Brexit discussion thread II

MPFGLB · 23-11-2017 01:44AM

Wouldnt it be nice if there was no hard border and NI was like some free trade outpost of the UK and with out controls, the EU

Like Hong KOng or the way Casablanca was during the war

Might do wonders for NI's economy if nonetheless hard to control

Surely some FDA (are they still around) body could swing it that Ireland get the best they can out of this situation by ensuring a soft border and lots of customs jobs at Irish ports and airports ....

Ireland open to UK markets (through NI) and Ireland open to EU markets (through the Republic) but everyone else who tries to avail of this perk scruntenised by Irish Officals ....I like the look of that

Junkyard Tom · 23-11-2017 01:47AM

There will be civil disobedience if they try to bring back a hard border. If the PSNI start cracking skulls, like the RUC did, we'd be entering very dangerous territory.

bbc.com/news

MPFGLB · 23-11-2017 01:48AM

flaneur wrote: »

I think the simplest solution for the Northern border in the short to medium term is probably to sue the UK for economic damage caused to Donegal and the border counties.

It’s not unreasonable that they would pay some considerable contribution towards cleaning up the mess they’re creating, by ensuring Donegal in particular is not left isolated.

A major contribution towards perhaps a road upgrade from Donegal and also the other border regions impacted would be a fairly reasonable thing to include in the divorce bill.

Also I would assume some kind of Brexit compensation package would need to be put in place for companies that have their businesses profoundly impacted.

Maybe €2-3 billion Euro.

Also, a major investment package for Northern Ireland.

I think the notion they can just cause absolute complete mayhem for these regions and then walk away is insanity.

They’re walking away from commitments, undermining people's businesses, regional economics and all sorts of risks are being created for a fragile and very recent peace process. I think the very least they could do is ensure that the resources are put in place to deal with the fallout of that political decision.

I have no doubts they'll storm off claiming they don't owe anyone anything and they're free to so whatever they like, but it makes the UK look like a bunch of untrustworthy, backstabbers that will rip up any agreement they sign. They also look completely incompetent. I think they've done huge damage to their own reputation.

Is that not the EU divorce bill ?

Plus UK governments have caused economical havoc before in Wales and North of England and no one got any compenssation

Also UK does not have the money ...the coffers are bare or wil be when Brexit is over ...chancellor today gave more to manage Brexit than to the NHS

flaneur · 23-11-2017 01:50AM

It has plenty of money. It could sell some assets, raise tax etc.

Why should we care about UK internal financial matters? They clearly don't currently give a hoot about ours.

What it did internally with Scotland and Wales or the North of England is a matter for UK domestic politics.

This is effectively ripping up international trade and other agreements.

If they left the political aspects of the EU and stayed in the customs union, fair enough. But no, they're also ripping up the trade agreements and causing economic chaos both for themselves and their neighbours.

Brexit isn't cost free, particularly if you're going to just burn all your trade agreements and links with neighbouring countries.

Cake & eat it seems to be the aim here.
It'll be one of those cheap and nasty cakes by the looks of it.

I've very little sympathy for what us just a jingoistic, illogical move where all pragmatism, sense and neighbourly good will is being very deliberately thrown away.

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 08:01AM

breatheme wrote: »

You just don't get it, do you? NI can't be a bargaining chip, that's why the EU wants to settle this NOW, so that later the UK isn't like "well, fine, but if you don't give us this without that we'll have to have a border in Ireland." The reason we solve this now and THEN move on to trade is because that way whatever happens during trade discussion, the Island of Ireland remains with no border within itself.
BESIDES... The UK have stated they want out of the
Customs Union. If the UK is not in the Customs Union, THERE HAS TO BE A BORDER. Even if they got the most progressive FTA in the world, if they're out of the CU, then goods have to be checked before they are let in. Borders are not there just so some nice gentleman can say "this is the tariff for this, please." They're also there because they ALSO have to check all the goods that come in and are tariffless by virtue of an FTA. Or do you think that now Canada can send a bunch of containers and they'll be unchecked at the border?
Let's assume that the EU and UK agree on an FTA with full free movement of goods and services. (We're just assuming.) If the UK is out of the CU, as they've stated over and over they intend to ("Brexit means leaving the EU and the single market and the CU!") even with this FTA, there has to be a border, and goods have to be checked to make sure they comply with health and safety regulations, regardless if there's a tariff or not.

Good morning!

Screaming in bold doesn't make it any less true that if there's going to be a border it will be at the EU's insistence.

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here. The one size fits all custom union approach isn't workable in this scenario. A sea border won't get through parliament so why is it such a big deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady · 23-11-2017 08:07AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Screaming in bold doesn't make it any less true that I'd there's going to be a border it will be at the EU's insistence.

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here. The one size fits all custom union approach isn't workable in this scenario. A sea border won't get through parliament so why is it such a big deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So what solution are they proposing.
There will be no trade talks until the UK tell us what they propose. Why can't you accept this.
Trade talks are in our gift to give. You knew that when you voted.

Leroy42 · 23-11-2017 08:10AM

How are you going to control immigration without a hard border?

Wouldn't everyone simply go freely into NI and rhen across to mainland?

You do realise that having no botder at NI effectively means there is no border to the UK.

"What do we want? Ability to make our own decisions."
" When do we want it? After rhe EU comes up with a solution to our problems"

UsedToWait · 23-11-2017 08:25AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

How are you going to control immigration without a hard border?

Wouldn't everyone simply go freely into NI and rhen across to mainland?

You do realise that having no botder at NI effectively means there is no border to the UK.

"What do we want? Ability to make our own decisions."
" When do we want it? After rhe EU comes up with a solution to our problems"

Perhaps these two characters form Hamlet could cover border duties.

Enter BARNARDO and FRANCISCO, two sentinels
BARNARDO
Who’s there?
FRANCISCO
Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself.
BARNARDO
Long live the king!
FRANCISCO
Barnardo?
BARNARDO
He.
FRANCISCO
You come most carefully upon your hour.
BARNARDO
'Tis now struck twelve. Get thee to bed, Francisco.
FRANCISCO
For this relief much thanks. 'Tis bitter cold,
And I am sick at heart.

It's about as concrete a proposal as any we've heard from the UK.

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 08:43AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

How are you going to control immigration without a hard border?

Wouldn't everyone simply go freely into NI and rhen across to mainland?

You do realise that having no botder at NI effectively means there is no border to the UK.

"What do we want? Ability to make our own decisions."
" When do we want it? After rhe EU comes up with a solution to our problems"

Good morning!

I don't know why people ask this question. The Government have been clear about what they want. They are looking to continue free travel from the EU even at British airports. Not free movement of labour. That's the distinction.

Employment checks can happen on seeking NI and employment. I've answered that already on this thread several times. This already happens for countries with visa waivers into the UK.

The UK have no desire for a hard border if one is erected it will be at the EU's insistence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 23-11-2017 08:43AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

How are you going to control immigration without a hard border?

The plan is actually not to control immigration directly, but indirectly through controlling employment, education, social security, etc. The British say they want to end free movement but actually to a large extent what they want to end is free movement of skilled labour.

From an immigration point of view the UK border will be (relatively) easy to cross, but any time you want to sign on for benefits, enter employment, pay or reclaim tax, enroll in college, etc, you'll need to demonstrate your citizenship/immigration status by producing the appropriate documentation. And of course you can expand this requirement as needed - opening bank accounts, enrolling your children in school, registering with a GP practice.

This means that much of the grunt work of policing the system is done not by the state but by, e.g., private employers, schools and colleges, etc.

British citizens will be annoyed at having to produce identity papers before they can enter into common transactions and commercial/employment relationships, but the thinking is that they'll put up with it because that's what they do. Mustn't grumble, you know. People who have real problems with this - the homeless, the disadvantaged - don't vote in large numbers, so that's all right.

It also creates the mechanisms and incentives for a thriving black economy relying on exploited undocumented workers, but that won't be a problem because oh look at that shiny thing over there.

Leroy42 · 23-11-2017 08:49AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't know why people ask this question. The Government have been clear about what they want. They are looking to continue free travel from the EU even at British airports. Not free movement of labour. That's the distinction.

Employment checks can happen on seeking NI and employment. I've answered that already on this thread several times. This already happens for countries with visa waivers into the UK.

The UK have no desire for a hard border if one is erected it will be at the EU's insistence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fine, but that was all in the hands of the UK already, you didn't need Brexit for that. If people are working, therefore adding to the economy, what is the problem?

So it is not illegal immigration that you have any trouble with, it was all these people coming to the UK to work?

Peregrinus · 23-11-2017 08:50AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here.

The UK will never know if the EU is willing to consider alternatives unless it proposes some.

I think you're right in saying that the sea border proposal will not be acceptable to the UK. It's not a matter of it not getting through Parliament; it'll never even get to Parliament, never mind through it. The point of the EU proposing it, I think, is (a) to get some proposal on the table for the UK to reject, to increase the pressure on the UK to come up with a proposal of its own, and and (b) to highlight that any proposal which is going to square the circles the UK has set for itself is going to have to be pretty radical, and is going to have to require significant changes to things which the UK hasn't yet characterised as "red line" issues. The sea border proposal, problematic as it was for the UK, didn't actually cross any of the red lines. The onus is now really on the UK to come up with its own proposal which will meet its declared objectives without crossing any of its red lines.

Peregrinus · 23-11-2017 08:53AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fine, but that was all in the hands of the UK already, you didn't need Brexit for that. If people are working, therefore adding to the economy, what is the problem?

So it is not illegal immigration that you have any trouble with, it was all these people coming to the UK to work?

Correct. The British were always free to control illegal immigration more vigorously or effectively than they did; they didn't need Brexit to give them that ability. What Brexit does is to allow them to reduce the scope and scale of legal immigration more than would otherwise be possible.

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 09:05AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fine, but that was all in the hands of the UK already, you didn't need Brexit for that. If people are working, therefore adding to the economy, what is the problem?

So it is not illegal immigration that you have any trouble with, it was all these people coming to the UK to work?

Good morning!

Immigration isn't the biggest reason why I want the UK to leave the EU but the concerns raised in the referendum about an oversupply in low wage labour need to be addressed. I think it's fairly easily resolved. An issuing of permits for contested sectors should be enough. I broadly agree with the benefits of immigration. The referendum was the biggest mass participation in democracy the country has seen for decades. The concerns need to be dealt with in a reasonable way.

The reasons I want to leave more concern settling affairs ultimately in the UK and taking control of trade policy and gaining the ability to forge new free trade deals with other countries. The trade department is currently in discussions with 21 countries. There's three broad tasks on this front - negotiate a trade deal with the EU, sign continuing agreements with external EU trade partners, sign new agreements with new countries. The trade departments 21 countries include both the second and the third.

There's a lot of potential. Sure there are difficult discussions ahead but I'm very optimistic.

Edit: illegal immigration is dealt with by the UK Border Force. Deportations happen and will continue to happen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 23-11-2017 09:09AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

But Norway and Switzerland are both in the EEA, which the UK intends to leave. As EEA members, they apply EU law regarding consumer law, envintomental protection, agricultural standards and many other areas that would otherwise have to be policed at the point of entry. And they've also got a customs agreement through the EEA whereby there are no customs duties on goods imported into Norway or Switzerland from other EEA countries, or vice versa. The UK isn't proposing to do any of this.

In fact the Norway and Switzerland examples undermine your claim that the EU isn't willing to countenance flexible alternatives to create low-impact borders; they clearly are, since they do that for both Norway and Switzerland. It's the UK that keeps taking positions, making demands and laying down red lines that will make a low-impact border in Ireland difficult to achieve. The EU would be quite happy to have no border at all in Ireland; that's the situation that has prevailed for the past 20 years to general satisfaction. It's the UK that is putting a stop to that.

LeinsterDub · 23-11-2017 09:14AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Screaming in bold doesn't make it any less true that I'd there's going to be a border it will be at the EU's insistence.

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here. The one size fits all custom union approach isn't workable in this scenario. A sea border won't get through parliament so why is it such a big deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Don't both these countries have to accept the majority of EU laws, pay a substantial amount into the EU budget and accept the ECJ? All of these are red lines for the UK. So how does your proposal work? It appears that you are really taking the UK line of dreamland proposals.

Samaris · 23-11-2017 09:18AM

I'm rather curious as to the screaming headlines if Britain did go for a Norway style approach to customs. Ok, so first they'd need to stay in the EEA which has become a red line, so we're already in fantasy territory. But:

EU OFFICIALS TO BE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE BRITISH GOODS 15 MILES* INSIDE OUR TERRITORY!

Would probably be the least of the foaming by the Sun et al.

*Probably km, but the issue stands.

Peregrinus · 23-11-2017 09:21AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reasons I want to leave more concern settling affairs ultimately in the UK and taking control of trade policy and gaining the ability to forge new free trade deals with other countries. The trade department is currently in discussions with 21 countries. There's three broad tasks on this front - negotiate a trade deal with the EU, sign continuing agreements with external EU trade partners, sign new agreements with new countries. The trade departments 21 countries include both the second and the third.

There's a lot of potential. Sure there are difficult discussions ahead but I'm very optimistic.

Through Brexit, the UK is leaving the largest and freest free trade deal that the world has ever seen with 31 other countries. It's also leaving the EU's network of trade deals with 33 other countries with whom free trade deals are already in place, 20 countries with whom free trade deals have been concluded that are awaiting commencement, and somewhere north of 20 more countries with whom free trade deals are under negotiation.

To replace this, the UK hopes to conclude a much less free agreement than the one it already has with the EU-27, plus it is in negotiation with 21 other countries, including some but not all of the countries with whom they already have trade deals through the EU.

And you think that presents "a lot of potential"? You're "very optimistic"? Seriously?

This is just delusional, solo.

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 09:22AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Don't both these countries have to accept the majority of EU laws, pay a substantial amount into the EU budget and accept the ECJ? All of these are red lines for the UK. So how does your proposal work?

Good morning!

It isn't a "proposal" more a statement that customs union membership isn't required for an open border.

The technical details of what can be agreed need to come with trade and customs terms. Therefore the second phase is now key.

If both the UK and the EU are willing to be flexible I'm sure a solution can be found but it won't be found for as long as the EU insists that a bespoke solution can't be agreed.

The UK position paper includes the UK's current proposals. There's no point saying nothing has been presented.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 23-11-2017 09:24AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't a "proposal" more a statement that customs union membership isn't required for an open border.

No, but from your examples it appears that EEA membership, plus a zero-tariff customs agreement, may be. The UK positively rules out the first and, to put it mildly, hasn't exactly committed itself to the second.

ancapailldorcha · 23-11-2017 09:26AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If both the UK and the EU are willing to be flexible I'm sure a solution can be found but it won't be found for as long as the EU insists that a bespoke solution can't be agreed.

Perhaps the UK could propose a realistic solution then?

You keep citing Norway and Switzerland, both countries who are in the single market and the customs union. Switzerland is landlocked. If the UK is successful in realising its aspiration to tap into global markets then that's a lot of goods which need to be checked before the enter the single market and customs union.

murphaph · 23-11-2017 09:31AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Screaming in bold doesn't make it any less true that if there's going to be a border it will be at the EU's insistence.

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here. The one size fits all custom union approach isn't workable in this scenario. A sea border won't get through parliament so why is it such a big deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU already offered the boldest thing it possibly could, to allow part of the UK to remain in the customs union and single market.

The UK flatly refused but suggested nothing in return.

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 09:31AM

Good morning!

A realistic solution can't be agreed until the EU are willing to discuss trade and customs. There's no point saying find a solution whilst saying we're not going to let you talk about what's required to solve it!

There's a good article in the FT this morning about why Ireland needs a good Brexit deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 23-11-2017 09:34AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't a "proposal" more a statement that customs union membership isn't required for an open border.

The technical details of what can be agreed need to come with trade and customs terms. Therefore the second phase is now key.

If both the UK and the EU are willing to be flexible I'm sure a solution can be found but it won't be found for as long as the EU insists that a bespoke solution can't be agreed.

The UK position paper includes the UK's current proposals. There's no point saying nothing has been presented.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Right. What do you think should happen with the border if no FTA materialises?

Even if it does, it is likely to be along the lines of CETA. What would you do with the border given a CETA like FTA?

ancapailldorcha · 23-11-2017 09:36AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

A realistic solution can't be agreed until the EU are willing to discuss trade and customs. There's no point saying find a solution whilst saying we're not going to let you talk about what's required to solve it!

There's a good article in the FT this morning about why Ireland needs a good Brexit deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're deflecting here. I'm talking about how a border would be patrolled and goods inspected, not the tariffs and regulations on those goods. This sounds like you want to blame anyone except for the Brexiteers for this. The UK chose this path, they have to walk it.

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 09:42AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're deflecting here. I'm talking about how a border would be patrolled and goods inspected, not the tariffs and regulations on those goods. This sounds like you want to blame anyone except for the Brexiteers for this. The UK chose this path, they have to walk it.

Good morning!

The types of controls and patrols depend on whether tariffs are in place and customs terms.

It isn't deflecting. This question cannot be answered until we see what is agreed in phase two.

The UK don't want a hard border and have stated their preference in their position paper.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 23-11-2017 09:44AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

A realistic solution can't be agreed until the EU are willing to discuss trade and customs. There's no point saying find a solution whilst saying we're not going to let you talk about what's required to solve it!

But the UK agreed months ago that there would have to be progress on the border issue before attention turned to talks of the trading relationship.

The intent here is obvious; the two sides agree on what kind of border they want in Ireland, and commit to a trading relationship consistent with the border that they want. That then sets parameters within which the trading relationship is discussed.

The UK doesn't have the luxury of signing up to such a sequence and then deciding six months later that, no, they want to do it the other way around; hold the trading talks and then let the agreement on trade dictate what kind of border is possible. They wasted enough time after giving the Art 50 notice by holding an ill-judged general election; they don't have the luxury of another six months to burn at this stage.

They need to get off their arses and come up with a serious proposal for how the Irish border will work, and commit in good faith to negotiating a trading relationshiop for which that will be an appropriate and feasible border. Practically everybody is of the view that the UK's objectives with regard to the border cannot be reconciled with its objectives with regard to trade. If that view is incorrect, it is past time for the UK to come up with a proposal for reconciling the two. The longer they defer this, the more they give the impression that, actually, that view is correct and they know it.

solodeogloria · 23-11-2017 09:53AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the UK agreed months ago that there would have to be progress on the border issue before attention turned to talks of the trading relationship.

The intent here is obvious; the two sides agree on what kind of border they want in Ireland, and commit to a trading relationship consistent with the border that they want. That then sets parameters within which the trading relationship is discussed.

The UK doesn't have the luxury of signing up to such a sequence and then deciding six months later that, no, they want to do it the other way around; hold the trading talks and then let the agreement on trade dictate what kind of border is possible. They wasted enough time after giving the Art 50 notice by holding an ill-judged general election; they don't have the luxury of another six months to burn at this stage.

They need to get off their arses and come up with a serious proposal for how the Irish border will work, and commit in good faith to negotiating a trading relationshiop for which that will be an appropriate and feasible border. Practically everybody is of the view that the UK's objectives with regard to the border cannot be reconciled with its objectives with regard to trade. If that view is incorrect, it is past time for the UK to come up with a proposal for reconciling the two. The longer they defer this, the more they give the impression that, actually, that view is correct and they know it.

Good morning!

Last post on the thread for the day.

To be short:
Firstly - the UK have provided a description of what they want in their position paper.

Secondly - the EU and the UK didn't agree that border issues would be resolved in full. There has been progress on cross border institutions and the CTA in rounds of negotiations.

Thirdly - and this is why I think Varadkar is just showboating. He said in the Dáil that he anticipated moving to phase 2 weeks before he demanded this.

Finally - the EU isn't looking for a statement of intent here. They are doing this to force the UK either to partially stay in the customs union or fully stay in. This is despite knowing that there are alternatives that can be discussed in phase two.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Schorpio · 23-11-2017 09:55AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The types of controls and patrols depend on whether tariffs are in place and customs terms.

It isn't deflecting. This question cannot be answered until we see what is agreed in phase two.

The UK don't want a hard border and have stated their preference in their position paper.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Right, but that all comes back to -

breatheme wrote: »

...NI can't be a bargaining chip, that's why the EU wants to settle this NOW, so that later the UK isn't like "well, fine, but if you don't give us this without that we'll have to have a border in Ireland." The reason we solve this now and THEN move on to trade is because that way whatever happens during trade discussion, the Island of Ireland remains with no border within itself....

If the UK signs an agreement that there will be no fixed border, border patrol, or any border infrastructure over and above anything which is there presently, then the talks could move on. But they won't, so the talks are stagnant.

NI cannot be bargained with. It's taken too long to get it where we are today. The UK should understand and support that.

kowtow · 23-11-2017 09:55AM

Leroy42 wrote:

Fine, but that was all in the hands of the UK already, you didn't need Brexit for that. If people are working, therefore adding to the economy, what is the problem?

Leroy42 wrote:

So it is not illegal immigration that you have any trouble with, it was all these people coming to the UK to work?

And back we go to trying to argue the referendum again.

Is it the case that the only 'solution' acceptable to the EU and our Republic in particular is that the UK doesn't leave?

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments