Brexit discussion thread II

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't know why people ask this question. The Government have been clear about what they want. They are looking to continue free travel from the EU even at British airports. Not free movement of labour. That's the distinction.

Employment checks can happen on seeking NI and employment. I've answered that already on this thread several times. This already happens for countries with visa waivers into the UK.

The UK have no desire for a hard border if one is erected it will be at the EU's insistence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fine, but that was all in the hands of the UK already, you didn't need Brexit for that. If people are working, therefore adding to the economy, what is the problem?

So it is not illegal immigration that you have any trouble with, it was all these people coming to the UK to work?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here.

The UK will never know if the EU is willing to consider alternatives unless it proposes some.

I think you're right in saying that the sea border proposal will not be acceptable to the UK. It's not a matter of it not getting through Parliament; it'll never even get to Parliament, never mind through it. The point of the EU proposing it, I think, is (a) to get some proposal on the table for the UK to reject, to increase the pressure on the UK to come up with a proposal of its own, and and (b) to highlight that any proposal which is going to square the circles the UK has set for itself is going to have to be pretty radical, and is going to have to require significant changes to things which the UK hasn't yet characterised as "red line" issues. The sea border proposal, problematic as it was for the UK, didn't actually cross any of the red lines. The onus is now really on the UK to come up with its own proposal which will meet its declared objectives without crossing any of its red lines.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fine, but that was all in the hands of the UK already, you didn't need Brexit for that. If people are working, therefore adding to the economy, what is the problem?

So it is not illegal immigration that you have any trouble with, it was all these people coming to the UK to work?

Correct. The British were always free to control illegal immigration more vigorously or effectively than they did; they didn't need Brexit to give them that ability. What Brexit does is to allow them to reduce the scope and scale of legal immigration more than would otherwise be possible.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fine, but that was all in the hands of the UK already, you didn't need Brexit for that. If people are working, therefore adding to the economy, what is the problem?

So it is not illegal immigration that you have any trouble with, it was all these people coming to the UK to work?

Good morning!

Immigration isn't the biggest reason why I want the UK to leave the EU but the concerns raised in the referendum about an oversupply in low wage labour need to be addressed. I think it's fairly easily resolved. An issuing of permits for contested sectors should be enough. I broadly agree with the benefits of immigration. The referendum was the biggest mass participation in democracy the country has seen for decades. The concerns need to be dealt with in a reasonable way.

The reasons I want to leave more concern settling affairs ultimately in the UK and taking control of trade policy and gaining the ability to forge new free trade deals with other countries. The trade department is currently in discussions with 21 countries. There's three broad tasks on this front - negotiate a trade deal with the EU, sign continuing agreements with external EU trade partners, sign new agreements with new countries. The trade departments 21 countries include both the second and the third.

There's a lot of potential. Sure there are difficult discussions ahead but I'm very optimistic.

Edit: illegal immigration is dealt with by the UK Border Force. Deportations happen and will continue to happen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

But Norway and Switzerland are both in the EEA, which the UK intends to leave. As EEA members, they apply EU law regarding consumer law, envintomental protection, agricultural standards and many other areas that would otherwise have to be policed at the point of entry. And they've also got a customs agreement through the EEA whereby there are no customs duties on goods imported into Norway or Switzerland from other EEA countries, or vice versa. The UK isn't proposing to do any of this.

In fact the Norway and Switzerland examples undermine your claim that the EU isn't willing to countenance flexible alternatives to create low-impact borders; they clearly are, since they do that for both Norway and Switzerland. It's the UK that keeps taking positions, making demands and laying down red lines that will make a low-impact border in Ireland difficult to achieve. The EU would be quite happy to have no border at all in Ireland; that's the situation that has prevailed for the past 20 years to general satisfaction. It's the UK that is putting a stop to that.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Screaming in bold doesn't make it any less true that I'd there's going to be a border it will be at the EU's insistence.

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here. The one size fits all custom union approach isn't workable in this scenario. A sea border won't get through parliament so why is it such a big deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Don't both these countries have to accept the majority of EU laws, pay a substantial amount into the EU budget and accept the ECJ? All of these are red lines for the UK. So how does your proposal work? It appears that you are really taking the UK line of dreamland proposals.

Samaris

I'm rather curious as to the screaming headlines if Britain did go for a Norway style approach to customs. Ok, so first they'd need to stay in the EEA which has become a red line, so we're already in fantasy territory. But:

EU OFFICIALS TO BE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE BRITISH GOODS 15 MILES* INSIDE OUR TERRITORY!

Would probably be the least of the foaming by the Sun et al.

*Probably km, but the issue stands.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reasons I want to leave more concern settling affairs ultimately in the UK and taking control of trade policy and gaining the ability to forge new free trade deals with other countries. The trade department is currently in discussions with 21 countries. There's three broad tasks on this front - negotiate a trade deal with the EU, sign continuing agreements with external EU trade partners, sign new agreements with new countries. The trade departments 21 countries include both the second and the third.

There's a lot of potential. Sure there are difficult discussions ahead but I'm very optimistic.

Through Brexit, the UK is leaving the largest and freest free trade deal that the world has ever seen with 31 other countries. It's also leaving the EU's network of trade deals with 33 other countries with whom free trade deals are already in place, 20 countries with whom free trade deals have been concluded that are awaiting commencement, and somewhere north of 20 more countries with whom free trade deals are under negotiation.

To replace this, the UK hopes to conclude a much less free agreement than the one it already has with the EU-27, plus it is in negotiation with 21 other countries, including some but not all of the countries with whom they already have trade deals through the EU.

And you think that presents "a lot of potential"? You're "very optimistic"? Seriously?

This is just delusional, solo.

solodeogloria

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Don't both these countries have to accept the majority of EU laws, pay a substantial amount into the EU budget and accept the ECJ? All of these are red lines for the UK. So how does your proposal work?

Good morning!

It isn't a "proposal" more a statement that customs union membership isn't required for an open border.

The technical details of what can be agreed need to come with trade and customs terms. Therefore the second phase is now key.

If both the UK and the EU are willing to be flexible I'm sure a solution can be found but it won't be found for as long as the EU insists that a bespoke solution can't be agreed.

The UK position paper includes the UK's current proposals. There's no point saying nothing has been presented.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't a "proposal" more a statement that customs union membership isn't required for an open border.

No, but from your examples it appears that EEA membership, plus a zero-tariff customs agreement, may be. The UK positively rules out the first and, to put it mildly, hasn't exactly committed itself to the second.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

If both the UK and the EU are willing to be flexible I'm sure a solution can be found but it won't be found for as long as the EU insists that a bespoke solution can't be agreed.

Perhaps the UK could propose a realistic solution then?

You keep citing Norway and Switzerland, both countries who are in the single market and the customs union. Switzerland is landlocked. If the UK is successful in realising its aspiration to tap into global markets then that's a lot of goods which need to be checked before the enter the single market and customs union.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Screaming in bold doesn't make it any less true that if there's going to be a border it will be at the EU's insistence.

It is only the EU that is insisting that there is no other model but there are two different countries outside of the customs union in Europe that have free movement of traffic. Norway has to check trucks at designated checkpoints but other traffic goes through. Switzerland only checks 2%.

If the EU were willing to consider alternatives particular to Northern Ireland's circumstances then we wouldn't be here. The one size fits all custom union approach isn't workable in this scenario. A sea border won't get through parliament so why is it such a big deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU already offered the boldest thing it possibly could, to allow part of the UK to remain in the customs union and single market.

The UK flatly refused but suggested nothing in return.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

A realistic solution can't be agreed until the EU are willing to discuss trade and customs. There's no point saying find a solution whilst saying we're not going to let you talk about what's required to solve it!

There's a good article in the FT this morning about why Ireland needs a good Brexit deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't a "proposal" more a statement that customs union membership isn't required for an open border.

The technical details of what can be agreed need to come with trade and customs terms. Therefore the second phase is now key.

If both the UK and the EU are willing to be flexible I'm sure a solution can be found but it won't be found for as long as the EU insists that a bespoke solution can't be agreed.

The UK position paper includes the UK's current proposals. There's no point saying nothing has been presented.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Right. What do you think should happen with the border if no FTA materialises?

Even if it does, it is likely to be along the lines of CETA. What would you do with the border given a CETA like FTA?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

A realistic solution can't be agreed until the EU are willing to discuss trade and customs. There's no point saying find a solution whilst saying we're not going to let you talk about what's required to solve it!

There's a good article in the FT this morning about why Ireland needs a good Brexit deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're deflecting here. I'm talking about how a border would be patrolled and goods inspected, not the tariffs and regulations on those goods. This sounds like you want to blame anyone except for the Brexiteers for this. The UK chose this path, they have to walk it.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're deflecting here. I'm talking about how a border would be patrolled and goods inspected, not the tariffs and regulations on those goods. This sounds like you want to blame anyone except for the Brexiteers for this. The UK chose this path, they have to walk it.

Good morning!

The types of controls and patrols depend on whether tariffs are in place and customs terms.

It isn't deflecting. This question cannot be answered until we see what is agreed in phase two.

The UK don't want a hard border and have stated their preference in their position paper.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

A realistic solution can't be agreed until the EU are willing to discuss trade and customs. There's no point saying find a solution whilst saying we're not going to let you talk about what's required to solve it!

But the UK agreed months ago that there would have to be progress on the border issue before attention turned to talks of the trading relationship.

The intent here is obvious; the two sides agree on what kind of border they want in Ireland, and commit to a trading relationship consistent with the border that they want. That then sets parameters within which the trading relationship is discussed.

The UK doesn't have the luxury of signing up to such a sequence and then deciding six months later that, no, they want to do it the other way around; hold the trading talks and then let the agreement on trade dictate what kind of border is possible. They wasted enough time after giving the Art 50 notice by holding an ill-judged general election; they don't have the luxury of another six months to burn at this stage.

They need to get off their arses and come up with a serious proposal for how the Irish border will work, and commit in good faith to negotiating a trading relationshiop for which that will be an appropriate and feasible border. Practically everybody is of the view that the UK's objectives with regard to the border cannot be reconciled with its objectives with regard to trade. If that view is incorrect, it is past time for the UK to come up with a proposal for reconciling the two. The longer they defer this, the more they give the impression that, actually, that view is correct and they know it.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the UK agreed months ago that there would have to be progress on the border issue before attention turned to talks of the trading relationship.

The intent here is obvious; the two sides agree on what kind of border they want in Ireland, and commit to a trading relationship consistent with the border that they want. That then sets parameters within which the trading relationship is discussed.

The UK doesn't have the luxury of signing up to such a sequence and then deciding six months later that, no, they want to do it the other way around; hold the trading talks and then let the agreement on trade dictate what kind of border is possible. They wasted enough time after giving the Art 50 notice by holding an ill-judged general election; they don't have the luxury of another six months to burn at this stage.

They need to get off their arses and come up with a serious proposal for how the Irish border will work, and commit in good faith to negotiating a trading relationshiop for which that will be an appropriate and feasible border. Practically everybody is of the view that the UK's objectives with regard to the border cannot be reconciled with its objectives with regard to trade. If that view is incorrect, it is past time for the UK to come up with a proposal for reconciling the two. The longer they defer this, the more they give the impression that, actually, that view is correct and they know it.

Good morning!

Last post on the thread for the day.

To be short:
Firstly - the UK have provided a description of what they want in their position paper.

Secondly - the EU and the UK didn't agree that border issues would be resolved in full. There has been progress on cross border institutions and the CTA in rounds of negotiations.

Thirdly - and this is why I think Varadkar is just showboating. He said in the Dáil that he anticipated moving to phase 2 weeks before he demanded this.

Finally - the EU isn't looking for a statement of intent here. They are doing this to force the UK either to partially stay in the customs union or fully stay in. This is despite knowing that there are alternatives that can be discussed in phase two.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Schorpio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The types of controls and patrols depend on whether tariffs are in place and customs terms.

It isn't deflecting. This question cannot be answered until we see what is agreed in phase two.

The UK don't want a hard border and have stated their preference in their position paper.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Right, but that all comes back to -

breatheme wrote: »

...NI can't be a bargaining chip, that's why the EU wants to settle this NOW, so that later the UK isn't like "well, fine, but if you don't give us this without that we'll have to have a border in Ireland." The reason we solve this now and THEN move on to trade is because that way whatever happens during trade discussion, the Island of Ireland remains with no border within itself....

If the UK signs an agreement that there will be no fixed border, border patrol, or any border infrastructure over and above anything which is there presently, then the talks could move on. But they won't, so the talks are stagnant.

NI cannot be bargained with. It's taken too long to get it where we are today. The UK should understand and support that.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote:

Fine, but that was all in the hands of the UK already, you didn't need Brexit for that. If people are working, therefore adding to the economy, what is the problem?

Leroy42 wrote:

So it is not illegal immigration that you have any trouble with, it was all these people coming to the UK to work?

And back we go to trying to argue the referendum again.

Is it the case that the only 'solution' acceptable to the EU and our Republic in particular is that the UK doesn't leave?

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

And back we go to trying to argue the referendum again.

Is it the case that the only 'solution' acceptable to the EU and our Republic in particular is that the UK doesn't leave?

No. That would be a solution that would please us greatly, but it's not the only one.

The UK joining the EEA would work too. As would the sea border.

And it's possible that a solution proposed by the UK would also work for us; we won't know unless they propose some. So far their contribution to the process has largely consisted of dismissing the solutions proposed by others.

kowtow

Schorpio wrote:

If the UK signs an agreement that there will be no fixed border, border patrol, or any border infrastructure over and above anything which is there presently, then the talks could move on. But they won't, so the talks are stagnant.

The UK PM announced this yesterday. For the umpteenth time. We just don't like it so we are pretending not to hear.

Nody

Solo asked about proof of the doom & gloom predictions; well now Hammond has admitted that UK has fallen to 6th position even before leaving EU while lowering the growth expected (and keep in mind that growth is based on the assumption that a EU deal is struck and that imports go down as much as export goes down with EU which is highly unlikely).

Schorpio

kowtow wrote: »

The UK PM announced this yesterday. For the umpteenth time. We just don't like it so we are pretending not to hear.

Link?

An announcement doesn't cut it though. The UK has stated plenty of times that they don't want a hard border. The issue is when the talks progress, and the UK changes its stance to 'well we didn't want a hard border, but it's now become clear to us that it's unavoidable'.

It needs to be signed by the UK in writing, that there will be no hard border under any circumstance. As we've seen with this Tory government (and this PM) time and time again, announcements and promises are meaningless (no magic money tree, anyone?).

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It isn't a "proposal" more a statement that customs union membership isn't required for an open border.

The technical details of what can be agreed need to come with trade and customs terms. Therefore the second phase is now key.

If both the UK and the EU are willing to be flexible I'm sure a solution can be found but it won't be found for as long as the EU insists that a bespoke solution can't be agreed.

The UK position paper includes the UK's current proposals. There's no point saying nothing has been presented.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's not a proposal it's pure nonsense as it directly contradicts 3 of your and the UK governments red lines.

kowtow

Schorpio wrote:

It needs to be signed by the UK in writing, that there will be no hard border under any circumstance. As we've seen with this Tory government (and this PM) time and time again, announcements and promises are meaningless (no magic money tree, anyone?).

That's naive and childish.

We are negotiating with a sovereign state. They are no longer subject to club rules.

And in any case their position on the NI border has never changed.

It is not the obligation of the UK to enforce the EU or Irish border.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

From an immigration point of view the UK border will be (relatively) easy to cross, but any time you want to sign on for benefits, enter employment, pay or reclaim tax, enroll in college, etc, you'll need to demonstrate your citizenship/immigration status by producing the appropriate documentation.

And to prevent complaints of racism and discrimination, even the Little Englanders will have to prove their status at every step, too.

"Ihre papiere, bitte"

mickoneill31

kowtow wrote: »

That's naive and childish.

We are negotiating with a sovereign state. They are no longer subject to club rules.

And in any case their position on the NI border has never changed.

It is not the obligation of the UK to enforce the EU or Irish border.

Its naive and childish to get an agreement signed? What planet are you on?

As to the UK position on the border. Just because the UK say they don't want one doesn't mean that's the end of it. If they don't want one there has to be an agreement or some alternative control. The agreement would be to stay in the customs union. That's a red line. So that won't work.
The alternative controls are to come up with "imaginative solutions". They havent managed that either.

To say that the UK don't want a border so it's the EUs fault is naive and childish.
Actually Im not sure if it's childish. I know children who seem to understand what borders are for better than some posters here.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

To replace this, the UK hopes to conclude a much less free agreement than the one it already has with the EU-27, plus it is in negotiation with 21 other countries, including some but not all of the countries with whom they already have trade deals through the EU.

I've already pointed out that the average tarrif on EU exports to the US is 3%, yet some claim that the UK will be able to greatly improve on this.

And the only reason an EU -India trade deal has not been finalised is because of objections from - yes, you guessed it - the UK.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. No, wait - its funny anyway.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

That's naive and childish.

We are negotiating with a sovereign state. They are no longer subject to club rules.

And in any case their position on the NI border has never changed.

It is not the obligation of the UK to enforce the EU or Irish border.

Except that the UK are actively talking about a no deal, and thus walking away from commitments they freely signed up to.

If you were negotiating a deal with someone like that would you accept their word? Not a chance.

"The EU is crap, we want to leave."
"OK, we don't want you to go, but if you must then the first thing we need to do is ensure that we can continue on with the commitments you made and continue the projects."
"Well, not sure about that. If you don't do want we want screw you. Now how about we talk about a good trade deal?"

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

What Brexit does is to allow them to reduce the scope and scale of legal immigration more than would otherwise be possible.

Specifically legal immigration from other EU nations. They always had the power to reduce non-EU immigration as they saw fit (they just never saw fit to do so).

There is a good case to be made that many communities in the UK with high immigrant populations from Commonwealth nations like India or Pakistan voted for Brexit to keep out the Poles and Romanians, seeing their community in competition for a limited British tolerance for immigrants.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Immigration isn't the biggest reason why I want the UK to leave the EU

Given that you are an immigrant yourself, I should think not.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

A realistic solution can't be agreed until the EU are willing to discuss trade and customs.

Nope, that's an Irish (and therefore EU) red line, has been since before talks began, and was accepted by Davis and co. going in.

No trade or transition talks until the Border is settled to our satisfaction.

C'mon, solo, where's the creative and flexible solution the UK keep saying they will come up with?

kowtow

mickoneill31 wrote:

Its naive and childish to get an agreement signed? What planet are you on?

It's meaningless given that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed anyway.

And as far as talk of walking away from agreements is concerned .. the UK was always free to leave the EU. That's what it is doing. We should not let our hurt feelings cloud our good judgement here.

Of course we can veto trade talks and stall the whole process, but the inevitable outcome would only be that which we are professed to avoid.. a hard Irish / EU (Not uk) border in the middle of this island.

We can't blame the British for that.

Leroy42

Nobody is claiming that the UK can't walk away, but the no deal advocates are taking the view that they can walk away from the commitments freely made in the past.

The divorce bill is not about the future, it is about paying for what UK agreed and signed up to.

The steps of the talks were agreed by both sides before the talks began, but now the UK want to go back on that agreement too.

But yet you expect the EU just to take the UK words on faith? Why?

We can certainly blame the British for that.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The types of controls and patrols depend on whether tariffs are in place and customs terms.

It isn't deflecting. This question cannot be answered until we see what is agreed in phase two.

The UK don't want a hard border and have stated their preference in their position paper.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It isn't just about tariffs and customs terms, it is about regulations and standards.

If there is an open border, then the chlorinated chicken imported from the US by the UK into Liverpool can find its way to French supermarket shelves through the North and the South of Ireland. The French quite rightly won't stand for that.

First Up

blanch152 wrote: »

It isn't just about tariffs and customs terms, it is about regulations and standards.

If there is an open border, then the chlorinated chicken imported from the US by the UK into Liverpool can find its way to French supermarket shelves through the North and the South of Ireland. The French quite rightly won't stand for that.

The EU has already made it abundantly clear that there will be no open border unless there is both an FTA and regulatory equivalence. This comes up every time the EU is negotiating with a third country. The EU has a number of DCFTA's (Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements) especially with Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union countries but they do not over-ride the EU's standards. The EU has always been flexible on trade terms - a negotiation and trade-off process - but there is no compromise on standards.

Zubeneschamali

kowtow wrote: »

Of course we can veto trade talks and stall the whole process

We cannot stall the important process - the UK leaves in March 2019 unless some other process happens.

We can block the UK's trade and transition negotiations with the EU, and we will. If they won't settle the border, they will crash out with no deal. Their growth projections will look very different in that light.

Professor Moriarty

No doubt this was an orchestrated leak by the Dept of Foreign Affairs but it confirms what Barnier, Verhofstadt and Juncker have been saying, albeit they were using diplomatic language. It's a summation harvested from Irish ambassadors' reports of meetings in ten different EU countries:

"...quotes senior EU figures as being alarmed by "chaos in the Conservative government", with British ministers and civil servants unable to agree a coherent policy on Brexit."

And:

"During a meeting in Luxembourg, the British judge in the European Court of justice bemoaned "the quality of politicians in Westminster".
Ian Forrester wondered if the British public might view Brexit as "a great mistake" when they realised what leaving the EU entailed."

And:

"The opinions voiced by EU ministers and senior officials to Irish diplomats reflect widespread pessimism and even scorn about the British government's negotiating position."


I'm looking forward to the Torygraph spinning this as an attack by an ungrateful Ireland on an innocent Britain.

steddyeddy

EU cancels Britain's hosting of European capital of culture. It's nice to see the EU treating Brexit as Brexit.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-european-capital-of-culture-uk-cancelled-leeds-eu-banned-a8071261.html%3famp

whatstherush

blanch152 wrote: »

It isn't just about tariffs and customs terms, it is about regulations and standards.

If there is an open border, then the chlorinated chicken imported from the US by the UK into Liverpool can find its way to French supermarket shelves through the North and the South of Ireland. The French quite rightly won't stand for that.

It's even more shíttier than that, any lowering on import standards are going to result local standards changing to match, so you have to check everything coming from UK\NI not just US imports.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The types of controls and patrols depend on whether tariffs are in place and customs terms.

It isn't deflecting. This question cannot be answered until we see what is agreed in phase two.

The UK don't want a hard border and have stated their preference in their position paper.

The UK might not want a border but 52% of the electorate voted for it.

Tariffs have nothing to do with the physical movement of goods and labour so, yes you are deflecting. The EU is right to insist that this be resolved first as the British clearly didn't care about it before the referendum. Saying that they don't want a border is akin to wanting to have their cake and eat it.

ambro25

kowtow wrote: »

That's naive and childish.

We are negotiating with a sovereign state. They are no longer subject to club rules.

And in any case their position on the NI border has never changed.

It is not the obligation of the UK to enforce the EU or Irish border.

Absent the UK's membership of the CU, it certainly is the UK's obligation to enforce its border with the EU in NI, if it hopes to trade with WTO member states on WTO MFN terms.

In the alternative, the UK can only expect WTO sanctions (implemented by WTO member states e.g. as punitive tariffs), and cannot expect FTAs with anyone.

It really is that simple.

So, where does that leave you?

For the avoidance of doubt, there's no clouding of any judgement here: simply the straightforward consequences of legal strictures and their obligations, all to be found in the various treaties involved (of which the TEU is but one, amongst very many indeed) and binding the said treaties' signatories.

kowtow wrote: »

It's meaningless given that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed anyway.

And as far as talk of walking away from agreements is concerned .. the UK was always free to leave the EU. That's what it is doing. We should not let our hurt feelings cloud our good judgement here.

Of course we can veto trade talks and stall the whole process, but the inevitable outcome would only be that which we are professed to avoid.. a hard Irish / EU (Not uk) border in the middle of this island.

We can't blame the British for that.

We absolutely can: until their government set out its red lines (no EEA, no ECJ, no CU <etc.>), the issue did not arise.

Unless their government rows back on at least some those red lines (to the extent required to permit at least CU membership), the issue endures.

The issue is fully of the UK's making, sequentially:

[lack of formal, or even semi-formal, evidence-led planning about Leave pre-referendum, by anyone]

> consultative referendum, moreover wholly without any outcome(s) specified as regards the form of Brexit to be pursued in case of majority Leave vote

> single-sided interpretation by the UK government of the form of leaving to be pursued by new 12th-hour PM, with the red lines stated (no EEA, no ECJ, no CU <etc.>)

> lack of meaningful consultation or engagement with the EU about the issue pre- or post-Art.50 notification

[GE 2017]

> self-serving political alliance of government with loyalist party with a heavy bias on the issue

> continuing lack of meaningful consultation or engagement with the EU about the issue since the GE 2017

= complete and utter self-snookering of the UK on the issue, wholly of its own making.

I can hear the EU27 still p***ing themselves laughing all the way from Sheffield.

kowtow

ambro25 wrote:

Absent the UK's membership of the CU, it certainly is the UK's obligation to enforce its border with the EU in NI, if it hopes to trade with WTO member states on WTO MFN terms.

I think that's the key point here and clearly that is what the UK will need to achieve with its soft / electronic border at the frontier itself. I'm fairly confident that they can do this to the satisfaction of the WTO and still put no hardware at the border. It is less likely that Ireland and the EU can achieve the same from our side.

Clearly it serves our purposes qua EU members to paint the UK negotiators as utterly confused and chaotic. That picture has been built up since before the start of the talks and the Tories are doing a great job of playing into our hands. However.. That picture of chaos only really helps the EU if it leads to a Corbyn govt. + A really EU friendly fudge.. basically a Brexit which doesn't mean Brexit.

Which is presumably why we here and many of the hardened remainers in the UK keep rehearsing the Brexit arguments ad nauseam.

The trouble is we misjduge.. IMO the degree to which economics, immigration and the rest define the referendum. They were important but perhaps they were not overriding. In the end the UK prize sovereignty perhaps even more than prosperity (they would hardly be the first.. And sovereignty is not in this sense a relative or shareable concept).. and there is a deep seated mistrust of the EU, it's politicians and it's mechanisms. In my opinion those two factors carried the vote and our behaviour and that of the EU throughout the talks absolutely justifies and bears out those concerns. We are behaving.. for perfectly sound tactical and political reasons.. like the technocratic Empire the UK so instinctively detests.

There is no pretty outcome to this problem, particularly for Ireland, and as much as we might lay the blame at Britain's door we must recognise the real roots of their decision lie with the EU and it's genesis as much as anywhere else.

And we - of all the nations- can hardly blame the British for voting with their hearts rather than their heads.

Schorpio

kowtow wrote: »

The trouble is we misjduge.. IMO the degree to which economics, immigration and the rest define the referendum. They were important but perhaps they were not overriding.

As someone who lived there (and who voted in the referendum), I talked to many a Leave voter. I even attended a public debate. And I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. The two key Leave factors were -

Immigration - Give us back control. Give us back our jobs.
Economics - MOAR MONEY FOR THE NHS! (I saw it on a bright red shiny bus!!)

kowtow wrote: »

And we - of all the nations- can hardly blame the British for voting with their hearts rather than their heads.

Again - totally disagree. It's everyone's civic duty to be an informed voter. It's the whole point of democracy. If someone votes without having made any effort to have an informed opinion, then I most certainly retain the right to blame them. The most infuriating aspect of Brexit was the lady on ITV news the day of the result who said she regretted voting Leave.

kowtow

Schorpio wrote:

Again - totally disagree. It's everyone's civic duty to be an informed voter. It's the whole point of democracy. If someone votes without having made any effort to have an informed opinion, then I most certainly retain the right to blame them. The most infuriating aspect of Brexit was the lady on ITV news the day of the result who said she regretted voting Leave.

That is wishful thinking.

The point of democracy is to enshrine the power and function of sovereignty in those who are to be subject to it. No more and no less. The UK does not qualify voters or demand that they are bound by any particular duty or motive in the ballot box. They are free to vote in the interest, as they see it, of their family, town, village or (famously in the uk) the rights of hedgehogs at pedestrian crossings. It is for the politicians to make the arguments for better or worse.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

That is wishful thinking.

The point of democracy is to enshrine the power and function of sovereignty in those who are to be subject to it. No more and no less. The UK does not qualify voters or demand that they are bound by any particular duty or motive in the ballot box. They are free to vote in the interest, as they see it, of their family, town, village or (famously in the uk) the rights of hedgehogs at pedestrian crossings. It is for the politicians to make the arguments for better or worse.

The politicians put forward the referendum and campaigned for and against Brexit. Who elected these politicians?

demfad

kowtow wrote: »

I think that's the key point here and clearly that is what the UK will need to achieve with its soft / electronic border at the frontier itself. I'm fairly confident that they can do this to the satisfaction of the WTO and still put no hardware at the border. It is less likely that Ireland and the EU can achieve the same from our side.

Like any market the single market is defensive. If there is regulatory divergence between NI and ROI (UK leaves single market) then goods must be checked coming in to make sure, for example, chlorinated chicken or poorly regulated baby food is not imported into the EU. This is not the EU choosing to erect a border: rather, the border is the inevitable result of the UK's decision to impose regulatory divergence between northern Ireland and Ireland. It is a regulatory border which must be checked.

Ireland and the EU does not see anyway around this. Neither does the UK (they haven't come up with a way yet).
The UK wants to move to phase two without resolving this.
If Ireland/EU accept this then the only way to avoid a hard border is a deep trade agreement between Ireland (EU) and UK. As the UK has ruled out membership of the customs Union, Single market and any juristiction of the ECJ then the only solution to avoid a hard border is the 'Have your cake and eat it' solution.

Effectively in phase two, Ireland would have to choose between a hard border or fighting for the UKs cake. We must never let this happen.

Schorpio

kowtow wrote: »

That is wishful thinking.

The point of democracy is to enshrine the power and function of sovereignty in those who are to be subject to it. No more and no less. The UK does not qualify voters or demand that they are bound by any particular duty or motive in the ballot box. They are free to vote in the interest, as they see it, of their family, town, village or (famously in the uk) the rights of hedgehogs at pedestrian crossings. It is for the politicians to make the arguments for better or worse.

I know it's wishful thinking, unfortunately.

But I never said that voters were bound by any particular duty - I said it is their civic duty to be informed, and know what you're voting for. But anyway, it's all beside the point. No use of dwelling on a vote people can't change even if they wanted to.

ancapailldorcha

kowtow wrote: »

Clearly it serves our purposes qua EU members to paint the UK negotiators as utterly confused and chaotic. That picture has been built up since before the start of the talks and the Tories are doing a great job of playing into our hands. However.. That picture of chaos only really helps the EU if it leads to a Corbyn govt. + A really EU friendly fudge.. basically a Brexit which doesn't mean Brexit.

The Labour party is as divided as the Tories about Europe. Believe me, when the galvanising anti-Tory impetus begins to dissipate, you're going to see some serious boat-rocking from the likes of Sadiq Khan, Keir Starmer, John McDonnell & Seumas Milne over it with the latter two finally being able to push their Marxist agenda.

kowtow wrote: »

And we - of all the nations- can hardly blame the British for voting with their hearts rather than their heads.

I blame the Irish voters for their choices and I can do the same with the British. They put their fingers in their ears and screamed when told anything they didn't agree with. Remember the big red bus and the line about experts? What do they do? They go ahead and vote in the same crowd again with a dash of religious fundamentalism from a part of the country many of them almost forgot even existed. They're to blame. They choose their governments and over half couldn't even be bothered to change the voting system in 2011.