Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus · 24-11-2017 05:19PM

But think of it this way; if we fail to use the veto, and settle for a deal that involves a hard border, we're probably stuck with that permanently. The UK gets an EU trade deal, but they can also import all the chlorinated chicken they need to and it's no threat to the EU and doesn't jeopardise their EU relationship, so why would they ever want to change that?

But if we use the veto, we get a hard border but the UK is in a much stickier position, with no EU trade deal. And they'll know, because it will have been established by the Irish veto, that if they ever want an EU trade deal, they need to do whatever needs to be done to make that hard border go away.

And it is almost inevitable that the UK will, eventually, realise that it wants and needs an EU trade deal. Liam Fox will not be Trade Secretary for ever; some day someone sane will be appointed. And Arlene Foster will not always be someone who has to be taken seriously at Westminster. The UK's grand strategy of negotiating a brilliant set of trade deals with the world using their nimble skills will be in shreds if, when push comes to shove, they cannot conclude a trade deal with their nearest and largest neighbour, the EU. They need this deal; we need no hard border; the meeting-point of the two countries' interests, the space were a deal is better than no deal for both countries, is clear.

flutered · 24-11-2017 05:25PM

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.

ireland has plenty of reasons to be wary of any uk deals, not set in stone, even then they could be thrown away, like the gfa has been so far

Sam Russell · 24-11-2017 05:59PM

Ireland always will be able to veto the deal at the final stage, so why agree to something they already have. In recent times, the UK has moved from 'Go whistle!' to 'How about 20 billion?' to ' All right then, 40 billion - how does that sound?'

Are they under pressure, do you think?

Perhaps they could offer a sea border for imports to NI from GB and a free run for exports from Ni to GB, plus customs checks for EU standards for exports from GB to NI (particularly for agricultural goods)? Perhaps.

solodeogloria · 24-11-2017 06:04PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Ireland always will be able to veto the deal at the final stage, so why agree to something they already have. In recent times, the UK has moved from 'Go whistle!' to 'How about 20 billion?' to ' All right then, 40 billion - how does that sound?'

Are they under pressure, do you think?

Perhaps they could offer a sea border for imports to NI from GB and a free run for exports from Ni to GB, plus customs checks for EU standards for exports from GB to NI (particularly for agricultural goods)? Perhaps.

Good evening!

The UK has always said it was going to pay something. "Go whistle" was in response to an extortionate amount of money. I agree with that still, there is a limit. €100bn is an unacceptable amount.

Again, the sea border won't be agreed to, and even if it was it won't get through parliament. So, it's not really a goer. I'm somewhat bemused by the opinion that it is a realistic option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

kowtow · 24-11-2017 06:24PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Ireland always will be able to veto the deal at the final stage, so why agree to something they already have. In recent times, the UK has moved from 'Go whistle!' to 'How about 20 billion?' to ' All right then, 40 billion - how does that sound?'

Are they under pressure, do you think?

Perhaps they could offer a sea border for imports to NI from GB and a free run for exports from Ni to GB, plus customs checks for EU standards for exports from GB to NI (particularly for agricultural goods)? Perhaps.

Anyone I talk to in the UK always accepted that there would be a price to pay on the way out, although many of them hold that there is no real legal basis for the sums claimed. So payment is something to offer in return for a clean trade deal, or in particular for a transition period during which cooler heads and calmness might help everyone come to terms.

The EU says "We're not being political about this and trying to teach a lesson (pour descourager les autres one assumes)" and self-evidently that is not true; the UK says "We're not going to pay a penny" and clearly they are. The payment is the price of taking politics out of it and being left with trade.

The question is, once real offers are on the table, will it turn out to be Danegeld?

Schorpio · 24-11-2017 06:26PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The UK has always said it was going to pay something. "Go whistle" was in response to an extortionate amount of money. I agree with that still, there is a limit. €100bn is an unacceptable amount.

Again, the sea border won't be agreed to, and even if it was it won't get through parliament. So, it's not really a goer. I'm somewhat bemused by the opinion that it is a realistic option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

With respect, I'm bemused that you fail to see why the same logic doesn't apply to the Irish border.

Any amendment to the border situation won't get through parliament here. If the UK isn't willing to even consider the sea border, why should the Irish government do them any favours and weaken their own stance?

swampgas · 24-11-2017 06:28PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK has always said it was going to pay something. "Go whistle" was in response to an extortionate amount of money. I agree with that still, there is a limit. €100bn is an unacceptable amount.

If there is a hard Brexit, it won't be long before even a €100bn will start to look like it would have been a small price to pay.

flaneur · 24-11-2017 06:36PM

Just reading some of the UK tabloids today, the anti-Irish narrative is REALLY ratcheting up in the comments sections.

I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very unpleasant.

The Express in particular seemed to be dancing for joy at the idea that the Irish government might collapse. Although, I suspect they don't realise that FG are about the most mild mannered face of Irish politics they're likely to get. If they think they're standing tough on Brexit, try SF!

(NB: I don't read them other than for academic curiosity)

blanch152 · 24-11-2017 06:57PM

flutered wrote: »

ireland has plenty of reasons to be wary of any uk deals, not set in stone, even then they could be thrown away, like the gfa has been so far

As has been pointed out many many times before, no actual legal clause of the GFA has been broken yet, and it is unlikely that whatever form of Brexit occurs, will such a clause be broken.

We have had the scaremongering about citizenship which has rightly been dismissed.

Leroy42 · 24-11-2017 07:00PM

kowtow wrote: »

Anyone I talk to in the UK always accepted that there would be a price to pay on the way out, although many of them hold that there is no real legal basis for the sums claimed. So payment is something to offer in return for a clean trade deal, or in particular for a transition period during which cooler heads and calmness might help everyone come to terms.

The EU says "We're not being political about this and trying to teach a lesson (pour descourager les autres one assumes)" and self-evidently that is not true; the UK says "We're not going to pay a penny" and clearly they are. The payment is the price of taking politics out of it and being left with trade.

The question is, once real offers are on the table, will it turn out to be Danegeld?

The divorce settlement is based entirely on commitments freely entered into the the UK. Things like pensions for EU staff that UK owe a portion of.

That the British public didn't take that into account is not the EU's fault.

It really is incumbent on the UK government to start telling the truth to its own people. Continuing to sell this narrative that the EU is some sort of monster is what led to the vote and is only going to end in pushing the government further into a corner. That no one in the government is willing to stand up and be honest about the situation for fear of getting some public backlash shows how utterly incompetent the present government is.

The question therefore needs to be asked, will they continue to be so scared of the public that they will jeopardise any future trade deals (for eg will they avoid making a deal with India since they cannot face having to admit that immigration will be one of the planks)

Tropheus · 24-11-2017 07:14PM

flaneur wrote: »

Just reading some of the UK tabloids today, the anti-Irish narrative is REALLY ratcheting up in the comments sections.

I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very unpleasant.

The Express in particular seemed to be dancing for joy at the idea that the Irish government might collapse. Although, I suspect they don't realise that FG are about the most mild mannered face of Irish politics they're likely to get. If they think they're standing tough on Brexit, try SF!

(NB: I don't read them other than for academic curiosity)

Express readers and generally very anti anyone that's not white, English and supports Brexit.

mickoneill31 · 24-11-2017 07:21PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The UK has always said it was going to pay something. "Go whistle" was in response to an extortionate amount of money. I agree with that still, there is a limit. €100bn is an unacceptable amount.

Really Solo? You know this stuff doesn't disappear from the Internet.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/11/european-leaders-can-go-whistle-over-eu-divorce-bill-says-boris-johnson

“Since we joined the common market on 1 January 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?”

flaneur · 24-11-2017 07:24PM

A lot of English people genuinely believe it’s a monster. It’s very hard to get past that as it’s so embeddded in the culture at this stage.

I don’t think a large % English ever really bought into the idea of sharing with other European countries.

It’s a bit hard to explain but, I think it probably goes back to WWII and a British notion that they singlehandled won the war and also the fact that they are the reminant of what was a superpower before WWII. They completely underestimate the US having basically bailed them out. They also completely ignore the Marshall Plan money.

The rest of Europe was very much transformed by WWII and there was a coming together. Ireland wasn’t impacted directly by the war, but it was coming from a similar position of rebuilding after a conflict and independence and was very easily able to take its place in the group. I would also say that EU membership gave ireland a non British formal relationship for the first time in history and it was able to stand on its own two feet and is taken seriously as a country.

I think the English nationalist types simply never really felt that the EU project had anything to do with them. They also never really felt the loss of empire as the EEC rapidly replaced their declining empire in the early 1970s and they went through a major crash and IMF bailout in the mid 1970s that’s almost entirely forgotten about.

They take a lot of the material and social benefits of the EU for granted and I think they’re going to get a rude awakening, realising they’re a fairly small fish in a huge pond that’s dominated by several economic superpowers. The EU allows a the small European countries to act as a group and to have a hell of a lot more clout than even the largest members would have on their own and I think even Germany realises this.

A lot of British people fully get this but the majority who voted against to leave and the tabloid press and politics that supports the narrative don’t.

I wish the UK all the best in their exit but I think they’ve a very tough road ahead and I just think ireland needs to do whatever we need to do to protect our interests. We can’t afford to be sentimental or overly polite and I’m glad to see that Varadkar hasn’t been a push over. I was really concerned when he took office first and seemed to be quite over excited about being in No 10, but I think that was just being a bit dazzled by the new job.

Ireland needs to be very pragmatic and very tough in this and if we anger the British tabloids, so be it. They’ll have forgotten about it again in 6 months or as soon as some footballer is embroiled in a scandal.

kowtow · 24-11-2017 07:34PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The divorce settlement is based entirely on commitments freely entered into the the UK. Things like pensions for EU staff that UK owe a portion of.

That the British public didn't take that into account is not the EU's fault.

It really is incumbent on the UK government to start telling the truth to its own people. Continuing to sell this narrative that the EU is some sort of monster is what led to the vote and is only going to end in pushing the government further into a corner. That no one in the government is willing to stand up and be honest about the situation for fear of getting some public backlash shows how utterly incompetent the present government is.

The question therefore needs to be asked, will they continue to be so scared of the public that they will jeopardise any future trade deals (for eg will they avoid making a deal with India since they cannot face having to admit that immigration will be one of the planks)

The commentary here does seem to omit the fact that between 1997 and 2015 the UK had first a series of strongly pro-Europe Labour governments, led by a Prime Minister who now wants to see the referendum reversed, and then a coalition including a deputy Prime Minister who wanted the UK to join the Euro.

It hasn't been all one sided and the British people aren't quite as misled as you might imagine. Rightly or wrongly they prize sovereignty and the EU has diluted that. I'm not going to provide endless examples of the effect of this - it is a matter of fact that the most Senior court in the UK is no longer the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court) but for many matters the ECJ. You only need to look at the size of the current Repeal bill to see the scope of legislation delegated to the EU.

For many UK voters it is - rightly or wrongly - a matter of principle, not an issue of practice or effect. People want their Parliament, which they vote for, to be the source of these laws and UK courts to be the arbiter of Parliament's intentions. It matters not a jot that Parliament might legislate identically to the EU, it is the principle which counts.

You might - on a parallel point - be the most welcoming family in the world and invite any number of refugees into your house or immigrants into your local town but you want to be the one unlocking the door and welcoming them in of your own volition. There's a big difference between welcoming immigration in your own community (which the UK has done for centuries and generally pretty well) and having immigration and it's consequences forced upon you from afar. Ireland's experience of this is pretty new for the moment and we just don't see things the same way. It doesn't make the Brits monsters where immigrants are concerned (leaving aside the usual poisonous exceptions) - quite the opposite.

And there is growing concern - not unique to the UK by any means - that "one job is not the same as another" - and that the artificial and sacred equation of people, goods, and capital under the single market leaves many - often in what were once proud industrial areas - behind. If you are the last of a family line of skilled workers it is little compensation that your children can go to college in Spain, work abroad, or come back to work on a zero hours contract in an Amazon warehouse. Again - there are elements of these concerns which have little to do with the EU, and which Brexit is unlikely to improve, but the political and establishment elites - who like to move around themselves but who are unlikely to see their own livelihood moving - have singularly failed to understand this issue over successive generations and are now seeing the consequences.

I don't offer these points to provoke a debate on whether they are right or wrong, or indeed to rehash the whole Brexit yes or no issue, simply to illustrate that there are a number of underlying currents among British voters which are deep seated principles about which they feel quite strongly. These things can't always be reduced to "it's the economy stupid.." or even to slogans on the side of a bus.

solodeogloria · 24-11-2017 07:36PM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Really Solo? You know this stuff doesn't disappear from the Internet.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/11/european-leaders-can-go-whistle-over-eu-divorce-bill-says-boris-johnson

“Since we joined the common market on 1 January 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?”

Good evening!

That was the question from Philip Hollobone put to Johnson and not the answer.

Johnson said go whistle to "extortionate sums" not to anything.

All you have to do to see this is read your article properly. It contains both question and answer.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2017 07:49PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Immigration to the UK. The rules currently permit a country to remove a person after 6 months of their arrival in a member state if they haven't found work. Was the UK public aware of this? Why is this not being enforced in the UK? How is this a EU problem if the UK ignores this provision?

More importantly was Theresa May aware of it during her years as Home Secretary ?

PeadarCo · 24-11-2017 07:56PM

kowtow wrote:

For many UK voters it is - rightly or wrongly - a matter of principle, not an issue of practice or effect. People want their Parliament, which they vote for, to be the source of these laws and UK courts to be the arbiter of Parliament's intentions. It matters not a jot that Parliament might legislate identically to the EU, it is the principle which counts.

You are aware the UK sends representatives to th European parliament, sit on the EU commission have Judge's in EU courts etc etc. It isn't a case of the EU imposing laws against their will.

This misunderstanding of how the EU works is causing problems for the UK. Anyone who actually understood how the EU works would not have been surprised with Spains reaction in relation to Gibraltar and Irelands reaction to the Border. Misunderstandings of how the EU works are going to cause even more problems as the Brexit date arrives. Remember if nothing is agreed the UK leaves without a trade and regulatory deal which will cause havoc for everyone but especially the UK. If you read this thread you will get a taste of the potential impact. In Rte analysis of Ireland's decision to play hard ball about the border it noted that the EU had identified 140 separate elements of the Good Friday agreement that effectively/in practice required EU both UK and Ireland membership of the EU to work.

Saying the UK voters have certain misgivings about the EU is grand but they have to be prepared for the consequences of Brexit. Giving out about Spain and Ireland's reaction to their borders with the UK indicates they are clueless about what Brexit means or its consequences.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2017 08:09PM

So instead of sending £350m to Europe a week, the plan is to remove £1,380m a week from the economy ??

At least the EU gave most of the £350m back.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-economic-cost-of-brexit-in-gdp-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

Those new estimates suggest that Brexit will cost Britain £72 billion in lost annual economic activity by 2021, according to an analysis by the Resolution Foundation.

Previously, the best estimate of the economic damage leaving Europe will inflict on the UK came from a private estimate by one of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis's advisors, of about £22 billion per year, mostly from extra trade tariffs and barriers.

Link to document http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/11/Budget-response.pdf

Capt'n Midnight · 24-11-2017 09:15PM

A snippet from the leaked report shows how much progress needs to be done on EU citizens rights.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1123/922191-brexit-embassies/

The Irish embassy in Slovakia reported that government ministers there were insistent that the financial settlement issue was "very important", and that EU citizens in the UK must have their rights protected, not just for four years "but for 40 years".

kingchess · 24-11-2017 09:16PM

Quick question but if the UK crashes out with-out a trade deal,they will still owe the 20/40/60? billion for pensions liabilities etc?/,this is my understanding.

J Mysterio · 24-11-2017 09:20PM

flaneur wrote: »

Just reading some of the UK tabloids today, the anti-Irish narrative is REALLY ratcheting up in the comments sections.

I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very unpleasant.

The Express in particular seemed to be dancing for joy at the idea that the Irish government might collapse. Although, I suspect they don't realise that FG are about the most mild mannered face of Irish politics they're likely to get. If they think they're standing tough on Brexit, try SF!

(NB: I don't read them other than for academic curiosity)

Jesus, it's frightening to see what they are saying in those tabloids. One look at the Daily Express there and these are the headlines:

Keep calm and DON'T carry on! EU guards try to STOP PM aide as May heads to Brexit talks

'We're NOT ready!' EU leader's SHOCK admission over bloc's preparation for no deal Brexit

Now even Remainers are FURIOUS with Brussels: Hilary Benn RAGES at EU Culture farce

'Pay more? Of course you should!' Austrian leader laughs about extracting HUGE Brexit bill

Merkel told to RESIGN as poll shows push for new elections

10 days to deliver: Tusk slaps Britain with Brexit deadline - admits progress IS possible

'She has NO IDEA' Germany’s crisis is Merkel's fault as she 'completely miscalculated'

EXCLUSIVE: ANGELA Merkel has “no vision” for Germany and was totally unprepared for coa...

Ireland on verge of government COLLAPSE: Brexit impact imminent

'It's flimsy!' Fury over Project Fear DOWNGRADING Britain's growth forecast

WE’LL MISS BRITAIN: German MEP blasts Brussels and says UK ‘only ones with common sense!'

24-11-2017 10:59PM

kingchess wrote: »

Quick question but if the UK crashes out with-out a trade deal,they will still owe the 20/40/60? billion for pensions liabilities etc?/,this is my understanding.

If there was a definitive answer to that question, then there would be no need for the negotiations.

kowtow · 25-11-2017 01:39AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

You are aware the UK sends representatives to th European parliament, sit on the EU commission have Judge's in EU courts etc etc. It isn't a case of the EU imposing laws against their will.

This misunderstanding of how the EU works is causing problems for the UK. Anyone who actually understood how the EU works would not have been surprised with Spains reaction in relation to Gibraltar and Irelands reaction to the Border. Misunderstandings of how the EU works are going to cause even more problems as the Brexit date arrives.

That Britain is represented at the EU doesn't alter the fact that delegation of powers alienates sovereignty from the voter - the government, such as it is, becomes too large and too remote from it's subjects. The doctrine of subsidiarity helps a little but democracy tends to work best when powers are exercised closest to the electors and the EU construct pulls in the opposite direction.

It is inescapable that many in the UK are very uncomfortable with this delegation of powers, and it's not made easier by geography, culture, and history. Even outside the blue collar Brexit towns, you might be surprised by the number of moderately well educated people who have grave misgivings about the EU project and it's effect on democracy. I'm married to an English woman and in my own extended family I count bankers, financial traders, senior barristers, successful entrepreneurs running large international businesses - mostly London based when they are in the UK and operating all over Europe. All are deeply fond of Europe, many of us have lived and worked there, two still do, indeed my own children were largely brought up on the Continent. They all understand the significant financial risks they are running and the disruption they will suffer personally as a result of Brexit and yet I cannot think of one who voted to remain.

As much as any of us might disagree with the British voter on Brexit, it is far from a simple case of the common uneducated man being easily misled by a rabid Tory party and the rabble rousing press.

Peregrinus · 25-11-2017 03:56AM

kingchess wrote: »

Quick question but if the UK crashes out with-out a trade deal,they will still owe the 20/40/60? billion for pensions liabilities etc?/,this is my understanding.

Well, there'll be no enforceable mechanism for collecting it. In that sense, they won't "owe" it.

But, in the sense that it represents commitments that the UK entered into, and that they acknowledge need to be settled, yes, they would owe it (though there would still be plenty of room for arguing about how the UK's obligations should be valued, and therefore exactly how much is "owed".)

And, in the sense that it represents a liability that they would need to resolve by agreement someday, in order to normalise relations with the EU, they'd owe it.

sameoldname · 25-11-2017 04:40AM

kowtow wrote: »

That Britain is represented at the EU doesn't alter the fact that delegation of powers alienates sovereignty from the voter - the government, such as it is, becomes too large and too remote from it's subjects. The doctrine of subsidiarity helps a little but democracy tends to work best when powers are exercised closest to the electors and the EU construct pulls in the opposite direction.

It is inescapable that many in the UK are very uncomfortable with this delegation of powers, and it's not made easier by geography, culture, and history. Even outside the blue collar Brexit towns, you might be surprised by the number of moderately well educated people who have grave misgivings about the EU project and it's effect on democracy. I'm married to an English woman and in my own extended family I count bankers, financial traders, senior barristers, successful entrepreneurs running large international businesses - mostly London based when they are in the UK and operating all over Europe. All are deeply fond of Europe, many of us have lived and worked there, two still do, indeed my own children were largely brought up on the Continent. They all understand the significant financial risks they are running and the disruption they will suffer personally as a result of Brexit and yet I cannot think of one who voted to remain.

As much as any of us might disagree with the British voter on Brexit, it is far from a simple case of the common uneducated man being easily misled by a rabid Tory party and the rabble rousing press.

Just on the democracy point... 2 of the 4 countries within the United Kingdom voted to remain in the EU and will be pulled out against their will because of the wishes of the other 2. So that must mean the UK government is far too detached from its subjects? Or is it just democracy in action? I would say that depends on who you talk to personally and what side they came down on...
Just as a point of interest, that wouldn't happen with an EU decision thanks to QMV.

I find it interesting the way that British people especially (though in no way is it just the British) see the EU as this anti-democratic juggernaut that's stripping them of their hard fought freedom and wrapping them up in bureaucracy.

The EU is what it is... a 28 member supranational organisation where the power comes from the member states, deciding together what competencies and what legal mechanisms to enforce those competencies the union will have. It has no method of taking power for itself, the member states decide that.
Those member states happen to be some the most successful examples of functioning democracies in the world, some better than others admittedly.
Most British people would agree with this. They would view the individual member states as generally democratic.
So why is it that when these counties work together in the form of the EU does the average British person suddenly see the whole thing as some underhanded plot to turn them into a Federalised worker drone or somesuch? The most likely government in Europe to actually act that way is ironically their own!

90% of the laws that affect us as EU citizens are written by our own governments. We are as democratically empowered as our own nations have decided. For example, I feel better represented here in this country politically than I would in the UK because the first past the post system is nonsense as is well covered in this thread. That means for most decisions, democracy is only as remote as the country you are living in has made it.

As for the shared competencies, the EU is, by it's very nature, a complicated and sometimes hard to comprehend beast. That does not mean undemocratic though. If you actually look at the way the EU was formed over the years you can understand why they made the decisions they did. And of course when in a block of 500 million voters your vote will be diluted but that's still democracy. When our nationally elected politicians make decisions in the European Council, that's democracy and so is the European Parliament even if no one could be bothered to vote for MEPs!

It isn't anyway near perfect but the EU is democratic no matter how the average British citizen "feels" about it, and that's exactly what it is, how they feel... because even a highly educated and successful person can know absolutely nothing about the EU or how it works when they haven't bothered to educate themselves, and let's be honest, most haven't.

flaneur · 25-11-2017 04:55AM

It seems even The Guardian can manage to completely misrepresent the situation:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/irish-border-hard-brexit-ireland#comment-108742628

Much of Ireland’s trade passes through Northern Ireland, to the UK and on to Europe. Any sort of border – physical or regulatory – would mean massive distortion. British firms would decamp to Dublin to get inside the EU. Foreign and Irish firms would decamp to Belfast to get to the outside world

Facts don't seem to enter into the debate in the UK at all. Just imagine stuff and make it up!

They seem to think the Republic is utterly dependent on the UK for access to the outside world ...
If anything Northern Ireland's highly dependent on access to Dublin Airport and Dublin Port ro-ro and container freight as well as Rosslare for ro-ro and possibly Cork for continental container cargo.

Mind boggling ignorance of Ireland in the UK media.

solodeogloria · 25-11-2017 06:31AM

flaneur wrote: »

It seems even The Guardian can manage to completely misrepresent the situation:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/irish-border-hard-brexit-ireland#comment-108742628

Facts don't seem to enter into the debate in the UK at all. Just imagine stuff and make it up!

They seem to think the Republic is utterly dependent on the UK for access to the outside world ...
If anything Northern Ireland's highly dependent on access to Dublin Airport and Dublin Port ro-ro and container freight as well as Rosslare for ro-ro and possibly Cork for continental container cargo.

Mind boggling ignorance of Ireland in the UK media.

Good morning!

It isn't ignorance. Most of Ireland's goods pass through the UK to reach mainland Europe. The Calais corridor is very important. From the FT article I quoted the other day:

Yet as a hub for multinational tech and healthcare companies from Apple to Pfizer, using shipping links with Britain as a gateway to Europe, Ireland’s second city is fast discovering that it too has much to lose from Brexit. Two-thirds of the major exporters in Ireland ship goods via Britain on their way to European and global markets, according to the Irish Exporters Association.

“Businesses are starting to get very nervous,” says Brendan Keating, chief executive at the state-owned port of Cork. “We can’t sit on our hands.”

Transiting through Britain allows companies to take advantage of short sea crossings from Ireland, extensive UK motorways and the Channel tunnel to France. Crucially, the absence of border checks saves trucks time at British ports. But with Theresa May’s government committed to leaving Europe’s customs regime, there are concerns that longer queues and higher costs could damage an Irish economy that still bears the scars of the financial crisis.

“We have to assume the worst-case scenario, which is a hard Brexit and a new customs regime for dealing with the UK, anything better than that is a bonus,” says Mr Keating, who is exploring new shipping links to Spain and France.

This is why the negotiations need to progress. The sea route is much much slower than going through Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flaneur · 25-11-2017 06:48AM

Most goods do not pass through Northern Ireland, nor would most Irish companies need to relocate to Belfast to access the world market, which is what is suggested in the article.

"Much of Ireland’s trade passes through Northern Ireland, to the UK and on to Europe. Any sort of border – physical or regulatory – would mean massive distortion. British firms would decamp to Dublin to get inside the EU. Foreign and Irish firms would decamp to Belfast to get to the outside world. "

Should the UK block goods transiting the country, or cut Ireland off, it would basically be behaving like some kind of rogue state.

Canada for example allows US goods to move relatively unhindered to and from Alaska and there are plenty of other examples of similar.

Is the UK going to start behaving like North Korea or something?!

If the UK were to block Irish container or truck traffic using the land bridge route, it would be deliberately trying to cut Ireland off from the EU market and I would suspect it would find itself in a very painful negotiation with the EU (where Ireland could veto deals and where I would suspect many other countries would take an extremely dim view it too.)

The scenario you're suggesting is like a stunt you would expect from Russia and would be grounds for a trade war that the UK would be extremely badly damaged by.

The UK is claiming to be trying to create an "open Britian" that's somehow going to be more open than the already been open EU, which already successfully trades with the world and is progressively opening more free trade deals. Canada, Japan and even the US is no longer cold to that idea (even under Trump).

I don't quite understand why there's this assumption that there's a binary choice between EU trade or global trade. We have both !

An open Britian, just very closed at the same time ... It's like some kind of paradoxical psychosis!

...

solodeogloria · 25-11-2017 07:13AM

Good morning!

You do say that the UK thinks that Ireland needs access to it to get to the outside world. That's broadly speaking true. It does. That's what I was responding to. I agree that most goods from the Republic don't pass through NI but they definitely do pass through the UK.

This is why we should be looking for a good deal.

As for open Britain and the EU being open. The EU is open to itself primarily. It is highly protectionist in respect to the wider world however.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flaneur · 25-11-2017 07:17AM

Good afternoon!?

With serious investment and a viable market, which Brexit might cause all of a sudden, the sea route isn't actually that bad.

It's 14 hours from Cork to Roscoff for example. Cherbourg is handier for motorway accsss, but further by sea.

Going Cork to Callais is 12h including ferries and that involves a lot more driving and is subject to random delays at Dover, local traffic issues in the UK and France etc etc

With proper frequency and the right ship fleet, Ireland France is very practical and feasible as an alternative. The issue at the moment is that the land bridge alternative has been cheaper and the demand hasn't been there to focus those crossings on ro-ro freight.

If you're looking at French ports that would be mostly just handling Irish traffic and Irish ports that are only handling local traffic, you have a very likely more efficient service than going via the major ports that connect the the Uk.

There's a huge opportunity for the ferry operators to put something in place on those routes and I think the EU and Irish government need to incentivise them and possibly grant aid them to do so.

You'd need upgraded terminal facilities in Cork and/or Rosslare and probably at the French side too, particularly Roscoff.

The road route from Roscoff is also at least as good as Hollyhead. There's decent dual carriageway and motorway for much of the route and that part of France has motorways as uncongested as Irish ones!

You've also got a possibility of perhaps using French and continental high-speed rail freight if the infrastructure were put in place at Roscoff; and maybe it could be done as an EU TEN project?

There also already a TGV line connecting St Malo and there's a very fast major TGV line from Rennes. So you're basically directly into the French high speed rail network and very good motorway connectivity too..

It's far from insurmountable though and there's a big opportunity for France and the Breton region too.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments