Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 27-11-2017 10:52AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

And that is fine, but apart from smart technology (of which they haven't actually given any details) how are the UK going to square the circle of removing themselves from the mechanisims that removed the need for borders and not having a border.

You seem to be suggesting that the UK simply won't erect a physical border, thus it won't be them to blame. But whomever actually builds it it needs to be built. And why would the UK voters, who voted to take back control, then cede control of their border to the EU?

And if they have open borders in NI, will they also have them throughout the UK and if not why not? If it is acceptable in one place surely it is acceptable in all?

We all know the position of the UK, they want everything for nothing. We know that the brexiteers want all the access and freedom of the EU but none of the responsibility. Wanting it does not mean that it is possible.

Good morning!

If the EU progress the discussions to phase 2 alternative arrangements can be effectively discussed. It is impossible to discuss this unless the EU are willing to discuss it. There are a number of other models in operation today.

The key to progress is discussing trade and customs. Ireland needs to discuss this for other reasons also.

Edit:

Leroy42 wrote: »

Since the UK are changing the process that was agreed to, ie phase 1 being the the settlement and border, what should the UK give in return for that?

Ireland are looking for a written confirmation that no border will exist after Brexit, which according to you is exactly what the UK what.

So shouldn't they give that commitment in writing?

I already told you this isn't true in a different post. The EU and the UK never agreed to solve all the border issues in phase 1. I also told you that the UK and the EU made progress on the CTA and on cross border institutions.

What's the point in discussing if you're not going to listen to what I say?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady · 27-11-2017 10:56AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again, the DUP's responsibility is to represent the unionist constituency that they represent. I don't think they care much about how they are thought of. This is why I find that some of the concern for Northern Ireland on this thread is faux concern. It's only with consideration to the standpoint of nationalists that it is expressed. A sea border is a huge concern to unionists who want to see their standing in the United Kingdom maintained.

The Irish government position is mindblowingly stupid because we all know that the UK aren't going to agree to membership of the customs union and the single market at a national level or a sub-national level. Therefore the only thing that the Irish Government are doing is blocking discussions on this issue and on the wider trade links with the UK that they heavily depend on.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK are not to be trusted on the border because they are being disingenuous on it.

How can you on the one hand say 'There will be no hard border' and then on the other say 'it cannot be decided until there are trade talks'.?

Ellian · 27-11-2017 11:15AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again, the DUP's responsibility is to represent the unionist constituency that they represent.

An MP's responsibilities extend to all their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them.

FrancieBrady · 27-11-2017 11:20AM

Ellian wrote: »

An MP's responsibilities extend to all their constituents, not just the ones that voted for them.

The Queen's University poll posted above tends to suggest that the DUP are trying to lead unionism behind the barricades again, against unionism's better judgement.
I expect the DUP to ramp up the anti Irish rethoric some more. That would be par for the course - scaremongering.

Ellian · 27-11-2017 11:25AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Queen's University poll posted above tends to suggest that the DUP are trying to lead unionism behind the barricades again, against unionism's better judgement.
I expect the DUP to ramp up the anti Irish rethoric some more. That would be par for the course - scaremongering.

I agree and it tends to undercut Mr. Foxes statements, even if one were willing to be generous to the point of naivety and take them as genuine, rather than just moving the goalposts to get to the stuff that the government really cares about.

Leroy42 · 27-11-2017 11:32AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I already told you this isn't true in a different post. The EU and the UK never agreed to solve all the border issues in phase 1. I also told you that the UK and the EU made progress on the CTA and on cross border institutions.

What's the point in discussing if you're not going to listen to what I say?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Apologies, I may have missed up and I certainly do not recall.

My understanding was that Phase 1 related to settlement, EU citizens rights and the NI border. On the first day of the talks David Davies agreed that trade would not be discussed until those were settled.

I also based my understanding on the basis that both the EU and Ireland seem to think that was the case as well.

Taking that you are right and it was never agreed, we still revert back to the point that you continue to claim that the UK don't want a border, yet Fox came out on Sunday and stated it would be part of the negotiations. Now either you believe that their will be no border or that Fox is lying.

From an Irish POV, I think it prudent to take the word of a senior government minister when he says that the existence or not of a NI will be open to negotiation and thus we cannot simply assume that there will be no border.

Given that, is it not right that Ireland should stand up for what it believes is the best policy for the country?

Schorpio · 27-11-2017 11:33AM

Schorpio wrote: »

If it's so clear-cut, why are the UK failing to provide a written agreement that there will be no border?

You don't want a border, we don't want a border. Let's sign an agreement and all move on with our lives. Biometric ID's - all that stuff - can be worked out during the next round.

Solo - I'm keen to hear what you've got to say to this. I noticed that you didn't address it in your most recent post.

What's the point in discussing if you're not going to listen to what I say?

I think you might be coming around to how we've felt for a while....

First Up · 27-11-2017 11:34AM

The UK has very few cards to play and it was obvious from the start that they would try to use the Irish border as leverage.

Brussels, Barnier and the rest of the EU saw that a mile off and that bluff has been called. The fact that the UK is still trying to play it shows how hopelessly short of options they are.

solodeogloria · 27-11-2017 11:42AM

Schorpio wrote: »

Solo - I'm keen to hear what you've got to say to this. I noticed that you didn't address it in your most recent post.

I think you might be coming around to how we've felt for a while....

Good morning!

I'd be happy for this to happen if it wasn't an obvious attempt to keep the UK or part thereof in the single market and customs union. The UK can't agree to this because it doesn't deliver on the referendum result which is about taking back control.

If the EU stated it was willing to discuss alternatives to this in phase 2 I'd be happy to do this.

However it seems like Ireland and the EU are trying to keep the UK or part thereof in the single market and customs union according to leaked documents and public statements. This isn't acceptable.

The UK have already stated that their position is to have no hard infrastructure on the border. The border cannot be dealt with until trade and customs terms are agreed. This is a matter for phase two.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub · 27-11-2017 11:56AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'd be happy for this to happen if it wasn't an obvious attempt to keep the UK or part thereof in the single market and customs union. The UK can't agree to this because it doesn't deliver on the referendum result which is about taking back control.

The UK said they have a solution that doesn't require a hard border and one would assume doesn't require NI to be in the CU . So what is it?

Also the referendum was to leave the EU it said nothing of the SM or CU.

flaneur · 27-11-2017 11:59AM

Schorpio wrote: »

If it's so clear-cut, why are the UK failing to provide a written agreement that there will be no border?

You don't want a border, we don't want a border. Let's sign an agreement and all move on with our lives. Biometric ID's - all that stuff - can be worked out during the next round.

It would involve commitment and facts and all of those things the current U.K. government is afraid of.

What they’re looking for is something non committal. Friends with benefits. Cake and eat it...

wes · 27-11-2017 12:05PM

The Brits racism is starting to show again (sure not even mentioning the crap said about our Taoiseach):

Brexit: Labour MP draws Trump comparison for claiming Ireland would pay for border

Britain should threaten ‘weak’ and ‘subservient’ Ireland to get its way on Brexit, Ukip says

The fact that they don't realize, the crap there saying will not go down well here is astounding. I think its best that out government use our veto, if this is the kind of crap we are to expect from "Brexit" Britain. There no friend of ours if this is how they choose to act.

flaneur · 27-11-2017 12:09PM

Great to see they’re keeping it classy, just like their football supporters do.

Leroy42 · 27-11-2017 12:10PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'd be happy for this to happen if it wasn't an obvious attempt to keep the UK or part thereof in the single market and customs union. The UK can't agree to this because it doesn't deliver on the referendum result which is about taking back control.

So what is the alternative? You keep giving both the desire for an open border and yet red lines including closing the open borders with no discussion of how to solve it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU stated it was willing to discuss alternatives to this in phase 2 I'd be happy to do this.

Why only in phase 2, why not now? I get it that you don't want to actually deal with it and hope to use it as a bargaining chip to get a better deal but as I pointed out many times the EU have, from the start, stated that settlement, EU citizens rights and NI border needs to be dealt with before trade talks. This was agreed to by David Davies.

solodeogloria wrote: »

However it seems like Ireland and the EU are trying to keep the UK or part thereof in the single market and customs union according to leaked documents and public statements. This isn't acceptable.

Only because that appears to be the only workable solution to the NI issue.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have already stated that their position is to have no hard infrastructure on the border. The border cannot be dealt with until trade and customs terms are agreed. This is a matter for phase two.

I think you are mixing up a position with a wish. They wish there to be no border, but their position is the red lines which are contrary to that wish. Which should be take more seriously? The stated red lines or an undefined wish?

27-11-2017 12:12PM

wes wrote: »

The Brits racism is starting to show again (sure not even mentioning the crap said about our Taoiseach):

Brexit: Labour MP draws Trump comparison for claiming Ireland would pay for border

Britain should threaten ‘weak’ and ‘subservient’ Ireland to get its way on Brexit, Ukip says

The fact that they don't realize, the crap there saying will not go down well here is astounding. I think its best that out government use our veto, if this is the kind of crap we are to expect from "Brexit" Britain. There no friend of ours if this is how they choose to act.

how is any of that remotely racist?

murphaph · 27-11-2017 12:20PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think the UK's position could be perceived as bullying. Their stated intent is to keep the border open. Discussions towards that end could open if phase 2 is given the green light.

If it isn't the only interpretation that could be given is that the Irish government and the EU don't want to make progress on the issue. This is again why I feel the pressure is being misdirected. It should be on the EU to move forward.

I hope progress can be made, but I personally can't stand much the desperation amongst some to find some reason why some people are determined to find "paddywhackery" (what a word!) where it doesn't exist.

The British press are entitled to criticise the stupidity that is emerging from the Irish government on this issue.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You believe the Irish government to be acting stupidly while apparently supporting the Tories' decision to set all sorts or arbitrary red lines that were nowhere to be found on the ballot paper and for triggering A50 without am actual plan!

<SNIP>

kowtow · 27-11-2017 12:24PM

Schorpio wrote:

If it's so clear-cut, why are the UK failing to provide a written agreement that there will be no border?

Probably because they are being asked to agree that nobody will put a border there.

It's one thing for the UK to undertake.. which it has IMO.. not to put infrastructure on the border but what Ireland appears to be saying is "give us a written agreement that we won't be made to put a border there either" . Given the nature of the single market and the role of Brussels that would obviously be a hostage to fortune.

27-11-2017 12:30PM

flaneur wrote: »

Great to see they’re keeping it classy, just like their football supporters do.

And you see no irony in that post whatsoever?

wes · 27-11-2017 12:33PM

Aegir wrote: »

how is any of that remotely racist?

Aping Trumps bull**** for one. Sorry, not going to pretend, we all don't know exactly where this is coming from.

flaneur · 27-11-2017 12:41PM

Aegir wrote: »

And you see no irony in that post whatsoever?

No, I don’t actually as the comparison in aspects of the media and fringe (but close to government) commentary is sadly, accurate.

Leroy42 · 27-11-2017 12:46PM

kowtow wrote: »

Probably because they are being asked to agree that nobody will put a border there.

It's one thing for the UK to undertake.. which it has IMO.. not to put infrastructure on the border but what Ireland appears to be saying is "give us a written agreement that we won't be made to put a border there either" . Given the nature of the single market and the role of Brussels that would obviously be a hostage to fortune.

Yes, and both yourself and Solo continue to state that UK do not want a border, and that therefore we can all take comfort from that. Although that doesn't appear to be the UK governments position which seems to be (based on what Fox stated on Sunday) that the border should form part of the negotiations. Based on that statement it is reasonable to conclude that should the Uk not get the trade deal they like they will insist on a border.

The option of a border has nothing to do with what Ireland or indeed the UK wants. It is a simple matter of the laws and how to control movement of people and goods.

27-11-2017 12:51PM

wes wrote: »

Aping Trumps bull**** for one. Sorry, not going to pretend, we all don't know exactly where this is coming from.

She isn't though, not if you read what she said properly.

I think you are looking for something that isn't there.

murphaph · 27-11-2017 12:52PM

Already the kippers are directing their invective towards the Irish.

This is going to turn nasty fast.

wes · 27-11-2017 12:55PM

Aegir wrote: »

She isn't though, not if you read what she said properly.

I think you are looking for something that isn't there.

I read it, and I think she knows full well what she is doing. All she did was say it in a far smarter way then Trump.

We are already seeing the invective from the Brits, showing there true colors. Its didn't take much for this to happen. Look at the comments in regards to Varadkar as another example.

flaneur · 27-11-2017 12:55PM

Bear in mind the UK first mooted an end or severe modification to the CTA in 2008 that would have ended up with a sea border between the two islands.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-border-control-will-abolish-free-movement-between-uk-and-ireland-0fw72cfk93c

That was under Labour and Jacqui Smith’s tenure as Home Secretary.

That’s one reason I would most definitely insist on a written bilateral agreement. The CTA is a very weak arrangement that seems to have no legally binding basis at all.

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2017 12:58PM

Grim reading in the Spectator though not for the usual reasons I find that publication to make for grim reading:

Alex Massie, The Spectator wrote:

Tone matters, however, and the message being received in Dublin is that the British expect the troublesome Micks to pipe down and get in line. Small things matter more than you might like them to. When David Davis’s officials send emails to the Irish asking for a meeting with ‘Kenny’ you can’t quite be sure whether this is a demonstration of rudeness (the meeting would be with ‘the Taoiseach’) or ignorance (the then-Taoiseach’s forename is Enda). Either way, it seems like a fail.

....James Forsyth writes that ‘Dublin is taking a huge risk with its hardline approach’ and this is something well-understood in Ireland too. But the Irish position is not altogether unreasonable. It is asking the British government to honour promises made by the British government. Viewed from Dublin’s perspective, this is not outrageous.

The difficulty is that the British government cannot honour those pledges while also delivering a Brexit which means Brexit in the way the government has chosen to define Brexit. That, the Irish will say, is hardly Ireland’s fault and perhaps London should have thought about that before assuring everyone Brexit would be easy.

In other news, the co-founder of Cobra beer Lord Bilimore has said that any trade deal with India will involve some sort of deal on migration:

Business Insider wrote:

LONDON — Britain will struggle to sign new free trade deals with economic powerhouses like India after Brexit unless it is willing to accept high levels of immigration from these countries into Britain.

That's according to Lord Bilimoria, co-founder of Cobra beer, and one of Britain's most well-known entrepreneurs.

Bilimoria spoke to Business Insider on Friday following International Trade Secretary Liam Fox's claim that his efforts to make Britain a great trading nation are being undermined by the unwillingness of British businesses to export.

The Indian-born British businessman described Fox as "utterly unfit" to serve as International Trade Secretary and claimed that nobody "across the board" in British business "has any respect" for the Conservative minister.

27-11-2017 12:59PM

wes wrote: »

I read it, and I think he knows full well what she is doing. All she did was say it in a far smarter way then Trump.

We are already seeing the invective from the Brits, showing there true colors. Its didn't take much for this to happen. Look at the comments in regards to Varadkar as another example.

Kate Hoey is saying that the UK government isn't going to put in a hard border and if one goes in, it will the the Irish government that do it. This is nowhere near Trumps declaration that he was going to build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it.

It makes good headlines though.

wes · 27-11-2017 01:00PM

Aegir wrote: »

Kate Hoey is saying that the UK government isn't going to put in a hard border and if one goes in, it will the the Irish government that do it. This is nowhere near Trumps declaration that he was going to build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it.

It makes good headlines though.

The only difference between, what she and Trump said, is that she was a bit more polite about it. Still exact same intent behind there words. She and her Brexiter ilk are no better than Trump and his ilk.

solodeogloria · 27-11-2017 01:02PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, and both yourself and Solo continue to state that UK do not want a border, and that therefore we can all take comfort from that. Although that doesn't appear to be the UK governments position which seems to be (based on what Fox stated on Sunday) that the border should form part of the negotiations. Based on that statement it is reasonable to conclude that should the Uk not get the trade deal they like they will insist on a border.

The option of a border has nothing to do with what Ireland or indeed the UK wants. It is a simple matter of the laws and how to control movement of people and goods.

Good afternoon!

What Fox said was that the shape of the border depends on trade and customs discussions. This is what the UK have said since last July. This is a common sense position. The UK don't want infrastructure on the border. That depends on the EU providing trade and customs terms that allow for that to happen.

Despite what you have claimed the EU and the UK both acknowledged that the border issue wouldn't be completely solved in phase 1.

The UK have already said they are not going to remain a part of the single market and customs union. That position isn't going to change. This means alternative options need to be considered in phase 2. That is unless the EU was to promise no tariffs and customs options that would allow the border to be open without joining the single market or customs union in phase 1.

Now, I doubt that will happen. Therefore we need phase 2. Not just because of the UK's position but also because of the EU's position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2017 01:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

What Fox said was that the shape of the border depends on trade and customs discussions. This is what the UK have said since last July. This is a common sense position. The UK don't want infrastructure on the border. That depends on the EU providing trade and customs terms that allow for that to happen.

If this is true, why did the UK delegation agree to the EU's timetable for the negotiations?

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments