Zubeneschamali wrote: » Spoiler alert: that is because they are not going to need those facilities because when push comes to shove, they cannot really leave.
EdgeCase wrote: » I don't think they're that good at planning. There'll just be 100km tail backs from Dover and then they'll respond by blaming the French.
EdgeCase wrote: » They haven't even begun to recruit for or build all the customs facilities they're going to need for their plans!
FrancieBrady wrote: » Don't misquote me. I didn't say Ireland hasn't 'won'. I said it is arguable that we have lost the initiative and that there is a school of thought that we will be bullied into accepting a border if that is the last thing on the table.
Peregrinus wrote: » I think if Leo is being less polite, it's at least partly because he observed that Enda's politeness failed to get the British to acknowledge or address the border issue. As long as they are let ignore or wave away the border issue, they will. Any insistence that they address it they may regard as rude or impolite, but I think dispassionate observers will regard as a necessary stance by any Irish government.
Leroy42 wrote: » Absolutely. And we would be in far worse position of not for the EU and the GFA. You need to understand that many in the UK are willing to get rid of NI itself to get Brexit, they really have little care for us.There is no doubt that Davies is trying to weaken Dublin, aided by the likes of Trimble and those MPs calling into question the GFA itself. The problem with that approach is that Ireland really only has one option. We need to push for the UK to stay within the EU, and failing that, to push for the effects on Ireland to be as small as possible. A hard border is one of the last things that we want. So they might well gain some that are sympathetic to the UK position, but that falls away as soon as the cost to us is factored in. Regardless of the feelings towards the UK, very few and certainly none that I recall, people are calling for Ireland to prostrate itself at the altar of Brexit.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So basically we are just pawns in the wider context. That only convinces me that Davis is trying to weaken Dublin by small cuts.
Leroy42 wrote: » I totally agree, and have said so previously. But what is the other option? To stop the talks now? The EU are hoping (I imagine) that bringing them close to a deal will make the UK see the cost of the hard brexit, which they currently seem to dismiss. It may end up as a hard border either way, but the EU will have tried and they would have gained nothing (since the UK have made it clear that any agreement is not worth anything until final sign-off anyway) by demanding a sign-off now but probably guaranteed a hard brexit (which as you correctly state they don't want). The question, which I have raised myself, is whether the EU will get close to a deal and smudge it at the end to avoid a hard brexit by giving in on the border. The issue with that is it opens the EU to many other probable issues. Norway will certainly look for the same treatment, Turkey will probably push for it as well. The US will no doubt use it to push back on the regulations that will be a major issue in trade. And that seems to be where the UK are missing the point. They seem to think this is a totally isolated case, that how they are treated will not have nay knockon effects. But the UK will soon be just another non member and other non members will be looking for the same type of deal (if not in border terms than something else) armed with the fact that the supposedly cornerstones of the EU are open to negotiation.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why then are the EU proceeding? Because a hard Brexit hurts all. If the UK get to the end and the only thing in the way is us, what do you think will happen?
Leroy42 wrote: » Yes, but that would have been the situation regardless. If the UK go back on the commitments they have entered into (both the December agreement and more importantly the GFA) what makes you think that any agreement made with the EU over the border now would hold any sway in the end? That is the key problem. If you are dealing with an honest broker than I would agree with you, but the UK insist that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We have even had threats from Davies that the agreed divorce settlement won't be paid unless they get what they want. That is the level you are dealing with.
Peregrinus wrote: » I'm afraid, Francie, that that's the same school of thought that thinks that Davis's recent comments are clever. Let's be realistic here. The British aren't committed to anything until a withdrawal agreement is negotiated, signed, ratified and enters into force. That will not happen until 29 March 2019. There is no way, there never was any way, in which the British could have been legally committed to an open border (or indeed legally committed to anything) in December. Arguing that Ireland hasn't "won" because it hasn't achieved the impossible is Brexiteer logic. Don't fall into that trap. The measure of Ireland's position is not what it hasn't achieved but what it has. And what it has achieved is (a) an acknowledgement by the UK that there will be no Withdrawal Agreement unless it delivers an open border, and (b) if no other way of delivering an open border is agreed, it will be delivered by maintaining NI in "full regulatory alignment" with the EU indefinitely. That's an impressively strong position for Ireland to be in right now. The UK aren't legally committed to it - they were never going to be, at this stage - but the cost to them of not honouring the political commitments they have made about this will be no Withdrawal Agreement, which would be a disaster for them. I cannot honestly see a better outcome, at this stage in the game, that would be realistically deliverable.
Peregrinus wrote: » This is a real low point in British political history.
EdgeCase wrote: » If the DUP had an ounce of sense or an understanding that they need to act in Northern Ireland's broader interests, they'd pick a non Brexit topic, save face and use it to pull the plug.Restoring the status quo would be the absolute best scenario.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not sure how you can say it hasn't achieved anything for them. They have come through December and we are still none the wiser on what is happening with the border. And there is a school of thought that we have lost our advantage.
EdgeCase wrote: » Well considering that Iain Duncan Smith was claiming that the presidential elections were the cause of Irish opposition to brexit, I'd be quite happy to accept the explanation of willful blindness and complete ignorance.https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/iain-duncan-smith-blames-imaginary-election-irish-brexit-difficulties/ They regularly make statements that have no basis in fact about all sorts of issues connected with brexit.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Davis is looking for chinks in the armour, he is not looking for capitulation. I just don't buy the 'stupid' tag here, it has been a feature of utterances from London for too long now.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » Meh, I can see what he's trying to do but - as pointed out eloquently above - the overriding strategy of 'divide and conquer' has utterly failed to work up till now. The bottom line here is FG's stance on Brexit is unanimously backed in the Dail and they have been flying in the polls despite policing scandals and the 8th amendment referendum etc. There is no motivation for FG to change tack or moderate language, etc.
Peregrinus wrote: » It's a strategy they have pursued consistently ever since the Brexit vote, and not just with respect to Ireland. It has utterly failed them in every way. They are still pursuing it. They keep expecting to exploit divisions within the EU, but the divisions obstinately refuse to be exploited. As you point out it's an old strategy, but the British don't need an old strategy; they need an effective one. How is sticking to this obviously ineffective strategy anything but stupid? When a strategy is proving useless, "keep trying!" is a pretty stupid way of responding. They need to find a different strategy - one which actually resonates with the people they need to influence, rather than one which appeals the the prejudices of the people they are trying to please. Seriously, the notion that the British are supreme diplomats, masters of the dark arts of bamboozling the lesser breeds without the laws, has been pretty comprehensively exploded by the progress of the Brexit negotiations, which have been (from the British point of view) a shambolic parade of ineptitude and incompetence right from the get-go. You're letting your obvious distaste for John Bruton and the political tradition he represents blind you to the reality here, which is that at the present time the Republic enjoys much more competent, skilled and able political leadership than the UK does. (And, for the record, I think this would still be true if we had an election tomorrow, and a change of government.)
