Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

paul71 · 12-07-2020 05:32PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

If Ireland operates a hard border wouldn't that go against the GFA?

You did not think that through did you? Essentially you just suggested that if Ireland ignores the question of an existing border then the border does not exist.

fash · 12-07-2020 05:37PM

.

Enzokk · 12-07-2020 06:09PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

If Ireland operates a hard border wouldn't that go against the GFA?

What comes first? Ireland putting up the hard border, or the actions that force Ireland to put up the hard border?

So you are surely not suggesting Ireland will walk back its obligations? Remind me again which country has not implemented the GFA provisions regarding citizenship for those born in NI?

PeadarCo · 12-07-2020 06:13PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

.

3. The WTO rules so beloved of brexiters would quickly be their undoing as by announcing they're giving unlimited trade access to Ireland with no reciprocity would result in every country on earth demanding the same treatment through MFN terms.

It's worse than that actually. By ignoring the NI border the UK will loss a huge amount of control over what goes into the UK. It hands the EU an easy win because it would mean any EU based company who wants to get something into the UK just needs to route it through the island of Ireland. It pretty much means having 0 tarrifs on all EU goods and accepting all EU regulations and facing tarrifs, product regulations and controls for UK goods going the other way. Never mind what the WTO says pretty much every other country/trading block will want the same deal. It's hard to think of a worse deal for the UK.

From the EUs point of view the hard part is the political considerations around ensuring there are controls over what goes from the UK to the EU/ROI. Which could be potentially offset by the economic benefits that this would bring the border region as large amounts of supply chains suddenly reroute to use the Irish border.

Even if the UK tried it the practical implications would force the UK to set up customs controls on their side of the border very quickly.

paul71 · 12-07-2020 06:22PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

It's worse than that actually. By ignoring the NI border the UK will loss a huge amount of control over what goes into the UK. It hands the EU an easy win because it would mean any EU based company who wants to get something into the UK just needs to route it through the island of Ireland. It pretty much means having 0 tarrifs on all EU goods and accepting all EU regulations and facing tarrifs, product regulations and controls for UK goods going the other way. Never mind what the WTO says pretty much every other country/trading block will want the same deal. It's hard to think of a worse deal for the UK.

From the EUs point of view the hard part is the political considerations around ensuring there are controls over what goes from the UK to the EU/ROI. Which could be potentially offset by the economic benefits that this would bring the border region as large amounts of supply chains suddenly reroute to use the Irish border.

Even if the UK tried it the practical implications would force the UK to set up customs controls on their side of the border very quickly.

Not just EU companies sending goods into the uk. Consider this, Uk goes to Canada for a trade agreement as part of "taking back control". Canada says, why would I can concede anything to you in a trade agreement when we can already send everything we need to sell to you through the NI border under the trade agreement we already have with the EU.

fash · 12-07-2020 06:32PM

Enzokk wrote: »

What comes first? Ireland putting up the hard border, or the actions that force Ireland to put up the hard border?

So you are surely not suggesting Ireland will walk back its obligations? Remind me again which country has not implemented the GFA provisions regarding citizenship for those born in NI?

Or in other words "Rape-ees (not rapists) are the truly culpable - if they didn't participate, no rape would have occurred"

reslfj · 12-07-2020 06:41PM

Enzokk wrote: »

...
.... if trucks go to the port and has the incorrect paperwork it will take time to fix. ....

The new site will (mostly) be for incoming lorries i.e. EU27->UK, where the UK customs must do the checks of papers and sometimes goods.

Traffic UK->EU27 (in this case to Calais, France) will be checked by the French in Calais, but the ferry company in Dover will check that each lorry has all papers needed. I'm not sure where this check will be performed - maybe as part of ferry check-in.

Lars

Leroy42 · 12-07-2020 06:42PM

I see conservative think-tanks, and this was noted in the recent Francois letter to Barnier, feel that the WA agreement needs to be renegotiated.

Seems that Johnson was forced, they never mention by whom, to accept TM deal, which now they have had the time to actually read it, (again they don't go into any detail of why they didn't before).

So not only do they want a FTA in the next few weeks, they are also starting from the position that the entire WA is now null and void and we are back to phase 1.

I took the time to read the comments section on the article in the Express, and of course it all about TM is a traitor/EU stooge or alternatively that the Brexit vote was never about NI etc. They never seem to take the line that they all gave the deal their acceptance as it was the N0.1 issue on which Johnson ran the recent GE.

RobMc59 · 12-07-2020 07:30PM

Enzokk wrote: »

What comes first? Ireland putting up the hard border, or the actions that force Ireland to put up the hard border?

So you are surely not suggesting Ireland will walk back its obligations? Remind me again which country has not implemented the GFA provisions regarding citizenship for those born in NI?

You`re taking my post out of context and I had`nt suggested anything.Please read the post I was replying to which was suggesting Ireland should operate a hard border,
It`s up to Ireland to decide what course of action to take in what at this point is a hypothetical situation.

View · 12-07-2020 07:45PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

If Ireland operates a hard border wouldn't that go against the GFA?

No. There is no specific clause prohibiting the establishment of a hard border by either country.

Arguably it is “against the spirit” of the GFA, but equally Brexit was “against the spirit” of the UK’s commitments under the EU Treaties as is Ireland prioritising the CTA over the Schengen commitments in the EU Treaties.

Hermy · 12-07-2020 08:29PM

View wrote: »

No it doesn’t have to stop. This is what Brexiters voted for and if they didn’t understand it, too bad.

As an EU member state, our obligation is to have plans for a hard border drawn up and ready to be put in place should either Brexiters renege on their commitments in the WA (a likely probability) OR cross-border smuggling flare up again as that would most definitely threaten the integrity of the SM.

But, but, but the people of Ashfo...

You do realise my previous post was made in jest.

At this stage I don't believe anything will stop the train wreck that is Brexit.

And furthermore, I think it's very necessary that it not be stopped as it's only when they have to deal with the likely calamitous consequences of leaving the EU that the UK eletorate might begin to see the error of their ways.

Jizique · 12-07-2020 09:19PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see conservative think-tanks, and this was noted in the recent Francois letter to Barnier, feel that the WA agreement needs to be renegotiated.

Seems that Johnson was forced, they never mention by whom, to accept TM deal, which now they have had the time to actually read it, (again they don't go into any detail of why they didn't before).

So not only do they want a FTA in the next few weeks, they are also starting from the position that the entire WA is now null and void and we are back to phase 1.

I took the time to read the comments section on the article in the Express, and of course it all about TM is a traitor/EU stooge or alternatively that the Brexit vote was never about NI etc. They never seem to take the line that they all gave the deal their acceptance as it was the N0.1 issue on which Johnson ran the recent GE.

Its hilarious really - thinking back about how Boris had got the Eau to remove the backstop that “traitor” May had accepted, ignoring that most including Johnson and Gove (and pretty sure Mott) Todd for it; then they ran the election on the basis of the WA and their overly ready deal.

I said it at the time and many times since that the biggest mistake the opposition ever made was to grant them the election pre-Xmas.
It would have been in May, perhaps a bit early for this ****show, but at the peak of the CV crisis.

reslfj · 12-07-2020 09:21PM

Enzokk wrote: »

What comes first? Ireland putting up the hard border, or the actions that force Ireland to put up the hard border?

If the UK really do not implement and enforce the WA NI-protocol. The EU27 can be forced to act.

But such actions will not happen much on the island of Ireland.

The EU27 has much larger UK interest to act against across the EU26-UK borders - over or under the Channel, airfreight and with everything else non-trade.

The EU will not easily be provoked, but it has awesome powers if needed.

Surely the EU27 will act hard and fast to get it over with - but not in Ireland and especially nothing permanet near the Irish landborder.

A 'No Deal' or a very slim FTA will result in a total chaos in the UK, without the EU27 doing anything but using its existing 3. country rules.

Lars

paul71 · 12-07-2020 11:30PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

You`re taking my post out of context and I had`nt suggested anything.Please read the post I was replying to which was suggesting Ireland should operate a hard border,
It`s up to Ireland to decide what course of action to take in what at this point is a hypothetical situation.

There is no decision to make, if the UK does not adhere to the agreement it has made there will be a hard border because there will be 2 different custom areas on that border.

View · 12-07-2020 11:45PM

reslfj wrote: »

If the UK really do not implement and enforce the WA NI-protocol. The EU27 can be forced to act.

But such actions will not happen much on the island of Ireland.

The EU27 has much larger UK interest to act against across the EU26-UK borders - over or under the Channel, airfreight and with everything else non-trade.

The EU will not easily be provoked, but it has awesome powers if needed.

Surely the EU27 will act hard and fast to get it over with - but not in Ireland and especially nothing permanet near the Irish landborder.

A 'No Deal' or a very slim FTA will result in a total chaos in the UK, without the EU27 doing anything but using its existing 3. country rules.

Lars

If the EU is forced to act then ALL member states must apply EU law rigoursly and in full on ALL borders with the U.K. (including the NI one).

It would be a direct violation of both EU law and WTO rules were Ireland to fail to do so and could leave Ireland facing multiple lawsuits from exporters (to Ireland) in other countries. We can’t “play favourites” - a position where one minute we act as an independent nation working within the EU and next minute as effectively a devolved region of the U.K. because we won’t implement EU rules is not a tenable political or legal position to try and maintain.

reslfj · 13-07-2020 01:10AM

View wrote: »

If the EU is forced to act then ALL member states must apply EU law rigoursly and in full on ALL borders with the U.K. (including the NI one).
...

It will not last for a long time. Just the EU27's normal WTO MFN rules for 3. countries and the NTB's (paper, standards, rules and regulations, animal health, delays) will be a huge problem for the UK economy even without corona.

A dispute will be over and the UK will have been forced back to the concession-table before anything 'hard' will have been built in the RoI. It is after all a rather small amount of GB trade that passes over the Irish land border.
Note NI (and RoI) products are suppose to pass freely.

I hope this will never happen, but with this HMG plus Brexit supporters - you really don't know, do you?

Lars

PS Ireland will have to follow the agreed action plan from the EU27, but I doubt any such plan will focus on the Ireland or NI, but on France and Germany etc.

Peregrinus · 13-07-2020 04:14AM

View wrote: »

If the EU is forced to act then ALL member states must apply EU law rigoursly and in full on ALL borders with the U.K. (including the NI one).

It would be a direct violation of both EU law and WTO rules were Ireland to fail to do so and could leave Ireland facing multiple lawsuits from exporters (to Ireland) in other countries. We can’t “play favourites” - a position where one minute we act as an independent nation working within the EU and next minute as effectively a devolved region of the U.K. because we won’t implement EU rules is not a tenable political or legal position to try and maintain.

Nor is it a position that we would try to maintain. But in the scenario you outline the fundamental problem is not Ireland's breach of EU law or WTP rules, but the UK's breach of the WA, an internationally unlawful act putting Ireland in a position where it is extremely difficult for Ireland to observe its own obligations. So our strategy would be (a) within the EU to look for some temporary accommodation or forbearance in light of our particular difficulties, and (b) in the wider international forum, to seek to involve the UK in any lawsuits, complaints, arguing that states which are adversely affected by the situation should be seeking their remedy from the UK and that we, too, are entitled to a remedy from the UK.

This would create an unholy mess which would not be easily resolved, but which would hopefully be short-circuited by the measures which the EU would take to sanction the UK for violating the Withdrawal Agreement.

Enzokk · 13-07-2020 07:02AM

RobMc59 wrote: »

You`re taking my post out of context and I had`nt suggested anything.Please read the post I was replying to which was suggesting Ireland should operate a hard border,
It`s up to Ireland to decide what course of action to take in what at this point is a hypothetical situation.

You didn't follow the conversation, the poster was talking about plans should the UK renege on its obligations under the WA.

listermint · 13-07-2020 10:09AM

Westminster at it again, each one of these chips away at the 'Stay' argument for the Union.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1282573369641230338

Boris Johnson’s government is planning to withhold power to control state aid from the UK’s devolved nations when the Brexit transition ends, in a move that will outrage Scotland and Wales.

Leroy42 · 13-07-2020 10:25AM

It is hardly suprising, it was always the logical way things were going to go. One of the core arguments for Brexit is that the UK (read England) want to have control over all the decisions. The idea of cooperation was not to their liking.

Why would the Scottish, Welsh or NI think that that idea would stop at the Union itself? They have to go through the difficult and costly Brexit to get away from having to cooperate with other countries, much easier to do it within the union of which they are the largest and most powerful member.

ath262 · 13-07-2020 01:09PM

more rubbish from a certain Mr. Davis.. seriously seems to think that the UK should ignore an international treaty signed by his boss, and voted for by him...

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1282632952032133123

"It was implicit in the Withdrawal Agreement that we would have a Free Trade Agreement. In the event that the EU is not offering a deal, we should certainly consider John Longworth's (@John4Brexit) suggestion of reviewing the Withdrawal Agreement."

also covered in an article on Politico.eu by John Longworth

Sam Russell · 13-07-2020 01:34PM

ath262 wrote: »

more rubbish from a certain Mr. Davis.. seriously seems to think that the UK should ignore an international treaty signed by his boss, and voted for by him...

They really do live in the past.

They think WW II is still extant, and they were the winning of it. Unfortunately for Churchill, he may have had a hand in it but the British electorate did not give him power in 1945, favouring a Labour Government that gave them the gift of the NHS - ungrateful lot.

They signed the WA, and had it ratified (or is that rat - ified?) by the HOC so it is now a legally binding agreement. There is no problem of a FTA if they agree the terms on offer. They could even ask for more time to negotiate if they need it.

timetogo1 · 13-07-2020 02:27PM

ath262 wrote: »

"It was implicit in the Withdrawal Agreement that we would have a Free Trade Agreement. In the event that the EU is not offering a deal, we should certainly consider John Longworth's (@John4Brexit) suggestion of reviewing the Withdrawal Agreement."

Yep. Legal documents are well known for having "implicit" requirements. This must be for the local audience only again.
The words "Free Trade" appear once in the withdrawal agreement when referring to the Republic of Korea.

54and56 · 13-07-2020 02:28PM

ath262 wrote: »

more rubbish from a certain Mr. Davis.. seriously seems to think that the UK should ignore an international treaty signed by his boss, and voted for by him...

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1282632952032133123

The reply tweets really highlight how incompetent Davis and his cohorts in the ERG etc really are, they are being openly mocked and called out.

They were completely out maneuvered by Barnier & co in the Brexit negotiations which Davis himself was directly responsible for when the direction of travel was first set out and now, having voted for the WA and won an election on the basis that the WA was a triumph and the oven ready deal would be a slam dunk the penny has finally dropped that Brexit is going to be a clusterfcuk of Tsunami prportions for the UK so they now want to repudiate the WA less than a year after it was agreed.

It's like watching spoilt brat rich boys throwing tantrums because they can't have their own way and it's only now they realise the adults they were mocking are in fact calmly in control and have been all along.

RobMc59 · 13-07-2020 02:31PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

They really do live in the past.

They think WW II is still extant, and they were the winning of it. Unfortunately for Churchill, he may have had a hand in it but the British electorate did not give him power in 1945, favouring a Labour Government that gave them the gift of the NHS - ungrateful lot.

They signed the WA, and had it ratified (or is that rat - ified?) by the HOC so it is now a legally binding agreement. There is no problem of a FTA if they agree the terms on offer. They could even ask for more time to negotiate if they need it.

And therein lies the problem.The UK signed up to the WA in good faith that there would be genuine negotiations.If as you say the 'negotiating'by the EU is 'do as you're told '.Then perhaps that could be viewed as an unfair contract thus null and void.
WTO rules won't suit the EU,they don't always rule in their favour, as with the spat over unfair EU aid to airbus.

listermint · 13-07-2020 02:32PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.The UK signed up to the WA in good faith that there would be genuine negotiations.If as you say the 'negotiating'by the EU is 'do as you're told '.Then perhaps that could be viewed as an unfair contract thus null and void.
WTO rules won't suit the EU,they don't always rule in their favour, as with the spat over unfair EU aid to airbus.

No offence, but that 'take' is ridiculous. Is it your view that the UK have once entered into genuine negotiations ?

If so when did they occur and who was doing the negotiating ?

The document also NEVER mentions a free trade agreement - whatever that actually means.

Leroy42 · 13-07-2020 02:42PM

It is clear that the UK are looking to renegotiate the WA. Mark Francois, and now Davis. There have been others. Once that is taken into account one can see why the negotiations have gone nowhere. Barner is turning up with the next stage and Frost wants to reopen the WA. All because, despite the much vaunted 'taking back control', it seems the HoC is not actually that great at making decisions.

It is pretty obvious that the government are looking to shot the blame for No Deal and the fallout onto the EU, it is no the fault of the great WA which Johnson got.

As for the EU or the UK being in good faith. Give me a break. The UK have not acted in good faith in any of this.

RobMc59 · 13-07-2020 02:51PM

listermint wrote: »

No offence, but that 'take' is ridiculous. Is it your view that the UK have once entered into genuine negotiations ?

If so when did they occur and who was doing the negotiating ?

The document also NEVER mentions a free trade agreement - whatever that actually means.

Its obvious there are considerable differences between both parties which can be viewed as 'unreasonable'by the other.
One thing that has consistently been hammered home on this thread is how weak the UK position is and they will eventually have to agree the terms on offer,it doesn't matter if they don't consider them fair(and they don't have to be fair,according to many here!)because they've signed the WA and can't back out. The UK has probably been naive in thinking there will be fair 'negotiations'but that sounds like an unfair contract to me.

looksee · 13-07-2020 02:53PM

Why did they sign it if the conditions were not fair? How much longer do they expect the EU to mess about waiting for the UK to get its act together?

Leroy42 · 13-07-2020 03:00PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

Its obvious there are considerable differences between both parties which can be viewed as 'unreasonable'by the other.
One thing that has consistently been hammered home on this thread is how weak the UK position is and they will eventually have to agree the terms on offer,it doesn't matter if they don't consider them fair(and they don't have to be fair,according to many here!)because they've signed the WA and can't back out. The UK has probably been naive in thinking there will be fair 'negotiations'but that sounds like an unfair contract to me.

That is quite a difference from you original implication that the EU were not acting in good faith.

Both sides agreed on the WA. Johnson won a large majority of the back of his apparent success and the EU allowed him to muddy the waters on some aspects of it for his own domestic political gain. (no border checks in NI for example)

The HoC voted for it. Brexiteers have used the recent GE results as yet another indication of the pubic wanting Brexit, which of course involves the WA.

It is completely bad faith for the UK to now want to renegotiate the WA. Especially given that many of these 'issues' were already discussed on here so one must assume that the government, the HoC and the public also took the requisite time to understand it.

Either they did and thus agreed with it, or they didn't and they now face the consequence of not bothering. They can't really complain that they got a deal not to their liking simply because they didn't bother to read it.

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments