Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 12:01PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Simple any border == NO FTA

However, also true

No FTA == border.

And this is the situation we might find ourselves in if there's no deal.

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 12:05PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Even as a "Leaver" who thinks that Leo has "overplayed his hand"?

Well I've always had the impression that Owen was a reluctant leaver worried about the future direction of the EU.

I think that there's a genuine concern in that letter that Leo may have indeed overplayed his hand. Time will tell but I don't think it is necessarily an immoderate position.

prawnsambo · 07-08-2019 12:06PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, also true

No FTA == border.

And this is the situation we might find ourselves in if there's no deal.

That's not necessarily true. As a precondition to talks on a FTA, the EU is likely to require the three main planks of the WA. These can be agreed and implemented bilaterally to any trade talks or deals. So basically; sign here, here and here and we'll get on to the trade talks. Leaving NI in the SM and CU would be the outcome I suspect.

LeinsterDub · 07-08-2019 12:08PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, also true

No FTA == border.

And this is the situation we might find ourselves in if there's no deal.

This is the situation we will have a hard border or be heading to it at a rapid pace. No might . So when it comes to a FTA negotiation the first question the British will be asked is how they are going to deal with the border they've erected or forced the EU to erect

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 12:09PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not necessarily true. As a precondition to talks on a FTA, the EU is likely to require the three main planks of the WA. These can be agreed and implemented bilaterally to any trade talks or deals. So basically; sign here, here and here and we'll get on to the trade talks. Leaving NI in the SM and CU would be the outcome I suspect.

But getting back to the original point, it is hard to see how our veto helps us. If the EU require those things and the UK agrees and proceeds with talks, great. But it is unlikely that our veto is going to be used at any stage to our advantage.

FrancieBrady · 07-08-2019 12:10PM

Whatever happened Geoffrey Cox anyhow? At one time he was front and centre of it all.

Nody · 07-08-2019 12:19PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, also true

No FTA == border.

And this is the situation we might find ourselves in if there's no deal.

But a FTA does not remove the need for a border; Canada has a FTA agreement and there are still border checks for their incoming goods. FTA is simply one aspect of the overall deal required for there to be no border but it's not a stand alone solution to it (even though Brexiteers love to claim that if EU only agrees to negotiate the FTA it will solve itself).

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 12:20PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This is the situation we will be in . No might . So when it comes to a FTA negotiation the first question the British will be asked is how they are going to deal with the border they've erected or force the EU to erect

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The problem for Ireland will be the EU dragging things out. And here our veto can't help us.

prawnsambo · 07-08-2019 12:24PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

But getting back to the original point, it is hard to see how our veto helps us. If the EU require those things and the UK agrees and proceeds with talks, great. But it is unlikely that our veto is going to be used at any stage to our advantage.

Well I don't think our veto will be necessary, so in that regard I agree with you. I see no situation where our requirements and those of the EU will diverge to that extent. As I said, the WA provisions will be a precondition to any talks.

PeadarCo · 07-08-2019 12:25PM

Bit cynical wrote:

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The border would be a customs border. In order to avoid a hard border NI at least must stay in the EU Single Market and customs Union. Unless a free trade agreement results in that it's a hard border. This is something on this thread that has been said countless times by many posters.

However if that FTA was UK wide it would defeat the purpose of Brexit as the UK would be signed up to all the various rules but have no say in any changes.

murphaph · 07-08-2019 12:26PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The problem for Ireland will be the EU dragging things out. And here our veto can't help us.

A customs border is actually more invasive than an immigration border. With an immigration border you just show a passport/visa/whatever and proceed. With a customs border you have people opening bags and car boots and whatnot to check for contraband or undeclared goods.

prawnsambo · 07-08-2019 12:27PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The problem for Ireland will be the EU dragging things out. And here our veto can't help us.

Goods are actually a very small aspect of what the backstop is about. It's services and the all-Ireland economy that will be most affected by the disruption. Every single van and lorry driver is a service. ECMT permits being a case in point.

FrancieBrady · 07-08-2019 12:28PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. .

Edward Heath had a plan to require identity cards and visas from Irish people in Britain if Dublin didn't play ball with London over Bloody Sunday.

I wouldn't at the moment be sure of anything. Johnson's government appears a lot more unstable and rogue than Heath's.

LeinsterDub · 07-08-2019 12:33PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The problem for Ireland will be the EU dragging things out. And here our veto can't help us.

The problem won't be the EU dragging things out. You're timeline is completely wrong . If the UK leave with no deal we will heading rapidly to a hard border and economic hardship. No FTA discussions will be opened under these circumstances as we will just veto them.

The common travel area was useless when you had soldiers with guns on the border demanding ID , when you've waited 30 minutes to talk to said soldiers. When said soldiers ask you to open your boot so customs officials can check it out

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 12:34PM

murphaph wrote: »

A customs border is actually more invasive than an immigration border. With an immigration border you just show a passport/visa/whatever and proceed. With a customs border you have people opening bags and car boots and whatnot to check for contraband or undeclared goods.

It is not ideal I agree. But a customs border between two countries with an FTA would be a lot better than a customs border between to countries with no trade deal whatsoever. An FTA + the CTA would allow ordinary people to shop across the border with little or no interference from either side.

brickster69 · 07-08-2019 12:35PM

"Whatever happened Geoffrey Cox anyhow? At one time he was front and centre of it all."

Probably doing a report to explain to the people exactly why the worlds first legally binding Treaty which does not allow either party to unilaterally leave it is a non starter.

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 12:40PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The problem won't be the EU dragging things out. You're timeline is completely wrong . If the UK leave with no deal we will heading rapidly to a hard border and economic hardship. No FTA discussions will be opened under these circumstances as we will just veto them.

The common travel area was useless when you had soldiers with guns on the border demanding ID , when you've waited 30 minutes to talk to said soldiers. When said soldiers ask you to open your boot so customs officials can check it out

Note that I am not advocating a no deal exit, and while it continues without mitigation, I agree there is a danger of the scenario you describe returning with the military assisting customs officers.

Leroy42 · 07-08-2019 12:44PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Even as a "Leaver" who thinks that Leo has "overplayed his hand"?

Well I've always had the impression that Owen was a reluctant leaver worried about the future direction of the EU.

I think that there's a genuine concern in that letter that Leo may have indeed overplayed his hand. Time will tell but I don't think it is necessarily an immoderate position.

What has he done to lead to the accusations that he overplayed his hand?

Remember that the then PM of the sovereign UK along with her cabinet agreed to the backstop.

But what alternative is there? So Leo drops the backstop and what happens? UK has the benefits of EU membership but none of the responsibilities. Trade deal with the US and we effectively either faced with massive extra costs at our ports or we are removed from free trade with continental EU.

On the basis that the UK are threatening to withhold payment of agreed monies, they have reneged on a deal on the backstop do you think it wise that Leo just accepts their assurances that at some point in the future they might get around to getting a solution?

LeinsterDub · 07-08-2019 12:44PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is not ideal I agree. But a customs border between two countries with an FTA would be a lot better than a customs border between to countries with no trade deal whatsoever. An FTA + the CTA would allow ordinary people to shop across the border with little or no interference from either side.

Such a FTA would be in essence have very little difference to the backstop such would be the level of regulatory alignment required by the EU

prawnsambo · 07-08-2019 12:48PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is not ideal I agree. But a customs border between two countries with an FTA would be a lot better than a customs border between to countries with no trade deal whatsoever. An FTA + the CTA would allow ordinary people to shop across the border with little or no interference from either side.

It actually would make no practical difference at the border. You still require paperwork to be checked and queues would develop rapidly. Just look at any border post between the EU and EEA or EFTA countries.

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 12:50PM

Nody wrote: »

But a FTA does not remove the need for a border; Canada has a FTA agreement and there are still border checks for their incoming goods. FTA is simply one aspect of the overall deal required for there to be no border but it's not a stand alone solution to it (even though Brexiteers love to claim that if EU only agrees to negotiate the FTA it will solve itself).

But Canada and the US have no freedom of movement between the two countries so everyone is stopped anyway.

A comprehensive FTA + the existing CTA + coordination to ensure trusted traders are unimpeded would go a long way to easing border problems. Local individuals could still shop across the border without hindrance.

But I could see the EU dragging the process out.

prawnsambo · 07-08-2019 12:55PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

But Canada and the US have no freedom of movement between the two countries so everyone is stopped anyway.

A comprehensive FTA + the existing CTA + coordination to ensure trusted traders are unimpeded would go a long way to easing border problems. Local individuals could still shop across the border without hindrance.

But I could see the EU dragging the process out.

You are ignoring (a) the volume of traffic crossing the border, (b) the ECMT permit system, (c) no border operates on a 'trusted trader' system, (d) the existence of border controls on the Swiss border despite Switzerland being in Schengen and (e) the history of smuggling across the NI border.

Oh, and as I said before, the proliferation of cross border services that are inextricable from goods.

Bit cynical · 07-08-2019 01:05PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

You are ignoring (a) the volume of traffic crossing the border, (b) the ECMT permit system, (c) no border operates on a 'trusted trader' system, (d) the existence of border controls on the Swiss border despite Switzerland being in Schengen and (e) the history of smuggling across the NI border.

If you are arguing that it will not be ideal then I agree with you. But you must also agree that the problems for us you describe are worse in a no deal scenario without an FTA being later agreed.

prawnsambo · 07-08-2019 01:12PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

If you are arguing that it will not be ideal then I agree with you. But you must also agree that the problems for us you describe are worse in a no deal scenario without an FTA being later agreed.

They actually are pretty much the same. There will still be customs checks in the event of a FTA, the ECMT system is external to the EU and would cause major problems for hauliers, a trusted trader scheme is non-existent anywhere, smuggling would still be an issue and integrated services would require the FTA to effectively join the UK to the SM.

Edit: Every iteration of 'trusted trader' schemes that have been suggested, depend on infrastructure such as NPR systems, barriers and other controls that identify and clear loads traversing the border. Nobody who espouses these schemes has ever (to my knowledge) expanded on what happens when the vehicle doesn't match the data. I.e. how you deal with non-trusted traders or even identify them and control them without infrastructure.

fash · 07-08-2019 01:18PM

brickster69 wrote: »

"Whatever happened Geoffrey Cox anyhow? At one time he was front and centre of it all."

Probably doing a report to explain to the people exactly why the worlds first legally binding Treaty which does not allow either party to unilaterally leave it is a non starter.

Brexiter lies.
The UK has dozens of legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism - including the GFA.

fash · 07-08-2019 01:36PM

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

NI is not a viable state on their own, hell they had no government for 2 years now.

... Plus it's not foreseen in the GFA- either UK or Ireland - not independent.

lawred2 · 07-08-2019 01:39PM

EUR trading at 0.92329 GBP now

20silkcut · 07-08-2019 01:43PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Note that I am not advocating a no deal exit, and while it continues without mitigation, I agree there is a danger of the scenario you describe returning with the military assisting customs officers.

Due to the result of a non binding advisory referendum.

listermint · 07-08-2019 01:43PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in fairness, there's also the view that Johnson is promoting talk of this kind precisely to goad Parliament into acting to stop his drive for the cliff-edge. The thinking here is that he wants it stopped; he just doesn't want to wear the responsiblity for stopping it.

It's his "stop me before I kill again!" strategy.

I dont think he wants it stopped to be honest, there is far far far too much money at stake. Figures you and i cant even comprehend to be made off the back of a no deal.

Its a millionaires playground to become a billionaire.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe johnson has an ounce of good in him or cares what people think of his legacy. He moves from one day to the next, leaving the waste behind him.

Strazdas · 07-08-2019 01:45PM

fash wrote: »

Brexiter lies.
The UK has dozens of legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism - including the GFA.

This also explains why the WA can't be torn up and renegotiated. Treaties and agreements are concluded between 'countries', not between individual governments. A change of government is meaningless in the context of a treaty.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments