Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

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.

That is what our government is doing right now.

But I disagree that the EU has made it a realistic option. I don't think the EU can make it a realistic option; NI's dependent status within the UK is not something the EU can change. The EU can offer a sea border as an option, but they can't make it be in NI's interests to accept it.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

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?

Firstly - not all Unionists did.

Secondly - even if all did there's been a lot of talk on this thread about the peace process and the consequences of Brexit on it. It seems like people only want to consider the peace process in respect to republicans and nationalists. Adding extra barriers between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain would damage the peace process for unionists.

In any case - this outcome simply won't happen. Britain won't agree to it.

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.

Firstly - if you genuinely care about the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement you would.

Secondly - why do you want the border open? Is it because of trade? Then bankrupting your trading partner isn't a good idea. If your trading partner has less cash guess what? They are going to buy less from you. This is common sense.

Thirdly - let's be honest any major restrictions on trade between the UK and the EU will also have a major consequence on Ireland. This is why Ireland should be petitioning the EU for a good and progressive arrangement. Quite a lot posters here seem to be desiring a kind of perverse schadenfreude which will definitely have a negative impact on Ireland and I'm not quite sure why.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



Firstly - not all Unionists did.

Secondly - even if all did there's been a lot of talk on this thread about the peace process and the consequences of Brexit on it. It seems like people only want to consider the peace process in respect to republicans and nationalists. Adding extra barriers between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain would damage the peace process for unionists.

In any case - this outcome simply won't happen. Britain won't agree to it.



Firstly - if you genuinely care about the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement you would.

Secondly - why do you want the border open? Is it because of trade? Then bankrupting your trading partner isn't a good idea. If your trading partner has less cash guess what? They are going to buy less from you. This is common sense.

Thirdly - let's be honest any major restrictions on trade between the UK and the EU will also have a major consequence on Ireland. This is why Ireland should be petitioning the EU for a good and progressive arrangement. Quite a lot posters here seem to be desiring a kind of perverse schadenfreude which will definitely have a negative impact on Ireland and I'm not quite sure why.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Quite simply because the UK is poisoning the well and don't want to drink from it..

I think the UK should live the consequences and i make no apologies for it. I'm tired at this point of the ignorance so no deal, knock yourselves out.

And enjoy the trip home on your EU passport because you have a handy number

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . Thirdly - let's be honest any major restrictions on trade between the UK and the EU will also have a major consequence on Ireland. This is why Ireland should be petitioning the EU for a good and progressive arrangement. Quite a lot posters here seem to be desiring a kind of perverse schadenfreude which will definitely have a negative impact on Ireland and I'm not quite sure why.

It's not the EU that's standing in the way of a good progressive arrangement, solo. It's the UK. May's no-Single-Market, no-Customs-Union, no-free-movement "red lines" are the problem we're trying to find a creative solution to. As it happens, while the "sea border" is a creative solution, I don't think it's a practicable one, so it's back to the drawing board. But we wouldn't be having the problem if the UK hadn't painted itself into this corner. And if, even now, the UK were to decide that, actually, no-hard-border was a "red line" then a lot of solutions that the UK currently deems to be impossible would suddenly be possible.

This is completely a problem of the UK's making. And while it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to come up with a viable solution, that's mainly because of the way the UK has chosen to frame the problem.

The Rape of Lucretia

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Why? Even though part of the UK, can The UK mainland, not do a trade 'deal' with the Uk Northern Ireland ? Given that its the one govt it will 'give' itself a deal that makes it effectively the same as being part of the mainland, for goods originating in NI. NI being effectively the UK mainlands most favoured trading partner, with zero tariffs, zero restrictions, etc.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

1) No deal - No vote
2) Deal - Vote yes in parliament and implemented (now all who voted yes are sharing the blame for the outcome)
3) Deal - Vote no in parliament and UK ends up with "no deal" (and all who voted no now share the blame for the outcome)

4) Either way, tell May and Davis to stuff it, vote to extend A50 for 5 years.

Peregrinus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Why? Even though part of the UK, can The UK mainland, not do a trade 'deal' with the Uk Northern Ireland ? Given that its the one govt it will 'give' itself a deal that makes it effectively the same as being part of the mainland, for goods originating in NI. NI being effectively the UK mainlands most favoured trading partner, with zero tariffs, zero restrictions, etc.

No. If Northern Ireland is part of the single market and the customs union, then it can't do separate trade deals, with Great Britain or with anyone else. No participant in the single market/customs union can make its own trade deals.

Think about it. If NI could negotiate tariff-free, restriction-free access for British goods and services, that would be tariff-free, restriction-free access for British goods and services to the whole of the single market, since there would be no border between NI and the rest of the single market. And vice versa; the whole of the Single Market would enjoy tariff-free, restriction-free access to the UK.

Which is, of course, the state of affairs that currently prevails, and terminating it is one of May's "red lines".

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

the UK is doing extremely well despite the uncertainty of Brexit.

This is presumably why John Redwood (Tory MP and bigwig) is, in his other job as Chief Global Strategist for Charles Stanley, publicly advising investors to get their money out of the UK:

Monetary policy cannot prevent either the necessary real adjustment as the United Kingdom moves towards its new international trading arrangements or the weaker real income growth that is likely to accompany that adjustment over the next few years.

I sold out of the general share ETFs in the UK after their great performance for the year from early July 2016 when I saw the last Budget and heard the BoE’s credit warnings. The money could be better put to work in places where the authorities are allowing credit to expand a bit, to permit faster growth.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not the EU that's standing in the way of a good progressive arrangement, solo. It's the UK. May's no-Single-Market, no-Customs-Union, no-free-movement "red lines" are the problem we're trying to find a creative solution to. As it happens, while the "sea border" is a creative solution, I don't think it's a practicable one, so it's back to the drawing board. But we wouldn't be having the problem if the UK hadn't painted itself into this corner. And if, even now, the UK were to decide that, actually, no-hard-border was a "red line" then a lot of solutions that the UK currently deems to be impossible would suddenly be possible.

This is completely a problem of the UK's making. And while it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to come up with a viable solution, that's mainly because of the way the UK has chosen to frame the problem.

Good morning!

It's obvious that the in the EU by the back door model (Norway) isn't going to work. I've explained why I'm opposed to it. It offers no benefit to the status quo. In fact less. The referendum isn't honoured. There will be calls to finish off the job into the future (I'd support these calls personally). There are obvious reasons why this is unacceptable.

However, a third country deal is still a very real option. Seeking a progressive third country arrangement is in the UK's interests and in the EU's interests. It is by far a harder option than the no deal or EU by the back door option.

Brexit must lead to a genuine taking back of control in respect to migration, trade policy, laws and an end to indefinite payment to the EU for it to have been worthwhile.

I understand in full that costs would be paid in other ways for this freedom but it is the best long term option for the UK.

listermint wrote: »

Quite simply because the UK is poisoning the well and don't want to drink from it..

I think the UK should live the consequences and i make no apologies for it. I'm tired at this point of the ignorance so no deal, knock yourselves out.

And enjoy the trip home on your EU passport because you have a handy number

I won't be coming home due to Brexit. I've explained why if the horror stories are true I stand to lose a substantial amount. However at the time of writing things are looking good long term both in terms of my job and what I've got.

But on a more serious note - you don't care if Britain leaves without a deal and if that substantially affects Ireland's economy? No deal isn't something the UK would have to live with. I agree that is loyalty to the Euro-federalist project but it's not actually beneficial to anyone. This is why it's in Ireland's interests to secure the best deal possible.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's obvious that the in the EU by the back door model (Norway) isn't going to work. I've explained why I'm opposed to it. It offers no benefit to the status quo. In fact less. The referendum isn't honoured. There will be calls to finish off the job into the future (I'd support these calls personally). There are obvious reasons why this is unacceptable.

However, a third country deal is still a very real option. Seeking a progressive third country arrangement is in the UK's interests and in the EU's interests. It is by far a harder option than the no deal or EU by the back door option.

Brexit must lead to a genuine taking back of control in respect to migration, trade policy, laws and an end to indefinite payment to the EU for it to have been worthwhile.

I understand in full that costs would be paid in other ways for this freedom but it is the best long term option for the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

All that this tells us, solo, is that you personally agree with the red lines that Teresa May has set. Unless you are claiming some unique authority for yourself, though, that doesn't mean very much. May chose the red lines, and she was under no political or legal compulsion to choose red lines which appeals to solodeogloria. She could, for instance, just as well have chosen red lines which appealed to other Brexit campaigners, who during the referendum campaign warmly advocated the "Norway option".

None of this matter to anyone outside the UK. Whether the British people voted for Brexit fully intending that it would mean no-single-market, no-customs-union, etc and thereby leaving May no option, or whether the British people voted for Brexit leaving it up to May or to Parliament to determine what that meant and these are the choices that May has made, or whatever, is an internal UK matter. Either way, these are choices made by and on behalf of the UK, and the UK must wear the responsibility for making the choices. If these choices result in damage to Northern Ireland, the UK has done the damage. The UK has chosen to do the damage.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

That is what our government is doing right now.

But I disagree that the EU has made it a realistic option. I don't think the EU can make it a realistic option; NI's dependent status within the UK is not something the EU can change. The EU can offer a sea border as an option, but they can't make it be in NI's interests to accept it.

Agree entirely. They have offered it as an acceptable solution to them to the Irish border problem.

I have no problem putting the British government right over a barrel on this one.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

All that this tells us, solo, is that you personally agree with the red lines that Teresa May has set. Unless you are claiming some unique authority for yourself, though, that doesn't mean very much. May chose the red lines, and she was under no political or legal compulsion to choose red lines which appeals to solodeogloria. She could, for instance, just as well have chosen red lines which appealed to other Brexit campaigners, who during the referendum campaign warmly advocated the "Norway option".

None of this matter to anyone outside the UK. Whether the British people voted for Brexit fully intending that it would mean no-single-market, no-customs-union, etc and thereby leaving May no option, or whether the British people voted for Brexit leaving it up to May or to Parliament to determine what that meant and these are the choices that May has made, or whatever, is an internal UK matter. Either way, these are choices made by and on behalf of the UK, and the UK must wear the responsibility for making the choices. If these choices result in damage to Northern Ireland, the UK has done the damage. The UK has chosen to do the damage.

Good morning!

I don't accept this philosophy as you know. Both parties have a responsibility in respect to the outcome. The EU has a responsibility to Ireland as a member state. The UK has a responsibility in respect to Northern Ireland. Part of that responsibility includes maintaining the integrity of the union.

Britain needs to seek the best deal in its interests. Long term this is a free trade agreement which honours the terms of the referendum with bilateral terms in other areas and which allows more liberal trade terms with a wider world.

The only way I would accept the single market option would be if the EU were willing to compromise on immigration. The terms of customs union membership are too restrictive on trade policy.

I agree that Brexit is largely a British matter. It has an impact on other member states, particularly Ireland. It is in Ireland's interests to get the best deal possible for its goods. The EEA option is off the table because it doesn't honour the referendum result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

<...>

Brexit must lead to a genuine taking back of control in respect to migration, trade policy, laws and an end to indefinite payment to the EU for it to have been worthwhile.

<...>

Posted this before, but the fast-cumulating anecdotal evidence is that the UK doesn't even need Brexit for that one anymore: the UK government's enduring prevarications and testiculations over Brexit are slowly but surely delivering on May's 100k/year promise, as masses of EU/EEA nationals are making serious and effective preparations to leave and are leaving (including yours truly).

Both those at the lower end of the pay scale, due to the FOREX situation of the GBP and the national mood they perceive in their daily life (to say nothing of newly-booming home country economies), and those professionals towards the top end of the pay scale, for restoring stability and predictability to their life plan in the face of the uncertainty maintained by the UK.

Not that the UK ever needed Brexit for 'regaining' that control over EU immigration (which is what "control of immigration" we're talking about here, as the UK has always had full control over non-EU immigration): all it ever needed to do (and which it was fully entitled to do under existing EU legislation), was to implement existing EU immigration rules. Like most of the other EU27 had long done.

But then, there was that problem of the shambolic and wholly-unfit-for-purpose UK immigration system to begin with, which needed Himalayan levels of public investment to accommodate such an implementation. And still does.

And that other problem, perhaps ever more fundamental than the above, that such an implementation would run counter to the national business model.

Of course, that brain drain is going to cause problems for the UK, some of which likely to have particularly serious short-term consequences for those left behind, others of which will only come out gradually over time as the UK's domestic economy begins to lag ever more. History is littered with evidence of the medium- and long-term economic consequences of large-scale brain drain (to say nothing of oversize capital flight).

But well. Omelettes, eggs and all that. "Price worth paying", isn't it?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't accept this philosophy as you know. Both parties have a responsibility in respect to the outcome. The EU has a responsibility to Ireland as a member state. The UK has a responsibility in respect to Northern Ireland. Part of that responsibility includes maintaining the integrity of the union.

Britain needs to seek the best deal in its interests. Long term this is a free trade agreement which honours the terms of the referendum with bilateral terms in other areas and which allows more liberal trade terms with a wider world.

The only way I would accept the single market option would be if the EU were willing to compromise on immigration. The terms of customs union membership are too restrictive on trade policy.

I agree that Brexit is largely a British matter. It has an impact on other member states, particularly Ireland. It is in Ireland's interests to get the best deal possible for its goods. The EEA option is off the table because it doesn't honour the referendum result.

But the referendum result is a UK choice, solo. Ireland does indeed want a close economic relationship with the UK, but all of the barriers to that, all of them, without exception, are being put up by the UK.

Ireland is trying, by proposing something like the sea border option. The UK is knocking it back. As it happens, I understand why the UK is knocking that particular solution back. But the bottom line is that the UK has come up with all these red lines, every single one of them freely chosen by the UK, and if nobody manages to find a way around them that will protect the interests of Ireland or of Northern Ireland that is the UK's responsibility.

When you "take back control", you have to be accountable for the way you exercise that control. So far, that control has been exercised in a manner entirely destructive to the well-being of both the Republic and Northern Ireland. If Brexiters are not willing to wear that, to take responsibility for it, it tends to reinforce the view that they don't have the political maturity to be trusted with control.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

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?

No, because I think it has huge implications above and beyond economic considerations.
I would think the difference economically is not that big.
I think it is important to show if ruling out a sea border is just a sop to unionists or not, going forward.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, because I think it has huge implications above and beyond economic considerations.
I would think the difference economically is not that big.
I think it is important to show if ruling out a sea border is just a sop to unionists or not, going forward.

It's all about a united Ireland and nothing else to you. You are ideologically opposed to a land border. It's like a Brexiteer is opposed to the EU. There's no reason for it. Just this belief.

Why do you even ask about the different economic implications for the land versus sea border? It's disingenuous because you are opposed to the land border on ideological grounds.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

It's all about a united Ireland and nothing else to you. You are ideologically opposed to a land border. It's like a Brexiteer is opposed to the EU. There's no reason for it. Just this belief.

Why do you even ask about the different economic implications for the land versus sea border? It's disingenuous because you are opposed to the land border on ideological grounds.

Actually, I am opposed to it on practical grounds. It never worked at any time here, except during F&M/disease precautions when it was supported by voluntary compliance.

I think it is important to know just how economically different a sea border and land border are.

Is it wrong to ask for facts? Seems it is.

mickoneill31

http://pca.st/l6kd

That's a link to this week's FT podcast on Brexit. They talk about the affect its having on immigration now and what that means for companies.

They mention that when companies were asked what they'd do when they can't get low paid workers to fill their jobs. The answer isn't to increase wages. They know that many UK workers don't want the low paid jobs so the increase required is more than the companies can afford.
So the alternative for many is to leave the job open and expect other workers to take up the slack.

This probably is reflected in what we can see happening. Unemployment is low but wages aren't increasing.

6541

After listening to so much Brexit stuff this is my considered opinion. Brexit will happen, it will be a hard Brexit, The UK will walk away without a deal and leave the EU to implement the border in Ireland.

Sterling will crash, but within months sterling will rebound by 25 percent as the world cops on that the UK is the worlds fifth biggest economy before Brexit and still is the world fifth biggest economy after Brexit.

I actually think if you have spare cash put it into sterling as it will be undervalued and will gain 25 percent.

listermint

mickoneill31 wrote: »

http://pca.st/l6kd

That's a link to this week's FT podcast on Brexit. They talk about the affect its having on immigration now and what that means for companies.

They mention that when companies were asked what they'd do when they can't get low paid workers to fill their jobs. The answer isn't to increase wages. They know that many UK workers don't want the low paid jobs so the increase required is more than the companies can afford.
So the alternative for many is to leave the job open and expect other workers to take up the slack.

This probably is reflected in what we can see happening. Unemployment is low but wages aren't increasing.

So basically work harder, for longer, for less with no EU worker protections

Sounds like the future utopia solo describes.


All this so some tories and their chums can get richer playing on the markets and devaluing labour.


Excellent stuff where do I sign.

View

The following table shows total NI sales & exports from 2015:

https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/NI_Total_value_of_sales_and_exports_0.xlsx

listermint

6541 wrote: »

After listening to so much Brexit stuff this is my considered opinion. Brexit will happen, it will be a hard Brexit, The UK will walk away without a deal and leave the EU to implement the border in Ireland.

Sterling will crash, but within months sterling will rebound by 25 percent as the world cops on that the UK is the worlds fifth biggest economy before Brexit and still is the world fifth biggest economy after Brexit.

I actually think if you have spare cash put it into sterling as it will be undervalued and will gain 25 percent.

Terrible bet. The UK relies on the EU access for the bulk of its service. It won't have that in your hard brexit scenario

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's obvious that the in the EU by the back door model (Norway) isn't going to work. I've explained why I'm opposed to it. It offers no benefit to the status quo. In fact less. The referendum isn't honoured. There will be calls to finish off the job into the future (I'd support these calls personally). There are obvious reasons why this is unacceptable.

However, a third country deal is still a very real option. Seeking a progressive third country arrangement is in the UK's interests and in the EU's interests. It is by far a harder option than the no deal or EU by the back door option.

Brexit must lead to a genuine taking back of control in respect to migration, trade policy, laws and an end to indefinite payment to the EU for it to have been worthwhile.

I understand in full that costs would be paid in other ways for this freedom but it is the best long term option for the UK.

A third country arrangement that preserves the UK economy would require the UK to effectively become a vassal state of the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I won't be coming home due to Brexit. I've explained why if the horror stories are true I stand to lose a substantial amount. However at the time of writing things are looking good long term both in terms of my job and what I've got.

But on a more serious note - you don't care if Britain leaves without a deal and if that substantially affects Ireland's economy? No deal isn't something the UK would have to live with. I agree that is loyalty to the Euro-federalist project but it's not actually beneficial to anyone. This is why it's in Ireland's interests to secure the best deal possible.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nobody in Ireland wants the UK to leave the EU (except for some deluded Republicans who believe it will advance the cause of a united Ireland and don't care it would be based on impoverishment). We know that Ireland will suffer if there is a hard Brexit. We want the UK to remain part of the Single Market and the Customs Union as well as keeping the four movements. That is the best solution for Ireland so excuse us if we are not helping with the Tory delusion.

blanch152

View wrote: »

The following table shows total NI sales & exports from 2015:

https://www.nisra.gov.uk/sites/nisra.gov.uk/files/publications/NI_Total_value_of_sales_and_exports_0.xlsx

Basically, that table shows that 40% more of NI exports go to the UK than to the rest of the world.

Exports to the rest of the UK are five times the value of exports to the South.

Losing access to the UK would cripple Northern Ireland.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Basically, that table shows that 40% more of NI exports go to the UK than to the rest of the world.

Exports to the rest of the UK are five times the value of exports to the South.

Losing access to the UK would cripple Northern Ireland.

But a sea border would benefit us. Why would we not push for it?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A third country arrangement that preserves the UK economy would require the UK to effectively become a vassal state of the EU.





Nobody in Ireland wants the UK to leave the EU (except for some deluded Republicans who believe it will advance the cause of a united Ireland and don't care it would be based on impoverishment). We know that Ireland will suffer if there is a hard Brexit. We want the UK to remain part of the Single Market and the Customs Union as well as keeping the four movements. That is the best solution for Ireland so excuse us if we are not helping with the Tory delusion.

I think the point is that the only way to ensure some measure of prosperity for northern Ireland is to do whatever is feasible to keep them in the EU, surely?

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

But a sea border would benefit us. Why would we not push for it?

It's a red line for Theresa May and it violates the Supply & Confidence agreement between the Conservatives and the DUP.

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland wants the UK to leave the EU (except for some deluded Republicans who believe it will advance the cause of a united Ireland and don't care it would be based on impoverishment). We know that Ireland will suffer if there is a hard Brexit. We want the UK to remain part of the Single Market and the Customs Union as well as keeping the four movements. That is the best solution for Ireland so excuse us if we are not helping with the Tory delusion.

Good morning!

If that doesn't happen (and it probably won't) then what?

The choice is pursue a decent bilateral arrangement between the UK and the EU outside of the single market and the customs union or advocate no deal.

That seems to be the choice. I'm of the mind that the negotiated bilateral third country arrangement is better than no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the point is that the only way to ensure some measure of prosperity for northern Ireland is to do whatever is feasible to keep them in the EU, surely?

Eh no, Northern Ireland is in big trouble.

A border with the South causes some economic problems.

A sea border with the rest of the UK causes huge economic problems.

The order of preference for Northern Ireland would be as follows:

(1) All of UK stay in the Single Market
(2) Land border with the South
(3) Sea border with the UK

For the South (and the rest of the EU) the preference would be as follows:

(1) All of UK stay in the Single Market
(2) Sea border with the UK
(3) Land border with the North

The difference being that option (3) for the North would be an absolute economic disaster.

First Up

blanch152 wrote:

Exports to the rest of the UK are five times the value of exports to the South.

They wouldn't lose access, nor would intra-UK trade be subject to tarriffs or restrictions. It would however be subject to checks to ensure that goods originating in or destined for the EU were not evading UK/EU terms.

The bigger obstacle to a sea "border" is political. Britain cannot be seen to put up barriers of any sort with N.I.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

If that doesn't happen (and it probably won't) then what?

The choice is pursue a decent bilateral arrangement between the UK and the EU outside of the single market and the customs union or advocate no deal.

That seems to be the choice. I'm of the mind that the negotiated bilateral third country arrangement is better than no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I just cannot see a deal happening.

The UK will not be able to accept the terms of any deal that the EU will be able to put forward.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a red line for Theresa May and it violates the Supply & Confidence agreement between the Conservatives and the DUP.

Which implies that the DUP are dictating Brexit policy for their own political gain. That is clear signal that the UK government is no longer neutral on northern Ireland does it not?

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which implies that the DUP are dictating Brexit policy for their own political gain. That is clear signal that the UK government is no longer neutral on northern Ireland does it not?

That's a topic for a different thread, but yes. The DUP has a hugely disproportionate influence on how the Brexit negotiations will proceed.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Eh no, Northern Ireland is in big trouble.

A border with the South causes some economic problems.

A sea border with the rest of the UK causes huge economic problems.

The order of preference for Northern Ireland would be as follows:

(1) All of UK stay in the Single Market
(2) Land border with the South
(3) Sea border with the UK

For the South (and the rest of the EU) the preference would be as follows:

(1) All of UK stay in the Single Market
(2) Sea border with the UK
(3) Land border with the North

The difference being that option (3) for the North would be an absolute economic disaster.

You still have to provide data on the economic differences between a sea border and a land one.
Export data doesn't suffice.

steddyeddy

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither did NI.

That's very true but if/when their economy crashes it will be the DUP and other Brexiters to blame, not the Republic of Ireland for looking after its interests.

blanch152

First Up wrote: »

They wouldn't lose access, nor would intra-UK trade be subject to tarriffs or restrictions. It would however be subject to checks to ensure that goods originating in or destined for the EU were not evading UK/EU terms.

The bigger obstacle to a sea "border" is political. Britain cannot be seen to put up barriers of any sort with N.I.

That is wrong. Think about it.

The EU impost a 50% tariff on UK widgets.

Under your scenario Business A's Northern Ireland subsidiary could import those widgets tariff-free and restriction-free from the UK. Then, because the North has remained in the Single Market and the Customs Union, Business A's Northern Ireland subsidiary could move the widgets to Business A's German subsidiary tariff-free and restriction-free.

As a consequence, the EU's 50% tariff on UK widgets would be completely useless. Within a month, every EU business would have a paper subsidiary in Northern Ireland.

The reality is that a sea border means tariffs and restrictions on inter-UK goods and services. That would be economic disaster for Northern Ireland before you consider the political consequences.

demfad

blanch152 wrote: »

I keep hearing this argument that Brexit and the Tories are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. At the same time, nobody has ever pasted a link to the exact clause or paragraph or section of the GFA that is being broken.

Yes, at one level it can be argued that the spirit of the GFA is being broken (but that is an argument rather than a fact) but you cannot take legal action based on that.

So my question is, what exact legal action do you want taken, and on what basis to what court?

Your statement in bold is untrue:

demfad wrote: »

A question debated here often is the compatibility of Brexit with the Good Friday Agreement. Well the principle barriers on both sides of the border have given their verdict: Not compatible.

The heads of the barrister profession on both sides of the Irish border have warned that Brexit is not compatible with the Good Friday Agreement.

Paul McGarry SC, chairman of The Bar of Ireland, and Liam McCollum QC, chairman of The Bar of Northern Ireland, made the remarks at the Annual Bar Conference in London, The Brief reports.

The pair were speaking alongside four other UK legal figures in a panel discussion examining “Brexit and the Bar”.

Mr McGarry told conference delegates that “the Good Friday Agreement and Brexit are incompatible for a number of reasons”.

He said one was the guarantee on free movement in the Good Friday Agreement, which was not compatible with the imposition of a post-Brexit border; another the entitlement of people born in Northern Ireland to Irish citizenship, which would mean a direct route to EU citizenship.

Mr McCollum described it as “an insoluble an issue as you could possibly imagine”, and agreed Brexit would “undermine” the Agreement.

He pointed out that the Agreement could not be amended and would therefore have to be renegotiated.

First Up

blanch152 wrote:

Under your scenario Business A's Northern Ireland subsidiary could import those widgets tariff-free and restriction-free from the UK. Then, because the North has remained in the Single Market and the Customs Union, Business A's Northern Ireland subsidiary could move the widgets to Business A's German subsidiary tariff-free and restriction-free.

I didn't say the North would remain in the Single Market or CU. It won't.

The checks on NI/British trade would be to prevent the Island of Ireland being used as a transit route.

blanch152

First Up wrote: »

I didn't say the North would remain in the Single Market or CU. It won't.

The checks on NI/British trade would be to prevent the Island of Ireland being used as a transit route.

Well then we will have to have a land border with Northern Ireland, that is required under Single Market and CU rules.

Water John

So Demfad, any NI person could legally challenge a No Deal Brexit, Govn't policy, that limits their present rights and choices under the GFA?

First Up

blanch152 wrote:

Well then we will have to have a land border with Northern Ireland, that is required under Single Market and CU rules.

Which is what I have been saying for months.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

Your statement in bold is untrue:

I answered that already.

There is nothing in Brexit that affects either of those provisions and those lawyers are scaremongering.

The citizenship laws are ours to determine. We could write a law that states anyone born on the Moon is an Irish citizen and we wouldn't be in breach of EU law (we might be in breach of international law on space).

Similarly, the common travel area operates separately to Schengen and would continue to operate. Access to social services, health services, education and employment might be restricted depending on the actual Brexit terms (which are not known yet) but freedom to travel won't.

Water John

So after Brexit, any NI person can opt to be an Irish/EU citizen?

blanch152

Water John wrote: »

So after Brexit, any NI person can opt to be an Irish/EU citizen?

Any person born in Northern Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen.

I wonder if there will be any citizen tourism to Belfast from the rest of the UK?

Water John

Any UK person with NI connections would make use of this. Get an Irish/EU passport.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a topic for a different thread, but yes. The DUP has a hugely disproportionate influence on how the Brexit negotiations will proceed.

Very true. Simon Coveney seems to be playing a blinder in pointing this out and warning the British government not to base policy on what the DUP wants. From the BBC.

Brexit: DUP 'should not influence options' - Simon Coveney


Ireland's foreign minister has said the DUP's influence at Westminster should not limit the British government's options in the Brexit negotiations.
Simon Coveney was speaking at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
"I don't accept the options should be limited on the basis of the political arithmetic in the House of Commons.
"That is not how a decision as fundamental and as important to Ireland's future and Britain's future should be made," he told RTÉ.
Analysis: Is UK leaving the customs union?
Customs union, free trade area and single market - an explainer
All you need to know about Brexit
Prime Minister Theresa May reached a deal with the DUP in June after losing her majority in the general election in June.
The DUP, that has 10 MPs, agreed to back the Conservatives in key votes - such as a Budget and a confidence motion - but are not tied into supporting them on other measures.
With regard to Brexit, Mr Coveney said: "I don't think that the solutions for the permanent new relationship between Britain and Ireland and Britain and the EU should be subject to one political party of any hue."
He added: "Lots of parties on the island of Ireland have a view here, and I think we need to try to take all of those views on board.
"Of course we listen to the DUP, but we listen to other parties, too, in Northern Ireland, and we listen to all the parties in opposition and in government in Ireland, which is what we're trying to do with the stakeholders consultations."
Last month, the DUP's Nigel Dodds said part of the confidence and supply arrangement agreed with Theresa May is about ensuring the will of the people to leave the EU, as expressed in the Brexit referendum, is delivered in a timely and proper fashion.

Mr Coveney also said that if it was not possible for Britain to stay in the customs union and single market, then all sides would have to design a solution for the issues of the Irish border and co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
"That's why we are asking for a rethink, and for more progress and clarity on this issue before December," he said.
"Britain and Ireland, working through the structures that involve the EU Task Force, have to find a way forward that not only Britain can live with but that Ireland can live with too.
"If Northern Ireland goes a different direction from a regulatory point of view, then you create unfair playing fields, which on the back of that there is going to have to be systems of checks and balances, and inspections to ensure standards."
In response, the DUP's Diane Dodds said: "Mr Coveney cannot on one hand claim to support the Belfast Agreement whilst ignoring the principle of consent on the other.
"The DUP wants to see sensible and practical arrangements in place when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, but separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is simply unacceptable.
"This has been made clear by the UK government. The DUP will continue to use our influence to secure the union and deliver economic prosperity for all our people."

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Any person born in Northern Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen.

I wonder if there will be any citizen tourism to Belfast from the rest of the UK?

Not when Belfast's economy is destroyed there won't be. It also brings to mind the problem of the common travel area. How will Britain limit immigration will having free movement from Dublin to Belfast in place?

A Little Pony

You keep hearing "Hard Brexit", well that to me is Brexit, that is why I voted for Brexit. To leave the single market and customs union. It is what I expect the government to carry out.

A Little Pony

steddyeddy wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a topic for a different thread, but yes. The DUP has a hugely disproportionate influence on how the Brexit negotiations will proceed.

Very true. Simon Coveney seems to be playing a blinder in pointing this out and warning the British government not to base policy on what the DUP wants. From the BBC.

Brexit: DUP 'should not influence options' - Simon Coveney


Ireland's foreign minister has said the DUP's influence at Westminster should not limit the British government's options in the Brexit negotiations.
Simon Coveney was speaking at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
"I don't accept the options should be limited on the basis of the political arithmetic in the House of Commons.
"That is not how a decision as fundamental and as important to Ireland's future and Britain's future should be made," he told RTÉ.
Analysis: Is UK leaving the customs union?
Customs union, free trade area and single market - an explainer
All you need to know about Brexit
Prime Minister Theresa May reached a deal with the DUP in June after losing her majority in the general election in June.
The DUP, that has 10 MPs, agreed to back the Conservatives in key votes - such as a Budget and a confidence motion - but are not tied into supporting them on other measures.
With regard to Brexit, Mr Coveney said: "I don't think that the solutions for the permanent new relationship between Britain and Ireland and Britain and the EU should be subject to one political party of any hue."
He added: "Lots of parties on the island of Ireland have a view here, and I think we need to try to take all of those views on board.
"Of course we listen to the DUP, but we listen to other parties, too, in Northern Ireland, and we listen to all the parties in opposition and in government in Ireland, which is what we're trying to do with the stakeholders consultations."
Last month, the DUP's Nigel Dodds said part of the confidence and supply arrangement agreed with Theresa May is about ensuring the will of the people to leave the EU, as expressed in the Brexit referendum, is delivered in a timely and proper fashion.

Mr Coveney also said that if it was not possible for Britain to stay in the customs union and single market, then all sides would have to design a solution for the issues of the Irish border and co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
"That's why we are asking for a rethink, and for more progress and clarity on this issue before December," he said.
"Britain and Ireland, working through the structures that involve the EU Task Force, have to find a way forward that not only Britain can live with but that Ireland can live with too.
"If Northern Ireland goes a different direction from a regulatory point of view, then you create unfair playing fields, which on the back of that there is going to have to be systems of checks and balances, and inspections to ensure standards."
In response, the DUP's Diane Dodds said: "Mr Coveney cannot on one hand claim to support the Belfast Agreement whilst ignoring the principle of consent on the other.
"The DUP wants to see sensible and practical arrangements in place when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, but separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is simply unacceptable.
"This has been made clear by the UK government. The DUP will continue to use our influence to secure the union and deliver economic prosperity for all our people."

The DUP if it wanted could pull the plug on HM Government tomorrow, it is not in the interests for Theresa May or the Conservative Party to get on the wrong side of the DUP. It would immediately set up a general election for next year. The Tories could not function as it is without the DUP deal right now, they are as weak as it is, without the DUP they will be finished as far as this government is concerned.

So with respect this Irish minister, it's kind of irrelevant what he is saying because politically it's not in the Tories interests to "shy" away from the DUP on this issue.

listermint

A Little Pony wrote: »

You keep hearing "Hard Brexit", well that to me is Brexit, that is why I voted for Brexit. To leave the single market and customs union. It is what I expect the government to carry out.

And you are fully happy that means Most of your trade is gone in an instant, access to markets is gone in an instant. The most lucrative markets that which are ones that are local because geolocation matters for goods, is gone in an instant.

And you had all the controls over immigration already at the control of any government of the day so nothing changes in that respect.

With all that said, that is what you are happy about. Really ?


If so , why.