Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

But think of it this way; if we fail to use the veto, and settle for a deal that involves a hard border, we're probably stuck with that permanently. The UK gets an EU trade deal, but they can also import all the chlorinated chicken they need to and it's no threat to the EU and doesn't jeopardise their EU relationship, so why would they ever want to change that?

But if we use the veto, we get a hard border but the UK is in a much stickier position, with no EU trade deal. And they'll know, because it will have been established by the Irish veto, that if they ever want an EU trade deal, they need to do whatever needs to be done to make that hard border go away.

And it is almost inevitable that the UK will, eventually, realise that it wants and needs an EU trade deal. Liam Fox will not be Trade Secretary for ever; some day someone sane will be appointed. And Arlene Foster will not always be someone who has to be taken seriously at Westminster. The UK's grand strategy of negotiating a brilliant set of trade deals with the world using their nimble skills will be in shreds if, when push comes to shove, they cannot conclude a trade deal with their nearest and largest neighbour, the EU. They need this deal; we need no hard border; the meeting-point of the two countries' interests, the space were a deal is better than no deal for both countries, is clear.

flutered

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A main reason why Ireland has to play hardball at this stage is because it loses its veto when it comes to the final deal. I read somewhere this morning that, through back channels, the British have offered Ireland a rolling veto. This could definitely assuage Irish fears but the devil is in the detail, as always.

ireland has plenty of reasons to be wary of any uk deals, not set in stone, even then they could be thrown away, like the gfa has been so far

Sam Russell

Ireland always will be able to veto the deal at the final stage, so why agree to something they already have. In recent times, the UK has moved from 'Go whistle!' to 'How about 20 billion?' to ' All right then, 40 billion - how does that sound?'

Are they under pressure, do you think?

Perhaps they could offer a sea border for imports to NI from GB and a free run for exports from Ni to GB, plus customs checks for EU standards for exports from GB to NI (particularly for agricultural goods)? Perhaps.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

Ireland always will be able to veto the deal at the final stage, so why agree to something they already have. In recent times, the UK has moved from 'Go whistle!' to 'How about 20 billion?' to ' All right then, 40 billion - how does that sound?'

Are they under pressure, do you think?

Perhaps they could offer a sea border for imports to NI from GB and a free run for exports from Ni to GB, plus customs checks for EU standards for exports from GB to NI (particularly for agricultural goods)? Perhaps.

Good evening!

The UK has always said it was going to pay something. "Go whistle" was in response to an extortionate amount of money. I agree with that still, there is a limit. €100bn is an unacceptable amount.

Again, the sea border won't be agreed to, and even if it was it won't get through parliament. So, it's not really a goer. I'm somewhat bemused by the opinion that it is a realistic option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

kowtow

Sam Russell wrote: »

Ireland always will be able to veto the deal at the final stage, so why agree to something they already have. In recent times, the UK has moved from 'Go whistle!' to 'How about 20 billion?' to ' All right then, 40 billion - how does that sound?'

Are they under pressure, do you think?

Perhaps they could offer a sea border for imports to NI from GB and a free run for exports from Ni to GB, plus customs checks for EU standards for exports from GB to NI (particularly for agricultural goods)? Perhaps.

Anyone I talk to in the UK always accepted that there would be a price to pay on the way out, although many of them hold that there is no real legal basis for the sums claimed. So payment is something to offer in return for a clean trade deal, or in particular for a transition period during which cooler heads and calmness might help everyone come to terms.

The EU says "We're not being political about this and trying to teach a lesson (pour descourager les autres one assumes)" and self-evidently that is not true; the UK says "We're not going to pay a penny" and clearly they are. The payment is the price of taking politics out of it and being left with trade.

The question is, once real offers are on the table, will it turn out to be Danegeld?

Schorpio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The UK has always said it was going to pay something. "Go whistle" was in response to an extortionate amount of money. I agree with that still, there is a limit. €100bn is an unacceptable amount.

Again, the sea border won't be agreed to, and even if it was it won't get through parliament. So, it's not really a goer. I'm somewhat bemused by the opinion that it is a realistic option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

With respect, I'm bemused that you fail to see why the same logic doesn't apply to the Irish border.

Any amendment to the border situation won't get through parliament here. If the UK isn't willing to even consider the sea border, why should the Irish government do them any favours and weaken their own stance?

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK has always said it was going to pay something. "Go whistle" was in response to an extortionate amount of money. I agree with that still, there is a limit. €100bn is an unacceptable amount.

If there is a hard Brexit, it won't be long before even a €100bn will start to look like it would have been a small price to pay.

flaneur

Just reading some of the UK tabloids today, the anti-Irish narrative is REALLY ratcheting up in the comments sections.

I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very unpleasant.

The Express in particular seemed to be dancing for joy at the idea that the Irish government might collapse. Although, I suspect they don't realise that FG are about the most mild mannered face of Irish politics they're likely to get. If they think they're standing tough on Brexit, try SF!

(NB: I don't read them other than for academic curiosity)

blanch152

flutered wrote: »

ireland has plenty of reasons to be wary of any uk deals, not set in stone, even then they could be thrown away, like the gfa has been so far

As has been pointed out many many times before, no actual legal clause of the GFA has been broken yet, and it is unlikely that whatever form of Brexit occurs, will such a clause be broken.

We have had the scaremongering about citizenship which has rightly been dismissed.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

Anyone I talk to in the UK always accepted that there would be a price to pay on the way out, although many of them hold that there is no real legal basis for the sums claimed. So payment is something to offer in return for a clean trade deal, or in particular for a transition period during which cooler heads and calmness might help everyone come to terms.

The EU says "We're not being political about this and trying to teach a lesson (pour descourager les autres one assumes)" and self-evidently that is not true; the UK says "We're not going to pay a penny" and clearly they are. The payment is the price of taking politics out of it and being left with trade.

The question is, once real offers are on the table, will it turn out to be Danegeld?

The divorce settlement is based entirely on commitments freely entered into the the UK. Things like pensions for EU staff that UK owe a portion of.

That the British public didn't take that into account is not the EU's fault.

It really is incumbent on the UK government to start telling the truth to its own people. Continuing to sell this narrative that the EU is some sort of monster is what led to the vote and is only going to end in pushing the government further into a corner. That no one in the government is willing to stand up and be honest about the situation for fear of getting some public backlash shows how utterly incompetent the present government is.

The question therefore needs to be asked, will they continue to be so scared of the public that they will jeopardise any future trade deals (for eg will they avoid making a deal with India since they cannot face having to admit that immigration will be one of the planks)

Tropheus

flaneur wrote: »

Just reading some of the UK tabloids today, the anti-Irish narrative is REALLY ratcheting up in the comments sections.

I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very unpleasant.

The Express in particular seemed to be dancing for joy at the idea that the Irish government might collapse. Although, I suspect they don't realise that FG are about the most mild mannered face of Irish politics they're likely to get. If they think they're standing tough on Brexit, try SF!

(NB: I don't read them other than for academic curiosity)

Express readers and generally very anti anyone that's not white, English and supports Brexit.

mickoneill31

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The UK has always said it was going to pay something. "Go whistle" was in response to an extortionate amount of money. I agree with that still, there is a limit. €100bn is an unacceptable amount.

Really Solo? You know this stuff doesn't disappear from the Internet.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/11/european-leaders-can-go-whistle-over-eu-divorce-bill-says-boris-johnson

“Since we joined the common market on 1 January 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?”

flaneur

A lot of English people genuinely believe it’s a monster. It’s very hard to get past that as it’s so embeddded in the culture at this stage.

I don’t think a large % English ever really bought into the idea of sharing with other European countries.

It’s a bit hard to explain but, I think it probably goes back to WWII and a British notion that they singlehandled won the war and also the fact that they are the reminant of what was a superpower before WWII. They completely underestimate the US having basically bailed them out. They also completely ignore the Marshall Plan money.

The rest of Europe was very much transformed by WWII and there was a coming together. Ireland wasn’t impacted directly by the war, but it was coming from a similar position of rebuilding after a conflict and independence and was very easily able to take its place in the group. I would also say that EU membership gave ireland a non British formal relationship for the first time in history and it was able to stand on its own two feet and is taken seriously as a country.

I think the English nationalist types simply never really felt that the EU project had anything to do with them. They also never really felt the loss of empire as the EEC rapidly replaced their declining empire in the early 1970s and they went through a major crash and IMF bailout in the mid 1970s that’s almost entirely forgotten about.

They take a lot of the material and social benefits of the EU for granted and I think they’re going to get a rude awakening, realising they’re a fairly small fish in a huge pond that’s dominated by several economic superpowers. The EU allows a the small European countries to act as a group and to have a hell of a lot more clout than even the largest members would have on their own and I think even Germany realises this.

A lot of British people fully get this but the majority who voted against to leave and the tabloid press and politics that supports the narrative don’t.

I wish the UK all the best in their exit but I think they’ve a very tough road ahead and I just think ireland needs to do whatever we need to do to protect our interests. We can’t afford to be sentimental or overly polite and I’m glad to see that Varadkar hasn’t been a push over. I was really concerned when he took office first and seemed to be quite over excited about being in No 10, but I think that was just being a bit dazzled by the new job.

Ireland needs to be very pragmatic and very tough in this and if we anger the British tabloids, so be it. They’ll have forgotten about it again in 6 months or as soon as some footballer is embroiled in a scandal.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

The divorce settlement is based entirely on commitments freely entered into the the UK. Things like pensions for EU staff that UK owe a portion of.

That the British public didn't take that into account is not the EU's fault.

It really is incumbent on the UK government to start telling the truth to its own people. Continuing to sell this narrative that the EU is some sort of monster is what led to the vote and is only going to end in pushing the government further into a corner. That no one in the government is willing to stand up and be honest about the situation for fear of getting some public backlash shows how utterly incompetent the present government is.

The question therefore needs to be asked, will they continue to be so scared of the public that they will jeopardise any future trade deals (for eg will they avoid making a deal with India since they cannot face having to admit that immigration will be one of the planks)

The commentary here does seem to omit the fact that between 1997 and 2015 the UK had first a series of strongly pro-Europe Labour governments, led by a Prime Minister who now wants to see the referendum reversed, and then a coalition including a deputy Prime Minister who wanted the UK to join the Euro.

It hasn't been all one sided and the British people aren't quite as misled as you might imagine. Rightly or wrongly they prize sovereignty and the EU has diluted that. I'm not going to provide endless examples of the effect of this - it is a matter of fact that the most Senior court in the UK is no longer the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court) but for many matters the ECJ. You only need to look at the size of the current Repeal bill to see the scope of legislation delegated to the EU.

For many UK voters it is - rightly or wrongly - a matter of principle, not an issue of practice or effect. People want their Parliament, which they vote for, to be the source of these laws and UK courts to be the arbiter of Parliament's intentions. It matters not a jot that Parliament might legislate identically to the EU, it is the principle which counts.

You might - on a parallel point - be the most welcoming family in the world and invite any number of refugees into your house or immigrants into your local town but you want to be the one unlocking the door and welcoming them in of your own volition. There's a big difference between welcoming immigration in your own community (which the UK has done for centuries and generally pretty well) and having immigration and it's consequences forced upon you from afar. Ireland's experience of this is pretty new for the moment and we just don't see things the same way. It doesn't make the Brits monsters where immigrants are concerned (leaving aside the usual poisonous exceptions) - quite the opposite.

And there is growing concern - not unique to the UK by any means - that "one job is not the same as another" - and that the artificial and sacred equation of people, goods, and capital under the single market leaves many - often in what were once proud industrial areas - behind. If you are the last of a family line of skilled workers it is little compensation that your children can go to college in Spain, work abroad, or come back to work on a zero hours contract in an Amazon warehouse. Again - there are elements of these concerns which have little to do with the EU, and which Brexit is unlikely to improve, but the political and establishment elites - who like to move around themselves but who are unlikely to see their own livelihood moving - have singularly failed to understand this issue over successive generations and are now seeing the consequences.

I don't offer these points to provoke a debate on whether they are right or wrong, or indeed to rehash the whole Brexit yes or no issue, simply to illustrate that there are a number of underlying currents among British voters which are deep seated principles about which they feel quite strongly. These things can't always be reduced to "it's the economy stupid.." or even to slogans on the side of a bus.

solodeogloria

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Really Solo? You know this stuff doesn't disappear from the Internet.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/11/european-leaders-can-go-whistle-over-eu-divorce-bill-says-boris-johnson

“Since we joined the common market on 1 January 1973 until the day we leave, we will have given the EU and its predecessors, in today’s money, in real terms, a total of £209bn. Will you make it clear to the EU that if they want a penny piece more then they can go whistle?”

Good evening!

That was the question from Philip Hollobone put to Johnson and not the answer.

Johnson said go whistle to "extortionate sums" not to anything.

All you have to do to see this is read your article properly. It contains both question and answer.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

Immigration to the UK. The rules currently permit a country to remove a person after 6 months of their arrival in a member state if they haven't found work. Was the UK public aware of this? Why is this not being enforced in the UK? How is this a EU problem if the UK ignores this provision?

More importantly was Theresa May aware of it during her years as Home Secretary ?

PeadarCo

kowtow wrote:

For many UK voters it is - rightly or wrongly - a matter of principle, not an issue of practice or effect. People want their Parliament, which they vote for, to be the source of these laws and UK courts to be the arbiter of Parliament's intentions. It matters not a jot that Parliament might legislate identically to the EU, it is the principle which counts.

You are aware the UK sends representatives to th European parliament, sit on the EU commission have Judge's in EU courts etc etc. It isn't a case of the EU imposing laws against their will.

This misunderstanding of how the EU works is causing problems for the UK. Anyone who actually understood how the EU works would not have been surprised with Spains reaction in relation to Gibraltar and Irelands reaction to the Border. Misunderstandings of how the EU works are going to cause even more problems as the Brexit date arrives. Remember if nothing is agreed the UK leaves without a trade and regulatory deal which will cause havoc for everyone but especially the UK. If you read this thread you will get a taste of the potential impact. In Rte analysis of Ireland's decision to play hard ball about the border it noted that the EU had identified 140 separate elements of the Good Friday agreement that effectively/in practice required EU both UK and Ireland membership of the EU to work.

Saying the UK voters have certain misgivings about the EU is grand but they have to be prepared for the consequences of Brexit. Giving out about Spain and Ireland's reaction to their borders with the UK indicates they are clueless about what Brexit means or its consequences.

Capt'n Midnight

So instead of sending £350m to Europe a week, the plan is to remove £1,380m a week from the economy ??

At least the EU gave most of the £350m back.


http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-economic-cost-of-brexit-in-gdp-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

Those new estimates suggest that Brexit will cost Britain £72 billion in lost annual economic activity by 2021, according to an analysis by the Resolution Foundation.

Previously, the best estimate of the economic damage leaving Europe will inflict on the UK came from a private estimate by one of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis's advisors, of about £22 billion per year, mostly from extra trade tariffs and barriers.

Link to document http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/11/Budget-response.pdf

Capt'n Midnight

A snippet from the leaked report shows how much progress needs to be done on EU citizens rights.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1123/922191-brexit-embassies/

The Irish embassy in Slovakia reported that government ministers there were insistent that the financial settlement issue was "very important", and that EU citizens in the UK must have their rights protected, not just for four years "but for 40 years".

kingchess

Quick question but if the UK crashes out with-out a trade deal,they will still owe the 20/40/60? billion for pensions liabilities etc?/,this is my understanding.

J Mysterio

flaneur wrote: »

Just reading some of the UK tabloids today, the anti-Irish narrative is REALLY ratcheting up in the comments sections.

I have a feeling the next few months are going to be very unpleasant.

The Express in particular seemed to be dancing for joy at the idea that the Irish government might collapse. Although, I suspect they don't realise that FG are about the most mild mannered face of Irish politics they're likely to get. If they think they're standing tough on Brexit, try SF!

(NB: I don't read them other than for academic curiosity)

Jesus, it's frightening to see what they are saying in those tabloids. One look at the Daily Express there and these are the headlines:

Keep calm and DON'T carry on! EU guards try to STOP PM aide as May heads to Brexit talks

'We're NOT ready!' EU leader's SHOCK admission over bloc's preparation for no deal Brexit

Now even Remainers are FURIOUS with Brussels: Hilary Benn RAGES at EU Culture farce

'Pay more? Of course you should!' Austrian leader laughs about extracting HUGE Brexit bill

Merkel told to RESIGN as poll shows push for new elections

10 days to deliver: Tusk slaps Britain with Brexit deadline - admits progress IS possible

'She has NO IDEA' Germany’s crisis is Merkel's fault as she 'completely miscalculated'

EXCLUSIVE: ANGELA Merkel has “no vision” for Germany and was totally unprepared for coa...

Ireland on verge of government COLLAPSE: Brexit impact imminent

'It's flimsy!' Fury over Project Fear DOWNGRADING Britain's growth forecast

WE’LL MISS BRITAIN: German MEP blasts Brussels and says UK ‘only ones with common sense!'

kingchess

kingchess wrote: »

Quick question but if the UK crashes out with-out a trade deal,they will still owe the 20/40/60? billion for pensions liabilities etc?/,this is my understanding.

If there was a definitive answer to that question, then there would be no need for the negotiations.

kowtow

PeadarCo wrote: »

You are aware the UK sends representatives to th European parliament, sit on the EU commission have Judge's in EU courts etc etc. It isn't a case of the EU imposing laws against their will.

This misunderstanding of how the EU works is causing problems for the UK. Anyone who actually understood how the EU works would not have been surprised with Spains reaction in relation to Gibraltar and Irelands reaction to the Border. Misunderstandings of how the EU works are going to cause even more problems as the Brexit date arrives.

That Britain is represented at the EU doesn't alter the fact that delegation of powers alienates sovereignty from the voter - the government, such as it is, becomes too large and too remote from it's subjects. The doctrine of subsidiarity helps a little but democracy tends to work best when powers are exercised closest to the electors and the EU construct pulls in the opposite direction.

It is inescapable that many in the UK are very uncomfortable with this delegation of powers, and it's not made easier by geography, culture, and history. Even outside the blue collar Brexit towns, you might be surprised by the number of moderately well educated people who have grave misgivings about the EU project and it's effect on democracy. I'm married to an English woman and in my own extended family I count bankers, financial traders, senior barristers, successful entrepreneurs running large international businesses - mostly London based when they are in the UK and operating all over Europe. All are deeply fond of Europe, many of us have lived and worked there, two still do, indeed my own children were largely brought up on the Continent. They all understand the significant financial risks they are running and the disruption they will suffer personally as a result of Brexit and yet I cannot think of one who voted to remain.

As much as any of us might disagree with the British voter on Brexit, it is far from a simple case of the common uneducated man being easily misled by a rabid Tory party and the rabble rousing press.

Peregrinus

kingchess wrote: »

Quick question but if the UK crashes out with-out a trade deal,they will still owe the 20/40/60? billion for pensions liabilities etc?/,this is my understanding.

Well, there'll be no enforceable mechanism for collecting it. In that sense, they won't "owe" it.

But, in the sense that it represents commitments that the UK entered into, and that they acknowledge need to be settled, yes, they would owe it (though there would still be plenty of room for arguing about how the UK's obligations should be valued, and therefore exactly how much is "owed".)

And, in the sense that it represents a liability that they would need to resolve by agreement someday, in order to normalise relations with the EU, they'd owe it.

sameoldname

kowtow wrote: »

That Britain is represented at the EU doesn't alter the fact that delegation of powers alienates sovereignty from the voter - the government, such as it is, becomes too large and too remote from it's subjects. The doctrine of subsidiarity helps a little but democracy tends to work best when powers are exercised closest to the electors and the EU construct pulls in the opposite direction.

It is inescapable that many in the UK are very uncomfortable with this delegation of powers, and it's not made easier by geography, culture, and history. Even outside the blue collar Brexit towns, you might be surprised by the number of moderately well educated people who have grave misgivings about the EU project and it's effect on democracy. I'm married to an English woman and in my own extended family I count bankers, financial traders, senior barristers, successful entrepreneurs running large international businesses - mostly London based when they are in the UK and operating all over Europe. All are deeply fond of Europe, many of us have lived and worked there, two still do, indeed my own children were largely brought up on the Continent. They all understand the significant financial risks they are running and the disruption they will suffer personally as a result of Brexit and yet I cannot think of one who voted to remain.

As much as any of us might disagree with the British voter on Brexit, it is far from a simple case of the common uneducated man being easily misled by a rabid Tory party and the rabble rousing press.

Just on the democracy point... 2 of the 4 countries within the United Kingdom voted to remain in the EU and will be pulled out against their will because of the wishes of the other 2. So that must mean the UK government is far too detached from its subjects? Or is it just democracy in action? I would say that depends on who you talk to personally and what side they came down on...
Just as a point of interest, that wouldn't happen with an EU decision thanks to QMV.

I find it interesting the way that British people especially (though in no way is it just the British) see the EU as this anti-democratic juggernaut that's stripping them of their hard fought freedom and wrapping them up in bureaucracy.

The EU is what it is... a 28 member supranational organisation where the power comes from the member states, deciding together what competencies and what legal mechanisms to enforce those competencies the union will have. It has no method of taking power for itself, the member states decide that.
Those member states happen to be some the most successful examples of functioning democracies in the world, some better than others admittedly.
Most British people would agree with this. They would view the individual member states as generally democratic.
So why is it that when these counties work together in the form of the EU does the average British person suddenly see the whole thing as some underhanded plot to turn them into a Federalised worker drone or somesuch? The most likely government in Europe to actually act that way is ironically their own!

90% of the laws that affect us as EU citizens are written by our own governments. We are as democratically empowered as our own nations have decided. For example, I feel better represented here in this country politically than I would in the UK because the first past the post system is nonsense as is well covered in this thread. That means for most decisions, democracy is only as remote as the country you are living in has made it.

As for the shared competencies, the EU is, by it's very nature, a complicated and sometimes hard to comprehend beast. That does not mean undemocratic though. If you actually look at the way the EU was formed over the years you can understand why they made the decisions they did. And of course when in a block of 500 million voters your vote will be diluted but that's still democracy. When our nationally elected politicians make decisions in the European Council, that's democracy and so is the European Parliament even if no one could be bothered to vote for MEPs!

It isn't anyway near perfect but the EU is democratic no matter how the average British citizen "feels" about it, and that's exactly what it is, how they feel... because even a highly educated and successful person can know absolutely nothing about the EU or how it works when they haven't bothered to educate themselves, and let's be honest, most haven't.

flaneur

It seems even The Guardian can manage to completely misrepresent the situation:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/irish-border-hard-brexit-ireland#comment-108742628

Much of Ireland’s trade passes through Northern Ireland, to the UK and on to Europe. Any sort of border – physical or regulatory – would mean massive distortion. British firms would decamp to Dublin to get inside the EU. Foreign and Irish firms would decamp to Belfast to get to the outside world

Facts don't seem to enter into the debate in the UK at all. Just imagine stuff and make it up!

They seem to think the Republic is utterly dependent on the UK for access to the outside world ...
If anything Northern Ireland's highly dependent on access to Dublin Airport and Dublin Port ro-ro and container freight as well as Rosslare for ro-ro and possibly Cork for continental container cargo.

Mind boggling ignorance of Ireland in the UK media.

solodeogloria

flaneur wrote: »

It seems even The Guardian can manage to completely misrepresent the situation:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/irish-border-hard-brexit-ireland#comment-108742628



Facts don't seem to enter into the debate in the UK at all. Just imagine stuff and make it up!

They seem to think the Republic is utterly dependent on the UK for access to the outside world ...
If anything Northern Ireland's highly dependent on access to Dublin Airport and Dublin Port ro-ro and container freight as well as Rosslare for ro-ro and possibly Cork for continental container cargo.

Mind boggling ignorance of Ireland in the UK media.

Good morning!

It isn't ignorance. Most of Ireland's goods pass through the UK to reach mainland Europe. The Calais corridor is very important. From the FT article I quoted the other day:

Yet as a hub for multinational tech and healthcare companies from Apple to Pfizer, using shipping links with Britain as a gateway to Europe, Ireland’s second city is fast discovering that it too has much to lose from Brexit. Two-thirds of the major exporters in Ireland ship goods via Britain on their way to European and global markets, according to the Irish Exporters Association.

“Businesses are starting to get very nervous,” says Brendan Keating, chief executive at the state-owned port of Cork. “We can’t sit on our hands.”

Transiting through Britain allows companies to take advantage of short sea crossings from Ireland, extensive UK motorways and the Channel tunnel to France. Crucially, the absence of border checks saves trucks time at British ports. But with Theresa May’s government committed to leaving Europe’s customs regime, there are concerns that longer queues and higher costs could damage an Irish economy that still bears the scars of the financial crisis.

“We have to assume the worst-case scenario, which is a hard Brexit and a new customs regime for dealing with the UK, anything better than that is a bonus,” says Mr Keating, who is exploring new shipping links to Spain and France.

This is why the negotiations need to progress. The sea route is much much slower than going through Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flaneur

Most goods do not pass through Northern Ireland, nor would most Irish companies need to relocate to Belfast to access the world market, which is what is suggested in the article.

"Much of Ireland’s trade passes through Northern Ireland, to the UK and on to Europe. Any sort of border – physical or regulatory – would mean massive distortion. British firms would decamp to Dublin to get inside the EU. Foreign and Irish firms would decamp to Belfast to get to the outside world. "

Should the UK block goods transiting the country, or cut Ireland off, it would basically be behaving like some kind of rogue state.

Canada for example allows US goods to move relatively unhindered to and from Alaska and there are plenty of other examples of similar.

Is the UK going to start behaving like North Korea or something?!

If the UK were to block Irish container or truck traffic using the land bridge route, it would be deliberately trying to cut Ireland off from the EU market and I would suspect it would find itself in a very painful negotiation with the EU (where Ireland could veto deals and where I would suspect many other countries would take an extremely dim view it too.)

The scenario you're suggesting is like a stunt you would expect from Russia and would be grounds for a trade war that the UK would be extremely badly damaged by.

The UK is claiming to be trying to create an "open Britian" that's somehow going to be more open than the already been open EU, which already successfully trades with the world and is progressively opening more free trade deals. Canada, Japan and even the US is no longer cold to that idea (even under Trump).

I don't quite understand why there's this assumption that there's a binary choice between EU trade or global trade. We have both !

An open Britian, just very closed at the same time ... It's like some kind of paradoxical psychosis!

...

solodeogloria

Good morning!

You do say that the UK thinks that Ireland needs access to it to get to the outside world. That's broadly speaking true. It does. That's what I was responding to. I agree that most goods from the Republic don't pass through NI but they definitely do pass through the UK.

This is why we should be looking for a good deal.

As for open Britain and the EU being open. The EU is open to itself primarily. It is highly protectionist in respect to the wider world however.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flaneur

Good afternoon!?

With serious investment and a viable market, which Brexit might cause all of a sudden, the sea route isn't actually that bad.

It's 14 hours from Cork to Roscoff for example. Cherbourg is handier for motorway accsss, but further by sea.

Going Cork to Callais is 12h including ferries and that involves a lot more driving and is subject to random delays at Dover, local traffic issues in the UK and France etc etc

With proper frequency and the right ship fleet, Ireland France is very practical and feasible as an alternative. The issue at the moment is that the land bridge alternative has been cheaper and the demand hasn't been there to focus those crossings on ro-ro freight.

If you're looking at French ports that would be mostly just handling Irish traffic and Irish ports that are only handling local traffic, you have a very likely more efficient service than going via the major ports that connect the the Uk.

There's a huge opportunity for the ferry operators to put something in place on those routes and I think the EU and Irish government need to incentivise them and possibly grant aid them to do so.

You'd need upgraded terminal facilities in Cork and/or Rosslare and probably at the French side too, particularly Roscoff.

The road route from Roscoff is also at least as good as Hollyhead. There's decent dual carriageway and motorway for much of the route and that part of France has motorways as uncongested as Irish ones!

You've also got a possibility of perhaps using French and continental high-speed rail freight if the infrastructure were put in place at Roscoff; and maybe it could be done as an EU TEN project?

There also already a TGV line connecting St Malo and there's a very fast major TGV line from Rennes. So you're basically directly into the French high speed rail network and very good motorway connectivity too..


It's far from insurmountable though and there's a big opportunity for France and the Breton region too.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've replied to you on all of these points before. It isn't honest to say that I haven't.

Going round and round and round in circles isn't helpful. To a degree rehashing the referendum isn't helpful. The matter is settled - the UK is leaving the EU. What isn't settled is how exactly this happens which is what the negotiation will settle.

Discussing the way Britain is going to leave is much better than rearguing about what was settled 18 months ago.

You have replied but on points that you don't agree with you either ignore them or change the argument. The UK had a way to control EU immigration from no control (take back control!), you then said 6 months is too long before you can expel someone from the UK and it wouldn't work without seeing it in practice.

That is from the referendum so you are right it will not change anything about the situation, although what it tells you about the UK government and not knowing the rules or not applying the rules if they are aware of them for their own needs should tell you something. Either they are all incompetent or they know the benefit of EU workers to the UK.

You have also waved away the fact the the UK has about 50% trade with the EU if you discount gold from the numbers by stating it still counts somehow. That is why I have said you either hand wave away arguments or ignore them. This is something that hasn't been really thought about and the perception still want to persist that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

I still see no laws that the UK have such an objection to from the EU and your objection to ECJ oversight is about numbers (27 to 1) and not how they work in practice (the actual rulings that are made). That is arguing about your feelings which cannot be changed by facts because facts doesn't change feelings. I feel afraid of zombies/ghosts so my fear of zombies/ghosts are at an all time high, the fact that there are no such things doesn't matter. Do you see how hard it is to argue against feelings?

In any case, back to squaring the circle that is the Irish border. How do you both leave a customs union and apply no customs? How is this the EU's problem alone? How do you control immigration and at the same time have an open border?

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You do say that the UK thinks that Ireland needs access to it to get to the outside world. That's broadly speaking true. It does. That's what I was responding to. I agree that most goods from the Republic don't pass through NI but they definitely do pass through the UK.

This is why we should be looking for a good deal.

As for open Britain and the EU being open. The EU is open to itself primarily. It is highly protectionist in respect to the wider world however.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Can you name a few countries or trade blocs that are less protectionist than the EU?

If the UK cuts Irish trucks off it will face massive retaliation from the EU and will be ruined. The EU will at the same time massively invest in the southern Irish and French ports and the connecting ferries to reconnect Ireland to the continent.

Good evening at 6am on a Saturday morning in the UK? Are you in the UK?

Oh and what about a replacement for EASA by (latest) March 2019?

Water John

Solo gets his time zones mixed up quite regularly. Considering the detail of his/her posts, it's a strange anomoly???

Could happen though, if in the USA.

Samaris

Water John wrote: »

Solo gets his time zones mixed up quite regularly. Considering the detail of his/her posts, it's a strange anomoly???

Could happen though, if in the USA.

Ssh, don't let him know we've noticed :P

Water John

Good to see someone doing research and reports on the Border. The EU Parliament. Reading the piece on the 2 Reports. It isn't very optimistic.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42111690

Unless the UK come up with a magical solution???

First Up

murphaph wrote:

If the UK cuts Irish trucks off it will face massive retaliation from the EU and will be ruined. The EU will at the same time massively invest in the southern Irish and French ports and the connecting ferries to reconnect Ireland to the continent.

There is no risk of Irish trucks being "cut off". Transit for sealed cargo through the UK via the Channel Tunnel or ports will still be an option as will be transit for NI trucks through the ROI to France.

But customs procedures and congestion will slow things and it won't be possible to do pick-ups or drop-offs en route. This will affect the logistics in both directions and will cause some routing changes, especially for sophisticated supply chains and JIT operations.

For Irish cargo, the delays entering the UK and again re-entering the EU may make it too much hassle to go via UK ports but the option will still be there.

Cork and Rosslare can look forward to a big increase in traffic and we are already seeing the Dublin - France route being expanded.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

There is no risk of Irish trucks being "cut off". Transit for sealed cargo through the UK via the Channel Tunnel or ports will still be an option as will be transit for NI trucks through the ROI to France.

But customs procedures and congestion will slow things and it won't be possible to do pick-ups or drop-offs en route. This will affect the logistics in both directions and will cause some routing changes, especially for sophisticated supply chains and JIT operations.

For Irish cargo, the delays entering the UK and again re-entering the EU may make it too much hassle to go via UK ports but the option will still be there.

Cork and Rosslare can look forward to a big increase in traffic and we are already seeing the Dublin - France route being expanded.

Just looking at Athlone to Paris on google maps.

Going through UK, travel time is given as 16 hours, including two ferries.

Going from Athlone to Rosslare is 3 hrs, and Roscoff to Paris is given as 5 and half hours. So driving time is, say 9 hours. The transit for the ferry is about 18 hours, but it does not require a driver, unlike the 'landbridge' route, as otherwise three drivers would be required. Also, there would be free RORO at both ports, and no delay. So an extra 11 hours, but predictable delivery times.

I'd say a bit of financial assistance from the EU might make a huge difference to the economics of the Rosslare route. Imagine how long the delay will be for transit through Dover or Calais? And if full customs clearance is required, and even sealed trucks will be caught up in the snarl ups.

If sea transit times is not an issue, Dublin to Roscoff might be a good option.

kowtow

sameoldname wrote: »

Just on the democracy point... 2 of the 4 countries within the United Kingdom voted to remain in the EU and will be pulled out against their will because of the wishes of the other 2. So that must mean the UK government is far too detached from its subjects? Or is it just democracy in action? I would say that depends on who you talk to personally and what side they came down on...
Just as a point of interest, that wouldn't happen with an EU decision thanks to QMV.

You are quite right, for some the UK Govt. is certainly too detached hence the Scottish Referendum and the significant moves towards devolution. That is the nature of democracy, and there is a balance to be struck of course. The question is one of direction - do you move power further and further down to the town and the village (as in the Swiss Federal model) or allow your elected politicians to delegate power away to a Supra National?

Democracy is - after all - the tyranny of the majority. It's a tyranny more easily borne when the Electorate is small enough to have most things in common, bound together by culture, history, or place. The British are not only geographically separate but Anglo Saxon in their outlook, and are in many ways diametrically opposite to the Napoleonic countries.

It's not quite true to say that EU law has not been forced unwillingly on the UK electorate - although it wasn't Europe that forced it on them. There has never been a referendum on Europe since the initial accession to the EEC, and although a referendum on the proposed EU constitution pre Lisbon was scheduled and legislated for (and had been a manifesto commitment I think) it was skipped around by the Blair government when the form of the treaty changed and they signed up. At the time every single opinion poll suggested that the British people would vote no to a European constitution if a referendum had been held as promised. Delegatus non potest delegare.

The UK is a long way from a clientilist system. Governments are chosen then left to get on with it, referenda are virtually unknown. Perhaps if this wasn't the case people would have adopted EU government directly and enthusiastically, who knows?

But in any event the antipathy to government from Europe is more than a misunderstanding on behalf of the populace.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

If sea transit times is not an issue, Dublin to Roscoff might be a good option.

IF now have 3 vessels available and have good port facilities in both Dublin and Rosslare. It would not be a problem for them to re-orientate their schedule more to France than the UK.

Both Cherbourg and Roscoff are served now and I wouldn't be surprised to see Le Havre back on the schedule to capture traffic that wants to avoid the impending chaos at UK ports.

An Ciarraioch

Ruth Dudley Edwards starts out in a reasonable fashion, highlighting Kenny's political negotiations after the referendum result, improved cross-border relations post-GFA, and Ireland's liberalisation in recent decades. Unfortunately, she then seems to consider Coveney as a rabid nationalist, cosies up to Ray Bassett, and advocates a nebulous "free trade Brexit" between Ireland and the UK:

https://amp.ft.com/content/eabdd85c-d12b-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Ruth Dudley Edwards starts out in a reasonable fashion, highlighting Kenny's political negotiations after the referendum result, improved cross-border relations post-GFA, and Ireland's liberalisation in recent decades. Unfortunately, she then seems to consider Coveney as a rabid nationalist, cosies up to Ray Bassett, and advocates a nebulous "free trade Brexit" between Ireland and the UK:

https://amp.ft.com/content/eabdd85c-d12b-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

You do know that Ruth Dudley Edwards has history on Nationalist/Unionist spectrum.

Criticism of Ken Loach[edit]
Following the Cannes prize announcement, for The Wind That Shakes the Barley, Ruth Dudley Edwards wrote in the Daily Mail on 30 May 2006 that Loach's political viewpoint "requires the portrayal of the British as sadists and the Irish as romantic, idealistic resistance fighters who take to violence only because there is no other self-respecting course,"[7] and attacked his career in an article.[8] The following week, Edwards continued her attack in The Guardian, admitting that her first article was written without seeing the film (which at that stage had only been shown at Cannes), and asserting that she would never see it "because I can't stand its sheer predictability."[9]

Dudley Edwards has stated that she is "not in principle against Irish unification".

Crtisising a film never having seen it is gold standard criticism for a very biased reviewer. Of course, saying "not in principle against Irish unification" means she is very much against Irish unification, along the lines of 'some of my best friends are Jews'.

Also, she was married to Patrick John Francis Cosgrave who was an Anglophile Irish journalist and writer, and a staunch supporter of the British Conservative Party. He was an adviser to future Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, whilst she was Leader of the Opposition.

flaneur

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just looking at Athlone to Paris on google maps.

Going through UK, travel time is given as 16 hours, including two ferries.

Going from Athlone to Rosslare is 3 hrs, and Roscoff to Paris is given as 5 and half hours. So driving time is, say 9 hours. The transit for the ferry is about 18 hours, but it does not require a driver, unlike the 'landbridge' route, as otherwise three drivers would be required. Also, there would be free RORO at both ports, and no delay. So an extra 11 hours, but predictable delivery times.

I'd say a bit of financial assistance from the EU might make a huge difference to the economics of the Rosslare route. Imagine how long the delay will be for transit through Dover or Calais? And if full customs clearance is required, and even sealed trucks will be caught up in the snarl ups.

If sea transit times is not an issue, Dublin to Roscoff might be a good option.

With the Brittany Ferries Pont Aven (very serious ship and really pleasant on board) ex Cork it's only 14 hours to Roscoff.

With a few hundred million of investment, you'd have a very good alternative to going through Britian.

Also with the right ship, you could cut the CO2 output.

One solution might be a fleet of LHD tractors (truck front part) hitting the continental routes from Ireland. The long drives would be done with the steering wheel on the correct side.

The notion that Ireland has no options other than the UK routes is nonsense.

Also the UK stands to lose a huge amount of exports to Ireland. We are their 5th largest export market for goods and many of those items are real, manufactured goods but they could be replaced if supply chains flip from the UK to France and Benelux.

Many of the "exports", for example household products are actually just distributed via the UK as Ireland is considered to be easily distributed to by treating it as UK & Ireland. A lot of that could change very quickly and easily if Irish supermarkets decide to source via different distribution hubs.

Also Ireland is a significant user of UK logistical facilities, that could change too.

At present the UK is a major port of entry to the EU as it has a big logistical infrastructure for air freight and also shipping. They stand to lose all of that and reduce their significance to just being domestic ports for UK trade only.

Most of this will be gobbled up by Dutch and Belgian ports and other EU airports.

Actually Shannon, as a quiet airport with a big runway, has a good opportunity to position itself for taking some EU-North American freight that may skip the UK after 2019. If it manages to get the correct scale of cargo facilities in place, it could position itself as a cargo hub for onward air freight. However, I suspect the major chunk of this will go to the Benelux region as they already have the infrastructure and also access to excellent ground transport to most of the EU big markets. But, Shannon could pitch to point to point air freight.

Whatever way you're looking at this, there are major disruptions in Britian ahead, if they pursue what they're proposing.

Sand

Peregrinus wrote: »

But think of it this way; if we fail to use the veto, and settle for a deal that involves a hard border, we're probably stuck with that permanently. The UK gets an EU trade deal, but they can also import all the chlorinated chicken they need to and it's no threat to the EU and doesn't jeopardise their EU relationship, so why would they ever want to change that?

But if we use the veto, we get a hard border but the UK is in a much stickier position, with no EU trade deal. And they'll know, because it will have been established by the Irish veto, that if they ever want an EU trade deal, they need to do whatever needs to be done to make that hard border go away.

And it is almost inevitable that the UK will, eventually, realise that it wants and needs an EU trade deal. Liam Fox will not be Trade Secretary for ever; some day someone sane will be appointed. And Arlene Foster will not always be someone who has to be taken seriously at Westminster. The UK's grand strategy of negotiating a brilliant set of trade deals with the world using their nimble skills will be in shreds if, when push comes to shove, they cannot conclude a trade deal with their nearest and largest neighbour, the EU. They need this deal; we need no hard border; the meeting-point of the two countries' interests, the space were a deal is better than no deal for both countries, is clear.

I completely agree with this. Its better to have a hard brexit that doesn't work for anyone for 2-3 years than a hard but manageable brexit we are stuck with for 20-30 years.

flaneur

Actually the worst case scenario for Ireland is probably a "soft" Brexit fudge that ends up giving the UK unfair access to the EU and an unfair competitive advantage with one foot in a the other foot out.

Something like that could destroy the Irish economy far more so than a hard Brexit.

We need to be very careful what we lobby for and to ensure we aren't used as either a pawn or a door wedge by the UK.

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

Actually the worst case scenario for Ireland is probably a "soft" Brexit fudge that ends up giving the UK unfair access to the EU and an unfair competitive advantage with one foot in a the other foot out.

Something like that could destroy the Irish economy far more so than a hard Brexit.

We need to be very careful what we lobby for and to ensure we aren't used as either a pawn or a door wedge by the UK.

I think we need to be very careful as well that any "compensation" or special assistance we receive to ameliorate Brexit doesn't come with expensive long term strings attached - implicitly or explicitly. There's little point building fantastic new export routes for goods from Ireland only to lose the manufacturers as a consequence of tax changes a few years down the line.

Sam Russell

flaneur wrote: »

With the Brittany Ferries Pont Aven (very serious ship and really pleasant on board) ex Cork it's only 14 hours to Roscoff.

With a few hundred million of investment, you'd have a very good alternative to going through Britian.

Also with the right ship, you could cut the CO2 output.

One solution might be a fleet of LHD tractors (truck front part) hitting the continental routes from Ireland. The long drives would be done with the steering wheel on the correct side.

The notion that Ireland has no options other than the UK routes is nonsense.

Why ship the tractor on the ferry? The French part uses a French driver and tractor unit. That way, the Irish driver drops his trailer in Rosslare, and picks up the return trailer and returns, getting home without a rest period (if he is lucky). No driver on the ferry needing a bed and breakfast, dinner and tea. French driver picks up load, having dropped his Irish bound trailer, and returns to Paris (or wherever). All win, win, win.

flaneur

Probably depends who's cheaper to employ.

Sam Russell

flaneur wrote: »

Probably depends who's cheaper to employ.

I would think 18 hours of no driver makes the French driver cheaper. I also do not think wages would vary all that much - besides the French side does not have to be a French driver, could just as easily be Irish, or Latvian.

flaneur

kowtow wrote: »

I think we need to be very careful as well that any "compensation" or special assistance we receive to ameliorate Brexit doesn't come with expensive long term strings attached - implicitly or explicitly. There's little point building fantastic new export routes for goods from Ireland only to lose the manufacturers as a consequence of tax changes a few years down the line.

They are two are quite separate issues and the tax harmonisation push can only go so far before a whole load of countries start to push back. Ireland's not the only one that's exposed there and I think you could see a major shift if everyone starts being nasty and pushing cases against members for state aid and so on.

By not giving way too much on the UK’s demands, we also remove a major low tax EU competitor. It’s not all horror stories. If the British want to cut themselves off and burn all the bridges, who are we to stop them?

The one thing we absolutely do not need is a UK that can cut tax and regulation and maintain full market access, as if it never left. That would effectively render our EU membership pointless for trade and would destroy the economy. I can’t see the EU allowing that to happen either though as it’s in nobody’s interests other than the UK. At that stage it will be a direct competitor, not a member.

A large aspect of the EU's raison d'être is to ensure that regions aren’t isolated and that trade flows. So I can’t see their being “strings attached”. The money will likely come from the UK divorce settlement as part of dealing with collateral damage they’ve caused.

We just need to push for a solution that mitigates the impact on the border regions.

I still think the majority of people commenting in the UK don’t fully appreciate the implications of what they’re asking for. A lot of them seem to be asking for a hard Brexit and many of them are vitriolic about it. At the same time, they seem to still think they’ll have many of the benefits of membership, because they’ve become so used to them that they take them for granted.

Being completely cut off as a 3rd country is inevitably going to cause a huge economic shock for the UK as it’s a massive change to the foundations of their economy. There’s nothing spin or project fear about saying that. It’s just creating turmoil for exclusively political reasons.

Ireland needs to ensure that we are well cushioned from that.

Sand

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would think 18 hours of no driver makes the French driver cheaper. I also do not think wages would vary all that much - besides the French side does not have to be a French driver, could just as easily be Irish, or Latvian.

Wouldn't the main challenge be getting the trailers on and off the ferry? I pretend to have no knowledge on this, but loading is going to be easier when its drive on, drive off rather than drive on, unhitch, manoeuvre the tractor out and then on the other side manoeuvre the tractor in, hitch the trailer, drive out while dodging all the other tractors trying to reverse in and hitch up? It could significantly increase the time taken at least.