Brexit discussion thread II

Samaris

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I am not a resident of Northern Ireland.

It seems to me that there are two types calling for a sea border

- partitionists only interested in the South
- those who believe the economic destruction of Northern Ireland would hasten a united Ireland, who have no regard for the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.

I am neither which is why I am against a sea border.

Goodness, that is a dire outlook. Should Ireland look out for its own interests or not? Is there maybe, just possibly, a cohort of people that reckon the sea border is economically soundest for the Republic, which is, regardless of idealism (or the ignorance of David Davis) a separate country and juristiction from NI and by far the larger concern for those advocating the position of the Republic in a set of truly sh*tty negotiations that are going to screw us regardless?

Oh, they're all partitionists out to screw NI? Ok then.

I've made my issues with a sea border clear, but I'm not stooping to ascribe nefarious tactics to everyone that doesn't agree.

blanch152

Samaris wrote: »

Goodness, that is a dire outlook. Should Ireland look out for its own interests or not? Is there maybe, just possibly, a cohort of people that reckon the sea border is economically soundest for the Republic, which is, regardless of idealism (or the ignorance of David Davis) a separate country and juristiction from NI and by far the larger concern for those advocating the position of the Republic in a set of truly sh*tty negotiations that are going to screw us regardless?

Oh, they're all partitionists out to screw NI? Ok then.

I've made my issues with a sea border clear, but I'm not stooping to ascribe nefarious tactics to everyone that doesn't agree.

I will put it a different way, if the UK offered a sea border in exchange for passporting rights for financial firms, it would be in Ireland's interests to turn that offer down. However, there would be plenty on here who would prefer a sea border even if concessions to the UK damaged the economy of the South.

kowtow

Let's assume for the sake of argument for a moment that the whole UK leaves customs union and single market.

And that no kind of sea border is tolerable between NI & mainland UK other than the security checks which already exist.

There is already a border between North and South, that much is a matter of fact. The question is not whether or not that border continues to exist but what necessary steps must be taken to make it a more active boundary than it is today.

If the UK leaves the CU, and leaves the single market, and chooses to do nothing but implement token electronic surveillance on goods crossing the border... what happens then? Who needs to have a border there most (hard or otherwise)... the UK or the EU?

Nody

Samaris wrote: »

Regarding the ports, do we get to have any oversight of them? Are we just relying on British inspectors to enforce the rules? What -are- the rules? "Yep, this is definitely for NI only so it's under UK standards and regs and nothing to do with the EU or Republic". Well, that's nice and all but my issue is how is that enforced once they're passed? There are to be no practical checks at the Irish/NI crossing points, so how can anyone know whether it is EU regulated goods/livestock coming south or not?

This can be solved by stringent and deeply unpopular policies to only allow EU-standard goods from Britain to NI, which will mean that NI more or less entirely relies on non-British goods, but is a UK government going to enforce potentially debilitating conditions on NI for the good of an external market populated by non-voters such as ROI. Or will they fudge it for convenience and popularity because the ROI should look out for itself.

The only way a sea border works is to implement EU rules from that point forward; any mish mash of "oh this UK goods will stay in NI" is not doable as you point out; in practice NI would (for imports) be considered EU and all goods needs to meet EU regulation accordingly. The bigger challenge there would be on the question of tariff collection etc. However there is a second extension most people miss with that which is all production in NI have to be EU compliant as well and all new rules from EU needs to be written into UK law to apply for NI etc. as well as being followed. Saying we want checks at the port is nice and all but the implications goes way beyond having checks at the ports; for all intent and purpose NI becomes it's own country with unique laws only applying there in the UK.

Samaris

blanch152 wrote: »

I will put it a different way, if the UK offered a sea border in exchange for passporting rights for financial firms, it would be in Ireland's interests to turn that offer down. However, there would be plenty on here who would prefer a sea border even if concessions to the UK damaged the economy of the South.

Our economy is -going to be damaged-. This is inevitable and through no fault of the Republic. The question comes down to whether the ROI fights for what is best for it or whether it fights for what is best for NI. NI technically has the UK to fight its corner so it is absolutely understandable that ROI focus on what is best for ROI. The majority in here are ROI citizens and even my concerns for the problems of a sea border are far more rooted in ROI consequences than NI consequences. I do not want an unfair impisition on NI, but nor do I want it for ROI. There will be negative consequences for both no matter which solution is taken.

blanch152

Samaris wrote: »

Our economy is -going to be damaged-. This is inevitable and through no fault of the Republic. The question comes down to whether the ROI fights for what is best for it or whether it fights for what is best for NI. NI technically has the UK to fight its corner so it is absolutely understandable that ROI focus on what is best for ROI. The majority in here are ROI citizens and even my concerns for the problems of a sea border are far more rooted in ROI consequences than NI consequences. I do not want an unfair impisition on NI, but nor do I want it for ROI. There will be negative consequences for both no matter which solution is taken.

No issue with your position at all, just a slightly different emphasis from me.

steddyeddy

The British Sun had a go at Leo Varadker over his threat to block trade talks. Apparantly he should "shut his gob and grow up". Well if we're annoying the Sun readership we're doing something right.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4935355/irelands-pm-leo-varadkar-threatens-to-veto-brexit-trade-talks-as-he-meets-theresa-may/amp/

Samaris

steddyeddy wrote: »

The British Sun had a go at Leo Varadker over his threat to block trade talks. Apparantly he should "shut his gob and grow up". Well if we're annoying the Sun readership we're doing something right.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4935355/irelands-pm-leo-varadkar-threatens-to-veto-brexit-trade-talks-as-he-meets-theresa-may/amp/

The Sun, Mail and Express appear to have taken on the role of cultish propaganda spewers. Unsurprising that they'd turn on an outside country for wanting to protect itself. We all saw the "traitors" and "mutineers" bullsh*t against their own fellow citizens for daring to talk about problems.

Sickening tripe intended to corral its readership into a position of paranoia. That it is successful is deeply saddening but it's two farts in a windstorm for all it matters to Ireland (or reality if it comes to that.)

An Ciarraioch

Excellent long-form article by Tony Connolly detailing the timetable of negotiations over the Border to date - unsurprisingly, the Irish paper has covered specifics, while the British document concerned vague aspirations:

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/

Christy42

blanch152 wrote: »

I will put it a different way, if the UK offered a sea border in exchange for passporting rights for financial firms, it would be in Ireland's interests to turn that offer down. However, there would be plenty on here who would prefer a sea border even if concessions to the UK damaged the economy of the South.

Is there many? I agree that there we should go with the passport in rights but I don't see it coming down to that.

I am want a sea border purely for the economic interests of the south. I take no joy in the North being screwed over but NI suffering was decided in the Brexit vote.

You may well be talking about posters other than me.

NI is currently a UK territory and while I would like it to succeed I do feel if the UK is happy enough to send it further down the drain then the Republic should not suffer just to give NI a minor benefit. It should be the responsibility of the UK to look after its own territory.

flatty

I see a hard brexit land border. I do not see a GE, as may has proven she will do absolutely whatever it takes to cling to power. She proved this by bribing the bigots in the DUP with a billion pounds of money earned by, and belonging to, someone else (the taxpayer, at least 48% of who find her actions abhorrent). The tories won't pull the trigger as labour would have a significant chance of winning the next election, largely, Imo, on the back of keir starmer and his ability to pull in the mid road remain voters.
Even if a general election happens though, Corbyn will not alter the course of brexit. The best that may come would be a drawing out of the process, possibly with an easing of Teresa's red lines.
Honestly, I think there will be a full hard brexit, and the tories, may, Davis, and Boris in particular, will carry the blame, and may well become defunct within a decade. They will be a toxic brand if and when hard brexit bites.

flatty

I see a hard brexit land border. I do not see a GE, as may has proven she will do absolutely whatever it takes to cling to power. She proved this by bribing the bigots in the DUP with a billion pounds of money earned by, and belonging to, someone else (the taxpayer, at least 48% of who find her actions abhorrent). The tories won't pull the trigger as labour would have a significant chance of winning the next election, largely, Imo, on the back of keir starmer and his ability to pull in the mid road remain voters.
Even if a general election happens though, Corbyn will not alter the course of brexit. The best that may come would be a drawing out of the process, possibly with an easing of Teresa's red lines.
Honestly, I think there will be a full hard brexit, and the tories, may, Davis, and Boris in particular, will carry the blame, and may well become defunct within a decade. They will be a toxic brand if and when hard brexit bites.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I am not a resident of Northern Ireland.

It seems to me that there are two types calling for a sea border

- partitionists only interested in the South
- those who believe the economic destruction of Northern Ireland would hasten a united Ireland, who have no regard for the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.

Blanch please re-read that and realise how nonsensical that is. You're basically saying the two types of people who want a sea border are people who favor a united Ireland and those who favor partition. Leaving that aside how about I introduce a third option? I want a sea border in place of a hard border because it will protect the republic's economy from the massive costs and financial penalties of delays to trade.

I am neither which is why I am against a sea border.

As I suspected you're basing your opinion on the border on an opposition to someone else's opinion rather on economic facts.

For the Republic, a sea border makes little difference economically.

In other words you're saying that a where the border is placed will have no economic impact. Breaking it down further that means you think delays in trade don't equal increases in costs. That's wrong.

Some border areas will suffer but how we perform post-Brexit will be more about how we maximise the opportunities and minimise the downside. Making sure that we can take financial jobs from London is more important than whether there is a sea or a land border.

If our trade is affected then all areas will suffer. A sea border and taking financial sector jobs aren't mutually exclusive.

steddyeddy

Samaris wrote: »

A sea border is awful for NI. NI relies far more on Britain than either the Republic or the EU. It is going to suck for them regardless, mind, but a sea border will be tough for them.

It also requires a lot of ROI trust in the integrity of the UK. Is the UK going to stop goods that do not match EU standards coming to the island? Ireland isn't going to be able to do customs checks on an 'internal' UK sea border. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the UK would stop non-accredited goods coming to NI. Sooo...how does the Republic stop such goods coming south? Components currently manufactured in NI will still have issues being used in the south, albeit they are likely to be substantially (and temptingly) cheaper for at least a decade. Where will the checks be on those, part of the supply chains of southern businesses? May's own statements indicate she isn't even aware that packaging, country of origin info etc aren't some totes unfair EU rules, but part of the WTO framework, so I hope we're not relying on the cop on of British Ministers for Trade to ensure regulations and standards are kept. If so, we're on a hiding to losing exports and revenue ourselves. I am somewhat biased here in a sincere belief that the current British government could not identify an arse on an anatomical chart and would be utterly lost if it only had a map to find its own, let alone rely on them to understand complex trade standards and rules, but it seems pretty justified based on current performance.

If the North stays in...the EEA? The EU?- what does it mean for the citizens? Are they to be EU citizens? Optional EU through getting a ROI passport? What does this mean for travelling to Britain? Passport control for internal travel for British citizens? Does the EU need to support NI in any way, since that would be aiding Britain with EU taxpayers money. Are they just in regulatory limbo?

Now, despite the issues and despite that it sucks for NI, it would be the preferred choice for Ireland to have a sea border even so. The Republic is in the EU (and will take a hit either way). NI will soon not be (and will take a hit either way). So there will likely be a push for it from the EU side of the table, particularly Ireland. So it goes.

It is arrogant nonsense to dismiss any problems with it as "Unionist". Not every person who disagrees is an ideological enemy, nor are they neccessarily aligned with unionists, republicans or the damn Tooth Fairy. Both choices are crap for a large number of people and it is an honest part of discussion to acknowledge that.

It is a sh*t sandwich and it won't be a great deal of fun to be on either side of it. All the Republic can do is try to get further away from the sh*t that we had absolutely no say in and the land border gets the sh*t quite up close and personal. Sticking it in the sea doesn't change that it is still smelling pretty unpleasent though.

Listen I agree 100%. A sea border will likely leave NI in a slightly worse position. However a sea border will also mean that NI's in the single market. This could mean that NI could potentially poach financial sector jobs from London. Might not happen, but there you go.

I think people in the republic are getting a bit annoyed by Northern Ireland when it comes to Brexit. On one hand people from the republic are lambasted for trying to get involved in any way with Northern Ireland and on the other hand you have people like Blanch insinuating that we must sacrifice our economy for theirs.

In other words we in the Republic (well I'm in England) should stay out of Northern Ireland's business, but insist on policies that damage our economy to preserve theirs.

I'm with you on the unionist comment. I don't mean to label any other opinion as unionist (or partitionist or Shinner if you're blanch). I drank in plenty of places in NI including unionist (opposed to loyalist) bars. They're nice people with a different opinion to my own.

The DUP are the ones I have a problem with. I know they don't represent all unionists, but their the ones who campaigned for Brexit and I don't think the republic should take into consideration their views on what should happen.

steddyeddy

Christy42 wrote: »

Is there many? I agree that there we should go with the passport in rights but I don't see it coming down to that.

I am want a sea border purely for the economic interests of the south. I take no joy in the North being screwed over but NI suffering was decided in the Brexit vote.

You may well be talking about posters other than me.

NI is currently a UK territory and while I would like it to succeed I do feel if the UK is happy enough to send it further down the drain then the Republic should not suffer just to give NI a minor benefit. It should be the responsibility of the UK to look after its own territory.

That's exactly where I am. The people in the North have suffered hugely. They certainly don't need any more suffering. However this current dilemma is down to the British and the British alone. We shouldn't fail to protect ourselves because of British actions.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Blanch please re-read that and realise how nonsensical that is. You're basically saying the two types of people who want a sea border are people who favor a united Ireland and those who favor partition. Leaving that aside how about I introduce a third option? I want a sea border in place of a hard border because it will protect the republic's economy from the massive costs and financial penalties of delays to trade.



As I suspected you're basing your opinion on the border on an opposition to someone else's opinion rather on economic facts.



In other words you're saying that a where the border is placed will have no economic impact. Breaking it down further that means you think delays in trade don't equal increases in costs. That's wrong.



If our trade is affected then all areas will suffer. A sea border and taking financial sector jobs aren't mutually exclusive.

My post is clear and is not contradictory.

A sea border is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland. Those who favour a sea border either don't care about Northern Ireland and are partitionists (I have no issue with these, that is an ROI-first position and a perfectly sane position) or want a sea border to destroy Northern Ireland economically as they believe that brings a united Ireland closer (these people are prepared to see the people of the North suffer for their cause, an insane position).

Your position - wanting a sea border instead of a hard border - doesn't make any sense. A sea border is a hard border.

Dont be at yourself

We should absolutely apply leverage in the negotiations to protect our interest, whether that's regarding Northern Ireland or any other issue.

That this has caught the Tory's unaware just speaks to how foresighted this entire Brexit endeavour has been. Every step of the way, across all three key issues, the UK Government has been aghast that the EU are acting in their own collective and national interest, and not just bending the knee to the UK.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

My post is clear and is not contradictory.

A sea border is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland. Those who favour a sea border either don't care about Northern Ireland and are partitionists (I have no issue with these, that is an ROI-first position and a perfectly sane position) or want a sea border to destroy Northern Ireland economically as they believe that brings a united Ireland closer (these people are prepared to see the people of the North suffer for their cause, an insane position).

Your position - wanting a sea border instead of a hard border - doesn't make any sense. A sea border is a hard border.

You still have yet to produce the data that shows the difference in cost between a sea border and a hard one.

I think a sea border(because it will keep them in the EU) will stall a UI actually but is better for everyone.
A hard border is in nobody's interests

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You still have yet to produce the data that shows the difference in cost between a sea border and a hard one.

I think a sea border(because it will keep them in the EU) will stall a UI actually but is better for everyone.
A hard border is in nobody's interests

There will be a hard border, the only difference is whether it is between the North and the South or between the two islands.

A sea border brings only marginal benefit to the South and is economically disastrous for the North and the price the UK will extract for a concession to have a sea border will most likely be more than enough to eliminate the marginal benefit.

The only solution that will benefit Ireland (and by that I mean the South) is the UK remaining part of the SM and CU.

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

Our economy is -going to be damaged-. This is inevitable and through no fault of the Republic. The question comes down to whether the ROI fights for what is best for it or whether it fights for what is best for NI. NI technically has the UK to fight its corner so it is absolutely understandable that ROI focus on what is best for ROI. The majority in here are ROI citizens and even my concerns for the problems of a sea border are far more rooted in ROI consequences than NI consequences. I do not want an unfair impisition on NI, but nor do I want it for ROI. There will be negative consequences for both no matter which solution is taken.

Good evening!

Admittedly, I don't know why people are extolling the sea border as a great option for the Republic.

Hemorrhaging Northern Ireland's economy by adding friction between it and the rest of the United Kingdom isn't good for the Republic. If your trading partner has less cash by virtue of this, it means that they have less to spend on your goods.

Needless to say - the logical approach for Ireland should be seeking to get the best trading terms possible with the UK by urging the European Commission to discuss trade and customs terms in phase 2 to find a resolution.

Leo Varadkar's approach isn't praiseworthy. If it is heeded it is going to make no deal more likely, not less. David Davis is right to point out that the EU needs to be more flexible. I hope they will be. The border cannot be guaranteed until trade and customs terms are discussed - he knows this - the UK knows this - the EU knows this. I suspect it's a roundabout way of trying to coerce the UK to stay in the single market and customs union.

It won't work, because no control will have been regained and and it is worse than the status quo.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

There will be a hard border, the only difference is whether it is between the North and the South or between the two islands.

A sea border brings only marginal benefit to the South and is economically disastrous for the North and the price the UK will extract for a concession to have a sea border will most likely be more than enough to eliminate the marginal benefit.

The only solution that will benefit Ireland (and by that I mean the South) is the UK remaining part of the SM and CU.

I fail to understand why a sea border will be so damaging to NI.

Will Bombardier be unable to deliver their wings?

Will milk tankers have trouble delivering their milk to creameries in Cavan if there is a sea border, or will it be easier to have a hard border?

Will imports from the UK be affected? [Tesco, M&S, Sainsbury] Will German cars imported from the UK have difficulty arriving into NI vs the same German cars entering the Irish market?

What exports to the UK, apart from agri-products, does NI have? [This is aside from products shipped via the UK for onward shipping to other markets].

I have not seen any detailed analysis of this.

The people side of this is easy, just have ID cards for all UK residents, plus Irish residents. It will not matter then where the border is.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

My post is clear and is not contradictory.

A sea border is the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland. Those who favour a sea border either don't care about Northern Ireland and are partitionists (I have no issue with these, that is an ROI-first position and a perfectly sane position) or want a sea border to destroy Northern Ireland economically as they believe that brings a united Ireland closer (these people are prepared to see the people of the North suffer for their cause, an insane position).

Your position - wanting a sea border instead of a hard border - doesn't make any sense. A sea border is a hard border.

It doesn't make on iota of sense. You're saying a sea border is the same as a hard land border. It isn't. The republic would benefit a lot more from a sea border.

FrancieBrady

Sam Russell wrote: »

I fail to understand why a sea border will be so damaging to NI.

Will Bombardier be unable to deliver their wings?

Will milk tankers have trouble delivering their milk to creameries in Cavan if there is a sea border, or will it be easier to have a hard border?

Will imports from the UK be affected? [Tesco, M&S, Sainsbury] Will German cars imported from the UK have difficulty arriving into NI vs the same German cars entering the Irish market?

What exports to the UK, apart from agri-products, does NI have? [This is aside from products shipped via the UK for onward shipping to other markets].

I have not seen any detailed analysis of this.

The people side of this is easy, just have ID cards for all UK residents, plus Irish residents. It will not matter then where the border is.

No data has been produced. Just export import figures. Yet a sea border is suicide.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

(cut extraneous)
Needless to say - the logical approach for Ireland should be seeking to get the best trading terms possible with the UK by urging the European Commission to discuss trade and customs terms in phase 2 to find a resolution.

The best trading terms possible are membership of the customs union and single market. You mean we need to want the second best possible but the UK doesn't appear to know what those are.

I don't see why Ireland has to do the UK's homework for it.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Sam Russell wrote: »

I fail to understand why a sea border will be so damaging to NI.

Will Bombardier be unable to deliver their wings?

Will milk tankers have trouble delivering their milk to creameries in Cavan if there is a sea border, or will it be easier to have a hard border?

Trade to the rest of the UK is the issue. That's £14.4bn pounds a year.
Trade to the Republic is £3.6bn a year.
Trade to the rest of the EU is £2.05bn a year.
Trade to the rest of the world (already subject to some friction) is £3.9bn

If you took all of Northern Ireland's exports combined, they are less than what it sells into the rest of the UK.

Therefore a sea border is bad for Northern Ireland. The EU and the UK both should be willing to be flexible here to find a bespoke solution.

Friction affecting trade with the rest of the UK is therefore worse than friction affecting trade with Ireland or the EU.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will imports from the UK be affected? [Tesco, M&S, Sainsbury] Will German cars imported from the UK have difficulty arriving into NI vs the same German cars entering the Irish market?

Yes, if you impose a customs frontier between one part of the United Kingdom and another.

Sam Russell wrote: »

What exports to the UK, apart from agri-products, does NI have? [This is aside from products shipped via the UK for onward shipping to other markets].

I have not seen any detailed analysis of this.

The people side of this is easy, just have ID cards for all UK residents, plus Irish residents. It will not matter then where the border is.

Read the UK Government's position paper which has the figures I cited. It does sector by sector analysis.

Agri-food only makes up about £2bn of NI's trade with the UK. Other manufacturing and distribution makes up £8bn.

Northern Ireland's service trade with mainland Britain is nearly as much as its whole trade with Ireland at £3.3bn.

The only outcome of asking for a sea border is that the UK says no. Realistic solutions need to be put forward by both parties.

Calina wrote: »

The best trading terms possible are membership of the customs union and single market. You mean we need to want the second best possible but the UK doesn't appear to know what those are.

I don't see why Ireland has to do the UK's homework for it.

The UK won't agree to this as it offers no benefit to it. It's worse than the status quo. There's no point in trying and there's no good reason why the UK should accept a deal that doesn't give it additional freedoms as a result of leaving.

What Leo Varadkar is currently doing is pushing the UK to no deal. Not pushing it to single market and customs union membership.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Charles Babbage

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!
Agri-food only makes up about £2bn of NI's trade with the UK. Other manufacturing and distribution makes up £8bn.
solodeogloria

This is why a sea border can work. Unless Britain loses the run of itself completely there will be some sort of deal on manufactures and so these will not incur any delay passing across the Irish sea, especially as this is an ideal situation for trusted traders etc.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

I fail to understand why a sea border will be so damaging to NI.

Will Bombardier be unable to deliver their wings?

Will milk tankers have trouble delivering their milk to creameries in Cavan if there is a sea border, or will it be easier to have a hard border?

Will imports from the UK be affected? [Tesco, M&S, Sainsbury] Will German cars imported from the UK have difficulty arriving into NI vs the same German cars entering the Irish market?

What exports to the UK, apart from agri-products, does NI have? [This is aside from products shipped via the UK for onward shipping to other markets].

I have not seen any detailed analysis of this.

The people side of this is easy, just have ID cards for all UK residents, plus Irish residents. It will not matter then where the border is.

Good evening!



Trade to the rest of the UK is the issue. That's £14.4bn pounds a year.
Trade to the Republic is £3.6bn a year.
Trade to the rest of the EU is £2.05bn a year.
Trade to the rest of the world (already subject to some friction) is £3.9bn

If you took all of Northern Ireland's exports combined, they are less than what it sells into the rest of the UK.

Therefore a sea border is bad for Northern Ireland. The EU and the UK both should be willing to be flexible here to find a bespoke solution.

Friction affecting trade with the rest of the UK is therefore worse than friction affecting trade with Ireland or the EU.



Yes, if you impose a customs frontier between one part of the United Kingdom and another.



Read the UK Government's position paper which has the figures I cited. It does sector by sector analysis.

Agri-food only makes up about £2bn of NI's trade with the UK. Other manufacturing and distribution makes up £8bn.

Northern Ireland's service trade with mainland Britain is nearly as much as its whole trade with Ireland at £3.3bn.

The only outcome of asking for a sea border is that the UK says no. Realistic solutions need to be put forward by both parties.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You are missing my point.

What is produced in NI, outside agri-food, that is exported to the UK? Not stuff that is exported to the UK for onward shipping to its ultimate destination.

Bombardier wings could be exported from Dublin just as easily from wherever they go from.

How much of the imports to NI could be shipped through Ireland or sourced through Ireland? For example, if the goods originate outside of the UK, they could be sourced through Ireland, with little economic dis-benefit.

Just giving figures in totals is a bit like Tesco, M&S, etc. producing company results for the UK and Ireland but refusing to detail them - in case it shows unfavourably on the companies.

Details, details, not just waffle from Davies, May, Johnson, Gove does nothing to move the issues forward. For example, Johnson conflating the NI border with Dover Calais - just to obfuscate and confuse.




It appears, from a Google search, this information is not collated in a useful way - probably because it was previously not considered useful to know this type of breakdown.

It is the details that would illuminate the economic costs of either a land border vs a sea border. If the cost of operating either, then a proper decision will become obvious.

Vronsky

Why should RoI give two fiddler's what's good for the NI economy? RoI has to push for what is in its own interest. The UK will offer NI in exchange for some concession on trade. This will suit Ireland, as Ireland wants the trade relationship kept as open as possible - we have to remember that concessions for the UK on trade are in Irelands interest.

The UK may put the border proposal to a referendum in NI to bypass the DUP. This would probably pass if it meant EU money kept flowing north.

If the UK is arguing that a trusted trader solution can work for the border on the 6 counties, I fail to see why it couldn't work on the Irish sea.

Unless of course the electronic border solution was a load of baloney.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

I fail to understand why a sea border will be so damaging to NI.

Will Bombardier be unable to deliver their wings?

Will milk tankers have trouble delivering their milk to creameries in Cavan if there is a sea border, or will it be easier to have a hard border?

Will imports from the UK be affected? [Tesco, M&S, Sainsbury] Will German cars imported from the UK have difficulty arriving into NI vs the same German cars entering the Irish market?

What exports to the UK, apart from agri-products, does NI have? [This is aside from products shipped via the UK for onward shipping to other markets].

I have not seen any detailed analysis of this.

The people side of this is easy, just have ID cards for all UK residents, plus Irish residents. It will not matter then where the border is.

Northern Ireland's biggest export market is the rest of the UK. Figures were provided on this pages ago.

As for Tesco/M&S/Sainsbury imports, yes, they won't be prevented, but they will be subject to tariffs and inspections.

First Up

blanch152 wrote:

There will be a hard border, the only difference is whether it is between the North and the South or between the two islands.

Correct, although some would also be prepared to compromise our inclusion in the Single Market to preserve the illusion of a borderless Ireland.

I don't give a rats about a united Ireland - given the entrenched mentalities on both sides it would be a ticking bomb anyway.

I'll leave the UK to sort out the mess of its own creation. Any border anywhere is better for us than one between us and the rest of the EU.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are missing my point.

What is produced in NI, outside agri-food, that is exported to the UK? Not stuff that is exported to the UK for onward shipping to its ultimate destination.

Bombardier wings could be exported from Dublin just as easily from wherever they go from.

How much of the imports to NI could be shipped through Ireland or sourced through Ireland? For example, if the goods originate outside of the UK, they could be sourced through Ireland, with little economic dis-benefit.

Just giving figures in totals is a bit like Tesco, M&S, etc. producing company results for the UK and Ireland but refusing to detail them - in case it shows unfavourably on the companies.

Details, details, not just waffle from Davies, May, Johnson, Gove does nothing to move the issues forward. For example, Johnson conflating the NI border with Dover Calais - just to obfuscate and confuse.




It appears, from a Google search, this information is not collated in a useful way - probably because it was previously not considered useful to know this type of breakdown.

It is the details that would illuminate the economic costs of either a land border vs a sea border. If the cost of operating either, then a proper decision will become obvious.

Good evening!

With all due respect - please read the paper I linked to. It distinguishes exports between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic, Northern Ireland and the EU, Northern Ireland and the rest of the world.

The facts are that rest of UK trade is worth more than all of its exports combined.

If you're not willing to accept what research that the Government have done then I can't particularly help you. But the facts are as a part of the United Kingdom Northern Ireland is obviously massively integrated with the rest of that market. A sea border would have a negative impact on that market.

The paper groups goods according to their final destination, not based on where it is shipped through. You can follow up the citations if you wish.

The better objective rather than messing around with sea borders or anything else, is to push for good trade terms between the whole of Ireland and the whole of Britain. Adding friction within the United Kingdom isn't a goer, it'll just be rejected immediately for obvious reasons.

Vronsky - if you think harming a trade partners economy is going to be good for trade with it. Think again. That isn't how it works. Less cash in NI will have an impact on any trade that happens between it and the Republic.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Vronsky

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

With all due respect - please read the paper I linked to. It distinguishes exports between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic, Northern Ireland and the EU, Northern Ireland and the rest of the world.

The facts are that rest of UK trade is worth more than all of its exports combined.

If you're not willing to accept what research that the Government have done then I can't particularly help you. But the facts are as a part of the United Kingdom Northern Ireland is obviously massively integrated with the rest of that market. A sea border would have a negative impact on that market.

The paper groups goods according to their final destination, not based on where it is shipped through. You can follow up the citations if you wish.

The better objective rather than messing around with sea borders or anything else, is to push for good trade terms between the whole of Ireland and the whole of Britain. Adding friction within the United Kingdom isn't a goer, it'll just be rejected immediately for obvious reasons.

Vronsky - if you think harming a trade partners economy is going to be good for trade with it. Think again. That isn't how it works. Less cash in NI will have an impact on any trade that happens between it and the Republic.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's the UK that is harming the NI economy. The best solution from an Irish perspective would be the whole UK staying in the CU and SM. But since the UK took that of the table we can push for the bit of the UK on the island we share to stay in the CU and SM. This is the least worse option vs a border between NI and RoI from an RoI perspective and that's ALL that matters for the Irish government.

We couldn't care less if this causes greater hardship for NI economically vs a border on the island since it is not in the Irish national interest, and the hard border would harm the Irish economy more.

An Irish government will not push a solution that impoverishes itself, nor can it be expected to.

Let there be no mistake it is the government of the UK that is taking action to harm the economy of NI, and it will be harmed whatever the outcome

solodeogloria

Vronsky wrote: »

It's the UK that is harming the NI economy. The best solution from an Irish perspective would be the whole UK staying in the CU and SM. But since the UK took that of the table we can push for the bit of the UK on the island we share to stay in the CU and SM. This is the least worse option vs a border between NI and RoI from an RoI perspective and that's ALL that matters for the Irish government.

We couldn't care less if this causes greater hardship for NI economically vs a border on the island since it is not in the Irish national interest, and the hard border would harm the Irish economy more.

An Irish government will not push a solution that impoverishes itself, nor can it be expected to.

Let there be no mistake it is the government of the UK that is taking action to harm the economy of NI, and it will be harmed whatever the outcome

Good evening!

Last post for today.

There's no evidence whatsoever that having a sea border would be better for the Republic. More friction with UK trade isn't good for Northern Ireland, and if Northern Ireland suffers it won't benefit the Republic. It will have a negative impact on trade it does with the Republic if anything.

The best solution is to put pressure on the European Commission to move to deal with the customs and trade issues in phase 2 which will allow for more substantive progress to be made on how open the land border will be and even more important for Ireland - how good trade terms with the UK as a whole will be.

That's the real issue that needs to be tackled. It will also have an impact on how Irish goods even reach mainland Europe. Again - Ireland should be putting pressure on the EU to progress, rather than what Varadkar is doing which is presenting unfeasible options that actually just push the UK towards no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Vronsky

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Last post for today.

There's no evidence whatsoever that having a sea border would be better for the Republic. More friction with UK trade isn't good for Northern Ireland, and if Northern Ireland suffers it won't benefit the Republic. It will have a negative impact on trade it does with the Republic if anything.

The best solution is to put pressure on the European Commission to move to deal with the customs and trade issues in phase 2 which will allow for more substantive progress to be made on how open the land border will be and even more important for Ireland - how good trade terms with the UK as a whole will be.

That's the real issue that needs to be tackled. It will also have an impact on how Irish goods even reach mainland Europe. Again - Ireland should be putting pressure on the EU to progress, rather than what Varadkar is doing which is presenting unfeasible options that actually just push the UK towards no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No, from an Irish perspective, the best option is to stall the talks at this point until the UK rejoins reality. The Irish government has an effective veto at this point, where it wont later. The time to win concessions for Ireland from the UK is now. The UK should be squeezed until the pips squeak over the Irish question, and I make no apology for stating that. The Irish national interest trumps everything else from an Irish pov.

Yes this is high stakes diplomacy, but the Irish govt has little choice if it's to defend the Irish national interest.

What is good for NI is immaterial.

FrancieBrady

Vronsky wrote: »

No, from an Irish perspective, the best option is to stall the talks at this point until the UK rejoins reality. The Irish government has an effective veto at this point, where it wont later. The time to win concessions for Ireland from the UK is now. The UK should be squeezed until the pips squeak over the Irish question, and I make no apology for stating that. The Irish national interest trumps everything else from an Irish pov.

Yes this is high stakes diplomacy, but the Irish govt has little choice if it's to defend the Irish national interest.

What is good for NI is immaterial.

DeValera stood up to what the Brexiteers thought was their greatest PM. All Varadkar has to do is stand up to probably the weakest and least secure British PM ever.
Has he the balls? Not convinced yet.

Charles Babbage

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland's biggest export market is the rest of the UK. Figures were provided on this pages ago.

As for Tesco/M&S/Sainsbury imports, yes, they won't be prevented, but they will be subject to tariffs and inspections.

Tesco more or less has an All ireland distribution from Ireland's biggest shed out near Lissenhall junction on the M1. It would suit them to have the same arrangements for all products.

ancapailldorcha

What I find disconcerting is that the only party that has shown any concern for Northern Ireland is the European Union. NI was barely an afterthought in the campaigns. The Leave side didn't mention it at all whereas the Remain side seemed to busy with economic projections designed to woo potential Tory Leave voters into voting remain.

The EU have made the border issue a central element of the negotiations, so much so that negotiations cannot progress until agreement is reached. It's baffling that the pro-Brexit brigade seem to think that putting it off until phase 2 is a good thing. The British public voted for this mess, they should be the ones to shoulder the consequences. I don't know enough about Varadkar's Politics or his record to form an opinion of him but it's heartening to see him getting tough on London for recklessly risking the Peace process.

This brings me to my final point. We now have such a rabid, anti-intellectual, racist, misogynistic press so desperate to cut immigration that anyone who dares even talk about the topic in a reasoned matter, never mind ensuring that the law of the land is upheld is pilloried. Look at Gina Miller, a private citizen who dared to hold the government to account or the three judges who were deemed to be enemies of the people. There will be A LOT more of this. Everyone will be blamed from "Remoaner saboteurs" to "London, Liberal Elites (TM)". It will never be the Tory Brexit brigade's fault. Never. Historically, this sort of anti-intellectual ideological zealotry tends to end very, very badly.

Leonard Hofstadter

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Last post for today.

There's no evidence whatsoever that having a sea border would be better for the Republic. More friction with UK trade isn't good for Northern Ireland, and if Northern Ireland suffers it won't benefit the Republic. It will have a negative impact on trade it does with the Republic if anything.

The best solution is to put pressure on the European Commission to move to deal with the customs and trade issues in phase 2 which will allow for more substantive progress to be made on how open the land border will be and even more important for Ireland - how good trade terms with the UK as a whole will be.

That's the real issue that needs to be tackled. It will also have an impact on how Irish goods even reach mainland Europe. Again - Ireland should be putting pressure on the EU to progress, rather than what Varadkar is doing which is presenting unfeasible options that actually just push the UK towards no deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If a FTA is negotiated then there is no guarantee that there will be no border as the UK would only have to conform to EU standards on exports to the EU.

So at best, if the border isn't nailed down now then there will still be a border even after a FTA is agreed unless the UK guarantees to keep EU standards for everything (which would negate the supposed 'benefit' of leaving the customs union and single market), you've frequently said this is not acceptable and is a non-runner for the UK, so we must assume that the UK is only going to maintain standards on EU exports, that's not acceptable to the EU and would undermine the single market so that means a border.

So given that the current options will result in a hard border either way, it makes perfect sense for the Irish Government to try and force the UK Government and DUP to orbit back into planet Earth - after all once we give the green light to go to phase 2 we have no control over what happens in terms of the border - it's too late then.

I do want to see trade talks happen with the UK and I have no desire to see my friends in the UK being made even poorer than they already will be as a result of the stupidity of their elders (especially as they are millennials like myself and all voted to remain in the referendum and are appalled by the stance their Government has taken). By extension, I have no desire to see Ireland poorer over something we have no control over and we need to make Brexit as much of a damage limitation exercise as we can and of course a FTA would help try and minimise the damage.

I also don't want to see all the cultural, political and economic ties, and more normal, healthy and positive relationships we have built between our two countries being undone (which is exactly what will happen if there is a border and anyone with even the remotest familiarity with the border and its history knows will happen)

Ireland has the upper hand in the negotiations right now and frankly all I care about is what is in (the Republic of) Ireland's interest - which is to nail down the border now before we move on to trade talks and make sure there is no undermining of the Good Friday Agreement or free movement of goods and peoples between our two countries. If we want to see a solution to this impasse then it is up to the Conservative/DUP Government to provide it - we have already tried to offered solutions to the problem (stay in the SM/CU or move the border to the Irish Sea) but they aren't acceptable to the UK, so it's back to Britain to provide us with alternatives which are acceptable to us and them.

Water John

The EU has made the NI border a high priority because the Irish Govn't and wider Parliament along with some very dedicated public servants, put in the hard graft to see that it happened. Credit, where it's due.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What I find disconcerting is that the only party that has shown any concern for Northern Ireland is the European Union. NI was barely an afterthought in the campaigns. The Leave side didn't mention it at all whereas the Remain side seemed to busy with economic projections designed to woo potential Tory Leave voters into voting remain.

The EU have made the border issue a central element of the negotiations, so much so that negotiations cannot progress until agreement is reached. It's baffling that the pro-Brexit brigade seem to think that putting it off until phase 2 is a good thing. The British public voted for this mess, they should be the ones to shoulder the consequences. I don't know enough about Varadkar's Politics or his record to form an opinion of him but it's heartening to see him getting tough on London for recklessly risking the Peace process.

This brings me to my final point. We now have such a rabid, anti-intellectual, racist, misogynistic press so desperate to cut immigration that anyone who dares even talk about the topic in a reasoned matter, never mind ensuring that the law of the land is upheld is pilloried. Look at Gina Miller, a private citizen who dared to hold the government to account or the three judges who were deemed to be enemies of the people. There will be A LOT more of this. Everyone will be blamed from "Remoaner saboteurs" to "London, Liberal Elites (TM)". It will never be the Tory Brexit brigade's fault. Never. Historically, this sort of anti-intellectual ideological zealotry tends to end very, very badly.

Personally I am happy with Dublin so far. I think they have brought the issue of Ireland to the fore quite well so far. Tough talking ahead though.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

That's the real issue that needs to be tackled. It will also have an impact on how Irish goods even reach mainland Europe. Again - Ireland should be putting pressure on the EU to progress, rather than what Varadkar is doing which is presenting unfeasible options that actually just push the UK towards no deal.

Actually the real issue is that hairy fairy nonsense that is the U.K. negotiation approach needed to be brought to a close. This week was the first of several large doses of reality that will be applied to the process in the coming weeks and months!

In the coming months the U.K. will come to realize that when you negotiate with one of the largest and wealthiest trading blocks in the world you don't get to dictate terms, you get to decide whether you want to accept what is on offer with a few face saving tweets if you are lucky. The EU will offer the U.K. a Canadian style FTA, services will be excluded as usual and the U.K. will have three options: accept, walk or apply to EFTA - hope to be accepted and enter the EEA.

And when it comes to the WTO they will discover that the order is exactly the same - major trading blocks do not negotiate to their own disadvantage. It is already clear that the US etc have no intention of yielding any part of their trade schedules to the U.K., so once again the U.K. will be negotiating from a point of weakness combined with a requirement to operate in accordance with WTO rules and approvals.

Now you can continue to believe in the BREXIT dream, but really at this stage for most outsiders it has be come a sense of bewilderment and amusement. The question being what will crazy uncle Rupert do next....

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What I find disconcerting is that the only party that has shown any concern for Northern Ireland is the European Union. NI was barely an afterthought in the campaigns. The Leave side didn't mention it at all whereas the Remain side seemed to busy with economic projections designed to woo potential Tory Leave voters into voting remain.

The EU have made the border issue a central element of the negotiations, so much so that negotiations cannot progress until agreement is reached. It's baffling that the pro-Brexit brigade seem to think that putting it off until phase 2 is a good thing. The British public voted for this mess, they should be the ones to shoulder the consequences. I don't know enough about Varadkar's Politics or his record to form an opinion of him but it's heartening to see him getting tough on London for recklessly risking the Peace process.

This brings me to my final point. We now have such a rabid, anti-intellectual, racist, misogynistic press so desperate to cut immigration that anyone who dares even talk about the topic in a reasoned matter, never mind ensuring that the law of the land is upheld is pilloried. Look at Gina Miller, a private citizen who dared to hold the government to account or the three judges who were deemed to be enemies of the people. There will be A LOT more of this. Everyone will be blamed from "Remoaner saboteurs" to "London, Liberal Elites (TM)". It will never be the Tory Brexit brigade's fault. Never. Historically, this sort of anti-intellectual ideological zealotry tends to end very, very badly.

Good morning!

I guess I'm a part of the "Brexit brigade" or the "Tory Brexit Brigade" for the purposes of this thread.

It isn't about "putting it off" until phase 2. It is that the border can only be effectively discussed with trade and customs terms. How open or closed the border will be depends on what the EU will offer Britain in respect to trade and customs.

Varadkar is only pushing Britain towards no deal. He isn't pushing anyone to accept remaining in the customs union and single market. This isn't good for anyone.

There's nothing "anti-intellectual" about my position either. This is just an ad-hominem. I agree that we should avoid terms like "enemies of the people" or "mutineers" or whatever else the press might want to say.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Alan_P

solodeogloria wrote: »

Varadkar is only pushing Britain towards no deal.[solodeogloria

No Theresa May did that when she ruled out staying in the SM and CU. That was an act of almost juvenile stupidity, a rank and blatant attempt to placate her own party imbeciles that have have destroyed the last 5 Conservative party leaders.

By the way have you seen her talking about Brexit lately ? It's incoherent nonsense, random words strung together.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I guess I'm a part of the "Brexit brigade" or the "Tory Brexit Brigade" for the purposes of this thread.

It isn't about "putting it off" until phase 2. It is that the border can only be effectively discussed with trade and customs terms. How open or closed the border will be depends on what the EU will offer Britain in respect to trade and customs.

Varadkar is only pushing Britain towards no deal. He isn't pushing anyone to accept remaining in the customs union and single market. This isn't good for anyone.

There's nothing "anti-intellectual" about my position either. This is just an ad-hominem. I agree that we should avoid terms like "enemies of the people" or "mutineers" or whatever else the press might want to say.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I actually disagree with your key assertion here. You can make a decision on the border or the trade first, and whichever you make a decision on dictates the other.

For example, if you want an open border, then you de facto agree to SM/CU membership.

If you decide up front, that you are against SM/CU membership, de facto that implies a controlled border.

Now, the interesting thing is that the UK government has decided up front no SM/CU membership so that dictates a controlled border. Assertions by the UK government mean they are looking for two mutually incompatible things: controled border by reason of trade desires - and no FTA is going to make that go away - none - or no controled border which means not controlled border. This flies in the face of "Getting back control of the border".

So the point is, the decision is made that there will be a controled border and that decision was made by the UK government. What is now up for negotiation is where that border will be, Irish Sea or island of Ireland. That can be negotiated now because the aspect of trade negotiations which dictates its existence has already been decided by the British Government. It can be decided now and it is wrong and naive to assume it cannot be.

The problem as I see it is that the UK doesn't want to admit that a) NI voted against Brexit and b) regardless which option they choose, border on Ireland or sea border, NI gets screwed one way or another. Whatever comes out of a negotiated trade agreement - and iirc the suggestion is that given current UK red lines, Canada is the nearest to what is on offer - will not change the need for a controled border somewhere between the UK - because let's face it - that's what they bleeding well voted for

The fact that you, and various UK government reps won't accept this has little to do with "this is trade related and that's phase 2", it's "we screwed NI and we have no way of admitting this without a lot of people in NI getting very unhappy and that's before we deal with the Scots who aren't exactly happy either."

The red lines which the UK has set up front - no ECJ, no Customs Union, no Single Market 4 Freedoms participation - have dictated the fact that we have arrived at this situation. Responsibility for it lies with the UK, as indeed, does responsibility for this entire debacle.

I'm aware you're probably going to ignore this because it doesn't suit your world view right now. But there is no actual reason for trade to dictate the border. The border can just as easily dictate trade. There is no natural choice for one to be decided first over the other.

The other point solo - again - is the UK is not economically benefited by this whole charade and its primary objective was to deal with a Tory internal problem. I find it very sad to be honest.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK won't agree to this as it offers no benefit to it. It's worse than the status quo. There's no point in trying and there's no good reason why the UK should accept a deal that doesn't give it additional freedoms as a result of leaving.

Absolutely everything is worse than the status quo. The UK needs to look within to understand why Germany is whipping its ass in trading with non-EU countries - the problem is not now EU membership.

PS: the answer to why is complex, features government education and industrial policy to begin with.

Water John

Alan, your correct. May is totally run out of ideas. That's why all you get in a microphone from her now, is gibberish. Like a poor computer programme, filled with the relevant (for her), words. these are then spouted out, at random.
One gets the feeling of, the emperor has no clothes from all the key Brexit Ministers. No plan and they all watching each other.

The Rape of Lucretia

May has no ideas, because there are no ideas that make Brexit workable or a good idea. It is imply IMPOSSIBLE.

- you cannot have a border on the island of Ireland and simultansously not have a border on the island of Ireland
- you cannot retain, let alone improve, your trading position by leaving a trade agreement with the biggest trading block in the world, which also happens to be on your doorstep, when the existing trade agreement is abslutely NO tarrifs or barriers
- you cannot not allow migrant workers into the UK because you dont want foreigners coming into the UK, and simultaneously, want foreigners coming into the UK to keep your economy going
- you cannot decline to give permanent residency rights and benefits to EU residents in the UK, yet expect the EU to allow UK residents currently living in the EU to retain residency rights and benefits there
- you cannot not pay a bill you have outstanding to the tune of 60-100bn, and expect those who you are not paying to still be your friends. (Even if you call their response to your non payement 'punishment')

I would excuse the UK of any consequential negatives from Brexit to the EU or particular EU countries (Ireland, even if extreme negatives), if they were able to make Brexit work for themselves. They have a right to determine their own future, without thinking of other countries if they want to think that way.

But the situation is that they cant. It wasnt thought through before the referendum, and even in all the effort since, it has proven impossible to square the circle, have the cake and eat it, of these inherently contradictory Brexit aims.

It just cant be done in any way that the UK comes out any way other than severly harmed. The whole of the UK govt knows this. But not how to get the UK out of the political corner it has backed itself into, knowing it cannot deliver what anybody had in mind as even only mildly harmful Brexit, let alone a positive Brexit outcome.

Time now to call a halt. Be a great politician May, and do something great for your country.
Lead the Brexit retreat and retraction. Difficult indeed. But possible. Unlike Brexit.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

"EU should not put politics above prosperity" says Davis.
What is Brexit but the greatest case in human history of a country putting politics ahead of prosperity ?

This is a perfectly valid post and observation. The irony from Davis is astounding, and shows how far out from reality his thinking is.

Samaris

Water John wrote: »

Alan, your correct. May is totally run out of ideas. That's why all you get in a microphone from her now, is gibberish. Like a poor computer programme, filled with the relevant (for her), words. these are then spouted out, at random.
One gets the feeling of, the emperor has no clothes from all the key Brexit Ministers. No plan and they all watching each other.

Same thing happened in the US. We've been able to watch all the reactions in real time. Stunned disbelief as neither lot expected to actually win and have to put loony policies to the test. The reflexive bout of back-stabbing for power (and running away from consequences - Mister Farage - was more a UK bit.

But everything about the actual policies- they've had years to plan how to carry out the talking points, be it the best way to leave the EU or Obamacare or the tax plan that will solve everything.. every written ..er.."plan" so far has screamed "We don't know what we're doing, we expected to lose and to coast along bitching for the next X years! No-one ever said we needed to have actual working plans!! This stuff is really hard..."

Oh, and the bullish, secretive methods; the US was less dignified about it (remember the hide-and-seek around the WH over the ACA repeal?), but the UK refusing to release impact studies.

Ah yes, and the scattered, incompetant approach to figuring out impacts while lying about how it'll all be great (If the UK, as claimed, doesn't actually have impact papers and did indeed just scrawl some notes on the back of a napkin, why the hell have you NOT done them, you incompetant bullsh*tters?).


It has been remarkable, the similar trajectories. The US has been more spectacular ("You think that was dumb? Hold my beer."), but unless the idiot actually nukes someone, the effects of Brexit will likely be impacting for decades longer. Both countries had deeply set protective notms and rules around their institutions, which have had to withstand incredible pressure. Those of the US are holding, if groaning. The UK just took an axe to theirs and the effect of the Great Repeal Bill, the ability to remove or change laws with no oversight or parlimentary debate, is one of the most cock-eyed, dangerous pieces of legislation they could have come up with.

The whole shower of them (both lots) will be remembered as some of the worst governments that weren't actually military-backed dictatorships in the west, as well as solid tens on the Clown scale.

Edit; just to add. Both groups ran on division of the population. The old divide and conquer technique. The UK fights to divide Britain from its neighbours and has consequently imposed deep and bitter divisions on its own population. The divisions egged along by Trump especially, but also his minions is also noticeable. Lies are employed regularly by both groups to ensure that their own people stay in line (with a good dose of paranoia). Anyone who disagrees with the Cult of Brexit or the Cult of Trump is an enemy rather than a fellow citizen. "We won, shut up, traitor."

Pathetic. And weak, ****ty leadership. At its best, government brings people together, unites the country. These people are no leaders.

Capt'n Midnight

Jim2007 wrote: »

The EU will offer the U.K. a Canadian style FTA, services will be excluded as usual and the U.K. will have three options: accept, walk or apply to EFTA - hope to be accepted and enter the EEA.

I still think option three is a pipe dream.

EFTA membership. is far from a given. As all the existing countries would have to agree. And the UK is not headed in the same direction as them.


An FTA that suits the UK may not suit the rest and visa-versa. The UK economy, and population, is far larger than the other members combined. So guess who's interests would dominate in trade deals ?

Or rather guess who thinks they'd be able to dominate an EFTA ?

Yes I know the members can do their own deals but I'd see the UK influence undermining stuff where there is a conflict of interest.


BTW
To give an indication of how long free trade agreements take the EFTA has 27 FTA in place since starting them in 1972. There's 4 on hold.
http://www.efta.int/free-trade/free-trade-agreements

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I guess I'm a part of the "Brexit brigade" or the "Tory Brexit Brigade" for the purposes of this thread.

I was talking about senior politicians and tabloids, not yourself. I never mentioned you or anyone else here in my post.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't about "putting it off" until phase 2. It is that the border can only be effectively discussed with trade and customs terms. How open or closed the border will be depends on what the EU will offer Britain in respect to trade and customs.

Varadkar is only pushing Britain towards no deal. He isn't pushing anyone to accept remaining in the customs union and single market. This isn't good for anyone.

BUt you oppose remaining in the single market and customs union though. Varadkar is just looking out for the Irish which is important given that Westminster clearly couldn't care less about either the Northern Irish or those in the Republic.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's nothing "anti-intellectual" about my position either. This is just an ad-hominem. I agree that we should avoid terms like "enemies of the people" or "mutineers" or whatever else the press might want to say.

See above.