Brexit discussion thread II

kowtow wrote: »

If those five demands are accurate, it's eminently doable. The wording is deliberately sufficiently open to allow real and functional progress during phase two. At that point, with trade also on the table, Ireland will be more easily persuaded to accept a practical solution because clearly a successful trade deal is very much in our interests. If the inflamatory rhetoric on both sides can be dialled down then the kind of creative partnership which I hoped for up the thread is still possible.

The "no regulatory divergence on EU matters" (from memory) is going to cause something of a talking point.

I think if that article is anything to go by that we can say that Ireland has made it's point very effectively, without - so far - throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I think you're correct to say that "a successful trade deal is very much in our interests", as of course is an open border, both for economic reasons and for the good of the peace process.

But, ironically, this gives rise to a problem which has not been (publicly) appreciated or recognised on the UK side. Much of the popular press rhetoric presents Ireland as the awkward buggers who are blocking progress and holding everyone to ransom, but in fact a concern in Brussels is that Ireland has such a strong interest in an open border, and such a strong interest in a good trade deal, that in order to achieve those it might be tempted to agree to measures to protect the integrity of the single market that are, um, less than 100% effective. It's Brussels, even more than Dublin, which is most concerned to see that, e.g. chlorinated chicken and hormone-laced beef can't be imported into the Single Market across the Irish border.

So when the UK proposes technological solutions to regulate and monitor cross-border trade, Ireland's concern is mainly that the nature of those solutions won't hamper movement of people, goods and services and won't inflame tensions in a way that that will jeopardise the peace process, and only secondarily that they will effectively prevent contraband, while in Brussels the effective prevention of contraband is the primary preoccupation. Similarly Ireland may be happy to accept a lower degree of regulatory convergence as necessary to support an open border than Brussels is.

Up to now, Brussels and Dublin have been 100% in lock-step. That's been easy, since the British have made no substantial proposals with regard to measures to police the border that require a response from the EU side, and similarly they've said little about what degree (if any) of regulatory convergence they might commit to. When they do, however, and when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of addressing the UK's position the difference in emphasis between Brussels and Dublin may begin to make itself felt.

People over here, remain and leave voters seem to be getting pretty p1ssed at the thought of paying 50 billion over decades. The UK is in huge debt already and this is a large amount of money.

Circa 50 billion bill, NI stays in the CU more or less surely May can't survive this deal?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Circa 50 billion bill, NI stays in the CU more or less surely May can't survive this deal?

Yes, until Brexit is finalised she will stay in power, but is a lame duck that will be sacrificed as soon as it is deemed necessary. However Brexit goes, I don't see a situation where Britain will come out as winner, especially as the economic reality will hit at some point, then she will be blamed and removed. No idea if the prime minister can be swapped without GE, but this is happening.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've got no issue calling a spade a spade. Claiming Brexit means Britain isn't committed to supporting European defence is insensitive and ignorant nonsense.

Britain has committed military support to Eastern European countries against Russia, committed itself firmly to defeating IS on the ground and in sharing information with other countries.

So yes, he's being a jerk! If that's the "thinking" of the EU then I'm happy the UK is coming out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good morning!!

I worry for the UK if your attitude to Barnier is widespread in their Govt and negotiating team.

Speaking of spades, when you are digging a hole the first rule is stop digging.

The UK govt and ppl, including I dare say, your good self, will be taught a sorry lesson if/when they crash out of the EU.

Much thanks(?!)

Beechwoodspark

murphaph wrote: »

But if true it highlights even further what a joke Brexit is. I agree with hard Brexiteers in this respect...if you're gonna Brexit then Brexit (stupid but whatever). Leaving the decision making club (especially as a member with a lot of say) only accept large swathes of what it decides is monumentally stupid. It's British pride that's preventing them from just admitting they actually did rather well in the EU.

Unless you're going to go all Patrick Minford, forget about trade deals entirely and have unilateral free trade with the entire world - and, apart from Patrick Minford, I really don't see anyone signing up for that - then any half-way rational Brexit strategy will recognise that, yeah, getting a good trade deal, and a good trading relationship, with the EU is pretty much a sine qua non of any Brexit that might be considered even half-way successful or beneficial for Britain.

Which means, inevitably, right from day 1, they were always going to have to negotiate with the EU, to advance interests which both sides have in common and, where interests/objectives diverge, to compromise until they reach a mutually acceptable position.

In any negotiation, both sides have to be ready to compromise - if you're not prepared to compromise, then you might as well not bother to start the negotiations, and move straight to the Minfordy Plan B. But who gets to compromise more, and who gets more of what they aspire to, depends on a number of things, but most of all on the strategic bargaining position of the two parties.

And here's the thing that I think at least some Brexiters were in denial about, and some other recognised but found it politic to pretend to be in denial about; the EU always had the much stronger bargaining position. Vastly more populous, vastly wealthier, vastly better resourced. And most significantly of all, vastly better able to withstand a "no deal" outcome than the UK was. From a trading, economic, etc relationship point of view, the UK is simply much less significant to the EU than the EU is to the UK. If it all went completely pear-shaped, both sides would suffer but the UK would suffer relatively much more.

In other words, the UK always had more to lose from unsuccessful negotiations, and the EU knew it. That's a very strong bargaining position for the EU, and a very weak one for the UK.

So it was always the case that most of the movement, most of the compromise, was likely to be on the UK side, and so it has proved. In the initial discussions about the sequencing of events, there was supposed to be a row that would last all summer and in fact the UK accepted the EU position without amendment on day 1. On each of the phase 1 issues identified in that sequencing decision, the UK has found it necessary to move a lot further towards the EU position than the EU has found it necessary to move to the UK position. And I doubt that this pattern will change very much in the next phase.

Possibly in anticipation of this, the UK staked out some very high positions from which to start; no Single Market, no Customs Union, no ECJ jurisdiction, etc. They haven't abandoned any of those positions, but they have compromised significantly on all of them. For example, the UK won't be in the Customs Union, but it's going to accept a lot of the incidents and characteristics of customs union membership. Or, as I can't remember who put it, "the European Customs Union is incompatible with Brexit; a customs union isn't".

This is a bit galling for people who actually believed the Brexity rhetoric, and we must expect them to be a bit bad-tempered about it. But, remember, 48% of the population voted to remain and, of the rest, presumably at least some took a somewhat nuanced view of what they were being told, and never really though that it would be as easy as they were glibly assured it would be. A year ago people were talking about how the German can manufacturers would press Merkel, and Merkel would press the EU, and the EU would grant the UK full trading rights into the Single Market without any of this free movement/ECJ Jurisidction nonsense. It's many months now since anyone peddled nonsense like that. I think the British public is a bit more realistic about where they stand that last year's Brexity rhetoric would indicate.

I have to say that I'm with solo here. I found the Barnier remarks very surprising. What could he possibly hope to achieve by them, at just this time (or at any time)? They're all the more surprising because, so far, he has proved himself a very deft operator. But these comments strike me as pretty much the opposite of deft, whatever that is.

flatty wrote: »

One has to ignore the cr@p in the papers, as the younger generations increasingly are (in part, I reckon, because they have been so badly screwed in the UK that a newspaper is a luxury many wouldn't want to waste money on).

I am not so sure - younger folks are ignoring newspapers everywhere because a) they cost money and information is "free" these days and b) they are physical and awkward.

Unfortunately, relying on "free" information often is the same as swallowing lies. Living in an online echo chamber may be even worse than reading crappy tabloids for distorting your world view.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Barnier is a model of tact and diplomacy beside Boris and Davis.

And don't forget the likes of Ian Duncan Smith who exposed himself as being woefully ignorant about the Irish political system a day ago.