Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 28-07-2017 06:31AM

Good morning!

By way of warning, the tone in this post is quite forthright in places.

With that said, let's have today's Brexit roundup

listermint wrote: »

I've one question, are you not Irish? Or are you not English living in Ireland. So I'm perplexed why you are happy to wait seven years for complete brexit surely being English living in the EU you are getting a raw deal here. I don't really get your pro brexit stance from a personal basis.

Because regardless of what way you voted you are ultra pro brexit right now with no real reason given your situation.

Intrigued?..

I think you're confusing me with Fratton Fred. I'm Irish, and I'm Eurosceptic. Being Irish doesn't mean I have to have an undying love of Euro-federalism. Obviously that isn't true. I live and work in London, I've got a lot of close friends here and truth be told my loyalties lie far more with the UK as our closest neighbour and as my home for the foreseeable future than the "European project" in Brussels. Of course I'm supporting the British in getting the very best deal. Why wouldn't I?

I voted remain in the referendum but I'm fairly sure I made a mistake. I would vote to leave the EU if it was done again today. I'm supporting a good Brexit free trade arrangement because I believe it is the best outcome for the UK and it deals with the concerns that were raised in the referendum.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Immigration minister Brandon Lewis said this morning that freedom of movement will end on March 2019. Great, I should be gone then! The racists who voted Brexit should be delighted with this. Not all Brexit voters are racist mind, but it's certainly likely that all racists are Brexit voters.

Freedom of movement of workers between Britain and the European Union will end when Britain withdraws from the bloc, UK immigration minister Brandon Lewis said this morning. From RTE and the BBC.

There's nothing racist about having border controls. Most countries have them. Heck, the European Union even has them on their external borders. If the UK can get a new immigration system in place by 2019 that would be great but I doubt that they can if they want a transition period. I'm an advocate of a fairly light touch arrangement with controls only for lower wage labour which seems to have been the area of concern in the referendum. The Bank of England showed there was a small impact from this. I reckon something like a tier 3 visa for low wage labour and a liberal version of a tier 2 for skilled workers should suffice. Britain should remain open and free to those who wish to contribute and make their lives here provided there isn't excessive strain on the labour market or on public services. It's good to see the concerns from the referendum will be addressed.

Amber Rudd seems clear that registration will happen after March 2019 for new EU arrivals as the UK transitions to a final state. This is the right call and should have happened from day one even with free movement. This shouldn't be difficult to combine with the National Insurance interview that one has to do when arriving in UK.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wrong. You are comparing two very different economies.

"A British departure from the EU and its single market would be the largest programme of re-regulation and re-protection of trade in advanced economies since the Smooth-Hawley tariffs in 1930. Substituting single-market access with a CETA-style trade agreement would not change that. CETA works for Canada – an economy that is distant from Europe and with an export profile based on commodities. For the UK, whose trade with the EU are in sectors highly exposed to regulatory protection (finance, nuclear power equipment, pharmaceuticals, et cetera) it would lead to a serious loss of market access and commercial integration."

When I say that CETA is a good model for Brexit it's important to point out that I don't mean that the UK should copy CETA word for word. What I mean is that a third country free trade agreement with joint arbitration is a good option. Obviously this will need to be tailored to consider the specific needs of the UK's economy as any free trade agreement is.

In respect to financial services you should read what I've said so far about the need of EU member states to have access to the City and the provisions in MiFID II for third countries. I agree with Fratton Fred about movements to EU countries. They will be small subsidiaries. From what I've heard on the ground from a banking IT perspective in London is that some banks are even moving IT teams back into London. One of the biggest European investment banks in particular is moving IT teams back from Poland. It's a mixed picture.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wrong. The UK has no credible and experienced trade experts. Also, they haven't been told the conditions under which they will be leaving the EU so they can't discuss trade in any meaningful way. They might as well be talking about the weather. Bluff and bluster for the Torygraph.

This isn't exactly an argument for staying in the EU. It's an argument for using Brexit as an opportunity to build up the UK's trade negotiating competence.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wrong. Aside from the impact on animal welfare, chlorinated chicken does increase risk to human health. A race to the bottom with the USA on workers' rights and health standards? Enjoy that.

Where have we introduced workers rights from?

On chlorinated chicken, it is safe for consumption. This is from Full Fact.

Full Fact wrote:

We spoke to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)—an EU agency—and the British Poultry Council (BPC). Neither said it was unsafe to eat chicken rinsed with chlorine, but both raised different concerns about the process.

The BPC said it was concerned about the impact on British farmers and standards if chlorine-washed chicken from the US started to be imported.

The EFSA says it stands by its findings from 2005 research that concluded:

“On the basis of available data and taking into account that processing of poultry carcasses (washing, cooking) would take place before consumption, the Panel considers that treatment with trisodium phosphate, acidified sodium chlorite, chlorine dioxide, or peroxyacid solutions, under the described conditions of use, would be of no safety concern.”

Similarly, a panel in 2012 said the use of chemical substances in poultry is “unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers”.

This just shows how irrational some of this fearmongering is. Consumers can make up their own mind if it is imported to the UK.

Also - if you watched Wednesday's Newsnight on BBC2, it was explained that the US often exports chickens to other countries without chlorination to suit trading standards in other countries, and indeed it was also explained that free trade agreements do not necessarily require uniformity in standards.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wrong. The four freedoms are indivisible. Out of one means out of all.

This is clearly false. I'm surprised so many people liked this post.

The four freedoms only apply in the case of single market membership. The UK isn't interested in single market membership but a third country free trade agreement. The point of Brexit is to take the UK out of Euro-federalism, not bring it further into it. EU-lite isn't good enough.

Single market membership is not the same as a free trade agreement providing single market access.

You'll have noticed that Canada doesn't subscribe to the four freedoms.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So a new trade with the US which entails exhaustive negotiations (Britain has no experienced negotiators), different tariffs, different regulations and 2000 miles travel is better than an existing FTA with harmonised tariffs, harmonised regulations and 30 miles travel to your biggest customer.

Brexit is really dumb isn't it?

The UK is very clear that it is looking to establish a better free trade agreement with the EU with the freedom to have new trade deals with other countries. (A free trade agreement that requires less control to be handed to Brussels and allows for progressive free trade agreements to be signed with other countries is a better free trade agreement).

Expanding trade with a growing world while maintaining good links with the EU is really clever. The UK has every chance of being a progressive free trading nation on the doorstep of continental Europe and benefiting for it.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How is American healthcare for Joe Soap doing these days? You're going to need all those American corporations 'taking care of you' after the chlorinated chicken

More baseless irrational fearmongering.

The NHS already has private contracts. Companies already compete for these. The only difference with an American free trade agreement is that American firms would be able to compete for these. I'm all for it as long as healthcare is free at the point of delivery to the end user.

You know - if only you could apply that kind of cynicism to the EU, you'd see how good an opportunity Brexit is. After all America is asking for far less than the EU require of member states.

Countries can prosper outside of the EU and there's a good chance that Britain can and will without the constraints of EU membership on trade policy.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'll say one thing about the eu team, they love to use the media to put pressure on the UK government.

Indeed - which leads to the oft-repeated and vacuous remark that the UK doesn't have a plan.

Of course it has! A high level plan in the Lancaster House speech that Theresa May gave in January, the Brexit Whitepaper and in the Article 50 letter and in the position papers that the Brexit department have published.

This aside - there is of course a strategy for the negotiations even if it isn't published. The presumption that you only have a strategy if the public knows every detail is utterly vacuous. You don't send 90+ negotiators without a strategy.

On the financial settlement I would argue that it isn't incumbent on the UK to present figures. If the EU claim they owe them a substantial bill they should present it and the British should work through it line by line.

A calm and collected British position on Brexit is what's required. Panicking at the first sign of pushback is exactly what they want. Honestly, if some of the posters on this thread were negotiating they would have already sent the crown jewels to Jean Claude Juncker and Buckingham Palace to boot!

Mezcita wrote: »

In fairness though, it is interesting to get the views of someone who thinks that Brexit will go well for the UK even if the majority of us don't agree with him.

Thanks for this. For some reason some people are threatened by an opposing point of view. The thing is, it's pretty easy to find clear advantages to a good Brexit.

My view isn't that Brexit is guaranteed to go well. My view is that if Brexit is handled rightly (this is key) that it could go very well. A Britain with a good free trade agreement to the EU and several other free trade agreements with good conditions including one to the United States and another to China would be better off than it is today. This really is too big an opportunity to miss. A huge expansion of trade, a huge amount of funding returned and a huge amount of control regained.

That isn't just an "interesting" position, it's the sensible and right option for Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina · 28-07-2017 06:51AM

The UK does not have a plan. It has a bunch of high level aspirations and a dearth of ability to get many of them. It has demonstrably been on the back foot to date.

Additionally Brexit so far has been handled appallingly. A significant number of people seem to be unclear on the impact of no single market/customs union on highly integrated supply chains on some of the UK's key remaining manufacturing industry and the high risk that services does not come into a trade agreement. Britain is likewise the weaker party with little to sell to the US and China in that context. This puts it at a severe disadvantage to both in trade negotiations.

There is no calm and collected position on Brexit. The cabinet is divided. The chickens are one thing, and representative of a wider malaise. A transition position and its duration are two more facets where the Cabinet has internal and public sniping.

Fratton Fred · 28-07-2017 07:31AM

"solodeogloria wrote:

On the financial settlement I would argue that it isn't incumbent on the UK to present figures. If the EU claim they owe them a substantial bill they should present it and the British should work through it line by line.

This, definitely.

The UK has stated several times it will honour it's commitments, tell us what these are and we can discuss the figure.

The eu seems to be putting the onus on the UK to state what this is, which indicates to me that they haven't got a clue.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-07-2017 07:39AM

This is how unprepared the UK is. The only way this could be called a "new" setback is if they ignored all the comments and history here about how important the existing status of the border is. We've looked into the other proposal and looks like they won't work. Has the UK done any real work on the border other than handwaving ?

And if they are that complacent about a major Brexit issue how are they dealing with the rest ?

BTW a hard border would impose hardship on the north and make a border poll more likely and sooner rather than later.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/irish-want-sea-border-with-uk-after-brexit-lvb6n35fq

Theresa May is facing a new setback in Brexit negotiations after the government in Dublin said that her proposal for the Irish border was unworkable.

Leo Varadkar, the Republic of Ireland’s prime minister, is pushing for the Irish Sea to become the post-Brexit border with the UK after warning Mrs May that her plan was doomed and would jeopardise the peace process.

Fratton Fred · 28-07-2017 07:40AM

Calina wrote: »

One of the key problems there, Fred, is that the EU recognises this and in light if Trump witterings about not complying with Article 5 of NATO a few NATO members are rather concerned about what happens if in fact, Russia does invade one of the Baltics. Admittedly Trump has rowed back on that but frankly I would take the view that the current US administration may not be totally reliable in terms of coherent and consistent policy.

Russia has also made some rather aggressive noises about what action they might take if Sweden joins NATO and there are some internal concerns in Finland too which is also not a member of NATO.

In that context, the EU is perfectly within its rights to widen its defence policy to include wider and better defined military cooperation and to find ways of reducing dependency on the US whose leader has a demonstrated lack of understanding how NATO financing operates, who is constantly making resentful noises about the cost to the US of defending Europe despite the US wasting massive amounts on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan driven by his own party at the outset. You tell us we are screwed without the US. The UK wrote an Article 50 letter which IIRC seemed to imply they would stop cooperating on security if the EU didnt do what the UK wanted. All this damages my view of how much NATO can be relied on and creates the need to look at options which the EU has some more modicum of control over.

This is not a question of competition - it isn't like the EU is desperate to invade anywhere. But they want to be able to defend themselves and the primary partner in NATO is currently unstable.

In all honesty what would you do? Hope for the best or start taking additional measures?

It has nothing to do with Trump, that's a relatively recent development, although the recent deployment of 4000 US troops to Poland would indicate the US is still pretty involved. Oh and security goes waaay further than planes and submarines by the way, intelligence sharing is a huge part of security in Europe.

So maybe you can tell me, what can an eu defence union offer that NATO can't?

Peregrinus · 28-07-2017 07:59AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This, definitely.

The UK has stated several times it will honour it's commitments, tell us what these are and we can discuss the figure.

The eu seems to be putting the onus on the UK to state what this is, which indicates to me that they haven't got a clue.

It's not quite as straightforward as that. Because this situation has never arisen before, there are no established rules for apportioning the assets and liablities of the Union when a member state leaves. Rules and principles have to be established, and I find it surprising that Fred thinks the right way forward is for the Union to decide what the rules are and then notify the UK of what it's obligations under those rules will be. The rules themselves are a matter for negotiation between the Union and the UK.

Brussels did put a position paper on this to the UK some weeks about, but hasn't made it public. The UK hasn't made a formal response yet, and the divergent comments from the likes of Johnson, Hammond and Davis may suggest that the Cabinet has yet to agree a position. (Or they could be a deliberate strategy to explain a tactical delay in responding; see below.)

The EU position paper proposes a methodology for computing the U.K.’s financial entitlements and obligations, but there's a tacit agreement on both sides that they won't - at least publicly - mention any figure yet. Only when the principles to apply have been agreed will they work out what figure will be yielded by the application of those principles. (Which is not to say that each side isn't calculating for themselves what figure would be yielded by various possible approaches, of course. But at least publicly the approach is to decide what is the right, fair, just, etc way to approach this and then see what figure results, rather than to pick a figure and then work out some rules that will produce that figure.)

As noted, the UK has yet to respond formally to the EU's position paper, either by commenting on the methodology proposed in that paper or by suggesting an alternative methodology themselves (which is something Barnier has invited them to do). In Brussels they think that the UK's reticence on this point is a deliberate negotiating tactic - one that they are countering by pointing out that this is one of the points on which there must be "substantial progress" before the Brexit talks can turn to other issues so, really, it's past time that the UK responded to the position paper that we sent, oh, five or six weeks ago now.

The figures being bandied about in the press - 65 billion, 80 billion, 100 billion - seem eye-wateringly large, but in terms of the UK's long-term interests this is a second-order issue. Whether the UK does well, badly or terribly out of Brexit does not depend on the amount of the exit settlement, but on the future trading arrangements between the UK and the EU, the UK and the EEA, and the UK and the rest of the world. In so far as there's a trade-off for the UK between a lower exit bill and freer trade with the EU, they should go for the freer trade, every time, hands down. And the EU knows this.

Water John · 28-07-2017 10:19AM

I know the Mods object to one liners. But lads, I'm not going to wade through peoples essays. Its a discussion forum.

steddyeddy · 28-07-2017 11:51AM

Dublin proposes a sea border between the UK and Ireland. The DUP start to panic and say they'll block that. Fair enough then a trade agreement will be blocked. The Irish border has to be sorted prior to a trade agreement. A land border isn't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40750819/dup-irish-sea-border-absurd

Sam Russell · 28-07-2017 12:06PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dublin proposes a sea border between the UK and Ireland. The DUP start to panic and say they'll block that. Fair enough then a trade agreement will be blocked. The Irish border has to be sorted prior to a trade agreement. A land border isn't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40750819/dup-irish-sea-border-absurd

It is either a and border or a sea border - one or the other (or both).

The solution for people is to provide everyone in the UK with ID cards, linked back to their NI number, and to their passport or residency status document. This would feed into their employment status, with employers to verify entitlements. After all they still want visa free tourists.

With goods it gets tricky. No-one (outside the DUP) wants a hard border on the island of Ireland.

A special status would be needed for NI just to cater for the agriculture in NI. Perhaps the UK could pay into the EU Agri fund to compensate for the cost of NI agri exports into Ireland, which would be cheaper than the cost of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

wes · 28-07-2017 12:07PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dublin proposes a sea border between the UK and Ireland. The DUP start to panic and say they'll block that. Fair enough then a trade agreement will be blocked. The Irish border has to be sorted prior to a trade agreement. A land border isn't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40750819/dup-irish-sea-border-absurd

Its the only feasible option really. The DUP shot themselves in the face (was going to say foot, but face is more appropriate with Brexit) by supporting Brexit. The common sense thing to do, would be to fight tooth and nail against it, and act within there own interests, as opposed to siding with people who barely know they exist.

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 12:15PM

If you're British, you should be crapping yourself right now.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 12:17PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This, definitely.

The UK has stated several times it will honour it's commitments, tell us what these are and we can discuss the figure.

The eu seems to be putting the onus on the UK to state what this is, which indicates to me that they haven't got a clue.

The British don't have a clue? Agreed.

Read it and weep*.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

*with real tears if you're British, with laughter if you're not...

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 12:21PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Tweet by Ian Paisley Jnr:

How delusional is this guy and the DUP?

1. He's salivating at the thought of a 'very hard border' which will harm business in the north, particularly agribusiness, and threatens to unravel peace process.

2. He's calling for almost 90% of the Irish people who support being in the EU to 'wise up'.

He forgot to add:

3. Ireland will rejoin the UK

4. He wakes up and wonders why there's a sticky mess all over his Union Jack underpants...

ancapailldorcha · 28-07-2017 12:24PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

If you're British, you should be crapping yourself right now.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

Please don't just dump links here.

sondagefaux wrote: »

*with real tears if you're British, with laughter if you're not...

Less of the crap please.

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 12:28PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not quite as straightforward as that. Because this situation has never arisen before, there are no established rules for apportioning the assets and liablities of the Union when a member state leaves. Rules and principles have to be established, and I find it surprising that Fred thinks the right way forward is for the Union to decide what the rules are and then notify the UK of what it's obligations under those rules will be. The rules themselves are a matter for negotiation between the Union and the UK.

Brussels did put a position paper on this to the UK some weeks about, but hasn't made it public. The UK hasn't made a formal response yet, and the divergent comments from the likes of Johnson, Hammond and Davis may suggest that the Cabinet has yet to agree a position. (Or they could be a deliberate strategy to explain a tactical delay in responding; see below.)

The EU position paper proposes a methodology for computing the U.K.’s financial entitlements and obligations, but there's a tacit agreement on both sides that they won't - at least publicly - mention any figure yet. Only when the principles to apply have been agreed will they work out what figure will be yielded by the application of those principles. (Which is not to say that each side isn't calculating for themselves what figure would be yielded by various possible approaches, of course. But at least publicly the approach is to decide what is the right, fair, just, etc way to approach this and then see what figure results, rather than to pick a figure and then work out some rules that will produce that figure.)

As noted, the UK has yet to respond formally to the EU's position paper, either by commenting on the methodology proposed in that paper or by suggesting an alternative methodology themselves (which is something Barnier has invited them to do). In Brussels they think that the UK's reticence on this point is a deliberate negotiating tactic - one that they are countering by pointing out that this is one of the points on which there must be "substantial progress" before the Brexit talks can turn to other issues so, really, it's past time that the UK responded to the position paper that we sent, oh, five or six weeks ago now.

The figures being bandied about in the press - 65 billion, 80 billion, 100 billion - seem eye-wateringly large, but in terms of the UK's long-term interests this is a second-order issue. Whether the UK does well, badly or terribly out of Brexit does not depend on the amount of the exit settlement, but on the future trading arrangements between the UK and the EU, the UK and the EEA, and the UK and the rest of the world. In so far as there's a trade-off for the UK between a lower exit bill and freer trade with the EU, they should go for the freer trade, every time, hands down. And the EU knows this.

Also, and more importantly, the EU is so concerned about the British lack of preparation and attention to detail that they don't want to mention a figure in case it gives the UK an excuse to walk away from negotiations that the UK is already floundering in.

As Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator has said, the chances of him assessing in October that sufficient progress has been made on the initial issues to allow for progress to talks on the future relationship between the UK and the EU are receding.

But that is only the half of it. We are seeing from other reports that the UK team simply isn't delivering the goods.

An EU source complains that the UK is not providing enough position papers, something that is evident from the lack of material posted on the government's website and the lack of substance in ministerial speeches.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, we see media reports Michel Barnier telling member state representatives that the negotiations are faltering and the UK government's hopes autumn talks on trade are increasingly likely to be dashed.

And this, Barnier says, is because the government had been unable to provide sufficient clarity on its positions during the last week's contact sessions.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 12:37PM

The first time since the recession that the number of new company formations in the UK has fallen.

The first two-quarters of 2017 has the UK on track to experience its first dip in new company incorporations since 2008’s great recession.

Since 2009-10, the number of new startups has increased every year, rising between 6% and 15% annually. But that trend seems to be ending. Q1 2017 saw the establishment of 170,143 new businesses. Still a substantial amount – but a 1.13% decline from 2016’s first quarter, which saw 172,096.

And now, fresh data from Companies House reveals the downward trend has continued into Q2. The decline in Q2 has been even more pronounced: this year’s second quarter saw a 152,411 new companies incorporated, a 12% decrease on the same period in the previous year.

Q1and Q2, according to the data, has been the most popular time of year to incorporate a new business.

The dip forms part of a broader decline in British small business confidence noted by The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). The FSB’s latest Small Business Index saw “business confidence drop for the first time since wake of EU referendum”. What optimism remained, the report noted, was imbalanced across regions and sectors.

Scottish small businesses, in particular, were pessimistic about the future. In terms of sector, the retail and wholesale trade was particularly rattled, the FSB noting a 9% decline in confidence from the Q1 report.

Commenting on the FSB report, Nina Skero, the managing economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research, noted “a new squeeze on household incomes” thanks to “inflation pushed up by the sustained weakness of sterling”.

“Employee earnings growth is struggling to pick up, meaning that the rising cost of living in the UK is curbing the ability of households to purchase more discretionary goods and services,” says Skero. “Already, this appears to be having a notable material negative impact on the consumer side of the UK economy. Official figures showed the first decline in retail sales in three years in Q1 2017.”

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/articles/uk-experiences-first-startup-slump-since-2008-recession.655/

It's in line with other economic indicators showing a generalised slowing down of the UK economy as Brexit-induced inflation has started to bite and reduce overall UK consumer spending.

Along with the uncertainty created for the financial services sector, the airline sector, the manufacturing sector, the agri-industry sector, the referendum vote has had a major negative influence on the UK's economy.

Nody · 28-07-2017 12:48PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is either a and border or a sea border - one or the other (or both).

The solution for people is to provide everyone in the UK with ID cards, linked back to their NI number, and to their passport or residency status document. This would feed into their employment status, with employers to verify entitlements. After all they still want visa free tourists.

With goods it gets tricky. No-one (outside the DUP) wants a hard border on the island of Ireland.

A special status would be needed for NI just to cater for the agriculture in NI. Perhaps the UK could pay into the EU Agri fund to compensate for the cost of NI agri exports into Ireland, which would be cheaper than the cost of a hard border on the island of Ireland.

The problem is NI would need to be held to EU standards (see Chlorinated washed chicken or what ever other standards that UK would drop/lower) or the border needs to be there anyway and that brings up the question of who'll monitor that and how on UK/NI borders/airports. If not you'd risk the horse meat incident happening over and over again as NI is used as a free low check control into EU from UK for lower standard foods etc.

Sam Russell · 28-07-2017 01:06PM

Nody wrote: »

The problem is NI would need to be held to EU standards (see Chlorinated washed chicken or what ever other standards that UK would drop/lower) or the border needs to be there anyway and that brings up the question of who'll monitor that and how on UK/NI borders/airports. If not you'd risk the horse meat incident happening over and over again as NI is used as a free low check control into EU from UK for lower standard foods etc.

I realise that there would be some problems requiring significant surveillance but a lot less that a hard border. Major smuggling would be harder across the sea water than across a ditch.

Agriculture is a major factor in this because of the common agriculture policy regime, and that is before the chlorinated chicken rears its ugly head.

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 01:10PM

Basically you're arguing for Northern Ireland to somehow remain in the EU.

I genuinely can't see that happening, unless Brexit is called off altogether, or unless there's a united Ireland.

Here's yet more evidence of how unprepared and complacent the British are.

Britain’s Home Office, the government department responsible for border control and immigration, has admitted it has not consulted any external experts on the effect of Brexit on the Irish Border.

The Border, and the wider implications for the Republic of Britain’s exit from the European Union, is one of the three points of negotiation between the EU and UK government (the others are free movement of people and the amount of money Britain will owe the union after the divorce).

Each needs to be settled before the EU will entertain negotiating a trade deal with the UK outside the union.

Despite the border being a key issue in negotiations, the Home Office has not sought any advice from experts on the potential impact of Brexit on Irish citizens living in Britain or Northern Ireland.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/home-office-s-lack-of-action-on-post-brexit-border-is-shocking-1.3169069

I suppose we should be shocked but at this stage nothing about the incompetence of the British is even mildly surprising.

steddyeddy · 28-07-2017 01:20PM

Nody wrote: »

The problem is NI would need to be held to EU standards (see Chlorinated washed chicken or what ever other standards that UK would drop/lower) or the border needs to be there anyway and that brings up the question of who'll monitor that and how on UK/NI borders/airports. If not you'd risk the horse meat incident happening over and over again as NI is used as a free low check control into EU from UK for lower standard foods etc.

I can't see how farmers in the North will compete EU subsidised farmers in the South. I suspect that's the biggest of their worries.

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 01:37PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can't see how farmers in the North will compete EU subsidised farmers in the South. I suspect that's the biggest of their worries.

The EU imposes quite high tariffs on imports of foods to the EU, unless it exempts countries which are very poor from any import duties on any goods except arms and ammunition (see the Everything But Arms Initiative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_but_Arms), or unless it has negotiated low or no tariffs on food from countries it has free trade agreements with.

Combined with the non-tariff barriers, the main ones are related to food safety (I've outlined these in previous posts on this thread), the loss of subsidies and tariffs will make NI-produced food very difficult to sell in the EU. There may still be room for a small number of specialist food producers to sell into the EU but without a comprehensive EU-UK trade deal, most UK farmers will either be reliant on the domestic market or will have to seek markets outside the EU.

The latter will be difficult since many countries around the world are very protective of their agricultural sectors and impose high tariffs on food imports except when they have trade deals with other countries.

The short-term future for UK farming is supplying the domestic market.

Given that the UK imports much of its food, farmers who switch to foods that are currently imported into the UK might be able to compete but only where they have clear cost and quality advantages.

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 01:42PM

Yet another own goal caused by the vote in favour of leaving the EU.

I wonder if it there would be a vote to Leave if another referendum were held today?

As far as I can see, the claimed-for advantages of leaving the EU are melting away like snow in the sunshine and the disadvantages are becoming more apparent with increasing frequency.

Sam Russell · 28-07-2017 01:58PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

I realise that there would be some problems requiring significant surveillance but a lot less that a hard border. Major smuggling would be harder across the sea water than across a ditch.

Agriculture is a major factor in this because of the common agriculture policy regime, and that is before the chlorinated chicken rears its ugly head.

Basically you're arguing for Northern Ireland to somehow remain in the EU.

Well, yes and no.

If the UK continued to pay NI farmers as if they were still in the UK, and paid into the CAP an amount equivalent to the tariffs chargeable on NI exports of food to the republic, and controlled 'imports' of food products from GB to NI, then the border would not need to be policed from an EU perspective for agricultural products. NI would still be subject to EU rules re veterinary stuff etc.

Other goods could be controlled by electronic techy stuff.

Might work.

Jaggo · 28-07-2017 02:28PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

If you're British, you should be crapping yourself right now.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86553

The guy who writes this is a really knowledgeable brexiteer. I have read a lot of his stuff and the more I read, the less I understand his reasoning for leaving the EU.

I tend to read his articles (eg. the chlorinated chickens one) and end up more supportive of the EU then I was originally.

Anita Blow · 28-07-2017 02:39PM

Have to laugh at the idiocy of Ian Paisley Jr & DUP as if they are a party of importance in all of this process. He said today that it is "the south of Ireland" which will suffer if there is a hard border, but anyone with sense knows that this is patently untrue. Economically a hard border would have minimal effect on the republic. The bulk of our UK trade is with Britain. NI accounts for <2% of our exports yet we account for nearly 50% of their exports and the bulk of their agriculture industry is dependent on us for either selling or processing.
One can believe that Britain will come out of this process without a huge amount of damage, but NI will be ruined by this process.

Junkyard Tom · 28-07-2017 04:40PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Have to laugh at the idiocy of Ian Paisley Jr & DUP as if they are a party of importance in all of this process.

And his is the party that campaigned for Brexit to underscore thier 'Britishness' never imagining that leave would 'win' (they were aware of documents warning them of potentially dire economic consequences).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaaoFLhQmpo

Since then they've realised the potential damage that Brexit could cause and instead of trying to mitigate it have seized on the CON's weak position to try to lash the northeast to HMS Britannia, cross-border/EU trade, and peace process, bedamned. Let's see how the British press react to Ireland's 'your problem Britain' approach to a land border.

Panrich · 28-07-2017 04:46PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Have to laugh at the idiocy of Ian Paisley Jr & DUP as if they are a party of importance in all of this process. He said today that it is "the south of Ireland" which will suffer if there is a hard border, but anyone with sense knows that this is patently untrue. Economically a hard border would have minimal effect on the republic. The bulk of our UK trade is with Britain. NI accounts for <2% of our exports yet we account for nearly 50% of their exports and the bulk of their agriculture industry is dependent on us for either selling or processing.
One can believe that Britain will come out of this process without a huge amount of damage, but NI will be ruined by this process.

The worry here is what will happen if/when the 'peace dividend' disappears. The troubles are not so long ago and some people will be looking to fill the political and economic vacuum with a return to militant sectarianism. There are danger signs that both sides of the extreme can latch onto. A push for a hard border will agitate nationalists while any talk of closer ties with Dublin and a cutting of strings to the UK will do the same for the loyalists.

steddyeddy · 28-07-2017 05:15PM

Fair play to Leo Varadkar for giving the UK an injection of much needed realism. The bits in bold are exactly what we need from Irish politicians now. From the BBC.

The Irish government will not design a border for Brexiteers, Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar has said.
He said his government did not want to see any kind of economic border on the island of Ireland when the UK leaves the European Union.
Mr Varadker said he hoped unionists would not respond angrily to his position.
"It is the British and the Brexiteers who are leaving, so if anyone should be angry it's us quite frankly," he added.
Earlier, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney denied a newspaper report that suggested the Irish government preferred a "sea border" solution with checks at ports rather than the Irish border.
The Times report suggested Mr Varadkar wanted customs and immigration checks at ports, rather than any checks along the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

But Mr Coveney told Irish national broadcaster, RTÉ: "There is no proposal that is suggesting that there be a border in the Irish Sea,"
He said the onus was on the UK to "come up with imaginative and if necessary unique solutions" to avoiding a so-called hard border.
Mr Coveney said a political solution was required, rather than a technical fix, which has been suggested by Brexit Secretary David Davis.
Mr Davis has proposed using measures like surveillance cameras to allow free movement between the north and south of the island.
The foreign minister added that the Irish government will not support proposals that result in checkpoints along the Irish border.

Addressing reporters on Friday afternoon, the Taoiseach, Mr Varadkar, said both he and Mr Coveney were on the same page on the issue.
But the taoiseach added that if the British government wanted technological solutions to the border, that was up to them.
Mr Varadkar said the Irish government would not do that work for them.
The Irish border is one of the key issues that needs to be resolved by the UK and the EU before talks begin on a new trade deal.

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 07:03PM

Jaggo wrote: »

The guy who writes this is a really knowledgeable brexiteer. I have read a lot of his stuff and the more I read, the less I understand his reasoning for leaving the EU.

I tend to read his articles (eg. the chlorinated chickens one) and end up more supportive of the EU then I was originally.

I'm of a similar opinion.

He really knows his stuff, knows EU law and relevant international law inside out, thinks Brexit is going to be a disaster because of the way it's being handled by the British and yet is still in favour of it going ahead.

I think his ideas about a gradual transition for the UK away from EU membership towards a much looser arrangement are pie in the sky.

They rely far too much on the EU and its member states deciding to fundamentally transform the organisation in line with his thinking and rely far too much on some degree of common sense appearing in the British body politic.

sondagefaux · 28-07-2017 07:08PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes and no.

If the UK continued to pay NI farmers as if they were still in the UK, and paid into the CAP an amount equivalent to the tariffs chargeable on NI exports of food to the republic, and controlled 'imports' of food products from GB to NI, then the border would not need to be policed from an EU perspective for agricultural products. NI would still be subject to EU rules re veterinary stuff etc.

That would require an amendment to the EU treaties as they're not set up to cope with that type of arrangement.

I sincerely doubt that any other EU states want a non-EU state with a border with an EU state to enjoy this type of arrangement.

There would always be a risk that food and other goods produced elsewhere in the UK, or imported into the UK from other countries, could end up in Northern Ireland ready to be exported across the border to the EU.

There would have to be very intensive controls between Britain and Northern Ireland to avoid unacceptable products from entering Northern Ireland from where they could easily enter the EU in the absence of border controls between north and south.

Can you imagine the fuss if US produced chicken entered the EU because it was imported into England, sent across to Northern Ireland, then sent across the border?

http://www.poultryworld.net/Meat/Articles/2017/7/American-chicken-is-incompatible-with-European-farming-164846E/

Sam Russell wrote: »

Other goods could be controlled by electronic techy stuff.

I'm sorry, but as Leo Varadkar (and Simon Coveney) makes clear, there isn't going to be any co-operation in that respect from Ireland.

The UK broke this, the UK can fix it - now official Irish government policy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/defiant-varadkar-tells-british-we-won-t-design-brexit-border-for-you-1.3170014

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-says-there-is-no-proposal-for-irish-sea-border-1.3169885

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments