Brexit discussion thread II

Gerry T · 24-11-2017 11:48AM

solodeogloria wrote:

There are very clearly other options that can be agreed to ensure flights from Britain into the EU continue post-Brexit even according to this article.

Solo, the part you quote says EU ownership issue exists, so that's a stumbling block. Plus only in/out flights. I read an article some time back which outlined that this restriction would make UK operators non competitive as this is not how they currently operate.
My own guess is EU based operators are only queuing up to take the business lost by UK operators. Why would the EU then forge a deal allowing the UK access to internal flights to the detriment of EU operators

Zubeneschamali · 24-11-2017 11:54AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that EU27 to EU27 will have to be conducted by European owned carriers, but this is a reasonable cost.

This will mean no UK owned carriers in pretty short order.

mickoneill31 · 24-11-2017 12:01PM

murphaph wrote: »

When will the British public wake up?!

I'm guessing about March 30th 2019

Brexit day is probably March 29th rather than 30th as the day after 30th is April fools day. Thatd be a bit too fitting

steddyeddy · 24-11-2017 12:08PM

Apparantly the Irish government are hijacking Brexit talks and delaying trade negotiations to promote a united Ireland. According to the DUP and Arelene. Living in England it always strikes me how little people are aware of Irish history or politics. People here have only being getting Arelene and the Sun's side of the story. This can be dangerous.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/24/dup-leader-arlene-foster-accuses-irish-government-of-hijacking-brexit-talks

blanch152 · 24-11-2017 12:20PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Did you even read the whole article?

There are very clearly other options that can be agreed to ensure flights from Britain into the EU continue post-Brexit even according to this article.

I agree that EU27 to EU27 will have to be conducted by European owned carriers, but this is a reasonable cost. I have no issue with the EU insisting on this rule.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I assume that any of those options require an EU/UK agreement on airline access, which will require a ratification process by all 27 Member States (usually takes a year at best). That would mean negotiations concluded by March next year.

I assume those negotiations on an airline access agreement are going well?

Leroy42 · 24-11-2017 12:23PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

None of these outcomes are acceptable. That's why there is a negotiation rather than a broad acceptance of diktats.

Edit: £100bn isn't a reflection of what Britain actually has committed to so that will be rejected. Open borders, ECJ jurisdiction and staying in the CU are incompatible with the referendum result, giving Gibraltar isn't acceptable because they overwhelmingly want to stay a British territory

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Of course none of them are acceptable, they are deliberately extreme to show the point.

You have voted for Brexit and yet have no idea what that even means, and May doesn't even want the parliament to have a vote on it. So depending on the negotiation, what is to stop what I stated as being the outcome?

At what point will you say stop, enough? Because a the present time it seems there are many that will accept anything to get Brexit. Why not £100bn? Is sovereignty worth only £40bn, anything over that and you will revert back to the EU?

And what is the process if you don't like it? Will you then asked for a rerun? Should Brexit be cancelled or postponed.

This is where the problem lies. Brexiteers have no idea what they want, what they will give up to get, or what they will go if they don't get it.

Lemming · 24-11-2017 12:26PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

None of these outcomes are acceptable. That's why there is a negotiation rather than a broad acceptance of diktats.

Thank you for answering Leroy's question so eloquently, if even by absolute accident. So, what DID you vote for? Because it wasn't to leave. Allegedly.

Further, how can you claim - with a straight face - that the scenario put to you is "unacceptable" and therefore the UK must kertow to your view of acceptability? It only further underscores Leroy's question and the sheer absurdity & irony of your answer to it.

Zubeneschamali · 24-11-2017 12:27PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

At what point will you say stop, enough? Because a the present time it seems there are many that will accept anything to get Brexit. Why not £100bn? Is sovereignty worth only £40bn, anything over that and you will revert back to the EU?

You are not getting just how erm, eccentric the brexiteers are.

They still think that if they don't like the deal on offer from the EU, they can walk away, pay nothing, take up trade with everyone on WTO terms and still come out ahead.

enda1 · 24-11-2017 12:28PM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I'm guessing about March 30th 2019

Brexit day is probably March 29th rather than 30th as the day after 30th is April fools day. Thatd be a bit too fitting

There are 31 days in March

solodeogloria · 24-11-2017 12:36PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course none of them are acceptable, they are deliberately extreme to show the point.

You have voted for Brexit and yet have no idea what that even means, and May doesn't even want the parliament to have a vote on it. So depending on the negotiation, what is to stop what I stated as being the outcome?

At what point will you say stop, enough? Because a the present time it seems there are many that will accept anything to get Brexit. Why not £100bn? Is sovereignty worth only £40bn, anything over that and you will revert back to the EU?

And what is the process if you don't like it? Will you then asked for a rerun? Should Brexit be cancelled or postponed.

This is where the problem lies. Brexiteers have no idea what they want, what they will give up to get, or what they will go if they don't get it.

Good morning!

I actually didn't vote for Brexit. Leaving that aside.

Whether or not Brexit is happening or not was settled in the referendum. The UK is coming out irrespective. The Government are clear that they won't rescind Article 50. Brexit won't be stopped in other words.

How it is coming out is subject to the negotiations. The Government will reject options that aren't faithful to the outcome. There's scope for a middle ground and that's the hope of negotiating.

The Government have to be wise with taxpayers money. £100bn isn't representative of what the UK has committed to. So no that shouldn't be paid.

If there was no scope for a middle ground negotiating would be a waste of time.

Lemming: Polling suggests that most British people think this outcome would be unacceptable also. Namely YouGov on Article 50 triggering and the BuzzFeed poll showed that even remainers object to a figure like £100bn.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42 · 24-11-2017 12:54PM

You keep telling people that Brexit is happening, yeah we get it. It is not the question.

You say my list is unacceptable, ok, so what then? You have ruled out a rerun, so a no deal then is the only other option.

So £100bn is unacceptable but a chaotic and potentially catastrophic effect on the economy is fine? A massive failure in diplomacy and a walking away from agreements signed in good faith in the past will be reneged on? What impact will that have on possible future trade deals.

Is more immigration from the likes of China, India, Brazil, Africa acceptable. Because you know that all those countries are going to look for that

Up until last week 20bn was the most, nw 40bn. What is they give 60bn? Will you demand a rerun then. What if the 350m per week never happens? Do you have a line that you will not cross apart from not accepting stuff from the EU?

murphaph · 24-11-2017 01:20PM

Solo..what about falling out of EASA?

Schorpio · 24-11-2017 01:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: £100bn isn't a reflection of what Britain actually has committed to so that will be rejected. Open borders, ECJ jurisdiction and staying in the CU are incompatible with the referendum result, giving Gibraltar isn't acceptable because they overwhelmingly want to stay a British territory.

As I see it, the UK government has laid down a number of 'red lines' in relation to their leaving of the Union. Fair enough.

However, from Ireland's point of view, a NI border of any kind is a red line. And whether you agree or not, it just is and they are entitled to that, the same way the UK are.

The problem is, both red lines are perfectly parallel. They will never meet because they directly oppose each other. Now, the position of the EU is that the NI border is currently unrestricted, and had you asked any Irish government over he past 20 years whether they would be opposed to a border, they would have said yes. What I'm getting at is, the position of the EU and Irish government is both consistent and compatible with the existing arrangement.

The position of the UK government however has completely reversed since Brexit, and the 'red lines' they have laid out are new and incompatible with what we currently have. Therefore, as the ones who are dissatisfied (for want of a better word) with the current arrangement, the onus is on the UK government to propose an acceptable solution.

Now, i know what you are going to say - we need to talk about trade before we can resolve the border. But in fact, the opposite is true. A clear stance on the future of the border informs how trade is likely progress. As many others have pointed out, a border isn't just the calculation of tariffs. And all this talk of trade completely omits the social and historical significance of the NI border. It isn't just about trade.

All references to the Swiss model is pointless. Switzerland has signed two bilateral agreements which makes a large share of EU law applicable to Switzerland. Switzerland also pays into the EU budget, and is a member of the borderless Schengen Area. None of these things would be acceptable to Brexiteers.

You are right that the UK needs a bespoke and innovative solution. However, they have neither begun to hint at any such solution, nor does the EU (or anybody else for that matter) see what kind of solution there can be within the corner the UK has backed itself into. The UK needs to move it's red lines, but if it does so it will provoke even further ire from the 52%.

Solodeogloria, I respect your opinion. I really do. I also respect that you discuss Brexit from a Leave perspective online and manage to act like a normal human being in the process. However, whether you realise it or not, you are echoing same unworkable sentiments over and over again. At this stage I want the UK to Leave. They voted for it, they should get it. However, they are going to have to accept that they aren't only one with demands, and the EU shouldn't bend over just because the UK public expects them too. If I felt that the EU was being obstructive, I would say so. But that the UK government is this far into the negotiations, and has no answer to this problem is baffling.

breatheme · 24-11-2017 01:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: £100bn isn't a reflection of what Britain actually has committed to so that will be rejected. Open borders, ECJ jurisdiction and staying in the CU are incompatible with the referendum result, giving Gibraltar isn't acceptable because they overwhelmingly want to stay a British territory

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The irony. Didn't they also vote overwhelmingly to stay in the EU? More than 90%?
Anyway. Of course the EU can't force the UK to give up Gibraltar. That isn't what's up for discussion. What Spain is seeking is to exempt Gibraltar from the transition period and automatically kick them out of the EU on Brexit day. It will then be up to Spain to decide how to control the border, if they want to close it... etc. They might try to use Brexit to exert pressure for either joint or Spanish sovereignty. We shall see. Either way, we live in interesting times.

This is one of those areas where the UK's influence in the EU really did show. Gibraltar's border with Spain was closed up during the dictatorship. When Spain (along with Portugal) back in 1986 sought to join the EU, one of the UK's conditions was for Spain to open up the border. Which they did.
You should brush up on the history of Gibraltar, and maybe actually go there for a visit. It's a quite lovely, albeit a bit weird, place.

Zubeneschamali · 24-11-2017 02:17PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Whether or not Brexit is happening or not was settled in the referendum. The UK is coming out irrespective. The Government are clear that they won't rescind Article 50.

This Government may not, but by the time this Government collapses, Corbyn will have been talked around by his young voters and the unions to stay in the Single Market, which would eliminate most of our problems at a stroke.

kowtow · 24-11-2017 02:33PM

Schorpio wrote: »

All references to the Swiss model is pointless. Switzerland has signed two bilateral agreements which makes a large share of EU law applicable to Switzerland. Switzerland also pays into the EU budget, and is a member of the borderless Schengen Area. None of these things would be acceptable to Brexiteers.

You are right that the UK needs a bespoke and innovative solution. However, neither they haven't even begun to hint at any such solution, nor does the EU (or anybody else for that matter) see what kind of solution there can be within the corner the UK has backed itself into. The UK needs to move it's red lines, but if it does so it will provoke even further ire from the 52%.

I'm not sure that references to the Swiss model are "pointless" although quite clearly it cannot be cut and pasted as a ready made solution in part for the reasons you outline but also because every border - not least this one - is peculiar to it's own geography.

The fact is that Swiss customs address many of the practical problems which UK and Irish customs must get their heads around, which is why it is relevant. It is a non EU member trading under treaty and outside the CU - that it has Schengen is irrelevant for these purposes (Ireland doesn't either) but Ireland and the UK have long enjoyed a CTA which has much the same effect.

It is also mighty efficient, at least to the private citizen. I have lost count of the times I have got a swiss customs bill for items purchased inside and outside the EU.

Norway is another model in similar circumstances, although from the Sky News feature this morning the Norwegians don't call it friction free and don't think it would work for NI. In the end trade across borders is never quite friction free, although inside the Eurozone it is very close.

Clearly the UK are aiming for (1) electronic declarations with plenty of trusted traders (2) cameras only at the border and (3) physical checks at some place remote from the border which must surely mean the Northern Irish ports.

Presumably the wish of the UK - which seems reasonable on the face of it - would be that the Irish would engage with them on the detail of this once everybody knows what kind of trade is envisaged and in effect share the electronic arrangements without - of course - placing Irish customs at Northern Irish ports in a physical sense.

The current demands of the Irish government are (1) not even cameras at the border and (2) That the North is in the CU, which forms a full economic border inside the UK and (?) absolves the Irish authorities from the need for customs checks. This is provocative, perhaps deliberately, from a constitutional point of view and at first blush is no more likely to succeed than the UK demanding that Ireland join a customs union with itself and place the borders around the Irish ports...

There is speculation now that some vague agreement that Northern Ireland will attempt to maintain regulatory convergence could be sufficient to persuade the Irish to move on to phase two - when the problem will surface again but with greater detail and perhaps calmer heads. I have my doubts.

This is one of those issues where the sincerity of the negotiating parties is really tested and I am not sure that we are judging it correctly. If - as some say - Switzerland and Norway are irrelevant because their trading arrangements and treaties with the EU are x or y - then surely it must be right that we must wait to see the trading arrangements which arise before dismissing one or other approach to the border?

For whatever reasons the UK have felt able to rule out physical infrastructure at the border and absolutely continue the CTA from day one of the negotiations. In return we have said that the border simply can't exist (there cannot be cameras) and Northern Ireland must join the Customs Union. Is that sincere negotiation in good faith or simply a tactical point being played at the only moment it can be?

breatheme · 24-11-2017 02:44PM

Regarding NI, what I think right now is that, FTA aside, both current solutions (in the EU/CU, no land border, but sea border and out of the EU/CU, land border but no sea border) should be voted in a referendum in NI. The EU parliament already voted to offer this as a solution to NI, NI can either take it or leave it. It would finally put the question to rest and we could move on.

Professor Moriarty · 24-11-2017 02:44PM

kowtow wrote: »

I'm not sure that references to the Swiss model are "pointless" although quite clearly it cannot be cut and pasted as a ready made solution in part for the reasons you outline but also because every border - not least this one - is peculiar to it's own geography.

The fact is that Swiss customs address many of the practical problems which UK and Irish customs must get their heads around, which is why it is relevant. It is a non EU member trading under treaty and outside the CU - that it has Schengen is irrelevant for these purposes (Ireland doesn't either) but Ireland and the UK have long enjoyed a CTA which has much the same effect.

It is also mighty efficient, at least to the private citizen. I have lost count of the times I have got a swiss customs bill for items purchased inside and outside the EU.

Norway is another model in similar circumstances, although from the Sky News feature this morning the Norwegians don't call it friction free and don't think it would work for NI. In the end trade across borders is never quite friction free, although inside the Eurozone it is very close.

Clearly the UK are aiming for (1) electronic declarations with plenty of trusted traders (2) cameras only at the border and (3) physical checks at some place remote from the border which must surely mean the Northern Irish ports.

Presumably the wish of the UK - which seems reasonable on the face of it - would be that the Irish would engage with them on the detail of this once everybody knows what kind of trade is envisaged and in effect share the electronic arrangements without - of course - placing Irish customs at Northern Irish ports in a physical sense.

The current demands of the Irish government are (1) not even cameras at the border and (2) That the North is in the CU, which forms a full economic border inside the UK and (?) absolves the Irish authorities from the need for customs checks. This is provocative, perhaps deliberately, from a constitutional point of view and at first blush is no more likely to succeed than the UK demanding that Ireland join a customs union with itself and place the borders around the Irish ports...

There is speculation now that some vague agreement that Northern Ireland will attempt to maintain regulatory convergence could be sufficient to persuade the Irish to move on to phase two - when the problem will surface again but with greater detail and perhaps calmer heads. I have my doubts.

This is one of those issues where the sincerity of the negotiating parties is really tested and I am not sure that we are judging it correctly. If - as some say - Switzerland and Norway are irrelevant because their trading arrangements and treaties with the EU are x or y - then surely it must be right that we must wait to see the trading arrangements which arise before dismissing one or other approach to the border?

For whatever reasons the UK have felt able to rule out physical infrastructure at the border and absolutely continue the CTA from day one of the negotiations. In return we have said that the border simply can't exist (there cannot be cameras) and Northern Ireland must join the Customs Union. Is that sincere negotiation in good faith or simply a tactical point being played at the only moment it can be?

A main reason why Ireland has to play hardball at this stage is because it loses its veto when it comes to the final deal. I read somewhere this morning that, through back channels, the British have offered Ireland a rolling veto. This could definitely assuage Irish fears but the devil is in the detail, as always.

kowtow · 24-11-2017 02:53PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A main reason why Ireland has to play hardball at this stage is because it loses its veto when it comes to the final deal. I read somewhere this morning that, through back channels, the British have offered Ireland a rolling veto. This could definitely assuage Irish fears but the devil is in the detail, as always.

If we get that then it was a card played well and probably also a sign that despite all the smoke and noise at the surface there probably has always been some sensible movement underneath.

J Mysterio · 24-11-2017 03:03PM

kowtow wrote: »

If we get that then it was a card played well and probably also a sign that despite all the smoke and noise at the surface there probably has always been some sensible movement underneath.

If it is the case - which I doubt - it would be foolish to take that deal. All the pressure is on the UK at the moment to make a sensible proposal, and Ireland has a strong hand.

Should we give up that hand, events will overtake us, rolling veto or not. The issues will change and Ireland (while still being significant) will not be one of the main focus areas as it is now. We could then be seen as a frustrating element.

It is a phase one issue now and we worked hard to get that. We need to pressure the UK now, not give them a free pass to move on to different issues. They dont deserve it anyway.

Again, I doubt this is true, but if it is, it's a cunning ploy we would be foolish to take. Were it true, I cant see the Gov taking it anyhow.

Professor Moriarty · 24-11-2017 03:11PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

If it is the case - which I doubt - it would be foolish to take that deal. All the pressure is on the UK at the moment to make a sensible proposal, and Ireland has a strong hand.

Should we give up that hand, events will overtake us, rolling veto or not. The issues will change and Ireland (while still being significant) will not be one of the main focus areas as it is now. We could then be seen as a frustrating element.

It is a phase one issue now and we worked hard to get that. We need to pressure the UK now, not give them a free pass to move on to different issues. They dont deserve it anyway.

Again, I doubt this is true, but if it is, it's a cunning ploy we would be foolish to take. Were it true, I cant see the Gov taking it anyhow.

Yes, it is fraught with danger but it might work and would suit Ireland. The Irish need to take a balanced approach.

We can play hardball using our current and only veto, but if Britain is pushed to crashing out without a deal then we will have shot ourselves in the foot. Conversely, we have to keep pushing them towards a soft Brexit. So it should be carrot and stick - not all stick. Which is why a rolling veto might give them some breathing space while allowing Ireland to retain control.

Is it likely to happen? Probably not but it would be in our best interests.

24-11-2017 03:12PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A main reason why Ireland has to play hardball at this stage is because it loses its veto when it comes to the final deal. I read somewhere this morning that, through back channels, the British have offered Ireland a rolling veto. This could definitely assuage Irish fears but the devil is in the detail, as always.

The British government offering a foreign government a veto which would override their sovereignty? It sounds a bit far fetched and definitely not taking back control.

I wouldn't trust it even if it were offered - there are too many variables - it would just be an attempt to kick the border problem past this stage and then try to conflate it in the trade talks stage.

Professor Moriarty · 24-11-2017 03:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The British government offering a foreign government a veto which would override their sovereignty? It sounds a bit far fetched and definitely not taking back control.

I wouldn't trust it even if it were offered - there are too many variables - it would just be an attempt to kick the border problem past this stage and then try to conflate it in the trade talks stage.

That veto is there presently, it would be a matter of extending it. It would also depend on how it was underwritten and guaranteed. But yeah it's unlikely.

kowtow · 24-11-2017 03:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The British government offering a foreign government a veto which would override their sovereignty? It sounds a bit far fetched and definitely not taking back control.

I wouldn't trust it even if it were offered - there are too many variables - it would just be an attempt to kick the border problem past this stage and then try to conflate it in the trade talks stage.

Surely the veto only affects the continuing trade (exit) talks?

The only effect of it would be to stall the talks and either force the UK to exit in a hard Brexit or try again to resolve the issue. I'm not sure that such a veto impinges on sovereignty, it just gives an enhanced role to Ireland at the negotiating table?

Given that - all this Britain blaming aside - we'd like the fullest and free-est trade deal possible almost as much as the UK would I'd have thought our interests are actually pretty well aligned.

Maybe I misunderstand the nature of the veto?

Peregrinus · 24-11-2017 03:28PM

enda1 wrote: »

There are 31 days in March

There is now. But, after Brexit, the UK will be free to adopt and use a calendar which differs from that used elsewhere in Europe (as they did in the Glorious Past, before they succumbed to this popish Gregorian nonsense). And of course the first thing they will do is to abolish 31 March, since that is the anniversary of the poll tax riots which marked the start of Margaret Thatcher's fall, and is therefore a day of shame in the minds of all True Brexity Believers.

swampgas · 24-11-2017 03:35PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is now. But, after Brexit, the UK will be free to adopt and use a calendar which differs from that used elsewhere in Europe (as they did in the Glorious Past, before they succumbed to this popish Gregorian nonsense). And of course the first thing they will do is to abolish 31 March, since that is the anniversary of the poll tax riots which marked the start of Margaret Thatcher's fall, and is therefore a day of shame in the minds of all True Brexity Believers.

And 23 June will become Brexit day, a public holiday, celebrating the UK's liberation from rationality and reason.

kowtow · 24-11-2017 03:43PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And of course the first thing they will do is to abolish 31 March, since that is the anniversary of the poll tax riots which marked the start of Margaret Thatcher's fall, and is therefore a day of shame in the minds of all True Brexity Believers.

I think you are overstating it.

It's always a pity to suffer riots, and the criminal damage that goes with them, but if they must take place then - in the UK - from the property owners point of view the 31st of March is about the most tax efficient time of year to have them.

24-11-2017 04:21PM

kowtow wrote: »

Surely the veto only affects the continuing trade (exit) talks?

The only effect of it would be to stall the talks and either force the UK to exit in a hard Brexit or try again to resolve the issue. I'm not sure that such a veto impinges on sovereignty, it just gives an enhanced role to Ireland at the negotiating table?

Given that - all this Britain blaming aside - we'd like the fullest and free-est trade deal possible almost as much as the UK would I'd have thought our interests are actually pretty well aligned.

Maybe I misunderstand the nature of the veto?

As far as I can see, if any country uses a veto then it means a full hard Brexit and a hard border, so even if Ireland does have one, it could be devastating.

Peregrinus · 24-11-2017 04:55PM

Aegir wrote: »

As far as I can see, if any country uses a veto then it means a full hard Brexit and a hard border, so even if Ireland does have one, it could be devastating.

But the result of using the veto is not that we fail to get the Brexit we would like; it's that we fail to get the Brexit that the UK would like (and would otherwise be able to agree with the other EU member states).

For example if, hypothetically, the UK were to seek a Brexit deal that realistically speaking would involve a hard border anyway then "hard border" is not part of the cost to us of using the veto.

So, before using the veto, we'd need to think fairly dispassionately about how we would fair if we didn't use the veto, and compare that with how we would fair if we did use the veto.

Which means that, if the UK want us not to use the veto, they need to seek a Brexit deal which is attractive to Ireland. If they can't accommodate our aspirations regarding the border, then it's very much in their interests to put in something else that will make the deal they seek advantageous to us - more so than no deal. And it will have to be something pretty big, to compensate for the disadvantage of a hard border, which is considerable.

If they don't do that, frankly, it would signal to me that they are not serious about a deal; that they have decided to go for a hard Brexit, and are just positioning themselves to blame the EU for it.

This is all hypothetical, I stress. I think that, a few loopers aside, the British do want a deal, and they are canny enough to know that any deal has to be beneficial to all the stakeholders, including us, or it won't happen.

In a nutshell, the exericse of an Irish veto would essentially be Ireland following the Brexiteer principal that "no deal is better than a bad deal". The Brexiteers who make that point on behalf of the UK must recognise that it is an equally valid consideration for other countries. They therefore need to seek a deal which is better for Ireland than no deal; otherwise its a bad deal, and we'll veto it.

24-11-2017 05:08PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the result of using the veto is not that we fail to get the Brexit we would like; it's that we fail to get the Brexit that the UK would like (and would otherwise be able to agree with the other EU member states).

The use of a veto, by anyone, means that no one gets the Brexit deal they want, because despite all the chest beating and willy waving, no one wants the eu/uk trading on unknown terms with full customs checks. Noted exception to the loopers you mention, obviously.

But yes, it does give Ireland the chance to use what is, effectively, the nuclear option if it is all going wrong from an Irish perspective.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments