Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FreudianSlippers · 25-01-2019 07:06PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the trade requires the UK to adhere to current and future EU regulations? You don't think that is going to cause an issue?

It's not a "what-if" even... PMQ last week:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

TM just admitted that any deal with require regulatory alignment with EU on goods/services and regulatory legislation surrounding that.

The Brexit that people voted for is pointless and impossible.

Zubeneschamali · 25-01-2019 07:06PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, where the flexibility was needed was down the line when it became clear that the backstop as it was worded was a non-runner.

One day, perhaps after an election, another referendum, or a new Bronze Age in the former UK, there will be a deal between England and the EU. And it will include the backstop, as agreed in December 2017.

Itssoeasy · 25-01-2019 07:08PM

Tommie Gorman isn't a fan of the DUP.

Bit cynical · 25-01-2019 07:11PM

lawred2 wrote: »

Would you not have said the same about a withdrawal agreement two and a half years ago?

A 'basic' trade deal would achieve nothing to solve the border issue in northern Ireland by the way.

A basic trade deal would likely still mean differing regulations and market controls ergo a hard border.

I'm not sure you're really aware of what's involved here

I disagree that it would solve nothing but we've got to be realistic about what can be achieved. A free trade deal where there are no tariffs on goods means an easier patrolled border. A border where there is no trade deal whatsoever requires intensive border infrastructure and monitoring.

We already have the CTA and reciprocal working arrangements between the two jurisdictions, so a trade deal even along the lines of Canada would solve many problems.

This is less desirable, however, than what was envisaged under the backstop, but it looks like the backstop is dead forever. It has only served to delay and complicate proceedings to Ireland's disadvantage.

I know people have said that the UK will surely realise the error of their ways within six months and come crawling back in humiliation to the EU, but remember that not too long ago we were pretty sure that they would accept any deal that was given to them. We now think they will come crawling back because that is the only hope we are left with.

downcow · 25-01-2019 07:11PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Neither of these types of comments meets the standards of acceptable debate on this topic.

Mod note:

If you've an issue with a post, report it. Don't respond in kind and make a martyr of yourself on the thread.

I appreciate that response. That’s very fair.

Tell me how · 25-01-2019 07:12PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Tommie Gorman isn't a fan of the DUP.

Most definitely not.

But, his role is not to be a commentator but a reporter.
We complain about elements on Sky/BBC when they are obviously arguing for a particular direction, and we should hold our own media to account in the same manner.

I am not against opinions and informed opinions are obviously better than ignorant ones (as this thread shows) but if you are to be continuously able to take something a reporter states as fact then they have to remain impartial professionally.

Maybe the best reporters to do this would actually be ones with no interest in politics but then that would create issues as well probably as they would be sent around the houses if they were not clued in.

Bit cynical · 25-01-2019 07:13PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One day, perhaps after an election, another referendum, or a new Bronze Age in the former UK, there will be a deal between England and the EU. And it will include the backstop, as agreed in December 2017.

No good for us in that case. The idea of the backstop was that we would have the agreement concerning it in place when the UK left the EU. Also unlikely that if the UK came back it would be to continue the same negotiations that failed but that is a different issue.

FreudianSlippers · 25-01-2019 07:14PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I disagree that it would solve nothing but we've got to be realistic about what can be achieved. A free trade deal where there are no tariffs on goods means an easier patrolled border. A border where there is no trade deal whatsoever requires intensive border infrastructure and monitoring.

Soooooooooo the Chequers plan? :rolleyes:

Enzokk · 25-01-2019 07:16PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I know people have said that the UK will surely realise the error of their ways within six months and come crawling back in humiliation to the EU, but remember that not too long ago we were pretty sure that they would accept any deal that was given to them. We now think they will come crawling back because that is the only hope we are left with.

The UK Government did accept the deal that was offered and they accepted the backstop even though May has repeatedly said she will not allow regulatory alignment to differ between NI and the rest of the UK. This is precisely what the backstop entails that if the FTA is not reached after the transition then there will be an all UK customs union and NI will still adhere to single market regulations. History doesn't seem to be on your side with the point you are trying to make.

spacecoyote · 25-01-2019 07:17PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not always inadvertently. Here is Jacob's suggestion last May speaking in the context of pressurising the EU during negotiations:

"If Britain trades on WTO terms, we could potentially slap tariffs of up to 70 per cent on Irish beef. That could bankrupt Ireland, who export £800million of beef to us every year."

I'm a bit confused on JRMs logic here. Wouldn't their tariff be applied at EU level under WTO, so if they're applying a 70% tariff, wouldn't it be on EU beef, not Irish beef. And if they're then putting a 70% tariff on EU exports of beef, wouldn't the EU just put the same tariff on UK beef exports, essentially bankrupting the UK beef farmers as I'm assuming they export a hefty amount to Europe?

Sorry I know JRM is a complete sh1tetalker, but I'm curious as to how the WTO thing applies, re Ireland versus EU

Borderhopper · 25-01-2019 07:19PM

downcow wrote: »

I appreciate that response. That’s very fair.

Good to have you back Downcow. Could you answer my question please? What would you have nationalists in Northern Ireland do?

Tell me how · 25-01-2019 07:20PM

spacecoyote wrote: »

I'm a bit confused on JRMs logic here. Wouldn't their tariff be applied at EU level under WTO, so if they're applying a 70% tariff, wouldn't it be on EU beef, not Irish beef. And if they're then putting a 70% tariff on EU exports of beef, wouldn't the EU just put the same tariff on UK beef exports, essentially bankrupting the UK beef farmers as I'm assuming they export a hefty amount to Europe?

Sorry I know JRM is a complete sh1tetalker, but I'm curious as to how the WTO thing applies, re Ireland versus EU

Not only that, but if the put a 70% tariff on our (EU beef) they would have to put that same tariff on all suppliers of beef in to the UK.

trellheim · 25-01-2019 07:24PM

Hmm .... last December there was an agreement that was immediately repudiated by the UK side with the lead negotiator for the UK (David Davis) saying he did not realise what it meant, and it took nearly a full year to get back to that point. Now there is an agreed text that cannot get through the HOC.

If you will recall, the UK Gov agreed to this to move the talks on from the first phase as the pesky EU refused to budge to the good stuff "trade" until NI had been sorted out. They had hoped (and still hope) that the EU will cave on this as we get closer to the deadline.

Does anyone have any examples of the EU caving . I'm looking at Switzerland as "didn't cave" (swiss HAD to cave on FOM )

spacecoyote · 25-01-2019 07:24PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Not only that, but if the put a 70% tariff on our (EU beef) they would have to put that same tariff on all suppliers of beef in to the UK.

Ok thanks, makes sense. So you can't be seen to give preferential rates to any trading partner. So they couldn't have a 70% EU tariff & a 10% Japanese tariff, everyone has to be treated equally

Bit cynical · 25-01-2019 07:25PM

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK Government did accept the deal that was offered and they accepted the backstop even though May has repeatedly said she will not allow regulatory alignment to differ between NI and the rest of the UK. This is precisely what the backstop entails that if the FTA is not reached after the transition then there will be an all UK customs union and NI will still adhere to single market regulations. History doesn't seem to be on your side with the point you are trying to make.

I think the main problem with this is that you are talking about the backstop in the present tense as if it was an agreement to which the UK could be held. It is not and let us be realistic, it is unlikely to be in the future.

FreudianSlippers · 25-01-2019 07:25PM

spacecoyote wrote: »

I'm a bit confused on JRMs logic here. Wouldn't their tariff be applied at EU level under WTO, so if they're applying a 70% tariff, wouldn't it be on EU beef, not Irish beef. And if they're then putting a 70% tariff on EU exports of beef, wouldn't the EU just put the same tariff on UK beef exports, essentially bankrupting the UK beef farmers as I'm assuming they export a hefty amount to Europe?

Sorry I know JRM is a complete sh1tetalker, but I'm curious as to how the WTO thing applies, re Ireland versus EU

Tell me how wrote: »

Not only that, but if the put a 70% tariff on our (EU beef) they would have to put that same tariff on all suppliers of beef in to the UK.

Exactly, it'd be on all beef imported from WTO members. The UK also couldn't discriminate intra-EU because they can't enter individual trade deals with a specific Member State.

Importantly the WTO doesn't allow for discriminatory tariffs in any event.

RobMc59 · 25-01-2019 07:36PM

josip wrote: »

Rob, are you sure it's tonnes? It seems a bit much for one driver to transport, even if he's Dutch?

Apologies-should have said kilos!

Enzokk · 25-01-2019 07:39PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the main problem with this is that you are talking about the backstop in the present tense as if it was an agreement to which the UK could be held. It is not and let us be realistic, it is unlikely to be in the future.

So why the jockeying to have it removed if it is an agreement that they cannot be held to? Surely you do the Gove tactic of agreeing to it and then just ignoring it. I mean it is just a legal document that will be signed between 2 parties, much like the GFA.

Edit: Anyone else seeing posts that disappear after a few minutes?

First Up · 25-01-2019 07:43PM

spacecoyote wrote:

Ok thanks, makes sense. So you can't be seen to give preferential rates to any trading partner. So they couldn't have a 70% EU tariff & a 10% Japanese tariff, everyone has to be treated equally

They are free to negotiate trade terms with the EU, Japan, US and everyone else and those deals could include different tariffs in each case.

However JRM was talking about WTO terms and in that case the same tariffs would have to be applied to all WTO members. So they could not (for example) slap hefty tariffs on Irish and other EU beef but allow Argentinian beef in tariff free.

Its quite possible that JRM doesn't understand that because he doesn't seem to understand a lot of things.

CelticRambler · 25-01-2019 07:43PM

Hurrache wrote: »

The Markets segment on Sky News are saying that sterling reached its high because of the reports in the Sun that the DUP have privately backed the deal. However if that backing is on the foundation that the backstop will be limited, it means nothing.

I came across the same explanation in a different place earlier today too. I couldn't figure out what the reason for such optimism was. Seemingly, the suggestion that the HoC would apply a time-limit to the backstop (duck 1) would be enough to persuade the DUP to back May's deal (duck 2) which would encourage the ERG (duck 3) and the rebellious Remainer Tories (duck 4) to come on board, and that that would be sufficient for the EU to grant an extension to Art.50 (duck 5) to allow for the WA to be rewritten and approved by the EU27 (duck 6).

That's an awful lot of ducks that someone is expecting to keep in a row. You'd almost believe the City of London's bankers and traders were drinking the Westminster Koolaid. :pac:

judeboy101 · 25-01-2019 07:45PM

trellheim wrote: »

If you will recall, the UK Gov agreed to this to move the talks on from the first phase as the pesky EU refused to budge to the good stuff "trade" until NI had been sorted out. They had hoped (and still hope) that the EU will cave on this as we get closer to the deadline.

Does anyone have any examples of the EU caving . I'm looking at Switzerland as "didn't cave" (swiss HAD to cave on FOM )

Actually the EU did cave. As an EU citizen I cannot fly to switzerland in the morning and get a job. Firstly if the region I get the job in has higher than average unemployment, the job must go to a swiss first. Secondly I must prove that I have integrated into swiss society. That's not from, that's quotas by stealth.

Tell me how · 25-01-2019 07:47PM

Enzokk wrote: »

So why the jockeying to have it removed if it is an agreement that they cannot be held to? Surely you do the Gove tactic of agreeing to it and then just ignoring it. I mean it is just a legal document that will be signed between 2 parties, much like the GFA.

Edit: Anyone else seeing posts that disappear after a few minutes?

Could be due to moderation.
Can be frustrating (if they are your posts), but to be fair, it is why this thread has continued for the vast majority of the time to be an enjoyable informative place in to its 6th edition.

Enzokk · 25-01-2019 07:54PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Could be due to moderation.
Can be frustrating (if they are your posts), but to be fair, it is why this thread has continued for the vast majority of the time to be an enjoyable informative place in to its 6th edition.

Maybe, although the two posts I read had nothing in them to be removed (IMO). No worries, was just wondering if it was a boards problem or as you say a moderating.

CelticRambler · 25-01-2019 07:54PM

judeboy101 wrote: »

Actually the EU did cave. As an EU citizen I cannot fly to switzerland in the morning and get a job.

Yup, you can (Swiss govt site, my highlighting):

Short-term employment up to three months (EU-25/EFTA citizens)

Citizens from EU-25/EFTA states do not require authorisation for short-term employment up to three months or 90 days per calendar year.

For employment lasting beyond three months, you need a statement of engagement from the employer or a certificate of employment (e.g. an employment contract) and have to apply for a residence permit.

So pretty much the same as if you wanted to move to any other EU country, except that in that case, your residency is automatically permitted by virtue of the fact that you've been working for more than three months.

Bit cynical · 25-01-2019 07:54PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Edit: Anyone else seeing posts that disappear after a few minutes?

I mistakenly replied to the same post twice and deleted the second one. Could be that.

FrancieBrady · 25-01-2019 08:07PM

It is great to finally hear Leo spelling out what a border might mean. I said exactly the same thing he is now saying away at the start of this thread.
All it takes is for one customs post or person to be attacked and protection will have to be provided and so we start the road back to fortified installations on the border and then we can so easily slip back to the bad days.

And no amount of condemnation or hand wringing about right and wrong will help, it will be too late.

The right thing is to avoid at all costs, the creation of those conditions. I can tell you, there are a lot of very worried people here.
And some would have you believe that it is all about unionist discomfort.

murphaph · 25-01-2019 08:07PM

downcow wrote: »

Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear

“Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish .

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”

There's no way you voted remain.

downcow · 25-01-2019 08:08PM

Borderhopper wrote: »

Good to have you back Downcow. Could you answer my question please? What would you have nationalists in Northern Ireland do?

I was never away anywhere but thanks for your concern.
This might shock you but I have spent most of my life working in peace building. I suppose it’s my interest to learn from other opinions that brings me on here.
Your question is a good one. It is a connondrim for both unionists and nationalists to know what to do.
From where i am looking they should help us get rid of the backstop. They should encourage the Eu to have more confidence in its self and be prepared to negotiate a future for Eu and UK without the need for things like the backstop. They are a big block 10 times plus bigger than the UK so shouldn’t need a backstop to negotiate a good deal.
The other thing I would suggest nationalists would do, thankfully I have just witnessed them in some numbers doing this evening ie joining me in showing there disgust for anyone use the conflict and troops on the border as s cheap bargaining chip. Fair play the the nationalist of Newry who were on the news tonight.

FrancieBrady · 25-01-2019 08:11PM

downcow wrote: »

I was never away anywhere but thanks for your concern.
This might shock you but I have spent most of my life working in peace building. I suppose it’s my interest to learn from other opinions that brings me on here.
Your question is a good one. It is a connondrim for both unionists and nationalists to know what to do.
From where i am looking they should help us get rid of the backstop. They should encourage the Eu to have more confidence in its self and be prepared to negotiate a future for Eu and UK without the need for things like the backstop. They are a big block 10 times plus bigger than the UK so shouldn’t need a backstop to negotiate a good deal.
The other thing I would suggest nationalists would do, thankfully I have just witnessed them in some numbers doing this evening ie joining me in showing there disgust for anyone use the conflict and troops on the border as s cheap bargaining chip. Fair play the the nationalist of Newry who were on the news tonight.

What is your problem with the backstop? You have been assured by Westminster that it doesn't alter your position in the UK

downcow · 25-01-2019 08:13PM

murphaph wrote: »

There's no way you voted remain.

You are right there. And I didn’t vote leave either. In fact I was enjoying supporting our wee country in France at the euros when you were voting

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Comments