nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lawred2

seamus wrote: »

There's nothing in that about asking Ireland to accept concessions.

The EU stating that a hard border is inevitable after no deal, is not news to anyone, least of all our Government.

For whatever reason the Indo seems to be taking the line that the Withdrawal Agreement is still up for negotiation and that Angela Merkel can change it with the flick of a pen.

I guess when the EU position has remained so consistent and unchanged, bad journalists have to invent drama to make interesting stories.

what's in it for the Indo to pen such crap?

in the business section as well!

EdgeCase

All this talk of leaving with the UK is insane.

1. The UK does not see us as a partner of any kind of equal status. We would have no say in anything that might impinge their notion of English sovereignty. So we would be begging for crumbs. We don't even have a guarantee that they would agree to operate a customs union with us. They never did in the past. We had no customs union with the UK or single market until 1993 when the European Single Market reached a stage when the border was dissolved.

2. We have no formal arrangement with the UK beyond a travel area for Irish or UK people which is unaffected by Brexit anyway.

3. We use the Euro. Setting up the IEP again would mean almost certain economic collapse. Particularly given our debt load from 2008 and the likelihood of massive inflation. Even the practicalities of undoing that would make the UK's Brexit seem like a walk in the park.

4. FDI and even domestic companies needing EU access would leave rather rapidly.

5. The economic uncertainty would probably cause a flight of capital and savings to eurozone.

Basically Irexit would be economic suicide. You'd pretty much destroy Ireland's economy, set it back to the 1950s and render us utterly beholden to the whims of the UK government.

Does anyone (other than maybe the DUP) want that?!

My view of it is hold on to what we have and ride this out, while maximizing any upsides to Brexit in terms of grabbing as much fleeing UK trade as we possibly can.

Northern Ireland's situation will likely resolve itself too as political pressure in the north inevitably will be brought to bear should a hard border emerge or should the NI economy go into serious decline.

An Irexit situation could set Irish independence back decades and turn us back into a de facto UK dependency.

Also, if someone's going to drive a car off a cliff, you don't let them lock you into the boot!

Leroy42

That article in the Irish Independent

EU now looks set to ask Ireland to accept concessions

contains no mention of concessions in the actual article.

It merely states that a No deal means hard border.

Edit, - as others have pointed out

badtoro

Where exactly has the suggestion of a border on the European mainland coast come from? Is the origin known?

I would prefer a hard border on this island than a border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

seamus

Get Real wrote: »

I agree with you there. I'm just disappointed this morning that I read the EU seems to have put the ball in Ireland's court as they seem to be asking us to accept concessions. Rather than maintain a unified stance

https://m.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-now-looks-set-to-ask-ireland-to-accept-concessions-37739911.html

There's nothing in that about asking Ireland to accept concessions.

The EU stating that a hard border is inevitable after no deal, is not news to anyone, least of all our Government.

For whatever reason the Indo seems to be taking the line that the Withdrawal Agreement is still up for negotiation and that Angela Merkel can change it with the flick of a pen.

I guess when the EU position has remained so consistent and unchanged, bad journalists have to invent drama to make interesting stories.

prawnsambo

Get Real wrote: »

I agree with you there. I'm just disappointed this morning that I read the EU seems to have put the ball in Ireland's court as they seem to be asking us to accept concessions. Rather than maintain a unified stance

https://m.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-now-looks-set-to-ask-ireland-to-accept-concessions-37739911.html

In reality, okay, we'd need a hard border in a no deal Brexit.

But, by the EU asking *US* for concessions, it puts a UK referendum issue in our court, and gives the UK a chance to deflect blame and say "well, we're waiting on Ireland's decision"

Even though Brexit wasn't our idea.

You're parrotting a headline in The Indo where the body of the article doesn't back up the headline. As usual.

There is no mention of concessions being required. Just a spin on what was said yeaterday about what a hard brexit would mean for the border. Which, to be brutally honest is pretty much "D'uh". We knew this. We always knew this.

Christy42

Get Real wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure what the confusion is about this am.
Surely all the posturing, all the negotiating and statements were about the prospect of a hard border if the UK exited without a deal?

Surely that was why we needed a 'backstop'?

We haven't, as yet got an agreed backstop. Of course there will be a hard border in those circumstances?

I agree with you there. I'm just disappointed this morning that I read the EU seems to have put the ball in Ireland's court as they seem to be asking us to accept concessions. Rather than maintain a unified stance

https://m.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-now-looks-set-to-ask-ireland-to-accept-concessions-37739911.html

In reality, okay, we'd need a hard border in a no deal Brexit.

But, by the EU asking *US* for concessions, it puts a UK referendum issue in our court, and gives the UK a chance to deflect blame and say "well, we're waiting on Ireland's decision"

Even though Brexit wasn't our idea.

The EU have not asked as far as I can tell. Leo just laid out the options and this was one of them. He should have kept stum or kept a tighter leash on the people in the room though.

Remember this may seem like a get out clause for the UK but their economy still tanks. It is not a real get out for those worried about Brexit there. They just drag us further down with them in this scenario.

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

Realistically we're only concerned about goods anyway, so you pick the major arteries and set up checkpoints to stop and check all southbound commercial vehicles (we don't care about northbound) while allowing passenger vehicles through unchecked on another lane.

Some will take back roads to avoid it, but if you're driving an artic on your employer's time you're going to just take the M1 and not try navigate some rural roads. Getting a grip on 80%+ of goods movements should be doable inside a week. That's not to say the queues will move quickly. There'd be several hours spent waiting to be checked. A man with a chipper van could make a good killing.

A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If, for example, the UK agree a trade deal with the US and start getting chlorinated chicken, how can we assure the rest of the EU that that is not coming into our products? We can't.

Will they accept a certain %? Doubt it. So in effect we will see all ROI goods being tested in EU ports. In effect the UK will have the same trade terms outside the EU than we will have inside it.

The time is fast approaching where Ireland needs to make a decision. DO we blindly follow the UK off the cliff, or do we stick with the EU. In my opinion, there is only one choice.

FrancieBrady

Get Real wrote: »

I agree with you there. I'm just disappointed this morning that I read the EU seems to have put the ball in Ireland's court as they seem to be asking us to accept concessions. Rather than maintain a unified stance

In reality, okay, we'd need a hard border in a no deal Brexit.

But, by the EU asking US for concessions, it puts a UK referendum issue in our court, and gives the UK a chance to deflect blame and say "well, we're waiting on Ireland's decision"

Even though Brexit wasn't our idea.

A large part of what you are listening to this morning is the slow learners in Ireland finally waking up and catching up.

I am not aware of the rest of the EU officially asking US for concessions. Can you link? (I am aware of a rogue Polish minister asking at the behest of a UK MP)

prawnsambo

seamus wrote: »

Realistically we're only concerned about goods anyway, so you pick the major arteries and set up checkpoints to stop and check all southbound commercial vehicles (we don't care about northbound) while allowing passenger vehicles through unchecked on another lane.

Some will take back roads to avoid it, but if you're driving an artic on your employer's time you're going to just take the M1 and not try navigate some rural roads. Getting a grip on 80%+ of goods movements should be doable inside a week. That's not to say the queues will move quickly. There'd be several hours spent waiting to be checked. A man with a chipper van could make a good killing.

Back in time before the SM and CU were fully operational, there were customs posts in Carrickcarnan and Greenore on this side of the border and Newry on the other. Afaik, they still exist and the process would involve stopping at those posts to clear customs so that there were no delays at the actual border. On the Newry road, there was a small customs checkpoint at the border which would stop passing traffic. Iirc, they would just check to make sure you had your papers in order, but that wouldn't be entirely necessary at first. So it can be soft enough at the actual crossing points at least for a time.

Leroy42

Get Real wrote: »

I agree with you there. I'm just disappointed this morning that I read the EU seems to have put the ball in Ireland's court as they seem to be asking us to accept concessions. Rather than maintain a unified stance

What concessions have the EU asked us to accept?

Get Real

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure what the confusion is about this am.
Surely all the posturing, all the negotiating and statements were about the prospect of a hard border if the UK exited without a deal?

Surely that was why we needed a 'backstop'?

We haven't, as yet got an agreed backstop. Of course there will be a hard border in those circumstances?

I agree with you there. I'm just disappointed this morning that I read the EU seems to have put the ball in Ireland's court as they seem to be asking us to accept concessions. Rather than maintain a unified stance

https://m.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-now-looks-set-to-ask-ireland-to-accept-concessions-37739911.html

In reality, okay, we'd need a hard border in a no deal Brexit.

But, by the EU asking *US* for concessions, it puts a UK referendum issue in our court, and gives the UK a chance to deflect blame and say "well, we're waiting on Ireland's decision"

Even though Brexit wasn't our idea.

seamus

murphaph wrote: »

Better a hard border and then veto any UK FTA with the EU that did not result in an open border (no Canada++ etc.). It would take a while to get set up any infrastructure anyway (we can drag our feet a bit there), spot checks by mobile patrols would be the order of the day and in the meantime the UK will be imploding around a permanent traffic jam in Kent, hopefully leading to government collapse and a national rethink.

Realistically we're only concerned about goods anyway, so you pick the major arteries and set up checkpoints to stop and check all southbound commercial vehicles (we don't care about northbound) while allowing passenger vehicles through unchecked on another lane.

Some will take back roads to avoid it, but if you're driving an artic on your employer's time you're going to just take the M1 and not try navigate some rural roads. Getting a grip on 80%+ of goods movements should be doable inside a week. That's not to say the queues will move quickly. There'd be several hours spent waiting to be checked. A man with a chipper van could make a good killing.

Call me Al wrote: »

The easy way out of Britain's mess is for us to accept a time-limited backstop. Then that can gets kicked right down the road. Again. That's where we are being pushed.

Ultimately we may as well take no backstop in that case. If the UK are unwilling to agree to the backstop, it's because they want the freedom to set up a hard border if they feel like it.

In the event of the backstop kicking in, they won't be encouraged to set up a new agreement, they will simply run down the clock as a negotiating tactic and use the impending economic doom as a way to try and get what they want.

They're doing it to themselves right now, so of course they would do the same thing to us.

Ultimately it's not really about the backstop anyway. If it wasn't about that, it would be about something else. The UK has not conducted any of this negotiation in good faith.

prawnsambo

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Would a UK general election, where hopefully, if it's spelled out clearly and simply enough for the people in the North what awaits them if the dup are returned to their positions as kingmakers potentially solve the mess?

I think most people in the north know what the story is. But the UUP need to get their act together and present a viable option to those who are finding the DUP a bit too lemming-like for their taste.

kuro68k

nice_guy80 wrote: »

You just cannot trust the UK in anything

That's the real problem here. The UK is totally untrustworthy, which means the EU won't take any risks, and the UK assumes everyone else is just as bad as it is.

Leroy42

It is clear that the UK will not go with a No deal, and even if they do so because time ran out there will still be a large contingent within the HoC which will continue to push for a deal afterwards and that will grow rapidly as the real consequences become clear.

Already they are a few who voted against TM deal now saying they would vote for it, once she can get concessions. But they are simply settling the ground so the acceptance of the deal even without the concessions.

Leo, Ireland and the EU simply need to hold tight. What it totally uncalled for is that we give in to the total chaos in the UK. If we give in to that, say a time limit, there is simply no incentive for the UK to do anything on the basis that come the end of the time limit the EU and Ireland will simply give in once more.

A number of txts into Newstalk this morning claiming we should leave with the UK. Apart from the nonsense idea that it is is terms of trade links etc, are they proposing that we start to take up seats in the HoC as otherwise we would have no say in the rules and regulations set for us in this union.

boggerman1

Car crash interview by Michael creed on morning Ireland.still troting out the line that we don't want a hard border.everyone knows that there was going to have to be borders reintroduced once Britain decided to walk.if the EU border is now going to be Calais sure we in the south are going to be in the EU but outside the EU border or am I wrong.agriculture will be f**ked so

Zubeneschamali

Call me Al wrote: »

The easy way out of Britain's mess is for us to accept a time-limited backstop.

How long do you reckon, about 800 years?

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Never quite trusted Leo and Simon on this. I can see it being suggested alright.

I think though that will fracture the Dail.
Westminster fractured and paralysed with division and the Dail fractured and paralysed with division?
We create the vacuum of inaction that was created in 1969. We certainly don't want to do that again.

Maybe you're right. But I would think that if they blink now, they're screwed. And I reckon they know that. It's not as though they made conciliatory noises when the idea was floated, so accepting it now would be a very visible and weakening climb down.

It's squeaky bum time. Which is the game May is playing with the HoC. We don't need to blink because she's driving her car directly at those who oppose her withdrawal agreement. And the other car has the ability (if it so wants) to call the whole thing off.

Macy0161

Call me Al wrote: »

The easy way out of Britain's mess is for us to accept a time-limited backstop.

I don't see that as being enough to get the WA over the line in the HoC, unless May concedes on her red lines for the following negotiations (opening up a customs union, which does have a majority).

McMurphy

lawred2 wrote: »

No that's the easy way out for Britain from a problem of their own creation.. and it would be a gift.

The easy way out for all is NI accepting that they have a unique place in this world and staying in the single market with checks in the Irish Sea.

The best of both worlds for them.

But the self destructive nature of identity politics and sectarianism precludes such pragmatism

Would a UK general election, where hopefully, if it's spelled out clearly and simply enough for the people in the North what awaits them if the dup are returned to their positions as kingmakers potentially solve the mess?

Call me Al

lawred2 wrote: »

No that's the easy way out for Britain from a problem of their own creation..

The easy way out is NI accepting that they have a unique place in this world and staying in the single market with checks in the Irish Sea.

The best of both worlds for them.

But the self destructive nature of identity politics and sectarianism precludes such pragmatism

You get me wrong. I agree.

But it's also the easy way out for some member states in the EU with no skin in the game other than maybe having thousands of their citizens living and working in UK. As was demo'd by our Polish "friend". Hence we end up kicking the can down the road with this time-limited backstop.

The UK are once again treating us appallingly, with no regard for their own citizens living in NI.

FrancieBrady

Call me Al wrote: »

The easy way out of Britain's mess is for us to accept a time-limited backstop. Then that can gets kicked right down the road. Again. That's where we are being pushed.

Never quite trusted Leo and Simon on this. I can see it being suggested alright.

I think though that will fracture the Dail.
Westminster fractured and paralysed with division and the Dail fractured and paralysed with division?
We create the vacuum of inaction that was created in 1969. We certainly don't want to do that again.

lawred2

Call me Al wrote: »

The easy way out of Britain's mess is for us to accept a time-limited backstop. Then that can gets kicked right down the road. Again. That's where we are being pushed.

No that's the easy way out for Britain from a problem of their own creation.. and it would be a gift.

The easy way out for all is NI accepting that they have a unique place in this world and staying in the single market with checks in the Irish Sea.

The best of both worlds for them.

But the self destructive nature of identity politics and sectarianism precludes such pragmatism

Call me Al

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure what the confusion is about this am.
Surely all the posturing, all the negotiating and statements were about the prospect of a hard border if the UK exited without a deal?

Surely that was why we needed a 'backstop'?

We haven't, as yet got an agreed backstop. Of course there will be a hard border in those circumstances?

The easy way out of Britain's mess is for us to accept a time-limited backstop. Then that can gets kicked right down the road. Again. That's where we are being pushed.

FrancieBrady

Not sure what the confusion is about this am.
Surely all the posturing, all the negotiating and statements were about the prospect of a hard border if the UK exited without a deal?

Surely that was why we needed a 'backstop'?

We haven't, as yet got an agreed backstop. Of course there will be a hard border in those circumstances?

Macy0161

murphaph wrote: »

I would be totally and utterly opposed to border controls in France, throwing us into a single market and customs union with the crazies next door. Back to the 1930's.

Surely it's just kite flying/ scaremongering to prep for the inevitable hard border on the island in the event of a no deal? They really can't be seriously considering it as a solution, just saying this is the only way if no deal and no border controls!?!

murphaph

I would be totally and utterly opposed to border controls in France, throwing us into a single market and customs union with the crazies next door. Back to the 1930's.

Better a hard border and then veto any UK FTA with the EU that did not result in an open border (no Canada++ etc.). It would take a while to get set up any infrastructure anyway (we can drag our feet a bit there), spot checks by mobile patrols would be the order of the day and in the meantime the UK will be imploding around a permanent traffic jam in Kent, hopefully leading to government collapse and a national rethink.

NI will vote for unification once UK GDP falls 8% and the Westminster teat runs dry. I would vote for it too to get rid of the border. I suspect an awful lot of people who were quite happy with the status quo would do the same.

nice_guy80

You just cannot trust the UK in anything

they are lobbying all the EU countries behind the EU's back and trying to get the WA amended and trying to isolate Ireland.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

You ask for link then quote "the UK to honour its no hard border guarantee"

Yes. The UK's no-hard-border guarantee is that it won't Brexit on terms that result in a hard border. That's quite different from a statement that the UK will not in any circumstances operate border controls. The only way to honour the no-hard-border guarantee is to enter into agreed arrangements to keep the border open. Has the UK government ever said that, even in the absence of any agreed arrangements, it still won't operate border controls itself? I don't believe it ever has, but I'm happy to be corrected.