Brexit discussion thread III

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no. You have reset Ireland to 1914 or so when Home Rule was passed at Westminster and the Unionists and Nationalists started arming for civil war.

Thomas__. wrote: »

Your suggestion is not working in reality and you haven't solved anything, it rather would feed the extremists on both sides in NI to start another Trubles era.  
The best thing would be that the UK would simply abandon NI and leave it to reunite with the Republic and preparations should be made to keep the militant Unionists in check (which is easier said than done but nonetheless necessary) militant Dissos would also had to be under surveilliance in case they would use that for some retaliations.

Look up and you might see the tongue-in-cheekness of that comment flying up there with the commercial airliners.

Owen Smith just fired by Corbyn for:

https://twitter.com/OwenSmith_MP/status/977249900877500416

This is the article in question:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/23/labour-brexit-ireland-european-union

trellheim wrote: »

My big worry is something big thing like the UK agreeing to pay their budget sub for another 20 years in return for a hard border

The EU isn't for sale and it would be a mere few euros extra per citizen per year to cover the UK's contribution.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Corbyn has sacked Owen Smith over the latter's call for a second referendum in a newspaper article.

Pretty shocking. Smith seems a decent and able politician and was a considered a potential future alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn really likes a bit of Brexit.

Corbyn hates the EU. More than he hates the Conservative party. He has the Government at the end of a barrel, but the result might be a second referendum or even not leaving the EU. Given the choice it’s pretty clear Corbyn is more than happy to leave. And leave the Tory’s in power.

Nobody at the BBC should have to fact-check something like that. How can any journalist not remember last year's pathetically hysterical tabloid willy-waving about how the UK could wallop those greasy Spaniards just like they biffed the Argies back in '83? The trigger for that stomach-turning spectacle was the EU's adoption of the very position Capt. Midnight mentions. If any British journalist covering Brexit-related stories needs "fact checking" before he recollects this, quite honestly, he's in the wrong profession.

Peregrinus wrote: »

At some point the power of making any choice would pass away from them and they would crash out without a deal (which of course would mean a hard border).

If the latter situation unfolds, there will be nothing Ireland or the EU can do to prevent it. There never was anything that could be done to prevent it.

But in practice, this could only be temporary. Crashing out would be so damaging that they would have to come back to the table.

This is why I would prefer us to veto a deal with a hard border in it - if they crash out, they will be back, and the border will be on the table again.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Crashing out would be so damaging that they would have to come back to the table.

Not if you're a true believer in Brexit-means-Brexit-at-any-price. So far, Brexiteers have been consistent in saying that they are prepared to suffer whatever pain is required to "take back control".

Even assuming that a younger, less nationalistic electorate decides that being part of the EU would be better for Britain, you're looking at 10, 15 or 20 years before they come back to the table.

The one 'advantage' of such a crashing out would be the effect on Northern Ireland, where they have an easy route back into the EU. I'm still of the opinion that the hard Brexiteers' ideology will be responsible for accelerating the reunification of Ireland, either by dragging NI into the post-Brexit economic abyss and the NI electorate opting to save themselves; or by accepting the backstop arrangement, an Irish Sea border and effectively telling NI that they really are second-class citizens of the UK.

ambro25 wrote: »

Because the said decision makers, current and potential, know very well that the worst effects of a crash-out would not be felt in the short term, no more than the worst effects of the referendum result and its handling to date have yet been felt at street level.

A crash-out would absolutely be felt from day 1. Planes grounded, exports stopped at Dover, trucks queued back to London...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But in practice, this could only be temporary. Crashing out would be so damaging that they would have to come back to the table.

This is why I would prefer us to veto a deal with a hard border in it - if they crash out, they will be back, and the border will be on the table again.

Yes. If we have to choose between a Withdrawal Agreement that allows a hard border, and a no-deal Brexit that results in a hard border, we should definitely choose the latter. A Withdrawal Agreement hard border is permanent; a crash-out hard border less so.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Not if you're a true believer in Brexit-means-Brexit-at-any-price. So far, Brexiteers have been consistent in saying that they are prepared to suffer whatever pain is required to "take back control".

Even assuming that a younger, less nationalistic electorate decides that being part of the EU would be better for Britain, you're looking at 10, 15 or 20 years before they come back to the table.

I think not. Remember the promise of an easy Brexit, with the EU begging for forgiveness and the world beating a path to the UK's door, and with all the hard questions being met with fudge or outright lies, could only command 52% in the referendum. The Brexit that was all things to all men could barely command a majority. A real Brexit which is an obvious train-wreck would struggle to retain majority support. Faced with the reality of a crash-out Brexit, I doubt that a party dominated by hard Brexiters wanting to prolong the crash could win an election.

After an election, the Corbyn government would be looking for a deal with the EU. And of course it's already their policy for the UK to seek a customs union with the EU, which doesn't in itself deliver an open border, but it makes one a lot more deliverable.

I wonder are any more Labour front benchers prepared to stand up and defy Corbyn over his Brexit "stance". One would hope so, but so far no real sign of it. You could tell Corbyn's position hasn't sat well with Owen Smith for a long time.

Well, possibly. But, remember, timing.

The Withdrawal Agreement is finalised by October, and actually signed and ratified by March. But what’s it going to say about Ireland?

We know it will contain a “legally operative version” of Option C, full regulatory alignment. It will say how that is going to work, and it will not leave any significant detail for later agreement between the EU and the UK.

What will it say about Option A (super duper trade deal) or Option B (unicorn technology)? Necessarily, much less. Talks about the trade deal will be just starting when the Withdrawal Agreement is finalised, and as for the unicorn technology, well, it won’t be invented by October, will it?

So the Withdrawal Agreement will contain a more-or-less fully worked out version of Option C, and will provide that it is to apply unless and until Option A or Option B is fleshed out and agreed. There will be not much detail on Option A or Option B.

Of course, none of the Options will kick in on Brexit Day, in March 2019. On Brexit Day, the transition period starts. The whole of the UK will remain in the Single Market and the Customs Union and that, of course, will mean an open border in Ireland. These Options only become relevant when the transition period ends, in January 2021.

So, when finalising the Withdrawal Agreement in October 2018, the UK will be signing up to a fully-fleshed out version of Option C, and agreeing that that will operate from January 2021, unless in the meantime Options A or B get worked out and agreed. And the UK will have two-and-a-quarter years to work out Option A or B or some combination of the two to a point that the EU finds acceptable. It insists that it expects to do this. This puts the UK in a weak position, between now and October, to demand changes to the Option C text that the EU has proposed. Option C is never going to apply if the UK can develop workable versions of A or B that satisfy the EU, and the UK insists that it can and will do this. So why would they be fussed about the details of Option C? On their view of the matter, it need never actually come into operation.

I predict that the UK will cave on this point, and Option C will appear in the final Withdrawal Agreement in something very like the text already drafted by the EU. There will be only modest changes. The UK will sell this concession to its own ultra-Brexiters by saying that it doesn't matter, because Option C will never apply in practice.

OK. When the UK does get around to proposing fleshed-out versions of Options A and/or B, the EU is under no pressure to find them acceptable because, the default, Option C, guarantees an open border and protects the integrity of the single market, which ticks all the EU’s boxes. There is no reason why they would settle for anything less than that. And that puts the EU in a pretty strong position when it comes to considering the merits of whatever the UK proposes.

Right. At some point after October 2018 the UK is going to say to itself, and then to the EU, OK, we have to admit that we can’t (consistent with our red lines) make a trade deal that will deliver a truly open border. And that unicorn technology turns out to be strangely difficult to find. How about a deal plus some quite nifty technology that between them deliver a largely open border?

Both Ireland and the EU really want a good trade deal with the UK. But for Ireland in particular not having an open border would really harm us economically, so the deal the UK would be offering here, even viewed in purely economic terms, is distinctly suboptimal; by definition it cannot be a really good trade deal if it doesn't deliver an open border. Add the political dimension - the political and communal signficance to Ireland of having an open border - and unless the degree of border restriction is very, very small, we’re really not going to like it. We’d rather have the open border, thanks. And, because Option C continues indefinitely, we can have a permanently open border simply by vetoing the trade deal. (The UK/EU FTA , although yet to be negotiated, is almost certainly going to be a “mixed agreement” which, as a matter of EU law, requires the consent of each Member State, so we will have a veto.) That’s a pretty strong position for us to be in.

Will the EU pressurise us not to use our veto? Will they lean on us to accept some border restrictions so as to facilitate a trade deal for the greater good of the Union? I don’t think they will, to any great extent. There has been a very consistent understanding of Ireland's concerns about the border, and it's significance, at the EU level, and we have had solid support.

That’s why the EU has put the Irish border front and centre of the negotiation process right from the get-go, to the puzzlement and then fury of Brexiters who just don’t get it. The Brexiters see the EU as purely about countries co-operating for economic advantage, and that is part of the reason why they have completely misunderstood the EU position on Brexit, and been completely wrong about the attitudes and actions that the EU would take. The EU's raison d'etre is the prevention of conflict in Europe; free trade, the single market, etc are good because they help prevent conflicts. Closing the Irish border will not help to prevent conflict, and the EU will not find a Free Trade Agreement that involves a hard border in Ireland a particularly attractive proposition.

I don’t see any reason why the EU's support for Ireland's position would change. Yes, the EU would like a good FTA with the UK, but the UK needs one much more than the EU does, and the EU knows this. The EU’s position will be that if somebody has to give ground make an FT possible, it should be the UK, not an EU member state. And an EU member state should certainly not be asked to jeopardise political stability, risk intercommunal tensions and set back a peace process in order to secure favourable trade terms.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I am not at all hopeful that they will be back to rejoin. i mean they will be back to negotiate a free trade deal, reciprocal treatment of citizens, memership or co-operation with European bodies like standards, medicines, nuclear power etc.

And the EU wil say no problem, lets talk. Item 1, that frictionless Irish border...

I have no faith that the EU will give much consideration to the Irish border over the medium to long term. It's a stick to beat the British with during the negotiations. But as per usual we will be flung under the bus when the time is right. Ireland and Greece have both learned how the EU operates.