Brexit discussion thread II

J Mysterio

Sand wrote: »

The UK really ought to look at the NI situation from another angle. Leaving NI in the SM/CU will be seen as a significant step towards resolving the Irish issue to the satisfaction of almost everyone.

It does create a problem of a GB-NI internal border. However, that very problem could be an advantage in the phase 2 talks in encouraging the EU to be generous. The necessity to mitigate the GB-EU border lends itself to the EU and the UK agreeing a very ambitious FTA to mitigate the problems, both for NI-GB trade, and for wider GB-EU trade.

I've been impressed with the Irish governments calm, firm and consistent message on Phase 2. Unfortunately, the British have shown no intention to honestly engage with the problem of the Irish border so their noses are going to have to be held in it for quite a bit longer.

Haha, spot on.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

My employer was required to scan my passport to ensure my identity and my right to work in the UK before employing me because that is employment law in the UK . . .

What solo experienced was a right-to-work check. Employers in the UK are not required to conduct them, but it may be in their interests to do so, for this reason: if an employer employs someone who doesn't have an immigration status that entitles them to take the job in question, the employer may be exposed to a civil penalty. However the employer has what's called a "statutory excuse" if he can show that he carried out the right-to-work check.

Employers who do conduct right-to-work checks tend to conduct them on everybody, since they don't want to be accused of discriminating on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity. You may look and sound as though you and your family on both sides have been in England since before the Norman Conquest, but you'll have to do the same right-to-work checks as every other person hired.

The (simplified) instructions to employers on how to run right-to-work checks run to 25 pages. You have to apply them fully and correctly; otherwise what you have done is not the prescribed right-to-work check, and you don't have the statutory excuse. (The instructions will undoubtedly get longer after Brexit, since UK migration law, already of Byzantine complexity, will become even more complex. Post-Brexit, employees who produce an EU/EEA passport may, or may not, have a right to work depending on when they first entered the UK, and employers will have to learn how to tell.)

For these reasons smaller employers tend not to be geared up to apply right-to-work checks; if they worry about this at all the employ the cruder technique of preferring candidates who look and sound British. (An unlawful practice, but a hard one to prove.) Employers offering low-status jobs or black- or grey-market jobs also choose not to run right-to-work checks.

In the post-Brexit world fruit farmers trying to recruit pickers, for example, will be faced with the choice of applying right-to-work checks and having extreme difficulty filling their positions, or not applying them and risking the civil penalties. But either course of action will (unless there's a law change) be perfectly legal.

Peregrinus

Very well-written, and I think even-handed, summary of the problems raised by Irish border issue by Frank Barry of the TCD Business School over here on the Irisheconomy.ie blog. (The comments are also interesting, if sometimes less even-handed.)

murphaph

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland relies even more on trade with the UK than trade with the South.

Either option - a land border or a sea border - is bad news for Northern Ireland. A sea border is worse for them.

This is all true but I believe the sea border is better for us and significantly easier to administer. The UK will just have to throw more of that NHS money NI's way instead.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

This is all true but I believe the sea border is better for us and significantly easier to administer. The UK will just have to throw more of that NHS money NI's way instead.

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December. The UK is amenable to compromise provided it can deliver the broad objectives of the referendum and ensure the integrity of the union.

David Davis was right to say this week his department is the Department of Exiting the European Union not the department for accepting any deal come what may.

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Even if May accepted a sea border (extremely unlikely) I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be agreed by parliament which leads us back to the drawing board.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December. The UK is amenable to compromise provided it can deliver the broad objectives of the referendum and ensure the integrity of the union.

David Davis was right to say this week his department is the Department of Exiting the European Union not the department for accepting any deal come what may.

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Even if May accepted a sea border (extremely unlikely) I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be agreed by parliament which leads us back to the drawing board.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Keep calm? They've been doing that for over a year because they are a bunch of amateurs who couldn't negotiate their way out of a dinner invite from Donald Trump.

There is nothing to keep calm about, the comical Ali impressions are getting tiresome because you yourself are actively engaged in cheering on the destruction of an entire economy and people's lively hoods. The tories will be found out and hung out to dry.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Ireland relies even more on trade with the UK than trade with the South.

Either option - a land border or a sea border - is bad news for Northern Ireland. A sea border is worse for them.

A sea border is worse for them economically. But politically, in terms of protecting and supporting the peace process, it looks to be much better. While constititutionally, in terms of it's effect on/implications for the union (between GB and NI) it's either better or worse, depending on whether you think the union is a good thing or not.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December. The UK is amenable to compromise provided it can deliver the broad objectives of the referendum and ensure the integrity of the union.

David Davis was right to say this week his department is the Department of Exiting the European Union not the department for accepting any deal come what may.

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Even if May accepted a sea border (extremely unlikely) I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be agreed by parliament which leads us back to the drawing board.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Are you a member of the UK Cabinet? You sound like you might be.

You appear to speak with the authority of a senior Bexiteer Minister, or a very close adviser. You reject even the slightest deviation from the orthodox position of extreme right wing Brxiteers.

The only person I can think of that voted Remain and is now a very hard Bexiteer is Theresa May - are you the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December.

You mean that in the next ten days or so they need to do what they have failed to do for the past sixteen months? Yes, but I wouldn't be wildly optimistic that they'll actually do it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Progressive trading terms would undoubtedly be better for Ireland. Unfortunately the UK has decisively ruled this out by insisting on withdrawing from the single market and the customs union. Unless the British are willing to reconsider that stance, then a sea border is better for us in the Republic than a land border - no question. From the perspective of NI, as noted above, it's a more mixed judgment.

solodeogloria

listermint wrote: »

Keep calm? They've been doing that for over a year because they are a bunch of amateurs who couldn't negotiate their way out of a dinner invite from Donald Trump.

There is nothing to keep calm about, the comical Ali impressions are getting tiresome because you yourself are actively engaged in cheering on the destruction of an entire economy and people's lively hoods. The tories will be found out and hung out to dry.

Good evening!

I don't accept this. Both this article by Laura Kuenssberg and this article by Tony Connelly in the RTE offer interesting analysis on it. There's much more going on here.

The UK won't accept a bad deal - which a high sum of money and this would constitute. Therefore alternatives need to be discussed. Parliament won't vote for a bad deal either.

Being calm and working towards a more amenable outcome is what negotiating is about.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December. The UK is amenable to compromise provided it can deliver the broad objectives of the referendum and ensure the integrity of the union.

David Davis was right to say this week his department is the Department of Exiting the European Union not the department for accepting any deal come what may.

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Even if May accepted a sea border (extremely unlikely) I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be agreed by parliament which leads us back to the drawing board.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Don't put words in my mouth. I only compared land border to sea border not with a FTA that may or may not materialise. If a super duper zero tariff zero regulatory difference (then why Brexit?) FTA materialises then the location of the border will be (as it is today) irrelevant.

I wouldn't rule it out either. Talk is already of £40bn (not €40bn) which is north of your own max of £36bn. Another £10bn and we'll be in your go whistle territory!

The UK's obviously weak position is slowly being revealed to the average daily mail reader bit by bit. MN

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

The Scottish Assembly, you know the democratically elected one.

And how do they propose it? - they aren't in the talks.
It's not in Barniers terms of reference and I don't see Davis volunteering it.
Northern Ireland is different.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

And how do they propose it? - they aren't in the talks.
It's not in Barniers terms of reference and I don't see Davis volunteering it.
Northern Ireland is different.

I would have thought that was blindingly obvious but obviously not.

Has anyone in Scotland even indicated that?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

And how do they propose it? - they aren't in the talks.
It's not in Barniers terms of reference and I don't see Davis volunteering it.
Northern Ireland is different.

They'd propose it to the UK, asking why if NI can get this kind of status, Scotland which voted even more decisively to remain can't also have it. And if it were to be refused it would - rightly, in my view - be held up by the Scots Nats as another example of England's disdain for the wishes and interests of Scotland, and the Westminster establishment's willingness to screw Scotland in order to secure political advantage in England.

The implications for Scotland are one of the reasons why the UK would be reluctant to accept the sea border proposal for NI.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

They'd propose it to the UK, asking why if NI can get this kind of status, Scotland which voted even more decisively to remain can't also have it. And if it were to be refused it would - rightly, in my view - be held up by the Scots Nats as another example of England's disdain for the wishes and interests of Scotland, and the Westminster establishment's willingness to screw Scotland in order to secure political advantage in England.

The implications for Scotland are one of the reasons why the UK would be reluctant to accept the sea border proposal for NI.

Scotland will look for a border retrospectively??
How would that work in reality.

Samaris

I don't know that the Scotland thing really makes much sense here. I might be missing something, but I don't quite get the link.

The border situation in Ireland is due to there being (David Davis aside) an external border with an EU state in a politically dangerous location. The issues of regulatory divergence don't apply between England and Scotland, nor does the external border with an EU country bit (unless Scotland voted for independence). Why is Scotland a problem in the conversation about NI? The border itself is going to be bad for NI wherever it is. Why would the Scots suddenly decide that they wanted something that would damage themselves for no gain?

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

They'd propose it to the UK, asking why if NI can get this kind of status, Scotland which voted even more decisively to remain can't also have it. And if it were to be refused it would - rightly, in my view - be held up by the Scots Nats as another example of England's disdain for the wishes and interests of Scotland, and the Westminster establishment's willingness to screw Scotland in order to secure political advantage in England.

The implications for Scotland are one of the reasons why the UK would be reluctant to accept the sea border proposal for NI.

Unfortunately for the Scots their voice seems to be as irrelevant as Grimsby fishermen or Cornish farmers. Scotland has no particular leverage within the UK to convince the Tories it deserves special status and it doesn't exist from the EU negotiators point of view.

Northern Ireland is different because the EU were involved in the peace process and because of us.

Scotland is not at all equivalent.

In the longer term Scottish nationalism or separatism might come into play but until then this isn't on the table.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Scotland will look for a border retrospectively??
How would that work in reality.

No, not retrospectively. They'll just propose that if part of the UK is to remain in the Single Market/Customs Union and part not, that they be included (along with NI) in the part that remains. So, as from Brexit Day, the Anglo-Scottish border would become the border between the EEA and non-EEA areas, in much the way that the UK proposes the Irish border should become. (And of course the wonderful technological magic that the UK intends to use to keep the Irish border impediment-free will work just as well on the Anglo-Scottish border).

It's perfectly feasible in practical terms. The Anglo-Scottish border is much shorter than the Irish border - about a third of the length, I think - and it's a much more "rational" border, running along natural features (rivers, watersheds) for much of its length, and with considerably fewer road crossings. If you have to police one of these borders, you'd much rather be policing the Anglo-Scottish border. And that's before you consider the Irish peace process.

There's a precedent. Denmark is partly in, and partly out, of the EU - Greenland is out, Denmark proper and the Faroes are in. That's a sea border, obviously, but in principal there's no reason why a state shouldn't be similarly part-in and part-out with a land border.

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

I don't know that the Scotland thing really makes much sense here. I might be missing something, but I don't quite get the link.

The border situation in Ireland is due to there being (David Davis aside) an external border with an EU state in a politically dangerous location. The issues of regulatory divergence don't apply between England and Scotland, nor does the external border with an EU country bit (unless Scotland voted for independence). Why is Scotland a problem in the conversation about NI? The border itself is going to be bad for NI wherever it is. Why would the Scots suddenly decide that they wanted something that would damage themselves for no gain?

Brexit is going to damage them with no gain. A customs border with England would be a pain, but if it enabled them to remain in the EU it's a pain they might wear, because it brings a considerable gain.

And, remember, much of the instinctive opposition to a sea border in NI comes from the DUP's distaste for anything which weakens the union (of GB and NI). That consideration pulls in the opposite direction for the Scots Nationalists. Scots Nationalists would welcome a border with England. And they'd welcome an opportunity to remain in the EU/EEA/Customs Union. Ideally, they's also like England to remain, but you can't have everything; the logic of the Scots Nats potision is that the English should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to remain or to leave. So if you offer them two out of the three things they would like, I think they'd jump at that.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, not retrospectively. They'll just propose that if part of the UK is to remain in the Single Market/Customs Union and part not, that they be included (along with NI) in the part that remains. So, as from Brexit Day, the Anglo-Scottish border would become the border between the EEA and non-EEA areas, in much the way that the UK proposes the Irish border should become. (And of course the wonderful technological magic that the UK intends to use to keep the Irish border impediment-free will work just as well on the Anglo-Scottish border).

It's perfectly feasible in practical terms. The Anglo-Scottish border is much shorter than the Irish border - about a third of the length, I think - and it's a much more "rational" border, running along natural features (rivers, watersheds) for much of its length, and with considerably fewer road crossings. If you have to police one of these borders, you'd much rather be policing the Anglo-Scottish border. And that's before you consider the Irish peace process.

There's a precedent. Denmark is partly in, and partly out, of the EU - Greenland is out, Denmark proper and the Faroes are in. That's a sea border, obviously, but in principal there's no reason why a state shouldn't be similarly part-in and part-out with a land border.

So when will they throw this grenade? Is there anyone in Scotland even intimating this?
Has anyone in Westminster said it in relation to an Irish sea border?

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The sea border won't happen anyway. The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options before December.

You mean that in the next ten days or so they need to do what they have failed to do for the past sixteen months? Yes, but I wouldn't be wildly optimistic that they'll actually do it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Although you claim with scant reason that a sea border is better for the Republic than progressive trading terms with Britain post-Brexit there's no reason to believe this.

Progressive trading terms would undoubtedly be better for Ireland. Unfortunately the UK has decisively ruled this out by insisting on withdrawing from the single market and the customs union. Unless the British are willing to reconsider that stance, then a sea border is better for us in the Republic than a land border - no question. From the perspective of NI, as noted above, it's a more mixed judgment.

Peregrinus, you are the most informative, and most constructive poster here, and I always enjoy reading your posts. I would emphasise, however, that it is not "the UK" who have decided to leave the single market and customs union, it is teresa may, and her inner coterie of hangers on, appointed by teresa herself, purely as a means of clinging to power.
I have my suspicions about solo, but was banned for voicing them previously. I try to gloss over a lot of what is written here now, but never your posts.
It is a life changing period for my family and I.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I don't accept this. Both this article by Laura Kuenssberg and this article by Tony Connelly in the RTE offer interesting analysis on it. There's much more going on here.

The UK won't accept a bad deal - which a high sum of money and this would constitute. Therefore alternatives need to be discussed. Parliament won't vote for a bad deal either.

Being calm and working towards a more amenable outcome is what negotiating is about.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I agree that I think the NI border issue is being talked up more than it needs to be. The Irish government should not be wasting such political capital on it. Instead they should be looking to EU to provide alternatives to help us deal with the fall out. The positioning of the regulatory bodies for example. Had we spent as much time on that as we do on the border we may have secured them, and many others.

The border is going to happen, simply because the UK don't have any other ideas and when put up against free movement etc then it is simply a non runner.

Ireland really needs to get over that and start to plan for that. We should be planning on a commerce border and a domestic border. No need for the average person to be stopped for a customs search. A simple Tag system (like e-flow) could be introduced for people to preregister etc (ok, its not a full plan but its an example of what I think we should be spending our time on). Leop shouldn't be wasting his time trying to talk to May. Even if she was capable of understanding his position (not certain that she is) she simply does not have any authority on which to push anything. Its a bad situation but it is what it is. Leo needs to deal with what is in front of him rather than wishing it was different. If the UK are seemingly totally ignoring any impact of the Scots, why do people think they will care about NI and even more so Ireland?

A much bigger issue is the issues that all exporters are going to face with the UK mainland. Even transporting goods through the UK will be a nightmare, are we planning to develop Rosslare to take the extra freight?

On the bad deal, the UK keep going on about this. Nobody, so far as I am aware, has shown me that walking away is any better than any deal being put forward.

Reverting to WTO rules for example is only the start. UK, as much as they seem to pretend they are going to do without any trade with EU, will want to continue to trade, and for that they will need trade deals. Do you think and EU country is going to look favourably on the UK if they have only recently been stiffed by them?

And why would other countries look to deal with the UK with the UK has shown it is very willing to walk away from its commitments.

Finally, I really don't understand why there isn't more anger in the UK. Had a party lied to the public in the run up to an election with the same disregard of the leave campaign there would be marches.

£350m per week - lie
Easiest trade deal in history - lie
Maintain a special relationship with EU - Now apparently a walk out is the preferred option
We won't lose any EU reg offices - 2 gone in the last week.
Not much effect on the economy - this is harder as downturn only now appears to be kicking in. But no matter how you look at it, things are going worse now than before the vote.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So when will they throw this grenade? Is there anyone in Scotland even intimating this?
Has anyone in Westminster said it in relation to an Irish sea border?

Scotland are currently letting the English put their own head in the noose. One would think so they can either demand a deal to stay in the EEA if NI can or be indy ref 2

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are you a member of the UK Cabinet? You sound like you might be.

You appear to speak with the authority of a senior Bexiteer Minister, or a very close adviser. You reject even the slightest deviation from the orthodox position of extreme right wing Brxiteers.

The only person I can think of that voted Remain and is now a very hard Bexiteer is Theresa May - are you the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May?

Good morning!

No, but I can read what the Government are saying in the same way that you can. Everyone in the cabinet from Gove to Brokenshire is saying that an internal UK border isn't a goer and rightfully so as far as I can see. It's a bad deal for Northern Ireland and for the UK as a whole.

If anything the Cabinet usually go further than my opinion on matters. I'm willing to go up to about £36bn net (not gross which would include extra funds from assets)

Continually I find that my views are rather moderate on these issues compared to the British public in polling. This is why the bizarre idea that the British public would vote for an EEA style (in the EU in all but name and less control) is absurd.

Leroy42: I think the public aren't angry more than frustrated. I think most people just want to get clarity on the exit and to finish the job off. Rejoining isn't on the cards.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So when will they throw this grenade? Is there anyone in Scotland even intimating this?
Has anyone in Westminster said it in relation to an Irish sea border?

The idea has certainly been floated before now, though I think nobody has seen it as very realistic. Scots Nationalists have generally reacted to Brexit by treating it as an illustration of the need for Scottish independence, rather than by try8ing to devise ways in which Scotland could remain in the EU and in the UK which, after all, is not what they actually want. But people have noted that Denmark has taken the "divided" route, and that in principal it would be one way to deal with the problems that flow from forcing Scotland out of the EU against its strongly-expressed preference. Here, for example, is an opinion piece in the Guardian from last December which discusses it. I've no doubt that with a spot of googling you can find more discussion of the possibility.

Basically, its the kind of compromise that up to now has appealed to neither side. Scots Nationalists want to leave the UK, and aren't interested in devising solutionss to keep it together, while Scots Unionists don't want Scotland treated differently from other parts of the UK. And neither side ever really thought it would fly in Westminster. So it hasn't been pressed very strongly.

But, if it were to be accepted for NI (which, by the way, I think very unlikely) that does change the consideration. If it's politically feasible for part of the UK to remain in the EU/EEA/CU, then why would Scotland not want to be included in that part? And how would a Scottish government justify not pressing to be included? And how would the Westminster government justify refusing, given that the Scots voted very strongly to remain?

I've no doubt that Westminster would refuse, but there'd be a political price to be paid, and it would be a fillip to the Nationalists who, as I said before, would ask why Scotland alone of all the four parts of the UK was being denied the right to choose its own destiny with respect to the EU. It's hard to see this not fuelling a sense of Scottish grievance, and contributing to a renewed pressure for an IndyRef- pressure which would grow still further when the Scots felt the practical impact of Brexit, which will not be good. And this is a sh!tfight that Westminster would much rather avoid, so it's yet another reason why they won't accept a sea border between GB and NI.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

Peregrinus, you are the most informative, and most constructive poster here, and I always enjoy reading your posts. I would emphasise, however, that it is not "the UK" who have decided to leave the single market and customs union, it is teresa may, and her inner coterie of hangers on, appointed by teresa herself, purely as a means of clinging to power.
I have my suspicions about solo, but was banned for voicing them previously. I try to gloss over a lot of what is written here now, but never your posts.
It is a life changing period for my family and I.

It's very kind of you to say this.

I take your point about Teresa May having driven the decision to leave the EEA and the CU. But, from outside the UK, this is irrelevant. This is the decision of the UK. Whether the UK make a decision by referendum, by parliamentary debate or by the whim of a weak Prime Minister is an internal matter for the UK which makes no difference at all to the rest of the world. It's the red lines set in these discussions by the UK which mean that we can't have a progressive trading relationship with the UK.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

The idea has certainly been floated before now, though I think nobody has seen it as very realistic. Scots Nationalists have generally reacted to Brexit by treating it as an illustration of the need for Scottish independence, rather than by try8ing to devise ways in which Scotland could remain in the EU and in the UK which, after all, is not what they actually want. But people have noted that Denmark has taken the "divided" route, and that in principal it would be one way to deal with the problems that flow from forcing Scotland out of the EU against its strongly-expressed preference. Here, for example, is an opinion piece in the Guardian from last December which discusses it. I've no doubt that with a spot of googling you can find more discussion of the possibility.

Basically, its the kind of compromise that up to now has appealed to neither side. Scots Nationalists want to leave the UK, and aren't interested in devising solutionss to keep it together, while Scots Unionists don't want Scotland treated differently from other parts of the UK. And neither side ever really thought it would fly in Westminster. So it hasn't been pressed very strongly.

But, if it were to be accepted for NI (which, by the way, I think very unlikely) that does change the consideration. If it's politically feasible for part of the UK to remain in the EU/EEA/CU, then why would Scotland not want to be included in that part? And how would a Scottish government justify not pressing to be included? And how would the Westminster government justify refusing, given that the Scots voted very strongly to remain?

I've no doubt that Westminster would refuse, but there'd be a political price to be paid, and it would be a fillip to the Nationalists who, as I said before, would ask why Scotland alone of all the four parts of the UK was being denied the right to choose its own destiny with respect to the EU. It's hard to see this not fuelling a sense of Scottish grievance, and contributing to a renewed pressure for an IndyRef- pressure which would grow still further when the Scots felt the practical impact of Brexit, which will not be good. And this is a sh!tfight that Westminster would much rather avoid, so it's yet another reason why they won't accept a sea border between GB and NI.

Perhaps because the Scots know the reason why a different approach is needed in the Irish situation - namely the GFA. That is key to it and is why the EU is interested in supporting the Irish position.

That wouldn't fly if the Scots asked for a border and they know it - hence why it has no traction as a solution for the Scots. They will just let Brexit itself sell the idea of independence.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

The UK won't accept a bad deal - which a high sum of money and this would constitute. Therefore alternatives need to be discussed. Parliament won't vote for a bad deal either.

Solo so many posters on here have pointed out the divorce payment is for current UK commitments, you seem to ignore that, suggesting the now 40bn is a good will gesture and if talks fail then that money shouldn't be paid. I might have you wrong?

murphaph wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth. I only compared land border to sea border not with a FTA that may or may not materialise. If a super duper zero tariff zero regulatory difference (then why Brexit?) FTA materialises then the location of the border will be (as it is today) irrelevant.

The UK want the border primarily to control the flow of people. They want a FTA so they will happily alow goods to flow freely. The UK have all ready sold out NI, while a red line for then is the control of people they have said there won't be border controls in Ireland so we can only assume they don't care about freedom of movement of people from south to North. My guess is if this were to happen, travel from NI to the UK would involve a border checkpoint on "the main land" for people travelling....
That would include the DUP, but they haven't figured that out yet.

ancapailldorcha

Looks like we're losing the EU charter of Fundamental Rights:

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/933093805678407682

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK should keep calm and think about alternative options

Did you even read that article? It simply says May and Co. are "confident" that the lack of a plan for the border will not block trade talks, and Leo & co. saying "Oh, yes it will".

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Perhaps because the Scots know the reason why a different approach is needed in the Irish situation - namely the GFA. That is key to it and is why the EU is interested in supporting the Irish position.

That wouldn't fly if the Scots asked for a border and they know it - hence why it has no traction as a solution for the Scots. They will just let Brexit itself sell the idea of independence.

The GFA is a factor, I agree, and it's the reason why the EU might take the initiative to propose, or might push for, NI to be kept inside the tent rather than out. They'll never do that for Scotland.

But, hypothetically, if the UK were to propose it, I think the EU would be highly receptive, because (a) all other things being equal, they'd rather have Scotland in than out, (b) the feasibility and acceptability of part-in, part-out arrangements is already established by the Danish precedent, and (c) what's not to like? It's not as though they have a problem with land borders per se; they've already got one running all the way from the Baltic to the Black Sea and one running around most of the former Yugoslavia. One between Engand and Scotland poses no challenge at all.

Which means, if the Scots were really keen on this solution, it's Westminster they need to press, not Brussels. But, in the real world, they're not really keen on it, and even if they were Westminster would not accede.

flatty

In fairness, we don't really know what the Scots are keen on, as they have said very little. I think it would be politically dangerous in the extreme not to attempt to stay in the eu. If Westminster veto this, the SNP hand is strengthened immeasurably. If Westminster, realising this, allow it, it will be letting go of one hand by the Scots, and perhaps, well certainly in my opinion, make it a lot psychologically easier to let go of the other hand in due course.
I think the Scots are playing a short term waiting game, which is entirely sensible from the SNP view, as Westminster at present will not tell the truth about anything. They are happier constantly telling half truths, downright lies, and obfuscating, which denies the Scottish leadership the firm and fair platform they would need to do anything.
I'd imagine that sturgeon has some back door diplomacy ongoing with the eu. If she doesn't, she is very foolish, and she is no teresa may.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So when will they throw this grenade? Is there anyone in Scotland even intimating this?
Has anyone in Westminster said it in relation to an Irish sea border?

Why would anyone in Westminister say anything in relation to an Irish sea border other than rule it out? I haven't heard a single MP sitting in Westminister argue for an Irish sea border, certainly not a significant one. Of course, the problem here is that those who might argue for an Irish sea border sit on their hands at home in Belfast.

As for Scotland, the SNP are still pushing for the UK to remain in the EEA

https://www.snp.org/letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_why_is_labour_supporting_the_tories_on_brexit

https://www.snp.org/statement_from_scottish_and_welsh_first_minister_protecting_devolution

"The Scottish Government is doing all we can to prevent an extreme Brexit, keep the UK in the Single Market and protect devolution"


https://www.snp.org/nicola_sturgeons_speech_to_the_snp_conference_2017


"Our message to the Westminster Tories is clear.
Hands off Scotland’s Parliament.
We do want Scotland to stay at the heart of Europe."


"As I have always said, Scotland should have the right to choose our future when the terms of Brexit are clear.


We have a mandate to give the people that choice."


It is hopelessly naive and typically fantastical dreaming of Northern Republicans to believe that Scotland - both Scottish Labour and the SNP -wouldn't ask for and receive the same arrangements as Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland got to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would anyone in Westminister say anything in relation to an Irish sea border other than rule it out? I haven't heard a single MP sitting in Westminister argue for an Irish sea border, certainly not a significant one. Of course, the problem here is that those who might argue for an Irish sea border sit on their hands at home in Belfast.

As for Scotland, the SNP are still pushing for the UK to remain in the EEA

https://www.snp.org/letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_why_is_labour_supporting_the_tories_on_brexit

https://www.snp.org/statement_from_scottish_and_welsh_first_minister_protecting_devolution

"The Scottish Government is doing all we can to prevent an extreme Brexit, keep the UK in the Single Market and protect devolution"


https://www.snp.org/nicola_sturgeons_speech_to_the_snp_conference_2017


"Our message to the Westminster Tories is clear.
Hands off Scotland’s Parliament.
We do want Scotland to stay at the heart of Europe."


"As I have always said, Scotland should have the right to choose our future when the terms of Brexit are clear.


We have a mandate to give the people that choice."


It is hopelessly naive and typically fantastical dreaming of Northern Republicans to believe that Scotland - both Scottish Labour and the SNP -wouldn't ask for and receive the same arrangements as Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland got to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market.

There is no visible demand from the Scots for an internal UK border to keep them in the EU.
I don't have a problem with them asking by the way, it would be just another signal of the fact that the UK is breaking up as we watch.

They can ask but what makes the Irish situation distinct in the eyes of the rest of the EU, is the GFA.

And we know the current Westminster position is NO to a sea border. But that is just a position. They also had a 'position' on the divorce bill which they have significantly changed.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is no visible demand from the Scots for an internal UK border to keep them in the EU.
I don't have a problem with them asking by the way, it would be just another signal of the fact that the UK is breaking up as we watch.

They can ask but what makes the Irish situation distinct in the eyes of the rest of the EU, is the GFA.

And we know the current Westminster position is NO to a sea border. But that is just a position. They also had a 'position' on the divorce bill which they have significantly changed.

The Scots have repeatedly said that they want a referendum on the Brexit deal. What would a no to Brexit mean other than an internal UK border? If the North gets one, they will want one too.

Of course the EU have to use the GFA issue as a negotiating tactic to try and force the UK to stay in the CU and SM. However, if that doesn't work, Plan B, a hard border comes into play.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The Scots have repeatedly said that they want a referendum on the Brexit deal. What would a no to Brexit mean other than an internal UK border? If the North gets one, they will want one too.

Of course the EU have to use the GFA issue as a negotiating tactic to try and force the UK to stay in the CU and SM. However, if that doesn't work, Plan B, a hard border comes into play.

The point you are refusing to grasp is that the Scots will be told NO, the Irish situation is different because of the GFA. And it is, as has been pointed out.

The Scots will have to wear Brexit and lobby/campaign for independence after it happens.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point you are refusing to grasp is that the Scots will be told NO

This is the idea. They ask for the same terms as NI and get told NO.

Then they leave the UK and apply for membership of the EU.

zetalambda

RTE reporting that Dublin was 7th on the list of locations to relocate the EMA.
I'd imagine it's way down the list for most companies and organizations relocating due to Brexit. In fact, many probably won't even consider a move to Dublin.

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1121/921794-dublin-ranked-7th-in-ema-location-list/

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point you are refusing to grasp is that the Scots will be told NO, the Irish situation is different because of the GFA. And it is, as has been pointed out.

The Scots will have to wear Brexit and lobby/campaign for independence after it happens.

The Scots will be told no??? In what alternative reality do you live in where the May government, propped up by the DUP, brings in an internal border with NI, keeps the DUP support, tells the Scots to get lost and keeps power?

I know we have been through some strange and interesting times, but that sequence of events takes the biscuit.

If the republicans who dream of a sea border being the harbringer of a united Ireland were being smart, they would want Scotland to also have an internal border within the UK, as that would be less threatening to the unionists and have a better chance of convincing them to accept a sea border.

blanch152

zetalambda wrote: »

RTE reporting that Dublin was 7th on the list of locations to relocate the EMA.
I'd imagine it's way down the list for most companies and organizations relocating due to Brexit. In fact, many probably won't even consider a move to Dublin.

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1121/921794-dublin-ranked-7th-in-ema-location-list/

Ireland is 1% of the European Union.

To benefit disproportionately from Brexit, we therefore need to get more than 1% of the relocations from London. 10% of the relocations would be a fantastic achievement and would probably break the infrastructure in Dublin.

I would guess that finishing 7th on the list of locations would give a result more towards 10% than 1%.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The Scots will be told no??? In what alternative reality do you live in where the May government, propped up by the DUP, brings in an internal border with NI, keeps the DUP support, tells the Scots to get lost and keeps power?

I know we have been through some strange and interesting times, but that sequence of events takes the biscuit.

If the republicans who dream of a sea border being the harbringer of a united Ireland were being smart, they would want Scotland to also have an internal border within the UK, as that would be less threatening to the unionists and have a better chance of convincing them to accept a sea border.

If you could for once leave the 'dreaming republican' rants out of it, and listen to what is being said.
The EU will not consider it, May and the Scots and the DUP can ask, but they will be told NO because it is the GFA that makes the Irish situation require a unique solution.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you could for once leave the 'dreaming republican' rants out of it, and listen to what is being said.
The EU will not consider it, May and the Scots and the DUP can ask, but they will be told NO because it is the GFA that makes the Irish situation require a unique solution.

Sorry, do you have a link to a definite EU position paper on this?

You were repeatedly asking earlier who in Scotland was looking for it. I pointed you to the SNP website where they want a referendum on the Brexit outcome which implies a possibility to stay in the EU.

So now it is your turn to come up with an official EU position that says they will not consider it.

FrancieBrady

The signs of desperation as 'control' spirals away from Unionism are reaching new comedic scaremongering heights.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/offbeat/former-unionist-politician-says-donegal-should-leave-southern-urekand-1.3300847

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Looks like we're losing the EU charter of Fundamental Rights:

https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/933093805678407682

Ordinary people vote in a party of elites. The party of elites deletes their charter of rights. Quelle surprise.

zetalambda

blanch152 wrote: »

Ireland is 1% of the European Union.

To benefit disproportionately from Brexit, we therefore need to get more than 1% of the relocations from London. 10% of the relocations would be a fantastic achievement and would probably break the infrastructure in Dublin.

I would guess that finishing 7th on the list of locations would give a result more towards 10% than 1%.

It's not the EU that's moving. We're about 50% the population of London from where the bulk of relocations are happening. I would argue that being 7th on any location list will get you 0%. And being the only other english speaking country in the EU,you would expect the vast majority of relocations would have come our direction but it's the exact opposite.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Sorry, do you have a link to a definite EU position paper on this?

You were repeatedly asking earlier who in Scotland was looking for it. I pointed you to the SNP website where they want a referendum on the Brexit outcome which implies a possibility to stay in the EU.

So now it is your turn to come up with an official EU position that says they will not consider it.

I gave my 'opinion' of what the EU would say, based on what has happened so far.

Why would a sea border make the Scottish request for a referendum any stronger?

It won't because the answer will be that the Irish situation is unique, which the rest of the EU have already stated again and again and which Westminister also recognise.

Zubeneschamali

zetalambda wrote: »

It's not the EU that's moving. We're about 50% the population of London from where the bulk of relocations are happening. I would argue that being 7th on any location list will get you 0%.

We lost the banking agency to Paris only on the toss of a coin after the two bids drew 13-13.

Leroy42

Hammond said today that they have already 'invested' £700m in brexit preparations and he is putting aside £3bn for the next two years.

THat is just the tip of the costs, the cost of the legal and extra civil servants etc. It takes no account of the economic costs.

Round to £4bn. Jebus, think of what they could be doing with that money instead of spending it redrafting laws that are already there.

Also, growth estimates have been revised down. They are now:

2017 - 1.5%

2018 - 1.4%

2019 - 1.3%

2020 - 1.3%

2021 - 1.5%

2022 - 1.6%

It was 2.2% in 2015 and 1.8% in 2016.

Harika

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hammond said today that they have already 'invested' £700m in brexit preparations and he is putting aside £3bn for the next two years.

THat is just the tip of the costs, the cost of the legal and extra civil servants etc. It takes no account of the economic costs.

Round to £4bn. Jebus, think of what they could be doing with that money instead of spending it redrafting laws that are already there.

That has to be taken in consideration when people dream of stopping Brexit. The EU also encountered some costs like listed above and they will ask Britain to pay.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hammond said today that they have already 'invested' £700m in brexit preparations and he is putting aside £3bn for the next two years.

THat is just the tip of the costs, the cost of the legal and extra civil servants etc. It takes no account of the economic costs.

Round to £4bn. Jebus, think of what they could be doing with that money instead of spending it redrafting laws that are already there.

Also, growth estimates have been revised down. They are now:

2017 - 1.5%

2018 - 1.4%

2019 - 1.3%

2020 - 1.3%

2021 - 1.5%

2022 - 1.6%

It was 2.2% in 2015 and 1.8% in 2016.

Apparently this is the first time in modern UK history that growth forecast has been under 2% every year over the forecast horizon.