Brexit discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2017 03:47PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Since May confirmed she'd like to remain in the single market for a transition period, I'm inclined to believe that the most likely outcome may be a de facto Norway model. By that I mean that the UK will be officially leaving the single market, but the can will be kicked down the road indefinitely.

All the thorny points for internal foes, such as freedom of movement, payment into the EU budget, and adhering to the ECJ could be surmounted on the basis of it being a temporary arrangement.

There's no end of reasons for continually pushing the date back, such as waiting on strategy reports, committees, institutional preparations etc. It's the "least worst" solution and would probably be fine with half the conservative party and most of the opposition.

While there was a majority for Brexit, there is no majority consensus on what to replace EU membership with and that's the kind of obstacle that could allow the UK to continue in a workable stasis.

What is the gain for the EU in that scenario?

Zubeneschamali · 03-10-2017 03:54PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is the gain for the EU in that scenario?

Not having the UK, a major trading partner, catch fire and sink beneath the waves playing Rule Britannia?

Sam Russell · 03-10-2017 03:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Why should goods be restricted into one part of the United Kingdom from another part of the United Kingdom?

Again, the UK are never going to agree a hard border within the UK. It isn't a goer. Northern Ireland's economy is far more dependent on the rest of Britain than it is to the rest of Ireland.

This is why the EU need to consider proposing a distinct solution on the Irish border. Not off the shelf, but particularly considered to the circumstances of Brexit and the Irish border. The UK are willing to discuss this, and have proposals that can be worked on. It depends on the EU giving up this silly nonsense of "sufficient progress" meaning 100% agreement with them on every issue.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You appear to be the major adviser to the British negotiators or to be within earshot of the conversations as you are quite definite on what they will or will not consider. That puts you on the right-wing of the Conservative party - between Gove and Johnson.

If there is an EU Border Force presence at each port, it does not need to interfere with UK-NI trade, just stuff destined for Ireland. Just as the 'blue' route through customs at Dublin airport allows EU citizens to enter unchallenged, but can be challenged. Going through the Red or Green channel will require a customs officer to OK your passage. An equivalent system could operate at a NI port, where NI bound goods pass through one channel but goods destined for Ireland go through an EU customs channel requiring documentation, certification, tariff and VAT payments.

Of course ANPR cameras on the roads at the border would check for compliance and enforcement.

Still open season for smugglers.

Chips Lovell · 03-10-2017 03:56PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is the gain for the EU in that scenario?

UK remains in the Single Market, just as before, but has no input into EU decision making.

I don't think anyone in the EU wants the UK to leave, but it remaining in the Single Market is the next best thing (and some EU members erked by the UK's obstructionist streak may argue its even better).

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2017 03:58PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

UK remains in the Single Market, just as before, but has no input into EU decision making.

I don't think anyone in the EU wants the UK to leave, but it remaining in the Single Market is the next best thing (and some EU members erked by the UK's obstructionist streak may argue its even better).

But would that scenario not be a better deal for Britain than that which it currently has? The EU is determined that Britain cannot have a better deal not least because such a deal would encourage others to leave.

Calina · 03-10-2017 04:01PM

No. Britain is bound by SM rules and is unable to influence them. Also FOM continues.

For UK it is essentially worse than now.

Chips Lovell · 03-10-2017 04:03PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But would that scenario not be a better deal for Britain than that which it currently has? The EU is determined that Britain cannot have a better deal not least because such a deal would encourage others to leave.

I don't understand. How would it be a better deal for Britain compared to now?

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2017 04:13PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't understand. How would it be a better deal for Britain compared to now?

Their contributions to the EU would greatly decrease (allowing them to fund the NHS x trillions a week apparently). Also, the Norway option would mean they can begin to strike their own trade deals. And the hated ECJ would not have direct control.

But there is no way this current government will accept such a deal as the UK would have to accept the Four Freedoms.

Chips Lovell · 03-10-2017 04:21PM

Per capita, EEA members contribute nearly as much as Britain is at present. And it would have to submit to the EFTA court.

I don't think anyone would give a toss about the UK negotiating its own trade deals.

May has already said she wants a transition period, which means accepting the four freedoms.

steddyeddy · 03-10-2017 04:26PM

I really don't see there being a transition deal as the UK seems to be adapting a "have cake and eat it" approach to the interim period as well. They want access to the single market (even though other countries will apparently throw themselves at the UK for a deal), but they also want freedom of movement to end on March 2019.

Chips Lovell · 03-10-2017 04:30PM

I think since the referendum, the entire political establishment, barring the extreme Brexit fringe, has been searching around in the dark for a way of both respecting the vote and avoiding pressing the self-destruct button on the economy.

An indefinite transition period provides the necessary ambiguity for a workable fudge.

ambro25 · 03-10-2017 04:35PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think since the referendum, the entire political establishment, barring the extreme Brexit fringe, has been searching around in the dark for a way of both respecting the vote and avoiding pressing the self-destruct button on the economy.

An indefinite transition period provides the necessary ambiguity for a workable fudge.

I agree with your first point. But an "indefinite transition period" doesn't work for business and industry, which require certainty for lengthy structural/contextual predictability. It would not solve the economical issues anticipated form Brexit (-eventual form irrespective).

FrancieBrady · 03-10-2017 04:37PM

ambro25 wrote: »

Except that it doesn't really work for business and industry, who require timescaled certainty.

Exactly. Limbo might help the politicians save face, but nobody else.

Chips Lovell · 03-10-2017 04:42PM

ambro25 wrote: »

I agree with your first point. But an "indefinite transition period" doesn't work for business and industry, which require certainty for lengthy structural/contextual predictability. It would not solve the economical issues anticipated form Brexit (-eventual form irrespective).

True. But what's the alternative? I don't any firm would prefer a sudden withdrawal in 2019.

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2017 04:48PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Per capita, EEA members contribute nearly as much as Britain is at present. And it would have to submit to the EFTA court.

I don't think anyone would give a toss about the UK negotiating its own trade deals.

May has already said she wants a transition period, which means accepting the four freedoms.

Your link is firewalled. It will not be formally subject to the ECJ which will be spun as a win.

Lots of people would give a toss. The EU won't accept a situation during the transition period where its regulated members are competing with a deregulating UK.

May is toast if she even hints at the four freedoms or extending the transition period. Whoever replaces her will be even more in favour of Brexit.

blanch152 · 03-10-2017 04:51PM

Nody wrote: »

That's basically what the EU parliament proposed by putting NI in the EU Customs union and UK's government response was a hard no. It's by far the best solution technical/implementation perspective but between DUP and Tories it will not happen because NI must suffer the same pain as the rest of the UK.

It is the best solution from a political point of view to appease some republicans, but it is not in the economic interest of Northern Ireland.

jm08 · 03-10-2017 04:56PM

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the best solution from a political point of view to appease some republicans, but it is not in the economic interest of Northern Ireland.

It will decimate rural Northern Ireland bearing in mind the tariffs on food.

Northern Irish farms stand to face worse effects from customs controls since 65 per cent of the country’s agricultural exports go to Ireland, while less than 5 percent of Ireland’s agricultural exports are sent to the North.

Policy Exchange’s report After Brexit: Will Ireland be next to exit? looks
in greater detail at the options for Irish trade policy, post Brexit.

Chips Lovell · 03-10-2017 04:56PM

It doesn't really matter how it's spun. In fact, it's great for the EU if they do manage to spin it positively. The outcome is what matters, not whether the UK thinks it has "won" or not.

Whoever replaces May will say they are even more in favour of hard Brexit, because that's what will get them the leadership. But once they're in Downing Street, they face the same tough choices she does.

Don't mistake the political maneuverings of the likes of Boris Johnson for sincere conviction.

FrancieBrady · 03-10-2017 05:01PM

blanch152 wrote: »

It is the best solution from a political point of view to appease some republicans, but it is not in the economic interest of Northern Ireland.

Pretending the decision/solution is not political is political.

IMO the least destabilising solution is the north staying in the CU and a sea border.

The only people with a problem (akin to the flag problem in scale, i.e. 'hurt pride and nothing else) is a small minority in terms of the island as a whole.

Chips Lovell · 03-10-2017 05:06PM

Of course staying in the single market via the EFTA would require the assent of all other members. Norway has suggested that it may not be a formality.

Billy86 · 03-10-2017 05:13PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do the UK operate their Border Force on French soil? Could not agreement be reached for the EU Border Force not get agreement to operate a trade/customs post at the various ports in NI to check goods into NI? Obviously a bit of imagination would be needed, but it would be better than an imaginary border on the A1/M1 in Newery.

Good afternoon!

Why should goods be restricted into one part of the United Kingdom from another part of the United Kingdom?

Again, the UK are never going to agree a hard border within the UK. It isn't a goer. Northern Ireland's economy is far more dependent on the rest of Britain than it is to the rest of Ireland.

This is why the EU need to consider proposing a distinct solution on the Irish border. Not off the shelf, but particularly considered to the circumstances of Brexit and the Irish border. The UK are willing to discuss this, and have proposals that can be worked on. It depends on the EU giving up this silly nonsense of "sufficient progress" meaning 100% agreement with them on every issue.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What kind of "distinct solution"? Every one I have seen proposed, by you and in general, is either a hard border or allowing the EU to dictate who gets into the UK via the northern Irish border. The former is bad for business for Ireland, the UK and probably the north most of all, while the latter simply won't wash with the EU (or many Brexiteers) as it leaves the borders of each open.

Calina · 03-10-2017 05:22PM

jm08 wrote: »

Policy Exchange’s report After Brexit: Will Ireland be next to exit? looks
in greater detail at the options for Irish trade policy, post Brexit.

That is Ray Bassett's paper, isn't it? It has been massively criticised.

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2017 05:30PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Of course staying in the single market via the EFTA would require the assent of all other members. Norway has suggested that it may not be a formality.

In the past month, May, Davis and Johnson have individually, publicly and categorically rejected the Norway option.

Gerry T · 03-10-2017 05:36PM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

In the past month, May, Davis and Johnson have individually, publicly and categorically rejected the Norway option.

Agh, so it's the Norway deal their after!

blanch152 · 03-10-2017 05:38PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Pretending the decision/solution is not political is political.

IMO the least destabilising solution is the north staying in the CU and a sea border.

The only people with a problem (akin to the flag problem in scale, i.e. 'hurt pride and nothing else) is a small minority in terms of the island as a whole.

Except that most of their trade is with the rest of the UK, not with the South.

A hard border with the Republic would be a serious economic problem for Northern Ireland, a border on the Irish Sea would be an economic disaster. It is extremely short-sighted of republicans to be calling for a border on the Irish Sea because of this. It will lead to the people of the North blaming the border on the Irish Sea for their economic disaster and wishing to have the border with the Six Counties reinstated*. By contrast, if a hard border with the South is seen as the cause of economic problems, it will increase pressure for closer ties with the South.

*Unless of course you believe in the fairytale that a united island economy is the solution to all our problems.

Professor Moriarty · 03-10-2017 05:38PM

Gerry T wrote: »

Agh, so it's the Norway deal their after!

They just don't know it yet. Barnier will let them know when he's ready.

mountaintop · 03-10-2017 05:39PM

Calina wrote: »

That is Ray Bassett's paper, isn't it? It has been massively criticised.

Ray Bassett should be ashamed of himself, getting into bed with Michael Gove's Policy Exchange, especially as he is a former Irish diplomat himself. And what about this endless harping from Solo in favour of Brexit with the most ridiculous arguments. I can't get my head around the fact that he is an Irish immigrant himself (he has said as such) espousing the views of the Tory far-right. I don't get it, where does he get off? Wait till they come for him post Brexit: 'Come on Paddy, you're taking our jobs etc, etc'.
Which reminds me of a programme on the BBC recently about the motorway building programme in the 1950s and 1960s. There showed a clip of a march in a north England town against immigrants (i.e. Irish) taking jobs from locals. They interviewed an Irish navvy and asked him did he agree and he replied in a thick Kerry accent 'Sure enough we probably are taking the jobs alright'. Take note Solo...

FrancieBrady · 03-10-2017 05:42PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that most of their trade is with the rest of the UK, not with the South.

A hard border with the Republic would be a serious economic problem for Northern Ireland, a border on the Irish Sea would be an economic disaster. It is extremely short-sighted of republicans to be calling for a border on the Irish Sea because of this. It will lead to the people of the North blaming the border on the Irish Sea for their economic disaster and wishing to have the border with the Six Counties reinstated*. By contrast, if a hard border with the South is seen as the cause of economic problems, it will increase pressure for closer ties with the South.
*Unless of course you believe in the fairytale that a united island economy is the solution to all our problems.

Why would it be anymore of an economic disaster than a hard border?

Please consider all aspects of what might happen if a hard border is re-instated. Because that is what sensible pragmatic people are doing. Considering ALL the implications, political and economic.

*and i know you are trying to pull this conversation into your usual crusade, but I, for one, am not biting.

blanch152 · 03-10-2017 06:22PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would it be anymore of an economic disaster than a hard border?

Please consider all aspects of what might happen if a hard border is re-instated. Because that is what sensible pragmatic people are doing. Considering ALL the implications, political and economic.

*and i know you are trying to pull this conversation into your usual crusade, but I, for one, am not biting.

To use a famous political quotation - it's the economy, stupid.

Northern Ireland will suffer more economically with an Irish Sea border - its closest economic ties are with the rest of the UK. Ironically, large Protestant farmers will suffer most with a hard border with the Republic, might make them rethink on the unity question.

As for the politics, I just don't believe the scaremongering on here and elsewhere about a return to violence. Events like the other day in Las Vegas, and in recent years in Paris and London, have hardened public opinion against terrorist activity. Anyone encouraging or participating in a return to violence in the event of a hard border will be shunned and reviled across the EU, it just won't be tolerated in the world of today.

FrancieBrady · 03-10-2017 06:30PM

blanch152 wrote: »

To use a famous political quotation - it's the economy, stupid.

Northern Ireland will suffer more economically with an Irish Sea border - its closest economic ties are with the rest of the UK. Ironically, large Protestant farmers will suffer most with a hard border with the Republic, might make them rethink on the unity question.

As for the politics, I just don't believe the scaremongering on here and elsewhere about a return to violence. Events like the other day in Las Vegas, and in recent years in Paris and London, have hardened public opinion against terrorist activity. Anyone encouraging or participating in a return to violence in the event of a hard border will be shunned and reviled across the EU, it just won't be tolerated in the world of today.

We have just had the biggest single mass shooting in the US despite the 'hardening'.
And according to some, western civilisation is under threat from ISIS.
So public opinion is clearly not all it is cracked up to be.

Please explain how a sea border will be much more economically damaging than an - all things considered - hard border?

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments