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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How is that better than no deal? Or no deal and wait for a few weeks till they take the deal that was offered?
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.
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...
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).
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.
prawnsambo wrote: » I thought Yvette Cooper was Labour. Open to correction though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Folkstonian wrote: » Good grief. Of course Yvette Cooper is labour. She’s a former minister and party leadership candidate
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.
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.
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.
Mr.Wemmick wrote: » Yes, and the next leader of the Labour party I think. Either her or K. Starmer would be good.
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?
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.
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.
