Brexit discussion thread II

Leroy42 · 27-11-2017 01:05PM

Just on the position that some in the UK seem to be taking, Kate Hoey for eg, that if a border needs to go up it will be the EU and Ireland will have to pay for it.

Who bears the responsibility for any border between two countries? I mean, is it acceptable, from an international trade arrangement, that one side will simply do no checks whatsoever on their border?

From my understanding, it would seem quite a strange position that the UK are stating that they want a trade deal yet at the same time effectively saying that they care little for the regulations of the EU and will do nothing to stop goods from the UK flooding into EU.

27-11-2017 01:06PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

did they have a choice?

Zubeneschamali · 27-11-2017 01:06PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

What Fox said was that the shape of the border depends on trade and customs discussions.

From the Irish perspective, this is backwards. There can be no hard border, the UK must agree that before we move on, and then the shape of the trade and customs discussions will depend on that agreement.

You don't like this order of things because it clearly means NI must stay within the customs union, at the least, but that is not Ireland's problem, it is a matter for Westminster to sort out.

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2017 01:07PM

Aegir wrote: »

did they have a choice?

There's been plenty of posturing about walking away. They knew that this was how it would be before the referendum and yet a clear majority vote for it regardless.

Leroy42 · 27-11-2017 01:07PM

Aegir wrote: »

did they have a choice?

Of course. Might not have been much of a choice.

Does Eu get a choice on whether Uk leaves?

kowtow · 27-11-2017 01:08PM

wes wrote:

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.

Seriously?

Did Trump say "We aren't going to build a wall but if Mexico want one they'll have yo build it"

If he did then he and Kate Hoey are saying the same thing. If not, then you are twisting her words to suit your agenda.

murphaph · 27-11-2017 01:09PM

flaneur wrote: »

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.

To be honest I don't care about the CTA with Great Britain. I've no problem with full passport controls with an island you can only reach by air or sea.

I only care about the economic fortunes of Ireland. These are best served with a sea border.

Sure, it's a gamble because vetoing trade talks could in theory be the cause of the UK crashing out without a deal but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

We have no idea what this unpredictable British government will do in any case so we should use our veto now if needs be to secure something. It's a calculated risk.

This all stems from a poorly prepared for referendum that didn't outline the real problems with Brexit.

Zubeneschamali · 27-11-2017 01:09PM

Aegir wrote: »

did they have a choice?

Since they are backtracking now and arguing to move on without settling these points, they could obviously have done the same at the start.

But they have no plan and no end goal, so they can't think that far ahead. It is all about keeping the Government going for another month, another week.

solodeogloria · 27-11-2017 01:11PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

Good afternoon!

The UK and the EU both said that they didn't anticipate all border discussions to be complete in phase 1. I don't know why people are claiming that they did. Progress has been made in negotiating rounds on cross border institutions and the CTA.

This revisionist re-writing of what people said at the start of the negotiations isn't helpful and it isn't really honest.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

From the Irish perspective, this is backwards. There can be no hard border, the UK must agree that before we move on, and then the shape of the trade and customs discussions will depend on that agreement.

You don't like this order of things because it clearly means NI must stay within the customs union, at the least, but that is not Ireland's problem, it is a matter for Westminster to sort out.

This won't be agreed, so it's just a waste of time. Ireland needs good trade terms. If good trade terms and customs terms are agreed then the border can be open. That's in Ireland's interest to seek.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42 · 27-11-2017 01:11PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

What Fox said was that the shape of the border depends on trade and customs discussions.

So why do you keep repeating that the position of the Uk is that there will be no border? That is clearly not the case. At least you have acknowledged that much.

UK position is that the question of a border should be discussed as part of the trade talks. One can only summise that the UK will therefore use it as part of the deal. I say that as a outcome of the statement not in any way whether it is 'good' or not.

So, we now have the position that the UK is open to the border if it can sell it based on getting something in return. And you wonder why Ireland is uneasy with the UK position?

wes · 27-11-2017 01:11PM

kowtow wrote: »

Seriously?

Did Trump say "We aren't going to build a wall but if Mexico want one they'll have yo build it"

If he did then he and Kate Hoey are saying the same thing. If not, then you are twisting her words to suit your agenda.

Oh please, what a load of nonsense. The Brits are leaving the EU and the customs union. This results in the hard border. Putting your fingers in your ears and loudly shouting, does not change the fact of what the Brits are doing. There decision is what is causing this. Trying to blame the EU and Ireland is the same old tripe we have seen from the Brits for years. Its an astonishing level of lies and denial at this point. Nothing is ever there fault, even when they are in the midst of doing it. Simply put, what the Brits are doing will result in a hard border. Fantasy nonsense about seamless borders, is just that a fantasy.

Again, all we have from Hoey is a smarter politer Trump, but the same populist nationalist garbage is at the core of Brexit.

27-11-2017 01:12PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's been plenty of posturing about walking away. They knew that this was how it would be before the referendum and yet a clear majority vote for it regardless.

if they hadn't agreed to the initial timelines laid out by the eu, there would be nothing to walk away from. Agreement to tackle the issues in a set order was a pre condition to starting the negotiations.

I personally think it is crazy to do it in this order, it seems muddled. Sure, agree in principle what the key conditions are, but you also have to agree what the desired outcome is and until that is done, I can't see how one side can agree to anything.

flaneur · 27-11-2017 01:13PM

To be fair, that isn’t quite what she said at all.

She’s basically saying the UK won’t have any customs border but the EU will.

Now, I think that’s HIGHLY unlikely, as there will undoubtedly be both as I can’t see how the UK is going to operate any kind of separate tarrif / customs regime without one, but I see the point she’s trying to make.

The reality of this is we have absolutely no idea how the mechanics of this will work as there is absolutely no notion of how it can function.

There’s no precedent for it anywhere. The Norwegian model happens within the EEA. The Canadian US model is within NAFTA and is highly disruptive in my experience of it - Canadian customs officials demanding shopping receipts and US customs guards going crazy on security screening.

The Swiss model is based on a legacy arrangement and a ton of bilateral that are basically the EEA in all but name.

And the Swiss and Norwegian systems are in Schengen.

You’re looking at a border that is pretty much going to be less open than EU Turkey on trade as Turkey IS in the customs union.

There’s a huge gap between “wishes” and “reality” in the British thinking at the moment.

On the one hand they’re calling for an unprecedented level of market access and open trade and on the other the hardest Brexit imaginable, yet with no border.

It just makes no sense and it’s like trying to have a debate with someone who is totally illogical and just keeps saying “it will be fine!” over and over.

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2017 01:13PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK and the EU both said that they didn't anticipate all border discussions to be complete in phase 1. I don't know why people are claiming that they did. Progress has been made in negotiating rounds on cross border institutions and the CTA.

The Leave campaign never considered the border noteworthy so of course they never forsaw any problems. What progress has been made, exactly?

solodeogloria wrote: »

This revisionist re-writing of what people said at the start of the negotiations isn't helpful and it isn't really honest.

This is just deceitful language to be honest.

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2017 01:14PM

Aegir wrote: »

if they hadn't agreed to the initial timelines laid out by the eu, there would be nothing to walk away from. Agreement to tackle the issues in a set order was a pre condition to starting the negotiations.

I personally think it is crazy to do it in this order, it seems muddled. Sure, agree in principle what the key conditions are, but you also have to agree what the desired outcome is and until that is done, I can't see how one side can agree to anything.

This was clear at the time and it was clear when Article 50 was invoked. People voted for this, plain and simple. They are three very reasonable key areas and the UK has dragged its feet on each one.

solodeogloria · 27-11-2017 01:15PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why do you keep repeating that the position of the Uk is that there will be no border? That is clearly not the case. At least you have acknowledged that much.

UK position is that the question of a border should be discussed as part of the trade talks. One can only summise that the UK will therefore use it as part of the deal. I say that as a outcome of the statement not in any way whether it is 'good' or not.

So, we now have the position that the UK is open to the border if it can sell it based on getting something in return. And you wonder why Ireland is uneasy with the UK position?

Good afternoon!

I repeat it because it is the British position, it is outlined clearly in the position paper. The EU need to make clear that it is their position irrespective of whether or not the UK remain in the single market and customs union.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Leave campaign never considered the border noteworthy so of course they never forsaw any problems. What progress has been made, exactly?

This is just deceitful language to be honest.

You can read the outcome of the negotiations in each round yourself. The information is available on the Government website. Here's a paper on the August round on Parliament's website referring to the discussions on the CTA.

There's nothing deceitful about telling the truth. The UK and the EU never said that full agreement on every aspect of the border would or indeed could be agreed in phase 1.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 27-11-2017 01:17PM

murphaph wrote: »

To be honest I don't care about the CTA with Great Britain. I've no problem with full passport controls with an island you can only reach by air or sea.

And they aren't even proposing to have a visa system for entrants - the ports and airports will be wide open to all EU citizens anyhow.

And being Irish (under a CTA) won't excuse you from presenting "papers, please" to every official that wants to see them. In the new, free, independent UK everyone including UK citizens will have to do that.

J Mysterio · 27-11-2017 01:19PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RepBrendanBoyle/status/934987098649710592

Good to see some support from US congress...

God, that's genuinely heartwarming. First bit of positive news I've heard in weeks?

Leroy42 · 27-11-2017 01:20PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I repeat it because it is the British position, it is outlined clearly in the position paper. The EU need to make clear that it is their position irrespective of whether or not the UK remain in the single market and customs union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sorry, you repeat what? You just said that the Uk position is that it is open to whatever is agreed. Up to that point you have said the UK position has been no border.

Which is it?

kowtow · 27-11-2017 01:20PM

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.

Leroy42 wrote:

From my understanding, it would seem quite a strange position that the UK are stating that they want a trade deal yet at the same time effectively saying that they care little for the regulations of the EU and will do nothing to stop goods from the UK flooding into EU.

In the absence of detailed agreement I think each party stops the goods of the other from coming in, or applies tariffs etc.

If you like that's probably all that could easily be agreed in phase one. And the UK has made its position clear. No hardware. The EU and Ireland have said nothing for their part but the implication is they would find this difficult hence the demand that NI stay in the CU .

Clearly in a mutually acceptable trade pact you could have all sorts of enhanced cooperation. French immigration is at folkestone for the tunnel for example and UK immigration in Paris.

flaneur · 27-11-2017 01:23PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And they aren't even proposing to have a visa system for entrants - the ports and airports will be wide open to all EU citizens anyhow.

And being Irish (under a CTA) won't excuse you from presenting "papers, please" to every official that wants to see them. In the new, free, independent UK everyone including UK citizens will have to do that.

That’s really the direction the UK has been heading for a long time though. A mixture of genuine security concerns due to a rise in terrorism and a paranoia about immigration for other reasons have been leading them that way since the mid 2000s

May’s tenure as Home Secretary should shine a light on how she thinks. The Go Home vans. The crackdowns on immigration and the rhetoric aren’t anything new and I don’t really see why people view her as some kind of sensible moderate on these issues.

Chips Lovell · 27-11-2017 01:24PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I also read that the .4% reduction in growth forecasts that were released as part of the budget are based on benign outcome to the Brexit talks.

What would be the impact from a no deal outcome? It can't be better, but how much worse and would even that cause the Brexiteers to pause?

It's also based on immigration levels remaining the same:

Mr Hammond first had to deal with significantly poorer economic forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the fiscal watchdog (see chart). For that, blame a big downgrade in expected productivity growth (ie, what the average worker produces per hour). The OBR’s growth forecasts, though grim, may still be too rosy. They assume that long after Brexit, annual net migration to Britain will exceed 160,000, which runs up against the government’s daft promise to reduce it to the “tens of thousands”. Nor do they take into account a disorderly no-deal Brexit, which could yet happen.

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2017 01:24PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You can read the outcome of the negotiations in each round yourself. The information is available on the Government website. SNIP

There's nothing deceitful about telling the truth. The UK and the EU never said that full agreement on every aspect of the border would or indeed could be agreed in phase 1. You

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Your link is dead.

You have said that posters were engaged in revisionist re-writing. I'm just taking this as baseless nonsense along with your claim that most remainers are Euro-federalists and the EU wasn't working for the UK.

As I said, UK papers are irrelevant. It's the final deal that matters. I'm glad that Ireland and the EU are not permitting Johnson, Gove and Davis to screw over the people of both parts of Ireland for the sake of their own agenda. There are important questions that need addressing before trade talks can commence.

27-11-2017 01:27PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This was clear at the time and it was clear when Article 50 was invoked. People voted for this, plain and simple. They are three very reasonable key areas and the UK has dragged its feet on each one.

it was clear and the British government caved in to pressure to get on with the negotiations when they shouldn't.

In my opinion, they had no idea what they wanted and were looking for this to emerge during the negotiations, which it clearly hasn't. Sure, it is up to the British to decide what they want and how to do it, as they are the ones leaving, but I think it is pretty obvious that the eu has no idea how to handle this as well.

I believe the best way forward is for both parties to agree what the end product is, what the relationship between the eu and UK will be after Brext and then work back from there. This would have to be on the proviso that this end result is only achievable of the three key criteria are mutually agreed.

At the moment, we have both sides wanting something, but the other not being able to commit, because it doesn't know what it is getting in return. It is almost a game of who will blink first. Add in the small matter of the most sensible, powerful and pragmatic politician in the eu struggling to form her own government and the whole thing has become a complete joke.

solodeogloria · 27-11-2017 01:28PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, you repeat what? You just said that the Uk position is that it is open to whatever is agreed. Up to that point you have said the UK position has been no border.

Which is it?

Good afternoon!

The UK's position is that they want no border. That depends on the trade and customs terms that the EU are willing to offer. That's what I said in that post.

It depends on what the EU offer in trade and customs terms. The border can't be open if the EU doesn't offer trade and customs terms that allow this to happen. Assurances therefore need to be provided by both parties.

The UK's stated position (including what Fox said) is that they do not want a closed border.

If the EU weren't trying to tie Britain's hands into accepting customs union membership there could be a good way to phrase this assurance.

The UK could guarantee the border if the EU said that they would allow for a tariff free trade deal with the UK and if they would allow for customs terms to be arranged with the UK irrespective of whether or not it remained in the single market or customs union.

I'd support signing that tomorrow. True assurances would require both parties to commit to this.

Edit: ancapailldorcha - several posters (yourself included) have suggested that the UK and the EU agreed to completely resolve the border issue in phase 1. This is revisionist rewriting of what was said at the start of the Brexit negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flatty · 27-11-2017 01:35PM

wes wrote: »

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.

Please stop using the phrase "the brits".
I'm irish, living in England. It is a few talking heads. You might as well ascribe all jim corrs utterings to the Irish. You cannot pin these relatively few rantings upon the entirety of "the brits" (which is a derogatory term in any case, as commonly used).

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2017 01:36PM

Aegir wrote: »

it was clear and the British government caved in to pressure to get on with the negotiations when they shouldn't.

In my opinion, they had no idea what they wanted and were looking for this to emerge during the negotiations, which it clearly hasn't. Sure, it is up to the British to decide what they want and how to do it, as they are the ones leaving, but I think it is pretty obvious that the eu has no idea how to handle this as well.

Well, the whole thing is unprecedented in fairness to both sides. Greenland's departure can hardly be considered comparable for a myriad of reasons. However, the referendum was ill-thought out with no plan whatsoever for fulfilling the wishes of the electorate should they opt for seceding from the EU. What irks me is that nobody at the top can even admit that things are going badly.

Aegir wrote: »

I believe the best way forward is for both parties to agree what the end product is, what the relationship between the eu and UK will be after Brext and then work back from there. This would have to be on the proviso that this end result is only achievable of the three key criteria are mutually agreed.

Yep. The problem is that there are spanners in the works, namely the Irish border. The questions of EU citizens and British financial commitments are relatively straightforward by comparison though the former should really have been resolved much quicker than it actually was.

Aegir wrote: »

At the moment, we have both sides wanting something, but the other not being able to commit, because it doesn't know what it is getting in return. It is almost a game of who will blink first. Add in the small matter of the most sensible, powerful and pragmatic politician in the eu struggling to form her own government and the whole thing has become a complete joke.

Hardly a fault of Mrs. Merkel though. Enda Kenny and Theresa May both had issues on this front.

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2017 01:39PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: ancapailldorcha - several posters (yourself included) have suggested that the UK and the EU agreed to completely resolve the border issue in phase 1. This is revisionist rewriting of what was said at the start of the Brexit negotiations.

From the EU Observer:

The UK has also agreed to negotiate on the basis of the three priorities set up by the EU: 1) the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa, 2) the financial settlement and 3) the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

FrancieBrady · 27-11-2017 01:40PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

God, that's genuinely heartwarming. First bit of positive news I've heard in weeks?

Some more good news. Maybe we won't pick up the big agencies but we can do really well in this area imo.

"We have always had a strong customer base in Ireland and we are certain that this trend will continue with the impending Brexit situation as companies typically from the UK and USA look to securing a base to service their European markets," Mr Tedham said.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/1127/923089-jobs-dundalk-wasdell/

Water John · 27-11-2017 01:45PM

Am I right, Kowtow, that you resided in Switzerland for some time?
In which case you should good experience of border controls. Switzerland is party to Shengen and lots of other EU agreements.

Its up to the UK to outline how they see it operating, considering the red line issues they have declared. UK staying in the common trade area and customs union is Ireland's proposal. What's the UK's?

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments