Brexit discussion thread III

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.

It's the persistence of this view or statement that prompted me to make the observation.

I'm not sure that it's strategic tbh. I think they really are that uninformed about Irish politics.

Facts no longer seem to matter in the UK political world. I mean considering they ignored and suppressed government reports on the economic impacts of Brexit.

They're still ploughing full stream ahead into what is probably the biggest structural change for the UK economy since WWII and they've provided absolutely no plans whatsoever to business or industry.

It's a shocking level of incompetence.

They haven't even begun to recruit for or build all the customs facilities they're going to need for their plans!

They're throwing around confident notions that massive, unprecedentedly complex border and customs processing IT systems can be built and implemented in less than 2 years.

If they just keep going as they are going they will crash the UK and probably cause a global recession. I don't think we are taking that risk nearly seriously enough.

Peregrinus

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.

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.

LuckyLloyd

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.

If Brexit plays out with the UK leaving the Customs Union and Single Market the current status quo for the North will be untenable.

I do think the best thing the DUP could do for their own interests right now is get the devolved institutions back up and running, but they don't seem to have any grasp of the long term.

I think this is where Ireland and the EU institutions are going to struggle to deal with the UK. We're talking about facts, evidence based reasoning, reality and using economic and logical arguments.

They, on the other hand, just make stuff up to suit their narrative, in the full knowledge that there's a media and online echo chamber that will not question it and a voter base who are being fed what it wants to hear.

How can anyone negotiate with that?

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a real low point in British political history.

They have had them before.

Suez. Where Eden bounced the UK into a war over a canal going through a country that wanted it back.

Las Malvinas/Faulklands war. Where MT went to war to win a general election and nearly lost what was left of the navy.

The Iraq WMD fiasco and 15 minutes. Where Tony Blair used fake facts to justify backing the USA in the face of opposition from the UN.

Just a few gems, and that leaves out the various economic disasters they have had over the years, or the internal fiascoes like the Poll Tax, miners strike, three day weeks, etc etc.

That is a very good summation of the current position Peregrinus

I was also of the opinion that the Irish had let there position become weaker by allowing the UK to continue to kick the can down the road, and whilst I am still apprehensive amount the coming months, I can see that the Irish have got about as much as they could.

The line from the UK that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, is, and was designed by them, to give them wiggle room throughout the process and give them the ability to shift positions. However, the EU has been pretty good at tying them into specifics, in as much as that is possible with a party that doesn't want to deal with specifics.

I would have preferred it all to have been signed and agreed at this stage, but that is simply unrealistic, particularly given that the UK cannot even decide on what it wants in the first place. But time is the ultimate factor here, and time is running down for the UK.

Whilst the Irish would not like the situation to go indefinitely, if that is the only option rather than a hard brexit they will take it as it leaves everything as is.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

LuckyLloyd

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?

But what scenario do you envisage where a hard border is a constituent aspect of a Brexit deal that the EU wants? A border implies no agreement on free trade or movement of people and Britain out of the single market and customs union. That's really a no deal scenario or close to it and yes unfortunately we'd have to accept a border in such a scenario, but it will be part and parcel of the UK failing to reach any agreement with the EU.

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?

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.

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.

So basically we are just pawns in the wider context.

That only convinces me that Davis is trying to weaken Dublin by small cuts.

Well the only sanction the EU has is to walk away from the table. That's also the only sanction the UK has too, although economically speaking, that carries less weight given the remainder of the EU is a much bigger market than the UK.

So ultimately, we either have a deal with the UK or one side walks off and we defualt to no deal and that means a Northern Ireland border.

So really this is up to the Tories. They're the ones who will be deciding what the fate of the North and the border is.

If they don't want to deal with the EU and come up with a sane solution, there's really nothing we can do except threaten to veto the economic aspect of any deal entirely but the Tories are threatening that anyway all the time. Many of them want no remaining connection with Europe.

So unfortunately, NI is at the whim of the Tories and DUP continue to put them in that position by not walking away.

Really the only party with the power to shape this is, worryingly, the DUP and they seem to have no interest or ability to move beyond hardline sectarianism so, I think to be quite honest, NI is in for chaos.

If the DUP wanted to have a sane solution to this - they have the power to wind up the UK government cause a general election in the UK and let people have their say.

I don’t know how anyone could argue (be they nationalist or unionist) that this mess is good for Northern Ireland. It’s a potential social and economic disaster.

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.

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.

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.

Which is all I said at the beginning. In terms of keeping the border decision fluid, it's working.
Despite Dublin telling us on a number of occasions that commitments are 'bulletproof'.

Not many on the actual border would agree.

Charles Babbage

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.

Enda stated the issues. The British did not listen, Leo had to be a bit more forceful in making the point.

blanch152

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.

If that happens, it will be because of "perfidious Albion".

It won't be that we will be bullied into accepting a border, it will be that the UK will have failed to deliver on their commitments, leaving us no legal option other than impose a border. Our legal obligation to our partners requires us to maintain an external EU border. Short of withdrawing from the EU, if the UK breaks its promises, that is what we have to do.

Econ_

Weasel words from Davis.

Those comments aren't directed at Ireland at all - he knows they will have no effect on the Irish approach.

It seems to me that he's trying to get ahead in the shaping of a narrative that doesn't depict the UK as incompetent and reckless because they have to welsh on an international treaty they signed up to in December - where they categorically agreed to avoid a hard border.

He must be getting tips from his regular meetings with the editor of the Daily Mail.

LuckyLloyd

Meanwhile, the opinion pieces in the Telegraph offer comic relief of sorts:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/10/treasure-eurosceptic-story-supporting-new-museum-brexit/

The suggestion that no - one has ever considered the reasons for Brexit as worthy of intellectual study is particularly egregious, but the whole thing is bonkers in its own way.

Zubeneschamali

EdgeCase wrote: »

They haven't even begun to recruit for or build all the customs facilities they're going to need for their plans!

Spoiler alert: that is because they are not going to need those facilities because when push comes to shove, they cannot really leave.

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.

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.

Zubeneschamali

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.

I think they will "leave" the EU next march and declare victory, but the "transition period" will be EU membership with a few stickers on it and it will drag on for many, many years, eventually becoming the new normal.

No way will they pull the trigger on a hard customs border with 100km queues, mass factory layoffs, food shortages in the shops, riots, baton charges etc.

Brexiteers will either move on (Boris) or return to the shadows (Gove).

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.

Jebus, at least use the spoiler blackout. I hadn't read the end of the book yet!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think they will "leave" the EU next march and declare victory, but the "transition period" will be EU membership with a few stickers on it and it will drag on for many, many years, eventually becoming the new normal.

No way will they pull the trigger on a hard customs border with 100km queues, mass factory layoffs, food shortages in the shops, riots, baton charges etc.

Brexiteers will either move on (Boris) or return to the shadows (Gove).

If that happens we will have a ringside seat to the UK devouring itself.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If that happens we will have a ringside seat to the UK devouring itself.

And if they pull the trigger?

Ringside seat to the UK falling off a cliff into a depression and then losing Scotland.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And if they pull the trigger?

Ringside seat to the UK falling off a cliff into a depression and then losing Scotland.

Yep, it's a bolt on certainty imo.

I said on here before the Brexit vote that we are watching the slow break-up of the UK.

Sam Russell

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm not sure that it's strategic tbh. I think they really are that uninformed about Irish politics.

Facts no longer seem to matter in the UK political world. I mean considering they ignored and suppressed government reports on the economic impacts of Brexit.

They're still ploughing full stream ahead into what is probably the biggest structural change for the UK economy since WWII and they've provided absolutely no plans whatsoever to business or industry.

It's a shocking level of incompetence.

They haven't even begun to recruit for or build all the customs facilities they're going to need for their plans!

They're throwing around confident notions that massive, unprecedentedly complex border and customs processing IT systems can be built and implemented in less than 2 years.

If they just keep going as they are going they will crash the UK and probably cause a global recession. I don't think we are taking that risk nearly seriously enough.

I saw they think 1,300 new customs officers will be enough. So @ £100,000 per, that would be £130 million per year. Now this equates to about how many France and the Netherlands combined will hire. Of course NI is not included.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I saw they think 1,300 new customs officers will be enough. So @ £100,000 per, that would be £130 million per year. Now this equates to about how many France and the Netherlands combined will hire. Of course NI is not included.

That doesn't include the other infrastructure that's needed and you'll also need a lot of support staff behind those customs officers - IT systems, logistics systems, laboratory staff, management of facilities etc etc, none of those things happen by magic either and you have to physically build facilities, which isn't going to happen in the Brexit time frame.

They'll have to put out a tender for a design and build contract for those port facilities. That could take quite some time to get through and that's before they even start the design, planning permissions, land acquisitions, construction, approval of IT systems, etc etc..

None of this stuff can be done by snapping your fingers.

You'd need at least a decade, unless you want some kind of freakish situation where the Army is operating customs controls out of tents like somewhere in a war zone.