Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't think any of these 3 options are possible.

1. Staying in the UK by the back door - my understanding is all 27 member states would have to vote yes for the UK to stay. Thants not going to happen. Anything else is a deal which is below as item 4.

2. Leaving and staying ??? - do you think the UK can leave and stay in the single market, thats what I think this option is saying. This is never going to happen, again see option 4

3. Hard brexit - is this also workable, the UK has ZERO trade deals with ANY country. It will have to setup deals, how long do you think that will take ? Also doesn't WTO only cover goods, I don't think it covers services, what happens to the UK'f financial service sector, how long can it wait for deals with countries, 7 to 8 years ?

4. Hard brexit - it's now looking like the most likely option, unless an extension is given but I doubt all 27 member states would agree. SO under this hard brexit the UK will renege on its financial commitments, that just my opinion. No trade deal and the start of the collapse of the UK service sector, mass leave of multinations bar the low skill like T-shirt manufacturing. Within 1yr a new govt, followed by a new referendum, followed by the UK applying for EU membership, ditching of Stg.

Good evening!

Forgive me - staying in by the back door is referring to the Norwegian model. Out but really in with no say.

The centre option is a free trade agreement whilst being outside of the single market and customs union. My preferred option. The ideal as I see it. Negotiated with a transitional arrangement with obvious benefits to both parties (irrespective of those who say no deal wouldn't be bad for the EU).

And no deal in the last column.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Forgive me - staying in by the back door is referring to the Norwegian model. Out but really in with no say.

The centre option is a free trade agreement whilst being outside of the single market and customs union. My preferred option. The ideal as I see it. Negotiated with a transitional arrangement with obvious benefits to both parties (irrespective of those who say no deal wouldn't be bad for the EU).

And no deal in the last column.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Would this free trade deal cover banking or farming? Services of other sorts. What about airline and other regulatory bodies?

What do you mean by free trade agreements?

Water John

I haven't ever replied to you Solo, I think but your preferred option is delusional. Has not nor never will be, on the table.

Nody

Gerry T wrote: »

4. Hard brexit - it's now looking like the most likely option, unless an extension is given but I doubt all 27 member states would agree. SO under this hard brexit the UK will renege on its financial commitments, that just my opinion. No trade deal and the start of the collapse of the UK service sector, mass leave of multinations bar the low skill like T-shirt manufacturing. Within 1yr a new govt, followed by a new referendum, followed by the UK applying for EU membership, ditching of Stg.

Few things I'll disagree with here; I know you said it was in your opinion but I'd say it would more likely end up in a court case in Hague or similar. It would also not resolve the WTO trade deal issue (the split of the current allotments) which would block any new trade deal being signed until resolved but that's in both EU and UK's interest to resolve so I expect that to be sorted somehow but could drag on if the other countries take their lead from the orange orangutang in a suit.

The second part is once again where I think you're overestimating the speed of change. A hard brexit will be painful don't get me wrong but the real long term effects will take years to kick in (and decades to reverse) and the economy will start growing again eventually (only at a slower trajectory and from lower numbers) which will put to halt the idea of rejoining. That is why I expect it to take at least 10 if not 20 years before UK will be ready to apply to rejoin the EU. They need to lose the current set of politicians in all parties, have the pensioners cheering Brexit on due to nostalgia either die off or get badly hit by cut pensions/inflation to get to a point of considering rejoining again.

Now there's a chance this could be greatly accelerated if May's predecessor will continue the three stooges show of incompetence in the days and months after Brexit leading to food shortages, stopped flights etc. not being resolved. However I expect those issues with someone who's slightly more competent than a chimp (i.e. Boris disqualified) can get those things sorted (painful but doable) and get the ball rolling. The people will be stringed along about all these new trade deals to come which will make things great again (they will not) to keep them going. Add in the fixes in the first months ("Look at me, I get stuff done") by the PM and you have my above scenario why it will take at least a decade if not more. By the first decade the decline will have set in (lower food standards, less jobs, more automation, less investments, less money from London etc. with brain drain to EU and more non EU immigration than while in EU) setting the ground for a new brave party leader to lead the charge against the old guard on a "We want to rejoin EU and bring back prosperity" as slogan. The leader can be from any of the major parties at the time (inc. Tories) as the driver for it will be more about the charisma of the new leader than anything else.

A Little Pony

solodeogloria wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is because a deal is as likely as Liverpool winning the league this year, zero.

Good evening!

I'm a touch more optimistic than you. If I was to draw a line with extremes I'd probably have something like this.

Staying in the EU by the back door|Ideal scenario - regaining control and maintaining trade with the EU|No deal
Terrible outcome, no benefit on today. A loss of decision making over regulations. Paying fees. Free movement continuing. No point in having left the EU. Government can honour basically nothing from the referendum. Less risk for basically no improvement on current terms. |Allows the Government to be faithful to electorate. Controls on immigration can be put in place. A good deal with the both parties to import a substantial amount of goods and potentially services in and out without tariffs and potentially reduced non-tariff barriers. Government can expand trade with other countries. Much much harder work than no deal or EU-by-the-backdoor. Financial settlement will need to be paid but not indefinitely. Honours the referendum campaign. | Government can trade freely with other countries but faces tariffs and non-tariff barriers in terms of goods and services. Controls on immigration can be out in place. Impact on existing useful areas of cooperation gone overnight. This isn't desirable.


Given that structure of how I see it the course of travel my hope is a harder path. It's at risk of the Prime Minister caving in and not really delivering Brexit by giving a terrible deal, it's also at risk of harder core people saying chuck in the towel and go home. But let's be honest this isn't honouring the vote either.

If there is a deal the UK needs to take back real tangible control from the EU. The alternative is a bad deal. I agree broadly that a deal should be aimed for.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's going to be no deal and on WTO rules. The negotiations are a smokescreen as I have said before. The British government knows a deal is not possible with 27 other member states voting on it but it's to give Parliament a "say" on it when ultimately it won't be possible for a deal to even get to Parliament to be voted on in the first place.

Water John

The 27 other Countries can be far more relied on to reach a common conclusion than the present UK Cabinet.

solodeogloria

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Would this free trade deal cover banking or farming? Services of other sorts. What about airline and other regulatory bodies?

What do you mean by free trade agreements?

Good evening!

A free trade agreement would need to be negotiated. It could include services including financial services. As I've said a number of times MiFID II allows for third country equivalence. It goes live on January 3rd 2018.

Much of the posts have overstated the impact on banks. UBS have been assured by regulators that it will be able to continue booking trades back to back in London and another EU location irrespective of what happens.

Everyone knows that London will still be a major centre for international finance. EU member states rely on capital markets and debt markets in London.

Other types of goods would need to be specifically negotiated for.

I've already answered on airlines. The Israel model is the way to go. Continued flights from the UK into the EU without ECJ involvement.

The middle option is much much looser than the Norwegian option. There will be a cost for that. It is better than no deal but worse than full single market membership. The benefits of new trading arrangements with other countries will more than compensate for this cost.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A Little Pony

Water John wrote: »

The 27 other Countries can be far more relied on to reach a common conclusion than the present UK Cabinet.

For themselves, yes. They certainly will never vote for any deal which keeps the UK out of the single market.

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've already answered on airlines. The Israel model is the way to go. Continued flights from the UK into the EU without ECJ involvement.

You are aware that it takes 30 days for a non EU airline to apply to get permission to land in EU countries and that only if EU recognise the quality of their country for checking the planes maintenance etc. right? That means on a no deal brexit not planes based out of UK can land in EU for a minimum of 30 days (longer if the function is not set up and working by the time of exiting) as they can only apply once they are outside EU (as until that point they are governed as part of EU regulation).

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Forgive me - staying in by the back door is referring to the Norwegian model. Out but really in with no say.

The centre option is a free trade agreement whilst being outside of the single market and customs union. My preferred option. The ideal as I see it. Negotiated with a transitional arrangement with obvious benefits to both parties (irrespective of those who say no deal wouldn't be bad for the EU).

And no deal in the last column.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But in all honesty I don't see any of these options agreeable to the EU. The Norway style deal EFTA won't be an option for the UK as the current EFTA countries wouldn't want a powerful country like the UK coming in. Plus EFTA has its own court, the UK public won't swap the EU court for an EFTA court.
The free trade will be contingent on free movement of people and EU courts. So that's out.

Barnier gave a 2 week ultimatum to the UK on money and EU nationals in UK. If after that time the UK hasn't agreed with the EU, Barnier says he will recommend in the Dec meeting that not enough progress has been made and that pushes the possible start of trade talks to March next yr. So in 2 weeks UK businesses will probably guess that to start talks in March and finish by say Oct to allow the EU to ratify before March leaves no time for a trade agreement.

Personally I hope an extension of 5 but more likely 2 yrs is given, but I guess the EU will want agreement by Oct next yr on the 3 ticket Items, not a verbal one but a contractual one. With payment of the 20-50bn, border issue and EU nationals. Plus payments for the extension and no say in EU matters during the extension. Just my take on things.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that it takes 30 days for a non EU airline to apply to get permission to land in EU countries and that only if EU recognise the quality of their country for checking the planes maintenance etc. right? That means on a no deal brexit not planes based out of UK can land in EU for a minimum of 30 days (longer if the function is not set up and working by the time of exiting).

Good evening!

My preferred option is a negotiated Brexit. However, I do think it's an outlandish scenario to think the EU would think that grounding flights was beneficial to either party come what may.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

EU won't be making any decision if UK leave with no agreement on March 19th 2019. It simply, the rules will be implemented by each civil service as per the rule book.

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My preferred option is a negotiated Brexit. However, I do think it's an outlandish scenario to think the EU would think that grounding flights was beneficial to either party come what may.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You may call it outlandish but that is what the EU regulation require from a airline from a third party country and the minimum application period is 30 days. That's not something EU can ignore for UK because doing so would put it in breach with every other WTO country out there. Same applies for things such as recognising fresh produce (meat & veggies) which has a minimum 6 month period applied to it. This is part of what being a third country means and any thumbing on such rules would apply to every other third party country under WTO rules as well which is simply a no go. That is why we're saying that a hard brexit is beyond stupid and it will be very painful (because the issues can be overcome with time but that does not help on day 1 when they kick in) and this appears to be something that's flying right over the UK politicians heads atm (even though Davis did admit the planes could theoretically be grounded except it is far beyond theoretical scenario).

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My preferred option is a negotiated Brexit. However, I do think it's an outlandish scenario to think the EU would think that grounding flights was beneficial to either party come what may.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU wouldn't be grounding the flights. The UK is grounding the flights by leaving the EU without putting in place a plan. Totally and fully the UK's responsibility.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK subsidy for NI is about 60% of their GDP - will that be affected by Brexit? Much of the rest comes as a gift from the EU in the form of regional funds and CAP farm payments - how much of that will be paid by the UK Gov?

It is worth noting that the UK subsidy to NI is greater than their net payments to the EU.

Grove has already said the UK would replace the €3Bn that UK farmers get, but weasel words about linking to the environment. http://biblehub.com/psalms/146-3.htm


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/gove-tells-north-s-farmers-subsidies-will-have-to-be-earned-after-brexit-1.3164498

Mr Gove has said post-Brexit subsidies will have to be earned rather than being handed out and that farmers must prove they are committed to environmental issues.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

You may call it outlandish but that is what the EU regulation require from a airline from a third party country and the minimum application period is 30 days. That's not something EU can ignore for UK because doing so would put it in breach with every other WTO country out there. Same applies for things such as recognising fresh produce (meat & veggies) which has a minimum 6 month period applied to it. This is part of what being a third country means and any thumbing on such rules would apply to every other third party country under WTO rules as well which is simply a no go. That is why we're saying that a hard brexit is beyond stupid and it will be very painful (because the issues can be overcome with time but that does not help on day 1 when they kick in) and this appears to be something that's flying right over the UK politicians heads atm (even though Davis did admit the planes could theoretically be grounded except it is far beyond theoretical scenario).

Gerry T wrote: »

The EU wouldn't be grounding the flights. The UK is grounding the flights by leaving the EU without putting in place a plan. Totally and fully the UK's responsibility.

Good evening!

The scenario I'm presenting is for a negotiated Brexit. Not a no deal Brexit at the time of writing. If the deal presented is extremely bad, it is an option. (A deal that doesn't honour the referendum result is bad in my book also)

Even in the worst case scenario if the period was 30 days I'm sure this could be arranged for once the direction of travel is clear.

It's pretty possible to come to an Israel style agreement before Brexit is concluded if not certainly by the time the transitional period ends.

We need to put the bogeymen away. It's perfectly possible for a constructive arrangement to be agreed in respect to the three issues, this and transitional terms leading to a good free trade agreement if all parties are willing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

In a sense stating that currency / forex risk affects any asset held in a currency is unremarkable. It also works both ways. If someone receives payment in currencies that have strengthened to sterling it will also be beneficial.

This is why FTSE250 companies appear to be doing well.

Is there any evidence of any of the extra dosh getting to the workers or is it all profit taking, and how much of that profit is exported.

The public isn't seeing a Brexit Dividend and they aren't spending it either. Black Friday is two days after the Budget which may be a good barometer in how optimistic or cash strapped people really are.

The truth is that the British economy has slowed but is still growing despite a huge amount of uncertainty. The British economy is proving itself to be remarkably resilient. I think clarity at the end of the Brexit process will be good rather than bad for Britain.

Spin it any way you want, but it's not growing anything like the EU27 or other OECD countries. (with the exception of South Africa).

And wage growth has been completely wiped out by inflation.

Roughly 10% of companies will be implementing their Brexit plans , each month, until May. In most cases this means spending some money elsewhere in the EU.

Sand

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The scenario I'm presenting is for a negotiated Brexit. Not a no deal Brexit at the time of writing. If the deal presented is extremely bad, it is an option. (A deal that doesn't honour the referendum result is bad in my book also)

Even in the worst case scenario if the period was 30 days I'm sure this could be arranged for once the direction of travel is clear.

It's pretty possible to come to an Israel style agreement before Brexit is concluded if not certainly by the time the transitional period ends.

We need to put the bogeymen away. It's perfectly possible for a constructive arrangement to be agreed in respect to the three issues, this and transitional terms leading to a good free trade agreement if all parties are willing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But, in the worst case scenario, why wouldn't the EU use the prospect of grounded UK airlines as leverage to force the UK to honour its commitments to the EU and its citizens? Why would it surrender that leverage when it could leave the UK twisting in the wind for a few weeks/months?

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Grove has already said the UK would replace the €3Bn that UK farmers get, but weasel words about linking to the environment. http://biblehub.com/psalms/146-3.htm

Not a bad passage to choose to be fair. So, the conclusion is that only God can get us through Brexit?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is why FTSE250 companies appear to be doing well.

Is there any evidence of any of the extra dosh getting to the workers or is it all profit taking, and how much of that profit is exported.

The public isn't seeing a Brexit Dividend and they aren't spending it either. Black Friday is two days after the Budget which may be a good barometer in how optimistic or cash strapped people really are.

Spin it any way you want, but it's not growing anything like the EU27 or other OECD countries. (with the exception of South Africa).

And wage growth has been completely wiped out by inflation.

Roughly 10% of companies will be implementing their Brexit plans , each month, until May. In most cases this means spending some money elsewhere in the EU.

Firstly - Brexit isn't concluded yet. Meaning that none of the benefits of Brexit will come to pass until the UK has left the European Union.

Secondly - I don't know why you are claiming that there is a link between illiquid stock prices held by shareholders and "extra dosh for workers". It's not quite how it works.

Thirdly - the UK is doing extremely well despite the uncertainty of Brexit. The doomsday prophets of last year were predicting a recession. The truth is record numbers of people are in work, and the economy is growing. If it is growing in the middle of such uncertainty there is no reason why it won't continue to do so when the direction of travel is clear.

As I say, I'm hopeful, and there's not really a good reason not to be at present.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My preferred option is a negotiated Brexit. However, I do think it's an outlandish scenario to think the EU would think that grounding flights was beneficial to either party come what may.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's not an EU problem for the UK. It's a worldwide problem.

If the UK has no internationally accredited replacement for EASA to inspect UK airlines then they will not be allowed to land or even overfly anywhere.

How quickly do you think the CAA can set up and get their EASA replacement accredited around the world?

flatty

A Little Pony wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is because a deal is as likely as Liverpool winning the league this year, zero.

Good evening!

I'm a touch more optimistic than you. If I was to draw a line with extremes I'd probably have something like this.

Staying in the EU by the back door|Ideal scenario - regaining control and maintaining trade with the EU|No deal
Terrible outcome, no benefit on today. A loss of decision making over regulations. Paying fees. Free movement continuing. No point in having left the EU. Government can honour basically nothing from the referendum. Less risk for basically no improvement on current terms. |Allows the Government to be faithful to electorate. Controls on immigration can be put in place. A good deal with the both parties to import a substantial amount of goods and potentially services in and out without tariffs and potentially reduced non-tariff barriers. Government can expand trade with other countries. Much much harder work than no deal or EU-by-the-backdoor. Financial settlement will need to be paid but not indefinitely. Honours the referendum campaign. | Government can trade freely with other countries but faces tariffs and non-tariff barriers in terms of goods and services. Controls on immigration can be out in place. Impact on existing useful areas of cooperation gone overnight. This isn't desirable.


Given that structure of how I see it the course of travel my hope is a harder path. It's at risk of the Prime Minister caving in and not really delivering Brexit by giving a terrible deal, it's also at risk of harder core people saying chuck in the towel and go home. But let's be honest this isn't honouring the vote either.

If there is a deal the UK needs to take back real tangible control from the EU. The alternative is a bad deal. I agree broadly that a deal should be aimed for.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's going to be no deal and on WTO rules. The negotiations are a smokescreen as I have said before. The British government knows a deal is not possible with 27 other member states voting on it but it's to give Parliament a "say" on it when ultimately it won't be possible for a deal to even get to Parliament to be voted on in the first place.

I don't think the remain faction in parliament are dim enough to fall for this ruse, which it clearly is, and is there merely to buy may another few months in the prime ministerial jag.
This has a way to go yet, but I'm pretty certain brexit will be hard, and fully hard, and will make the UK both poorer, and more dangerous (crime will increase across the spectrum). I just don't think that the other factions and parties are stupid enough to fall for a blatant attempt at blame shifting by a prime minister and govt devoid of motive bar clinging to "power".
The yanks will be quietly delighted and will stick the boot into the prone man laid low in the first place by the eu.
Capital flight, well I honestly don't think it will have been seen on such a scale in recent history.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

But a sea border is certainly better for the republic. We're already going to suffer because of Brexit. Better to apply pressure that will work out better for us. Northern Ireland's economy is 70% services. It won't survive being out of the single market and it certainly won't grow during Brexit.

There is a certain viewpoint that is wishing for a sea border in order to crush the Northern Irish economy forcing Northern Ireland to look towards the South and to deliver their dream of a united Ireland.

It is sad to see them looking to the suffering of others to deliver what they want.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a certain viewpoint that is wishing for a sea border in order to crush the Northern Irish economy forcing Northern Ireland to look towards the South and to deliver their dream of a united Ireland.

It is sad to see them looking to the suffering of others to deliver what they want.

I want a sea border because a land border could cause untold suffering again.
Certain viewpoints refuse to see the dangers of that.

murphaph

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a certain viewpoint that is wishing for a sea border in order to crush the Northern Irish economy forcing Northern Ireland to look towards the South and to deliver their dream of a united Ireland.

It is sad to see them looking to the suffering of others to deliver what they want.

To me NI is part of the UK and 45% of the NI electorate even voted for Brexit. The UK (including NI) has brought this upon itself. The RoI is entirely correct in looking after its interests first and foremost.

A sea border definitely does less damage to us.

Thargor

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!



Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Stop with the "Good Evening!" and "Much Thanks" crap, nobody wants to read that sh1t over and over again, are you doing it to annoy people?

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a certain viewpoint that is wishing for a sea border in order to crush the Northern Irish economy forcing Northern Ireland to look towards the South and to deliver their dream of a united Ireland.

It is sad to see them looking to the suffering of others to deliver what they want.

Actually I was thinking about the republic. Our trade would be much less affected by a sea border as we would see relatively little transport costs compared to with a land border.

The question is why do you think we should suffer more economically than a part of the UK?

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

To me NI is part of the UK and 45% of the NI electorate even voted for Brexit. The UK (including NI) has brought this upon itself. The RoI is entirely correct in looking after its interests first and foremost.

A sea border definitely does less damage to us.

Indeed. I'm missing why Blanch intends for us to prioritise a part of the UK.

listermint

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed. I'm missing why Blanch intends for us to prioritise a part of the UK.

Stick it to the 'shinners'

steddyeddy

listermint wrote: »

Stick it to the 'shinners'

I think that's it, but I fail to see how someone who wants to shield the republic from economic ruin is a "shinner".

FrancieBrady

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

steddyeddy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

No it seems to be an emotional reaction based on how unionists would feel about it. Well they voted for Brexit so why should we care?

Water John

Believing Gove will replace the EU money in agriculture has about the same validity as the Brexit bus.

Even the Unionists believe Ireland should be dealt with, in agriculture, on an all island basis.

steddyeddy

Water John wrote: »

Believing Gove will replace the EU money in agriculture has about the same validity as the Brexit bus.

Even the Unionists believe Ireland should be dealt with, in agriculture, on an all island basis.

In other words they join the large community of Brexit hypocrites who want to retain EU benefits. Just like the Grimsby fishermen, Cornwall Brexiters who want to keep grants.

Charles Babbage

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

The effect of this is very much down to the detail, to the exact nature of the products sent, their volumes, their urgency etc. Nobody has put forward anything approaching a serious analysis in these terms, all we get simplistic totals of the value of trade and the like.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

No it seems to be an emotional reaction based on how unionists would feel about it. Well they voted for Brexit so why should we care?

That's all I have seen on it. I am not getting how it will be so much worse economically.

I still suspect the DUP are being led up the garden path on this. The whole deal could end up hinging on it and the DUP could find themselves snookered.
British duplicity at play.

Water John

Jim Molyneau was the last one to play this game. He didn't achieve much. It's a rare situation, of influence, that arises. Not sure they have the skills to capitalise on it.

FrancieBrady

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The effect of this is very much down to the detail, to the exact nature of the products sent, their volumes, their urgency etc. Nobody has put forward anything approaching a serious analysis in these terms, all we get simplistic totals of the value of trade and the like.

A huge percentage goes into and out of ports as it is. Whatever model is going to cause delays or extra hassle so I am not seeing the 'huge disaster' this is going to be for northern Ireland, given it is going to be a disaster whatever happens.
Will be interesting to see what data those ruling it out adamantly have based their opinions on.

The Rape of Lucretia

Surely a sea border is a fantastic have your cake and eat it solution for the NI economy. Unionists will have to act outraged, and some will indeed be sick at the worry that they havemoved further from London. But it the end is it not a fantastic position for them ? They will remain in the European economic zone. And effectively be the UK mainlands trading partner with the best possible dream deal of no tariffs, restrictions, etc. The inconvenience of port controls being a visible and annoying, but in the overall scheme of things, no great shakes, downside. Overall, a big win-win for them.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

steddyeddy wrote: »

No it seems to be an emotional reaction based on how unionists would feel about it. Well they voted for Brexit so why should we care?

It was detailed earlier in this thread or the previous one, or the one on the hard border some time ago. Northern Ireland will suffer very badly from a sea border.

blanch152

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Surely a sea border is a fantastic have your cake and eat it solution for the NI economy. Unionists will have to act outraged, and some will indeed be sick at the worry that they havemoved further from London. But it the end is it not a fantastic position for them ? They will remain in the European economic zone. And effectively be the UK mainlands trading partner with the best possible dream deal of no tariffs, restrictions, etc. The inconvenience of port controls being a visible and annoying, but in the overall scheme of things, no great shakes, downside. Overall, a big win-win for them.

Ah, I see how people don't get it. If there is a sea border and a hard Brexit, there will be the same tariffs between Northern Ireland and the UK as between the EU and the UK.

That will cripple the Northern Ireland economy as most of their trade is with the rest of the UK.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It was detailed earlier in this thread or the previous one, or the one on the hard border some time ago. Northern Ireland will suffer very badly from a sea border.

I asked before and got nothing. Same result this time.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

It was detailed earlier in this thread or the previous one, or the one on the hard border some time ago. Northern Ireland will suffer very badly from a sea border.

Ah right but why should we in the republic care? We would benefit from a sea border and suffer from a hard border. Why would you prefer NI suffer less than the republic. We didn't vote for Brexit.

Peregrinus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah right but why should we in the republic care? We would benefit from a sea border and suffer from a hard border. Why would you prefer NI suffer less than the republic. We didn't vote for Brexit.

Neither did NI.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has the data on the economic difference between a sea border and a hard border for northern Ireland ever been posted? Or is it just an assumption that a sea border would be worse.

It's not so much an assumption as a no-brainer. 60% of Northern Ireland's external trade is with Great Britain. If we in the Republic feel we would suffer badly from delay, physical barriers, customs and tariff barriers etc affecting our trade with NI, then we must concede that NI would suffer much, much more badly from similar factors affecting their trade with Great Britain, which is vastly bigger in proportion to their economy.

And that's before we consider the offence to Unionist sensibilities arising from an internal border within the UK. As we know, Unionists are always ready to take strong offence at practically anything.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The effect of this is very much down to the detail, to the exact nature of the products sent, their volumes, their urgency etc. Nobody has put forward anything approaching a serious analysis in these terms, all we get simplistic totals of the value of trade and the like.

This is true, we have not seen a breakdown. We do know that 60% of the value of NI "exports" go to rest of UK. The other 40% is split between EU (and countries the EU has FTAs with) and the rest of the world.

To be honest I don't care about the breakdown as a sea border would be less damaging to our economy though IMO almost certainly more damaging to the NI economy. The UK can look out for NI and we'll look out for the RoI. Let the rest of UK increase their Barnett Formula money due to extraordinary damage done by Brexit if they like. The RoI need to push for the sea border. The fact the EU would make the exception for NI (definitely not a microstate) shows an amazing flexibility I personally did not believe would have been on offer.

It's about as imaginative as you can get to allow a large part of a third country to operate as part of the EU. Isn't it the kind of bold step May always babbles on about?!

murphaph

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Surely a sea border is a fantastic have your cake and eat it solution for the NI economy. Unionists will have to act outraged, and some will indeed be sick at the worry that they havemoved further from London. But it the end is it not a fantastic position for them ? They will remain in the European economic zone. And effectively be the UK mainlands trading partner with the best possible dream deal of no tariffs, restrictions, etc. The inconvenience of port controls being a visible and annoying, but in the overall scheme of things, no great shakes, downside. Overall, a big win-win for them.

What? There's no cake and eating. If they opt to remain in the SM and CU then they will be outside the UK SM and CU and tariffs and non tariff barriers will apply to all their NI - GB trade! They have to choose the lesser of two evils for them. I personally believe that would be a hard land border but that would be worse for us so we should use our influence to push the harm into the UK (NI mostly) as they voted for this claptrap.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked before and got nothing. Same result this time.

Would it make any difference to you either way? Even if the data proved the NI economy would be much worse off with a sea border than a land border, would you opt for the land border?

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither did NI.

They did as part of the UK. And it wasn't like nobody in NI voted for Brexit. 45% of the voters did. They want to run with the UK hounds.

The RoI government must have as its absolute top priority the economy of the South. It's every man for himself.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

They did as part of the UK. And it wasn't like nobody in NI voted for Brexit. 45% of the voters did. They want to run with the UK hounds.

The RoI government must have as its absolute top priority the economy of the South. It's every man for himself.

As part of the UK, Northern Ireland voted against Brexit (and by a larger margin than England voted for it).

There really is no good outcome for NI in this. A trade border with the Republic will damage them badly; a trade border with Great Britain will damage them even more badly.

What this illustrates, of course, is their marginal status in the United Kindom. Cameron embarked on this spineless, gutless, disgraceful referendum without giving a stuff about the damage it could do either to the United Kingdom as a whole or to Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and May has now doubled down by choosing to regard the referendum result as requiring withdrawal from the Single Market and the Customs Union and, despite her pretended concern for Northern Ireland, prioritising those choices over the well-being of Northern Ireland. Presumably she hopes to obtain some political advantage in England by doing this.

The lesson is clear; when push comes to shove in the United Kingdom, it's Northern Ireland that will get pushed, shoved and stomped upon because, really, who cares about the Irish?

But recognising this doesn't solve the problem. Northern Ireland really is a client of the United Kingdom. They're already kept afloat by massive financial transfers from Great Britain; the most promising way of ameliorating some of the consequences of the disaster that is Brexit will be even more massive transfers. But to have any hope of more massive transfers, they need to cleave ever closer to GB politically, not to distance themselves. Hence, they will prefer the hard border with the Republic; it does less economic damage to them, and maximises their chance of getting some counterbalancing economic redress from Britain.

In the long run, they might like to think about constitutional change, either within the context of the UK (so as to rebalance power between its constituent parts, so that the English can't piss all over the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish without even noticing that they are doing that) or by contemplating closer constitutional arrangements with Ireland or with Europe to counterbalance their client status within the UK. But in the short run, they don't have a realistic choice; they have to stick by the Brits, and pray for a change of government in the UK before it's too late.

murphaph

Yeah I've been saying pretty much the same but what's best for NI isn't best for the RoI IMO. A sea border will do less harm to the south and so that is what our government should push for now that the EU has made it a realistic option.