Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FrancieBrady · 21-01-2019 07:23PM

Someone on the radio was speaking(on the No Deal amendment) about the difficulty of backbencher motions or amendments (I think the proposer Yvette Cooper is a backbench Tory)making it to a vote or through.
Anyone know the finer detail of how it works?

prawnsambo · 21-01-2019 07:29PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Someone on the radio was speaking(on the No Deal amendment) about the difficulty of backbencher motions or amendments (I think the proposer Yvette Cooper is a backbench Tory)making it to a vote or through.
Anyone know the finer detail of how it works?

I thought Yvette Cooper was Labour. Open to correction though.

Enzokk · 21-01-2019 07:30PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Someone on the radio was speaking(on the No Deal amendment) about the difficulty of backbencher motions or amendments (I think the proposer Yvette Cooper is a backbench Tory)making it to a vote or through.
Anyone know the finer detail of how it works?

Well yes it is difficult for backbenchers to have their motions or amendments make it to a vote and actually succeed, because the government sets the agenda and they have a majority of seats to block it in most cases as well. But Brexit has thrown the cat among the pigeons and it is a free for all and nobody knows what will actually succeed. We know what will not get voted through but we don't know what will actually be voted on by parliament.

BTW, Yvette Cooper is not a Tory.

Christy42 · 21-01-2019 07:31PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Call me Al wrote: »

Yes it would be.
We have asked for none of this. This is not our issue to resolve. We have been told repeatedly by some of those in parliament that there is a solution involving technology right there, and yet the UK have done nothing to source or investigate it. They haven't even feigned any respect towards us by putting their plans and system to tender.

Instead we would end up having to be the nanny for a UK export market the integrity of which is beyond our control, not to mention jeopardising the quality of our own domestic market, and thus the integrity of any and all of our exports.

It isn't a problem of our making, but the realpolitik of the situation is that we are a small nation that can only, at the end of the day, look after our own interests.

Other than feeling that we shouldn't be doing the UK's work for them, surely you accept that being a small nation in a nexus point between larger nations is a boon for trade. I'm not saying we would become the next Hong Kong, but if people want to trade through Ireland and that involves Irish people working in transport, buying and selling, customs checks etc, how is that a bad thing?

Re jeopardising the quality of our own domestic market, the fact that a significant part (roughly 30% by tonnage) of our goods exports to Europe go through the UK in the "landbridge", so Brexit is going to cause trouble for that one way or another.

So the issue is whether a practical solution can be achieved or if it cannot.

Now, I don't know enough about the logicstics of it, so maybe it can't be done. I also would be fairly convinced that the E.U. would object to an internal border in the E.U. just as much as the U.K. object to an internal border in the U.K. But I don't think it should be off the table, and I certainly don't think we should refuse to consider it merely out of a sense of sticking it to the U.K. government because they have handled Brexit so badly.

Why would goods go through Ireland?

The rest of the UK is closer to the EU so we would not be a nexus.

By domestic market I think they mean our own market. The goods we buy on the shelf would need standards set by the UK and only the UK. We get a say in EU standards, you are removing that ability. We have alternate routes to the UK if tariffs prove an issue going through the UK but this would entirely remove the option. We would just be stuck with tariffs set by the UK without our input.

This has so few benefits and the downsides would be catastrophic for the nation. That is why it is off the table. We trade more with the EU than the UK. The UK is also likely headed for a recession in a few months time (with the above solution) due to a largely hard Brexit and so will be less valuable as a market.

This is not realpolitik so much as it is accepting English rule again.

FrancieBrady · 21-01-2019 07:32PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Well yes it is difficult for backbenchers to have their motions or amendments make it to a vote and actually succeed, because the government sets the agenda and they have a majority of seats to block it in most cases as well. But Brexit has thrown the cat among the pigeons and it is a free for all and nobody knows what will actually succeed. We know what will not get voted through but we don't know what will actually be voted on by parliament.

BTW, Yvette Cooper is not a Tory.

Ok, didn't know what party she was.

So, is this going to be voted on or do we not know yet?

*Thanks for explanation.

johnnyskeleton · 21-01-2019 07:36PM

Christy42 wrote: »

What? We lose trade with the EU as goods would be delayed and have tariff checks there. Even then I am not sure how you tell if goods came from the UK or the Republic so our own goods may have yo accept taxes to get to the EU and then we will need to match the UK's taxes for import goods while having no say in how they are set.

Yes, goods would be delayed. However, they will be delayed anyway in the event of a no deal brexit. We would not have to pay taxes on our own goods exported to the EU and we would not have to match taxes for UK imports. You tell if they come from the UK by requiring a customs declaration and if someone fraudulently fails to do so and is caught, they face criminal sanctions and the loss of their hauliage licence.

Have to accept whatever standards the UK puts on food and other goods (let's be honest here whatever standards the US tells the UK to have). Remember open border means whatever can get sold in the UK will have easy access to the Republic and they are the bigger economy there.

Nope. Ireland retains its own standards on food and other goods. The open border means that those goods will not be checked when passing the border; it doesn't mean that they can be legally sold in Ireland. At the moment, there are certain pharmaceutical goods that can be sold in Ireland but not in the UK and vice versa. We have an open border, but it doesn't mean that all the same goods are sold in both countries.

Again, there is a risk that someone might illegally bring such goods into Ireland and try to sell them. That risk still exists with a hard border in the North. It is impossible to police that entire border. The way you stop those goods being sold is that you enforce the regulations in Ireland.

In simple terms, if the UK has chlorinated chicken and Ireland doesn't allow it to be sold, the FSA can carry out checks of supermarkets and such and if they find chlorinated chicken they can fine the supermarket. Someone who goes to the effort of illegally importing chlorinated chicken and repackaging it in Ireland is in no better or worse position than someone in Ireland who tries to produce it in violation of food safety standards.

How is that better than no deal? Or no deal and wait for a few weeks till they take the deal that was offered?

No deal will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland. This issue transcends economics and goes to the heart of the peace process. The whole reason the Irish government is insistent on the backstop is that the possibility of a hard border is our no.1 concern, far beyond the risk to the economy (which the EU has already said they will provide grant aid for in the event of loss).

Enzokk · 21-01-2019 07:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ok, didn't know what party she was.

So, is this going to be voted on or do we not know yet?

*Thanks for explanation.

Well the explanation is open to be corrected but it stands to reason that if a backbench motion is in contradiction of government policy that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. If they see it as harmless they will not whip their party members and will most likely abstain from voting on it.

As for if it will happen, I have no idea. It is a game of chess being played on what is allowed for what and what is ignored. The government will have the civil service to advice them and help them whereas the backbenchers are on their own. The difference is that remainers have some very intelligent individuals also on their side. This includes Dominic Grieve who was Attorney General and is a QC so he is playing the game just as well as the government in regards to what they can and cannot do. Take the finance bill vote (I think) last week that the government lost. Basically it tied the hands of government to set tax rates without parliament approval. So in a no deal they cannot just slash corporation tax or income tax on their own.

It may seem a small and insignificant vote but it is a small step to try and prevent a no deal Brexit. The same as the Grieve amendment forcing her to set out her plan today. It is all trying to prevent no-deal or a hard Brexit by a thousand cuts.

Scoondal · 21-01-2019 07:44PM

From a quick Google search, it seems that UK can revoke Article 50 on 28 March. And they can then trigger a new Article 50, giving them 2 more years to negociate a new EU withdrawal deal. Someone please tell me I'm wrong...

Captain Obvious · 21-01-2019 07:48PM

Is there any proper assessment done of the full scale of issues that will be caused by a no deal exit?

Hurrache · 21-01-2019 07:48PM

Scoondal wrote: »

From a quick Google search, it seems that UK can revoke Article 50 on 28 March. And they can then trigger a new Article 50, giving them 2 more years to negociate a new EU withdrawal deal. Someone please tell me I'm wrong...

They were told they can't revoke it in order to give themselves more time to invoke it again. Can't remember the wording as ironically new EU legislation now makes it difficult to find these things out from news publications. Basically if they believe it's not in good faith they can't.

ancapailldorcha · 21-01-2019 07:49PM

Scoondal wrote: »

From a quick Google search, it seems that UK can revoke Article 50 on 28 March. And they can then trigger a new Article 50, giving them 2 more years to negociate a new EU withdrawal deal. Someone please tell me I'm wrong...

Well, not quite. They can unilaterally revoke Article 50, it's true. However, the EU is unlikely to improve the Withdrawal Agreement it is currently offering simply because Theresa May has decided to add to the silly games the Conservative party has been gambling on with the country's future. They're happy to accommodate a reversal of Brexit and are well experienced in dealing with "ratification difficulties" but I'd say they'll just get told "Take it or leave it". Then of course, there are the Brexiteers. All an extension would do is embolden them.

prawnsambo · 21-01-2019 07:49PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, goods would be delayed. However, they will be delayed anyway in the event of a no deal brexit. We would not have to pay taxes on our own goods exported to the EU and we would not have to match taxes for UK imports. You tell if they come from the UK by requiring a customs declaration and if someone fraudulently fails to do so and is caught, they face criminal sanctions and the loss of their hauliage licence.

Nope. Ireland retains its own standards on food and other goods. The open border means that those goods will not be checked when passing the border; it doesn't mean that they can be legally sold in Ireland. At the moment, there are certain pharmaceutical goods that can be sold in Ireland but not in the UK and vice versa. We have an open border, but it doesn't mean that all the same goods are sold in both countries.

Again, there is a risk that someone might illegally bring such goods into Ireland and try to sell them. That risk still exists with a hard border in the North. It is impossible to police that entire border. The way you stop those goods being sold is that you enforce the regulations in Ireland.

In simple terms, if the UK has chlorinated chicken and Ireland doesn't allow it to be sold, the FSA can carry out checks of supermarkets and such and if they find chlorinated chicken they can fine the supermarket. Someone who goes to the effort of illegally importing chlorinated chicken and repackaging it in Ireland is in no better or worse position than someone in Ireland who tries to produce it in violation of food safety standards.

No deal will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland. This issue transcends economics and goes to the heart of the peace process. The whole reason the Irish government is insistent on the backstop is that the possibility of a hard border is our no.1 concern, far beyond the risk to the economy (which the EU has already said they will provide grant aid for in the event of loss).

It's not that simple. A lot of chicken is exported from NI (and Ireland) to the UK and turned into ready meals and re-imported. There would be no way to know the source of the chicken or other meat products, once they are processed. And that's just at that basic level. There would be thousands of products imported here from the UK into multiples like Tesco and M&S and we would have no control over their content or any means of establishing it. So ostensibly our product gets processed, comes back and is re-exported and we've no tracability? Death of our food industry right there.

Enzokk · 21-01-2019 07:52PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Nope. Ireland retains its own standards on food and other goods. The open border means that those goods will not be checked when passing the border; it doesn't mean that they can be legally sold in Ireland. At the moment, there are certain pharmaceutical goods that can be sold in Ireland but not in the UK and vice versa. We have an open border, but it doesn't mean that all the same goods are sold in both countries.

Again, there is a risk that someone might illegally bring such goods into Ireland and try to sell them. That risk still exists with a hard border in the North. It is impossible to police that entire border. The way you stop those goods being sold is that you enforce the regulations in Ireland.

In simple terms, if the UK has chlorinated chicken and Ireland doesn't allow it to be sold, the FSA can carry out checks of supermarkets and such and if they find chlorinated chicken they can fine the supermarket. Someone who goes to the effort of illegally importing chlorinated chicken and repackaging it in Ireland is in no better or worse position than someone in Ireland who tries to produce it in violation of food safety standards.

But there are rules governing how food is produced in the EU and this is done within the regulations of the EU. So a chicken from France will not have to be checked the same as one from the UK right now. We know it is safe (by a high probability) and confirms to the standards set by the EU. If we are tied to the UK open border and they relax their laws on standards and packaging, not needing producers to label their products properly after importing it then we have to check everything coming from the UK to see where it is from and what it contains because the UK will not need it to be done.

I know the easiest way to protect the GFA is for us to go with the UK but it is in no way the best option. We would really only be making trouble for ourselves economically and will be in effect taking rules from the UK instead of the EU. All of this to ensure the UK sticks to the GFA that they willingly signed up for. We shouldn't be forced to appease the UK just because they are having a hissy fit in one of their political parties.

Sam Russell · 21-01-2019 07:52PM

Scoondal wrote: »

From a quick Google search, it seems that UK can revoke Article 50 on 28 March. And they can then trigger a new Article 50, giving them 2 more years to negociate a new EU withdrawal deal. Someone please tell me I'm wrong...

I think the UK must follow their own constitutional requirements.

The EU could expect that that means a referendum, but at least a vote through parliament. Now second time round, the House of Lords might insist on a referendum to back such a move.

The EU would then produce the WA and say that is what we want you to ratify.

Folkstonian · 21-01-2019 07:53PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Someone on the radio was speaking(on the No Deal amendment) about the difficulty of backbencher motions or amendments (I think the proposer Yvette Cooper is a backbench Tory)making it to a vote or through.
Anyone know the finer detail of how it works?

prawnsambo wrote: »

I thought Yvette Cooper was Labour. Open to correction though.

Good grief.

Of course Yvette Cooper is labour.

She’s a former minister and party leadership candidate

Mr.Wemmick · 21-01-2019 07:54PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I thought Yvette Cooper was Labour. Open to correction though.

Yes, and the next leader of the Labour party I think. Either her or K. Starmer would be good.

Enzokk · 21-01-2019 07:56PM

Scoondal wrote: »

From a quick Google search, it seems that UK can revoke Article 50 on 28 March. And they can then trigger a new Article 50, giving them 2 more years to negociate a new EU withdrawal deal. Someone please tell me I'm wrong...

They can but seeing that the withdrawal would not be in good faith, although this is not in the ECJ ruling itself it was in the legal opinion that came out just before, the EU would have no reason to go back to the negotiating table and offer anything different. Nothing will have changed other than the date of exit and it would still be up to the UK to tell the EU what it wants. I doubt leavers would be happy to do that and in reality I don't know if the UK would be in good shape seeing that they have wasted almost 3 years ignoring important domestic problems in the NHS, education and most worryingly judiciary that needed solutions 3 years ago.

johnnyskeleton · 21-01-2019 07:57PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would goods go through Ireland?

The rest of the UK is closer to the EU so we would not be a nexus.

We are talking about a form of backstop or how a border between the UK and the EU could be implemented. Obviously in the event of a free trade deal or even some form of single market access, the UK will continue on as normal and there would be no need for a hard border in Northern Ireland anyway. The reason we are talking about a border at all is because EU and WTO rules requires some form of customs checks, and the concern would be that if there are no checks on the Irish border, that UK goods would be able to get into the EU via Ireland. If there were very few goods passing through Ireland from the UK into the EU, then there would be very few customs checks, logically.

By domestic market I think they mean our own market. The goods we buy on the shelf would need standards set by the UK and only the UK. We get a say in EU standards, you are removing that ability. We have alternate routes to the UK if tariffs prove an issue going through the UK but this would entirely remove the option. We would just be stuck with tariffs set by the UK without our input.

Not at all. Let's look at the situation right now. If you want to buy Solpadine Max in Belfast, you walk into a pharmacy (or supermarket) pick it off the shelf and then pay for it. If you want to buy it in Dublin, you have to speak to the pharmacist first and satisfy them that you really need it and that you are not addicted to it and they are entitled to refuse to sell it. Ireland has one regulation, the UK has another. As we are both EU members, we are both bound by EU regulations, but in some areas which are not directly covered by EU legislation, we have different regulations.

The fact that you don't have customs checks at a border doesn't mean of itself that you have to accept another country's regulations. The reason why trade deals are so difficult and take so much time is that they require one country to ask the other country to remove certain regulations so that certain goods can not be sold. All we are concerned with is how we monitor the goods coming from the UK in a manner that is compatible with our membership of the European Union. Our regulations stay the exact same.

This has so few benefits and the downsides would be catastrophic for the nation. That is why it is off the table. We trade more with the EU than the UK. The UK is also likely headed for a recession in a few months time (with the above solution) due to a largely hard Brexit and so will be less valuable as a market.

Our trading terms with the rest of the EU will remain the same. The only issue is that the goods will be checked somewhere. But even accepting your premise, it is putting the economics of the South over the peace process in the North.

This is not realpolitik so much as it is accepting English rule again.

I don't think you understand what realpolitik means. It is practical reality over ideological concerns. Saying we would be acceping English rule is empty rhetoric. We would be trading with the EU and trading with the UK and the only difference is that goods would be checked in Ireland to see if they are from the UK. If they are not, then there is no issue. If they are, they will be tarrifed. If someone tries to pretend that they are from Ireland and they are actually from the UK, they will go to jail. There will be delays in Irish ports. But the alternative is a hard border with Northern Ireland.

First Up · 21-01-2019 07:57PM

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Yes, goods would be delayed. However, they will be delayed anyway in the event of a no deal brexit. We would not have to pay taxes on our own goods exported to the EU and we would not have to match taxes for UK imports. You tell if they come from the UK by requiring a customs declaration and if someone fraudulently fails to do so and is caught, they face criminal sanctions and the loss of their hauliage licence.

I don't think you understand how a single market works. The whole point is to eliminate the need for checks of any sort.

And you cannot have different rules for Ireland and the rest of the SM. That undermines the whole point of a common external tariff. If we break from the CET we automatically cease to be party to the EU's trade arrangements with third countries.

The attraction of the UK landbridge to the continent will be reduced by Brexit no matter what deal is done. That is unfortunate but not fatal. There are alternatives and the EU will help develop more.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Nope. Ireland retains its own standards on food and other goods. The open border means that those goods will not be checked when passing the border; it doesn't mean that they can be legally sold in Ireland. At the moment, there are certain pharmaceutical goods that can be sold in Ireland but not in the UK and vice versa. We have an open border, but it doesn't mean that all the same goods are sold in both countries.

See above

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Again, there is a risk that someone might illegally bring such goods into Ireland and try to sell them. That risk still exists with a hard border in the North. It is impossible to police that entire border. The way you stop those goods being sold is that you enforce the regulations in Ireland.

See above

johnnyskeleton wrote:

In simple terms, if the UK has chlorinated chicken and Ireland doesn't allow it to be sold, the FSA can carry out checks of supermarkets and such and if they find chlorinated chicken they can fine the supermarket. Someone who goes to the effort of illegally importing chlorinated chicken and repackaging it in Ireland is in no better or worse position than someone in Ireland who tries to produce it in violation of food safety standards.

See above

johnnyskeleton wrote:

No deal will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland. This issue transcends economics and goes to the heart of the peace process. The whole reason the Irish government is insistent on the backstop is that the possibility of a hard border is our no.1 concern, far beyond the risk to the economy (which the EU has already said they will provide grant aid for in the event of loss).

There is undoubtedly a security risk attached to a hard border. That needs to be addressed but economic suicide is not the answer.

The EU will not subsidise trade at a company level but will help with infrastructure and systems to help by-pass the UK.

Scoondal · 21-01-2019 07:57PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, not quite. They can unilaterally revoke Article 50, it's true. However, the EU is unlikely to improve the Withdrawal Agreement it is currently offering simply because Theresa May has decided to add to the silly games the Conservative party has been gambling on with the country's future. They're happy to accommodate a reversal of Brexit and are well experienced in dealing with "ratification difficulties" but I'd say they'll just get told "Take it or leave it". Then of course, there are the Brexiteers. All an extension would do is embolden them.

Yes, in such a case EU would not engage with them. But UK can do it, right ? Is this why Mrs. May seems to be doing nothing at the moment ?
UK can exit A50 and a couple of days later trigger A50 again. They get another 2 years as a member of EU. It is possible.

johnnyskeleton · 21-01-2019 07:59PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Surely if we decide to keep the border open with the UK instead of the EU it means we are at the mercy of UK trade deals? The UK will in that scenario quickly have a trade deal with the US and their hormone beef and chlorinated chicken which will have an open border to us and a barrier to the EU.

Would we have a say in the trade deal the UK strikes? Because they will determine what goods are freely allowed into our country in that case.

We wouldn't have to be party to any UK trade deals, and we would not have to accept US goods for sale in Ireland. We are talking about where you physically check the goods. And we have made it a political priority that those checks do not take place anywhere near Northern Ireland.

prawnsambo · 21-01-2019 08:01PM

Folkstonian wrote: »

Good grief.

Of course Yvette Cooper is labour.

She’s a former minister and party leadership candidate

I'm slightly flummoxed by your surprise. This is Ireland. We have our own politicians. That we even pay enough attention to british politics to know the names of some of your politicians should be the surprise. Or is this british exceptionalism again?

johnnyskeleton · 21-01-2019 08:04PM

First Up wrote: »

I don't think you understand how a single market works. The whole point is to eliminate the need for checks of any sort.

And you cannot have different rules for Ireland and the rest of the SM. That undermines the whole point of a common external tariff. If we break from the CET we automatically cease to be party to the EU's trade arrangements with third countries.

I do understand it, and the issue is how you enforce the rules, not what those rules are. In any event, as I said above, I doubt the EU would agree to an internal border within the EU, but that's missing the point. The other poster was saying that it would be bad for Ireland and would force Ireland to leave the EU. Not if the EU agrees to it.

PeadarCo · 21-01-2019 08:04PM

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Nope. Ireland retains its own standards on food and other goods. The open border means that those goods will not be checked when passing the border; it doesn't mean that they can be legally sold in Ireland. At the moment, there are certain pharmaceutical goods that can be sold in Ireland but not in the UK and vice versa. We have an open border, but it doesn't mean that all the same goods are sold in both countries.

What you are fudementally proposing is that Ireland leave the EU. The whole point of a common market and customs union is that all goods and services that are produced in or imported into that area conform to the same set of standards. Now depending on the scope not all products and services may be covered. However by allowing an open border there is no way you can ensure the relevant standards and procedures are enforced for the relevant product/service. You are guaranteed to see other EU countries object to that. But you will also have issues with most business and labour unions if they feel there members are being undercut by lower cost/standard competitors. And that's ignoring other groups such as environmentalists and others you may have other but related concerns.

Hurrache · 21-01-2019 08:05PM

Scoondal wrote: »

Yes, in such a case EU would not engage with them. But UK can do it, right ? Is this why Mrs. May seems to be doing nothing at the moment ?
UK can exit A50 and a couple of days later trigger A50 again. They get another 2 years as a member of EU. It is possible.

Not if they believe it's not in good faith.

prawnsambo · 21-01-2019 08:07PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

We wouldn't have to be party to any UK trade deals, and we would not have to accept US goods for sale in Ireland. We are talking about where you physically check the goods. And we have made it a political priority that those checks do not take place anywhere near Northern Ireland.

In the case of a hard brexit, that is unavoidable unfortunately. Both the UK and the EU would require it, no matter the posturing coming from certain sections of the UK establishment. No border checks means industrial scale smuggling.

J Mysterio · 21-01-2019 08:09PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Yes, and the next leader of the Labour party I think. Either her or K. Starmer would be good.

I've been very impressed with her throughout this whole debacle, particularly in the committee's. I like Hilary Benn too for the same reason. While Starmer seems a decent fellow, his closeness to Corbyn has almost tainted him but he does speak his own mind sometimes I guess.

Folkstonian · 21-01-2019 08:10PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm slightly flummoxed by your surprise. This is Ireland. We have our own politicians. That we even pay enough attention to british politics to know the names of some of your politicians should be the surprise. Or is this british exceptionalism again?

Just because both of you contribute very frequently to these threads (you must have posted hundreds of times?) often submitting apparently learned analyses of contemporary British politics and society - I simply assumed that given your clear enthusiasm for Brexit politics, you’d know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Labour Party

And to satisfy you, yes a tiny hint of British exceptionalism as well.

johnnyskeleton · 21-01-2019 08:14PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not that simple. A lot of chicken is exported from NI (and Ireland) to the UK and turned into ready meals and re-imported. There would be no way to know the source of the chicken or other meat products, once they are processed. And that's just at that basic level. There would be thousands of products imported here from the UK into multiples like Tesco and M&S and we would have no control over their content or any means of establishing it. So ostensibly our product gets processed, comes back and is re-exported and we've no tracability? Death of our food industry right there.

Traceability is a regulatory matter and can be enforced just the same as any other regulation. What you describe in terms of no means of establishing the origins is something that has already arisen in the context of the EU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal

In 2013 French abatoirs were selling horse meat falsely declared as beef. That happened within the EU.

In relation to products that get processed and are re-exported, that too is something that happens in Europe. A recent example is that bicycle parts were being imported into Europe, assembled and sold as European bikes. So the EU passed regulations in relation to these:

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/march/tradoc_156658.exemptions.en.L79-2018.pdf

If there was a problem with a perception of poor food being imported from the UK into Ireland, that too could be resolved by regulation.

prawnsambo · 21-01-2019 08:15PM

Folkstonian wrote: »

Just because both of you contribute very frequently to these threads (you must have posted hundreds of times?) often submitting apparently learned analyses of contemporary British politics and society - I simply assumed that given your clear enthusiasm for Brexit politics, you’d know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Labour Party

And to satisfy you, yes a tiny hint of British exceptionalism as well.

Well you can look on it as a manifestation of the fractured nature of British politics. Where both of the main parties are so split on the subject that you can't tell which is which from their pronouncements on the issue.

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Comments