Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is indeed pathetic.


Corbyn has made it very clear for years and years on end that he will not answer questions on his doorstep under any circumstances. That is his home and that is his last word on the subject.



The only point in trying to doorstep him in this way is to gather a collection of clips of him not answering questions for propaganda purposes.

Yeah but all party leaders in the news are going to be doorstepped. Walking behind some woman shouting in Spanish was as bizarre as I've ever seen.

BluePlanet

If i were a Tory Brexiteer, i would be putting my money right now, on Ireland caving.

Mezcita

BluePlanet wrote: »

If i were a Tory Brexiteer, i would be putting my money right now, on Ireland caving.

We've heard this before though and it didn't happen. Literally everything Coveney says is going to be spun as a climb down though. Best to keep schtum, sit back and wait for Boris to be schooled by the EU.

MrMusician18

BluePlanet wrote: »

Coveney proposing checks away from the border is already being played as a win for Brexit.

https://brexitcentral.com/the-irish-government-has-revealed-the-bad-faith-with-which-the-eu-has-treated-the-border-issue/



It's helping them make the case that the border issue is just a ruse.
Basically Coveney is now emboldening the No Deal Brexiteers

That was one of the many reasons why the Irish government had stayed vague about what they would do at the border in a no deal scenario.

Will Ireland cave on the backstop, and be pulled out of the single market? I think FG would be more severely punished for that than FF was after the crash. The reputational damage to Irish diplomacy would also have been severe. The Irish have led the EU down this path, the other 26 would be none to impressed if the Irish government turned around now. Ireland would almost certainly suffer from diplomatic isolation within the EU as well as being pulled outside of the SM.

Everyone's feet are being held to the flames at this point. It remains to be seen who will flinch first.

BluePlanet

I haven't really heard of rationalisations as to WHY checks should be done away from the border?

Is it just to keep the early promise of no border infastructure?
I don't see that promise being all that important.

FrancieBrady

BluePlanet wrote: »

I haven't really heard of rationalisations as to WHY checks should be done away from the border?

Is it just to keep the early promise of no border infastructure?
I don't see that promise being all that important.

Was Coveney and McEntee not at pains to say that they were doing what they could to keep them away from the border BUT that it was still something they were working on with our EU partners.

I.E. A diplomatic fudge, where they can quite say that after doing all they could they couldn't come up with a way to do it and will be forced by the UK's decision to secure the border after all.

A Dub in Glasgo

BluePlanet wrote: »

If i were a Tory Brexiteer, i would be putting my money right now, on Ireland caving.

That money would be wasted

BluePlanet

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was Coveney and McEntee not at pains to say that they were doing what they could to keep them away from the border BUT that it was still something they were working on with our EU partners.

I.E. A diplomatic fudge, where they can quite say that after doing all they could they couldn't come up with a way to do it and will be forced by the UK's decision to secure the border after all.

Yes i agree the government wants a fudge solution.
But my question was more along the lines that the government does not elaborate the reasons WHY it's important to keep checks away from the border.

I would expect greater efficiency and higher compliance, if the all the required checks were done at point of entry.

FrancieBrady

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yes i agree the government wants a fudge solution.
But my question was more along the lines that the government does not elaborate the reasons WHY it's important to keep checks away from the border.

I would expect greater efficiency and higher compliance, if the all the required checks were done at point of entry.

Not a 'fudge solution' but a fudge before the UK makes it decision which way it wants to go.
It is a kick to touch ploy to an extent.

jm08

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yes i agree the government wants a fudge solution.
But my question was more along the lines that the government does not elaborate the reasons WHY it's important to keep checks away from the border.

I would expect greater efficiency and higher compliance, if the all the required checks were done at point of entry.

Logistics. Roughly 300 entry points. 100% checks needed for animal and foodstuffs. Just remember for example, one third of NI milk is processed in the ROI.

edit: This is what it will mean.

For UK dairy exporters, no-deal will make exporting to the EU more expensive, and in most cases, restrictive. For example, the majority of the UK's raw milk exports go to Ireland for processing, which under a no-deal scenario would incur a tariff of €21.8/100kg. This represents adding 68% to the cost of the milk. This may strain domestic processing capacity if it becomes uneconomical to send product over the border.
https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/news/news-articles/march-2019/no-deal-tariffs-what-they-may-mean-for-uk-dairy-trade/#.XSdsQHt7nMU

Can't see that lasting without a backstop.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Is a hard Brexit likely? And if so, would it be hugely negative on our economy... especially house prices etc.

Sam Russell

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yes i agree the government wants a fudge solution.
But my question was more along the lines that the government does not elaborate the reasons WHY it's important to keep checks away from the border.

I would expect greater efficiency and higher compliance, if the all the required checks were done at point of entry.

There are different types of freight crossing the border.

1. NI origin non-agriculture freight going to UK via Dublin Port.

2. NI origin product going to Irish importers.

3. Non NI product going to Irish importers.

4. Agriculture products of any origin.

Item 1 can be ignored if that is in fact what it is.

Item 2. can be ignored short term, providing VAT implications are covered. We do not want VAT inspired VAT carousels milking the system, or smuggling.

Item 3 needs to be controlled. If NI authorities assist fully, this can be controlled before it is presented at the border. Whether that happens is a question to be answered. NI needs to keep surveillance at Larne as now, but 100% inspection. [Will they do that?]

Item 4 needs to be controlled - just as it was for F&M. This will destroy NI farmers.

If the Irish Customs designate a few crossing points for commercial traffic, then it is management. Unapproved crossing would be patrolled with swingeing penalties for any vehicles crossing illegally. This is what Switzerland and Norway do.

The above could work for about 3 months before it would need significant stiffening.

We need the backstop - absolutely. Smuggling will start day one, and grow to fund the para-militaries. We cannot have that.

The Gov should keep its plans to itself until forced to reveal them.

Strazdas

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Is a hard Brexit likely? And if so, would it be hugely negative on our economy... especially house prices etc.

We simply don't know what Johnson's 'real' thinking is. Is he bluffing with all his No Deal bluster and even trying to fool the Brexiteers just so he can become PM? It's anyone's guess.

Call me Al

Russman wrote: »

Absolutely agree with this. A GE in the UK where, in all likelihood the DUP won't hold the balance of power, solves all this. Even if the Brexit Party were in power they'd get rid of the north in a heartbeat to deliver Brexit.

All this because Cameron gambled and then May doubled down with her snap GE. Madness.

And if we have conceded a time limited backstop thats the starting point from there on out.
And if we are conceding a time limit then we are looking at 18-24 months of a limit. They won't accept anything more.
And then where are we...... in a worse position than when we started.
Ireland needs a UK GE..

Call me Al

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. I'm done being the Devil's advocate for removing the backstop.

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

Strazdas

Call me Al wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

The counter argument is that if Ireland concedes on the backstop, it will indeed lead to a hard border. What would the Brexiteers' incentive be to solve the border issue if they were now outside the EU and Single Market? It would surely not be a priority.

FrancieBrady

Call me Al wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

Having read the media, watched the docs and listened to what is being said, I don't think there is any mood whatsoever in the EU to give in to the UK at this stage. And I did fear that they might at the start.

I fervently hope we stay with that club.

Capt'n Midnight

BluePlanet wrote: »

If i were a Tory Brexiteer, i would be putting my money right now, on Ireland caving.

The last time there was a hard border 3,000 people died.

No Irish political party is going near that one.




On the other hand ,to give you an idea of how ineffective a hard border is , there were 27,000 UK troops back when the British army was much bigger. it's a third of current army. And still 40% of the vehicle fuel sold in the north was sourced from the black market.


Ireland's trade with the EU is worth 30 times the trade with the north so we'd have to make sure the UK isn't dumping stuff that doesn't meet EU standards across the border. Because we won't be leaving the EU.

Professor Moriarty

Call me Al wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

Yes. It's really important to look at it from both sides of the argument. It's worth arguing against what seems to be right if only to prove to yourself that it's right. And you're correct, there is that danger. We need to be constantly checking our position on the backstop.

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are different types of freight crossing the border.

4. Agriculture products of any origin.
.....
Item 4 needs to be controlled - just as it was for F&M. This will destroy NI farmers.

Agriculture products currently passes the border both ways NI->RoI and RoI->NI and some products even cross the border twice as this article shows.

https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/from-grass-to-glass-the-journey-of-milk

Lars

Professor Moriarty

reslfj wrote: »

Agriculture products currently passes the border both ways NI->RoI and RoI->NI and some products even cross the border twice as this article shows.

https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/from-grass-to-glass-the-journey-of-milk

Lars

Apparently, there's a cottage pie which crosses the border seven times as it's being made.

A Dub in Glasgo

Call me Al wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

You see it that way, I see as a way to protect the GFA

fash

J Mysterio wrote: »

I think you are the only one you are convincing.

Even if we made a silly decision like that, there will be another issue found.

Ultimately, parliament is supposed to make the decision on what happens, and Parliament can't agree. Parliament can't even agree on an approach.

Labour is split with people leaving for anti semitism/ Corbyn leadership/ Brexit approach.

Tories are split with people drifting to ERG elements or the Brexit party. They are in a face off of incompetent potential leaders who haven't made any sense in 3 years and have no plan.

UK is an absolute disaster right now, and there is no point offering them anything. The WA as hashed out over a few years - with the UK - is a very agreeable offer with unnecessary concessions in it for the UK. They are on their second extension.

They should take the deal. If they dont like that, they can crash out or revoke a50.

The EU might grant a further extension for a GE or a second referendum. That is it.

Exactly. In the short term, "Surrendering" (and make no mistake that is how it would be understood and marketed) will only embolden the brexiters while also undermining any remainer /reasonable / Ireland sympathetic person who says that a backstop is important. "See we were right, the EU is weak and will blink when they see our steely resolve" etc.
In the meantime, unless you have a "lengthy time limited backstop" - how about 1 year for every year Ireland was under English/British rule or perhaps one year for every Irish person killed by the British - there really is no medium term incentive to do anything and leaving nothing happen simply pulls NI out of the backstop.

Frank Bullitt

Has anyone else read this at all?

https://brexitcentral.com/the-irish-government-has-revealed-the-bad-faith-with-which-the-eu-has-treated-the-border-issue/

The Irish Government has revealed the bad faith with which the EU has treated the border issue

Missing the point doesn't seem to even cut it.

fash

sink wrote: »

You seem to betting a lot on not much. You're voluntarily placing your head on the guillotine on the assumption that they won't drop it when you give them the rope in 10 years. You believe they won't drop because they either wont care enough to let go, or will have bigger problems to think about. Remember all they have to do is let go (i.e. nothing) for it to fall on our heads and they can walk away with their trade deal. We have to rely on them actively pursuing a replacement to the back stop when they have shown little interest to date.

...And where we have shown that we always blink.

reslfj

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. It's really important to look at it from both sides of the argument. ...

Ireland has the support of all other EU27 members as long as it acts 100% rational and in the cynical interest of all the island of Ireland.

Such support can fast evaporate if strange emotions, short term interests, fact denial or pure stupidity surface in the Irish mainstream debate.

The backstop is a very large EU concession and an offer to the UK to solve the problem that the GFA is implicitly build upon EU rules and using the EU's single market to keep the land border open.

Without a the backstop or - if it can be found - another equally good solution the UK can not leave the EU at all without breaking the international GFA treaty, which has the US and EU as very 'non forgiving sponsors' (ref. e.g. Nancy Pelosi).

In short, in the end it's the EU that decides (all 27 members).

A 'No Deal' is like a shaking UK declaring an absolutely unwinnable trade war with all of the EU and all its FTA partners. Good luck with that.

The EU27 PMs may well realise, that there is little or no hope for a deal and it will end with a 'No Deal' anyway.
And then just one PM needs to say in October: 'Let us get it over with now rather than later'.

On the other hand in the case of a 'No Deal' Brexit the main battle/trouble/economical destruction - you name it - will not be on the island of Ireland, but between England and continental Europe, where it may well be very bloody indeed.

I think NI and Ireland should hope for a max crises at Dover, so the UK will come back to Brussels very soon.

Lars

Sam Russell

reslfj wrote: »

Agriculture products currently passes the border both ways NI->RoI and RoI->NI and some products even cross the border twice as this article shows.

https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/from-grass-to-glass-the-journey-of-milk

Lars

Well, if there was a crash out, the milk lorry that collects milk from both sides of the border would have to pass all NI farms that is normally collected because that milk is no longer EU milk and so cannot be used. That means the NI farmers will either have to drink it themselves, or make cottage cheese with it.

The same goes for animals - they need vet certs to cross the border, so with trace-ability being so strong, then Daisy has to stay north.

Anything going north is a problem for the UK and NI, not us. So expect quite a few lorry loads of bullocks travelling north, to travel back to Dublin and onto the shelves of UK supermarkets.

Brings a new meaning to 'Bullocks for Brexit!'

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Strazdas wrote: »

We simply don't know what Johnson's 'real' thinking is. Is he bluffing with all his No Deal bluster and even trying to fool the Brexiteers just so he can become PM? It's anyone's guess.

What is most likely in your or anyone's opinion?

trellheim

Its worse than that. That milk tanker can't cross the border at all to shorten the journey it can only go to ROI farms from ROI creameries and dairies and it has to stay inside the Republic.

trellheim

The current UK/US trying to get a trade deal tells you all you need to know about keeping the backstop they are ramping it up goodo