Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus · 28-11-2017 10:11AM

ambro25 wrote: »

To the surprise of absolutely no-one invested in the Brexit debate, Davis and Fox have fudged the 58 sectoral reports disclosure to Parliament wholesale.

According to the FT, an SNP MP is looking to kickstart contempt proceedings today.

When even Rees-Moog warns about the potential consequences of the fudge:
you know May, Davis and Fox are on cigarette paper-thin ice here.

I'm wondering how bookies have reflected this in the odds of a GE 2018.

9/4 on a general election in 2018, according to Skybet. The next general election is due by statute in 2021, but the odds on that are 7/1.

solodeogloria · 28-11-2017 10:31AM

Good morning!

Samaris wrote: »

And again, trade is predicated on borders, not the other way around. Britain has insisted that everything that could prevent a hard border suggested so far is a red line. So we're at an impasse and that must be solved before the UK gets to play trade.

This isn't true. It simply isn't possible to guarantee a border until you can guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. This requires both parties to guarantee that.

The UK also has to deliver on the referendum result. This means no single market and no customs union. There are a number of different options highlighted in the UK position paper that would allow this to happen. The EU and the UK can guarantee the border if they deal with the trade issues.

The UK have said this clearly since July. The EU have acknowledged that all border issues won't be completely dealt with in phase 1. Therefore phase 2 is needed.

It's in the interests of the Irish people to move to this stage. It isn't in the interests of the Irish people to have Varadkar and Coveney waste time over an unachievable outcome.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The border must be in the Irish sea. Simple.

Not simple because it won't get through parliament. It won't even get to parliament.

This is why trade and customs need to be discussed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub · 28-11-2017 10:36AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Not simple because it won't get through parliament. It won't even get to parliament.

This is why trade and customs need to be discussed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

OK , asking this a second time. What kind of trade deal do you thing would result in no hard border and do you honestly see the UK or EU agreeing to it?

ambro25 · 28-11-2017 10:39AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't true. It simply isn't possible to guarantee a border until you can guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. This requires both parties to guarantee that.

Not really.

The "free flow" of goods is an entirely optional attribute of trade relations between adjacent countries (or trading blocs, same difference).

The 'absolute' default is North Korea-like (100% inspection, tariffs, etc.)

The 'modern' default, for all GATT/WTO signatories, is WTO MFN.

The "freest flow" anywhere in the world currently, is as exist between Member States of the SM.

Canada, Norway, Switzerland <etc.> 'models' all lie at respective positions between these extremes (WTO MFN vs SM).

A border never needs guaranteeing: it always exists by default, as the jurisdictional boundary of each country recognised by law [-the interrelationships and inter-dependencies of international treaties and other multinational/bilateral agreements of which the adjacent countries are signatories].

Trade and customs have always been discussed -and are still being discussed, and will forever be discussed- between neighbouring countries. That's what the WTO is there to help with at a global scale, and even trade/customs are still being discussed within the EU itself (with the constantly-evolving terms crystallising temporarily, as the successive iterations of EU statutes). That's how and why the ECSC morphed into the EEC and eventually the EU, over 60 years approx.

Understand that, and you will understand why the EU has the stronger negotiating hand -always had it, and never less so than since May triggered Article 50.

What you meant to say, is for the UK to guarantee a "no border" in NI, the UK wants to first guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. That cannot be achieved in the order you (and the UK government) wish, for reasons already amply explained on here time and again.

Leroy42 · 28-11-2017 10:43AM

Solo, it appears that the red lines and the open border are not compatible. Fox has said that they will form part of the negotiation on trade.

You have a number of times stated that Brexit, having been voted for, must be delivered. The government has decided that Brexit means a number of red line issues including leaving the SM/CU and the ECJ.

Moving them to Phase 2, despite a previous agreement to make substantial progress in phase 1 (to which you are now claiming that since significant isn't defined it can mean anything) merely moves the problem further down the track, it does nothing to deal with it.

Which of these two position are you willing to accept as a cost of Brexit. Should the UK give up on the red line issues or the border issue?

LeinsterDub · 28-11-2017 10:44AM

The list was based on work initiated by the UK government in August after a request from Brussels to help negotiators on both sides understand what the impact on citizens would be, amid concerns that a position paper published by the British focused solely on trade, and ignored, for example, aspects of the Good Friday peace agreement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/27/hard-brexit-would-hit-142-irish-cross-border-agreements

This the position paper your so fond on Solo

Christy42 · 28-11-2017 10:47AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This isn't true. It simply isn't possible to guarantee a border until you can guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. This requires both parties to guarantee that.

The UK also has to deliver on the referendum result. This means no single market and no customs union. There are a number of different options highlighted in the UK position paper that would allow this to happen. The EU and the UK can guarantee the border if they deal with the trade issues.

The UK have said this clearly since July. The EU have acknowledged that all border issues won't be completely dealt with in phase 1. Therefore phase 2 is needed.

It's in the interests of the Irish people to move to this stage. It isn't in the interests of the Irish people to have Varadkar and Coveney waste time over an unachievable outcome.

Not simple because it won't get through parliament. It won't even get to parliament.

This is why trade and customs need to be discussed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nope. I mean really no. How can we discuss tariffs if we don't know where they will be applied?

You can have a border without a trade deal. A trade deal without a border is non sensical.

There is also a lack of trust on the UK suggestions are feasible. Things like simply using work permits are incredibly open to abuse. There will also not be an interim period, if the EU let's that happen it will go on indefinitely as the UK would have no incentive to agree to anything.

I don't trust the UK to deal adequately with the border if it is left off for a while whatever they have said. Hence why I and it seems the EU want this done and finished first. Vague suggestions that don't look like they will work is not enough. A deal needs to be done first.

You seem to be happy for the UK to veto whatever it wants but the EU must be flexible? A sea border is the only way that border will be frictionless. The UK is not willing to consider that which is their prerogative but they must accept the reality of what that means.

Blowfish · 28-11-2017 10:53AM

ambro25 wrote: »

To the surprise of absolutely no-one invested in the Brexit debate, Davis and Fox have fudged the 58 sectoral reports disclosure to Parliament wholesale.

According to the FT, an SNP MP is looking to kickstart contempt proceedings today.

When even Rees-Moog warns about the potential consequences of the fudge:
you know May, Davis and Fox are on cigarette paper-thin ice here.

I'm wondering how bookies have reflected this in the odds of a GE 2018.

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, one thing that seems to be overlooked about this is this quote:

Mr Davis’s allies cautioned late Monday that the “sectoral analysis papers” were not impact assessments, and would not illuminate which how different parts of the economy might fare under different Brexit scenarios.

They said the papers were intended to identify the application of different EU rules to parts of the UK economy, and to explore the trading relationships between specific sectors, the EU and other parts of the world.

It seems that all they've done is look at the various EU rules that apply to different sectors and haven't done any financial impact assessments.

In other words, it's 18 months after the Brexit vote and they still have absolutely no idea what impact Brexit will have on the economy. That's terrifying.

steddyeddy · 28-11-2017 10:55AM

blanch152 wrote: »

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

The economically relevant part of the kingdom is.

flaneur · 28-11-2017 10:56AM

It's fairly clear they don't have a clue what they're up to and this is all just being driven by political positions and not economics or factual analysis of any type.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The economically relevant part of the kingdom is.

By some people's accounts, that would appear to be confined to an area inside the M25.

Leroy42 · 28-11-2017 11:22AM

Just a quick question in terms of the less noted impact of brexit.

Recently the roaming charges were capped by the EU, I have found this particularly useful in terms of free data when I travel (there are limits of course) but before it was quite expensive.

Would this be removed from UK mobile users as of Brexit date (I assume yes) and would this have an impact on using mobile in NI or is that a separate agreement from the EU?

LeinsterDub · 28-11-2017 11:24AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just a quick question in terms of the less noted impact of brexit.

Recently the roaming charges were capped by the EU, I have found this particularly useful in terms of free data when I travel (there are limits of course) but before it was quite expensive.

Would this be removed from UK mobile users as of Brexit date (I assume yes) and would this have an impact on using mobile in NI or is that a separate agreement from the EU?

See my link above NI is currently covered by a separate area.

flaneur · 28-11-2017 11:29AM

Well the current roaming charge arrangement is governed by an EU Directive.
I would assume the Tories would just let the market decide what the rate would be, as that's what their philosophy tends to be on most things.

FreudianSlippers · 28-11-2017 11:40AM

flaneur wrote: »

Well the current roaming charge arrangement is governed by an EU Directive.
I would assume the Tories would just let the market decide what the rate would be, as that's what their philosophy tends to be on most things.

I understood it was the UK's plan to repeal all legislation implementing EU Directives immediately (with our without replacement)?

ambro25 · 28-11-2017 11:43AM

Blowfish wrote: »

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, one thing that seems to be overlooked about this is this quote:

It seems that all they've done is look at the various EU rules that apply to different sectors and haven't done any financial impact assessments.

In other words, it's 18 months after the Brexit vote and they still have absolutely no idea what impact Brexit will have on the economy. That's terrifying.

Well, Davis' "allies" can claim whatever they want, and of course in the absence of both the raw data and pertinent information about how the DExEU bods analysed and processed it we can't possibly know better...but I recounted earlier in the thread my own exchange with the PR company tasked with gathering the sectoral analysis data about the UK legal profession, and that conversation certainly covered "how [ND: our-] part of the economy might fare under different Brexit scenarios" (we greatly emphasised the difference between the out-but-still-in-EEA and out-out, which is pivotal for our services).

But well, yeah. It was static we were hearing from the UK government, our regulator and our chartered institutes pre-referendum; and it's still static we're hearing today (but for scant few unicorn-seeking noises of late from our chartered institutes, not echoed in the least by the EU26 and EU side).

The complexity of the whole thing (when you consider the scale of the same consequences due to automatic operation of law, to be visited across the entire UK's goods and services sectors) is truly mind-boggling, and positively dwarfs the apparent lack of preparation/understanding of the UK government in the terrifying stakes

Put it that way: it's the sort of s**t sandwich that will just look to be continually self-refilling, because the [practical] effects of [legal] consequences will keep on snowballing for years on end, so vast is the interrelationship of EU law (and other treaties/statutes) with so many aspects and facets of daily UK trade the world over. Misrepresenting that complexity was the fundamental fault of both campaigns.

solodeogloria · 28-11-2017 11:52AM

Schorpio wrote: »

Solo - again, I totally respect your views and your right to post here; but I'm not sure what you hope to gain? You keep offering the same views, which are contradictory at best; and you keep repeating the same woolly source material. But more importantly, you've openly stated that your mentality is closed (a bad Brexit is better than no Brexit, etc.).

Good morning!

I hope to gain nothing other than providing balance in what would otherwise be an echo chamber.

I don't think my views are "contradictory" in any way. I also only repeat myself when I'm asked the same question multiple times. I also don't agree that my source material is any more "wooly" than any of the speculative articles that are repeated ad-nauseum predicting a rather elusive Brexit apocalypse.

My mentality is no more "closed" than yours. I'm interested in getting a good Brexit deal for all parts of the UK from Clacton to Coleraine.

I am convinced that democracy must prevail and will prevail in respect to Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2017 12:12PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU can choose this option or they can choose no deal. Those are the outcomes. That's why the Irish Government position is against the interests of Irish people.

That's a bluff at best. The UK cannot afford to exit with no deal.

But if that is the UK's real position, we choose no deal. The next UK government (possibly of a smaller UK) will be more reasonable.

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2017 12:15PM

Blowfish wrote: »

It seems that all they've done is look at the various EU rules that apply to different sectors and haven't done any financial impact assessments.

I think they did the financial reports and now they are pretending the dog ate them because they are so bad that they show the UK cannot leave with no deal. Releasing the reports would undermine their negotiators bluffing.

steddyeddy · 28-11-2017 12:16PM

A poll organised by professors at Queen's university has revealed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland prefer a sea border.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/11/26/exclusive-poll-unionist-supporters-content-with-east-west-post-brexit-border-controls/

Christy42 · 28-11-2017 12:26PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's a bluff at best. The UK cannot afford to exit with no deal.

But if that is the UK's real position, we choose no deal. The next UK government (possibly of a smaller UK) will be more reasonable.

Ireland also can afford to exit with no deal. Sure there are better options than a no deal for Ireland but the UK are not really offering them. There are plenty of up shots to Brexit for Ireland (the negatives out way them but they exist) and a no deal situation still leaves a lot of the UK financial sector up for grabs.

As has been said Brexit must happen cos democracy. It is however not up to any other country to make it a success except the UK. This is why I still don't get the UK's position. They are saying take it or lump it (as sol is saying) but the EU suffers only slightly from saying lump it and are quite willing for that to happen. They are free to take this position but it won't help them.

Similarly for Ireland. If the UK can't guarantee the border there is not much for us to play for in terms of helping the UK given the customs union is off the table. As is there is no need for us to push for anything in this scenario. The two things that would help us most - a sea border and the UK staying in the customs union appear to be off the table. Therefore there is little reason for us to say anything but leave it to the UK's current offers.

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2017 12:34PM

If the worst comes to the worst (and this is looking increasingly likely) and a hard border is imposed, the situation is a bit like Europe vs. UK. The Republic of Ireland will be badly hit, but NI will be hit much harder. And we can rely on the EU to help, I would be more concerned about Westminster's backing of NI.

Peregrinus · 28-11-2017 12:59PM

What Christy42 says. When Decision Time comes, the choice for Ireland will not be between the deal we would like and no deal; it will be between the deal the UK is prepared to enter into and no deal.

Which means that, the lousier (from Ireland’s point of view) the deal the UK is willing to make, the less the opportunity cost to us of vetoing it.

From this point of view the UK is not in a good position. Ruling out the Single Market and the Customs Union is bad for us from several points of view, of which the implications for the Irish border is the biggest, but by no means the only one. The UK badly needs to persuade us that exiting the Single Market and the Customs Union is compatible with an open border, and with other features that we would like; my sense is that it’s just beginning to dawn on them that, yes, they need to do that, and they are starting to make some of the noises they need to, but they need to make a lot more noises, a lot more loudly, in the next two weeks.

And we have a strong incentive not to be the first to blink. If we let the UK have a trade deal which doesn't, in the event, deliver an open border, then the UK has what it most wants and needs, which is a trade deal with the EU, and we have a hard border. The UK has no compelling reason to move on from that point. But if we veto the deal, we still have a hard border, but the UK still desparately needs a trade deal, and has an incentive to shift its position - under a new government, if need be - to do what it needs to do to get one.

murphaph · 28-11-2017 01:12PM

The truth is that for there to be an open border NI at least would need to be in the SM and CU. Whilst Ireland might even gift the UK a ridiculously generous FTA that is analogous to SM membership without the strings (to preserve our own 12.7% trade with them) the rest of the EU wouldn't let us embarrass ourselves and in fact would be doing ourselves out of lots of trade as the UK would have the best of both worlds. So this kind of ultra FTA the UK needs for an open border is just never going to happen.

The most the EU (and it's a heck of a generous offer) can suggest is NI remaining in the EU effectively.

Peregrinus · 28-11-2017 01:21PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I understood it was the UK's plan to repeal all legislation implementing EU Directives immediately (with our without replacement)?

No. The plan is to transpose them into UK, so that they still apply, but to give Ministers/Parliament to review, amend, repeal, etc. They'll then embark on a massive, massive project which will run for a decade at least to review the body of EU law they have inherited. A heated issue of debate in the UK is how the power to amend will be allocated as between Parliament and Ministers.

solodeogloria · 28-11-2017 01:22PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

What Christy42 says. When Decision Time comes, the choice for Ireland will not be between the deal we would like and no deal; it will be between the deal the UK is prepared to enter into and no deal.

Which means that, the lousier (from Ireland’s point of view) the deal the UK is willing to make, the less the opportunity cost to us of vetoing it.

From this point of view the UK is not in a good position. Ruling out the Single Market and the Customs Union is bad for us from several points of view, of which the implications for the Irish border is the biggest, but by no means the only one. The UK badly needs to persuade us that exiting the Single Market and the Customs Union is compatible with an open border, and with other features that we would like; my sense is that it’s just beginning to dawn on them that, yes, they need to do that, and they are starting to make some of the noises they need to, but they need to make a lot more noises, a lot more loudly, in the next two weeks.

And we have a strong incentive not to be the first to blink. If we let the UK have a trade deal which doesn't, in the event, deliver an open border, then the UK has what it most wants and needs, which is a trade deal with the EU, and we have a hard border. The UK has no compelling reason to move on from that point. But if we veto the deal, we still have a hard border, but the UK still desparately needs a trade deal, and has an incentive to shift its position - under a new government, if need be - to do what it needs to do to get one.

Good afternoon!

Again this position doesn't quite make sense. The UK has made it very clear that it wants an open border and has provided several lines of discussion that could achieve that in the August paper.

It is the EU that is adamant that trade and customs and in turn the final state of the border can't be discussed.

The idea that the veto will lead to single market and customs union membership or a sea border is a misplaced one. I can't see that happening. I also can't see it leading to an election.

The UK have compromised several times in this process. I don't support them compromising on Single Market and Customs Union membership as it would stop the UK Government delivering the logical outcomes of the referendum.

I still think the pressure is in the wrong place and that the Irish Government are being foolish here. They won't get what they want here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Lemming · 28-11-2017 01:26PM

Just read an interesting snippet on the guardian twitter feed page comments regards the WTO GPA & Liam Fox's letter (16th Oct) addressed to the Brexit committee:

some guardian reader wrote:

The ever-competent Liam Fox wrote:

Fourth, as we leave the EU, a further issue that will arise is the UK's membership of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. At present the UK is party to the agreement by virtue of our membership of the EU.We will need to find a mechanism whereby we can remain a member of the GPA on the same terms that currently apply to us.

My Edit: Source link; pg 2, para. 1

The WTO GPA requires that any public service that has ever had any part of it opened for private tender must be fully opened to private tender. That is a fully privatized NHS. Currently, as an EU member state, we have an exemption, that ends with brexit as Fox states. All 160+ WTO member states would have to agree to that exemption continuing, the US isn't going to agree. The only way to avoid this is to remain in the Single Market.

Bold emphasis is mine. Assuming the above to be correct, that'll leave the NHS vulnerable to US-style takeover. White text on the side of a big red bus wont amount to squat if that scenario comes to pass, and any agreement with the US will insist upon agricultural & medical access for US businesses or no deal. Out of the frying pan and all that ...

Leroy42 · 28-11-2017 01:31PM

As far as I can work out there is no way that we can square the circle of non membership of EU and an open border.

To allow Ni to be an open border we are simply giving a massive advantage to the UK, and in the coming years it will be us v's the UK.

Should Ireland not just start planning for that now. It seems that Ireland is hoping against hope that the girlfriend doesn't leave them but rather than waste time on a relationship well past it should be looking to the future. No amount of wishing the Uk will come to its senses (in our opinion) will make it so.

So forget about talks with May etc, we should be holding talks with the EU on structural funds to get our ports/airports ready for a new import/export regime. Going through mainland UK will be a poor second option as the waiting times at the borders will be massive.

We have moved to a more open market since joining the EU and this is simply the next stage. We will still trade with the UK but it will change in almost every aspect. Of course it is risky, but that is really the only option as the UK have made their decision. The only possible silver lining is that the effects of Brexit are such that the UK come to their senses and look to return but even that will take a decade or more.

We simply cannot afford to sit by and suffer whilst we wait for them

Leroy42 · 28-11-2017 01:34PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is the EU that is adamant that trade and customs and in turn the final state of the border can't be discussed.

Its almost as if these are red lines for the EU. Imagine stating that you are unwilling to move from a red line issue.

Lucky the UK are of higher moral character than to carry on like that.

flaneur · 28-11-2017 01:35PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

A poll organised by professors at Queen's university has revealed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland prefer a sea border.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/11/26/exclusive-poll-unionist-supporters-content-with-east-west-post-brexit-border-controls/

But a vocal minority representing a particularly extreme version of unionism hold all the power in Westminster and will absolutely not budge.

Peregrinus · 28-11-2017 01:37PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Again this position doesn't quite make sense. The UK has made it very clear that it wants an open border and has provided several lines of discussion that could achieve that in the August paper.

No. The UK has said that it wants an open border, but the "lines of discussion" offered in its August paper have been universally derided as not being a serious step towards making that possible. And - this is the alarming bit - the UK seems unbothered by that.

What it comes down to is this; the UK has put forward thoughts which the EU has dismissed, and the EU has put forward thoughts which the UK has dismissed.

There's not much point in playing a blame-game here. As it happens I think the EU's position is rational and the UK's irrational, and you think the opposite. But so what? Regardless of which of us is correct, if the question is "has their been 'sufficient progress' towards an open border?" the answer has to be an unambiguous "no". The situation just described cannot be characterised as 'progress'.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The idea that the veto will lead to single market and customs union membership or a sea border is a misplaced one.

I can't see that happening. I also can't see it leading to an election.

Just to be clear; I'm not saying that a veto will lead to SM/CU membership or to a sea border; it certainly won't, at least in the short term. But what it will do is keep up the pressure on the UK to agree to one of those, or to some other measure which will enable an open border. And that, for us, is better than a situation in which the UK has no such incentive. Therefore we would rationally prefer it.

Nor am I saying that it will lead to an election. But an election will come anyway, sooner or later; that's how the UK constitution workds. In this scenario, to be honest, it probably comes sooner, given the parliamentary situation, and given the plight of a government whose strategy for Brexit crucially depends on negotiating trade deals, but who can't negotiate the trade deal that the UK needs the most.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have compromised several times in this process. I don't support them compromising on Single Market and Customs Union membership as it would stop the UK Government delivering the logical outcomes of the referendum.

They could compromise on the sea border, though. Not even the most ardent brexiteer will pretend that the debate/discussion that preceded the referendum vote has to be construed such that the referendum vote amounts to a mandate against a sea border. That's a matter for Parliament, unconstrained by any referendum.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments