Brexit discussion thread II

Anthracite wrote: »

I'm just asking generally as Solo has shut up shop for the day: can anyone explain to me why he thinks the Irish position on the border is 'stupid' other than that it contradicts the arbitrary policy decided by the Brexiteers?

I'm wondering if I missed something because I sure as hell can't see any other argument.

Schorpio wrote: »

I think it centers around the notion that they say that the Irish gov aren't actually asking for the UK gov not to put up a border - what Ireland is essentially asking for is a written guarantee that the UK won't put itself in a position whereby we / the EU has to put up the border.

Essentially, the UK would then be bound to keep things as they are, and would prevent them from fully leaving the EU, and such an agreement could even prevent the UK from just getting fed up and 'walking away' from the discussions, as so many Daily Mail commentators want them to do.

Solo and others (I believe) are making the case that the UK can't and won't agree to this because the UK needs to evaluate the trade options on offer from the EU before making any decision, or being bound to the EU in this way. However, they insist that the UK can come up with a solution and have outlined this in position papers (which they haven't, and even if they had, they couldn't be held to account for a position paper).

In reality, we all know that UK won't sign an agreement and be bound by those terms because they have no solution within the confines of their 'red lines', and they want to negotiate trade - at which time they can get some sort of deal (better than no deal), but also conclude that NI can't be borderless despite their best intentions.

I think the reply has it covered. I would think it is to do with the fact that it would seem that the EU is trying to force the UK to stay in the CU and SM by asking them to guarantee that there will be no borders between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The only way this can happen is if NI at least is part of the customs union and in the single market. They see this as a way the EU is trying to force the UK to stay in those mechanisms via a back door.

But the contradiction I see and what needs to be cleared up by the UK (not the EU as the UK is leaving the EU and needs to clarify the relationship it wants) is how can the UK aim for a open border when it is not part of the customs union. Also, how can the UK commit to not having a physical border, as outlined in their white paper and what solo keeps referring to, without knowing the trade agreement with the EU?

Now it seems that this supports his view that the border cannot be sorted out without talking about trade. But this is not necessarily true because if the UK commits to their white paper then they will stay in the customs union. Seeing as they have drawn their red lines of leaving everything EU this is a contradiction that has not been cleared up by the UK yet. The blaming of the EU and the Irish on the border is just trying to shift the blame and it is working on some as you can see on this thread.

So we are back at the start with the UK not being clear on the position it wants to take.

Anthracite wrote: »

I'm just asking generally as Solo has shut up shop for the day: can anyone explain to me why he thinks the Irish position on the border is 'stupid' other than that it contradicts the arbitrary policy decided by the Brexiteers?

I'm wondering if I missed something because I sure as hell can't see any other argument.

I wouldn't wonder about it. Solo has admitted already that under absolutely no circumstances would he reconsider support for Brexit. So there is no genuine thought process going on there that is evidence or argument based.

But I think the response would be much the same as the response to any query about Brexit. Something along the lines of:

1) I've given all the reasons before.
2) Everyone should want a good deal for the UK.
3) The British have made it clear they want an open border.
4) The British say we need to talk about trade first, so that's what we need to do.
5) British red lines are sacred, EU and Irish red lines are unreasonable and malicious.

Stick a Good Morning at the top and a Much Thanks at the bottom and we're done.

A n EU/UK study suggests 142 cross border activities on the island of Ireland could be affected by a hard Brexit. A sea border seems the way forward IMHO.

Another non answer by a Tory brexiter.

Ireland is miscalculating by asking the impossible of Britain. But there is a way out of this Brexit impasse - William Hague

He starts off by stating that Ireland is asking the impossible of Britain (nevermind that Britain is asking the impossible of Ireland) and then proposes issuing a written guarantee that the border remain open (what the Irish government has been asking for), without any suggestion as to how that can actually be achieved. Only that 'working together in a spirit of friendship, we can find solutions'. Well that's kind of what the Irish government and the EU are asking you for, but so far you've proposed nothing but fleeting thoughts on non existent technology and shot down any suggestion from the other side as politically unacceptable. It seems the brexiters envisioned they were the only ones with political red lines, well it's time to wake up. So please Mr Hague tell us how do you cut this Gordian Knot?

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact that the UK is an island doesn't help either.

The UK isn't an island. It has a land border.

The Uk has no land border. The United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland has.

Concerned that an election might be called.

Slightly Ironic that both sides said they don't want an election... and it looks like there could be an election.

Blowfish wrote: »

An interesting study, if a bit predictable in its results, shows that xenophobia is a strong predictor for voting for Brexit.

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/xenophobia-found-to-be-strong-predictor-for-brexit-vote-regardless-of-age-gender-or-education

We see it with the hatred we are now on the receiving end of. Will get worse before it gets better.

kowtow wrote: »

If you are all correct in your assumptions, then there is only one way for this to go which is a hard Brexit and a hard border on the Irish side at least - probably the UK side as well, with Irish / UK relations damaged badly on top of the worst case scenario for trade between the two countries.

I hope for everybody's sake that this does not turn out to be the case, being able to blame one side or another doesn't seem like much compensation for the long term damage but I don't think anyone realistically expects NI to end up in the CU?

If having no hard border in Ireland really is a UK "red line", then having NI in the CU is not unthinkable. On the contrary, it's the kind of thing the UK needs to be prepared to think if it's to achieve something that, it says, it is determined to achieve.

The real issue here is that, in their frenzy to deduce red lines from the referendum result, the UK has proclaimed a number of inconsistent red lines. Relevantly, their red lines include (a) no Single Market, (b) no Customs Union, and (c) no hard border.

It is simply impossible that all three can be achieved - it's a contradiction in terms. The UK is going to have to compromise on one or more of these objectives. This isn't because of inflexibility or bullying or a hardline stance by Ireland or by the EU; it's because of the logic of the situation.

(Relevantly, failing to achieve (c), no hard border, presents a threat to the Irish peace settlement, which perhaps suggests that of all the red lines this is the last one that should be compromised or sacrificed. That's how it looks to us in Ireland, anyway, and also in the wider EU. Even if there are those in the UK who don't see things this way, they should at least appreciate that they are negotiating with people who do see things this way, and this colours what is realistically achievable in the negotiations.)

So, where to we go from here? As these are the UK's red lines, if there are tensions between them in the end only the UK can resolve them. How will they balance competing objectives? Thus far, they have been extraordinarily slow even to acknowledge that they need to do this, never mind actually to attempt it. Still, as Sartre would point out, to refuse to make a choice is itself to make a choice. If the UK will not think about how to reconcile its competing objectives, others must. So, in the absence of any creativity or imagination (or even realism) on the UK side, we can perhaps throw out a few suggestions that might help people struggle towards a reconciliation.

- The UK should commit that any FTA which it concludes with the EU will involve zero customs tariffs in both directions. (This would be very much in the UK’s interests anyway, so this isn’t asking a huge sacrifice from the UK.)

- The UK should commit to seeking a transitional period which will extend until the zero-tariff FTA commences, so that at no time will there be a need for customs controls along the Irish border.

- The UK should commit to regulatory equivalence for goods and services of the kind traded over the Irish border, so that there will be no need for regulatory controls along the border. (This could possibly be a sectoral thing rather than a whole-economy thing?)

- Perhaps it’s a matter for the UK whether they commit to regulatory equivalence with respect to NI only, introducing appropriate and effective monitoring/controls on goods moved between NI and GB, or whether they make this commitment for the entirety of the UK, which avoids any need for Irish Sea controls at all. If they are sincere in their assertions that any border controls needed along the Irish land border would be very light-touch, then they must believe that even lighter, less intrusive measures would be needed for the more limited controls that would be needed across the Irish sea to maintain regulatory equivalence in NI, so they might find this the more attractive option. On the other hand, large sectors of British industry would welcome regulatory equivalence in any case, even regardless of the Irish dimension. Ultimately this would be an internal matter for the UK; as long as there’s regulatory equivalence on the other side of the Irish border, that should work for the EU

They will be thinking about Ireland soon!

They don't get it. William Hague was offering "solutions" last night but it's the same old thing - we don't want this and that - but with zero detail.

An Irish government is supposed to take tories on their word? lol

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think along the lines of free trade good - barriers bad, so once the UK leaves, it's in the EU and Irelands interests to allow the UK free trade access to the single market as there's cash to be made on both sides.

Denying them this access would cost us money, so doing it would be "stupid".

But by the same logic Brexit itself is even stupider, no? After all, the UK has the freest possible free access to the Single Market; they're withdrawing from this and hoping to negotiate significantly less free access to replace it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But by the same logic Brexit itself is even stupider, no?

The argument is that they are leaving (for whatever reason) so it is stupid not to set up the free-est possible trading arrangement going forward.

It's a bit like the two economists walking down the road, and one says "Look, someone dropped €50", and the other says "Impossible, it would have been in someone else's best interest to pick €50 up before we came along". Denying reality because of a simplistic theory.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The argument is that they are leaving (for whatever reason) so it is stupid not to set up the free-est possible trading arrangement going forward.

It's a bit like the two economists walking down the road, and one says "Look, someone dropped €50", and the other says "Impossible, it would have been in someone else's best interest to pick €50 up before we came along". Denying reality because of a simplistic theory.

The "free-est possible trading arrangement going forward" would be not to leave. The logic of the Brexiter argument that you present is that, however stupid the EU is being, the UK is being even more stupid. It is they, not the EU, who are rejecting the "free-est possible trading arrangement going forward".