agreement. If we say a time limited backstop then in 10 years time the UK will try and put up a hard border again except this time they already have the trade agreement and so less reason to make a deal. Then they will demand further and further concessions to keep the border open. All they have to do is to be thick headed while people take the "pragmatic" approach.

It is essentially either a hard border when the UK will have little reason to prevent it or a constant card for them in all trade agreements.

Now the UK have to come back to the table if they go no deal.

Professor Moriarty

trellheim wrote: »

ummm... they always have ?

They have but it would seem at Ireland's insistence. We could hand the responsibility over fully by declaring that we were happy to have a time limited backstop.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

The best way to avoid a hard border will be to force the UK to the trade agreement. If we say a time limited backstop then in 10 years time the UK will try and put up a hard border again except this time they already have the trade agreement and so less reason to make a deal. Then they will demand further and further concessions to keep the border open. All they have to do is to be thick headed while people take the "pragmatic" approach.

It is essentially either a hard border when the UK will have little reason to prevent it or a constant card for them in all trade agreements.

Now the UK have to come back to the table if they go no deal.

But we could prevent a No Deal Brexit by saying that we are happy for there to be a time limited backstop. No reason why Brexiteers shouldn't support the existing WA then...

sink

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They have but it would seem at Ireland's insistence. We could hand the responsibility over fully by declaring that we were happy to have a time limited backstop.

But we aren't? The time limited backstop only works for us if something else is in place by the time it expires, a hard border will be just as much a disaster in 10 years as it will be in October. Right now we have more leverage than we will ever have. You're asking us to give up our current leverage for a faint hope.

Russman

Christy42 wrote: »

All they have to do is to be thick headed while people take the "pragmatic" approach.

This exactly. One side can't be doing all the compromising and being "pragmatic" just to suit the country who are leaving the bloc and are being completely stubborn about their own "red lines". Just because the ERG/BP agenda conflicts with their GFA commitments doesn't mean everyone else goes out of the way to suit them.

I'm all for being pragmatic but not to the point of appeasement. They're leaving, they need a deal, let them compromise. I can't see any way the EU even appears to side with the leaving party over a remaining member - it'd be the death knell for the EU.

Professor Moriarty

sink wrote: »

But we aren't? The time limited backstop only works for us if something else is in place by the time it expires, a hard border will be just as much a disaster in 10 years as it will be in October. Right now we have more leverage than we will ever have. You're asking us to give up our current leverage for a faint hope.

But the real politik is that our leverage is pushing pushing towards a crash out which will seriously damage Ireland. Political and economic chaos is coming Britain's way no matter what happens and the North will be caught up in that anyway. Better to be on the sidelines watching on than caught up in the turmoil. Is it not in our interests to prevent No Deal, while being seen as helpful to our nearest neighbour, our largest market and to the EU?

KildareP

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But the real politik is that our leverage is pushing pushing towards a crash out which will seriously damage Ireland. Political and economic chaos is coming Britain's way no matter what happens and the North will be caught up in that anyway. Better to be on the sidelines watching on than caught up in the turmoil. Is it not in our interests to prevent No Deal, while being seen as helpful to our nearest neighbour, our largest market and to the EU?

It is definitely not in our interests to give them everything they want to the point they'll put pen to paper and sign a deal because we'll definitely be on the sidelines then - the sidelines of Europe.

We'll have both sub-standard, dirt cheap product arriving unchecked from every corner of the world onto the island of Ireland damaging our own economy anyway, and the rest of Europe closing their borders to stop that product arriving on their doors, thereby damaging our relationship with Europe too.

At least where we stand now, yes, we can see definite damage coming down the road with a No Deal but we're maintaining the support and solidarity of the EU27. And, frankly, standing up for ourselves.

Being seen to be helpful to the UK is not how it's going to be received on the UK side, it's going to be seen as a glorious victory in the battle of Brexit and an enormous weakness on the Irish side which they'll take full advantage of.

In short - feck them, frankly.

sink

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But the real politik is that our leverage is pushing pushing towards a crash out which will seriously damage Ireland. Political and economic chaos is coming Britain's way no matter what happens and the North will be caught up in that anyway. Better to be on the sidelines watching on than caught up in the turmoil. Is it not in our interests to prevent No Deal, while being seen as helpful to our nearest neighbour, our largest market and to the EU?

Our leverage doesn't disappear when no-deal happens, Britain will still want to sign a treaty with the EU, we can still demand a backstop as the price for a treaty. Our leverage only disappears if we give them everything they want in exchange for empty promises.

What political change do you envision happening in Britain in the next 10 years that when the back stop expires they'll keep NI in the customs union purely out of the goodness in their hearts? At that stage, we will have nothing they want and it will be too late for us.

You're only thinking of the short term but whatever settlement we reach will have to last generations.

Professor Moriarty

KildareP wrote: »

It is definitely not in our interests to give them everything they want to the point they'll put pen to paper and sign a deal because we'll definitely be on the sidelines then - the sidelines of Europe.

We'll have both sub-standard, dirt cheap product arriving unchecked from every corner of the world onto the island of Ireland damaging our own economy anyway, and the rest of Europe closing their borders to stop that product arriving on their doors, thereby damaging our relationship with Europe too.

At least where we stand now, yes, we can see definite damage coming down the road with a No Deal but we're maintaining the support and solidarity of the EU27. And, frankly, standing up for ourselves.

Being seen to be helpful to the UK is not how it's going to be received on the UK side, it's going to be seen as a glorious victory in the battle of Brexit and an enormous weakness on the Irish side which they'll take full advantage of.

In short - feck them, frankly.

Hmmm. I don't see how our being helpful to Britain and putting the responsibility for the backstop onto the EU means we will be flooded with substandard products. Who cares if Johnson crows about his victory? He'll reject the WA anyway, backstop or not. If he accepts it, then the ERG will go bananas.

Russman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But the real politik is that our leverage is pushing pushing towards a crash out which will seriously damage Ireland. Political and economic chaos is coming Britain's way no matter what happens and the North will be caught up in that anyway. Better to be on the sidelines watching on than caught up in the turmoil. Is it not in our interests to prevent No Deal, while being seen as helpful to our nearest neighbour, our largest market and to the EU?

That's a good point, but do we seriously think a UK government under BoJo wouldn't hesitate for a second to throw us under a bus should it suit them for any reason, or that they'd honour any quid pro quo ?
At this stage I'm kinda around to the view of let them reap the whirlwind, there's no talking sense or logic anymore, especially when the Tories are now afraid to be moderate with the BP now on the scene. Yes, we'll suffer to a degree, but I feel the EU will have our back in the early years, and hopefully most businesses will have done what preparations they can by now.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But we could prevent a No Deal Brexit by saying that we are happy for there to be a time limited backstop. No reason why Brexiteers shouldn't support the existing WA then...

It's a good question to ask but I suspect the hard Brexiteers are acting in bad faith. Many analysts think the reason the Brexiteers are so resistant to the backstop is that they have no intention of ever using a 'technological' solution along the border and couldn't give a flying fig what happens to it post-Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

sink wrote: »

Our leverage doesn't disappear when no-deal happens, Britain will still want to sign a treaty with the EU, we can still demand a backstop as the price for a treaty. Our leverage only disappears if we give them everything they want in exchange for empty promises.

What political change do you envision happening in Britain in the next 10 years that when the back stop expires they'll keep NI in the customs union purely out of the goodness in their hearts? At that stage, we will have nothing they want and it will be too late for us.

You're only thinking of the short term but whatever settlement we reach will have to last generations.

To be frank, climate change will change everything. British and EU politics included. Brexit will be relatively unimportant in ten years time. But either way, IMO, they will end up with a soft Brexit that includes FoM and the CU. It's what the majority would settle for. Current bluff and bluster is about being elected PM by Tory party members. Also, if Britain were to dump the GFA unilaterally then we only have to look at history to understand that conflict in the North isn't confined to the North.

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Then let the EU decide to keep it as a sticking point.

That's exactly what 'they' (Ireland) have been doing

Professor Moriarty

Russman wrote: »

That's a good point, but do we seriously think a UK government under BoJo wouldn't hesitate for a second to throw us under a bus should it suit them for any reason, or that they'd honour any quid pro quo ?
At this stage I'm kinda around to the view of let them reap the whirlwind, there's no talking sense or logic anymore, especially when the Tories are now afraid to be moderate with the BP now on the scene. Yes, we'll suffer to a degree, but I feel the EU will have our back in the early years, and hopefully most businesses will have done what preparations they can by now.

Yes but 50,000 jobs? 6 billion hole in public finances? Instability in the North? We have a lot to lose.