Brexit discussion thread II

steddyeddy · 13-11-2017 11:16PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

No it seems to be an emotional reaction based on how unionists would feel about it. Well they voted for Brexit so why should we care?

Water John · 13-11-2017 11:20PM

Believing Gove will replace the EU money in agriculture has about the same validity as the Brexit bus.

Even the Unionists believe Ireland should be dealt with, in agriculture, on an all island basis.

steddyeddy · 13-11-2017 11:23PM

Water John wrote: »

Believing Gove will replace the EU money in agriculture has about the same validity as the Brexit bus.

Even the Unionists believe Ireland should be dealt with, in agriculture, on an all island basis.

In other words they join the large community of Brexit hypocrites who want to retain EU benefits. Just like the Grimsby fishermen, Cornwall Brexiters who want to keep grants.

Charles Babbage · 13-11-2017 11:24PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

The effect of this is very much down to the detail, to the exact nature of the products sent, their volumes, their urgency etc. Nobody has put forward anything approaching a serious analysis in these terms, all we get simplistic totals of the value of trade and the like.

FrancieBrady · 13-11-2017 11:27PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No it seems to be an emotional reaction based on how unionists would feel about it. Well they voted for Brexit so why should we care?

That's all I have seen on it. I am not getting how it will be so much worse economically.

I still suspect the DUP are being led up the garden path on this. The whole deal could end up hinging on it and the DUP could find themselves snookered.
British duplicity at play.

Water John · 13-11-2017 11:30PM

Jim Molyneau was the last one to play this game. He didn't achieve much. It's a rare situation, of influence, that arises. Not sure they have the skills to capitalise on it.

FrancieBrady · 13-11-2017 11:32PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The effect of this is very much down to the detail, to the exact nature of the products sent, their volumes, their urgency etc. Nobody has put forward anything approaching a serious analysis in these terms, all we get simplistic totals of the value of trade and the like.

A huge percentage goes into and out of ports as it is. Whatever model is going to cause delays or extra hassle so I am not seeing the 'huge disaster' this is going to be for northern Ireland, given it is going to be a disaster whatever happens.
Will be interesting to see what data those ruling it out adamantly have based their opinions on.

The Rape of Lucretia · 14-11-2017 12:11AM

Surely a sea border is a fantastic have your cake and eat it solution for the NI economy. Unionists will have to act outraged, and some will indeed be sick at the worry that they havemoved further from London. But it the end is it not a fantastic position for them ? They will remain in the European economic zone. And effectively be the UK mainlands trading partner with the best possible dream deal of no tariffs, restrictions, etc. The inconvenience of port controls being a visible and annoying, but in the overall scheme of things, no great shakes, downside. Overall, a big win-win for them.

blanch152 · 14-11-2017 12:59AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

steddyeddy wrote: »

No it seems to be an emotional reaction based on how unionists would feel about it. Well they voted for Brexit so why should we care?

It was detailed earlier in this thread or the previous one, or the one on the hard border some time ago. Northern Ireland will suffer very badly from a sea border.

blanch152 · 14-11-2017 01:01AM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Surely a sea border is a fantastic have your cake and eat it solution for the NI economy. Unionists will have to act outraged, and some will indeed be sick at the worry that they havemoved further from London. But it the end is it not a fantastic position for them ? They will remain in the European economic zone. And effectively be the UK mainlands trading partner with the best possible dream deal of no tariffs, restrictions, etc. The inconvenience of port controls being a visible and annoying, but in the overall scheme of things, no great shakes, downside. Overall, a big win-win for them.

Ah, I see how people don't get it. If there is a sea border and a hard Brexit, there will be the same tariffs between Northern Ireland and the UK as between the EU and the UK.

That will cripple the Northern Ireland economy as most of their trade is with the rest of the UK.

FrancieBrady · 14-11-2017 01:02AM

blanch152 wrote: »

It was detailed earlier in this thread or the previous one, or the one on the hard border some time ago. Northern Ireland will suffer very badly from a sea border.

I asked before and got nothing. Same result this time.

steddyeddy · 14-11-2017 01:45AM

blanch152 wrote: »

It was detailed earlier in this thread or the previous one, or the one on the hard border some time ago. Northern Ireland will suffer very badly from a sea border.

Ah right but why should we in the republic care? We would benefit from a sea border and suffer from a hard border. Why would you prefer NI suffer less than the republic. We didn't vote for Brexit.

Peregrinus · 14-11-2017 02:56AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah right but why should we in the republic care? We would benefit from a sea border and suffer from a hard border. Why would you prefer NI suffer less than the republic. We didn't vote for Brexit.

Neither did NI.

Peregrinus · 14-11-2017 03:02AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

It's not so much an assumption as a no-brainer. 60% of Northern Ireland's external trade is with Great Britain. If we in the Republic feel we would suffer badly from delay, physical barriers, customs and tariff barriers etc affecting our trade with NI, then we must concede that NI would suffer much, much more badly from similar factors affecting their trade with Great Britain, which is vastly bigger in proportion to their economy.

And that's before we consider the offence to Unionist sensibilities arising from an internal border within the UK. As we know, Unionists are always ready to take strong offence at practically anything.

murphaph · 14-11-2017 07:06AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The effect of this is very much down to the detail, to the exact nature of the products sent, their volumes, their urgency etc. Nobody has put forward anything approaching a serious analysis in these terms, all we get simplistic totals of the value of trade and the like.

This is true, we have not seen a breakdown. We do know that 60% of the value of NI "exports" go to rest of UK. The other 40% is split between EU (and countries the EU has FTAs with) and the rest of the world.

To be honest I don't care about the breakdown as a sea border would be less damaging to our economy though IMO almost certainly more damaging to the NI economy. The UK can look out for NI and we'll look out for the RoI. Let the rest of UK increase their Barnett Formula money due to extraordinary damage done by Brexit if they like. The RoI need to push for the sea border. The fact the EU would make the exception for NI (definitely not a microstate) shows an amazing flexibility I personally did not believe would have been on offer.

It's about as imaginative as you can get to allow a large part of a third country to operate as part of the EU. Isn't it the kind of bold step May always babbles on about?!

murphaph · 14-11-2017 07:13AM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Surely a sea border is a fantastic have your cake and eat it solution for the NI economy. Unionists will have to act outraged, and some will indeed be sick at the worry that they havemoved further from London. But it the end is it not a fantastic position for them ? They will remain in the European economic zone. And effectively be the UK mainlands trading partner with the best possible dream deal of no tariffs, restrictions, etc. The inconvenience of port controls being a visible and annoying, but in the overall scheme of things, no great shakes, downside. Overall, a big win-win for them.

What? There's no cake and eating. If they opt to remain in the SM and CU then they will be outside the UK SM and CU and tariffs and non tariff barriers will apply to all their NI - GB trade! They have to choose the lesser of two evils for them. I personally believe that would be a hard land border but that would be worse for us so we should use our influence to push the harm into the UK (NI mostly) as they voted for this claptrap.

murphaph · 14-11-2017 07:16AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked before and got nothing. Same result this time.

Would it make any difference to you either way? Even if the data proved the NI economy would be much worse off with a sea border than a land border, would you opt for the land border?

murphaph · 14-11-2017 07:19AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither did NI.

They did as part of the UK. And it wasn't like nobody in NI voted for Brexit. 45% of the voters did. They want to run with the UK hounds.

The RoI government must have as its absolute top priority the economy of the South. It's every man for himself.

Peregrinus · 14-11-2017 07:35AM

murphaph wrote: »

They did as part of the UK. And it wasn't like nobody in NI voted for Brexit. 45% of the voters did. They want to run with the UK hounds.

The RoI government must have as its absolute top priority the economy of the South. It's every man for himself.

As part of the UK, Northern Ireland voted against Brexit (and by a larger margin than England voted for it).

There really is no good outcome for NI in this. A trade border with the Republic will damage them badly; a trade border with Great Britain will damage them even more badly.

What this illustrates, of course, is their marginal status in the United Kindom. Cameron embarked on this spineless, gutless, disgraceful referendum without giving a stuff about the damage it could do either to the United Kingdom as a whole or to Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and May has now doubled down by choosing to regard the referendum result as requiring withdrawal from the Single Market and the Customs Union and, despite her pretended concern for Northern Ireland, prioritising those choices over the well-being of Northern Ireland. Presumably she hopes to obtain some political advantage in England by doing this.

The lesson is clear; when push comes to shove in the United Kingdom, it's Northern Ireland that will get pushed, shoved and stomped upon because, really, who cares about the Irish?

But recognising this doesn't solve the problem. Northern Ireland really is a client of the United Kingdom. They're already kept afloat by massive financial transfers from Great Britain; the most promising way of ameliorating some of the consequences of the disaster that is Brexit will be even more massive transfers. But to have any hope of more massive transfers, they need to cleave ever closer to GB politically, not to distance themselves. Hence, they will prefer the hard border with the Republic; it does less economic damage to them, and maximises their chance of getting some counterbalancing economic redress from Britain.

In the long run, they might like to think about constitutional change, either within the context of the UK (so as to rebalance power between its constituent parts, so that the English can't piss all over the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish without even noticing that they are doing that) or by contemplating closer constitutional arrangements with Ireland or with Europe to counterbalance their client status within the UK. But in the short run, they don't have a realistic choice; they have to stick by the Brits, and pray for a change of government in the UK before it's too late.

murphaph · 14-11-2017 07:51AM

Yeah I've been saying pretty much the same but what's best for NI isn't best for the RoI IMO. A sea border will do less harm to the south and so that is what our government should push for now that the EU has made it a realistic option.

Peregrinus · 14-11-2017 07:54AM

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah I've been saying pretty much the same but what's best for NI isn't best for the RoI IMO. A sea border will do less harm to the south and so that is what our government should push for now that the EU has made it a realistic option.

That is what our government is doing right now.

But I disagree that the EU has made it a realistic option. I don't think the EU can make it a realistic option; NI's dependent status within the UK is not something the EU can change. The EU can offer a sea border as an option, but they can't make it be in NI's interests to accept it.

solodeogloria · 14-11-2017 07:56AM

Good morning!

steddyeddy wrote: »

No it seems to be an emotional reaction based on how unionists would feel about it. Well they voted for Brexit so why should we care?

Firstly - not all Unionists did.

Secondly - even if all did there's been a lot of talk on this thread about the peace process and the consequences of Brexit on it. It seems like people only want to consider the peace process in respect to republicans and nationalists. Adding extra barriers between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain would damage the peace process for unionists.

In any case - this outcome simply won't happen. Britain won't agree to it.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah right but why should we in the republic care? We would benefit from a sea border and suffer from a hard border. Why would you prefer NI suffer less than the republic. We didn't vote for Brexit.

Firstly - if you genuinely care about the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement you would.

Secondly - why do you want the border open? Is it because of trade? Then bankrupting your trading partner isn't a good idea. If your trading partner has less cash guess what? They are going to buy less from you. This is common sense.

Thirdly - let's be honest any major restrictions on trade between the UK and the EU will also have a major consequence on Ireland. This is why Ireland should be petitioning the EU for a good and progressive arrangement. Quite a lot posters here seem to be desiring a kind of perverse schadenfreude which will definitely have a negative impact on Ireland and I'm not quite sure why.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint · 14-11-2017 08:11AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Firstly - not all Unionists did.

Secondly - even if all did there's been a lot of talk on this thread about the peace process and the consequences of Brexit on it. It seems like people only want to consider the peace process in respect to republicans and nationalists. Adding extra barriers between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain would damage the peace process for unionists.

In any case - this outcome simply won't happen. Britain won't agree to it.

Firstly - if you genuinely care about the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement you would.

Secondly - why do you want the border open? Is it because of trade? Then bankrupting your trading partner isn't a good idea. If your trading partner has less cash guess what? They are going to buy less from you. This is common sense.

Thirdly - let's be honest any major restrictions on trade between the UK and the EU will also have a major consequence on Ireland. This is why Ireland should be petitioning the EU for a good and progressive arrangement. Quite a lot posters here seem to be desiring a kind of perverse schadenfreude which will definitely have a negative impact on Ireland and I'm not quite sure why.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Quite simply because the UK is poisoning the well and don't want to drink from it..

I think the UK should live the consequences and i make no apologies for it. I'm tired at this point of the ignorance so no deal, knock yourselves out.

And enjoy the trip home on your EU passport because you have a handy number

Peregrinus · 14-11-2017 08:16AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . Thirdly - let's be honest any major restrictions on trade between the UK and the EU will also have a major consequence on Ireland. This is why Ireland should be petitioning the EU for a good and progressive arrangement. Quite a lot posters here seem to be desiring a kind of perverse schadenfreude which will definitely have a negative impact on Ireland and I'm not quite sure why.

It's not the EU that's standing in the way of a good progressive arrangement, solo. It's the UK. May's no-Single-Market, no-Customs-Union, no-free-movement "red lines" are the problem we're trying to find a creative solution to. As it happens, while the "sea border" is a creative solution, I don't think it's a practicable one, so it's back to the drawing board. But we wouldn't be having the problem if the UK hadn't painted itself into this corner. And if, even now, the UK were to decide that, actually, no-hard-border was a "red line" then a lot of solutions that the UK currently deems to be impossible would suddenly be possible.

This is completely a problem of the UK's making. And while it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to come up with a viable solution, that's mainly because of the way the UK has chosen to frame the problem.

The Rape of Lucretia · 14-11-2017 08:28AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah, I see how people don't get it. If there is a sea border and a hard Brexit, there will be the same tariffs between Northern Ireland and the UK as between the EU and the UK.

That will cripple the Northern Ireland economy as most of their trade is with the rest of the UK.

Why? Even though part of the UK, can The UK mainland, not do a trade 'deal' with the Uk Northern Ireland ? Given that its the one govt it will 'give' itself a deal that makes it effectively the same as being part of the mainland, for goods originating in NI. NI being effectively the UK mainlands most favoured trading partner, with zero tariffs, zero restrictions, etc.

Zubeneschamali · 14-11-2017 08:28AM

Nody wrote: »

1) No deal - No vote
2) Deal - Vote yes in parliament and implemented (now all who voted yes are sharing the blame for the outcome)
3) Deal - Vote no in parliament and UK ends up with "no deal" (and all who voted no now share the blame for the outcome)

4) Either way, tell May and Davis to stuff it, vote to extend A50 for 5 years.

Peregrinus · 14-11-2017 08:34AM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Why? Even though part of the UK, can The UK mainland, not do a trade 'deal' with the Uk Northern Ireland ? Given that its the one govt it will 'give' itself a deal that makes it effectively the same as being part of the mainland, for goods originating in NI. NI being effectively the UK mainlands most favoured trading partner, with zero tariffs, zero restrictions, etc.

No. If Northern Ireland is part of the single market and the customs union, then it can't do separate trade deals, with Great Britain or with anyone else. No participant in the single market/customs union can make its own trade deals.

Think about it. If NI could negotiate tariff-free, restriction-free access for British goods and services, that would be tariff-free, restriction-free access for British goods and services to the whole of the single market, since there would be no border between NI and the rest of the single market. And vice versa; the whole of the Single Market would enjoy tariff-free, restriction-free access to the UK.

Which is, of course, the state of affairs that currently prevails, and terminating it is one of May's "red lines".

Zubeneschamali · 14-11-2017 08:46AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

the UK is doing extremely well despite the uncertainty of Brexit.

This is presumably why John Redwood (Tory MP and bigwig) is, in his other job as Chief Global Strategist for Charles Stanley, publicly advising investors to get their money out of the UK:

Monetary policy cannot prevent either the necessary real adjustment as the United Kingdom moves towards its new international trading arrangements or the weaker real income growth that is likely to accompany that adjustment over the next few years.

I sold out of the general share ETFs in the UK after their great performance for the year from early July 2016 when I saw the last Budget and heard the BoE’s credit warnings. The money could be better put to work in places where the authorities are allowing credit to expand a bit, to permit faster growth.

solodeogloria · 14-11-2017 09:28AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not the EU that's standing in the way of a good progressive arrangement, solo. It's the UK. May's no-Single-Market, no-Customs-Union, no-free-movement "red lines" are the problem we're trying to find a creative solution to. As it happens, while the "sea border" is a creative solution, I don't think it's a practicable one, so it's back to the drawing board. But we wouldn't be having the problem if the UK hadn't painted itself into this corner. And if, even now, the UK were to decide that, actually, no-hard-border was a "red line" then a lot of solutions that the UK currently deems to be impossible would suddenly be possible.

This is completely a problem of the UK's making. And while it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to come up with a viable solution, that's mainly because of the way the UK has chosen to frame the problem.

Good morning!

It's obvious that the in the EU by the back door model (Norway) isn't going to work. I've explained why I'm opposed to it. It offers no benefit to the status quo. In fact less. The referendum isn't honoured. There will be calls to finish off the job into the future (I'd support these calls personally). There are obvious reasons why this is unacceptable.

However, a third country deal is still a very real option. Seeking a progressive third country arrangement is in the UK's interests and in the EU's interests. It is by far a harder option than the no deal or EU by the back door option.

Brexit must lead to a genuine taking back of control in respect to migration, trade policy, laws and an end to indefinite payment to the EU for it to have been worthwhile.

I understand in full that costs would be paid in other ways for this freedom but it is the best long term option for the UK.

listermint wrote: »

Quite simply because the UK is poisoning the well and don't want to drink from it..

I think the UK should live the consequences and i make no apologies for it. I'm tired at this point of the ignorance so no deal, knock yourselves out.

And enjoy the trip home on your EU passport because you have a handy number

I won't be coming home due to Brexit. I've explained why if the horror stories are true I stand to lose a substantial amount. However at the time of writing things are looking good long term both in terms of my job and what I've got.

But on a more serious note - you don't care if Britain leaves without a deal and if that substantially affects Ireland's economy? No deal isn't something the UK would have to live with. I agree that is loyalty to the Euro-federalist project but it's not actually beneficial to anyone. This is why it's in Ireland's interests to secure the best deal possible.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 14-11-2017 09:46AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's obvious that the in the EU by the back door model (Norway) isn't going to work. I've explained why I'm opposed to it. It offers no benefit to the status quo. In fact less. The referendum isn't honoured. There will be calls to finish off the job into the future (I'd support these calls personally). There are obvious reasons why this is unacceptable.

However, a third country deal is still a very real option. Seeking a progressive third country arrangement is in the UK's interests and in the EU's interests. It is by far a harder option than the no deal or EU by the back door option.

Brexit must lead to a genuine taking back of control in respect to migration, trade policy, laws and an end to indefinite payment to the EU for it to have been worthwhile.

I understand in full that costs would be paid in other ways for this freedom but it is the best long term option for the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

All that this tells us, solo, is that you personally agree with the red lines that Teresa May has set. Unless you are claiming some unique authority for yourself, though, that doesn't mean very much. May chose the red lines, and she was under no political or legal compulsion to choose red lines which appeals to solodeogloria. She could, for instance, just as well have chosen red lines which appealed to other Brexit campaigners, who during the referendum campaign warmly advocated the "Norway option".

None of this matter to anyone outside the UK. Whether the British people voted for Brexit fully intending that it would mean no-single-market, no-customs-union, etc and thereby leaving May no option, or whether the British people voted for Brexit leaving it up to May or to Parliament to determine what that meant and these are the choices that May has made, or whatever, is an internal UK matter. Either way, these are choices made by and on behalf of the UK, and the UK must wear the responsibility for making the choices. If these choices result in damage to Northern Ireland, the UK has done the damage. The UK has chosen to do the damage.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments