Brexit discussion thread II

FrancieBrady · 11-11-2017 12:03AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The supported brexit the blame is already their's in terms of NI.

Yes, but they ship the blame in the entire UK. Which will be gagging for a deal at that stage IMO.

Nody · 11-11-2017 12:38AM

You'd think May would learn from previous attempts but sadly she's a fool bent on repeating the same mistakes over and over again:

But The Independent understands that Ms May will not allow herself to be tied down by Mr Barnier’ two-week deadine, and will instead appeal directly to leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Angela Merkel in order to push for progress in talks.

There is expected to be a flurry of diplomatic activity in European capitals ahead of the next summit, which will see UK officials highlighting concessions already made and the benefits of moving forward.

FrancieBrady · 11-11-2017 12:57AM

As well as the British spelling out how they are gonna deal with the border issue, I wish Leo would do a bit too. Apparently he said very emphatically in his address tonight 'There will be no border on the island of Ireland'.
But how are you going to ensure that Leo?

Nate--IRL-- · 11-11-2017 01:00AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As well as the British spelling out how they are gonna deal with the border issue, I wish Leo would do a bit too. Apparently he said very emphatically in his address tonight 'There will be no border on the island of Ireland'.
But how are you going to ensure that Leo?

He can't.

Nate

Water John · 11-11-2017 01:01AM

He can only support the staus quo and use our influence in Europe.

Not sure how you expect him to ensure that the UK don't put up border posts?

His speech was as direct as could be possible and just next to the border. Has echoes of JFK saying, 'I am a Berliner'.

View · 11-11-2017 02:24AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As well as the British spelling out how they are gonna deal with the border issue, I wish Leo would do a bit too. Apparently he said very emphatically in his address tonight 'There will be no border on the island of Ireland'.
But how are you going to ensure that Leo?

He’s going to apply to re-join the UK. Hey, presto! No need for a border at all. :-)

FrancieBrady · 11-11-2017 10:27AM

Water John wrote: »

He can only support the staus quo and use our influence in Europe.

Not sure how you expect him to ensure that the UK don't put up border posts?

His speech was as direct as could be possible and just next to the border. Has echoes of JFK saying, 'I am a Berliner'.

Heard him actually saying it this morning. Sounded very absolute to me.

Samaris · 11-11-2017 10:33AM

I think it's a bit pie in the sky to see anything but a hard border between NI and the republic. Hell, Davis doesn't seem entirely sure of what it is, given previous mention of it being an 'internal border' (twice in one speech, albeit a little while ago now, so hopefully he's been given a crash vourse in geography since.) Not really au fait with how to go linking articles with this phone, but it did happen! (And this is the genius in charge of the negotiations? It's hardly the only time he's shown a fundamental lack of understanding of what he's doing.)

The Irish Sea border is definitely best for the republic, but the UK really can't agree to that. It would be (another) abandonment of the north. NI residents would presumably need ID to travel to the UK and would be a bit of a free for all in terms of regulation. Also, what does that mean for UK regulated goods and agricultural livestock? Can they get to the island freely? How to prevent them coming into the south? What does this mean for Irish trade if there's an incident ( say Foot and Mouth). Do Irish exports get hit too due to the risk of infection?

It's absolute bull for the papers/Ministers to whine that they were 'blindsided' by this though. It's hardly been hidden for the last six months. That they didn't want to talk about it never meant that the problem went away. The divorce bill is mostly difficult due to intransigence. The Irish border is actually difficult and unclear. But it has been bleedin' obvious from the start that it would be a hard border on the island or a border in the sea. The former is more likely and Ireland must be prepared for it by March 2019 - not least as Britain probably won't be.

FrancieBrady · 11-11-2017 10:47AM

Samaris wrote: »

I think it's a bit pie in the sky to see anything but a hard border between NI and the republic. Hell, Davis doesn't seem entirely sure of what it is, given previous mention of it being an 'internal border' (twice in one speech, albeit a little while ago now, so hopefully he's been given a crash vourse in geography since.) Not really au fait with how to go linking articles with this phone, but it did happen! (And this is the genius in charge of the negotiations? It's hardly the only time he's shown a fundamental lack of understanding of what he's doing.)

The Irish Sea border is definitely best for the republic, but the UK really can't agree to that. It would be (another) abandonment of the north. NI residents would presumably need ID to travel to the UK and would be a bit of a free for all in terms of regulation. Also, what does that mean for UK regulated goods and agricultural livestock? Can they get to the island freely? How to prevent them coming into the south? What does this mean for Irish trade if there's an incident ( say Foot and Mouth). Do Irish exports get hit too due to the risk of infection?

It's absolute bull for the papers/Ministers to whine that they were 'blindsided' by this though. It's hardly been hidden for the last six months. That they didn't want to talk about it never meant that the problem went away. The divorce bill is mostly difficult due to intransigence. The Irish border is actually difficult and unclear. But it has been bleedin' obvious from the start that it would be a hard border on the island or a border in the sea. The former is more likely and Ireland must be prepared for it by March 2019 - not least as Britain probably won't be.

I am not getting why the incidence of for e.g. Foot and Mouth is such a problem.

We were both(Ireland and the UK) in the EU when it broke out before and we had to fortify the border anyway and took measures to protect ourselves within the EU.
Outbreaks like that, I would assume would simply bring special challenges that we respond to as we always did.

steddyeddy · 11-11-2017 11:17AM

Ah it gets better. A headline in the Sun today states that the political wing of the IRA via Gerry Adams is responsible for the "new" border problem. It's funny seeing the brexiters in a rage all the time.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4889870/iras-political-wing-sinn-fein-to-blame-for-new-brexit-stand-off-over-northern-ireland-border-ministers-say/amp/

ancapailldorcha · 11-11-2017 11:22AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah it gets better. A headline in the Sun today states that the political wing of the IRA via Gerry Adams is responsible for the "new" border problem. It's funny seeing the brexiters in a rage all the time.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4889870/iras-political-wing-sinn-fein-to-blame-for-new-brexit-stand-off-over-northern-ireland-border-ministers-say/amp/

I disagree. It isn't funny at all. They're in charge and they're the ones making the decisions on the border. Their ignorance on the issue is blatant. They're only concern is getting out of the EU because they hate it, not for prosperity, not for stability or trade but just because they hate the EU. The welfare of the people of the island of Ireland doesn't matter one whit to them.

Sam Russell · 11-11-2017 11:34AM

Samaris wrote: »

I think it's a bit pie in the sky to see anything but a hard border between NI and the republic. Hell, Davis doesn't seem entirely sure of what it is, given previous mention of it being an 'internal border' (twice in one speech, albeit a little while ago now, so hopefully he's been given a crash vourse in geography since.) Not really au fait with how to go linking articles with this phone, but it did happen! (And this is the genius in charge of the negotiations? It's hardly the only time he's shown a fundamental lack of understanding of what he's doing.)

The Irish Sea border is definitely best for the republic, but the UK really can't agree to that. It would be (another) abandonment of the north. NI residents would presumably need ID to travel to the UK and would be a bit of a free for all in terms of regulation. Also, what does that mean for UK regulated goods and agricultural livestock? Can they get to the island freely? How to prevent them coming into the south? What does this mean for Irish trade if there's an incident ( say Foot and Mouth). Do Irish exports get hit too due to the risk of infection?

It's absolute bull for the papers/Ministers to whine that they were 'blindsided' by this though. It's hardly been hidden for the last six months. That they didn't want to talk about it never meant that the problem went away. The divorce bill is mostly difficult due to intransigence. The Irish border is actually difficult and unclear. But it has been bleedin' obvious from the start that it would be a hard border on the island or a border in the sea. The former is more likely and Ireland must be prepared for it by March 2019 - not least as Britain probably won't be.

As I see it, there are four possible solutions to the NI border. (Five if you include the UK dropping Brexit!)

1. The UK remains in the customs union and the single market.

2. The UK agrees that NI remains in the customs union and the single market while the UK leaves and so the EU border is in the sea.

3. A hard border on the island of Ireland.

4. A united Ireland.

The first has been ruled out, but a transition of 5 years or so would enable the negotiations to move on. Th UK are saying the NI border should be discussed as part of the trade negotiations as the two are tied up together. The EU are saying that the NI border dictates the type of trade deal and must be decided first as the GFA is at issue.

The third option has been ruled out by the EU and by Ireland who can veto the agreement (if ever we get that far).

That leaves option 2 and 4. Both are unlikely to be accepted by the DUP, The UI option requires a referendum in both NI and ROI to be passed. The second option is less bad for the DUP, so given a 'No Deal' or 'Border at sea' which way would they jump? I think they would jump off the cliff.

The above is all trade related. On the question of people, National ID cards will answer most problems the UK faces regarding immigration, both EU and rest of the world immigration. They should apply to the whole population, not just NI or 'foreign' folk. It then becomes easy for employers and landlords. 'Papers please!'

FrancieBrady · 11-11-2017 11:42AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I see it, there are four possible solutions to the NI border. (Five if you include the UK dropping Brexit!)

1. The UK remains in the customs union and the single market.

2. The UK agrees that NI remains in the customs union and the single market while the UK leaves and so the EU border is in the sea.

3. A hard border on the island of Ireland.

4. A united Ireland.

The first has been ruled out, but a transition of 5 years or so would enable the negotiations to move on. Th UK are saying the NI border should be discussed as part of the trade negotiations as the two are tied up together. The EU are saying that the NI border dictates the type of trade deal and must be decided first as the GFA is at issue.

The third option has been ruled out by the EU and by Ireland who can veto the agreement (if ever we get that far).

That leaves option 2 and 4. Both are unlikely to be accepted by the DUP, The UI option requires a referendum in both NI and ROI to be passed. The second option is less bad for the DUP, so given a 'No Deal' or 'Border at sea' which way would they jump? I think they would jump off the cliff.

The sad fact of Brexit is that somebody has to 'lose' over this issue.

I think it will be the DUP, tbh. They have boxed themselves into a corner.

They have fallen behind the 'Brexit was the will of all the UK' mantra, the will of the UK vis a viz a 'deal' might snooker them yet.

Samaris · 11-11-2017 11:45AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not getting why the incidence of for e.g. Foot and Mouth is such a problem.

We were both(Ireland and the UK) in the EU when it broke out before and we had to fortify the border anyway and took measures to protect ourselves within the EU.
Outbreaks like that, I would assume would simply bring special challenges that we respond to as we always did.

The last time it happened was down to an illegal movement of UK-origin stock across the border. The UK has an awful record for these outbreaks (three out of seven or so major outbreaks started there) even while following EU regs. Following Brexit, there will almost certainly be a decrease in regulatory standards - note the Wilbur Ross comment regarding an American trade deal. Along with that, it'll be the main card that Britain can play for desperately-needed deals with other countries.

Agriculture is a big part of our economy, and outbreaks that lead to livestock destruction can be devastating. I know it looks a bit oddly specific to focus on, but it will be a real problem, even if not an obvious one until it happens. My personal opinion is that it probably will happen at some point, and more likely to without checks between a less-regulated NI and the Republic. We're already going to have enough Brexit-related issues to deal with and don't need to invite that sort of economic shock while doing so. The safest thing for other EU countries and non-EU countries alike would be a hold on imports from the island in that situation.

We might get lucky. I don't like relying on luck though.

Note on assumptions above;
- Border in the Irish Sea; unlikely, politically unconscionable in Britain.
- Loss of regulatory equivelance: likely. Particularly smaller firms will push for lower regs (those that primarily deal with domestic markets) as will other countries seeking trade deals. And the impact of the Great Repeal Bill implications allow such changes to be made in an unclear and hidden fashion (see total lack of talks about overseeing what changes are made)
- That people will continue to bring stuff they shouldn't around the island; almost certainly. A bit of smuggling is openly accepted across the border, say Halloween fireworks and Christmas shopping in Newry. I know there are regs on thibgs like electronics, but they get ignored and no-one really gives a damn.
- That cattle will still be (illegally) moved; likely. That's what happened the first time, and it's in the accepted culture to pootle back and forth on nothing but an honour system.
- That F&M will continue to be an issue in agriculture in Britain from time to time; likely. One contributing issue is vets. Most vets that work in slaughterhouses ( which tends to be where these diseases get noticed by vets) have been EU citizens (who are rapidly leaving). Most people going into vet work don't do it for a career in a slaughterhouse so I at least expect a contraction there, resulting in poorer oversight.
- That we won't spot it in time: I don't know. But the situation is more likely to start given the above and it will be harder to spot without our own checks...where?

I need to look up the response from other countries when it happened, but I do seem to recall it didn't go that well for us.

My issue with the border isn't wholly wrapped up in agricultural diseases, mind you. It's just one of many issues that highlights the lack of thought that's gone into the border question in the talks. And while unromantic, agriculture is deeply important to the Irish economy.

FrancieBrady · 11-11-2017 11:53AM

Samaris wrote: »

The last time it happened was down to an illegal movement of UK-origin stock across the border. The UK has an awful record for these outbreaks (three out of seven or so major outbreaks started there) even while following EU regs. Following Brexit, there will almost certainly be a decrease in regulatory standards - note the Wilbur Ross comment regarding an American trade deal. Along with that, it'll be the main card that Britain can play for desperately-needed deals with other countries.

Agriculture is a big part of our economy, and outbreaks that lead to livestock destruction can be devastating. I know it looks a bit oddly specific to focus on, but it will be a real problem, even if not an obvious one until it happens. My personal opinion is that it probably will happen at some point, and more likely to without checks between a less-regulated NI and the Republic. We're already going to have enough Brexit-related issues to deal with and don't need to invite that sort of economic shock while doing so. The safest thing for other EU countries and non-EU countries alike would be a hold on imports from the island in that situation.

We might get lucky. I don't like relying on luck though.

Note on assumptions above;
- Border in the Irish Sea; unlikely, politically unconscionable in Britain.
- Loss of regulatory equivelance: likely. Particularly smaller firms will push for lower regs (those that primarily deal with domestic markets) as will other countries seeking trade deals. And the impact of the Great Repeal Bill implications allow such changes to be made in an unclear and hidden fashion (see total lack of talks about overseeing what changes are made)
- That people will continue to bring stuff they shouldn't around the island; almost certainly. A bit of smuggling is openly accepted across the border, say Halloween fireworks and Christmas shopping in Newry. I know there are regs on thibgs like electronics, but they get ignored and no-one really gives a damn.
- That cattle will still be (illegally) moved; likely. That's what happened the first time, and it's in the accepted culture to pootle back and forth on nothing but an honour system.
- That F&M will continue to be an issue in agriculture in Britain from time to time; likely. One contributing issue is vets. Most vets that work in slaughterhouses ( which tends to be where these diseases get noticed by vets) have been EU citizens (who are rapidly leaving). Most people going into vet work don't do it for a career in a slaughterhouse so I at least expect a contraction there, resulting in poorer oversight.
- That we won't spot it in time: I don't know. But the situation is more likely to start given the above and it will be harder to spot without our own checks...where?

I need to look up the response from other countries when it happened, but I do seem to recall it didn't go that well for us.

My issue with the border isn't wholly wrapped up in agricultural diseases, mind you. It's just one of many issues that highlights the lack of thought that's gone into the border question in the talks. And while unromantic, agriculture is deeply important to the Irish economy.

I think that points to the stupidity of a border here in the first place. Which is another debate maybe.
I think genuine northern Irish farmers of any political hue would be onside with a system to isolate the entire island in the event of an outbreak. You will only get a delayed warning anyhow, it will already have broken out surely.

Water John · 11-11-2017 11:59AM

That is some nonsense by The Sun.

ROI was never going to accept a hard border. We simply were waiting for it to dawn on UK Ministers. Once we had got it inserted as one of the three key planks on which real movement was needed, that was the good diplomatic work of all Irish civil service and politicians.
Even Ian Paisley was a realist and saw that agricultural issues were best dealt with on an All Ireland basis.

Nody · 11-11-2017 12:07PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I see it, there are four possible solutions to the NI border. (Five if you include the UK dropping Brexit!)

1. The UK remains in the customs union and the single market.

2. The UK agrees that NI remains in the customs union and the single market while the UK leaves and so the EU border is in the sea.

3. A hard border on the island of Ireland.

4. A united Ireland.

The first has been ruled out, but a transition of 5 years or so would enable the negotiations to move on. Th UK are saying the NI border should be discussed as part of the trade negotiations as the two are tied up together. The EU are saying that the NI border dictates the type of trade deal and must be decided first as the GFA is at issue.

The third option has been ruled out by the EU and by Ireland who can veto the agreement (if ever we get that far).

That leaves option 2 and 4. Both are unlikely to be accepted by the DUP, The UI option requires a referendum in both NI and ROI to be passed. The second option is less bad for the DUP, so given a 'No Deal' or 'Border at sea' which way would they jump? I think they would jump off the cliff.

The above is all trade related. On the question of people, National ID cards will answer most problems the UK faces regarding immigration, both EU and rest of the world immigration. They should apply to the whole population, not just NI or 'foreign' folk. It then becomes easy for employers and landlords. 'Papers please!'

You miss one very important point along with most other people posting here; option 3 is the default option. If no deal is struck (which is by far the most likely scenario) then option 3 is the only option to be implemented and that means a hard border full stop. EU and the Irish government can keep on stating they refuse a hard border but if there is no deal then there will be a hard border and the Irish gets to deal with an external border like any other EU country.

Samaris wrote: »

My issue with the border isn't wholly wrapped up in agricultural diseases, mind you. It's just one of many issues that highlights the lack of thought that's gone into the border question in the talks. And while unromantic, agriculture is deeply important to the Irish economy.

Which means a proper hard border is required this time rather than the wink wink nod nod border of yesteryear; if not UK's new lower standards will bring down a ton of issues for Irish farmers and lead to blockade / refusal to buy Irish produce due to lack of control that it's not British smuggled in and rebranded. Sucks for the NI farmers but if the choice is to protect the Irish farmers and produce over the NI farmers smuggling...

Zerbini Blewitt · 11-11-2017 12:07PM

So the plan of one Brexiter faction for a ‘successful’ Brexit is to force the lower (approx) 75% of the UK labour force to compete with current Indian & Chinese working conditions, pay & living conditions (2012 Book review here).

The majority in Britain live their lives an order of magnitude poorer & more precarious (in effect 21st century Dickensian) - that is, for the ones that have jobs - and the rich get richer. What's not to like :rolleyes:

For this faction of Walter Mitty Tories* & murky business figures – direct labour competition with China/India is their brainwave of how to deal with Britains productivity problem. This is what Brexit is all about for them.

They are not stupid (but they are malevolent, out of touch fantastists). Its not clear at this point if they realise Britain must get at a minimum a “no-deal" deal as mentioned earlier. Of course not having a hard border in Ireland is not even an afterthought in their musings.

*Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss

steddyeddy · 11-11-2017 12:48PM

Water John wrote: »

That is some nonsense by The Sun.

ROI was never going to accept a hard border. We simply were waiting for it to dawn on UK Ministers. Once we had got it inserted as one of the three key planks on which real movement was needed, that was the good diplomatic work of all Irish civil service and politicians.
Even Ian Paisley was a realist and saw that agricultural issues were best dealt with on an All Ireland basis.

I think the biggest nonsense is that they think Gerry Adams influenced Leo in anything.

Sam Russell · 11-11-2017 01:21PM

Nody wrote: »

You miss one very important point along with most other people posting here; option 3 is the default option. If no deal is struck (which is by far the most likely scenario) then option 3 is the only option to be implemented and that means a hard border full stop. EU and the Irish government can keep on stating they refuse a hard border but if there is no deal then there will be a hard border and the Irish gets to deal with an external border like any other EU country.

Which means a proper hard border is required this time rather than the wink wink nod nod border of yesteryear; if not UK's new lower standards will bring down a ton of issues for Irish farmers and lead to blockade / refusal to buy Irish produce due to lack of control that it's not British smuggled in and rebranded. Sucks for the NI farmers but if the choice is to protect the Irish farmers and produce over the NI farmers smuggling...

I have not missed it at all. I think that a 'no-deal' result is such a calamity that it must be apparent to all, MPs and voters alike. If a 'no-deal' is about to happen, then there will be last minute agreement to extend the UK membership for long enough to reach agreement, or at least to try. Its immense repercussions might well cause the MPs that want a deal to rebel against the Tory diehards and vote them out. Scottish Tories could well lead the charge.

Will 'remain' Tories agree to a cliff edge disaster? If the UK is thrust into a GE, will the EU agree to extend the deadline? If the UK electorate are faced with a Tory cliff edge or a Labour/LibDem/SNP soft exit, which do they choose?

All I know is that some people's stupidity knows no bounds.

flatty · 11-11-2017 01:57PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah it gets better. A headline in the Sun today states that the political wing of the IRA via Gerry Adams is responsible for the "new" border problem. It's funny seeing the brexiters in a rage all the time.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4889870/iras-political-wing-sinn-fein-to-blame-for-new-brexit-stand-off-over-northern-ireland-border-ministers-say/amp/

I disagree. It isn't funny at all. They're in charge and they're the ones making the decisions on the border. Their ignorance on the issue is blatant. They're only concern is getting out of the EU because they hate it, not for prosperity, not for stability or trade but just because they hate the EU. The welfare of the people of the island of Ireland doesn't matter one whit to them.

I honestly don't think the welfare of their own does either. You keep hoping that this is all just media bluster, and that behind the scenes, senior civil servants are compromising, but, to be honest, I think that May and Co have benefited from this perception for the past few months, and it is looking increasingly likely that the whole thing is actually as much of a clusterfcuk as it appears.
I think people assumed that any functioning government would be capable of pragmatism, common sense, basic good manners, and a degree of empathy, but it appears not.

Nody · 11-11-2017 02:03PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I have not missed it at all. I think that a 'no-deal' result is such a calamity that it must be apparent to all, MPs and voters alike.

Nope; MPs believe they can do great on "WTO terms" and the likes of BBC still have not even the basic information right.

If a 'no-deal' is about to happen, then there will be last minute agreement to extend the UK membership for long enough to reach agreement, or at least to try.

EU has been quite clear they got no interest in doing such a last minute deal(s) and will simply look at cutting the ropes rather then give UK a parachute.

Its immense repercussions might well cause the MPs that want a deal to rebel against the Tory diehards and vote them out. Scottish Tories could well lead the charge.

The tories got more Brexiteers than pro brexit people in power and behind the scenes atm. If they rebel and let's say Labour gets in power nothing will really change because there are not enough MPs with a backbone to stand up for what's going on.

Will 'remain' Tories agree to a cliff edge disaster? If the UK is thrust into a GE, will the EU agree to extend the deadline? If the UK electorate are faced with a Tory cliff edge or a Labour/LibDem/SNP soft exit, which do they choose?

But they all believe that EU will budge and give them a last minute deal with what they want & need; by the time the realization hits in 2019 it will not be enough time for rebellion or a GE to happen. UK will go out without a deal and the big blame game will begin instead.

All I know is that some people's stupidity knows no bounds.

And this part is what makes this scarier then normal; not only are people stupid but they have been actively lied to from MPs downwards. You only need to listen to the probrexit Tories and what they spout about WTO to see how horribly misinformed they are about the subject. From their perspective it makes sense to crash out but the reality is very much different which no one appears to be able to get through to them.

Sam Russell · 11-11-2017 03:06PM

Nody wrote: »

Nope; MPs believe they can do great on "WTO terms" and the likes of BBC still have not even the basic information right.

If a 'no-deal' is about to happen, then there will be last minute agreement to extend the UK membership for long enough to reach agreement, or at least to try.

EU has been quite clear they got no interest in doing such a last minute deal(s) and will simply look at cutting the ropes rather then give UK a parachute.

The tories got more Brexiteers than pro brexit people in power and behind the scenes atm. If they rebel and let's say Labour gets in power nothing will really change because there are not enough MPs with a backbone to stand up for what's going on.

But they all believe that EU will budge and give them a last minute deal with what they want & need; by the time the realization hits in 2019 it will not be enough time for rebellion or a GE to happen. UK will go out without a deal and the big blame game will begin instead.

And this part is what makes this scarier then normal; not only are people stupid but they have been actively lied to from MPs downwards. You only need to listen to the probrexit Tories and what they spout about WTO to see how horribly misinformed they are about the subject. From their perspective it makes sense to crash out but the reality is very much different which no one appears to be able to get through to them.

My point is that, in the event that the Tory Gov collapses in say, Dec 2018 or Jan 2019, and a GE is called, and it looks like a change of Gov will result, I would expect the EU to postpone the jump off the cliff for at least a while, and if the incoming Gov requests a postponement, granting it, but on the understanding that the three basic items are agreed first.

I agree that the head bangers are very vocal, but not necessarily in the majority - particularly in the face of certain catastrophe.

Sand · 11-11-2017 03:10PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. It isn't funny at all. They're in charge and they're the ones making the decisions on the border. Their ignorance on the issue is blatant. They're only concern is getting out of the EU because they hate it, not for prosperity, not for stability or trade but just because they hate the EU. The welfare of the people of the island of Ireland doesn't matter one whit to them.

I think its telling that the piece is trying to portray Ireland and the EU's insistence on the Irish border as an IRA plot. Someone is doing their best to poison the well so that any UK compromise on the issue is seen as surrender to the IRA.

The UK media is appallingly poor quality.

CrabRevolution · 11-11-2017 05:57PM

A common trope in British media comment sections about Ireland seems to be about the UK bailing Ireland out.

The general gist is that the UK lent us money out of the goodness of their hearts (anywhere between 3 and 20 billion pounds is the figure usually produced, the figure is at the commenter's discretion).

In addition to this, we've paid none of it back. Worst of all we've apparently agreed no repayment schedule and the UK is perfectly entitled to demand billions of pounds plus interest in one go off Ireland whenever it feels like getting it's money back.

I've no doubt the UK participated in the main IMO/EC/ECB bailout and as such did provide funding in a roundabout way. However can anyone clarify to me what the real background or relationship is with the Irish bailout and the UK? It has to have come from somewhere for them to go on about it so much.

Nody · 11-11-2017 06:31PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I've no doubt the UK participated in the main IMO/EC/ECB bailout and as such did provide funding in a roundabout way. However can anyone clarify to me what the real background or relationship is with the Irish bailout and the UK? It has to have come from somewhere for them to go on about it so much.

As always it as much BS as the normal stories. Yes, UK did give a direct loan of £3.2 billion as part of the overall bail out but that loan has had interest payments paid of about half a billion and is due to be fully repaid in 2021. Then there's the fact they bailed out their own banks which had Irish subsidies which of course is Ireland's fault for UK banks making poor decisions to the tune of £14 billion and finally there is a more generic funding for EU bailout which they are also getting paid back. So their knowledge is about as accurate as Trump's tweeting; there is truth involved in the underlying story but that they got it completely wrong and argue it as truth.

flatty · 11-11-2017 06:44PM

Sand wrote: »

I think its telling that the piece is trying to portray Ireland and the EU's insistence on the Irish border as an IRA plot. Someone is doing their best to poison the well so that any UK compromise on the issue is seen as surrender to the IRA.

The UK media is appallingly poor quality.

It is The Sun.
I agree with the last line.
I had hoped that the next generation would get more news from the net, and from wider sources, but it seems that their online profiles are susceptible to targeted "advertising". The whole thing is worrying. Party politics is obviously not really working at the minute, but what else is there?
The only forlorn hope for the UK is that brexit,being the preeminent issue, overrides current party lines,and a centrist party forms from the existing ones. Can't see it though. It would need a leader, the likes of which there has t been in generations, and time, which they don't have.

View · 11-11-2017 07:32PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

Nope; MPs believe they can do great on "WTO terms" and the likes of BBC still have not even the basic information right.

If a 'no-deal' is about to happen, then there will be last minute agreement to extend the UK membership for long enough to reach agreement, or at least to try.

EU has been quite clear they got no interest in doing such a last minute deal(s) and will simply look at cutting the ropes rather then give UK a parachute.

The tories got more Brexiteers than pro brexit people in power and behind the scenes atm. If they rebel and let's say Labour gets in power nothing will really change because there are not enough MPs with a backbone to stand up for what's going on.

But they all believe that EU will budge and give them a last minute deal with what they want & need; by the time the realization hits in 2019 it will not be enough time for rebellion or a GE to happen. UK will go out without a deal and the big blame game will begin instead.

And this part is what makes this scarier then normal; not only are people stupid but they have been actively lied to from MPs downwards. You only need to listen to the probrexit Tories and what they spout about WTO to see how horribly misinformed they are about the subject. From their perspective it makes sense to crash out but the reality is very much different which no one appears to be able to get through to them.

My point is that, in the event that the Tory Gov collapses in say, Dec 2018 or Jan 2019, and a GE is called, and it looks like a change of Gov will result, I would expect the EU to postpone the jump off the cliff for at least a while, and if the incoming Gov requests a postponement, granting it, but on the understanding that the three basic items are agreed first.

I agree that the head bangers are very vocal, but not necessarily in the majority - particularly in the face of certain catastrophe.

The EU won’t agree to such an extension. It’s up to the UK’s Brexit government to get itself sorted out. If it doesn’t or cannot, it isn’t up to the EU to step in to help keep the Brexiters’ dream alive.

View · 11-11-2017 07:45PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Samaris wrote: »

I think it's a bit pie in the sky to see anything but a hard border between NI and the republic. Hell, Davis doesn't seem entirely sure of what it is, given previous mention of it being an 'internal border' (twice in one speech, albeit a little while ago now, so hopefully he's been given a crash vourse in geography since.) Not really au fait with how to go linking articles with this phone, but it did happen! (And this is the genius in charge of the negotiations? It's hardly the only time he's shown a fundamental lack of understanding of what he's doing.)

The Irish Sea border is definitely best for the republic, but the UK really can't agree to that. It would be (another) abandonment of the north. NI residents would presumably need ID to travel to the UK and would be a bit of a free for all in terms of regulation. Also, what does that mean for UK regulated goods and agricultural livestock? Can they get to the island freely? How to prevent them coming into the south? What does this mean for Irish trade if there's an incident ( say Foot and Mouth). Do Irish exports get hit too due to the risk of infection?

It's absolute bull for the papers/Ministers to whine that they were 'blindsided' by this though. It's hardly been hidden for the last six months. That they didn't want to talk about it never meant that the problem went away. The divorce bill is mostly difficult due to intransigence. The Irish border is actually difficult and unclear. But it has been bleedin' obvious from the start that it would be a hard border on the island or a border in the sea. The former is more likely and Ireland must be prepared for it by March 2019 - not least as Britain probably won't be.

As I see it, there are four possible solutions to the NI border. (Five if you include the UK dropping Brexit!)

1. The UK remains in the customs union and the single market.

2. The UK agrees that NI remains in the customs union and the single market while the UK leaves and so the EU border is in the sea.

3. A hard border on the island of Ireland.

4. A united Ireland.

The first has been ruled out, but a transition of 5 years or so would enable the negotiations to move on. Th UK are saying the NI border should be discussed as part of the trade negotiations as the two are tied up together. The EU are saying that the NI border dictates the type of trade deal and must be decided first as the GFA is at issue.

The third option has been ruled out by the EU and by Ireland who can veto the agreement (if ever we get that far).

That leaves option 2 and 4. Both are unlikely to be accepted by the DUP, The UI option requires a referendum in both NI and ROI to be passed. The second option is less bad for the DUP, so given a 'No Deal' or 'Border at sea' which way would they jump? I think they would jump off the cliff.

The above is all trade related. On the question of people, National ID cards will answer most problems the UK faces regarding immigration, both EU and rest of the world immigration. They should apply to the whole population, not just NI or 'foreign' folk. It then becomes easy for employers and landlords. 'Papers please!'

The UK has ruled out the second option.

Hence, since the referendum result, it as and always has been option 3 by default .

There is no point in pretending the Emperor is still wearing clothes because no one wants to come out and state he isn’t.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-11-2017 07:56PM

EU citizens 'worth £4.42bn to Scotland'

And a reminder about turkeys voting for Christmas. Any business that plans major investment in the next few years will be looking at all the options.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41915195

Anna Wallace, the director of political relations at the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, told the story of a manufacturing company in Wales that has decided to replace EU migrant workers with machines, rather than with a locally hired workforce.

"They knew they were probably going to do that in five years' time," she says. "But good businesses are now thinking about all of those things together."

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments