Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

If you are all correct in your assumptions, then there is only one way for this to go which is a hard Brexit and a hard border on the Irish side at least - probably the UK side as well, with Irish / UK relations damaged badly on top of the worst case scenario for trade between the two countries.

I hope for everybody's sake that this does not turn out to be the case, being able to blame one side or another doesn't seem like much compensation for the long term damage but I don't think anyone realistically expects NI to end up in the CU?

If having no hard border in Ireland really is a UK "red line", then having NI in the CU is not unthinkable. On the contrary, it's the kind of thing the UK needs to be prepared to think if it's to achieve something that, it says, it is determined to achieve.

The real issue here is that, in their frenzy to deduce red lines from the referendum result, the UK has proclaimed a number of inconsistent red lines. Relevantly, their red lines include (a) no Single Market, (b) no Customs Union, and (c) no hard border.

It is simply impossible that all three can be achieved - it's a contradiction in terms. The UK is going to have to compromise on one or more of these objectives. This isn't because of inflexibility or bullying or a hardline stance by Ireland or by the EU; it's because of the logic of the situation.

(Relevantly, failing to achieve (c), no hard border, presents a threat to the Irish peace settlement, which perhaps suggests that of all the red lines this is the last one that should be compromised or sacrificed. That's how it looks to us in Ireland, anyway, and also in the wider EU. Even if there are those in the UK who don't see things this way, they should at least appreciate that they are negotiating with people who do see things this way, and this colours what is realistically achievable in the negotiations.)

So, where to we go from here? As these are the UK's red lines, if there are tensions between them in the end only the UK can resolve them. How will they balance competing objectives? Thus far, they have been extraordinarily slow even to acknowledge that they need to do this, never mind actually to attempt it. Still, as Sartre would point out, to refuse to make a choice is itself to make a choice. If the UK will not think about how to reconcile its competing objectives, others must. So, in the absence of any creativity or imagination (or even realism) on the UK side, we can perhaps throw out a few suggestions that might help people struggle towards a reconciliation.

- The UK should commit that any FTA which it concludes with the EU will involve zero customs tariffs in both directions. (This would be very much in the UK’s interests anyway, so this isn’t asking a huge sacrifice from the UK.)

- The UK should commit to seeking a transitional period which will extend until the zero-tariff FTA commences, so that at no time will there be a need for customs controls along the Irish border.

- The UK should commit to regulatory equivalence for goods and services of the kind traded over the Irish border, so that there will be no need for regulatory controls along the border. (This could possibly be a sectoral thing rather than a whole-economy thing?)

- Perhaps it’s a matter for the UK whether they commit to regulatory equivalence with respect to NI only, introducing appropriate and effective monitoring/controls on goods moved between NI and GB, or whether they make this commitment for the entirety of the UK, which avoids any need for Irish Sea controls at all. If they are sincere in their assertions that any border controls needed along the Irish land border would be very light-touch, then they must believe that even lighter, less intrusive measures would be needed for the more limited controls that would be needed across the Irish sea to maintain regulatory equivalence in NI, so they might find this the more attractive option. On the other hand, large sectors of British industry would welcome regulatory equivalence in any case, even regardless of the Irish dimension. Ultimately this would be an internal matter for the UK; as long as there’s regulatory equivalence on the other side of the Irish border, that should work for the EU

Peregrinus

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This is the Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph - clucking bell!

https://twitter.com/JeremyWarnerUK/status/935185322010402821

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can feel anti-Irish sentiment seep through the British media again.

As for the Telegraph, I've said previously it's a rag that middle class people buy to convince themselves they're better than Sun readers. They're not.

Anthracite wrote: »

It was indeed how we poisoned their politics by being exploited, misgoverned and stripped of resources and people for centuries.

Is there anything we can do to make amends?

Once again, a demonstration that bizarre Jingoistic and pig-ignorant attitudes prevail at all levels amongst some of our UK friends and peers.

I think you're misreading Warner's tweet, guys. He (correctly) notes that the Irish question has long bedevilled British politics. He does not say that this is the fault of the Irish, that the Irish are to blame, or anything of the kind.

I don't read his tweet as necessarily being critical of anybody - just commenting on the irony of the situation. But, if you wantt to read it that way, you can just as easily read it as being critical of the British. Having finally arrived at a settlement in Ireland that looked as it if was working, they have to go and kick the wasp's nest again. And they do this not out of any malice, but simply because despite interfering in Irish affairs and therefore taking on some responsibility for Ireland they never, ever think about Ireland.

FWIW Warner was generally pro-Remain in during the referendum campaign, although he does generally hew to the Telegraph editorial line that, having been voted for, Brexit must happen.

Kermit.de.frog

They will be thinking about Ireland soon!

They don't get it. William Hague was offering "solutions" last night but it's the same old thing - we don't want this and that - but with zero detail.

An Irish government is supposed to take tories on their word? lol

Zubeneschamali

Anthracite wrote: »

I'm just asking generally as Solo has shut up shop for the day: can anyone explain to me why he thinks the Irish position on the border is 'stupid'

I think along the lines of free trade good - barriers bad, so once the UK leaves, it's in the EU and Irelands interests to allow the UK free trade access to the single market as there's cash to be made on both sides.

Denying them this access would cost us money, so doing it would be "stupid".

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think along the lines of free trade good - barriers bad, so once the UK leaves, it's in the EU and Irelands interests to allow the UK free trade access to the single market as there's cash to be made on both sides.

Denying them this access would cost us money, so doing it would be "stupid".

But by the same logic Brexit itself is even stupider, no? After all, the UK has the freest possible free access to the Single Market; they're withdrawing from this and hoping to negotiate significantly less free access to replace it.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The real issue here is that, in their frenzy to deduce red lines from the referendum result, the UK has proclaimed a number of inconsistent red lines. Relevantly, their red lines include (a) no Single Market, (b) no Customs Union, and (c) no hard border.

Unfortunately, the way I have been reading them, they have said the red lines are that they will have: (a) no single market (b) no customs union, and (c) no blame for the hard border which will be totally the EU's fault unless they give us free trade on our terms.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But by the same logic Brexit itself is even stupider, no?

The argument is that they are leaving (for whatever reason) so it is stupid not to set up the free-est possible trading arrangement going forward.

It's a bit like the two economists walking down the road, and one says "Look, someone dropped €50", and the other says "Impossible, it would have been in someone else's best interest to pick €50 up before we came along". Denying reality because of a simplistic theory.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

What Fox said was that the shape of the border depends on trade and customs discussions. This is what the UK have said since last July. This is a common sense position. The UK don't want infrastructure on the border. That depends on the EU providing trade and customs terms that allow for that to happen.

It also depends on the UK accepting trade and customs terms that allow for that to happen. And much of their rhetoric to this point has been signalling that they won't. All we've had so far is the UK rejecting suggested trade terms that would facilitate an open border.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Despite what you have claimed the EU and the UK both acknowledged that the border issue wouldn't be completely solved in phase 1.

No, it doesn't have to be completely solved. But there does have to be "sufficient progress". And I think what this requires is that the UK should be committing to the negotiation of trade terms which make an open border possible.

So far what the UK has done is to reject the trade terms suggested to facilitate an open border - the UK remaining in the Single Market, the UK remaining in the Customs Union, NI remaining in the Customs Union. But they have been notably slow in coming forward with any positive statements about what they would accept that would make an open border possible. Bland assurances that they would like an open border are not enough. No offence, but those bland assurances are coming from the same people who offer bland assurances that the UK will negotiate a network of trade deals better than the one they are shredding. This kind of magical unrealism cannot be taken seriously, and certainly doesn't cut the mustard as "sufficient progress".

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The argument is that they are leaving (for whatever reason) so it is stupid not to set up the free-est possible trading arrangement going forward.

It's a bit like the two economists walking down the road, and one says "Look, someone dropped €50", and the other says "Impossible, it would have been in someone else's best interest to pick €50 up before we came along". Denying reality because of a simplistic theory.

The "free-est possible trading arrangement going forward" would be not to leave. The logic of the Brexiter argument that you present is that, however stupid the EU is being, the UK is being even more stupid. It is they, not the EU, who are rejecting the "free-est possible trading arrangement going forward".

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

It also depends on the UK accepting trade and customs terms that allow for that to happen. And much of their rhetoric to this point has been signalling that they won't. All we've had so far is the UK rejecting suggested trade terms that would facilitate an open border.


No, it doesn't have to be completely solved. But there does have to be "sufficient progress". And I think what this requires is that the UK should be committing to the negotiation of trade terms which make an open border possible.

So far what the UK has done is to reject the trade terms suggested to facilitate an open border - the UK remaining in the Single Market, the UK remaining in the Customs Union, NI remaining in the Customs Union. But they have been notably slow in coming forward with any positive statements about what they would accept that would make an open border possible. Bland assurances that they would like an open border are not enough. No offence, but those bland assurances are coming from the same people who offer bland assurances that the UK will negotiate a network of trade deals better than the one they are shredding. This kind of magical unrealism cannot be taken seriously, and certainly doesn't cut the mustard as "sufficient progress".

Good morning!

I think the term "sufficient progress" should have been situated before the discussions began because it's a weasel.

Anyone watching this can see that this is just the EU trying to tie Britain's hands on trade terms. The EU told the UK that these couldn't be discussed in phase 1.

If the EU weren't trying to do this we'd have a two sided assurance.

The UK could assure the border today if the EU said that they will offer trade and customs terms which would allow the border to be open irrespective of whether the UK was in the single market and customs union. This isn't impossible. There are other options that can be discussed.

The UK is happy to compromise as long as it can deliver on the referendum result which was won on the basis of taking back control. (And despite what you said before that isn't and wasn't "just a slogan". It was situated clearly in the context of money including trade policy, immigration and laws)

The Irish Government position is mindblowingly stupid because moving to phase 2 will allow for their concerns to be dealt with both on the border and on continuing trade. Vetoing progress is holding back these concerns from being tackled. It won't lead to the UK staying in the single market and customs union. It will lead to no deal. This isn't in Ireland's interests.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Kermit.de.frog

The Irish government says the UK government is literally full of ****.

You won't get a phase 2 to kick us around in.

Clarity is needed now.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

- The UK should commit that any FTA which it concludes with the EU will involve zero customs tariffs in both directions. (This would be very much in the UK’s interests anyway, so this isn’t asking a huge sacrifice from the UK.)

- The UK should commit to seeking a transitional period which will extend until the zero-tariff FTA commences, so that at no time will there be a need for customs controls along the Irish border.

Tariffs is a non issue honestly; it's like how much UK is due to pay. The number gets debated a lot but it's missing the real problem by grand standing on a non issue like complaining that the car on fire is red and that's why you don't want it while the fire is the real issue.

- The UK should commit to regulatory equivalence for goods and services of the kind traded over the Irish border, so that there will be no need for regulatory controls along the border. (This could possibly be a sectoral thing rather than a whole-economy thing?)

They are either in the CU or they are not; there is no middle ground on the subject. The closest you'd come would be similar to Turkey with two CU (which was done to reward Turkey on their journey to full EU membership) but that would still cause huge issues for manufacturers etc. and would be very limited in sectors and assume UK will be able to build up the specialist departments in less then a year for EU to verify (seeing how UK only got 1 person with experience in making FTA when recruiting I'd not hold my breath on that one) and pass all the relevant laws. In short I don't see it happening simply because of the current political parties out there.

- Perhaps it’s a matter for the UK whether they commit to regulatory equivalence with respect to NI only, introducing appropriate and effective monitoring/controls on goods moved between NI and GB, or whether they make this commitment for the entirety of the UK, which avoids any need for Irish Sea controls at all.

Which DUP would rule out which means Labour somehow needs to win to make it happen. This is why I think the most likely scenario is hard crash out, Labour wins next election, NI gets to vote on rejoining the EU CU as a special customs region (which will also boost jobs as I can see UK companies moving there instead of "old" EU).

If they are sincere in their assertions that any border controls needed along the Irish land border would be very light-touch, then they must believe that even lighter, less intrusive measures would be needed for the more limited controls that would be needed across the Irish sea to maintain regulatory equivalence in NI, so they might find this the more attractive option.

They don't; it's usual political BS and "aspirations" without facts or details; exactly as it was called out as BS when they released it in the first place. It's actual content is "We got no clue how to do this but let us waffle on about how nice it would be in a magical world with unicorns for an hour".

Ultimately this would be an internal matter for the UK; as long as there’s regulatory equivalence on the other side of the Irish border, that should work for the EU

No it is not only about regulatory equivalence on paper but EU needs to see it enforced and maintained while UK has stated they expect to diverge on that point. This is coming from a UK that already today fails at it's task as a member to suddenly get it working.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK could assure the border today if the EU said that they will offer trade and customs terms which would allow the border to be open irrespective of whether the UK was in the single market and customs union. This isn't impossible. There are other options that can be discussed.

So the UK wants to leave the single market and the customs union but they don't want to have any barriers to trade and they want full access to the single market. The UK wants the EU to guarantee this and only then can the UK guarantee that there will not be a border. Surely you must see the folly in this? The UK is leaving these arrangements by choice, they cannot just have the same access and have the "benefits" after they have left.

So what is the end game here, the UK will have frictionless trade and an open border with the EU and no customs, but they will be able to organize trade agreements with other countries and will use this to their advantage. This will mean they will not contribute money to the EU as they have left but they will have full access to the EU markets.

I get the feeling the UK is looking at the NI border as a bargain chip to get the trade deal they want. They don't care for the peace that has been had on the island for the past 20 or so years and will gladly put barriers in place that could threaten this, as long as they get their cake and they eat it.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK could assure the border today if the EU said that they will offer trade and customs terms which would allow the border to be open irrespective of whether the UK was in the single market and customs union. This isn't impossible. There are other options that can be discussed.

Then it is long past time for the UK to particularise some of those other options, solo. The EU has at least tried to come up with options which facilitate an open border while recognising that the UK is determined to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union - viz, the "Irish Sea border" proposal. The UK has rejected that and, as I have said before, I understand why they have rejected that. But they've made no counter-proposals, offered no suggestions, done no thinking aloud, about what terms they would accept that would make an open border feasible. Where one side makes a variety of suggestions, and the other side dismisses them out of hand and has nothing to offer in response, you can see why fair-minded people won't regard that as "sufficient progress". It's not really progress of any kind.

The UK wants an open border, but it also wants the freedom to set its own customs tariffs, negotiate its own trade deals with the rest of the world and adopt its own product standards. There's an obvious tension between those competing objectives. So far the UK has said absolutely nothing whatsoever about how it proposes to resolve those tensions and prioritise its competing objectives. And there's the problem.

The UK needs to stop saying what it won't do to secure an open border, and start saying what it will do. As matters stand, there's a distinct possibility that they are not actually prepared to do anything at all; that the UK will simply abandon its objective of an open border because they find they are unable to reconcile it with the other objectives. And, as long as that's a possibility, there has not been "sufficient progress" towards an open border.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're misreading Warner's tweet, guys. He (correctly) notes that the Irish question has long bedevilled British politics. He does not say that this is the fault of the Irish, that the Irish are to blame, or anything of the kind.

I don't read his tweet as necessarily being critical of anybody - just commenting on the irony of the situation. But, if you wantt to read it that way, you can just as easily read it as being critical of the British. Having finally arrived at a settlement in Ireland that looked as it if was working, they have to go and kick the wasp's nest again. And they do this not out of any malice, but simply because despite interfering in Irish affairs and therefore taking on some responsibility for Ireland they never, ever think about Ireland.

FWIW Warner was generally pro-Remain in during the referendum campaign, although he does generally hew to the Telegraph editorial line that, having been voted for, Brexit must happen.

Hmmmm I'm generally prepared to give someone the benefit of the doubt (eg Kate Hoey on Sunday) but "poisoned" is at best a very poor choice of words! Personally I don't believe it was meant in a neutral way. He could have used your "bedeviled" if that's what he really meant to say.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

So the UK wants to leave the single market and the customs union but they don't want to have any barriers to trade and they want full access to the single market. The UK wants the EU to guarantee this and only then can the UK guarantee that there will not be a border. Surely you must see the folly in this? The UK is leaving these arrangements by choice, they cannot just have the same access and have the "benefits" after they have left.

So what is the end game here, the UK will have frictionless trade and an open border with the EU and no customs, but they will be able to organize trade agreements with other countries and will use this to their advantage. This will mean they will not contribute money to the EU as they have left but they will have full access to the EU markets.

I get the feeling the UK is looking at the NI border as a bargain chip to get the trade deal they want. They don't care for the peace that has been had on the island for the past 20 or so years and will gladly put barriers in place that could threaten this, as long as they get their cake and they eat it.

Good morning!

Obviously one party can't unilaterally guarantee the border unless the other party is willing to provide the conditions for it.

The UK needs to deliver the control the electorate asked for also which is why the UK won't stay in the single market and customs union. Pursuing this angle won't work. This is why it's much better to sort these issues in phase 2.

If both parties offered a guarantee like what I've stated above I'd be happy to make it. If it's the EU trying to crowbar the UK into agreeing to single market & customs union membership then no of course not.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think the term "sufficient progress" should have been situated before the discussions began because it's a weasel.

Anyone watching this can see that this is just the EU trying to tie Britain's hands on trade terms. The EU told the UK that these couldn't be discussed in phase 1.

If the EU weren't trying to do this we'd have a two sided assurance.

The UK could assure the border today if the EU said that they will offer trade and customs terms which would allow the border to be open irrespective of whether the UK was in the single market and customs union. This isn't impossible. There are other options that can be discussed.

The UK is happy to compromise as long as it can deliver on the referendum result which was won on the basis of taking back control. (And despite what you said before that isn't and wasn't "just a slogan". It was situated clearly in the context of money including trade policy, immigration and laws)

The Irish Government position is mindblowingly stupid because moving to phase 2 will allow for their concerns to be dealt with both on the border and on continuing trade. Vetoing progress is holding back these concerns from being tackled. It won't lead to the UK staying in the single market and customs union. It will lead to no deal. This isn't in Ireland's interests.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You clearly have no idea what a single market actually is.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously one party can't unilaterally guarantee the border unless the other party is willing to provide the conditions for it.

The UK needs to deliver the control the electorate asked for also which is why the UK won't stay in the single market and customs union. Pursuing this angle won't work. This is why it's much better to sort these issues in phase 2.

If both parties offered a guarantee like what I've stated above I'd be happy to make it. If it's the EU trying to crowbar the UK into agreeing to single market & customs union membership then no of course not.

I don't think it is possible to get the "control" that the referendum asked for (was that the question?) that you are proposing now without having a border. So I think its time for the UK to stop playing around in that case start the preparations for a hard Brexit and let the EU know this. At least both sides can then start the planning to minimize the pain on their own sides.

I think the UK's main angle of negotiations at the moment is to drag this out as long as possible and hope that the EU concedes to their demands in the end. It's a fair gamble as the EU is invested to make the GFA work, but its playing politics with the NI border. The other thing that has me thinking it will not work is what can the UK offer the EU to make this happen?

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Then it is long past time for the UK to particularise some of those other options, solo. The EU has at least tried to come up with options which facilitate an open border while recognising that the UK is determined to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union - viz, the "Irish Sea border" proposal. The UK has rejected that and, as I have said before, I understand why they have rejected that. But they've made no counter-proposals, offered no suggestions, done no thinking aloud, about what terms they would accept that would make an open border feasible. Where one side makes a variety of suggestions, and the other side dismisses them out of hand and has nothing to offer in response, you can see why fair-minded people won't regard that as "sufficient progress". It's not really progress of any kind.

The UK wants an open border, but it also wants the freedom to set its own customs tariffs, negotiate its own trade deals with the rest of the world and adopt its own product standards. There's an obvious tension between those competing objectives. So far the UK has said absolutely nothing whatsoever about how it proposes to resolve those tensions and prioritise its competing objectives. And there's the problem.

The UK needs to stop saying what it won't do to secure an open border, and start saying what it will do. As matters stand, there's a distinct possibility that they are not actually prepared to do anything at all; that the UK will simply abandon its objective of an open border because they find they are unable to reconcile it with the other objectives. And, as long as that's a possibility, there has not been "sufficient progress" towards an open border.

Good morning!

Again - the EU are the ones who have said they won't discuss trade and customs terms until phase 2. The UK were willing to from day 1.

The UK have provided position papers with a number of options. The EU said they were unwilling to discuss them until phase 2.

The lack of clarity isn't because of the UK, it's because of the EU. Now the EU want the UK to break the phase 2 rule when it suits them.

That's madness. They should have discussed trade from day 1 if they wanted it to be dealt with in phase 1.

This is a deliberate tactic to force the UK's hand, they will not agree to this. So, either the talks are blocked or they progress to deal with this and other issues can be fully dealt with.

murphaph wrote: »

You clearly have no idea what a single market actually is.

I know the conditions. That's why I advocate coming out. There are alternative models of border that can be discussed in phase 2. This is why I think progressing to deal with with the border and how 66% of Irish goods are going to cross mainland Britain to get to the EU is important.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again - the EU are the ones who have said they won't discuss trade and customs terms until phase 2. The UK were willing to from day 1.

The UK have provided position papers with a number of options. The EU said they were unwilling to discuss them until phase 2.

The lack of clarity isn't because of the UK, it's because of the EU. Now the EU want the UK to break the phase 2 rule when it suits them.

That's madness. They should have discussed trade from day 1 if they wanted it to be dealt with in phase 1.

This is a deliberate tactic to force the UK's hand, they will not agree to this. So, either the talks are blocked or they progress to deal with this and other issues can be fully dealt with.

No, no. The EU has been quite happy to discuss frameworks for trade, and in particular frameworks which will support an open border. That's what the single market proposal, and the customs union proposal, and the sea border proposal, all were. They all came from the EU side; clearly, the EU is not averse to discussing such frameworks. It's just that the UK has rejected them all out of hand, and hasn't put forward any for discussion, other than a bit of handwaving about technology yet to be invented, which most people have filed along with the UK's proposals for concluding wonderful trade agreements with countries yet to be discovered under the sea.

If the UK had a framework for trading with the EU which would support its competing objectives, it would be very much in the UK's interests to have put it forward some time ago. The fact that they haven't put one forward tends to fuel the suspicion that they haven't got one. If the EU is trying to force the UK's hand at all, what they are trying to force them to do is either to put forward a framework that they think is viable, or admit that they don't have one.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - the EU are the ones who have said they won't discuss trade and customs terms until phase 2. The UK were willing to from day 1.

The UK have provided position papers with a number of options. The EU said they were unwilling to discuss them until phase 2.

The lack of clarity isn't because of the UK, it's because of the EU. Now the EU want the UK to break the phase 2 rule when it suits them.

That's madness. They should have discussed trade from day 1 if they wanted it to be dealt with in phase 1.

This is a deliberate tactic to force the UK's hand, they will not agree to this. So, either the talks are blocked or they progress to deal with this and other issues can be fully dealt with.



I know the conditions. That's why I advocate coming out. There are alternative models of border that can be discussed in phase 2. This is why I think progressing to deal with with the border and how 66% of Irish goods are going to cross mainland Britain to get to the EU is important.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You can make your excuses on the border but that's only one of the three issues the UK agreed to settle in phase one. The other two are completely independent of trade (technically) but there too we see insufficient progress.

I noticed the snide threat made against land bridge trade. That is something I've seen many times in the comments section of the express and mail. If any impediments are put in place of that trade the EU will respond in kind at Calais, Zeebrugge etc. Irish - continental trade can bypass GB if absolutely necessary (and the EU will step in here to ensure this if required). The UK really really does not want to go there.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no. The EU has been quite happy to discuss frameworks for trade, and in particular frameworks which will support an open border. That's what the single market proposal, and the customs union proposal, and the sea border proposal, all were. They all came from the EU side; clearly, the EU is not averse to discussing such frameworks. It's just that the UK has rejected them all out of hand, and hasn't put forward any for discussion, other than a bit of handwaving about technology yet to be invented, which most people have filed along with the UK's proposals for concluding wonderful trade agreements with countries yet to be discovered under the sea.

If the UK had a framework for trading with the EU which would support its competing objectives, it would be very much in the UK's interests to have put it forward some time ago. The fact that they haven't put one forward tends to fuel the suspicion that they haven't got one. If the EU is trying to force the UK's hand at all, what they are trying to force them to do is either to put forward a framework that they think is viable, or admit that they don't have one.

Good morning!

Perhaps we're watching different negotiations.

The EU clearly stated that discussions about trade and customs wouldn't start until phase 2 at the start of the discussions.

The UK have been clear that single market and customs union membership is incompatible because it doesn't allow for the control sought during the referendum. There are alternatives that could have been discussed from day 1. The EU chose not to.

murphaph wrote: »

You can make your excuses on the border but that's only one of the three issues the UK agreed to settle in phase one. The other two are completely independent of trade (technically) but there too we see insufficient progress.

I noticed the snide threat made against land bridge trade. That is something I've seen many times in the comments section of the express and mail. If any impediments are put in place of that trade the EU will respond in kind at Calais, Zeebrugge etc. Irish - continental trade can bypass GB if absolutely necessary (and the EU will step in here to ensure this if required). The UK really really does not want to go there.

It isn't a threat. The UK wants to ensure good trade and customs terms to allow that to continue.

What does the EU want?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Perhaps we're watching different negotiations.

The EU clearly stated that discussions about trade and customs wouldn't start until phase 2 at the start of the discussions.

The UK have been clear that single market and customs union membership is incompatible because it doesn't allow for the control sought during the referendum. There are alternatives that could have been discussed from day 1. The EU chose not to.



It isn't a threat. The UK wants to ensure good trade and customs terms to allow that to continue.

What does the EU want?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What alternatives? Give some concrete examples?

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't a threat. The UK wants to ensure good trade and customs terms to allow that to continue.

What does the EU want?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Of course it's a threat. TIR containers could pass right through GB without any deal. If they are held up it will be responded to in kind at Irish and continental ports. The UK can be squeezed too.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

What alternatives? Give some concrete examples?

Good morning!

Read the position paper. These options could have been discussed in detail if the EU had been willing to discuss trade from day 1, and they can be if discussions move to phase 2.

The EU can choose this option or they can choose no deal. Those are the outcomes. That's why the Irish Government position is against the interests of Irish people.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Read the position paper. These options could have been discussed in detail if the EU had been willing to discuss trade from day 1, and they can be if discussions move to phase 2.

The EU can choose this option or they can choose no deal. Those are the outcomes. That's why the Irish Government position is against the interests of Irish people.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The position papers are full of waffle.

Give me your concrete idea of how NI remains outside The CU and SM but border infrastructure is avoided.

You can't because it's impossible.

If you can and I'm wrong then by all means spell it out for me.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Perhaps we're watching different negotiations.

The EU clearly stated that discussions about trade and customs wouldn't start until phase 2 at the start of the discussions.

The UK have been clear that single market and customs union membership is incompatible because it doesn't allow for the control sought during the referendum. There are alternatives that could have been discussed from day 1. The EU chose not to.

You forget, solo, that I have access to the same information sources that you do. Therefore I know that the EU put forward the sea border proposals. Therefore I know that your statement that the EU choses not to discuss alternatives is false.

Right from the get-go, the EU's position has been that it "stands ready to initiate work towards an agreement on trade, to be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom is no longer a Member State". (That's from the European Council guidelines adopted last April, shortly after Art 50 notice was served; the same document acknowledged that the UK would be leaving the Single Market.) In May the EU proposed a two-phase approach to discussions, and the UK accepted that proposal. The net effect is that the "work towards an agreement on trade" starts by addressing the phase 1 priorities, which as we know include avoiding "the creation of a hard border on the island of Ireland". So the EU is, and has since May been, willing to talk about those aspects of a trade agreement which bear on the hard border issue. To this end they have advanced, among other things, the sea border proposal. The UK has advanced nothing but platitudes laced with wishful thinking, so far as I can see.

Essentially, the challenge here is to recreate, or come up with substitutes for, as between the EU and the UK, those aspects of the Single Market and the Customs Union which make an open border in Ireland viable and practicable for both parties. I see the EU trying to do this; I see the UK coming up with nothing at all.

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Perhaps we're watching different negotiations.

The EU clearly stated that discussions about trade and customs wouldn't start until phase 2 at the start of the discussions.

The UK have been clear that single market and customs union membership is incompatible because it doesn't allow for the control sought during the referendum. There are alternatives that could have been discussed from day 1. The EU chose not to.



It isn't a threat. The UK wants to ensure good trade and customs terms to allow that to continue.

What does the EU want?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU wants what it made clear from the start, the British government to stop messing us all around, cut the waffle and start showing an effort to solve the border. The argument that trade nees to be agreed is rubbish. The UK is just far more worried about what trade agreement it will get outside the EU (Canada is apparently not looking as appealing as it was when it was an airy suggestion), and wants to use NI and RoI as bargaining chips for concessions.

We're not thick. The trade argument is Emperor's New Clothes, and given Davis agreed to the order of the talks to begin with, even he knows that. The money committed to the EU project by Britain had another attempt to place trade conditions on it, so exactly why might the UK government want to hold out on solving an intractable problem that has the vast majority of effects on this island until phase 2 when Ireland has a weaker position? And far more to the point, why the hell should Ireland? The UK might want to have its cake and eat it, but it is mibd-boggling that the argument should be that Ireland gives them our cake to just mind for a bit and promises that everything will be fine in the face of all available evidence.

And again, trade is predicated on borders, not the other way around. Britain has insisted that everything that could prevent a hard border suggested so far is a red line. So we're at an impasse and that must be solved before the UK gets to play trade.

No, the bullsh*t isn't being bought and frankly stinks to high heaven. As I said before, be in Britain's side if you want, it is apparently to your benefit, but enough of trying to insist that we should be amenable and happy for it.

Kermit.de.frog

The border must be in the Irish sea. Simple.

Christy42

I think the reaction of the British press has shown up their weakness in Brexit.

This is a negotiation. Both sides put forward what they want and talk about yhese things and yet the Irish government suggesting it has its own red line on the border is met with vitriol and hatred.

I mean what else did they expect but for Ireland to look after its own interests in this? Did they really expect everyone to fall in line over whatever the UK wanted? What happened to the vaunted UK trading position that would have the EU eating out of its hand? Instead they cry foul whenever the EU does whatever is best for the EU.

Samaris

Christy42 wrote: »

I think the reaction of the British press has shown up their weakness in Brexit.

This is a negotiation. Both sides put forward what they want and talk about yhese things and yet the Irish government suggesting it has its own red line on the border is met with vitriol and hatred.

I mean what else did they expect but for Ireland to look after its own interests in this? Did they really expect everyone to fall in line over whatever the UK wanted? What happened to the vaunted UK trading position that would have the EU eating out of its hand? Instead they cry foul whenever the EU does whatever is best for the EU.

Honestly? Yes, they did. Britain does not have a huge deal of experience in negotiating complex deals anymore and are almost certainly understaffed. The people in charge are of questionable competance and limited understanding of the issues in just about any sector. They are far more concerned with how the hard Brexit group (which is by no means the majority of Leave voters either) will see them than the actual practicalities of a deeply difficult and contrary set of positions. The only way forward for them is to insist that everyone just agree with their ideas.

That doesn't work with another sovereign country backed up by 26 other sovereign countries. Remarks by the likes of Hoey and Batten* (who continued after his opening salvo btw) are seen for the attempted bullying they are and their various parties should squash them.

*and fruitcake irekabd guy

Akrasia

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can feel anti-Irish sentiment seep through the British media again.

As for the Telegraph, I've said previously it's a rag that middle class people buy to convince themselves they're better than Sun readers. They're not.

It's never really been that far below the surface in the British tabloid press. (I consider the telegraph just as tabloid as the Sun and the Daily mail)

Weird thing is. They could have a front page calling all Irish people terrorists and they'd still sell tens of thousands of copies in the republic because of the crossword and the sports section.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The logic of the Brexiter argument that you present is that, however stupid the EU is being, the UK is being even more stupid.

Stop focusing on the past! We are where we are! There is no point in doing stupid things now because people did other stupid things last year.

We must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think the term "sufficient progress" should have been situated before the discussions began because it's a weasel.

As well as posting from a good distance from Greenwich time zone, some of solo's operators do not seem to have a firm grasp on the English language.

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

It's never really been that far below the surface in the British tabloid press. (I consider the telegraph just as tabloid as the Sun and the Daily mail)

Weird thing is. They could have a front page calling all Irish people terrorists and they'd still sell tens of thousands of copies in the republic because of the crossword and the sports section.

Relax! The Daily Telegraph's circulation in the Republic is 2,047. The Sunday Telegraph sells 1,701.

Peregrinus

Christy42 wrote: »

I think the reaction of the British press has shown up their weakness in Brexit.

This is a negotiation. Both sides put forward what they want and talk about yhese things and yet the Irish government suggesting it has its own red line on the border is met with vitriol and hatred.

I mean what else did they expect but for Ireland to look after its own interests in this? Did they really expect everyone to fall in line over whatever the UK wanted? What happened to the vaunted UK trading position that would have the EU eating out of its hand? Instead they cry foul whenever the EU does whatever is best for the EU.

Samaris wrote: »

Honestly? Yes, they did. Britain does not have a huge deal of experience in negotiating complex deals anymore and are almost certainly understaffed. The people in charge are of questionable competance and limited understanding of the issues in just about any sector. . .

There's more to it than this, I suggest. We're in the unusual position - unusual for both sides - that the RoI and the UK are engaged in negotiations where, strategically, the RoI has the stronger position. Basically, through an alignment of interests and a bit of deft diplomacy from the good people in Iveagh House, we've got the EU pretty strongly on side with our principal interests. Even though it is Brexiting, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK, and this is a very, very uncomfortable position for the UK from which to negotiate Irish issues. They're not used to this dynamic at all, and they're not handling it very well.

I don't often say this, but right now the quality of political leadership in Ireland is streets ahead of what's on offer in the UK. (And this would still be true, I think, if there were a change of government in Ireland.) So far, we have played this much better than the British have.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

Relax! The Daily Telegraph's circulation in the Republic is 2,047. The Sunday Telegraph sells 1,701.

I was more referring to the likes of the daily Mail which sells 40k dailys and 100k sunday papers here. There is going to be anti irish sentiments in all the UK tabloid press as brexit gets brexitier

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

I was more referring to the likes of the daily Mail which sells 40k dailys and 100k sunday papers here. There is going to be anti irish sentiments in all the UK tabloid press as brexit gets brexitier

Yes, there is. The British are deeply uncomfortable about being on the back foot in the way outlined in my previous post and (like most people who walk themselves into a disadvantageous position) they are going to look for others to blame for their plight. As events are unfolding, the "others" are going to include us.

Meh. We'll survive it. We have before.

Schorpio

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK could assure the border today if the EU said that they will offer trade and customs terms which would allow the border to be open irrespective of whether the UK was in the single market and customs union. This isn't impossible. There are other options that can be discussed.

Every day a man goes to his local bakery to buy a cake. He queues with his neighbors, before paying for his cake, which he immediately eats.

One day, he decides that he is fed up with queuing. He also decides that he has better things to spend his money on than cake. However, he also doesn't want to starve.

So, he pushes past the queue, goes up to the counter and demands a free cake. When the baker refuses, he threatens to stand in the door, and block any more customers from coming in, unless the baker gives him a free cake.


.....does this sound like reasonable behavior to you? Of course it doesn't, But imagine if the baker was powerless to prevent the man from standing in his doorway. Why should this sort of behavior be acceptable when scaled up to countries?

The UK will use the NI border as a bargaining chip. We all know it. We can't allow then get to the point where that is an option. The UK made it's own bed. We need to use our veto for the good of our country. Arlene may be sitting at the table with the big boys, but in her typical self-interested manner she has completely ignored that her country voted to Remain. She's failing to adequately represent her people's democratic wishes.

Solo - again, I totally respect your views and your right to post here; but I'm not sure what you hope to gain? You keep offering the same views, which are contradictory at best; and you keep repeating the same woolly source material. But more importantly, you've openly stated that your mentality is closed (a bad Brexit is better than no Brexit, etc.).

ambro25

To the surprise of absolutely no-one invested in the Brexit debate, Davis and Fox have fudged the 58 sectoral reports disclosure to Parliament wholesale.

According to the FT, an SNP MP is looking to kickstart contempt proceedings today.

When even Rees-Moog warns about the potential consequences of the fudge:

But Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative member of the Brexit committee, already told The Guardian newspaper that the government was “in serious constitutional waters if it doesn’t provide the full information” to MPs.

you know May, Davis and Fox are on cigarette paper-thin ice here.

I'm wondering how bookies have reflected this in the odds of a GE 2018.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

To the surprise of absolutely no-one invested in the Brexit debate, Davis and Fox have fudged the 58 sectoral reports disclosure to Parliament wholesale.

According to the FT, an SNP MP is looking to kickstart contempt proceedings today.

When even Rees-Moog warns about the potential consequences of the fudge:
you know May, Davis and Fox are on cigarette paper-thin ice here.

I'm wondering how bookies have reflected this in the odds of a GE 2018.

9/4 on a general election in 2018, according to Skybet. The next general election is due by statute in 2021, but the odds on that are 7/1.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Samaris wrote: »

And again, trade is predicated on borders, not the other way around. Britain has insisted that everything that could prevent a hard border suggested so far is a red line. So we're at an impasse and that must be solved before the UK gets to play trade.

This isn't true. It simply isn't possible to guarantee a border until you can guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. This requires both parties to guarantee that.

The UK also has to deliver on the referendum result. This means no single market and no customs union. There are a number of different options highlighted in the UK position paper that would allow this to happen. The EU and the UK can guarantee the border if they deal with the trade issues.

The UK have said this clearly since July. The EU have acknowledged that all border issues won't be completely dealt with in phase 1. Therefore phase 2 is needed.

It's in the interests of the Irish people to move to this stage. It isn't in the interests of the Irish people to have Varadkar and Coveney waste time over an unachievable outcome.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The border must be in the Irish sea. Simple.

Not simple because it won't get through parliament. It won't even get to parliament.

This is why trade and customs need to be discussed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Not simple because it won't get through parliament. It won't even get to parliament.

This is why trade and customs need to be discussed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

OK , asking this a second time. What kind of trade deal do you thing would result in no hard border and do you honestly see the UK or EU agreeing to it?

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

This isn't true. It simply isn't possible to guarantee a border until you can guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. This requires both parties to guarantee that.

Not really.

The "free flow" of goods is an entirely optional attribute of trade relations between adjacent countries (or trading blocs, same difference).

The 'absolute' default is North Korea-like (100% inspection, tariffs, etc.)

The 'modern' default, for all GATT/WTO signatories, is WTO MFN.

The "freest flow" anywhere in the world currently, is as exist between Member States of the SM.

Canada, Norway, Switzerland <etc.> 'models' all lie at respective positions between these extremes (WTO MFN vs SM).

A border never needs guaranteeing: it always exists by default, as the jurisdictional boundary of each country recognised by law [-the interrelationships and inter-dependencies of international treaties and other multinational/bilateral agreements of which the adjacent countries are signatories].

Trade and customs have always been discussed -and are still being discussed, and will forever be discussed- between neighbouring countries. That's what the WTO is there to help with at a global scale, and even trade/customs are still being discussed within the EU itself (with the constantly-evolving terms crystallising temporarily, as the successive iterations of EU statutes). That's how and why the ECSC morphed into the EEC and eventually the EU, over 60 years approx.

Understand that, and you will understand why the EU has the stronger negotiating hand -always had it, and never less so than since May triggered Article 50.

What you meant to say, is for the UK to guarantee a "no border" in NI, the UK wants to first guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. That cannot be achieved in the order you (and the UK government) wish, for reasons already amply explained on here time and again.

Leroy42

Solo, it appears that the red lines and the open border are not compatible. Fox has said that they will form part of the negotiation on trade.

You have a number of times stated that Brexit, having been voted for, must be delivered. The government has decided that Brexit means a number of red line issues including leaving the SM/CU and the ECJ.

Moving them to Phase 2, despite a previous agreement to make substantial progress in phase 1 (to which you are now claiming that since significant isn't defined it can mean anything) merely moves the problem further down the track, it does nothing to deal with it.

Which of these two position are you willing to accept as a cost of Brexit. Should the UK give up on the red line issues or the border issue?

LeinsterDub

The list was based on work initiated by the UK government in August after a request from Brussels to help negotiators on both sides understand what the impact on citizens would be, amid concerns that a position paper published by the British focused solely on trade, and ignored, for example, aspects of the Good Friday peace agreement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/27/hard-brexit-would-hit-142-irish-cross-border-agreements

This the position paper your so fond on Solo

Christy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



This isn't true. It simply isn't possible to guarantee a border until you can guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. This requires both parties to guarantee that.

The UK also has to deliver on the referendum result. This means no single market and no customs union. There are a number of different options highlighted in the UK position paper that would allow this to happen. The EU and the UK can guarantee the border if they deal with the trade issues.

The UK have said this clearly since July. The EU have acknowledged that all border issues won't be completely dealt with in phase 1. Therefore phase 2 is needed.

It's in the interests of the Irish people to move to this stage. It isn't in the interests of the Irish people to have Varadkar and Coveney waste time over an unachievable outcome.



Not simple because it won't get through parliament. It won't even get to parliament.

This is why trade and customs need to be discussed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nope. I mean really no. How can we discuss tariffs if we don't know where they will be applied?

You can have a border without a trade deal. A trade deal without a border is non sensical.

There is also a lack of trust on the UK suggestions are feasible. Things like simply using work permits are incredibly open to abuse. There will also not be an interim period, if the EU let's that happen it will go on indefinitely as the UK would have no incentive to agree to anything.

I don't trust the UK to deal adequately with the border if it is left off for a while whatever they have said. Hence why I and it seems the EU want this done and finished first. Vague suggestions that don't look like they will work is not enough. A deal needs to be done first.

You seem to be happy for the UK to veto whatever it wants but the EU must be flexible? A sea border is the only way that border will be frictionless. The UK is not willing to consider that which is their prerogative but they must accept the reality of what that means.

Blowfish

ambro25 wrote: »

To the surprise of absolutely no-one invested in the Brexit debate, Davis and Fox have fudged the 58 sectoral reports disclosure to Parliament wholesale.

According to the FT, an SNP MP is looking to kickstart contempt proceedings today.

When even Rees-Moog warns about the potential consequences of the fudge:
you know May, Davis and Fox are on cigarette paper-thin ice here.

I'm wondering how bookies have reflected this in the odds of a GE 2018.

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, one thing that seems to be overlooked about this is this quote:

Mr Davis’s allies cautioned late Monday that the “sectoral analysis papers” were not impact assessments, and would not illuminate which how different parts of the economy might fare under different Brexit scenarios.

They said the papers were intended to identify the application of different EU rules to parts of the UK economy, and to explore the trading relationships between specific sectors, the EU and other parts of the world.

It seems that all they've done is look at the various EU rules that apply to different sectors and haven't done any financial impact assessments.

In other words, it's 18 months after the Brexit vote and they still have absolutely no idea what impact Brexit will have on the economy. That's terrifying.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

The UK isn't an island. It has a land border.

The economically relevant part of the kingdom is.

flaneur

It's fairly clear they don't have a clue what they're up to and this is all just being driven by political positions and not economics or factual analysis of any type.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The economically relevant part of the kingdom is.

By some people's accounts, that would appear to be confined to an area inside the M25.