Brexit discussion thread II

wes

kowtow wrote: »

Seriously?

Did Trump say "We aren't going to build a wall but if Mexico want one they'll have yo build it"

If he did then he and Kate Hoey are saying the same thing. If not, then you are twisting her words to suit your agenda.

Oh please, what a load of nonsense. The Brits are leaving the EU and the customs union. This results in the hard border. Putting your fingers in your ears and loudly shouting, does not change the fact of what the Brits are doing. There decision is what is causing this. Trying to blame the EU and Ireland is the same old tripe we have seen from the Brits for years. Its an astonishing level of lies and denial at this point. Nothing is ever there fault, even when they are in the midst of doing it. Simply put, what the Brits are doing will result in a hard border. Fantasy nonsense about seamless borders, is just that a fantasy.

Again, all we have from Hoey is a smarter politer Trump, but the same populist nationalist garbage is at the core of Brexit.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's been plenty of posturing about walking away. They knew that this was how it would be before the referendum and yet a clear majority vote for it regardless.

if they hadn't agreed to the initial timelines laid out by the eu, there would be nothing to walk away from. Agreement to tackle the issues in a set order was a pre condition to starting the negotiations.

I personally think it is crazy to do it in this order, it seems muddled. Sure, agree in principle what the key conditions are, but you also have to agree what the desired outcome is and until that is done, I can't see how one side can agree to anything.

flaneur

To be fair, that isn’t quite what she said at all.

She’s basically saying the UK won’t have any customs border but the EU will.

Now, I think that’s HIGHLY unlikely, as there will undoubtedly be both as I can’t see how the UK is going to operate any kind of separate tarrif / customs regime without one, but I see the point she’s trying to make.

The reality of this is we have absolutely no idea how the mechanics of this will work as there is absolutely no notion of how it can function.

There’s no precedent for it anywhere. The Norwegian model happens within the EEA. The Canadian US model is within NAFTA and is highly disruptive in my experience of it - Canadian customs officials demanding shopping receipts and US customs guards going crazy on security screening.

The Swiss model is based on a legacy arrangement and a ton of bilateral that are basically the EEA in all but name.

And the Swiss and Norwegian systems are in Schengen.

You’re looking at a border that is pretty much going to be less open than EU Turkey on trade as Turkey IS in the customs union.

There’s a huge gap between “wishes” and “reality” in the British thinking at the moment.

On the one hand they’re calling for an unprecedented level of market access and open trade and on the other the hardest Brexit imaginable, yet with no border.

It just makes no sense and it’s like trying to have a debate with someone who is totally illogical and just keeps saying “it will be fine!” over and over.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK and the EU both said that they didn't anticipate all border discussions to be complete in phase 1. I don't know why people are claiming that they did. Progress has been made in negotiating rounds on cross border institutions and the CTA.

The Leave campaign never considered the border noteworthy so of course they never forsaw any problems. What progress has been made, exactly?

solodeogloria wrote: »

This revisionist re-writing of what people said at the start of the negotiations isn't helpful and it isn't really honest.

This is just deceitful language to be honest.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

if they hadn't agreed to the initial timelines laid out by the eu, there would be nothing to walk away from. Agreement to tackle the issues in a set order was a pre condition to starting the negotiations.

I personally think it is crazy to do it in this order, it seems muddled. Sure, agree in principle what the key conditions are, but you also have to agree what the desired outcome is and until that is done, I can't see how one side can agree to anything.

This was clear at the time and it was clear when Article 50 was invoked. People voted for this, plain and simple. They are three very reasonable key areas and the UK has dragged its feet on each one.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why do you keep repeating that the position of the Uk is that there will be no border? That is clearly not the case. At least you have acknowledged that much.

UK position is that the question of a border should be discussed as part of the trade talks. One can only summise that the UK will therefore use it as part of the deal. I say that as a outcome of the statement not in any way whether it is 'good' or not.

So, we now have the position that the UK is open to the border if it can sell it based on getting something in return. And you wonder why Ireland is uneasy with the UK position?

Good afternoon!

I repeat it because it is the British position, it is outlined clearly in the position paper. The EU need to make clear that it is their position irrespective of whether or not the UK remain in the single market and customs union.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Leave campaign never considered the border noteworthy so of course they never forsaw any problems. What progress has been made, exactly?

This is just deceitful language to be honest.

You can read the outcome of the negotiations in each round yourself. The information is available on the Government website. Here's a paper on the August round on Parliament's website referring to the discussions on the CTA.

There's nothing deceitful about telling the truth. The UK and the EU never said that full agreement on every aspect of the border would or indeed could be agreed in phase 1.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

murphaph wrote: »

To be honest I don't care about the CTA with Great Britain. I've no problem with full passport controls with an island you can only reach by air or sea.

And they aren't even proposing to have a visa system for entrants - the ports and airports will be wide open to all EU citizens anyhow.

And being Irish (under a CTA) won't excuse you from presenting "papers, please" to every official that wants to see them. In the new, free, independent UK everyone including UK citizens will have to do that.

J Mysterio

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RepBrendanBoyle/status/934987098649710592

Good to see some support from US congress...

God, that's genuinely heartwarming. First bit of positive news I've heard in weeks?

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I repeat it because it is the British position, it is outlined clearly in the position paper. The EU need to make clear that it is their position irrespective of whether or not the UK remain in the single market and customs union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sorry, you repeat what? You just said that the Uk position is that it is open to whatever is agreed. Up to that point you have said the UK position has been no border.

Which is it?

kowtow

Aegir wrote:

Kate Hoey is saying that the UK government isn't going to put in a hard border and if one goes in, it will the the Irish government that do it. This is nowhere near Trumps declaration that he was going to build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it.

Leroy42 wrote:

From my understanding, it would seem quite a strange position that the UK are stating that they want a trade deal yet at the same time effectively saying that they care little for the regulations of the EU and will do nothing to stop goods from the UK flooding into EU.

In the absence of detailed agreement I think each party stops the goods of the other from coming in, or applies tariffs etc.

If you like that's probably all that could easily be agreed in phase one. And the UK has made its position clear. No hardware. The EU and Ireland have said nothing for their part but the implication is they would find this difficult hence the demand that NI stay in the CU .

Clearly in a mutually acceptable trade pact you could have all sorts of enhanced cooperation. French immigration is at folkestone for the tunnel for example and UK immigration in Paris.

flaneur

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And they aren't even proposing to have a visa system for entrants - the ports and airports will be wide open to all EU citizens anyhow.

And being Irish (under a CTA) won't excuse you from presenting "papers, please" to every official that wants to see them. In the new, free, independent UK everyone including UK citizens will have to do that.

That’s really the direction the UK has been heading for a long time though. A mixture of genuine security concerns due to a rise in terrorism and a paranoia about immigration for other reasons have been leading them that way since the mid 2000s

May’s tenure as Home Secretary should shine a light on how she thinks. The Go Home vans. The crackdowns on immigration and the rhetoric aren’t anything new and I don’t really see why people view her as some kind of sensible moderate on these issues.

Chips Lovell

Leroy42 wrote: »

I also read that the .4% reduction in growth forecasts that were released as part of the budget are based on benign outcome to the Brexit talks.

What would be the impact from a no deal outcome? It can't be better, but how much worse and would even that cause the Brexiteers to pause?

It's also based on immigration levels remaining the same:

Mr Hammond first had to deal with significantly poorer economic forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the fiscal watchdog (see chart). For that, blame a big downgrade in expected productivity growth (ie, what the average worker produces per hour). The OBR’s growth forecasts, though grim, may still be too rosy. They assume that long after Brexit, annual net migration to Britain will exceed 160,000, which runs up against the government’s daft promise to reduce it to the “tens of thousands”. Nor do they take into account a disorderly no-deal Brexit, which could yet happen.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

You can read the outcome of the negotiations in each round yourself. The information is available on the Government website. SNIP

There's nothing deceitful about telling the truth. The UK and the EU never said that full agreement on every aspect of the border would or indeed could be agreed in phase 1. You

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Your link is dead.

You have said that posters were engaged in revisionist re-writing. I'm just taking this as baseless nonsense along with your claim that most remainers are Euro-federalists and the EU wasn't working for the UK.

As I said, UK papers are irrelevant. It's the final deal that matters. I'm glad that Ireland and the EU are not permitting Johnson, Gove and Davis to screw over the people of both parts of Ireland for the sake of their own agenda. There are important questions that need addressing before trade talks can commence.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This was clear at the time and it was clear when Article 50 was invoked. People voted for this, plain and simple. They are three very reasonable key areas and the UK has dragged its feet on each one.

it was clear and the British government caved in to pressure to get on with the negotiations when they shouldn't.

In my opinion, they had no idea what they wanted and were looking for this to emerge during the negotiations, which it clearly hasn't. Sure, it is up to the British to decide what they want and how to do it, as they are the ones leaving, but I think it is pretty obvious that the eu has no idea how to handle this as well.

I believe the best way forward is for both parties to agree what the end product is, what the relationship between the eu and UK will be after Brext and then work back from there. This would have to be on the proviso that this end result is only achievable of the three key criteria are mutually agreed.

At the moment, we have both sides wanting something, but the other not being able to commit, because it doesn't know what it is getting in return. It is almost a game of who will blink first. Add in the small matter of the most sensible, powerful and pragmatic politician in the eu struggling to form her own government and the whole thing has become a complete joke.

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, you repeat what? You just said that the Uk position is that it is open to whatever is agreed. Up to that point you have said the UK position has been no border.

Which is it?

Good afternoon!

The UK's position is that they want no border. That depends on the trade and customs terms that the EU are willing to offer. That's what I said in that post.

It depends on what the EU offer in trade and customs terms. The border can't be open if the EU doesn't offer trade and customs terms that allow this to happen. Assurances therefore need to be provided by both parties.

The UK's stated position (including what Fox said) is that they do not want a closed border.

If the EU weren't trying to tie Britain's hands into accepting customs union membership there could be a good way to phrase this assurance.

The UK could guarantee the border if the EU said that they would allow for a tariff free trade deal with the UK and if they would allow for customs terms to be arranged with the UK irrespective of whether or not it remained in the single market or customs union.

I'd support signing that tomorrow. True assurances would require both parties to commit to this.

Edit: ancapailldorcha - several posters (yourself included) have suggested that the UK and the EU agreed to completely resolve the border issue in phase 1. This is revisionist rewriting of what was said at the start of the Brexit negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flatty

wes wrote: »

Aegir wrote: »

She isn't though, not if you read what she said properly.

I think you are looking for something that isn't there.

I read it, and I think she knows full well what she is doing. All she did was say it in a far smarter way then Trump.

We are already seeing the invective from the Brits, showing there true colors. Its didn't take much for this to happen. Look at the comments in regards to Varadkar as another example.

Please stop using the phrase "the brits".
I'm irish, living in England. It is a few talking heads. You might as well ascribe all jim corrs utterings to the Irish. You cannot pin these relatively few rantings upon the entirety of "the brits" (which is a derogatory term in any case, as commonly used).

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

it was clear and the British government caved in to pressure to get on with the negotiations when they shouldn't.

In my opinion, they had no idea what they wanted and were looking for this to emerge during the negotiations, which it clearly hasn't. Sure, it is up to the British to decide what they want and how to do it, as they are the ones leaving, but I think it is pretty obvious that the eu has no idea how to handle this as well.

Well, the whole thing is unprecedented in fairness to both sides. Greenland's departure can hardly be considered comparable for a myriad of reasons. However, the referendum was ill-thought out with no plan whatsoever for fulfilling the wishes of the electorate should they opt for seceding from the EU. What irks me is that nobody at the top can even admit that things are going badly.

Aegir wrote: »

I believe the best way forward is for both parties to agree what the end product is, what the relationship between the eu and UK will be after Brext and then work back from there. This would have to be on the proviso that this end result is only achievable of the three key criteria are mutually agreed.

Yep. The problem is that there are spanners in the works, namely the Irish border. The questions of EU citizens and British financial commitments are relatively straightforward by comparison though the former should really have been resolved much quicker than it actually was.

Aegir wrote: »

At the moment, we have both sides wanting something, but the other not being able to commit, because it doesn't know what it is getting in return. It is almost a game of who will blink first. Add in the small matter of the most sensible, powerful and pragmatic politician in the eu struggling to form her own government and the whole thing has become a complete joke.

Hardly a fault of Mrs. Merkel though. Enda Kenny and Theresa May both had issues on this front.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: ancapailldorcha - several posters (yourself included) have suggested that the UK and the EU agreed to completely resolve the border issue in phase 1. This is revisionist rewriting of what was said at the start of the Brexit negotiations.

From the EU Observer:

The UK has also agreed to negotiate on the basis of the three priorities set up by the EU: 1) the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa, 2) the financial settlement and 3) the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

FrancieBrady

J Mysterio wrote: »

God, that's genuinely heartwarming. First bit of positive news I've heard in weeks?

Some more good news. Maybe we won't pick up the big agencies but we can do really well in this area imo.

"We have always had a strong customer base in Ireland and we are certain that this trend will continue with the impending Brexit situation as companies typically from the UK and USA look to securing a base to service their European markets," Mr Tedham said.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/1127/923089-jobs-dundalk-wasdell/

Water John

Am I right, Kowtow, that you resided in Switzerland for some time?
In which case you should good experience of border controls. Switzerland is party to Shengen and lots of other EU agreements.

Its up to the UK to outline how they see it operating, considering the red line issues they have declared. UK staying in the common trade area and customs union is Ireland's proposal. What's the UK's?

J Mysterio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'd be happy for this to happen if it wasn't an obvious attempt to keep the UK or part thereof in the single market and customs union. The UK can't agree to this because it doesn't deliver on the referendum result which is about taking back control.

If the EU stated it was willing to discuss alternatives to this in phase 2 I'd be happy to do this.

However it seems like Ireland and the EU are trying to keep the UK or part thereof in the single market and customs union according to leaked documents and public statements. This isn't acceptable.

The UK have already stated that their position is to have no hard infrastructure on the border. The border cannot be dealt with until trade and customs terms are agreed. This is a matter for phase two.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You see, the EU and Ireland have made proposals on how to resolve the impasse. Stay in the Customs Union, stay in the Single Market, move the border to the sea. There's three options right there.

Then this nugget:

"If the EU stated it was willing to discuss alternatives to this in phase 2 I'd be happy to do this"

The UK have made no proposals.

They are effectively saying 'we can't discuss this in phase 1, because a border seems likely to us right now. Also, we don't want to betray the fact that we don't really care what happens over there anyway. We already gave them 1.5 billion!'

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK's position is that they want no border. That depends on the trade and customs terms that the EU are willing to offer. That's what I said in that post.

That position will set the UK up to have the @rse ripped out of it by all and sundry WTO members suing for breach of MFN trading terms because they [other WTO members] aren't entitled to avail of the 'no border' thing either.

The cabinet may, if pushed, think that they can be clever in fudging the matter with a token paper-tiger border presence but an enforceable border there will have to be if the UK wishes to avoid the above mauling before its even out of the starting gates on WTO terms.

Water John

I think, we in Ireland are quite familiar with old UK negotiating tactics. Ireland is not buying, this time.

flaneur

flatty wrote: »

Please stop using the phrase "the brits".
I'm irish, living in England. It is a few talking heads. You might as well ascribe all jim corrs utterings to the Irish. You cannot pin these relatively few rantings upon the entirety of "the brits" (which is a derogatory term in any case, as commonly used).

Even Brexit is close enough to 50:50 and a lot of “Brits” are highly opposed to it.

The problem is the UK Government includes a lot of those extreme views, as does the English press. While I know it’s not representative of the whole of England, Britian or the UK, the fact remains that the government is the body the representing the UK and “the Brits” will be find that they’re defined by the rhetoric and policies, much as the Americans (many of whom can’t abide him) are being represented by Trump.

I think the right wing tabloids and their associated talking heads do a lot of damage to the UK’s image during times like this, or even during sporting events when they start going off on jingoistic rants.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Last post for today on this thread.

J Mysterio wrote: »

You see, the EU and Ireland have made proposals on how to resolve the impasse. Stay in the Customs Union, stay in the Single Market, move the border to the sea. There's three options right there.

This isn't acceptable to the UK. Therefore it won't happen. It doesn't deliver on the referendum result and taking back control in the key areas.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Then this nugget:

"If the EU stated it was willing to discuss alternatives to this in phase 2 I'd be happy to do this"

The UK have made no proposals.

This isn't true, and moreover you know it isn't true. The UK position paper highlights a number of different options here.

J Mysterio wrote: »

They are effectively saying 'we can't discuss this in phase 1, because a border seems likely to us right now. Also, we don't want to betray the fact that we don't really care what happens over there anyway. We already gave them 1.5 billion!'

No. They are saying that you can't determine a border without agreeing on trade and customs. That's very simple.

Lemming wrote: »

That position will set the UK up to have the @rse ripped out of it by all and sundry WTO members suing for breach of MFN trading terms because they [other WTO members] aren't entitled to avail of the 'no border' thing either.

The cabinet may, if pushed, think that they can be clever in fudging the matter with a token border presence but an enforceable border there will have to be if the UK wishes to avoid the above mauling before its even out of the starting gates on WTO terms.

You do know that free trade agreements aren't subject to MFN rules right? That's why the EU can have a free trade agreement with Canada without offering it to all the other countries in the WTO.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

You do know that free trade agreements aren't subject to MFN rules right? That's why the EU can have a free trade agreement with Canada without offering it to all the other countries in the WTO.

You are assuming that there will be an FTA solo. The current cabinet trajectory is far from confidence-inspiring in that regard.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, the whole thing is unprecedented in fairness to both sides. Greenland's departure can hardly be considered comparable for a myriad of reasons. However, the referendum was ill-thought out with no plan whatsoever for fulfilling the wishes of the electorate should they opt for seceding from the EU. What irks me is that nobody at the top can even admit that things are going badly.

a politician admit they were wrong? Wishful thinking methinks

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yep. The problem is that there are spanners in the works, namely the Irish border. The questions of EU citizens and British financial commitments are relatively straightforward by comparison though the former should really have been resolved much quicker than it actually was.

The Britiss government have this all worked out, but can't commit because they need to know what they get in return. They will essentially be paying money to the eu long after they leave which, in anybody's mind, would beg the question "What do we get in return"?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hardly a fault of Mrs. Merkel though. Enda Kenny and Theresa May both had issues on this front.

No, it isn't, but we could do with her sweeping in and telling the kids to stop messing about. Unfortunately she is tied up with the day job at the moment.

J Mysterio

flaneur wrote: »

That’s really the direction the UK has been heading for a long time though. A mixture of genuine security concerns due to a rise in terrorism and a paranoia about immigration for other reasons have been leading them that way since the mid 2000s

May’s tenure as Home Secretary should shine a light on how she thinks. The Go Home vans. The crackdowns on immigration and the rhetoric aren’t anything new and I don’t really see why people view her as some kind of sensible moderate on these issues.

Nevermind the fact that the entirety of London is literally covered in CCTV. Everywhere.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The UK's position is that they want no border. That depends on the trade and customs terms that the EU are willing to offer. That's what I said in that post.

It depends on what the EU offer in trade and customs terms. The border can't be open if the EU doesn't offer trade and customs terms that allow this to happen. Assurances therefore need to be provided by both parties.

Okay so let us suppose for a moment we've moved on from Phase 1 and are now in Phase 2.
What kind of deal would deliver no border? The only deal I can see is one where the UK gets a FTA so good that it is for all intents and purposes equivalent to the CU and SM. Do you honestly see this happening?

J Mysterio

Water John wrote: »

I think, we in Ireland are quite familiar with old UK negotiating tactics. Ireland is not buying, this time.

Accept the treaty or face immediate and terrible war?

There was an article in the Irish Times by an Englishman living in Ireland, he drew parallels with Micky Collins negotiations in London. His point was that Collins was the first and would be the last Irish minister to agree to a border in Ireland. How can that be a surprise to London? I mean, really.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ignorance-of-irish-history-means-brexit-talks-will-not-end-well-1.3305818

J Mysterio

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't true, and moreover you know it isn't true. The UK position paper highlights a number of different options here.

The famous UK position paper you keep referencing, but are unable to quote the substance of.

I note that your last post of the day is rarely your last post of the day but nevertheless arrives as the questions become difficult to answer. Similar to the behavior exhibited your heroes in Westminster.

murphaph

Aegir wrote: »

did they have a choice?

No deal?

kowtow

Water John wrote: »

Am I right, Kowtow, that you resided in Switzerland for some time?
In which case you should good experience of border controls. Switzerland is party to Shengen and lots of other EU agreements.

Its up to the UK to outline how they see it operating, considering the red line issues they have declared. UK staying in the common trade area and customs union is Ireland's proposal. What's the UK's?

I did indeed.

In my limited way I see the CTA as an equivalent - of sorts - to Schengen in this case. I hear what people say about it's genesis and I understand it's not guaranteed by EU law etc. etc. but there has to be some faith here so for the purposes of the border I think we can say that whatever might appear from the rantings of Brexit extremists the British position is free movement of people between NI & the Republic.

I think they genuinely want to avoid a hard border and they feel they can - from their side at least - by having an "electronic only" crossing with cameras at the frontier and remote customs patrols. In the North the existing security arrangements at the ports could presumably do a lot of the physical work without adding too much friction. In this the UK are lucky, NI is a relatively small territory and I imagine that they feel that a slightly porous electronic border is a price worth paying to preserve the success of the GFA etc.

The problem from our side of course is a bit more complicated. The Republic is bigger, more ports, a lot of EU focused manufacturing... and we have to try and maintain the EU frontier as well as our own, so whatever we accept must by definition be acceptable to Brussels. It is - I think - less realistic for us to imagine a soft electronic camera only border on our side than it is for the UK. A lot could happen between that frontier and the sea ports in the south.

Hence the present position.

The suggestion that the NI stay in the CU is inflammatory, probably deliberately so, and would never be accepted unless the whole of the UK was staying in, which it is not. It would be great for us - of course - but my guess is that if there was the slightest diplomatic chance of it happening we wouldn't be demanding it in public the way that we are.

One of the reasons that this particular discussion is so painful is that - despite what is said in public - this is about much more than trade and economics and open borders. The EU absolutely does want to set an example and discourage other nations from getting notions. It absolutely hates the idea of Britain "having it's cake and eating it too" (although generally if you hand over money in a cake shop that is the minimum you expect).. and, much to the frustration of virtually every poster on this thread, it is as plain as the hand in front of your face that much more than short term economic benefit is at play in the UK's decision to leave. All of us are, whether we like to admit it or not, putting politics ahead of prosperity in this debate. I don't think that's unusual, life is about more than money.

If there is any chance at all to implement an electronic border then it must involve some seriously detailed work between the Irish and the UK, and lead - no doubt - to a joint solution with comprehensive information sharing in real time, a frontier that is probably a little more porous than we might wish, but with a strong shared backstop at all the ports around the Island. Such a solution might not be perfect but it would definitely be a price worth paying to maintain all Island relations.

It is difficult, though, to contemplate the detail of such a set up without the shape of any EU/UK trade agreement being known. Any paper which was put forward could be shot down instantly on the basis that "there was no agreement for this" or "no agreement for that". Just look at the times the Swiss border was raised further up this thread - the answer always comes "but Switzlerland has bilaterals with the EU and Schengen"... well we have the CTA, and presumably - one the trade talks happen - we'll have bilaterals as well.

I think for the time being we really are seeing public grandstanding on both sides. I sincerely hope a form of words will be found which, instead of deliberately provoking sensitivities, challenges the Irish and the UK to come up with a joint electronic solution which is remembered for it's ambition and effectiveness rather than the politics which led to it's birth.

flaneur

The problem is it’s not equivalent to Schengen as it’s a bilateral agreement (informal and legacy) with one EU memberstate, not the EU and only for free movement of people and labour.

Then you’ve the huge issue of it having absolutely nothing to do with trade or economics and the UK is steadfastly against the concept of staying in the customs union or having ECJ arbitration.

So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

murphaph

Lemming wrote: »

You are assuming that there will be an FTA solo. The current cabinet trajectory is far from confidence-inspiring in that regard.

And no self respecting country will sign an FTA with the UK in the knowledge that the UK has an open border to the EU. That's not how the WTO works at all.

The UK will be compelled to police their border with the EU whether they like it or not.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

a politician admit they were wrong? Wishful thinking methinks

Perhaps but it's the only way we can properly appraise the situation.

Aegir wrote: »

The Britiss government have this all worked out, but can't commit because they need to know what they get in return. They will essentially be paying money to the eu long after they leave which, in anybody's mind, would beg the question "What do we get in return"?

It's released papers detailing its position. I don't think there's been any more progress than that.

kowtow

murphaph wrote: »

And no self respecting country will sign an FTA with the UK in the knowledge that the UK has an open border to the EU. That's not how the WTO works at all.

The UK will be compelled to police their border with the EU whether they like it or not.

Do you not think that policing it electronically, with additional physical checks at the ports (and presumably ad-hoc checks behind the border) would be sufficient for WTO purposes? I would have thought it was a matter of practical application rather than a political one. How large a volume of goods of non-Irish origin would really leak across a border like that in practice?

murphaph

flaneur wrote: »

The problem is it’s not equivalent to Schengen as it’s a bilateral agreement (informal and legacy) with one EU memberstate, not the EU and only for free movement of people and labour.

Then you’ve the huge issue of it having absolutely nothing to do with trade or economics and the UK is steadfastly against the concept of staying in the customs union or having ECJ arbitration.

So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Yeah the CTA is the least of our worries. The EU doesn't care if that continues or not as Ireland is outside Schengen anyway.

The real issue remains the customs and regulatory differences.

Water John

Chambers of Commerce putting forward the notion of a similar arrangement as that between the EU and Turkey. Don't see the UK buying that.
But the UK has to move. Otherwise it's halt at this point.

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

The problem is it’s not equivalent to Schengen as it’s a bilateral agreement (informal and legacy) with one EU memberstate, not the EU and only for free movement of people and labour.

Then you’ve the huge issue of it having absolutely nothing to do with trade or economics and the UK is steadfastly against the concept of staying in the customs union or having ECJ arbitration.

So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

With respect the CTA pre-dates the EU by a long time, and is explicitly recognised (IIRC) in various Accession documents and EU treaties. It's a bit of a stretch to expect the UK to go beyond an agreement which is already affords more to Irish citizens than EU freedom of movement does. As for ECJ oversight - we have to get rid of this notion of trying to treat EU people as a special case with their own court hovering over them like some kind of protective angel with jurisdiction everywhere. You cannot by definition confer a right, especially perpetually renewable rights, upon a class of individuals in an external sovereign state. If you wish to live in a state you do so because you are content to be subject to the laws of that state and to be treated equally under the law.

If you don't trust the law and legislature of the country not to discriminate against you without outside supervision then probably that's not a country you want to live in - the CTA was more than enough for generations of Irish families and British families to establish themselves both sides of the Irish sea. It might come as a surprise but I dare say the huge majority of those families correctly assume that their arrangements are nothing to do with their recently acquired status as EU citizens but rather a long standing arrangement between the UK and Ireland which works extremely well and barely gets a second thought.

I think the suggestion that the border arrangements will fail over the CTA is creating a problem where one does not exist.

flaneur

My whole point is the CTA is COMPLETELY irrelevant and the discussion about the CTA is moot.

It never, ever, ever covered anything to do with trade.

The issue that will cause a hard border is customs and tariffs. You can wander across the border all you like, but if we get to Canada US style customers, you’ll be declaring all your groceries and it will require stopping and checking and clearing customs.

The UK isn’t at likely to require EU nationals to have visas (unless it goes completely mad anyway) as almost no countries in the developed world require visas for up to 90s of travel / business trips etc etc. EU nationals would only require visas to work / remain.

So that renders the security risk of the Irish border also moot.

The Irish and UK visa and immigration regimes aren’t the same now. We have some degree of cooperation but that’s all. There is limited mutual recognition of visas for Chinese and Indian nationals, but only to the extent that you can visit as a tourist / make a business trip. This is because China and India do not have visa waivers and both countries saw an necessity to boost trade and tourism.

Just because an EU national can live and work in Ireland doesn’t mean that they’ll be able to just enter the UK and work via Ireland, unless of course they naturalize as Irish. I could see a lot of long term Irish EU residents becoming Irish for that flexibility.

ambro25

kowtow wrote: »

In my limited way I see the CTA as an equivalent - of sorts - to Schengen in this case. I hear what people say about it's genesis and I understand it's not guaranteed by EU law etc. etc. but there has to be some faith here so for the purposes of the border I think we can say that whatever might appear from the rantings of Brexit extremists the British position is free movement of people between NI & the Republic.

The relevance of the border is not limited to personal crossings, so restricting it to that with a Schengen-like analogy is a bit misrepresentative.

The practical problem you have in law (and remember that, for all the political testiculation surrounding it in the UK, the EU and elsewhere, Brexit is a legal process first and foremost), is that the EU FoM effectively "grafted itself" onto the pre-existing CTA when the UK and RoI acceded to the EEC, but that (AFAIK) no amount of legal harmonisation or other top-and-tailing has been done since, particularly post-Lisbon: the fundamental problem is that the T&Cs under the TEU and TFEU prevent a reversion to the statu quo ante of the CTA governing customs and other regulatory, compliance and normative standards between RoI as an EU26 member state and the UK as a third party country.

EDIT: as flaneur summarily explains above. The CTA e.g. does not grant a UK-made Nissan an EU type approval, nor does it guarantee that UK manufacturing standards have not diverged from those of the EU post-integrating the EU acquis into UK law. There's your problem, timed as it is by orders of magnitude, corresponding to the scale of EU/UK cross-border goods movements at any point in time.

kowtow wrote: »

All of us are, whether we like to admit it or not, putting politics ahead of prosperity in this debate. I don't think that's unusual, life is about more than money.

I've certainly put prosperity ahead of politics. Or rather, should I say, ongoing politics have caused me to have to put prosperity ahead of political debate, sentiments, opinions and such other subjective notions: in the most simple terms, nothing whatsoever, official and not, from either side of the debate and lately of the negotiations table, has changed since before the referendum to date, to change my mind on an objective (evidence-based) basis, that Brexit is not going to s**tcan our profession in the UK regardless of what deal is arrived at. That is because our UK-European profession was what it was as a result of the UK's EU membership, and nothing short of maintaining EU membership can keep it on the level - or improve it.

I started posting in this thread a UK resident of close to 10 years (and another 10 years before that, with an interval in the RoI between both), Director-employee of a UK firm, facing a real-life loss of professional competence and scope of work (caused solely by cancellation of qualification equivalence and domiciliation requirement under the UK's government red lines) and at the time, IIRC, still uhm-ing and ah-ing about whether to pull the plug on the UK or not.

It is entirely the UK government's conduct since the referendum, and ever more so as time went on, up to the negotiations stalling lately, that eventually decided me to quit procrastinating, and grab the one in the hand rather than wait for Theresa May's two in the bush.

I dropped my notice last week, and have now started working my notice this week, negotiated to end prematurely in January 2018.

The thread (or a successor thread III) will most probably still be going by the time I take my functions on the Continent in February 2018, having in the meantime liquidated and capital-transferred every last UK asset.

Bar perhaps my private pension, but then consolidation is on the cards for later, after the relocation dust settles. Not too long after, mind you, as I shall be keeping the UK government's pensions haircut of yesteryear fresh in mind, whilst monitoring what preparations for Brexit continue to visit on the UK and its socio-economic situation.

Life is certainly about "more than money". But that's a principle which you have to able to afford in the first place; not a truism. As very many British are regrettably to find out in due course.

Whilst the above is anecdotal of course, don't kid yourself that it is not being replicated sizeably across those amongst the 3.2m of us, with two grey cells to rub together and a personal limit for risk-taking (because staying in the UK very much is that, and only growing more so with each passing week).

flaneur

Also I think the notion that moving goods via the UK to the continent would be blocked is probably nonsense too. Although it will likely be cumbersome. They will have to facilitate transshipment of goods as the UK logistics and transport industry (quite large) would be destroyed if they didn’t.

I suspect it will be shrinking quite a bit though.

Unless they’re determined to cut their nose off to spite their face, which isn’t beyond the possibilities of where this is going.

kowtow

I think as far as the CTA is concerned we are all saying more or less the same thing here - I was actually answering Water John's original post which mentioned Schengen in the context of the Swiss border. My point was really no more than "the CTA makes a soft border possible where people are concerned".

You are perfectly right that the CTA does nothing for customs and trade. The question is whether an electronic border in the middle of the Island backed up by risk/intelligence based customs checks at the ports would provide a workable solution if Britain and Ireland put the cudgels down and tried to work one out. Clearly this would have to be a shared electronic solution. Clearly also the frontier between North and South would be more porous than we might wish in a perfect world, but a certain amount of smaller scale un-customed local trade might be a tolerable price. Surely what we are really trying to achieve is a situation where goods leaving this Island and coming into this Island are both correctly identified as to origin and correctly taxed where applicable? Is this really beyond the bounds of possibility all politics aside?

I think if I was David Davis and I was trying to sort this out, I would take a bit of the 3 billion set aside in the budget, and seek to sit down in a bilateral with Ireland to form a well resourced "hard brexit" working group with the specific remit of designing a shared border solution which would work in the event of a hard brexit, and remove the need - if at all possible - for either side to have anything but cameras at the border. I would look for the specific blessing of the EU that this be a bilateral arrangement independent of all the other talks, where Britain and Ireland do their best to work out what will provide the minimum disruption for their countries within the obvious constraints posed by the single market and by EU membership. Above all I would try to take this border off the table for either side as a bargaining chip.

If the job gets easier as the months go by because of emerging trade agreements - so be it, but right now I wonder would the EU be flexible enough to allow Britain and Ireland to really go to work and sort out the details between them?

oscarBravo

Water John wrote: »

Chambers of Commerce putting forward the notion of a similar arrangement as that between the EU and Turkey. Don't see the UK buying that.

Unlikely. The EU and Turkey are in a customs union, which the UK has ruled out.

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

If there is any chance at all to implement an electronic border then it must involve some seriously detailed work between the Irish and the UK, and lead - no doubt - to a joint solution with comprehensive information sharing in real time, a frontier that is probably a little more porous than we might wish, but with a strong shared backstop at all the ports around the Island. Such a solution might not be perfect but it would definitely be a price worth paying to maintain all Island relations.

This will never work for the simple reason Ireland or EU can't trust UK to perform the relevant checks for inbound goods to EU. Even in Switzerland who follows EU law and standards have a 2% check rate which an pure electronic border can not support. Hence even with the UK's mythical electronic border which they even admit does not exist anywhere there would still need to be border stops for the checks.

I think for the time being we really are seeing public grandstanding on both sides. I sincerely hope a form of words will be found which, instead of deliberately provoking sensitivities, challenges the Irish and the UK to come up with a joint electronic solution which is remembered for it's ambition and effectiveness rather than the politics which led to it's birth.

It does not work; it has never worked; and it will never work that way. A legal requirement is border controls for third party countries goods; UK and NI are third party country ergo there needs to be border stops to check the goods. It is a legal requirement which can not be hand waved away somehow as not existing OR EU will have to let every single country in the world import their goods on the same terms as UK with zero controls. Those are the two options and neither is acceptable nor doable that you keep referring to. Now repeat after me; there is no magical bullet to solve the border; the border crossing will be a hard border with controls on both sides. UK may start with no controls but after a few trucks with cheap tobacco has come on over (estimated profit for a full truck in avoided duties are around 60 million EUR per truck) and alcohol etc. come in via NI you can expect UK will slam up those control posts. That's not even starting on what the enterprising border clans will do with fuel (buy in Ireland, declare it is being exported to NI for full VAT & duty refund as it's leaving EU, move over the border illegally and sell on) etc. by cheating the UK (harder to cheat Ireland as they got border controls up while UK has zilch).

breatheme

Turkey's membership of the CU also excludes agricultural goods, so there's that as well. It won't work for NI.
I honestly think this should be put to NI in a referendum, though.

flaneur

breatheme wrote: »

Turkey's membership of the CU also excludes agricultural goods, so there's that as well. It won't work for NI.
I honestly think this should be put to NI in a referendum, though.

It won’t be though as a hard border probably suits the DUP’s agenda - will remove any southern influences from their realm and they’ve got the Tories over a barrel.

The best result for Ireland (both jurisdictions) would be a UK general election. The DUP position distorts evening. Even the Tories on their own would be preferable.

ambro25

kowtow wrote: »

The question is whether an electronic border in the middle of the Island backed up by risk/intelligence based customs checks at the ports would provide a workable solution if Britain and Ireland put the cudgels down and tried to work one out. Clearly this would have to be a shared electronic solution. Clearly also the frontier between North and South would be more porous than we might wish in a perfect world, but a certain amount of smaller scale un-customed local trade might be a tolerable price.

As a time-served software patents specialist, trust me when I tell you that everything is always do-able on paper, before the first line of code has been committed to RAM, never mind the algorithm flow-charted...but then, problems and feature creep begin as soon as that first line of code has been written

The problems with your question really are many-fold, however, and including such niceties as:

• the UK's red lines on the sort of EU legislation and jurisdictional scope required to guarantee regulatory equivalence
• real-time or near-real-time container/load inspection technology
• the record track of the UK government on ICT projects (going back a looong time here)
• the timescale to end March 2021 (never mind end March 2019)

Is it do-able? In theory, absolutely.
Would it be done in good time, even if not on budget? Not a f chance.
Would it be reliable/leak? No system can ever guarantee 100% reliability 100% of the time.
Would it get serially abused? You betcha.

kowtow wrote: »

Surely what we are really trying to achieve is a situation where goods leaving this Island and coming into this Island are both correctly identified as to origin and correctly taxed where applicable? Is this really beyond the bounds of possibility all politics aside?

Nope.

That's exactly what customs procedures all around the EU27 points of entry are there for, and have been for a very long time.

An NI border would not be anything 'new' in that respect, but a 'retrofit' of systems and procedures that have long existed and been practiced all along the outer EU border.

The problem is not achieving regulatory compliance with WTO T&Cs and such. That can be done with a hard border just fine - and tried and tested.

The problem is achieving regulatory compliance without a hard border.

And that is a problem, because the only reason you don't have hard borders between the EU27, is down to common statutes in the making for 50+ years and establishing converging standards, equivalencies and whatnot (all collectively making for a level regulatory playing field across goods and services throughout the SM), all established and enforced by the ECJ.

kowtow wrote: »

I think if I was David Davis and I was trying to sort this out, I would take a bit of the 3 billion set aside in the budget, and seek to sit down in a bilateral with Ireland to form a well resourced "hard brexit" working group with the specific remit of designing a shared border solution which would work in the event of a hard brexit, and remove the need - if at all possible - for either side to have anything but cameras at the border. I would look for the specific blessing of the EU that this be a bilateral arrangement independent of all the other talks, where Britain and Ireland do their best to work out what will provide the minimum disruption for their countries within the obvious constraints posed by the single market and by EU membership. Above all I would try to take this border off the table for either side as a bargaining chip.

You do understand that Ireland, as an EU26, would not be a liberty to discuss such a "bilateral" with the hard-brexiting UK, right?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK's position is that they want no border. That depends on the trade and customs terms that the EU are willing to offer. That's what I said in that post.

It depends on what the EU offer in trade and customs terms. The border can't be open if the EU doesn't offer trade and customs terms that allow this to happen. Assurances therefore need to be provided by both parties.

The UK's stated position (including what Fox said) is that they do not want a closed border.

If the EU weren't trying to tie Britain's hands into accepting customs union membership there could be a good way to phrase this assurance.

The UK could guarantee the border if the EU said that they would allow for a tariff free trade deal with the UK and if they would allow for customs terms to be arranged with the UK irrespective of whether or not it remained in the single market or customs union.

I'd support signing that tomorrow. True assurances would require both parties to commit to this.

So the UK wants to leave the single market and the customs union but it doesn't want to put up a border. Have your cake and eat it basically. That cannot happen on the UK red lines. The EU has not set any red lines, it is up to the UK to tell the EU what it wants. The problem is at the moment the UK wants what it cannot get. It cannot leave the single market and the customs union and not have a border with the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't acceptable to the UK. Therefore it won't happen. It doesn't deliver on the referendum result and taking back control in the key areas.

Yes...those things that they need to control, like their borders which they now want to keep open apparently. Or laws which no-one can show was a problem. Or trade deals, which most people that have been involved in trade talks say they won't be able to replicate on their own.

In any case, anyone else notice the talks on the financial settlement has gone quiet while the border is now the issue being focused on. I assume this is because those are at an impasse as well or has there been movement there?