Brexit discussion thread II

steddyeddy · 21-11-2017 10:00PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Both voted to stay in the EU.

Indeed but Ireland, co-signatory in the GFA is trying to avoid a hard border. There's no comparable situation in Scotland.

steddyeddy · 21-11-2017 10:01PM

The UK is confident that the border won't be a problem when it comes to trade talks. The same way they were confident that the EBA and EMA wouldn't leave.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/21/uk-confident-that-irish-border-will-not-stop-progress-of-brexit-talks

Professor Moriarty · 21-11-2017 10:04PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Both voted to stay in the EU.

I'm not sure you can say that. Certainly not technically. Yes, those areas within the UK voted for the UK to remain but the referendum was about the UK staying or leaving. You can't extrapolate and say that NI voted to stay in the EU or that Scotland voted to stay in the EU because those two questions weren't asked.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-11-2017 10:13PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think a hard border is what the DUP is secretly hoping for and is the main reason it campaigned for Brexit. Anything that widens the division between Northern Ireland and Ireland is fine by them. They don't care about the economic consequences since, for a long time now, Northern Ireland's largest industry has been the extraction of subsidies from Westminster by its politicians. Anything they lose from Brexit they can demand from the Exchequer. Keeping the place in a permanent state of tension eases that extraction greatly.

At present the border is a non-issue. It doesn't affect daily life. So there is little pressure to change the status quo.

If the South moves ahead of the North AND guarantees to match existing social welfare and NHS then a border poll is more likely to go south.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What would be the impact on Irish economy of a hard border with NI?

A lot of the drinks industry would move south. Lots of processing happens both sides of the border. Baileys Cream crosses the border lots of times during processing. Things like Guinness canning and bottling are done in the North.

I can't see much of the current cross border processing moving North and going through the whole customs and delays and tariff thing just to stay in the UK.

jm08 · 21-11-2017 10:18PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At present the border is a non-issue. It doesn't affect daily life. So there is little pressure to change the status quo.

If the South moves ahead of the North AND guarantees to match existing social welfare and NHS then a border poll is more likely to go south.

A lot of the drinks industry would move south. Lots of processing happens both sides of the border. Baileys Cream crosses the border lots of times during processing. Things like Guinness canning and bottling are done in the North.

I can't see much of the current cross border processing moving North and going through the whole customs and delays and tariff thing just to stay in the UK.

I heard someone from Baileys talking about that - they said they could probably arrange production to suit the market that they were exporting to as they have facilities both side of the border - so Baileys for export to EU/Rest of World would be produced in ROI and Baileys for UK market processed in NI.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-11-2017 10:29PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there ever been any detailed breakdown of the advantages to Britain of leaving the EU.

Since Brexit

Sterling has fallen.
Tourism should have had a massive upsurge. It didn't, ourselves and the continent had more improvement than the UK

UK productivity has remained flat. It should be going up at 2% a year like it used to. It isn't . Output has gone up but productivity hasn't, one explanation is that no one is investing in new technology it's easier to just hire more workers. This also explains the UK's low level of unemployment.

Yes there are new jobs but inflation means real wages have fallen too

And you can't keep increasing productivity that way. If everyone else is getting 2% better a year and you are competing by lowering real wages well that's completely unsustainable.

It's a libertarians dream. ( are there any poor libertarians ? )
If you have a good job you'll be fine. But I can see those at the sharp end being squeezed.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-11-2017 10:56PM

jm08 wrote: »

I heard someone from Baileys talking about that - they said they could probably arrange production to suit the market that they were exporting to as they have facilities both side of the border - so Baileys for export to EU/Rest of World would be produced in ROI and Baileys for UK market processed in NI.

Which market is bigger ?

Most of the cross border processing will be going south.

Distillers will keep Bushmills in the North but after that there's no guarantees.

NI Agri sector would be decimated by a hard Brexit, economies of scale would be lost.
http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/opinion-irelands-farming-and-food-sectors-must-be-put-on-border-alert/

half a million lambs are exported from Northern Ireland annually for processing in the republic. Around 100,000 store cattle are imported from the west of Ireland for finishing in the north
...
75% of the pigs produced on this island were slaughtered in Northern Ireland
...
75% of the processing capacity in the north is now wholly or jointly owned by southern co-ops. And this figure would increase to almost 100% if United Dairy Farmers were ever to do a deal with the likes of Glanbia

At present NI exporters can go via Dublin , Rosslare , Waterford, or Cork.
You can save an hour by car from Omagh to London by going through Dublin. And when margins are tight that's a huge overhead to adsorb.

blanch152 · 21-11-2017 11:18PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I hope this is the time that the voters in NI finally grow up and start voting for what is best for NI rather than simply what side of the street their Daddy was born on.

DUP are going putting the NI economy in a precarious position with this stance. Whatever about the UK as a whole being big enough, NI relies heavily on trade with the South and actively opting to put constraints on that is very strange. Coupled with the fact that as 1st Minister surely, if we take the line of the Brexiteers, then she should follow the democratic will of her people and look to minimise Brexit(if not cancel it altogether).

Northern Ireland relies even more on trade with the UK than trade with the South.

Either option - a land border or a sea border - is bad news for Northern Ireland. A sea border is worse for them.

blanch152 · 21-11-2017 11:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What would be the mechanism to propose this?
It wouldn't be coming from the Tories and it won't be coming from the EU.
Northern Ireland is different as the EU and Ireland were involved in the peace process.

The Scottish Assembly, you know the democratically elected one.

Sam Russell · 22-11-2017 01:06AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not sure you can say that. Certainly not technically. Yes, those areas within the UK voted for the UK to remain but the referendum was about the UK staying or leaving. You can't extrapolate and say that NI voted to stay in the EU or that Scotland voted to stay in the EU because those two questions weren't asked.

The question asked was 'Should the UK remain or leave the EU?' The vote was counted mostly by constituency but totals were given for England, Wales - both of which voted to leave, and Scotland and NI - both of which voted to remain.

I am not saying that there was any unasked question driving the way the UK was to leave or remain - unlike other posters. There were no indications on the ballot paper as how leaving was to be achieved, but plenty of motives have been claimed since.

J Mysterio · 22-11-2017 01:31AM

Sand wrote: »

The UK really ought to look at the NI situation from another angle. Leaving NI in the SM/CU will be seen as a significant step towards resolving the Irish issue to the satisfaction of almost everyone.

It does create a problem of a GB-NI internal border. However, that very problem could be an advantage in the phase 2 talks in encouraging the EU to be generous. The necessity to mitigate the GB-EU border lends itself to the EU and the UK agreeing a very ambitious FTA to mitigate the problems, both for NI-GB trade, and for wider GB-EU trade.

I've been impressed with the Irish governments calm, firm and consistent message on Phase 2. Unfortunately, the British have shown no intention to honestly engage with the problem of the Irish border so their noses are going to have to be held in it for quite a bit longer.

Haha, spot on.

Peregrinus · 22-11-2017 04:19AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My employer was required to scan my passport to ensure my identity and my right to work in the UK before employing me because that is employment law in the UK . . .

What solo experienced was a right-to-work check. Employers in the UK are not required to conduct them, but it may be in their interests to do so, for this reason: if an employer employs someone who doesn't have an immigration status that entitles them to take the job in question, the employer may be exposed to a civil penalty. However the employer has what's called a "statutory excuse" if he can show that he carried out the right-to-work check.

Employers who do conduct right-to-work checks tend to conduct them on everybody, since they don't want to be accused of discriminating on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity. You may look and sound as though you and your family on both sides have been in England since before the Norman Conquest, but you'll have to do the same right-to-work checks as every other person hired.

The (simplified) instructions to employers on how to run right-to-work checks run to 25 pages. You have to apply them fully and correctly; otherwise what you have done is not the prescribed right-to-work check, and you don't have the statutory excuse. (The instructions will undoubtedly get longer after Brexit, since UK migration law, already of Byzantine complexity, will become even more complex. Post-Brexit, employees who produce an EU/EEA passport may, or may not, have a right to work depending on when they first entered the UK, and employers will have to learn how to tell.)

For these reasons smaller employers tend not to be geared up to apply right-to-work checks; if they worry about this at all the employ the cruder technique of preferring candidates who look and sound British. (An unlawful practice, but a hard one to prove.) Employers offering low-status jobs or black- or grey-market jobs also choose not to run right-to-work checks.

In the post-Brexit world fruit farmers trying to recruit pickers, for example, will be faced with the choice of applying right-to-work checks and having extreme difficulty filling their positions, or not applying them and risking the civil penalties. But either course of action will (unless there's a law change) be perfectly legal.

Peregrinus · 22-11-2017 04:38AM

Very well-written, and I think even-handed, summary of the problems raised by Irish border issue by Frank Barry of the TCD Business School over here on the Irisheconomy.ie blog. (The comments are also interesting, if sometimes less even-handed.)

murphaph · 22-11-2017 08:34AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland relies even more on trade with the UK than trade with the South.

Either option - a land border or a sea border - is bad news for Northern Ireland. A sea border is worse for them.

This is all true but I believe the sea border is better for us and significantly easier to administer. The UK will just have to throw more of that NHS money NI's way instead.

solodeogloria · 22-11-2017 08:42AM

murphaph wrote: »

This is all true but I believe the sea border is better for us and significantly easier to administer. The UK will just have to throw more of that NHS money NI's way instead.

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December. The UK is amenable to compromise provided it can deliver the broad objectives of the referendum and ensure the integrity of the union.

David Davis was right to say this week his department is the Department of Exiting the European Union not the department for accepting any deal come what may.

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Even if May accepted a sea border (extremely unlikely) I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be agreed by parliament which leads us back to the drawing board.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint · 22-11-2017 08:54AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December. The UK is amenable to compromise provided it can deliver the broad objectives of the referendum and ensure the integrity of the union.

David Davis was right to say this week his department is the Department of Exiting the European Union not the department for accepting any deal come what may.

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Even if May accepted a sea border (extremely unlikely) I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be agreed by parliament which leads us back to the drawing board.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Keep calm? They've been doing that for over a year because they are a bunch of amateurs who couldn't negotiate their way out of a dinner invite from Donald Trump.

There is nothing to keep calm about, the comical Ali impressions are getting tiresome because you yourself are actively engaged in cheering on the destruction of an entire economy and people's lively hoods. The tories will be found out and hung out to dry.

Peregrinus · 22-11-2017 09:00AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland relies even more on trade with the UK than trade with the South.

Either option - a land border or a sea border - is bad news for Northern Ireland. A sea border is worse for them.

A sea border is worse for them economically. But politically, in terms of protecting and supporting the peace process, it looks to be much better. While constititutionally, in terms of it's effect on/implications for the union (between GB and NI) it's either better or worse, depending on whether you think the union is a good thing or not.

Sam Russell · 22-11-2017 09:00AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December. The UK is amenable to compromise provided it can deliver the broad objectives of the referendum and ensure the integrity of the union.

David Davis was right to say this week his department is the Department of Exiting the European Union not the department for accepting any deal come what may.

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Even if May accepted a sea border (extremely unlikely) I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be agreed by parliament which leads us back to the drawing board.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Are you a member of the UK Cabinet? You sound like you might be.

You appear to speak with the authority of a senior Bexiteer Minister, or a very close adviser. You reject even the slightest deviation from the orthodox position of extreme right wing Brxiteers.

The only person I can think of that voted Remain and is now a very hard Bexiteer is Theresa May - are you the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May?

Peregrinus · 22-11-2017 09:05AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December.

You mean that in the next ten days or so they need to do what they have failed to do for the past sixteen months? Yes, but I wouldn't be wildly optimistic that they'll actually do it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Progressive trading terms would undoubtedly be better for Ireland. Unfortunately the UK has decisively ruled this out by insisting on withdrawing from the single market and the customs union. Unless the British are willing to reconsider that stance, then a sea border is better for us in the Republic than a land border - no question. From the perspective of NI, as noted above, it's a more mixed judgment.

solodeogloria · 22-11-2017 09:11AM

listermint wrote: »

Keep calm? They've been doing that for over a year because they are a bunch of amateurs who couldn't negotiate their way out of a dinner invite from Donald Trump.

There is nothing to keep calm about, the comical Ali impressions are getting tiresome because you yourself are actively engaged in cheering on the destruction of an entire economy and people's lively hoods. The tories will be found out and hung out to dry.

Good evening!

I don't accept this. Both this article by Laura Kuenssberg and this article by Tony Connelly in the RTE offer interesting analysis on it. There's much more going on here.

The UK won't accept a bad deal - which a high sum of money and this would constitute. Therefore alternatives need to be discussed. Parliament won't vote for a bad deal either.

Being calm and working towards a more amenable outcome is what negotiating is about.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 22-11-2017 09:19AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December. The UK is amenable to compromise provided it can deliver the broad objectives of the referendum and ensure the integrity of the union.

David Davis was right to say this week his department is the Department of Exiting the European Union not the department for accepting any deal come what may.

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Even if May accepted a sea border (extremely unlikely) I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be agreed by parliament which leads us back to the drawing board.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Don't put words in my mouth. I only compared land border to sea border not with a FTA that may or may not materialise. If a super duper zero tariff zero regulatory difference (then why Brexit?) FTA materialises then the location of the border will be (as it is today) irrelevant.

I wouldn't rule it out either. Talk is already of £40bn (not €40bn) which is north of your own max of £36bn. Another £10bn and we'll be in your go whistle territory!

The UK's obviously weak position is slowly being revealed to the average daily mail reader bit by bit. MN

22-11-2017 09:20AM

blanch152 wrote: »

The Scottish Assembly, you know the democratically elected one.

And how do they propose it? - they aren't in the talks.
It's not in Barniers terms of reference and I don't see Davis volunteering it.
Northern Ireland is different.

FrancieBrady · 22-11-2017 09:23AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And how do they propose it? - they aren't in the talks.
It's not in Barniers terms of reference and I don't see Davis volunteering it.
Northern Ireland is different.

I would have thought that was blindingly obvious but obviously not.

Has anyone in Scotland even indicated that?

Peregrinus · 22-11-2017 09:24AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And how do they propose it? - they aren't in the talks.
It's not in Barniers terms of reference and I don't see Davis volunteering it.
Northern Ireland is different.

They'd propose it to the UK, asking why if NI can get this kind of status, Scotland which voted even more decisively to remain can't also have it. And if it were to be refused it would - rightly, in my view - be held up by the Scots Nats as another example of England's disdain for the wishes and interests of Scotland, and the Westminster establishment's willingness to screw Scotland in order to secure political advantage in England.

The implications for Scotland are one of the reasons why the UK would be reluctant to accept the sea border proposal for NI.

FrancieBrady · 22-11-2017 09:30AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

They'd propose it to the UK, asking why if NI can get this kind of status, Scotland which voted even more decisively to remain can't also have it. And if it were to be refused it would - rightly, in my view - be held up by the Scots Nats as another example of England's disdain for the wishes and interests of Scotland, and the Westminster establishment's willingness to screw Scotland in order to secure political advantage in England.

The implications for Scotland are one of the reasons why the UK would be reluctant to accept the sea border proposal for NI.

Scotland will look for a border retrospectively??
How would that work in reality.

Samaris · 22-11-2017 09:38AM

I don't know that the Scotland thing really makes much sense here. I might be missing something, but I don't quite get the link.

The border situation in Ireland is due to there being (David Davis aside) an external border with an EU state in a politically dangerous location. The issues of regulatory divergence don't apply between England and Scotland, nor does the external border with an EU country bit (unless Scotland voted for independence). Why is Scotland a problem in the conversation about NI? The border itself is going to be bad for NI wherever it is. Why would the Scots suddenly decide that they wanted something that would damage themselves for no gain?

22-11-2017 09:40AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

They'd propose it to the UK, asking why if NI can get this kind of status, Scotland which voted even more decisively to remain can't also have it. And if it were to be refused it would - rightly, in my view - be held up by the Scots Nats as another example of England's disdain for the wishes and interests of Scotland, and the Westminster establishment's willingness to screw Scotland in order to secure political advantage in England.

The implications for Scotland are one of the reasons why the UK would be reluctant to accept the sea border proposal for NI.

Unfortunately for the Scots their voice seems to be as irrelevant as Grimsby fishermen or Cornish farmers. Scotland has no particular leverage within the UK to convince the Tories it deserves special status and it doesn't exist from the EU negotiators point of view.

Northern Ireland is different because the EU were involved in the peace process and because of us.

Scotland is not at all equivalent.

In the longer term Scottish nationalism or separatism might come into play but until then this isn't on the table.

Peregrinus · 22-11-2017 09:45AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Scotland will look for a border retrospectively??
How would that work in reality.

No, not retrospectively. They'll just propose that if part of the UK is to remain in the Single Market/Customs Union and part not, that they be included (along with NI) in the part that remains. So, as from Brexit Day, the Anglo-Scottish border would become the border between the EEA and non-EEA areas, in much the way that the UK proposes the Irish border should become. (And of course the wonderful technological magic that the UK intends to use to keep the Irish border impediment-free will work just as well on the Anglo-Scottish border).

It's perfectly feasible in practical terms. The Anglo-Scottish border is much shorter than the Irish border - about a third of the length, I think - and it's a much more "rational" border, running along natural features (rivers, watersheds) for much of its length, and with considerably fewer road crossings. If you have to police one of these borders, you'd much rather be policing the Anglo-Scottish border. And that's before you consider the Irish peace process.

There's a precedent. Denmark is partly in, and partly out, of the EU - Greenland is out, Denmark proper and the Faroes are in. That's a sea border, obviously, but in principal there's no reason why a state shouldn't be similarly part-in and part-out with a land border.

Peregrinus · 22-11-2017 09:48AM

Samaris wrote: »

I don't know that the Scotland thing really makes much sense here. I might be missing something, but I don't quite get the link.

The border situation in Ireland is due to there being (David Davis aside) an external border with an EU state in a politically dangerous location. The issues of regulatory divergence don't apply between England and Scotland, nor does the external border with an EU country bit (unless Scotland voted for independence). Why is Scotland a problem in the conversation about NI? The border itself is going to be bad for NI wherever it is. Why would the Scots suddenly decide that they wanted something that would damage themselves for no gain?

Brexit is going to damage them with no gain. A customs border with England would be a pain, but if it enabled them to remain in the EU it's a pain they might wear, because it brings a considerable gain.

And, remember, much of the instinctive opposition to a sea border in NI comes from the DUP's distaste for anything which weakens the union (of GB and NI). That consideration pulls in the opposite direction for the Scots Nationalists. Scots Nationalists would welcome a border with England. And they'd welcome an opportunity to remain in the EU/EEA/Customs Union. Ideally, they's also like England to remain, but you can't have everything; the logic of the Scots Nats potision is that the English should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to remain or to leave. So if you offer them two out of the three things they would like, I think they'd jump at that.

FrancieBrady · 22-11-2017 09:53AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, not retrospectively. They'll just propose that if part of the UK is to remain in the Single Market/Customs Union and part not, that they be included (along with NI) in the part that remains. So, as from Brexit Day, the Anglo-Scottish border would become the border between the EEA and non-EEA areas, in much the way that the UK proposes the Irish border should become. (And of course the wonderful technological magic that the UK intends to use to keep the Irish border impediment-free will work just as well on the Anglo-Scottish border).

It's perfectly feasible in practical terms. The Anglo-Scottish border is much shorter than the Irish border - about a third of the length, I think - and it's a much more "rational" border, running along natural features (rivers, watersheds) for much of its length, and with considerably fewer road crossings. If you have to police one of these borders, you'd much rather be policing the Anglo-Scottish border. And that's before you consider the Irish peace process.

There's a precedent. Denmark is partly in, and partly out, of the EU - Greenland is out, Denmark proper and the Faroes are in. That's a sea border, obviously, but in principal there's no reason why a state shouldn't be similarly part-in and part-out with a land border.

So when will they throw this grenade? Is there anyone in Scotland even intimating this?
Has anyone in Westminster said it in relation to an Irish sea border?

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments