Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Peregrinus: I don't know why you're explaining the difference in electoral systems to me. I'm fully aware of this.

My simple point is that May isn't "weaker" than Merkel particularly at this juncture and that's true. If Merkel can't form a government (irrespective of electoral system) that is much worse than having a slight minority with a confidence and supply arrangement to get legislation through. Irrespective of outcome it isn't wrong to point to vote share to say that May was in a stronger position on the numbers.

It's not necessarily much worse; Merkel's situation could continue for many months, as is evidenced by similar situations in the Netherlands, Belgium and other countries. Whereas with the British majoritarian tradition, May's position is regarded as highly unstable; her margin is razor-thin, her party and her cabinet are openly divided, and her parliamentary position depends on a fringe party noted for it's readiness to bring the house crashing down about its ears on a point of principle. In addition May is weakened by the fact that her present predicament is seen as one which she brought on herself through an error of political judgment; that's a factor that doesn't apply to Merkel's case.

I think May's and Merkel's positions in their respective systems are sufficiently different that comparisons as to which of them is weaker are pretty meaningless. They both face significant political challenges, but the nature of the challenges is very different.

flaneur

May’s biggest problem is her own party could easily tear itself apart. She spends most of her time trying to paper over cracks in the Tory Party itself and the majority of the government’s policies seem to be about responding to internal party problems, not necessarily anything to do with the UK national interests. Also she’s not universally supported within the party and there’s constantly the threat of her being ousted.

Add to that, she’s being propped up by one side of the Northern Ireland political conflict...

Any number of personality clashes could cause the collapse of the British government.

I would actually think that May is in an almost unprecedentedly weak position. I can’t really think of any British government that’s ever been as risky as this!

Zubeneschamali

The UK vote shares are driven by the first-past-the-post system.

Voting for anyone bar the top two candidates in a FPP election is throwing your vote away, so the major parties hog the votes.

In a more proportional system, votes are not wasted, so smaller parties get a larger share. Countries with proportional systems (like Germany and Ireland) are nearly always ruled by coalitions. This is why both Labour and the Tories want to keep FPP in the UK, so that they keep getting ~40% of the vote each. (FF tried to change to FPP in Ireland twice in the 50s and 60s for the same reason).

Trying to map from a winner-takes-all to a proportional system is hard, because voters change their behaviour between the two systems, but we can certainly say there would be many more small parties in Westminster under a proportional system, and neither Labour nor the Tories would ever see an overall majority again.

Leroy42

The absence of a government normally leads to an absence of decisions. So if Germany has no government then it cannot make any decisions. Certainly none that would be seen to be disadvantageous to Germany.

Any concessions to the UK may well be seen as a climbdown by the German public, just as any payment or negotiation seems to be seen as weakness by the British. Why do the British public seem to think that they are the only ones that should do well out of this?

The German position is already set down within the EU talks. If anything, a strong Merkel worked in UK favour as she is a very good politician and has shown herself to be able to operate above the noise that generally surrounds contentious decisions.

On the other hand, the UK government seem completely tied to doing "what the people voted for" regardless of the consequences of that.

UK has already wasted so much time that any further delays (even if due to other countries) cannot be in any seen as favourable.

Zubeneschamali

flaneur wrote: »

May’s biggest problem is her own party could easily tear itself apart.

A telling item on the BBC this morning saying that there had been a Brexit breakthrough. May has apparently been given permission by the Brexiteers to double the UKs divorce settlement offer if the EU agrees to move on to trade and transition talks.

That's some strong leadership there from May.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A telling item on the BBC this morning saying that there had been a Brexit breakthrough. May has apparently been given permission by the Brexiteers to double the UKs divorce settlement offer if the EU agrees to move on to trade and transition talks.

That's some strong leadership there from May.

Apparently Brexiteers have forgotten about the border and citizens rights?

flaneur

Well, if Germany goes back into an election, the risk for the UK would be parties wanting to seem to be taking a harder line. It’s also complicated by British media calls to take advantage of the elections and abuse Germany’s current position. That’s going to get a lot of people’s backs up.

Also having a major EU country in an election cycle while Brexit is getting close to the brink is not a good situation, as decisions may end up being delayed and article 50 is hard time limited.

Germany’s “weakness” could end up being a major problem for the UK.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

On the money it'll be interesting from hearing from the Chancellor. The monthly borrowing figures are out this morning too. In September we saw a record low due to an increase in tax receipts. It'll be interesting to see what comes in October.

Tomorrow's budget will probably be the precursor to what exactly was agreed by the cabinet yesterday. I think the figure being bandied around in the papers is about right. Potentially using assets to increase that is possible but the €60bn+ or even €100bn won't be agreed to by the UK and rightfully so. It'd be an utter waste of taxpayers money that could be much better spent on domestic priorities.

listermint: the truth is that she's no weaker than Merkel is right now. The figures I've pointed to by vote share show this. May is much closer to the magic number in parliament. Maybe Merkel can go ask Schulz to change his mind but I doubt he will.

Edit: Peregrinus - I said it would be an impediment for Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Who cares how weak Merkel is? The UK is leaving, not Germany. Germany can weather this no problem. Worst case scenario we go back to the polls and see what happens.

The UK on the other hand is managing the most complex set of negotiations it's ever likely to. It desperately needs stability in government.

Personally I believe a lot of traditional CDU and CSU voters would return to the fold in the best interests of the country having fired their warning shots about immigration policy across Merkel's bow. But time will tell.

There's no good way to spin this for the UK though. It's bad for them that German policy on Brexit will not change until a new government is formed, if at all. The UK clearly needs Germany to break ranks or they will be crying into their beer when Barnier says "time's up".

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Apparently Brexiteers have forgotten about the border and citizens rights?

The UK has already signalled a willingness to move close to the EU position on citizens rights (including accepting a degree of ECJ jurisdiction).

This will leave the Irish border as the principal outstanding issue, and the UK may be banking on a hope that that if they meet the EU on Money and Citizens, the EU will meet them on Border.

Water John

That they have moved on 2 of the 3 positions tells you how intractable the border issue is.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Who cares how weak Merkel is? The UK is leaving, not Germany. Germany can weather this no problem. Worst case scenario we go back to the polls and see what happens.

The UK on the other hand is managing the most complex set of negotiations it's ever likely to. It desperately needs stability in government.

Personally I believe a lot of traditional CDU and CSU voters would return to the fold in the best interests of the country having fired their warning shots about immigration policy across Merkel's bow. But time will tell.

There's no good way to spin this for the UK though. It's bad for them that German policy on Brexit will not change until a new government is formed, if at all. The UK clearly needs Germany to break ranks or they will be crying into their beer when Barnier says "time's up".

Good morning!

I didn't say this was good for the UK. It's an impediment to Brexit.

What I did say is that it shows up the EU posturing on May's leadership as the nonsense it is. There are a number governments in a weaker position across Europe.

The best case scenario for Germany is that her and Schulz make up and go into government together. I don't think it'll happen though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Apparently Brexiteers have forgotten about the border and citizens rights?

Yes, two more "breakthroughs" like this are required before trade and transition talks can begin.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

This will leave the Irish border as the principal outstanding issue, and the UK may be banking on a hope that that if they meet the EU on Money and Citizens, the EU will meet them on Border.

Maybe the EU would meet them on the border if they could articulate an actual position themselves. Right now, there is nothing for the EU to meet them on.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are a number governments in a weaker position across Europe.

Are any of them on the clock to negotiate a March 2019 exit with the EU?

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I didn't say this was good for the UK. It's an impediment to Brexit.

What I did say is that it shows up the EU posturing on May's leadership as the nonsense it is. There are a number governments in a weaker position across Europe.

The best case scenario for Germany is that her and Schulz make up and go into government together. I don't think it'll happen though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That would leave the right wing AfD as the main opposition party! Not many people want them legitimised in this way.

I'd prefer new elections to this scenario.

Gerry T

I don't think the EU want a money offer, they want a agreed system of measure, where the uk committs to settle x y and z commitments, what ever those costs are. The UK ignore this.




If she were strong she would tackle head on the 3 Road blocked with a team leader for each. If she were strong she would put the countries interests above her job, if she were strong she wouldn't just give the people what they want, She would explain what a hard Brexit brings. If she was strong she wouldn't be hiding those industry study papers.

She's weak

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I didn't say this was good for the UK. It's an impediment to Brexit.

What I did say is that it shows up the EU posturing on May's leadership as the nonsense it is. There are a number governments in a weaker position across Europe.

There are (although FWIW I don't think Germany is one of them).

But it doesn't matter. Those other governments are not party to the Brexit talks, which are between the UK and the EU. Obviously the EU is ultimately controlled by the member states, but it has developed structures, mechanisms and conventions which enable it to function effectively even when one or more of its member states's governments is in crisis. (It has had to do that. With 28 members, at any time there's a sporting chance that at least one of will have a political crisis going on.)

Thus, a sticky political situation in any of the other member states does not impact on the Brexit talks in the way that a sticky political situation in the UK could.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

That would leave the right wing AfD as the main opposition party! Not many people want them legitimised in this way.

I'd prefer new elections to this scenario.

Sounds like why FF did not want to go into Gov with FG - it would make SF the main opposition party.

Perhaps the Germans could try an Irish solution (used also by May) - a confidence and supply agreement.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I didn't say this was good for the UK. It's an impediment to Brexit.

What I did say is that it shows up the EU posturing on May's leadership as the nonsense it is. There are a number governments in a weaker position across Europe.

The best case scenario for Germany is that her and Schulz make up and go into government together. I don't think it'll happen though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The nonsense it is? Just today the headlines are that May has been given permission to change the UK stance on the payment.

May position is utterly pointless. She is only there because nobody else wants it. They prefer to let her ride out the storm, and then they will take over once the deal is done and blame her for everything.

The UK have to make some decisions, Germany do not.

At what point are the UK going to stop wishing for everyone else to solve the problem and start dealing with it themselves. And dealing with it does not mean simply sticking your head in your hands and wishing it away.

For a country that wanted it sovereignty back it seems totally incapable of actually putting a plan together.

UK wanted to break away. The divorce bill, passporting, movement of people, goods, NI border, Agri regulations etc, these were all known in advance and still the UK have not got a plan.

Barnier etc are getting a bit fed up with the constant playacting. They do not want the UK to leave, but are resigned to it. Now they simply want the UK to act professionally.

If this is the chaos that exists when trying to negotiate a position they want and understand, how can anybody have any faith that they will be able to secure all these trade deals around the world?

murphaph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Maybe the EU would meet them on the border if they could articulate an actual position themselves. Right now, there is nothing for the EU to meet them on.

Exactly! It was the EU that made the bold offer of NI staying in the customs union. Nobody can accuse the EU of not coming up with a potential solution, even if it is abhorrent to the DUP and most Tories.

You can't really get bolder in fact.

The UK flatly rejected this but itself has come up with nothing. Why? Because they are hoping to use it as a stick to beat the EU into a wide ranging trade deal with. Doomed to fail. The EU would rather a hard land border and to provide additional regional funding to Ireland than allow itself be forced into anything.

murphaph

Sam Russell wrote: »

Sounds like why FF did not want to go into Gov with FG - it would make SF the main opposition party.

Perhaps the Germans could try an Irish solution (used also by May) - a confidence and supply agreement.

It has been suggested but I don't think Merkel likes the idea.

demfad

Huge development in Brexit-Russia finally making Front Page news (in Today's Guardian) :

Following news on Friday of an official parliamentary inquiry into Russian interference into the EU referendum, yesterday the electoral commission announced it was holding an inquiry into Vote Leave for Fraud.
Their Statement here:

The investigation will look at:

• whether or not Mr Grimes may have delivered a return that was incorrect in relation to a donation he received from Vote Leave and related campaign spending;
• whether or not Veterans for Britain delivered a return that was incorrect in relation to a donation it received from Vote Leave and related campaign spending;
• whether or not Vote Leave delivered a return that was incorrect in relation to campaign spending;
• whether or not Vote Leave exceeded its spending limit in the referendum.
• It is possible that during the course of the investigation, the Commission will identify potential contraventions and/or offences under PPERA other than those set out above.

i.e It is investigating Vote Leave (which was fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) for Fraud.

Lets just list the ongoing investigations now:

-Electoral Commission Leave.eu into benefits in kind (Cambridge Analytica 7 figure amount)
-Electoral Commission into sources of Aaaron Banks donatiosn to Leave campaigns
-Electoral Commission investigation into Fraud by Vote Leave and others.
-Parliament fake news committee into Russian use of SM during EU referendum
-Parliament Intel into Russian interference in EU referendum.

'Contraventions...other than those set out above'

would be coordination between the campaigns, which is illegal. Official Vote Leave spent over half its (declared) allowance of £7 million on an obscure Canadian IQ company called AggregateIQ. Dominic Cummings campaign manager of Vote Leave went as far as to say they owed AIQ the victory.

BeLeave fronted by Grimes gave ALL £750,000 it received from vote Leave to AIQ. Vets for Britain similarly. DUP even gave them some money.
This looks like coordination.

As AIQ is the backend of Cambridge Analytica. It's intellectual property is owned by Robert Mercer who owns CA.
This will tie this investigation into the investigation into Leave.EUs use of Cambridge Analytica which will add Leave.EU into the coordination investigation.
As CA is being investigated in US for helping Russia target its fake news to elect Trump their presence ALL OVER the EU ref will be investigated.

This latest investigation is the domino that needed to be knocked. There should be no stopping this now. Remember the government repeatedly said zero evidence of Russian interference. Was this a lie perhaps?

[Bob Posner, the Electoral Commission’s Director of Political Finance and Regulation and Legal Counsel, said:

“There is significant public interest in being satisfied that the facts are known about Vote Leave’s spending on the campaign, particularly as it was a lead campaigner with a greater spending limit than any other campaigners on the ‘leave’ side. Legitimate questions over the funding provided to campaigners risks causing harm to voters’ confidence in the referendum and it is therefore right that we investigate.”

The electoral commission has implied that this is serious enough to harm voters confidence in the referendum. The investigation will not fix that.


Background:

Revealed: how loopholes allowed pro-Brexit campaign to spend ‘as much as necessary to win’
Follow the data: does a legal document link Brexit campaigns to US billionaire?
Vote Leave, The Canadian IT Company, And The £725,000 Donations

steddyeddy

demfad wrote: »

Huge development in Brexit-Russia finally making Front Page news (in Today's Guardian) :

Following news on Friday of an official parliamentary inquiry into Russian interference into the EU referendum, yesterday the electoral commission announced it was holding an inquiry into Vote Leave for Fraud.
Their Statement here:


i.e It is investigating Vote Leave (which was fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) for Fraud.

Lets just list the ongoing investigations now:

-Electoral Commission Leave.eu into benefits in kind (Cambridge Analytica 7 figure amount)
-Electoral Commission into sources of Aaaron Banks donatiosn to Leave campaigns
-Electoral Commission investigation into Fraud by Vote Leave and others.
-Parliament fake news committee into Russian use of SM during EU referendum
-Parliament Intel into Russian interference in EU referendum.


would be coordination between the campaigns, which is illegal. Official Vote Leave spent over half its (declared) allowance of £7 million on an obscure Canadian IQ company called AggregateIQ. Dominic Cummings campaign manager of Vote Leave went as far as to say they owed AIQ the victory.

BeLeave fronted by Grimes gave ALL £750,000 it received from vote Leave to AIQ. Vets for Britain similarly. DUP even gave them some money.
This looks like coordination.

As AIQ is the backend of Cambridge Analytica. It's intellectual property is owned by Robert Mercer who owns CA.
This will tie this investigation into the investigation into Leave.EUs use of Cambridge Analytica which will add Leave.EU into the coordination investigation.
As CA is being investigated in US for helping Russia target its fake news to elect Trump their presence ALL OVER the EU ref will be investigated.

This latest investigation is the domino that needed to be knocked. There should be no stopping this now. Remember the government repeatedly said zero evidence of Russian interference. Was this a lie perhaps?




The electoral commission has implied that this is serious enough to harm voters confidence in the referendum. The investigation will not fix that.


Background:

Revealed: how loopholes allowed pro-Brexit campaign to spend ‘as much as necessary to win’
Follow the data: does a legal document link Brexit campaigns to US billionaire?
Vote Leave, The Canadian IT Company, And The £725,000 Donations

Russia probably played a part in this. Is it really a big deal though? The facts and likelihood of a Brexit vote weren't hidden from the public. Unless there was voter fraud at play I think the British dug their own graves here.

Leroy42

Has there ever been any detailed breakdown of the advantages to Britain of leaving the EU.

It seems that the majority of the conversation seems to revolve around the list of disadvantages and the possible/probable overcoming of those that membership brings with it (free movement of people, regulations etc).

But I have seen little as to what is to be gained once it is achieved. Sovereignty is a big label thrown about, but what is it that is planned once that is regained. Do leavers expect the economy to be better in 1 or 2 years than it is now (or before the vote). If not, how long for the drop and how quickly will they race ahead in order to regain the lost ground and move ahead?

Surely the government should, at this point, be able to point out the expected growth rates based on staying and leaving and the impact on wages etc.

Leroy42

steddyeddy wrote: »

Russia probably played a part in this. Is it really a big deal though? The facts and likelihood of a Brexit vote weren't hidden from the public. Unless there was voter fraud at play I think the British dug their own graves here.

If the rules were broken then that calls into very serious question the legitimacy of the vote itself.

It is well understood that marketing and campaigning effect the outcome of elections etc so by breaking the rules you are attempting to tilt the scales in your favour.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there ever been any detailed breakdown of the advantages to Britain of leaving the EU.

It seems that the majority of the conversation seems to revolve around the list of disadvantages and the possible/probable overcoming of those that membership brings with it (free movement of people, regulations etc).

But I have seen little as to what is to be gained once it is achieved. Sovereignty is a big label thrown about, but what is it that is planned once that is regained. Do leavers expect the economy to be better in 1 or 2 years than it is now (or before the vote). If not, how long for the drop and how quickly will they race ahead in order to regain the lost ground and move ahead?

Surely the government should, at this point, be able to point out the expected growth rates based on staying and leaving and the impact on wages etc.

Maybe, but would they want to? Bad news is best hidden or denied.

cantwbr1

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the rules were broken then that calls into very serious question the legitimacy of the vote itself.

It is well understood that marketing and campaigning effect the outcome of elections etc so by breaking the rules you are attempting to tilt the scales in your favour.

Is this an opportunity for the UK government to stop everything and have a “fair “ rerun of the referendum (assuming the EU agreed to the stop and TM found a spine)

ancapailldorcha

cantwbr1 wrote: »

Is this an opportunity for the UK government to stop everything and have a “fair “ rerun of the referendum (assuming the EU agreed to the stop and TM found a spine)

I don't think so though I do think that the electorate should have the opportunity to decide on the final deal. Otherwise, May's government might end up buckling and accepting EEA status along with the ECJ.

demfad

cantwbr1 wrote: »

Is this an opportunity for the UK government to stop everything and have a “fair “ rerun of the referendum (assuming the EU agreed to the stop and TM found a spine)

It provides a way out in my opinion without admitting that either the whole Brexit project was ill advised or the way it was carried out doomed it to abject failure.

If you have many leave campaigns committing fraud about the amount of money they spent on campaigns, and coordinating illegally between each other you have an unfair advantage. If the coordination/overspending illegally involved a foreign entity using social media to suppress the remain vote and enhance the leave vote you have more unfairness.

If this foreign entity is under investigation for coordinating with Russia in the US and Russian investigations you have the serious possibility of a UK election being rigged in favour of a side favourable to a hostile foreign power who wants to damage the UK and EU.

It depends on the amount to be discovered but for an estimation look across the Atlantic at Mueller's investigation: many of the exact same players behind this one and same tactics. It is the same operation.

This was not a binding referendum. The question is can A50 be revoked. It can according to the EU.
As the next year unfolds we will witness a scenario of worsening economic news on Brexit and more revelations of election subversion.
It simply wont be possible NOT to have another referendum in my view.

Shelga

Question- I'm quite confused- EU member states are not allowed to form trade deals with other nations on their own, right? So Ireland, for example, cannot form a trade deal with the USA outside of the EU rules?

So they can come here and set up operations here for tax purposes, but we can't set the tariffs on goods we send to and receive from them? And the same for all of the other EU countries? Correct me if I'm wrong, I find it all quite complicated. How do we negotiate trade with USA, Australia, Canada etc?

So why couldn't the UK be in the EEC/SM/CU, but then also form their own trade agreements with whatever countries they want? Wouldn't that make the most sense? Is it purely the politics of UK citizens not wanting 'uncontrolled' immigration?

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there ever been any detailed breakdown of the advantages to Britain of leaving the EU.

There never has been any and that's why all "advantages" are vague "Oh we'll get great trade deals", "Oh we'll save money not spent on EU", "Oh we'll trade more with Asia the fastest growing economy" but if you press them for the hows, the whys etc. they always flounder. Take trade deals as an example; they UK government have now admitted they are not going to negotiate new trade deals but try to push for the same deal they had while part of EU (not realizing that EU offered a significantly larger market for said country to give such a deal) and then somehow down the line improve on it somehow. So remove all trade deals, then go back and negotiate to try to get the same deal you walked away from and that is somehow suppose to improve export?

The Rape of Lucretia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has there ever been any detailed breakdown of the advantages to Britain of leaving the EU.

- we can keep foreigners out. Some of them are dark skinned or poor, and we dont want their kind around here steeling our jobs
- we wont have the Germans (who won the war guys?), or the French (who saved your ass in the war guys?) imposing their dodgy European legislation on us
- we wont have to pay money to Brussels, which they just send on to poor countries in eastern Europe after taking a generous gravy train cut themselves
- bananas will no longer have to be straight, and we will be free to grow our own curvy British bananas what we have been cultivating and enjoying for centuries
- we will be able to play the bagpipe in pubs again without being banged up in jail for breaking crazy European health and safety noise legislation.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK has already signalled a willingness to move close to the EU position on citizens rights (including accepting a degree of ECJ jurisdiction).

This will leave the Irish border as the principal outstanding issue, and the UK may be banking on a hope that that if they meet the EU on Money and Citizens, the EU will meet them on Border.

The UK has signalled a willingness to do many a thing, regardless of whether it's actually physically or technology possible.

It's time for them to actually put pen to paper and commitment .

Gerry T

Shelga wrote:

Question- I'm quite confused- EU member states are not allowed to form trade deals with other nations on their own, right? So Ireland, for example, cannot form a trade deal with the USA outside of the EU rules?

The EU negotiates a deal with say Canada, then we IRL trades with Canada under that deal. The deal the EU can strike is most likely far better than the one IRL could get on its own. Plus the EU has the capacity to discuss several deals at the same time with their resource.

Shelga wrote:

So they can come here and set up operations here for tax purposes, but we can't set the tariffs on goods we send to and receive from them? And the same for all of the other EU countries? Correct me if I'm wrong, I find it all quite complicated. How do we negotiate trade with USA, Australia, Canada etc?

If the come to IRL any work generated here is taxed in IRL.

Shelga wrote:

So why couldn't the UK be in the EEC/SM/CU, but then also form their own trade agreements with whatever countries they want? Wouldn't that make the most sense? Is it purely the politics of UK citizens not wanting 'uncontrolled' immigration?

To be in they first need to negotiate a deal and that would most likely require ECJ oversight. That's a red line for the UK.

An Ciarraioch

So, Arlene tells Leo he should "know better" than to propose NI remain within the Customs Union. I'd have thought the avoidance of a hard Border was the best means to secure Catholic backing for the Union, and maintain the economic position of floating voters, but that may be too subtle for the DUP!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-42064743

First Up

Shelga wrote:

So they can come here and set up operations here for tax purposes, but we can't set the tariffs on goods we send to and receive from them? And the same for all of the other EU countries? Correct me if I'm wrong, I find it all quite complicated. How do we negotiate trade with USA, Australia, Canada etc?

We don't. As part of the EU we are part of a single market, within which everything circulates freely. There is what's called a Common External Tariff that applies to all EU countries. So anything imported from (or exported to) non-EU countries is in the same terms for all EU countries.

US firms setting up here that want to ship stuff back the States will know the terms that will apply and that will be factored into their decision.

But most US firms that set up here do so to supply into the European market.

Without Single Market membership (EEA at a minimum) there is no non hard border.

I wonder how many times this will need to be pointed out.

Heck, even the border that a 'in-EEA NI' would have is harder than today's.

Ardent brexiteers (but honest merchants) @ eureferendum.com flagged this issue up before the vote was even called. Here's an article from pre referendum on the topic http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86001

The DUP are walking NI into that scenario, unbelievably willingly!

flaneur

You have to remember what you’re dealing with - the DUP.

Pragmatic politics has rarely been a feature of that party and they’re extremely dogmatic about any issue of national identity.

The mistake the Northern Unionists farmers and others made was destroying the UUP and voting in a hardcore party like this.

There’s no point in moaning about them when they bloody elected them because they felt they wanted more aggressive stances against SF.

May is giving them the sense they’ve huge power and that’s going to keep them in. I doubt she’s a great love of them, but she certainly knows how to keep them in position.

An Ciarraioch

Meanwhile, Simon Coveney maintains the Government's red lines:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ireland-warns-theresa-may-increased-40-billion-brexit-deal-cant-buy-you-trade-talks-a3697201.html#comments

Panrich

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, Simon Coveney maintains the Government's red lines:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ireland-warns-theresa-may-increased-40-billion-brexit-deal-cant-buy-you-trade-talks-a3697201.html#comments

The comments underneath that article shows the problem facing EU negotiators.

I particularly like this one

Eddie Crunt
2 hours ago
The South doesn’t want cheaper goods from the North finding their way south. It’s a problem for the South to solve,...not the North. Dublin wants the UK to make the border at Liverpool. The UK should simply tell Dublin to stop trying to annexe the North, and to solve their own problems.

Enzokk

Airbus has warned again that while they will not stop production of wings in the UK, future investments will now be fought for if there are tariffs on export items.

Airbus U.K. Warns of Brexit Risk as China Covets Wing Business

Airbus SE’s Chinese arm is clamoring for high-value work building wings currently made in the U.K. as Brexit threatens to blunt the country’s competitive edge, according to the group’s top British executive.

While the design and manufacture of Airbus wings represents one of the “crown jewels” of U.K. aerospace, every part is exported into the European Union and would be affected by any additional border friction and customs costs, Airbus U.K. Senior Vice President Katherine Bennett told British lawmakers Tuesday.

“We do build wings in China now, and believe you me they’re knocking at the door as a result of the situation that we’re in in this country,” Bennett said in front of Parliament’s business, energy and industrial strategy committee. Other Airbus divisions would “dearly love” the contracts, she said.

Chips Lovell

I think a hard border is what the DUP is secretly hoping for and is the main reason it campaigned for Brexit. Anything that widens the division between Northern Ireland and Ireland is fine by them. They don't care about the economic consequences since, for a long time now, Northern Ireland's largest industry has been the extraction of subsidies from Westminster by its politicians. Anything they lose from Brexit they can demand from the Exchequer. Keeping the place in a permanent state of tension eases that extraction greatly.

solodeogloria

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, Simon Coveney maintains the Government's red lines:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ireland-warns-theresa-may-increased-40-billion-brexit-deal-cant-buy-you-trade-talks-a3697201.html#comments

Good afternoon!

It's a bit of a silly position. How open the border is depends on trade and customs terms. The UK will see through any attempt to keep it in the customs union and single market and to undermine the integrity of the UK and the deal probably won't get through parliament.

It's hard to see such a position as anything but fruitless. The Republic needs a good deal with the UK more than any other country.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think a hard border is what the DUP is secretly hoping for and is the main reason it campaigned for Brexit. Anything that widens the division between Northern Ireland and Ireland is fine by them. They don't care about the economic consequences since, for a long time now, Northern Ireland's largest industry has been the extraction of subsidies from Westminster by its politicians. Anything they lose from Brexit they can demand from the Exchequer. Keeping the place in a permanent state of tension eases that extraction greatly.

They campaigned for Leave just to take an opposite position to SF and to take vote share from the UUP. No other reason.

And they were absolutely wrong footed when the Leave vote won. Arlene started pleading for special treatment almost immediately. The arrangement with the Tories has insulated them somewhat but that is only temporary, they will reap the rewards soon.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's a bit of a silly position. How open the border is depends on trade and customs terms. The UK will see through any attempt to keep it in the customs union and single market and to undermine the integrity of the UK and the deal probably won't get through parliament.

It's hard to see such a position as anything but fruitless. The Republic needs a good deal with the UK more than any other country.

Well the EU obviously doesn't agree with you or any other Brexiteers and in fact David Davis also agrees with the position that the border will need to be discussed first before trade. Otherwise why would he agree to the timeline of talks that was discussed at the first meetings between the UK and the EU?

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think a hard border is what the DUP is secretly hoping for and is the main reason it campaigned for Brexit. Anything that widens the division between Northern Ireland and Ireland is fine by them. They don't care about the economic consequences since, for a long time now, Northern Ireland's largest industry has been the extraction of subsidies from Westminster by its politicians. Anything they lose from Brexit they can demand from the Exchequer. Keeping the place in a permanent state of tension eases that extraction greatly.

That might be a very risky strategy. As the UK continues to fragment and the economic realities of Brexit kick in, an essentially English parliament under severe fiscal pressure will wonder why it continues to subsidise NI. Especially if a Labour government under Corbyn is in power.

Chips Lovell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That might be a very risky strategy. As the UK continues to fragment and the economic realities of Brexit kick in, an essentially English parliament under severe fiscal pressure will wonder why it continues to subsidise NI. Especially if a Labour government under Corbyn is in power.

Then you just follow the usual template of Northern politics by subtly threatening a return to violence. Mountains will be moved and the taps will be turned on.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Then you just follow the usual template of Northern politics by subtly threatening a return to violence. Mountains will be moved and the taps will be turned on.

Indeed. Both sides are adept at that game. I sometimes wonder if the DUP and SF are subconsciously colluding in maintaining and prolonging the divide in order to twist financial arms....

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It's a bit of a silly position. How open the border is depends on trade and customs terms. The UK will see through any attempt to keep it in the customs union and single market and to undermine the integrity of the UK and the deal probably won't get through parliament.

It's hard to see such a position as anything but fruitless. The Republic needs a good deal with the UK more than any other country.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

NO. First the UK must guarantee the open border by whatever way they can. That is a prerequisite for talks on trade. It is just as good a red line as no ECJ, no Single Market and No Customs Union, only it has the full backing of the EU27.

The UK are asked to come up with a solution, not anyone else. They have suggested magic beans and 'technology' but have failed to show anything that might have even a small chance of succeeding. The EU suggested special status for NI, like they have with the electricity market and animal vetinary standards, so that is one suggestion that might work.

There are no easy solutions, but talking trade comes after the solution to a 'frictionless' border.

Now you are an expert on the thinking of the brexiteers, so tell us what they intend to do. You were right in that they would go to £40 billion, but that is likely to be not enough, but it might be enough for progress to trade talks, if the other two items are covered. So come on, spill the beans - how can we get to a frictionless border?

Panrich

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It's a bit of a silly position. How open the border is depends on trade and customs terms. The UK will see through any attempt to keep it in the customs union and single market and to undermine the integrity of the UK and the deal probably won't get through parliament.

It's hard to see such a position as anything but fruitless. The Republic needs a good deal with the UK more than any other country.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK have already started negotiating trade and customs terms by ruling out the single market, customs union and the ECJ. If Ireland and the EU agree to move to phase 2 now, then it is tacit approval of that position and therefore the problem becomes an EU one. The UK will complain long and loud that everyone knew their position prior to phase 2 negotiations and will demand that this is not used to hold up progress.