nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

To a hard Brexit we march then..

Or they keep the whole UK in alignment until they figure out what the hell they are doing.

J Mysterio

To a hard Brexit we march then..

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ahh... that's disheartening. The problem with the committee is they have to find a consensus and go with that.

Yes. And, from the fact that they said nothing about the situation in which the invisible border technology is not available by 31 December 2020, I deduce that they couldn't find a consensus about that.

But they did find a consensus on the unacceptability of the Irish sea border. Nobody in GB seems seriously to question but that it is unacceptable.

But there is a modest silver lining in the cloud. As far as they're concerned, the Irish sea border is unacceptable not just because it constitutes a trade barrier between NI and GB, but also because it constitutes a trade barrier between RoI and GB. And of course the imact of such a barrier on both NI and RoI is greatly diminished if the whole of the UK remains in Customs Union.

The Committee's object is to investigate the effect of the governments decision to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union; to see how its going to play out in practice. It's not within their brief, I think, to query the decision itself; the decision is taken as a given, and its consequences are explored. (In any event, if they did challenge the decision itself, probably they wouldn't be able to find a consensus on that.) But they do point to the contradictions and tensions that the decision gives rise to, and to the fact that no way of reconciling these has yet been proposed. And they say:

We recommend that, as a matter of urgency and in order that citizens and businesses on both side of the border can have clarity, both the UK Government and the EU spell out exactly what full alignment would mean. The Government’s stated intention, that Northern Ireland will be outside of the EU Customs Union and Single Market but require no border infrastructure, is unprecedented. In its response to this Report, the Government should set out in detail how the future EU-UK relationship could make the traditional requirements of border infrastructure unnecessary, citing precedent and the evidence base on which it is relying.

This doesn't amount to a denunciation of the decision to leave the SM and CU, but it does provide ammunition for those who want to claim that the decision, coupled with a commitment of no hard border, is incoherent, and therefore ought to be revisited. And it is entirely consistent with a solution to the problem in which not only NI but also GB remain in the Customs Union, and also commit to "regulatory alignment".

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Behold, it is even as you have commanded.

:pac:

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't like saying it, but perhaps we should be paying more attention to a different finding in the same report:

"The EU Commission’s Draft Withdrawal Agreement does not properly represent the commitments made in paragraph 49 of the Joint Report. It presumes to make distinct arrangement for Northern Ireland, which is in direct contravention of the democratic provisions set out in paragraph 50. The Committee supports the Prime Minister’s clear rejection of the current proposals in the Draft Withdrawal Agreement which would result in a customs border in the Irish Sea. The issues of the land border cannot be resolved by creating a costly barrier to trade with Northern Ireland’s largest market, neither would such a measure be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. This proposal would also have significant detrimental consequences for the substantial exports from Ireland to Great Britain."

Ahh... that's disheartening. The problem with the committee is they have to find a consensus and go with that.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Id say we would need to see the actual report . . .

Behold, it is even as you have commanded.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but their finding that "this technology does not yet exist" is uncontroversial. That is already HMG's position. What would have really put the cat among the pigeons would be a finding by the committee that "this technology does not yet exist and we doubt that it can be developed". They kind of skirt around that last point.

Id say we would need to see the actual report, but Benn has said this. I posted an interview with him from the entrance hall in Westminster about a month ago where he said this, can't find it now.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

This committee has actually been quite critical of the government, it's plans and of Brexit. They even visited the border!

Yes, but their finding that "this technology does not yet exist" is uncontroversial. That is already HMG's position. What would have really put the cat among the pigeons would be a finding by the committee that "this technology does not yet exist and we doubt that it can be developed". They kind of skirt around that last point.

I don't like saying it, but perhaps we should be paying more attention to a different finding in the same report:

"The EU Commission’s Draft Withdrawal Agreement does not properly represent the commitments made in paragraph 49 of the Joint Report. It presumes to make distinct arrangement for Northern Ireland, which is in direct contravention of the democratic provisions set out in paragraph 50. The Committee supports the Prime Minister’s clear rejection of the current proposals in the Draft Withdrawal Agreement which would result in a customs border in the Irish Sea. The issues of the land border cannot be resolved by creating a costly barrier to trade with Northern Ireland’s largest market, neither would such a measure be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. This proposal would also have significant detrimental consequences for the substantial exports from Ireland to Great Britain."

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't really earth-shattering - it pretty much lines up with what HMG says.

This committee has actually been quite critical of the government, it's plans and of Brexit. They even visited the border!

J Mysterio

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so after month and months of research they reach the blindingly obvious conclusion that a hard border cannot be avoided...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/hard-border-cannot-be-avoided-uk-committee-finds-1.3428736

Haha, even the UK government's own committee is saying 'this is bollocks, show us how this could conceivably work'. So the UK government joins the chorus of the EU and Ireland in asking the UK governement this.

"The Westminster Northern Ireland Affairs Committee calls on the British government to show how a “hard” border can be avoided should the UK leave the EU customs union and single market."

To be fair, this committee has done sterling work under Tony Benn. Yvette Cooper has done some reasonable work in the committee system too.

Peregrinus

. . . which would be a nonsensical conclusion since an invisible border is not only possible; it actually exists right now.

I think we need to put this statement in context. The Committee is talking about the implementation period. What they say is this:

"The current negotiating timeline means, in our view, it would be challenging to expect full implementation of a new, non-visible, customs regime by March 2019. We have seen no evidence to suggest that, right now, an invisible border is possible. To provide adequate time for new customs processes to be put in place, the UK may need to remain in or parallel to the Customs Union and Single Market throughout the implementation period. During this implementation period, we call upon the Government to work closely with counterparts in Ireland and the EU to develop an innovative border system capable of delivering customs compliance without traditional physical infrastructure at the border."

So I think they are still open to the possibility that by the end of the implementation period, likely to be 31 December 2020, an "invisible border" could be feasible. At any rate, they're not ruling it out. All they are really saying here is that, during the implementation period, the UK needs to stay both in the SM and in the CU, and it needs to work hard to develop a border system that can deliver an invisible border.

This isn't really earth-shattering - it pretty much lines up with what HMG says. But there are passages in the report which suggest that, yeah, developing a system which can reliably deliver an invisible but effective border is tall order - no-one has managed it yet, anywhere in the world. And the report doesn't address the fairly obvious possibility that developing such a system may turn out to be not difficult, but impossible. What then?

Cookie_Monster

so after month and months of research they reach the blindingly obvious conclusion that a hard border cannot be avoided...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/hard-border-cannot-be-avoided-uk-committee-finds-1.3428736

There is “no evidence to suggest that, right now, an invisible border is possible” between the North and the Republic after Brexit, a House of Commons committee has found.

joeysoap

I dont know what the guy from RT was on about. Either in the nerve gas attack or on the EU. If he was being ironic it went over everyone’s head. Mairead put him in his box and he never came out of it again. Thought Brian Cox was very passionate. Anyway we have it from Greyling, no hard border and no checks in Dover.

FrancieBrady

joeysoap wrote: »

Mairead McGuinness in question time. Nothing on EU so far

Only tuned in when I saw your post and missed her earlier stuff. Thought she put the Tory very firmly in his box. Was not difficult in fairness, he seemed to be under the influence of a very strong drug tbh.

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

Completely accept all of that. But - its only one side of the equation ! - it does not benefit Ireland - quite the reverse - the harder the Brexit is .

We can affect two sides of that albeit indirectly on on one side - the UK side and the EU side. Strikes me both sides should be worked.

Taoiseach and Coveney have been consistent on this - that we need to be the UK's best friend in negotiating their Brexit because its in Ireland's best interest to do so.

We have worked both sides on this. And, it's generally recognised, in working the EU side, we have acheived a high degree of success. It's due to deft and effective diplomacy from the lads in Iveagh House that "no hard border in Ireland" is front and centre of the EU's Brexit stance. And the EU is in a far, far better position to acheive that outcome than Ireland could ever be, acting on its own.

The biggest threat to us is a hard border in Ireland, and a hard border between RoI and GB. (The two are obviously linked.) But if the EU, with its negotiating muscle, cannot persuade the UK to open/soft borders, I cannot for the life of me think what you imagine Ireland can do, or why you imagine it might enjoy greater success by acting independently of the EU than it has by acting to influence the EU's position.

Can you get a bit specific and detailed about exactly what kind of things you think the Irish government should be doing? What steps can the Irish government take that would be effective to avoid a hard border? Right now, I am genuinely mystified as to what you have in mind.

You say in post #5591 you suggest that we should aim to be the UK's "best friend". What, exactly, do you think we need to change in order to make this happen?

joeysoap

Mairead McGuinness in question time. Nothing on EU so far

blanch152

sink wrote: »

The financial services, technology and pharmaceutical industries are likely keep expanding and may even see benefits through relocation of UK firms and elimination of UK competition within the single market.

However the agri-food industry is likely to be hit exceptionally hard, as they're geared toward consumer demands of the UK market. Staple goods such as cheddar don't have developed alternative markets to switch to and production can't easily be switched to producing goods with greater consumer demand in continental markets.

Agri-food jobs are of course concentrated in rural areas which have already seen relative economic decline for decades. Brexit will exacerbate this decline. People who loose their jobs in rural areas will not find local alternatives easily and will force them to move to urban areas upending their lives and taking further jobs with them as demand for local services drops. These areas may never recover, I wouldn't call that a speed bump for anyone affected.

This is the real problem. You could have Ireland growing at 6-7% a year if it fully exploits a hard Brexit, but that would be growth of 10-12% a year in the sectors you mention balanced by decline of 4-5% in the rural economy. That is a problem for the capital plan, both to ensure that the bigger cities like Dublin and Cork can cope with the expansion but also that regeneration can take place in the smaller cities and large towns. In all honesty, there are some places that will never recover and we will have to find ways to manage the social consequences of that.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

The agri-food sector is the most exposed but its a bit soon to say it is likely to be hit exceptionally hard.
...

We'll probably see competition from Argentinian and Brazilian beef and New Zealand lamb but I wouldn't panic just yet.

We have the advantage of being close for fresh food. If UK food standards drop our to farm tracking will be a premium product. China won't take UK milk for babies.

Cheddar exports will take a hit. But it's not like there's a huge stockpile of the stuff and besides there's the other problem of NI milk not being able to cross the border.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/spilt-milk-how-brexit-threatens-baileys-and-dubliner-cheese-1.3242752

Liquid milk tends to flow South-North in January-March and in the autumn, and North-South the rest of the year.
...
“This is the biggest single investment ever in the dairy industry there,” says D’Arcy. With the new capacity “we could, in fact, process the whole Northern Ireland output so that no raw milk crosses the Border”.
...
Mallusk produces around 70 per cent of all the Baileys sold worldwide. Some 97 per cent of the liqueur made there is exported.
...
Tipperary Co-Op started to produce emmental, which, on the Continent, is the go-to cheese for grating and baking.

First Up

sink wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes we will be worse off if the UK leave. 7% worse off by 2030.

Last year our economy grew by a headline figure of 7.8%

In the grand scheme of things Brexit may be no more than a speed bump for us.

The financial services, technology and pharmaceutical industries are likely keep expanding and may even see benefits through relocation of UK firms and elimination of UK competition within the single market.

However the agri-food industry is likely to be hit exceptionally hard, as they're geared toward consumer demands of the UK market. Staple goods such as cheddar don't have developed alternative markets to switch to and production can't easily be switched to producing goods with greater consumer demand in continental markets.

Agri-food jobs are of course concentrated in rural areas which have already seen relative economic decline for decades. Brexit will exacerbate this decline. People who loose their jobs in rural areas will not find local alternatives easily and will force them to move to urban areas upending their lives and taking further jobs with them as demand for local services drops. These areas may never recover, I wouldn't call that a speed bump for anyone affected.

The agri-food sector is the most exposed but its a bit soon to say it is likely to be hit exceptionally hard.

There is scope for market diversification (which being worked on intensely) but the UK market won't disappear either. They will still need to import and we will still be their closest source. Plus we know the market and have established customers and channels.

Of course a bit depends on the terms of the eventual EU-UK trade arrangements but the UK will need to strike some pretty extraordinary deals elsewhere to justify tariff free access to their market - and they would need to end up with a pretty disastrous arrangement with the EU to justify tariffs on EU food imports.

We'll probably see competition from Argentinian and Brazilian beef and New Zealand lamb but I wouldn't panic just yet.

sink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes we will be worse off if the UK leave. 7% worse off by 2030.

Last year our economy grew by a headline figure of 7.8%

In the grand scheme of things Brexit may be no more than a speed bump for us.

The financial services, technology and pharmaceutical industries are likely keep expanding and may even see benefits through relocation of UK firms and elimination of UK competition within the single market.

However the agri-food industry is likely to be hit exceptionally hard, as they're geared toward consumer demands of the UK market. Staple goods such as cheddar don't have developed alternative markets to switch to and production can't easily be switched to producing goods with greater consumer demand in continental markets.

Agri-food jobs are of course concentrated in rural areas which have already seen relative economic decline for decades. Brexit will exacerbate this decline. People who loose their jobs in rural areas will not find local alternatives easily and will force them to move to urban areas upending their lives and taking further jobs with them as demand for local services drops. These areas may never recover, I wouldn't call that a speed bump for anyone affected.

Capt'n Midnight

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

Our mitigation started with the ERSI report on Brexit in November 2015. I don't believe the UK have published anything substantially better than this yet https://www.esri.ie/pubs/RS48.pdf

Yes we will be worse off if the UK leave. 7% worse off by 2030.

Last year our economy grew by a headline figure of 7.8%

In the grand scheme of things Brexit may be no more than a speed bump for us.

Tropheus

demfad wrote: »

I have a feeling that if they actually leave: the transition will end up being a transition to rejoin.

If they leave and want to re-join in the future, adopting the Euro will be firmly on the table.

demfad

flatty wrote: »

I'd put it the other way. I would not be draconian on market access, as this has been thrust upon the population by elderly bigots who are largely well pensioned and housed, and by the tory right and Labour left for widely differing reasons.
Once these atrophy, which they will, with a well managed plan from the eu, and new leadership in the UK, rejoining the eu in totality, with no opt outs, should be the aim.
The eu can demonstrate its benefits both on a national level meantime, through pr, and on an individual level by making things a bit less easy for individual travellers.
It won't happen for a variety of reasons, but I think the eu could bypass the demonisers easily enough here. At the minute, it's benefits are still too abstract. Two hours in a prefab in benidorm would perhaps be a better demonstration.
I don't think they need to get in a beggar thy neighbour tit for tat, though I absolutely accept that this has been 100% provoked and perpetuated by the tory right, the British media oligarchy, and the xenophobia predominant amongst a disproportionately elderly swathe of baby boomer insulated bigots.

I have a feeling that if they actually leave: the transition will end up being a transition to rejoin.

flatty

Deleted User wrote: »

Would that not play into the hands of the tabloids narrative of an evil EU?

Denying the British the benefits of the EU should be enough, there is no reason to punish them. It would also be harder to agree amongst the 27 if say the costs of the lost holidays were to be disproportionately felt by the Spanish or whoever.

I'd put it the other way. I would not be draconian on market access, as this has been thrust upon the population by elderly bigots who are largely well pensioned and housed, and by the tory right and Labour left for widely differing reasons.
Once these atrophy, which they will, with a well managed plan from the eu, and new leadership in the UK, rejoining the eu in totality, with no opt outs, should be the aim.
The eu can demonstrate its benefits both on a national level meantime, through pr, and on an individual level by making things a bit less easy for individual travellers.
It won't happen for a variety of reasons, but I think the eu could bypass the demonisers easily enough here. At the minute, it's benefits are still too abstract. Two hours in a prefab in benidorm would perhaps be a better demonstration.
I don't think they need to get in a beggar thy neighbour tit for tat, though I absolutely accept that this has been 100% provoked and perpetuated by the tory right, the British media oligarchy, and the xenophobia predominant amongst a disproportionately elderly swathe of baby boomer insulated bigots.

[Deleted User]

Would that not play into the hands of the tabloids narrative of an evil EU?

Denying the British the benefits of the EU should be enough, there is no reason to punish them. It would also be harder to agree amongst the 27 if say the costs of the lost holidays were to be disproportionately felt by the Spanish or whoever.

flatty

I'd add that the red lines are teresa mays, and teresa mays only.

flatty

Honestly, if I were the eu, I would look at doing exactly this, BUT, I would make it a major irritant to the great British public on a personal level, ensuring long queues at every tourist border, sitting back and watching the roaming charges go through the roof, and generally demonstrating at every turn the non commercial benefits of the EU.
That way there would be no collateral damage, the brexity population will atrophy, and the younger people will be far more likely to rejoin lock stock and barrel. It's the small steady things that make the EU great, that and the sense of place and solidarity.
This phoney war is being waged on the wrong terms. The EU needs to step back, and work on positive PR aiming for complete UK integration in 20 or 30 years, with no opt outs.
That's what I think anyway.
May, Boris Davies gove and their ilk will soon enough be gone and forgotten.
The next generation should be led to water gently, not whipped.
It'd stick in everyone's craw, the triumphant braying, but a couple of hours in a sweltering airport queue every time they want to go on holidays, and a hundred quid extra in flight tax, and a weak currency would slowly squeeze the calves rather then dragging the reins.
Won't happen though. Too much pride at stake.
I think the EU is a sense of purpose rather than an economic stick.

Harika

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

Yeah that it is the exact dilemma of Brexit. UK and EU will be worse off after Brexit, whatever the outcome will be. And the UK playbook was from the beginning to divide the EU and then get the best deal out, from the pressure of within the EU. This hasn’t happened. All the industries have not changed each countries stance toward Brexit. 12 months in, and the EU front is still standing, a big problem for the UK.

For the EU, there is one way to lessen the impact of Brexit, and that is throwing all their red lines over board and basically agreeing that the UK stops paying a membership fee, has full access to customs union and the single market, gets transfer payments out of the budget and everything else. That will work short term fine, until the first country decides that Brexit was a great idea and exits on the same terms UK was given. This means the end of the EU and we are back to 50 years ago.

Does that clear why there are those red lines from the EU?

listermint

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

..... We are.

You are just completely blind to it, it appears.

steddyeddy

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

Listen you've just provided empty platitudes. What do you you want people to do?