Brexit discussion thread II

Gerrup Outta Dat!

What if the Irish people are asked in a referendum to choose between staying in the EU with a hard border or leave the EU to keep the border open?

Ireland would vote to keep border open and leave the EU. That’s my fear.

swampgas

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

What if the Irish people are asked in a referendum to choose between staying in the EU with a hard border or leave the EU to keep the border open?

Ireland would vote to keep border open and leave the EU.

Really? I can't see that myself. Especially for regions well away from the border. Why would the big populations in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny etc. vote to leave the EU? A hard border won't affect them all that much directly and leaving the EU would be a disaster for them.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Maybe so, but who would you prefer to have negotiating Brexit - David Davis with May and Boris behind him, or Keir Starmer with Corbyn?

Can I phone a friend?

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Can I phone a friend?

Stop the nonsense. Any more will warrant mod action.

Vronsky

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

What if the Irish people are asked in a referendum to choose between staying in the EU with a hard border or leave the EU to keep the border open?

Ireland would vote to keep border open and leave the EU. That’s my fear.

The real fear, like every referendum in this country is that the referendum would be about everything but what is on the ballot paper.

The following would end up in the debate:
*Neutrality
*Abortion
*The bank bailout
*Irish water
*Topic de jour of course, homelessness.

And into that mix, potent outside interference and the result might not be a sure thing. Given what happened in the UK, hell will freeze over before a question like that would be put to the people. The people are not responsible enough to engage with the question, with politics almost treated like sport rather than something which actually matters.

ambro25

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I firmly believe that if Corbyn had stood up to the plate for Remain then Leave would have lost. His 'support' was lukewarm at best.

I've yet to be convinced of that one, tbh. The fact that much of the Leave vote was in historical Lab constituencies and comprised of disenfranchised historical Lab voters-turned-UKIP is well documented.

Corbyn did exactly what I expected him to do during the referendum campaign, and has continued doing exactly the same since, and to date: engage liberally in "constructive ambiguity" (to re-use David Davis' own words, in the most ironical of fashions) to try and husband political favour with both sides of the Brexit divide, across the centre and all the way across to the hard left of the spectrum.

Corbyn has only been given a free pass about it, and been afforded the political luxury of riding the Tories' own infighting for free, because he's not in No.10. And whilst he has been able to opportunistically exploit that state of affairs to get the results which Lab did at the last GE 2017, I don't believe he and Lab would have as much of a free run at a next soonish GE. Because this time, it is definitely Brexit that would precipitate the GE, and which would need to be campaigned about (unlike the 2017 one, wherein Corbyn/Lab were essentially silent about it).

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

I don't believe he and Lab would have as much of a free run at a next soonish GE. Because this time, it is definitely Brexit that would precipitate it, and which would need to be campaigned mostly about.

I'd say Labour are hoping that the Brexiteer wing of the Tories provoke a complete shambles in negotiations triggering an election, and Labour can swoop in with a Norway model.

It's Brexit, but it is practical.

They can address immigration using measures which are legal now.

Vronsky

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd say Labour are hoping that the Brexiteer wing of the Tories provoke a complete shambles in negotiations triggering an election, and Labour can swoop in with a Norway model.

It's Brexit, but it is practical.

They can address immigration using measures which are legal now.

The Norway model would be seen as a major defeat for the UK though, and almost the ideal result for the EU. The UK would continue to pay on almost the same as it does into the budget, it's markets would remain open but would have no say in the settings of the rules.

The question is how long would a country the size and strength of the UK allow it's neighbours to undermine it's economy through the setting of rules which are advantageous to them - the UK would either be back in or wholly out after a few years of the EEA.

Professor Moriarty

Ambro - Very good analysis. However, while I do understand that Corbyn was adhering to his ideology and being mindful of the Leave vote in Lab constituencies, I still believe that a strong pro-remain stance by Corbyn (as leader of Labour) would have made the difference. It would have galvanised the party's position as being Remain. Instead, he abdicated responsibility and Labour basically had no position on Brexit.

ambro25

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ambro - Very good analysis. However, while I do understand that Corbyn was adhering to his ideology and being mindful of the Leave vote in Lab constituencies, I still believe that a strong pro-remain stance by Corbyn (as leader of Labour) would have made the difference. It would have galvanised the party's position as being Remain. Instead, he abdicated responsibility and Labour basically had no position on Brexit.

I accept your premise of party galvanisation and, perhaps indeed, referendum result upending (all hypothetical that it is )...but then (and by your own admission ) adopting that strong pro-remain stance would have run counter to his ideology, and it's some (metaphorical) desert he'd already had to cross to stay in position -before the referendum campaign started-, all in the name of, and only sustained as he was by, that same ideology.

He was never going to renege his ideology for the sake of the party, its electorate and/or the country: his trajectory since acceding the leadership had already long showed as much.

Which is why I (in turn) strongly believe that, if he does accede to No.10 before March 2019 and installs McDonnell in No.11, then manages to stay there until after that date, he'll still be going for a 'harder' variant of Brexit (not necessarily of the 'no deal' or 'rock-hard' variety at all, and which indeed may transit via a 'soft' EFTA-like transition phase): he needs to be fully free of EU anti-competition law to roll out that statist ideology of his.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I've yet to be convinced of that one, tbh. The fact that much of the Leave vote was in historical Lab constituencies and comprised of disenfranchised historical Lab voters-turned-UKIP is well documented.

Corbyn did exactly what I expected him to do during the referendum campaign, and has continued doing exactly the same since, and to date: engage liberally in "constructive ambiguity" (to re-use David Davis' own words, in the most ironical of fashions) to try and husband political favour with both sides of the Brexit divide, across the centre and all the way across to the hard left of the spectrum.

Corbyn has only been given a free pass about it, and been afforded the political luxury of riding the Tories' own infighting for free, because he's not in No.10. And whilst he has been able to opportunistically exploit that state of affairs to get the results which Lab did at the last GE 2017, I don't believe he and Lab would have as much of a free run at a next soonish GE. Because this time, it is definitely Brexit that would precipitate the GE, and which would need to be campaigned about (unlike the 2017 one, wherein Corbyn/Lab were essentially silent about it).

Good points though I recall reading multiple times over the course of the campaigning period that many Labour voters were waiting to see which line the party would take and never received any sort of sign that Labour were pro-Remain. Alan Johnson who ran the Labour remain campaign has spoken about Corbyn's indifference to the remain campaign:

Mr Corbyn also refused to work with the cross-party Stronger In campaign and rejected opportunities to make a united case with David Cameron to stay in the EU.

Mr Straw, who stood as a Labour candidate in last year’s general election, used a blog reflecting on the defeat to deliver a scathing verdict on Mr Corbyn’s contribution.

“Jeremy Corbyn should follow David Cameron’s lead [and resign],” Mr Straw said.

“Rather than making a clear and passionate Labour case for EU membership, Corbyn took a week’s holiday in the middle of the campaign and removed pro-EU lines from his speeches.

Don't get me wrong, I completely take your point regrinding constructive ambiguity. Corbyn and the men behind him like McDonnell and Milne definitely want to win to enact their agenda.

Nody

Shots over the bow have just been fired:

Britain has two weeks to make concessions in Brexit negotiations if it wants to open trade talks by the end of the year, the European Commission's chief negotiator has said.

Any further delay in meeting the EU's demands would mean "sufficient progress" to move to the next stage of talks would not be granted at the European Council summit scheduled for December, he suggested.

In summary:

The two leaders said there had been progress on the issue of citizens' rights, though Mr Barnier said there was further work needed on the issues of family reunification, the export of social benefits, and the role of the European Court of Justice before a deal could be reached.

On Northern Ireland, Mr Davis drew a clear red line rejecting leaked European Commission proposals to put customs controls between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in order to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. The solution to the issue "cannot amount to creating a new border inside the United Kingdom", he warned.

Again, little progress appeared to have been made on the divorce bill, however. Mr Barnier said the two sided needed “to work now on the objective interpretation of the undertakings entered into by the prime minister May in Florence”, adding: "This is absolutely vital if we are to achieve sufficient progress in December. It is just a matter of settling accounts as in any separation.” Mr Davis said the issue was "serious business".

So yea; hard crash out without a deal it is because no way in the seven seas and the fifteen hells are they going to resolve that in 2 weeks...

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

As predicted it's looking like there will be movements on both sides before December's summit and it is a trade-off for transitional terms. Yet again it's looking like the figure is broadly speaking €50bn gross. By the time British payments are excluded and the rebate and the European Investment Bank stake is included I suspect we're looking at around £36bn net.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, has set the British government a deadline of two weeks to give “vital” clarification on the financial commitments it is willing to honour.

Asked at the end of a truncated sixth round of Brexit talks whether Britain needed to offer answers on its financial settlement within a fortnight, Barnier told reporters: “My answer is yes.”

During a joint press conference with the Brexit secretary, David Davis, there were few signs of any progress having been made since an October summit of EU leaders ruled that insufficient progress had been made to allow talks on a future trading relationship to begin.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/uk-given-two-week-deadline-to-make-concessions-on-brexit-divorce-bill

Not according the EU. "Few signs of any progress".

Zubeneschamali

Vronsky wrote: »

The Norway model would be seen as a major defeat for the UK though, and almost the ideal result for the EU.

Both UKIP and the Telegraph were trumpeting the Norway model as an ideal before the referendum.

It would be a defeat for the nuttier Brexiteers in the Tory party, not for the UK.

Vronsky

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Both UKIP and the Telegraph were trumpeting the Norway model as an ideal before the referendum.

It would be a defeat for the nuttier Brexiteers in the Tory party, not for the UK.

It would be a defeat for the British State as well. Effectively, environmental and economic policy would be heavily constrained by an external organisation with no British input. It would be a new experience for Britain, to put it mildly.

Panrich

Vronsky wrote: »

It would be a defeat for the British State as well. Effectively, environmental and economic policy would be heavily constrained by an external organisation with no British input. It would be a new experience for Britain, to put it mildly.

I think that no matter how this pans out from here, the part in bold is a given unless by some miracle, the UK cancels Brexit in the next month. Of all the possible new experiences in store, the Norway model (even with added humility as you point out) would be one of the less painful.

LeinsterDub

Solo claims that people on here are talking apocalypse

The Treasury’s assessment is framed in terms of degrees of damage. Bad, very bad or catastrophic? The Bank of England agrees

It seems the Treasury and the BoE are thinking apocalypse if not explicitly using the term

https://www.ft.com/content/8e592d24-c482-11e7-a1d2-6786f39ef675

flatty

I have had personal contact with keir starmer.
He is pro business, very pro Europe, and an interesting choice by Corbyn.

demfad

Vronsky wrote: »

The real fear, like every referendum in this country is that the referendum would be about everything but what is on the ballot paper.

The following would end up in the debate:
*Neutrality
*Abortion
*The bank bailout
*Irish water
*Topic de jour of course, homelessness.

And into that mix, potent outside interference and the result might not be a sure thing. Given what happened in the UK, hell will freeze over before a question like that would be put to the people. The people are not responsible enough to engage with the question, with politics almost treated like sport rather than something which actually matters.

I dont think a direct in/out question will be put to any electorate in the EU again. God forbid we see stunned Irish politicians proclaiming Irexit means Irexit with no more clue what Irexit entails than the electorate who voted for 'it'. The example of Brexit would clarify that nought good will come from it though.

We would see the full Russia/Mercer job of active measures also and I shudder at the thoughts of the worst being brought out in us.

flatty

Vronsky wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd say Labour are hoping that the Brexiteer wing of the Tories provoke a complete shambles in negotiations triggering an election, and Labour can swoop in with a Norway model.

It's Brexit, but it is practical.

They can address immigration using measures which are legal now.

The Norway model would be seen as a major defeat for the UK though, and almost the ideal result for the EU. The UK would continue to pay on almost the same as it does into the budget, it's markets would remain open but would have no say in the settings of the rules.

The question is how long would a country the size and strength of the UK allow it's neighbours to undermine it's economy through the setting of rules which are advantageous to them - the UK would either be back in or wholly out after a few years of the EEA.

No harm in that though. It would leave the door slightly ajar for the next wave of politicians and influencers.
Just enough pain to feel the squeeze for a while.
I think Corbyn actually would be much more constructive around the border and the gfa, would sideline the dup, and hopefully would not throttle entirely the economy with politics too far to the left.
Manchester city Council is a very good example of a long term, progressive, pro business labour led body. I actually think it's the natural fit for the UK. New Labour without the rampant narcissism and war mongering.
I think Corbyn would win a landslide if he changed his business secretary, made a few soothing noises, and became outspokenly pro European. The youth will vote in big numbers if encouraged, the Labour core vote will hold up, and, with a pro European stance, and some less hardline talk, he will decimate the tory middle class vote. He could, if clever, decimate the tories for a generation or more.

demfad

Good article on Brexit-Russia from the American Interest. In depth and doesnt even get into the Cambridge Analytica stuff.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/09/russias-brexit-subversion/

LeinsterDub

Even Dopey Dave understood that. There were just two weeks to try to save Brexit. He looked around for help, before it dawned on him that he was the person on whom the country was counting. He mumbled something about being willing and able, while sounding anything but. His expression was of a man who had only just realised he was completely out of his depth. Defeat oozed out of every pore. The Brexiter for whom hubris beckoned unless the Maybot was suddenly willing to hand over €60bn.

This whole article is worth a quote but certainly the above snippet says it all the wheels have all but come off , it's finally dawning on some in government that they've no idea what they want, how they will get it and how much they are willing to pay in terms of money and sovereignty.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/babble-brexit-progress-dave-ooze-defeat-barnier

ezra_pound

Anyone reckon the lib Dems could hold the balance of power of there was an election and if that could affect change of Brexit policy?

ancapailldorcha

ezra_pound wrote: »

Anyone reckon the lib Dems could hold the balance of power of there was an election and if that could affect change of Brexit policy?

I doubt it. Judging by last June, the electorate has become more polarised and is returning to its previous voting habits. The Lib Dems had a chance to scoop up a lot of votes but Farron ultimately wasn't a sufficient leader for the task.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I doubt it. Judging by last June, the electorate has become more polarised and is returning to its previous voting habits. The Lib Dems had a chance to scoop up a lot of votes but Farron ultimately wasn't a sufficient leader for the task.

Well you can probably rule the DUP out of any possible arrangement. Their spokesman on RTE radio tonight offered as good an example of defiance and delusion as you could ask for. They don't do pragmatism in any form - clutching the leg of mother England as they both sink beneath the waves they used to think they ruled.

Capt'n Midnight

[IMG][/img]"Exit day" - 2300 GMT on 29 March 2019 - will be included in the EU Withdrawal Bill, the government has confirmed.

the opposite view

Cross-bench peer Lord Kerr, who wrote Article 50, the formal procedure for leaving the EU, will give a speech in London on Friday in which he will say: "We can change our minds at any stage of the process".

It would be nice if they could roll back, but it would need public support and May & Co. are pushing relentlessly on.

Inquitus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

[IMG][/img]"Exit day" - 2300 GMT on 29 March 2019 - will be included in the EU Withdrawal Bill, the government has confirmed. the opposite view It would be nice if they could roll back, but it would need public support and May & Co. are pushing relentlessly on.

I think any hope of a deal is done and dusted unless the Government in the UK collapses in the next 505 days. The issue of the North alone is a circle the UK seem absolutely unwilling to square, only a sea border for the Island is feasible here, and that's ignoring the exit bill and all the rest.

blanch152

Inquitus wrote: »

I think any hope of a deal is done and dusted unless the Government in the UK collapses in the next 505 days. The issue of the North alone is a circle the UK seem absolutely unwilling to square, only a sea border for the Island is feasible here, and that's ignoring the exit bill and all the rest.

A sea border for the Island means the break-up of the UK, a step too far for the Tories, let alone the DUP. Labour might agree a deal like that.

The North would demand a referendum and it might well be defeated as a proposal.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A sea border for the Island means the break-up of the UK, a step too far for the Tories, let alone the DUP. Labour might agree a deal like that.

The North would demand a referendum and it might well be defeated as a proposal.

The DUP would find themselves in a tricky situation if this proposal gets into the deal.
They will have to oppose it and ship the blame for any negatives.

I think if it gets offer a referendum will pass it unanimously such will be the sigh of relief in northern Ireland. Another huge negative for the DUP if they failed to carry the day.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP would find themselves in a tricky situation if this proposal gets into the deal.
They will have to oppose it and ship the blame for any negatives.

The supported brexit the blame is already their's in terms of NI.

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The supported brexit the blame is already their's in terms of NI.

Yes, but they ship the blame in the entire UK. Which will be gagging for a deal at that stage IMO.

Nody

You'd think May would learn from previous attempts but sadly she's a fool bent on repeating the same mistakes over and over again:

But The Independent understands that Ms May will not allow herself to be tied down by Mr Barnier’ two-week deadine, and will instead appeal directly to leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Angela Merkel in order to push for progress in talks.

There is expected to be a flurry of diplomatic activity in European capitals ahead of the next summit, which will see UK officials highlighting concessions already made and the benefits of moving forward.

FrancieBrady

As well as the British spelling out how they are gonna deal with the border issue, I wish Leo would do a bit too. Apparently he said very emphatically in his address tonight 'There will be no border on the island of Ireland'.
But how are you going to ensure that Leo?

Nate--IRL--

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As well as the British spelling out how they are gonna deal with the border issue, I wish Leo would do a bit too. Apparently he said very emphatically in his address tonight 'There will be no border on the island of Ireland'.
But how are you going to ensure that Leo?

He can't.

Nate

Water John

He can only support the staus quo and use our influence in Europe.

Not sure how you expect him to ensure that the UK don't put up border posts?

His speech was as direct as could be possible and just next to the border. Has echoes of JFK saying, 'I am a Berliner'.

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As well as the British spelling out how they are gonna deal with the border issue, I wish Leo would do a bit too. Apparently he said very emphatically in his address tonight 'There will be no border on the island of Ireland'.
But how are you going to ensure that Leo?

He’s going to apply to re-join the UK. Hey, presto! No need for a border at all. :-)

FrancieBrady

Water John wrote: »

He can only support the staus quo and use our influence in Europe.

Not sure how you expect him to ensure that the UK don't put up border posts?

His speech was as direct as could be possible and just next to the border. Has echoes of JFK saying, 'I am a Berliner'.

Heard him actually saying it this morning. Sounded very absolute to me.

Samaris

I think it's a bit pie in the sky to see anything but a hard border between NI and the republic. Hell, Davis doesn't seem entirely sure of what it is, given previous mention of it being an 'internal border' (twice in one speech, albeit a little while ago now, so hopefully he's been given a crash vourse in geography since.) Not really au fait with how to go linking articles with this phone, but it did happen! (And this is the genius in charge of the negotiations? It's hardly the only time he's shown a fundamental lack of understanding of what he's doing.)

The Irish Sea border is definitely best for the republic, but the UK really can't agree to that. It would be (another) abandonment of the north. NI residents would presumably need ID to travel to the UK and would be a bit of a free for all in terms of regulation. Also, what does that mean for UK regulated goods and agricultural livestock? Can they get to the island freely? How to prevent them coming into the south? What does this mean for Irish trade if there's an incident ( say Foot and Mouth). Do Irish exports get hit too due to the risk of infection?

It's absolute bull for the papers/Ministers to whine that they were 'blindsided' by this though. It's hardly been hidden for the last six months. That they didn't want to talk about it never meant that the problem went away. The divorce bill is mostly difficult due to intransigence. The Irish border is actually difficult and unclear. But it has been bleedin' obvious from the start that it would be a hard border on the island or a border in the sea. The former is more likely and Ireland must be prepared for it by March 2019 - not least as Britain probably won't be.

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

I think it's a bit pie in the sky to see anything but a hard border between NI and the republic. Hell, Davis doesn't seem entirely sure of what it is, given previous mention of it being an 'internal border' (twice in one speech, albeit a little while ago now, so hopefully he's been given a crash vourse in geography since.) Not really au fait with how to go linking articles with this phone, but it did happen! (And this is the genius in charge of the negotiations? It's hardly the only time he's shown a fundamental lack of understanding of what he's doing.)

The Irish Sea border is definitely best for the republic, but the UK really can't agree to that. It would be (another) abandonment of the north. NI residents would presumably need ID to travel to the UK and would be a bit of a free for all in terms of regulation. Also, what does that mean for UK regulated goods and agricultural livestock? Can they get to the island freely? How to prevent them coming into the south? What does this mean for Irish trade if there's an incident ( say Foot and Mouth). Do Irish exports get hit too due to the risk of infection?

It's absolute bull for the papers/Ministers to whine that they were 'blindsided' by this though. It's hardly been hidden for the last six months. That they didn't want to talk about it never meant that the problem went away. The divorce bill is mostly difficult due to intransigence. The Irish border is actually difficult and unclear. But it has been bleedin' obvious from the start that it would be a hard border on the island or a border in the sea. The former is more likely and Ireland must be prepared for it by March 2019 - not least as Britain probably won't be.

I am not getting why the incidence of for e.g. Foot and Mouth is such a problem.

We were both(Ireland and the UK) in the EU when it broke out before and we had to fortify the border anyway and took measures to protect ourselves within the EU.
Outbreaks like that, I would assume would simply bring special challenges that we respond to as we always did.

steddyeddy

Ah it gets better. A headline in the Sun today states that the political wing of the IRA via Gerry Adams is responsible for the "new" border problem. It's funny seeing the brexiters in a rage all the time.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4889870/iras-political-wing-sinn-fein-to-blame-for-new-brexit-stand-off-over-northern-ireland-border-ministers-say/amp/

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah it gets better. A headline in the Sun today states that the political wing of the IRA via Gerry Adams is responsible for the "new" border problem. It's funny seeing the brexiters in a rage all the time.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4889870/iras-political-wing-sinn-fein-to-blame-for-new-brexit-stand-off-over-northern-ireland-border-ministers-say/amp/

I disagree. It isn't funny at all. They're in charge and they're the ones making the decisions on the border. Their ignorance on the issue is blatant. They're only concern is getting out of the EU because they hate it, not for prosperity, not for stability or trade but just because they hate the EU. The welfare of the people of the island of Ireland doesn't matter one whit to them.

Sam Russell

Samaris wrote: »

I think it's a bit pie in the sky to see anything but a hard border between NI and the republic. Hell, Davis doesn't seem entirely sure of what it is, given previous mention of it being an 'internal border' (twice in one speech, albeit a little while ago now, so hopefully he's been given a crash vourse in geography since.) Not really au fait with how to go linking articles with this phone, but it did happen! (And this is the genius in charge of the negotiations? It's hardly the only time he's shown a fundamental lack of understanding of what he's doing.)

The Irish Sea border is definitely best for the republic, but the UK really can't agree to that. It would be (another) abandonment of the north. NI residents would presumably need ID to travel to the UK and would be a bit of a free for all in terms of regulation. Also, what does that mean for UK regulated goods and agricultural livestock? Can they get to the island freely? How to prevent them coming into the south? What does this mean for Irish trade if there's an incident ( say Foot and Mouth). Do Irish exports get hit too due to the risk of infection?

It's absolute bull for the papers/Ministers to whine that they were 'blindsided' by this though. It's hardly been hidden for the last six months. That they didn't want to talk about it never meant that the problem went away. The divorce bill is mostly difficult due to intransigence. The Irish border is actually difficult and unclear. But it has been bleedin' obvious from the start that it would be a hard border on the island or a border in the sea. The former is more likely and Ireland must be prepared for it by March 2019 - not least as Britain probably won't be.

As I see it, there are four possible solutions to the NI border. (Five if you include the UK dropping Brexit!)

1. The UK remains in the customs union and the single market.

2. The UK agrees that NI remains in the customs union and the single market while the UK leaves and so the EU border is in the sea.

3. A hard border on the island of Ireland.

4. A united Ireland.

The first has been ruled out, but a transition of 5 years or so would enable the negotiations to move on. Th UK are saying the NI border should be discussed as part of the trade negotiations as the two are tied up together. The EU are saying that the NI border dictates the type of trade deal and must be decided first as the GFA is at issue.

The third option has been ruled out by the EU and by Ireland who can veto the agreement (if ever we get that far).

That leaves option 2 and 4. Both are unlikely to be accepted by the DUP, The UI option requires a referendum in both NI and ROI to be passed. The second option is less bad for the DUP, so given a 'No Deal' or 'Border at sea' which way would they jump? I think they would jump off the cliff.

The above is all trade related. On the question of people, National ID cards will answer most problems the UK faces regarding immigration, both EU and rest of the world immigration. They should apply to the whole population, not just NI or 'foreign' folk. It then becomes easy for employers and landlords. 'Papers please!'

FrancieBrady

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I see it, there are four possible solutions to the NI border. (Five if you include the UK dropping Brexit!)

1. The UK remains in the customs union and the single market.

2. The UK agrees that NI remains in the customs union and the single market while the UK leaves and so the EU border is in the sea.

3. A hard border on the island of Ireland.

4. A united Ireland.

The first has been ruled out, but a transition of 5 years or so would enable the negotiations to move on. Th UK are saying the NI border should be discussed as part of the trade negotiations as the two are tied up together. The EU are saying that the NI border dictates the type of trade deal and must be decided first as the GFA is at issue.

The third option has been ruled out by the EU and by Ireland who can veto the agreement (if ever we get that far).

That leaves option 2 and 4. Both are unlikely to be accepted by the DUP, The UI option requires a referendum in both NI and ROI to be passed. The second option is less bad for the DUP, so given a 'No Deal' or 'Border at sea' which way would they jump? I think they would jump off the cliff.

The sad fact of Brexit is that somebody has to 'lose' over this issue.

I think it will be the DUP, tbh. They have boxed themselves into a corner.

They have fallen behind the 'Brexit was the will of all the UK' mantra, the will of the UK vis a viz a 'deal' might snooker them yet.

Samaris

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not getting why the incidence of for e.g. Foot and Mouth is such a problem.

We were both(Ireland and the UK) in the EU when it broke out before and we had to fortify the border anyway and took measures to protect ourselves within the EU.
Outbreaks like that, I would assume would simply bring special challenges that we respond to as we always did.

The last time it happened was down to an illegal movement of UK-origin stock across the border. The UK has an awful record for these outbreaks (three out of seven or so major outbreaks started there) even while following EU regs. Following Brexit, there will almost certainly be a decrease in regulatory standards - note the Wilbur Ross comment regarding an American trade deal. Along with that, it'll be the main card that Britain can play for desperately-needed deals with other countries.

Agriculture is a big part of our economy, and outbreaks that lead to livestock destruction can be devastating. I know it looks a bit oddly specific to focus on, but it will be a real problem, even if not an obvious one until it happens. My personal opinion is that it probably will happen at some point, and more likely to without checks between a less-regulated NI and the Republic. We're already going to have enough Brexit-related issues to deal with and don't need to invite that sort of economic shock while doing so. The safest thing for other EU countries and non-EU countries alike would be a hold on imports from the island in that situation.


We might get lucky. I don't like relying on luck though.

Note on assumptions above;
- Border in the Irish Sea; unlikely, politically unconscionable in Britain.
- Loss of regulatory equivelance: likely. Particularly smaller firms will push for lower regs (those that primarily deal with domestic markets) as will other countries seeking trade deals. And the impact of the Great Repeal Bill implications allow such changes to be made in an unclear and hidden fashion (see total lack of talks about overseeing what changes are made)
- That people will continue to bring stuff they shouldn't around the island; almost certainly. A bit of smuggling is openly accepted across the border, say Halloween fireworks and Christmas shopping in Newry. I know there are regs on thibgs like electronics, but they get ignored and no-one really gives a damn.
- That cattle will still be (illegally) moved; likely. That's what happened the first time, and it's in the accepted culture to pootle back and forth on nothing but an honour system.
- That F&M will continue to be an issue in agriculture in Britain from time to time; likely. One contributing issue is vets. Most vets that work in slaughterhouses ( which tends to be where these diseases get noticed by vets) have been EU citizens (who are rapidly leaving). Most people going into vet work don't do it for a career in a slaughterhouse so I at least expect a contraction there, resulting in poorer oversight.
- That we won't spot it in time: I don't know. But the situation is more likely to start given the above and it will be harder to spot without our own checks...where?

I need to look up the response from other countries when it happened, but I do seem to recall it didn't go that well for us.

My issue with the border isn't wholly wrapped up in agricultural diseases, mind you. It's just one of many issues that highlights the lack of thought that's gone into the border question in the talks. And while unromantic, agriculture is deeply important to the Irish economy.

FrancieBrady

Samaris wrote: »

The last time it happened was down to an illegal movement of UK-origin stock across the border. The UK has an awful record for these outbreaks (three out of seven or so major outbreaks started there) even while following EU regs. Following Brexit, there will almost certainly be a decrease in regulatory standards - note the Wilbur Ross comment regarding an American trade deal. Along with that, it'll be the main card that Britain can play for desperately-needed deals with other countries.

Agriculture is a big part of our economy, and outbreaks that lead to livestock destruction can be devastating. I know it looks a bit oddly specific to focus on, but it will be a real problem, even if not an obvious one until it happens. My personal opinion is that it probably will happen at some point, and more likely to without checks between a less-regulated NI and the Republic. We're already going to have enough Brexit-related issues to deal with and don't need to invite that sort of economic shock while doing so. The safest thing for other EU countries and non-EU countries alike would be a hold on imports from the island in that situation.


We might get lucky. I don't like relying on luck though.

Note on assumptions above;
- Border in the Irish Sea; unlikely, politically unconscionable in Britain.
- Loss of regulatory equivelance: likely. Particularly smaller firms will push for lower regs (those that primarily deal with domestic markets) as will other countries seeking trade deals. And the impact of the Great Repeal Bill implications allow such changes to be made in an unclear and hidden fashion (see total lack of talks about overseeing what changes are made)
- That people will continue to bring stuff they shouldn't around the island; almost certainly. A bit of smuggling is openly accepted across the border, say Halloween fireworks and Christmas shopping in Newry. I know there are regs on thibgs like electronics, but they get ignored and no-one really gives a damn.
- That cattle will still be (illegally) moved; likely. That's what happened the first time, and it's in the accepted culture to pootle back and forth on nothing but an honour system.
- That F&M will continue to be an issue in agriculture in Britain from time to time; likely. One contributing issue is vets. Most vets that work in slaughterhouses ( which tends to be where these diseases get noticed by vets) have been EU citizens (who are rapidly leaving). Most people going into vet work don't do it for a career in a slaughterhouse so I at least expect a contraction there, resulting in poorer oversight.
- That we won't spot it in time: I don't know. But the situation is more likely to start given the above and it will be harder to spot without our own checks...where?

I need to look up the response from other countries when it happened, but I do seem to recall it didn't go that well for us.

My issue with the border isn't wholly wrapped up in agricultural diseases, mind you. It's just one of many issues that highlights the lack of thought that's gone into the border question in the talks. And while unromantic, agriculture is deeply important to the Irish economy.

I think that points to the stupidity of a border here in the first place. Which is another debate maybe.
I think genuine northern Irish farmers of any political hue would be onside with a system to isolate the entire island in the event of an outbreak. You will only get a delayed warning anyhow, it will already have broken out surely.

Water John

That is some nonsense by The Sun.

ROI was never going to accept a hard border. We simply were waiting for it to dawn on UK Ministers. Once we had got it inserted as one of the three key planks on which real movement was needed, that was the good diplomatic work of all Irish civil service and politicians.
Even Ian Paisley was a realist and saw that agricultural issues were best dealt with on an All Ireland basis.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I see it, there are four possible solutions to the NI border. (Five if you include the UK dropping Brexit!)

1. The UK remains in the customs union and the single market.

2. The UK agrees that NI remains in the customs union and the single market while the UK leaves and so the EU border is in the sea.

3. A hard border on the island of Ireland.

4. A united Ireland.

The first has been ruled out, but a transition of 5 years or so would enable the negotiations to move on. Th UK are saying the NI border should be discussed as part of the trade negotiations as the two are tied up together. The EU are saying that the NI border dictates the type of trade deal and must be decided first as the GFA is at issue.

The third option has been ruled out by the EU and by Ireland who can veto the agreement (if ever we get that far).

That leaves option 2 and 4. Both are unlikely to be accepted by the DUP, The UI option requires a referendum in both NI and ROI to be passed. The second option is less bad for the DUP, so given a 'No Deal' or 'Border at sea' which way would they jump? I think they would jump off the cliff.

The above is all trade related. On the question of people, National ID cards will answer most problems the UK faces regarding immigration, both EU and rest of the world immigration. They should apply to the whole population, not just NI or 'foreign' folk. It then becomes easy for employers and landlords. 'Papers please!'

You miss one very important point along with most other people posting here; option 3 is the default option. If no deal is struck (which is by far the most likely scenario) then option 3 is the only option to be implemented and that means a hard border full stop. EU and the Irish government can keep on stating they refuse a hard border but if there is no deal then there will be a hard border and the Irish gets to deal with an external border like any other EU country.

Samaris wrote: »

My issue with the border isn't wholly wrapped up in agricultural diseases, mind you. It's just one of many issues that highlights the lack of thought that's gone into the border question in the talks. And while unromantic, agriculture is deeply important to the Irish economy.

Which means a proper hard border is required this time rather than the wink wink nod nod border of yesteryear; if not UK's new lower standards will bring down a ton of issues for Irish farmers and lead to blockade / refusal to buy Irish produce due to lack of control that it's not British smuggled in and rebranded. Sucks for the NI farmers but if the choice is to protect the Irish farmers and produce over the NI farmers smuggling...

Zerbini Blewitt

So the plan of one Brexiter faction for a ‘successful’ Brexit is to force the lower (approx) 75% of the UK labour force to compete with current Indian & Chinese working conditions, pay & living conditions (2012 Book review here).

The majority in Britain live their lives an order of magnitude poorer & more precarious (in effect 21st century Dickensian) - that is, for the ones that have jobs - and the rich get richer. What's not to like :rolleyes:

For this faction of Walter Mitty Tories* & murky business figures – direct labour competition with China/India is their brainwave of how to deal with Britains productivity problem. This is what Brexit is all about for them.

They are not stupid (but they are malevolent, out of touch fantastists). Its not clear at this point if they realise Britain must get at a minimum a “no-deal" deal as mentioned earlier. Of course not having a hard border in Ireland is not even an afterthought in their musings.

---

---

*Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss

steddyeddy

Water John wrote: »

That is some nonsense by The Sun.

ROI was never going to accept a hard border. We simply were waiting for it to dawn on UK Ministers. Once we had got it inserted as one of the three key planks on which real movement was needed, that was the good diplomatic work of all Irish civil service and politicians.
Even Ian Paisley was a realist and saw that agricultural issues were best dealt with on an All Ireland basis.

I think the biggest nonsense is that they think Gerry Adams influenced Leo in anything.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

You miss one very important point along with most other people posting here; option 3 is the default option. If no deal is struck (which is by far the most likely scenario) then option 3 is the only option to be implemented and that means a hard border full stop. EU and the Irish government can keep on stating they refuse a hard border but if there is no deal then there will be a hard border and the Irish gets to deal with an external border like any other EU country.

Which means a proper hard border is required this time rather than the wink wink nod nod border of yesteryear; if not UK's new lower standards will bring down a ton of issues for Irish farmers and lead to blockade / refusal to buy Irish produce due to lack of control that it's not British smuggled in and rebranded. Sucks for the NI farmers but if the choice is to protect the Irish farmers and produce over the NI farmers smuggling...

I have not missed it at all. I think that a 'no-deal' result is such a calamity that it must be apparent to all, MPs and voters alike. If a 'no-deal' is about to happen, then there will be last minute agreement to extend the UK membership for long enough to reach agreement, or at least to try. Its immense repercussions might well cause the MPs that want a deal to rebel against the Tory diehards and vote them out. Scottish Tories could well lead the charge.

Will 'remain' Tories agree to a cliff edge disaster? If the UK is thrust into a GE, will the EU agree to extend the deadline? If the UK electorate are faced with a Tory cliff edge or a Labour/LibDem/SNP soft exit, which do they choose?

All I know is that some people's stupidity knows no bounds.