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

Calina

judeboy101 wrote: »

Rte confirming story, Leo told party leaders checks on France and Holland on goods from Ireland. We will be effectively outside CU .

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0122/1024903-brexit-border/

Well frankly, I want a hard border in that case. And it is about time Britain recognised and took ownership of it. I dont care if the said they didnt want one, it results from their decision. At no point has anyone on the UK side been honest about the consequences of their decision.

Hard border results from Brexit. UK is responsible for it.

Enzokk

EdgeCase wrote: »

Bear in mind another issue : it will be a customs border if it happens. It won't be a security or immigration border as movement of people issues don't really arrise.

Yes it would only be a custom post but as Fintan O'Toole puts it in this clip that it becomes a target and once it is a target you have to protect it. That is when the trouble starts.

https://twitter.com/The_Convention_/status/1086214907304046592

The move from just a customs post to a security post attached could happen very quickly and from there we sort of know where it leads to.

EdgeCase wrote: »

There's no compromise situation on the table. The single market rules are very serious and are further backed up by the WTO rules.

The only solution would take Ireland out of the common market and into some associate member status which would be a total disaster.

I'd say we are going to have to come up with some kind of academic and technical border that works on paper trails tbh and try damn hard to convince the EU and WTO that it is going to be actually enforced bureaucratically to the point that no infrastructure is needed.

We do know that both Ireland and the UK knows about the need to keep the border open. If the UK wasn't serious about this we would not have had the backstop that was agreed in the WA. So I still think it is just as likely that we will still see a deal on the side of no deal (I know how that sounds) where the UK will do customs checks in the Irish Sea to avoid a border in the case of no deal instead of them also having to put up a border in NI. Their military will be stretched on the mainland in any case to also have to worry about dying again in NI. That is my hope at least.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Important gloss required here: checks in France and Holland on goods from Ireland in a no-deal Brexit situation, if we fail to operate checks on goods crossing the RoI/UK border.

But, seriously, this isn't news to anybody, is it? This is the whole reason why we need a Withdrawal Agreement with a backstop in it.

Well in no deal there would need to be checks somewhere, it would just depend where they will take place. What we are reading right now is that our government is exploring all the options open to them. This is going to be one big game of chicken and seeing the reaction of some here they would not fare well if they were put in the hot seat.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

The UK have never moved from their position that they will not put up a hard border.

Has HMG (as opposed to this or that loopy Brexiter) actually said this? SFAIK they have not but I'm open to correction. (But if you are correcting me, a link to a source for HMG saying this would be appreciated.)

judeboy101 wrote: »

Leo and Simon have spun that they won't. The EU supports Ireland and the GFA, "we are Irish" bull****. Ironically JRM said this is what would happen a year ago. Seems he was more honest than Leo & friends.

IrlGov's position has been that they don't intend to erect border controls because they expect the UK to honour its no-hard-border guarantee, so it won't be necessary. We've always known that if the UK welshes on its gurantee, it will be necessary, and planning/preparation has taken this into account. But it was never a wise strategy for IrlGov to say that they didn't expect the UK to honour its guarantee - how would that help matters? - so they have avoided discussing this.

Enzokk

Faisal Islam shared this interesting tweet about polls and their support for Remain or Leave and how Remain has has a lead for a long time now. This is actually different than before the referendum where the polls were actually very close and split on whether people would want to remain or leave.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1087859091748413440

Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

Also we have to think that the polling companies will have refined the way they interpret the data following the referendum as they were in uncharted waters before the vote.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Faisal Islam shared this interesting tweet about polls and their support for Remain or Leave and how Remain has has a lead for a long time now. This is actually different than before the referendum where the polls were actually very close and split on whether people would want to remain or leave.

What the polls show is:

(a) if there were a second referendum, most people would vote to Remain; but

(b) most people don't want a second referendum.

Confused? Me too.

Enzokk wrote: »

Also we have to think that the polling companies will have refined the way they interpret the data following the referendum as they were in uncharted waters before the vote.

The thing last time, as I understand it, was that the polls correctly reflected how people would vote, but the polling companies failed to correctly predict who would vote. Which is to say, the polls were correct about how voters of various ages, gender, socioeconomic class, etc would break down between Leave and Remain, but what was not forseen was the very high turnout, with groups that normally vote in low numbers turning out in high numbers.

Presumably they're trying hard to get this right now. But whether they succeed or not, we won't know unless there is actually a second referendum.

Mr.Wemmick

George Osborne being interviewed in Davos said the problem here if you continue to pretend you are leaving without a deal it just might become a reality.
He went on to say that Philip Hammond has sensibly told UK business leaders that isn't a possibility, but we now need to hear it from the Prime Minister.

Osborne's comments highlight what a shambles this whole process is when no one really knows what the hell is going on and what is going to happen.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

Has HMG (as opposed to this or that loopy Brexiter) actually said this? SFAIK they have not but I'm open to correction. (But if you are correcting me, a link to a source for HMG saying this would be appreciated.)

IrlGov's position has been that they don't intend to erect border controls because they expect the UK to honour its no-hard-border guarantee, so it won't be necessary. We've always known that if the UK welshes on its gurantee, it will be necessary, and planning/preparation has taken this into account. But it was never a wise strategy for IrlGov to say that they didn't expect the UK to honour its guarantee - how would that help matters? - so they have avoided discussing this.

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

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

What the polls show is:

(a) if there were a second referendum, most people would vote to Remain; but

(b) most people don't want a second referendum.

Confused? Me too.

The thing last time, as I understand it, was that the polls correctly reflected how people would vote, but the polling companies failed to correctly predict who would vote. Which is to say, the polls were correct about how voters of various ages, gender, socioeconomic class, etc would break down between Leave and Remain, but what was not forseen was the very high turnout, with groups that normally vote in low numbers turning out in high numbers.

Presumably they're trying hard to get this right now. But whether they succeed or not, we won't know unless there is actually a second referendum.

The last you gov survey I completed asked some quite in depth questions about Brexit- testing your understanding of things like "what does a no deal brexit mean?"-scary that there are UK citizens that don't understand the implications of a hard brexit,or indeed,any type of brexit imo.

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.

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.

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.

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!?!

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)