Brexit discussion thread II

breatheme · 04-10-2017 12:04AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_hard_borders_of_the_mind_brexit_northern_ireland_and_the_7273

This is just an option piece - I'm still waiting for someone to point to an actual clause in the agreement which states that the border can not be controlled and I suspect I'll be waiting along time because it just is not there.

This is something I've been biting my lip on. People say that a border goes against the GFA agreement. It doesn't. The CTA is also not mentioned in the GFA, and it itself exists out of agreements that are not legally binding. This means that, effectively, Ireland could leave the CTA tomorrow and join Schengen and it would not be breaking the GFA. As long as people born in NI can claim Irish citizenship, it doesn't matter if there's border infrastructure in place, Ireland's not breaking the GFA.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-10-2017 12:38AM

Monarch airlines folded, one of the reasons was the fall in sterling.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41466722
A part of me thinks they on of the final nails in the coffin was Brexit because it wasn't going to make things any easier.

Still it means Ryanair might have some new hires.

FrancieBrady · 04-10-2017 06:44AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, there is plenty of wrong there. Ascribing "unionist pride" to my arguments is a cop-out and a way to escape debating the merit of the points raised.

I am not going to go off-topic on the rights issue but Varadkar nailed it in the Dail this week.

On the sea border issue, the economic facts were presented in the other thread and exposed the problems with the idea, apart all together that imposing such a border without letting the people of Northern Ireland vote on it would be a breach of the GFA.

There are problems with all solutions.
There are no 'facts' that I can see that make a sea border more economically damaging if you are looking at all the implications.

And given our history is it important to look at all the implications and not to get blinded.

Fratton Fred · 04-10-2017 06:51AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Monarch airlines folded, one of the reasons was the fall in sterling.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41466722
A part of me thinks they on of the final nails in the coffin was Brexit because it wasn't going to make things any easier.

Still it means Ryanair might have some new hires.

Monarch are mainly Airbus, Ryanair are Boeing. Aer Lingus, Whizz Air and Easy jet have already approached Monarch pilots, Ryanair will miss out.

AirBerlin have gone into receivership as well as Alitalia, what we’re seeing is survival of the fittest and biggest and doesn’t really have much to do with Brexit.

FrancieBrady · 04-10-2017 06:55AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

This is just an option piece - I'm still waiting for someone to point to an actual clause in the agreement which states that the border can not be controlled and I suspect I'll be waiting along time because it just is not there.

I don't think anyone said that the 'GFA states that a border cannot be controlled'.

Some more reading on it here. Plenty to be very concerned about. And I think there is no doubt that it has 'implications' for the agreement.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI(2017)583116_EN.pdf

http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2017/JCIGFA_Brexit_Report_FINAL.pdf

solodeogloria · 04-10-2017 07:15AM

swampgas wrote: »

Because one part is on a different island with a complex land border with an EU neighbour? Because it might help address issues with the GFA after Brexit? Because it might be part of a creative and flexible solution to the impact of Brexit on NI?

Never say never. We're being creative and flexible, remember.

An internal border between NI and GB is a distinct solution for the Irish border. Surely all those technical marvels that were going to work on making the Ireland-NI border "frictionless" would work even better on the NI-GB border?

Good morning!

The question you need to answer is why are we trying to keep the border in Ireland open?

For Northern Ireland's benefit primarily along with more isolated border counties.

So if you propose a more harmful solution to Northern Ireland than a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland then if course it will be rejected because it isn't in Northern Ireland's interests to be isolated from Britain economically. The UK obviously won't permit an internal border within the UK.

Again, this is why the EU need to consider a bespoke arrangement recognising the particular challenges that wouldn't cripple Northern Ireland's economy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 04-10-2017 07:46AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The question you need to answer is why are we trying to keep the border in Ireland open?

For Northern Ireland's benefit primarily along with more isolated border counties.

So if you propose a more harmful solution to Northern Ireland than a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland then if course it will be rejected because it isn't in Northern Ireland's interests to be isolated from Britain economically. The UK obviously won't permit an internal border within the UK.

Again, this is why the EU need to consider a bespoke arrangement recognising the particular challenges that wouldn't cripple Northern Ireland's economy.

You are correct that a bespoke arrangement is needed, but I see it only counting towards Northern Ireland and not the UK. There are a few of reasons for this. You cannot discount the history, very recent history, of violence on the island.

Secondly the fact that its the only border that is shared with the UK also has an influence. Thirdly, the people of Northern Ireland voted to STAY in the EU. As you have pointed out before democracy should be followed, and while the UK voted to leave the EU I think in the interests of democracy you have to look at this as a factor.

Now the deal that the EU can propose Northern Ireland cannot be that the UK don't have to have borders or customs checks along the whole UK border and still be outside of the customs union. There is a natural border already that makes this easy to control and it would be foolish not to look at it.

If the UK won't look at a bespoke arrangement recognizing those factors then they are just not prepared to negotiate.

solodeogloria · 04-10-2017 07:50AM

Good morning!

Perhaps we're looking at different negotiations.

The UK is ready and willing to discuss and has provided papers for discussing options for keeping the border open. The EU are holding up progress on the border by refusing to discuss trade and customs by their unreasonable demand for Britain to bend 100% to it's view.

"Sufficient progress" is and was a rat because like many terms that come out of Brussels it wasn't defined.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 04-10-2017 07:56AM

There is no bespoke arrangement. NI either gets special status within the EU customs union and single market or we get land border controls because the UK has insisted that it won't subject itself to the ECJ which by definition precludes membership of the single market.

A single market needs a single court of last resort. That is the ECJ.

NI getting special status would 100% be more damaging than the land border in the short term due to NI's close economic ties with GB. It just might work out better for NI (relatively!) if the UK economy really tanks, to be outside and able to trade with a presumably stable EU. It may even profit from GB firms relocating there. But that's pure speculation.

Our government must look out for the economic interests of the majority in the Republic. Northern Ireland must come as a secondary concern.

My personal preference is for a sea border but NI would need additional propping up to offset the lost trade with GB for an indeterminate period of time. Who would provide this funding?

murphaph · 04-10-2017 08:01AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Perhaps we're looking at different negotiations.

The UK is ready and willing to discuss and has provided papers for discussing options for keeping the border open. The EU are holding up progress on the border by refusing to discuss trade and customs by their unreasonable demand for Britain to bend 100% to it's view.

"Sufficient progress" is and was a rat because like many terms that come out of Brussels it wasn't defined.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If the UK had made sufficient progress in the other 2 strands then they would probably have been satisfied in Brussels to move towards trade and Ireland in one go, but not one of the 3 key areas, agreed by both sides, have been nailed down.

The UK is seemingly not prepared to compromise to a degree where anything more than a FTA like CETA can be offered. The EU is not going to make another mistake like the unwieldy agreement with CH.

Enzokk · 04-10-2017 08:03AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Perhaps we're looking at different negotiations.

The UK is ready and willing to discuss and has provided papers for discussing options for keeping the border open. The EU are holding up progress on the border by refusing to discuss trade and customs by their unreasonable demand for Britain to bend 100% to it's view.

"Sufficient progress" is and was a rat because like many terms that come out of Brussels it wasn't defined.

I see negotiations where the UK has proposed to leave the customs union but still wants to have an open border. That has been rejected as,

Michel Barnier wrote:

"Creativity and flexibility can't be at the expense of the integrity of the single market and customs union.
"This would be not fair for Ireland and it would not be fair for the European Union."

EU 'worried' by UK's Irish border proposals

All I do see is that the UK has said Northern Ireland will leave the single market and the customs union along with the UK. The UK seems intent on this, but apparently it is the EU that is not "flexible" in finding solutions.

I don't see how you have no checks but are out of the customs union. I think you and James Brokenshire are both in dream land if you think this is possible. You clearly, along with the UK government, want your cake and want to eat it as well. You cannot be outside the customs union without customs checks. Is that clear?

Minister insists UK will leave EU 'as one nation', spurning suggestion Northern Ireland could stay in single market

But let me guess, this isn't the UK being unreasonable or setting hard lines in the negotiations, its just a starting position.

Zubeneschamali · 04-10-2017 08:39AM

A leaked memo from Juncker's office early this year on the RTE news, suggesting that NI could be included in an all-island zone for agrifood, with EU standards in effect in NI, no border (hooray say NI farmers) and checks at NI ports on food and animals crossing from the UK (boo say unionists).

Also an offhand remark from the reporter that Varadkar told Irish officials to stop technical work on border solutions as they were getting ahead of the political situation, and risked doing the UK's homework for them.

Samaris · 04-10-2017 08:51AM

No harm to have some ideas in reserve for if/when this whole thing crashes up against the deadline and nothing's done. We need our own safeguards in place in case the UK absolutely cannot get its act together.

Jim2007 · 04-10-2017 09:00AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is ready and willing to discuss and has provided papers for discussing options for keeping the border open. The EU are holding up progress on the border by refusing to discuss trade and customs by their unreasonable demand for Britain to bend 100% to it's view.

And rightly so! There is no way to even have relaxed border control as in the case of Switzerland unless the U.K. commits to enforcing EU standards in all of it's trade deal. They are not willing to do that, so it is not going to happen. Just because the inhabitants of fantasy island think it is possible does not mean the rest of the EU have to go along with it.

Chips Lovell · 04-10-2017 09:56AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

Sorry, I may not have explained it clearly. May said in Florence they'd seek a two year transition deal, post exit, which would temporarily leave them in an arrangement not unlike Norway's. I speculated that this transition period would be continually extended. Hence, "de-facto Norway".

Nobody in the British government will come out and say they want a permanent Norway-style arrangement, because it won't fly politically. The only thing that might is a fudge where it is dressed up as temporary.

mickoneill31 · 04-10-2017 10:00AM

Samaris wrote: »

No harm to have some ideas in reserve for if/when this whole thing crashes up against the deadline and nothing's done. We need our own safeguards in place in case the UK absolutely cannot get its act together.

The longer this goes on the more likely this is to be required.
From what I've seen, the uk will be unable to square this circle so it'll be the EUs responsibility to police our side.

I'm not educated in the possibilities so all I can see that is possible is a hard border. This will give the UK a reason to blame the EU for the next several years which will suit the UK government and appeal to the leaver voters.

The Rape of Lucretia · 04-10-2017 10:12AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, this is why the EU need to consider a bespoke arrangement recognising the particular challenges that wouldn't cripple Northern Ireland's economy.

Which I am sure they would, if one was proposed. But so far, all they have heard is "frictionless", "invisible", "bespoke", "creative" - with no substance. Just 'magical thinking'. As long as the EU is given nothing concrete to consider, then there is nothing to consider.
And without that, then clearly 'substantial progress' has not been made, when such a critical issue is still no more than waffle, or a blank page.

Fratton Fred · 04-10-2017 10:14AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A leaked memo from Juncker's office early this year on the RTE news, suggesting that NI could be included in an all-island zone for agrifood, with EU standards in effect in NI, no border (hooray say NI farmers) and checks at NI ports on food and animals crossing from the UK (boo say unionists).

Also an offhand remark from the reporter that Varadkar told Irish officials to stop technical work on border solutions as they were getting ahead of the political situation, and risked doing the UK's homework for them.

JC seems to have a big issue with leaks in his office. A cynic might think he did this deliberately :rolleyes:

Ireland needs to have a good plan, because there is no plan B for Ireland. There is a lot of talk about Ireland having the right to veto any deal, but in reality, that is the worst possible scenario for Ireland,because that means hardest of Brexits with a full blown hard border.

blanch152 · 04-10-2017 10:17AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think anyone said that the 'GFA states that a border cannot be controlled'.

Some more reading on it here. Plenty to be very concerned about. And I think there is no doubt that it has 'implications' for the agreement.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI(2017)583116_EN.pdf

http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2017/JCIGFA_Brexit_Report_FINAL.pdf

I read the Oireachtas Report (why did you get it from the Sinn Fein website?) and there is absolutely no mention of a border being in conflict with the GFA.

Jim2007 · 04-10-2017 10:51AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Sorry, I may not have explained it clearly. May said in Florence they'd seek a two year transition deal, post exit, which would temporarily leave them in an arrangement not unlike Norway's. I speculated that this transition period would be continually extended. Hence, "de-facto Norway".

Nobody in the British government will come out and say they want a permanent Norway-style arrangement, because it won't fly politically. The only thing that might is a fudge where it is dressed up as temporary.

The EU parliament put an end to that yesterday day! Any transition period will require full compliance with EU law both current and newly introduced during the transition period, acceptance of ECJ rulings, FMOP etc...

There is no justification for allowing this nonsense to continue indefinitely, we need to bring it to a close and move on, so that the EU can concentrate on it's own issues.

Jim2007 · 04-10-2017 11:05AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK obviously won't permit an internal border within the UK.

Again, this is why the EU need to consider a bespoke arrangement recognising the particular challenges that wouldn't cripple Northern Ireland's economy.

Well if this continues and after March 2019 the U.K. finds:
- Full membership of the WTO vetoed by the EU
- WTO members unwilling to start talks with the U.K. until such time as it is approved
- No open skies agreement
- No visa free travel to Europe
- etc

I expect as usual that NI will not be very high on the list of priorities.

Chips Lovell · 04-10-2017 11:15AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

The EU parliament put an end to that yesterday day! Any transition period will require full compliance with EU law both current and newly introduced during the transition period, acceptance of ECJ rulings, FMOP etc...

That's what I mean actually. In the single market, with all that entails.

Water John · 04-10-2017 11:17AM

Well the feeling in Birmingham is that the hard talking with the EU wouldn't start until the end of the year: BBC2

Zubeneschamali · 04-10-2017 11:37AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Nobody in the British government will come out and say they want a permanent Norway-style arrangement, because it won't fly politically. The only thing that might is a fudge where it is dressed up as temporary.

NI farmers have asked for at least a 5 year transitional period.

Boris has demanded a strict 2 year period until March 2021, and several people at the Tory conference have been pushing back, saying it may need to be longer.

breatheme · 04-10-2017 11:45AM

As long as they realise that the transition period means sticking to all the nasty EU things they don't like (FOM, ECJ, etc.) then fine by me, they can do that as long as they want.

Charles Babbage · 04-10-2017 11:52AM

breatheme wrote: »

This is something I've been biting my lip on. People say that a border goes against the GFA agreement. It doesn't. The CTA is also not mentioned in the GFA, and it itself exists out of agreements that are not legally binding. This means that, effectively, Ireland could leave the CTA tomorrow and join Schengen and it would not be breaking the GFA. As long as people born in NI can claim Irish citizenship, it doesn't matter if there's border infrastructure in place, Ireland's not breaking the GFA.

You can nitpick and state that the GFA doesn't mention this or that but this is neither here nor there. The GFA was an encoding of a set of principles, it cannot mention in detail everything for all time. What is perfectly clear is that any harassment of people crossing the border is a breach of the peace settlement, whatever legal trickery is used to justify this by reference to the exact wording of the GFA, and this is as true of Dublin government doing it as the British.

If the IRA came along and started using cyber warfare against the British and argued that the GFA didn't mention anything about this, would you agree that this did not present a problem because it wasn't explicitly mentioned?

flatty · 04-10-2017 11:56AM

Slight off topic, but very relevant personally, I'm now likely to sell out or wind up in the UK and move home (the company was a major local employer, but I'll not stay where I'm not wanted, and I want the kids to grow up in a modern European democracy)
My wife is English. If we move before brexit, will she be allowed to work after brexit?

FrancieBrady · 04-10-2017 11:57AM

blanch152 wrote: »

I read the Oireachtas Report (why did you get it from the Sinn Fein website?) and there is absolutely no mention of a border being in conflict with the GFA.

It was the 1st doc that came up when I googled? Is it illegal to visit SF website or something?

I didn't say a border was in conflict with the GFA but I agree that Brexit contravenes the spirit of the GFA.

solodeogloria · 04-10-2017 12:09PM

murphaph wrote: »

If the UK had made sufficient progress in the other 2 strands then they would probably have been satisfied in Brussels to move towards trade and Ireland in one go, but not one of the 3 key areas, agreed by both sides, have been nailed down.

The UK is seemingly not prepared to compromise to a degree where anything more than a FTA like CETA can be offered. The EU is not going to make another mistake like the unwieldy agreement with CH.

Jim2007 wrote: »

And rightly so! There is no way to even have relaxed border control as in the case of Switzerland unless the U.K. commits to enforcing EU standards in all of it's trade deal. They are not willing to do that, so it is not going to happen. Just because the inhabitants of fantasy island think it is possible does not mean the rest of the EU have to go along with it.

Good morning!

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

My point is there is a difference between progress and absolute agreement. Absolute agreement won't happen unless the EU is willing to compromise. The UK have offered some compromise but not a complete bending to the EU position.

If "sufficient progress" means absolute agreement with the EU then I would say Davis is wasting his time with unreasonable people. A negotiation involves some compromise on both sides. If the EU are unwilling to compromise this isn't a negotiation.

The UK have offered funding to cover a shortfall in the EU budget in exchange for transitional terms.

The UK have offered direct effect and direct right of appeal in the event of any modification to the legislation in respect to EU rights.

Paying carte blanche without transitional terms is unreasonable.

Becoming a vassal state of the ECJ after Brexit is also unreasonable.

There are ways to get through this impasse but it does require the EU to accept that it is unlikely that the UK will agree 100% with it's initial position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 04-10-2017 12:15PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Gentlemen, I would honestly love to know where you get your unbridled passion for the Euro-federalist project from. Perhaps it could change my mind! You speak as if the Euro-federalist institutions and project are like a first love that you would give anything up for to defend.

We are talking about the Single Market and customs union here. For why they are good, see Margaret Thatcher's comments:

Underneath the rhetoric, the old barriers remained. Not just against the outside world, but between the European countries. Not the classic barriers of tariffs, but the insiduous ones of differing national standards, various restrictions on the provision of services, exclusion of foreign firms from public contracts. Now that's going to change. Britain has given the lead. [There was a tendency in Europe to talk in lofty tones of European Union. That may be good for the soul. But the body—Europe's firms and organisations and the people who work in them—needs something more nourishing.] We recognised that if Europe was going to be more than a slogan then we must get the basics right. That meant action. Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community. All this is what Europe is now committed to do. In 1985 the Community's Heads of Government gave a pledge to complete the single market by 1992. To make sure that it was not just a pious hope, they made that pledge part of the Treaty, as the Single European Act. So it's going to happen. Indeed the barriers are already coming down. Monsieur Delors, the President of the Commission, and our own Commissioner Arthur Cockfield, deserve a lot of credit for the way in which they are keeping up the momentum.

The Challenge

So far Britain hasn't done nearly well enough in trade with Europe. True, the direction of our trade has been transformed. Half of it is now with the European Community. But the balance is nothing like satisfactory, especially in manufactured goods. The fact is that although we haven't done very well in Europe, Europe has done very well in Britain. Our national failure to make the most of the opportunities when we joined the Community was part of a much more general failure.
In those days, Britain was in the forefront of those resisting change, in fighting to preserve the barriers. Some in Britain still see it that way, but they are getting fewer and fewer. The difference is that now we can look forward with confidence to sweeping away the barriers. We have a highly successful economy. We have had seven years of growth. Job creation in this country is unmatched anywhere else in Europe. We have a climate in Britain in which business wants to succeed and can succeed. We have a chance to be world leaders again. The task now is to harness that spirit of enterprise to tackling the challenge of the Single Market

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments