Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 6:10pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think a review is about getting something better later that is not available now, I think its purpose is to provide a little additional vagueness to help TM to sell her deal, and allow her MP's a little more cover in grudgingly accepting it.

To any criticism of the deal, just say 'Ahh, but we have won the power to review the deal' or some other phrase to make it seem as if the UK can rewrite the deal at will. This is obviously not true, but that does not mean that the press and polititions can't pretend it is, those who bother to understand the detail will know it is BS, but there are few enough of us about. When dealing with a population who by and large neither understand nor really care about such details, but who can be whipped up into a frenzy should the deal not seem as red, white and blue as they feel they deserve, some vagueness and BS is better than nothing for a PM trying to sell a deal.

If that is all she is looking for from a review then I do not see how it has a hope of flying.

The DUP in the HoC`s would be all over it like a rash asking questions on when the UK are leaving the CU as a whole. Especially with them being able to point to the recent amended U.K. Customs Bill which makes it illegal for N.I. to be outside of U.K.customs territories.

brickster69 · 05-11-2018 6:13pm

The EU know full well the Brexiteers would rip up the withdrawal agreement at a moment's notice if the way was clear for them to do it
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How could the UK rip up the signed withdrawal agreement, how is it possible ?[/font]

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 6:18pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK wide customs union is not a concession by the EU - if the UK wanted a CU from day one the EU would have been happy to oblige. It was May's red lines which ruled out a CU.

So now May says she wants a CU for now so that NI is not (very) different. No worries for the EU side. This is not a way to replace the backstop, it is just a way to avoid having the bacstop kick in.

I would have serious doubts on her being able to sell a continuation in the C.U. without a specific withdrawal date.
Even if she did manage to pull that off, it still does not address the matter of the backstop or the issue of N.I. staying in the SM which would require customs checks regardless of where they are.

Strazdas · 05-11-2018 6:20pm

brickster69 wrote: »

The EU know full well the Brexiteers would rip up the withdrawal agreement at a moment's notice if the way was clear for them to do it
[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How could the UK rip up the signed withdrawal agreement, how is it possible ?[/font]

Once out of the EU, the UK could start claiming that any 'agreement' with the EU is not worth the paper it's written on, as the UK would be a non EU member and therefore not bound by its rules.

Rumour has it that the reason the likes of Raab are so anxious to avoid the backstop is so they can get the UK out of the temporary customs union thing ASAP after Brexit (and to hell with the Irish border in other words).

Junkyard Tom · 05-11-2018 6:25pm

Tony Connelly on possible moles in Downing Street.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059494954769309696

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 6:26pm

First Up wrote: »

It was EU cohesiveness and cold hard economics that rescued us from a mess of our own making. The same for Greece.

It didn`t do us a lot of good in July 2012 when cold hard economics took precedence over Enda Kenny`s "game changer" though.

Spook_ie · 05-11-2018 6:48pm

charlie14 wrote: »

I would seriously worry if what she is lookijg for is a third party review. They very rarely if ever favour one side over the other.
I really do not see where we we`re getting with the present suggestion without clarification whether along with staying in the CU like the rest of Britain, NI is also remaining in the SM.

But surely a review shouldn't be favouring either side?

brickster69 · 05-11-2018 6:51pm

Probably the UK ( forget Raab ) are concerned that if nothing happens with trade talks then the UK could be tied into the CU without the ability to leave full stop. This will not happen legally, so the EU has to ( shall ) negotiate and conclude the withdrawal agreement. They cannot abandon it , they are bound by it's own rules.

prawnsambo · 05-11-2018 6:51pm

Strazdas wrote: »

Once out of the EU, the UK could start claiming that any 'agreement' with the EU is not worth the paper it's written on, as the UK would be a non EU member and therefore not bound by its rules.

Rumour has it that the reason the likes of Raab are so anxious to avoid the backstop is so they can get the UK out of the temporary customs union thing ASAP after Brexit (and to hell with the Irish border in other words).

Exactly. And the talk of a three month backstop is absolutely flaunting that desire in the face of everyone watching. It couldn't be more obvious that they want to have as little as possible tying them down once brexit day happens.

First Up · 05-11-2018 6:57pm

charlie14 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

It was EU cohesiveness and cold hard economics that rescued us from a mess of our own making. The same for Greece.

It didn`t do us a lot of good in July 2012 when cold hard economics took precedence over Enda Kenny`s "game changer" though.

Oh, I think we've done OK out of it.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 6:59pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

But surely a review shouldn't be favouring either side?

In theory it shouldn`t but if it is a review by a third party would you see it just simply coming down in favour of one side rather that coming up with a compromise ?

Spook_ie · 05-11-2018 7:03pm

charlie14 wrote: »

In theory it shouldn`t but if it is a review by a third party would you see it just simply coming down in favour of one side rather that coming up with a compromise ?

Don't see any compromise between EU and UK so far so 3rd party might be the best option.

ilovesmybrick · 05-11-2018 7:05pm

An Claidheamh wrote:

What did he say Ireland were f#+ked on relation to?

No detail, just a general we're f**ked. Presumably the implication is that the EU has abandoned us and we'll be cast aside in favour of a deal with the UK.

Tell me how · 05-11-2018 7:06pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't see any compromise between EU and UK so far so 3rd party might be the best option.

There is no 3rd party available though is there?

This topic is truly at the international level and every body who might be involved consists of individuals who would likely be prejudiced or could be influenced to lean in one direction or the other.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 7:09pm

First Up wrote: »

Oh, I think we've done OK out of it.

The "game changer" or "seismic shift" in July 2012 quote was Enda Kenny assuming that the separation of banking and national debt would apply to Ireland only to be told it would not apply retrospectively.
Nothing personal. Just hard cold business.

Sam Russell · 05-11-2018 7:12pm

I assume that if the UK remains in the CU, the the EU gets the money collected from import tariffs. Is that right?

Does the EU get a contribution towards the cost of SM?

Wh pays the cost of the inspections required for NI?

First Up · 05-11-2018 7:12pm

charlie14 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Oh, I think we've done OK out of it.

The "game changer" or "seismic shift" in July 2012 quote was Enda Kenny assuming that the separation of banking and national debt would apply to Ireland only to be told it would not apply retrospectively.
Nothing personal. Just hard cold business.

And rightly so.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 7:24pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't see any compromise between EU and UK so far so 3rd party might be the best option.

You would need someone where both agree to bide by the 3rd party`s decision.
Even if it was Solomon I cannot see that being a runner.

keane2097 · 05-11-2018 7:26pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think the idea that was being put forward is that more than enough Labour will vote Yes to the deal to cover the amount of Tory and DUP MPs who will vote No. The Tories have already started approaching them as we know.

The logic being (simplistically) 'you hate Corbyn, the deal isn't terrible, so why not just ignore the whip for the good of the country'. The flaw here is that if Corbyn/Momentum have the 'Blairites' onside (Starmer, SKinnock, Chuck) then it becomes much harder to defy the whip. If you do then on the biggest vote of this parliament you've made yourself out to be deeply unloyal to both the current leadership and the potential future leadership, not a good move at all. And it does seem on this issue that Corbyn will go along with what Starmer decides on his 6 tests.
I'm probably explaining my thoughts on it really badly.

No, I mean I understand why you think Labour MPs might not want to cross Corbyn and someone likely to replace him, but I don't think any different conditions obtain on the other side of the aisle. The nobody members of the ERG for example are also going to have to decide whether they are willing to exile themselves to the back bench unless or until (!) one of Bojo type goons take over, or if when push comes to shove they will vote with the leader and the bulk/mainstream of the party.

Is there a much bigger number on the Tory side that will vote against instructions compared to the Labour side where many are at total loggerheads with Corbyn, many want to stay in the customs union etc? I remain unconvinced.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 7:29pm

First Up wrote: »

And rightly so.

If this also actually does comes down to the level of cold hard economics I doubt you would feel the same.

prawnsambo · 05-11-2018 7:36pm

charlie14 wrote: »

If this also actually does comes down to the level of cold hard economics I doubt you would feel the same.

I think you're confusing which side of the coin, the cold, hard economics are falling on in this case. The EU 27 are far more important than the UK 1.

Tony Connelly spells it out clealy here in this update

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511066932191232

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511069390049280

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511071738920960

Water John · 05-11-2018 7:43pm

People were considering that anti Corbynites might vote with the Govn't. That's why I put up the rejection of that by Cooper and Grieve, there is no comfort for TM.

Raab and his ilk are really engaged in amateur and immature politics.

Leroy42 · 05-11-2018 7:44pm

The view in Brussels is that in seeking the TCA the UK hadn't bargained for the conditions that would be attached, and Theresa May will find it difficult, if not impossible, to get that thru the cabinet tomorrow.

How is that even possible at this stage? How can the UK be so completely clueless that they don't even seem to understand the ramifications of their own proposals?

They just seem to be trying to make up new ways to say stuff.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 7:45pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you're confusing which side of the coin, the cold, hard economics are falling on in this case. The EU 27 are far more important than the UK 1.

Tony Connelly spells it out clealy here in this update

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511064080080896

With the suggestion that the U.K. staying in the C.U. was the answer to the logjam then I wouldn`t be that certain that cold, hard economics may not yet have a role to play.
Hope I`m wrong, but only time will tell.

Leroy42 · 05-11-2018 7:48pm

charlie14 wrote: »

With the suggestion that the U.K. staying in the C.U. was the answer to the logjam then I wouldn`t be that certain that cold, hard economics may not yet have a role to play.
Hope I`m wrong, but only time will tell.

But everyone can see that the UK have very little intention of staying within the CU anyway. The likes of Raab, Davies, Johnson etc all want to get even further out. The NI border is one of the key ways the the EU can limit the potential damage to itself.

Rhineshark · 05-11-2018 7:48pm

The third-party arbritrar is a bit nonsense. Who? And what happens if that element gets bought off by the UK? Or (say US as a "neutral" third power), goes nuts too. Or (say UN) collapses. Why would Ireland put itself in a position where our island is at the whim of a third party that we have to acquiesce to? Why would the EU do the same?

Putting trust in the EU is one thing. Putting it in a third party that could be pressured without any loss to itself from the border situation is asking for it.

flutered · 05-11-2018 7:49pm

Water John wrote: »

People were considering that anti Corbynites might vote with the Govn't. That's why I put up the rejection of that by Cooper and Grieve, there is no comfort for TM.

Raab and his ilk are really engaged in amateur and immature politics.

rabb is a hard brixateer, anything he can do to run down the clock he will, especially as he has a weak leader

Water John · 05-11-2018 7:50pm

Third Party, we could ask USA, Russia or China.

flutered · 05-11-2018 7:50pm

Water John wrote: »

People were considering that anti Corbynites might vote with the Govn't. That's why I put up the rejection of that by Cooper and Grieve, there is no comfort for TM.

Raab and his ilk are really engaged in amateur and immature politics.

deleated

prawnsambo · 05-11-2018 7:51pm

charlie14 wrote: »

With the suggestion that the U.K. staying in the C.U. was the answer to the logjam then I wouldn`t be that certain that cold, hard economics may not yet have a role to play.
Hope I`m wrong, but only time will tell.

I'm struggling to understand how that's somehow a bad thing for us? This was always on offer and would be very good for us. Would keep the landbridge open for a start.

ilovesmybrick · 05-11-2018 7:52pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is that even possible at this stage? How can the UK be so completely clueless that they don't even seem to understand the ramifications of their own proposals?

They just seem to be trying to make up new ways to say stuff.

Well in answer I'll quote this part of the tweets

The Task Force expected technical papers from the UK last week but they were not forthcoming.

How many times over the past 18 months have the UK been supposed to send crucial documentation to the EU and failed to do so? Not only have the UK been acting in bad faith, they've also repeatedly failed to do their homework or learn lessons from delays caused by such. They constantly complain that the EU is an overly bureaucratic, rules based institution. Well as a large, bureaucratic rules based institution, and based on the utter embarrassment of Davis's ill preparedness for any of the summit meetings, most people would at least try and fill out the damn forms on time. Especially when your economy is on the line.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 7:53pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you're confusing which side of the coin, the cold, hard economics are falling on in this case. The EU 27 are far more important than the UK 1.

Tony Connelly spells it out clealy here in this update

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511066932191232

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511069390049280

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511071738920960

I usually find Tony Connelly`s posts very clear and concise, but is he not lumping the rules on the SM in with the rules on the CU.
I would have thought that by leaving the SM and just staying in the CU, if this was granted by the EU, then the UK would have to abide by just CU rules. Same as Turkey.

prawnsambo · 05-11-2018 7:54pm

Rhineshark wrote: »

The third-party arbritrar is a bit nonsense. Who? And what happens if that element gets bought off by the UK? Or (say US as a "neutral" third power), goes nuts too. Or (say UN) collapses. Why would Ireland put itself in a position where our island is at the whim of a third party that we have to acquiesce to? Why would the EU do the same?

Putting trust in the EU is one thing. Putting it in a third party that could be pressured without any loss to itself from the border situation is asking for it.

It could be an individual. Doesn't have to be an institution. Like George Mitchell for the peace process.

prawnsambo · 05-11-2018 7:58pm

charlie14 wrote: »

I usually find Tony Connelly`s posts very clear and concise, but is he not lumping the rules on the SM in with the rules on the CU.
I would have thought that by leaving the SM and just staying in the CU, if this was granted by the EU, then the UK would have to abide by just CU rules. Same as Turkey.

I agree. But this is supposed to supplant the backstop. And you can't do that without having some SM rules. At the very least, the ones that relate to NI trade with the UK and the EU.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 7:58pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand how that's somehow a bad thing for us? This was always on offer and would be very good for us. Would keep the landbridge open for a start.

It would if NI remains in the SM.
This new suggestion seems to only be the UK, NI included, staying in the CU only.

Spook_ie · 05-11-2018 8:00pm

Rhineshark wrote: »

The third-party arbritrar is a bit nonsense. Who? And what happens if that element gets bought off by the UK? Or (say US as a "neutral" third power), goes nuts too. Or (say UN) collapses. Why would Ireland put itself in a position where our island is at the whim of a third party that we have to acquiesce to? Why would the EU do the same?

Putting trust in the EU is one thing. Putting it in a third party that could be pressured without any loss to itself from the border situation is asking for it.

Now think UK, why would they put themselves in the same position of trusting the EU?

prawnsambo · 05-11-2018 8:02pm

charlie14 wrote: »

It would if NI remains in the SM.
This new suggestion seems to only be the UK, NI included, staying in the CU only.

See above. Replied to that separately.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 8:07pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I agree. But this is supposed to supplant the backstop. And you can't do that without having some SM rules. At the very least, the ones that relate to NI trade with the UK and the EU.

That is what I find confusing in not just how this suggestion on the UK and NI staying in just the CU and not the SM would solve the problem and how the EU could possibly use the rules of the SM in tandem with those of the CU which his tweets seem to suggest as regards NI.

prawnsambo · 05-11-2018 8:11pm

charlie14 wrote: »

That is what I find confusing in not just how this suggestion on the UK and NI staying in just the CU and not the SM would solve the problem and how the EU could possibly use the rules of the SM in tandem with those of the CU which his tweets seem to suggest as regards NI.

You seem to be missing the point that this is coming from the UK side. And that they actually haven't delivered on the detail yet. So it's more than likely that it's just another kite-flying exercise that hasn't even got off the ground.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 8:11pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

But everyone can see that the UK have very little intention of staying within the CU anyway. The likes of Raab, Davies, Johnson etc all want to get even further out. The NI border is one of the key ways the the EU can limit the potential damage to itself.

Even if they look to go no further out in the interim just staying in the CU will not negate the need for a border somewhere as regards NI. Only NI staying in the SM will prevent that.

Water John · 05-11-2018 8:13pm

Correct, as it was with the last 2 years.

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 8:16pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that this is coming from the UK side. And that they actually haven't delivered on the detail yet. So it's more than likely that it's just another kite-flying exercise that hasn't even got off the ground.

It`s not that I`m missing the point of where it is coming from.
I`m just commenting that on this suggestion which some here see as a possible solution, I cannot see how it possibly could be other than NI staying in the SM as well as the CU or some change in the backstop requirements.

prawnsambo · 05-11-2018 8:20pm

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s not that I`m missing the point of where it is coming from.
I`m just commenting that on this suggestion which some here see as a possible solution, I cannot see how it possibly could be other than NI staying in the SM as well as the CU or some change in the backstop requirements.

That can happen if SM rules are applied specifically and only to goods and services that NI trades with the UK and EU. So not a full SM and only for specific goods/services. In fact that can even be narrowed down further to just cross border goods. It's quite possible and would have very little to differentiate NI from the rest of the UK.

Frank Bullitt · 05-11-2018 8:25pm

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511062423314432

Another day, another Tony Connelly thread. We really don't deserve him.

Dyr · 05-11-2018 8:27pm

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511062423314432

Another day, another Tony Connelly thread. We don't deserve him.

I'd imagine he's mostly being fed info by the Dept. of Foreign Affairs to counter whatever the British press are being spun.

McGiver · 05-11-2018 8:28pm

charlie14 wrote: »

I would have thought that by leaving the SM and just staying in the CU, if this was granted by the EU, then the UK would have to abide by just CU rules. Same as Turkey.

Not really, see Wikipedia on Turkey-EU Customs Union. I thought there is no regulation alignment at all, but there is.

In addition to providing for a common external tariff for the products covered, the Customs Union foresees that Turkey is to align to the acquis communautaire in several essential internal market areas, notably with regard to industrial standards.

You could argue the the UK already complies, which is definitely the case, but they may diverge in these key areas and I suppose that wouldn't be easy/possible.

serfboard · 05-11-2018 8:33pm

Bambi wrote: »

I'd imagine he's mostly being fed info by the Dept. of Foreign Affairs to counter whatever the British press are being spun.

Well given that he has lived in Brussels for a number of years now, I imagine that he also has plenty of contacts within the Commission - starting with, but not limited to, the Irish people who work there.

Beechwoodspark · 05-11-2018 8:33pm

No deal looking ever more likely

trellheim · 05-11-2018 8:48pm

Agree unless TM has a surprise to spring at cabinet tomorrow

charlie14 · 05-11-2018 9:03pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

That can happen if SM rules are applied specifically and only to goods and services that NI trades with the UK and EU. So not a full SM and only for specific goods/services. In fact that can even be narrowed down further to just cross border goods. It's quite possible and would have very little to differentiate NI from the rest of the UK.

I`m not that sure it would be as simple as that, or that the EU would even agree to a partial SM for NI.

The SM rules guarantee the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. It also requires annual payment towards the EU budget as well as accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

A lot of sticky points there for both the EU and the UK now and very possibly in the future for the EU to grant a partial SM to NI without some border controls.

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments