Brexit discussion thread II

Zubeneschamali · 23-08-2017 12:33PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seems like you think Britain should just roll over in the discussion.

That is not the point at all.

The UK is leaving, and can jump directly to hard borders and WTO rules if they want. But they apparently want something else. These position papers are supposed to set out what their ideal is. Then negotiations would start on where the compromise could be between the UK position and the position the EU side published months ago.

But the UK position is nonsensical and self-contradictory. Take the border - they want to control immigration, but have no immigration control. They want to leave the customs union but have no customs checks. It is impossible.

What Varadkar is saying is that IF they want to have no customs checks, they need to stay in the customs union OR come up with some actual proposal.

I have a very strong suspicion that they really want immigration control and to leave the customs union, and they are only pretending to care about the border, and are hoping to blame the EU when they give up their frictionless fantasies.

Bit cynical · 23-08-2017 02:08PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have a very strong suspicion that they really want immigration control and to leave the customs union, and they are only pretending to care about the border, and are hoping to blame the EU when they give up their frictionless fantasies.

Of course they want ultimately to leave the customs union. They have been saying that consistently from very early on.

Do they care about the border? Well I think they want to have a border that is as frictionless as possible, given their stated goal of leaving the customs union but this very much depends on negotiations with the EU.

Does the EU care about the border? I think they too want as frictionless a border as possible, but they, like the UK, have other concerns which may make that difficult.

For Ireland, of course, the border is a big issue but we need to remember that we are only a very small part of a very large picture. Not every aspect of being members of the EU can be expected to work in our favour.

What I think our politicians are concerned about is maintaining the impression that they have influence in Europe. This means going along with the EU line and hoping that things will turn out well for us.

Jim2007 · 23-08-2017 02:41PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK is leaving, and can jump directly to hard borders and WTO rules if they want.

Not until their application for full membership has been agreed... David Davis has indicated that their application will propose that they are accepted on the same basis as the EU in terms of agreements etc...but this has to be agreed.

The other issue is the global tariff free quotas included in some of the agreements with the EU. These have already been allocated and not surprisingly no one wants to give up their allocation in favour of the U.K. I read a piece on this a few weeks ago, it seems EU officials at the WTO raise the subject and did not get any where with it.

Note how the countries willing to discuss trade deals with the U.K. have all added some variation of: when it is legally possible to their statements.

This idea that they can go off and do as they please is fantasy like all the rest of it.

Zubeneschamali · 23-08-2017 03:37PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Do they care about the border? Well I think they want to have a border that is as frictionless as possible, given their stated goal of leaving the customs union but this very much depends on negotiations with the EU.

It simply is not possible for the EU to wave a wand and say the UK is out of the customs union but there will be no customs checks at the border. That's what a customs union is: a region with standard checks on all the external borders.

If the UK leaves, they are subject to the external rules. If they don't want to be, they should stay.

It's like the UK saying they want the EU to repeal the law of gravity, and then blaming the EU when they trip over their feet.

Jim2007 · 23-08-2017 03:48PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It simply is not possible for the EU to wave a wand and say the UK is out of the customs union but there will be no customs checks at the border. That's what a customs union is: a region with standard checks on all the external borders.

If the UK leaves, they are subject to the external rules. If they don't want to be, they should stay.

It's like the UK saying they want the EU to repeal the law of gravity, and then blaming the EU when they trip over their feet.

Given all the carp they are coming out with, one can only wonder what impression it is creating in the minds of trade negotiators in the countries they are hoping to get deals with.

Bit cynical · 23-08-2017 04:14PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It simply is not possible for the EU to wave a wand and say the UK is out of the customs union but there will be no customs checks at the border. That's what a customs union is: a region with standard checks on all the external borders.

If the UK leaves, they are subject to the external rules. If they don't want to be, they should stay.

It's like the UK saying they want the EU to repeal the law of gravity, and then blaming the EU when they trip over their feet.

It depends on which position you see as fixed. I think the consensus here is to see the EU position as unmovable and therefore it is up to the other side to come up with all the suggestions.

It is not the only position though. It is equally reasonable to regard the UKs position of leaving the customs union as fixed. We just choose to look at it the first way and not the other.

The gamble Ireland is taking is that the UK will at some stage back down and Ireland is therefore backing the EU line. But this may not be the correct stance from Ireland's perspective. I can see why Varadkar might choose this course of action: it is politically the easiest thing to do. If it all goes wrong, then he can blame the British for leaving the customs union. He himself can wash his hands of the whole affair. Also if he takes a line that is not that of the mainstream EU, then he will expose Ireland's lack of influence at the EU level and, again, this would work against him personally. But this is not the same as acting in Ireland's interests.

My own view is that it is quite right to point out unworkable aspects of the UKs proposals, but we also have to come up with proposals of our own and have them accepted at the EU level if Ireland is to avoid a hard border. We also have to act likewise in the broader area of Ireland's economic welfare given that the UK is still a major trading partner in certain sectors that employ a lot of people. One would hope this is going on behind the scenes.

murphaph · 23-08-2017 04:28PM

But the EU position is naturally "immovable" because it must comply with existing treaties. There is no time for any solutions that might require treaty change and the treaties form the basis of European law.

The UK "only" HS to convince parliament to pass X laws relating to the negotiations. The EU requires consent of all the member states. It is naïve to believe the EU can turn on a sixpence. Any compromises the EU negotiation team can offer will have to comply with existing EU treaties (for example on the customs union and single market) to have a chance.

Personally I do not believe a hard border with at least random customs checks can be avoided if the UK insists on leaving the customs union.

ambro25 · 23-08-2017 04:42PM

murphaph wrote: »

But the EU position is naturally "immovable" because it must comply with existing treaties. There is no time for any solutions that might require treaty change and the treaties form the basis of European law.

The UK "only" HS to convince parliament to pass X laws relating to the negotiations. The EU requires consent of all the member states. It is naïve to believe the EU can turn on a sixpence. Any compromises the EU negotiation team can offer will have to comply with existing EU treaties (for example on the customs union and single market) to have a chance.

Personally I do not believe a hard border with at least random customs checks can be avoided if the UK insists on leaving the customs union.

You can't do "random" checks for fret. Which is why the UK mooted its ANPR- and database-driven vapourware...and we (-UK residents at least) all know what a fantastic track record the UK has for delivering resilient, fit-for-purpose IT solutions on time and on budget. I mean, it's 2017 and the Home Office can't even get mailings right :pac:

With the UK effectively wanting to become a third party country beyond the scope of the least EU-compatible or -integrated CU member, i.e. still further removed from harmonised custom procedures <etc.> as even Turkey, there simply cannot be "no border", to the virtual extent mooted by the UK. For fret or for people.

But as it's what the UK wants, it's up to the UK to come with the goods, and to deliver them in a form compatible with EU Treaties -as compatible as what form already exists and applies to third party countries- for making it work. At least on paper, and to begin with.

Bit cynical · 23-08-2017 04:45PM

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I do not believe a hard border with at least random customs checks can be avoided if the UK insists on leaving the customs union.

I think the UK do insist on leaving the customs union and have been for some time, though there may be a transitional period. However I think there may be a lot of scope in the degree of hardness of the border so to speak. For example, if a good trade deal emerges between the UK and EU as Ireland hopes, then standard EU external border measures (such as between Poland and Russia) need not apply. But at present, Ireland's interests and the general EU position are somewhat at odds.

blanch152 · 23-08-2017 05:02PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

It depends on which position you see as fixed. I think the consensus here is to see the EU position as unmovable and therefore it is up to the other side to come up with all the suggestions.

It is not the only position though. It is equally reasonable to regard the UKs position of leaving the customs union as fixed. We just choose to look at it the first way and not the other.

The gamble Ireland is taking is that the UK will at some stage back down and Ireland is therefore backing the EU line. But this may not be the correct stance from Ireland's perspective. I can see why Varadkar might choose this course of action: it is politically the easiest thing to do. If it all goes wrong, then he can blame the British for leaving the customs union. He himself can wash his hands of the whole affair. Also if he takes a line that is not that of the mainstream EU, then he will expose Ireland's lack of influence at the EU level and, again, this would work against him personally. But this is not the same as acting in Ireland's interests.

My own view is that it is quite right to point out unworkable aspects of the UKs proposals, but we also have to come up with proposals of our own and have them accepted at the EU level if Ireland is to avoid a hard border. We also have to act likewise in the broader area of Ireland's economic welfare given that the UK is still a major trading partner in certain sectors that employ a lot of people. One would hope this is going on behind the scenes.

You are looking at this all wrong.

You are assuming that the EU and the UK are equals in this discussion.

However, (and Ireland is the clear example of this, with our particular difficulty with the Border), there are 27 different countries backing the EU position. If you want a more flexible EU position, you need to get 27 to agree on it. If Ireland wants the EU to change, we have to persuade 26 to change. If we want the UK to change, we have to persuade one.

Persuading one to change is far easier than persuading 26 or 27.

You are also incorrect about Ireland's interests in this. Ireland will lose from Brexit. If the UK insist on a hard border (and it seems they are making it inevitable), Ireland has a Hobson's choice to leave the EU and become a vassal of the UK or make a new path forward within the EU without the UK and take advantage of their departure. The second option is clearly the correct one.

blanch152 · 23-08-2017 05:04PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the UK do insist on leaving the customs union and have been for some time, though there may be a transitional period. However I think there may be a lot of scope in the degree of hardness of the border so to speak. For example, if a good trade deal emerges between the UK and EU as Ireland hopes, then standard EU external border measures (such as between Poland and Russia) need not apply. But at present, Ireland's interests and the general EU position are somewhat at odds.

Once there is the possibility that US GM food or cheap Brazilian beef can be imported into the UK and exported to the EU through Ireland, then there must be a hard border. I do not understand how this concept isn't universally understood.

Jim2007 · 23-08-2017 05:10PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Once there is the possibility that US GM food or cheap Brazilian beef can be imported into the UK and exported to the EU through Ireland, then there must be a hard border. I do not understand how this concept isn't universally understood.

It is not just that, it is also quality standards etc of UK goods. At this stage we have no idea how their quality standards and check will stack up. Given it is so late in the game, probably not so well in the early years.

Jim2007 · 23-08-2017 05:19PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

For example, if a good trade deal emerges between the UK and EU as Ireland hopes, then standard EU external border measures (such as between Poland and Russia) need not apply.

The only allowable way to achieve that kind of deal under WTO rules would be a customs union, similar to that with Turkey. So good bye their ability to make their own free trade deals etc...

When all the faffing around is over the UK will get to make one really good trade deal along the lines they are seeking, if they want it, that will require them to enter into a customs union with the other party. And if that is the EU or the US you can bet it will be the bigger party that gets to make the deal for them both.

The option they are looking for is simply not possible under any set of rules. No trading block is going to allow the UK to become a back door into their market.

demfad · 23-08-2017 05:23PM

Let's take the hypothetical situation that Brexit must happen as Theresa May did. What would be the best Brexit for the UK (she promised this)?

I would suggest Brexit should last at least a decade. You would need to replace the existing supports such as the CU and SM with similar supports probably by rejoining and/or extending them with a transition agreement. This would avoid very serious or catastrophic damage to the economy.

You would be very nice to the EU over the negotiating period to get the best and longest transition on offer. The more time you have for Brexit the smoother it will be, the better for the UK.

Then you can dismantle the supports you don't need and keep the ones that are still of benefit. This would involve some juristiction of the ECJ, naturally enough over the common bodies. Preferably a lot as leaving the single market will really hurt the UK.

What she actually did was immediately draw disastrous and impossible red lines. She promised a red, white and blue Brexit to stoke up her new right wing base...or to fulfill promises to hard Brexiters in the Tory party and media who backed her leadership. Disastrous because politically her red lines are very difficult to row back from now.

These red lines are not a reasonable position. Ireland alone should be a reason to have not contemplated this approach at all. But to keep her political promises she intends to play chicken with the EU who have told her all along that the UK can't have their cake and eat it.

The idea that the EU or Ireland should adopt any of the UKs impossible/ludicrous policies just so that Theresa May can keep her absurd promises and do the bidding of the powerful people manipulating her shouldnt be entertained.

The Brexit solution for the divorce bill as to seek a reasonable reduction of what the EU ask. But pay.
The solution for citizens is to give them full rights as EU citizens under the ECJ. End of.
The solution for Ireland is to remain in the CU and SM. End of.

That is the best Brexit for the UK, EU and Ireland.

If anything else happens it means that the Tories have put party above country and that powerful people who gain financially, politically and ideologically from a hard Brexit are now 'managing' the the UK as they are in the US.

Zubeneschamali · 23-08-2017 05:35PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is equally reasonable to regard the UKs position of leaving the customs union as fixed.

That's what I just said - they are leaving, a hard, hard Brexit and a hard border, and they are (for some reason) pretending they want a frictionless border, a pretence they will drop when push comes to shove.

Jim2007 · 23-08-2017 05:36PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

We also have to act likewise in the broader area of Ireland's economic welfare given that the UK is still a major trading partner in certain sectors that employ a lot of people. One would hope this is going on behind the scenes.

The UK represents 14% of our exports it either joint second with Belgium or in third place depending on when you look at the stats.

But more important than that is that we get to trade in the Euro, an undervalued currency from our perspective and at little or no cost to the exchequer. Now private client studies by Credit Suisse have concluded that were the Euro to break up then two strong currencies would emerge the D-Mark and the Punt! And the reasoning is very simple: long term net exporting countries have strong currencies because they need to get paid for what they export.

Now if that were to happen then the Irish Central Bank, simple does not have remotely close to the reservers to push the Punt down long term. The Swiss National Bank tried to do this with the Franc for the same reasons and eventually had to give up, but in the process it acquired Euro bonds equal to the deficit of the 7 biggest Euro Group economies - so right now little Switzerland is financing a major part of the Euro Economy. On a regular basis it conducts market operations in defence of Irish bonds etc... to protect its positions. It can only do this because it has capabilities equal to that of the ECB.

So it would not just be stupid for Ireland to turn it's back on the EU, it would be suicide!

PeadarCo · 23-08-2017 05:38PM

demfad wrote:

If anything else happens it means that the Tories have put party above country and that powerful people who gain financially, politically and ideologically from a hard Brexit are now 'managing' the the UK as they are in the US.

The biggest issue with Brexit is that its the EU that has control largely. At the end of the two year period the UK is out with the hardest possible Brexit. Any extension will only happen with the agreement of all remaining 27 EU states. All these position papers should have been prepared, debated within the UK before triggering article 50. Hard Brexiters both Labour tory and DUP have all ready put their own ideology above the good of the UK.

Brexit talks were always going to be difficult but it horrifying and laughable that even a number of months after triggering the Brexit clock that the UKs position can still be summed up as having their cake and eating it. At no point does there appear to have been talks aimed at making Brexit a success given what the EUs negotiation position was going to be.

Jim2007 · 23-08-2017 05:45PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's what I just said - they are leaving, a hard, hard Brexit and a hard border, and they are (for some reason) pretending they want a frictionless border, a pretence they will drop when push comes to shove.

I'm not convinced. I get the impression of lot of what we are seeing is an unwillingness within the cabinet to get down to the nuts and bolts of the issues for fear of a split. So we get vague concepts rather than any kind of details plan, something everyone can sign up to.

Of course something will have to blow, but what the fall out will be is hard to say - a new PM, another GE... who knows. If things continue, my guess is that it could happen when the impact of an Open Skies agreement starts to result in no flights.....

In Switzerland (after the anti FMOP vote) it hit home when the EU told us we were no longer in the Horizon 2020 project, students were rejected from the Erasmus program and so on. Suddenly it all became very real and attitudes changed PDQ.

Bit cynical · 23-08-2017 05:57PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

The only allowable way to achieve that kind of deal under WTO rules would be a customs union, similar to that with Turkey. So good bye their ability to make their own free trade deals etc...

What WTO rules say this?

solodeogloria · 23-08-2017 06:32PM

listermint wrote: »

I'm assuming you think that their proposal is realistic?

Because that's a direct question I'm asking forget the negotiation flight of fancy in the text above. Do you think the proposal is realistic.

Specifically the open border.

Good evening!

It depends on what definition of "realistic" you hold to. Theoretically achievable, yes. The position papers are documentary form of what the UK is seeking in an ideal world. They are inherently aspirational.

If you mean "realistic" in the sense of whether or not the EU will accept it. That's another question and it's for the European Union to determine, not for the UK. It is the UK's job to represent the whole United Kingdom. That is a difficult task but it manages to do it extremely well from my reading of them.

I also think some of the European Union's demands aren't "realistic" in the sense that the UK won't accept them. For example demanding it to be subject to the ECJ.

Speaking of which, the UK Government whitepaper today in respect to joint arbitration and how flexible the UK is willing to be is impressive. They gave a whole host of options that they are willing to discuss without the ECJ having supreme authority over Britain's law.

If I was to honestly say I had one frustration with the UK Government it would be that they are not pinning the tail on the donkey. Instead of providing a single definitive option in each paper they have provided a multiplicity of options. Now this could be argued both ways of course. On one hand it is the UK being indecisive. On the other hand it is the UK being open minded and giving itself latitude to discuss a multiplicity of options.

I suspect it's probably my impatience that the UK hasn't left the EU yet and we don't have the certainty that we would all like. The direction of travel is much much clearer than after the referendum.

Obviously there will be movement from the ideal where possible within the red lines, but I suspect this movement will be on both sides as a deal is hammered out. I'm still optimistic and I'm still confident about Brexit.

Jim2007 wrote: »

In Switzerland (after the anti FMOP vote) it hit home when the EU told us we were no longer in the Horizon 2020 project, students were rejected from the Erasmus program and so on. Suddenly it all became very real and attitudes changed PDQ.

This is an example of how Swiss politicians didn't respect the democratic verdict of their people and sold them short. This isn't a good example.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris · 23-08-2017 06:47PM

Oooor the British politicians could read the agreements they signed up to and stop trying to wriggle out of it.

steddyeddy · 23-08-2017 07:21PM

The UK's negotiaging position is very much a case of have cake and eat it. It wouldn't be fair for the UK to be given the same access as a member state.

Anita Blow · 23-08-2017 07:49PM

Fexco saying today that euro is to hit parity with the pound in the coming months. I've family north of the border and to say they are feeling the effects of the devaluation is an understatement. They can no longer afford to shop south of the border to the same extent as last year and groceries from their local supermarket have increased significantly in price. The amount of places offering £1=€1 has soared over the past year

ArthurDayne · 23-08-2017 08:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I suspect it's probably my impatience that the UK hasn't left the EU yet and we don't have the certainty that we would all like. The direction of travel is much much clearer than after the referendum.

Obviously there will be movement from the ideal where possible within the red lines, but I suspect this movement will be on both sides as a deal is hammered out. I'm still optimistic and I'm still confident about Brexit.

I can appreciate the sincerity of your view on this, and fully acknowledge that there are a great many ways to look at a great many things, but I do struggle to understand how the course ahead for Brexit is any clearer than it was a year ago. Has nobody else noticed that this great seismic change is happening and we have only heard a minority of leading government figures actually speak passionately about it? As it stands the British government as a collective resembles some sort of AI robot which falls just short of passing the Turing Test -- doing what it is programmed to do but very much aware that it does not understand why. They are quite aimlessly fumbling around in these so-called negotiations, giving mixed messages to deliberately convey the illusion that they have the slightest idea what they are doing -- because this illusion is all that stands between a once-dominant imperial heavyweight and the final confirmation that its time as a standalone global power is now well and truly defunct. In fact it is this impending national humiliation which possibly provides the only motivation for a government which in the main either doesn't want Brexit or inwardly recognises the futility of the task.

I really don't mean to lay into your viewpoint on this -- but I am struggling to understand the source of your confidence in respect of Brexit when really it already looks to be a rudderless shambles.

steddyeddy · 23-08-2017 09:14PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Fexco saying today that euro is to hit parity with the pound in the coming months. I've family north of the border and to say they are feeling the effects of the devaluation is an understatement. They can no longer afford to shop south of the border to the same extent as last year and groceries from their local supermarket have increased significantly in price. The amount of places offering £1=€1 has soared over the past year

The North is going to be hit hardest in this. I have a lot of sympathy for the remain voters and countries like the North and Scotland that voted remain.

Bit cynical · 23-08-2017 09:14PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

The UK represents 14% of our exports it either joint second with Belgium or in third place depending on when you look at the stats.

However that 14 percent represents a lot of employment in the agri-business sector, often in areas where jobs are hard to find.

It is true that we may gain some employment from the likes of financial institutions moving from London to Dublin (indeed we should actively seek this) but the impact on overall employment may not be as great as we would like and numbers alone won't compensate for jobs lost in other parts of the country.

blanch152 · 23-08-2017 09:33PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It depends on what definition of "realistic" you hold to. Theoretically achievable, yes. The position papers are documentary form of what the UK is seeking in an ideal world. They are inherently aspirational.

Good evening! Your eternal optimism about Brexit is inspiring on the one hand and bizarre on the other.

As for the definition of "realistic", the UK position on Brexit in an ideal world is akin to CND resurrecting itself and asking the US, France and the UK to unilaterally disarm in the face of what North Korea is doing, the rise of Putin and China's aspirations for world domination. In other words, that form of "realistic" is akin to foolish optimism.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you mean "realistic" in the sense of whether or not the EU will accept it. That's another question and it's for the European Union to determine, not for the UK. It is the UK's job to represent the whole United Kingdom. That is a difficult task but it manages to do it extremely well from my reading of them.

I don't think it is rocket science to figure out what the European Union will accept. The EU has a variety of arrangements with countries surrounding it like Turkey, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Ukraine, Iceland, Egypt, Morrocco, etc., each of them different. All the UK needs to do is decide which of those existing arrangements it prefers and sign up to them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also think some of the European Union's demands aren't "realistic" in the sense that the UK won't accept them. For example demanding it to be subject to the ECJ.

Speaking of which, the UK Government whitepaper today in respect to joint arbitration and how flexible the UK is willing to be is impressive. They gave a whole host of options that they are willing to discuss without the ECJ having supreme authority over Britain's law.

The UK only needs to be subject to the ECJ if it wants a future trade relationship with the EU. If the UK doesn't want that, that is fine.

blanch152 · 23-08-2017 09:35PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

However that 14 percent represents a lot of employment in the agri-business sector, often in areas where jobs are hard to find.

It is true that we may gain some employment from the likes of financial institutions moving from London to Dublin (indeed we should actively seek this) but the impact on overall employment may not be as great as we would like and numbers alone won't compensate for jobs lost in other parts of the country.

There will certainly be economic disruption caused by Brexit and it may well hasten the inevitable rural decline. However, it is very difficult at this stage to call how it will end up for Ireland overall - positive or negative.

Jim2007 · 23-08-2017 09:37PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is an example of how Swiss politicians didn't respect the democratic verdict of their people and sold them short. This isn't a good example.

No this is an example of what happens when fantasy meets reality! No one expected that the proposal would pass and there was a very low turn out. The proposal was carried by 20,000 votes. It was very clear that this was not what was wanted.

The SVP could have forced a second vote, but in stead they admitted they did not expect it to pass and had no idea how it could be implemented without impacting the rest of the bilateral agreement. And left it at that.

We will now have another vote on it, in the next 12 months...

Bit cynical · 23-08-2017 09:43PM

blanch152 wrote: »

There will certainly be economic disruption caused by Brexit and it may well hasten the inevitable rural decline. However, it is very difficult at this stage to call how it will end up for Ireland overall - positive or negative.

I don't think there are any economic forecasts that predict that it will be positive for Ireland overall, particularly if a hard line is taken towards the UK by the EU. An ESRI report last year predicted that Ireland would suffer more economically than the UK in some scenarios (e.g. no trade deal) despite some positives in the area of financial services and multinationals.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments