Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I disagree that it is "impossible". There are two other cases with countries outside the customs union in Europe which have individual free trade deals with other countries where the border is open to general traffic. Norway has stopping points for trucks. Switzerland doesn't. There are other options to be looked at and they should be explored.

The UK will be expecting a movement in terms of access for goods and services and a movement in terms of controls in return for this €55bn. That's the reality. There will be increasing calls for no deal if this isn't delivered on.

The UK see this as money for access. The EU need to give assurances in this regard soon. Preferably the transition needs to be on the table in January.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Vronsky

I've become deeply distrustful of the Telegraph. This €45-55bn could just be kite flying to see what kind of reception it gets among the party faithful.

I'm also wondering if this methodology includes ongoing payment for a transition period.

solodeogloria

Vronsky wrote: »

I've become deeply distrustful of the Telegraph. This €45-55bn could just be kite flying to see what kind of reception it gets among the party faithful.

I'm also wondering if this methodology includes ongoing payment for a transition period.

Good morning!

Laura Kuennsberg on the BBC also uses this figure.

I hope there aren't additional payments for anything. If they are getting €55bn that is quite enough.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

Quite enough based on what? Do you know the level of obligations the UK has and what portion of that this figure is?

I get the feeling that "too much" and "quite enough" are based on nothing more than a wish to pay nothing and the relative size compared to that.

You mentioned €20bn earlier as a reasonable amount. What was that based on?

Vronsky

solodeogloria wrote: »

Vronsky wrote: »

I've become deeply distrustful of the Telegraph. This €45-55bn could just be kite flying to see what kind of reception it gets among the party faithful.

I'm also wondering if this methodology includes ongoing payment for a transition period.

Good morning!

Laura Kuennsberg on the BBC also uses this figure.

I hope there aren't additional payments for anything. If they are getting €55bn that is quite enough.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The BBC isn't above testing the political waters or softening the British public either.

The leak smells like seeing what kind of political reception it (such an amount) will get

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Quite enough based on what? Do you know the level of obligations the UK has and what portion of that this figure is?

I get the feeling that "too much" and "quite enough" are based on nothing more than a wish to pay nothing and the relative size compared to that.

You mentioned €20bn earlier as a reasonable amount. What was that based on?

Good morning!

I actually didn't say that. If I did please quote me. What I did say was my ceiling amount would have been £36bn plus assets. That's three years contributions plus assets for other liabilities. So £36bn net.

I don't believe the true commitments are any more than this.

I definitely don't agree with any further payments if the sum is €55bn.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I disagree that it is "impossible". There are two other cases with countries outside the customs union in Europe which have individual free trade deals with other countries where the border is open to general traffic. Norway has stopping points for trucks. Switzerland doesn't. There are other options to be looked at and they should be explored.

You and I both know that both of these options are incompatible with the UK's red lines.

Call me Al

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You and I both know that both of this options are incompatible with the UK's red lines.

Indeed.. and if there's a Norway style approach then there are further payments for access to the single market?

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I disagree that it is "impossible". There are two other cases with countries outside the customs union in Europe which have individual free trade deals with other countries where the border is open to general traffic. Norway has stopping points for trucks. Switzerland doesn't. There are other options to be looked at and they should be explored.

The UK will be expecting a movement in terms of access for goods and services and a movement in terms of controls in return for this €55bn. That's the reality. There will be increasing calls for no deal if this isn't delivered on.

The UK see this as money for access. The EU need to give assurances in this regard soon. Preferably the transition needs to be on the table in January.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you want regulatory compliance then? Great, tell your government that you want the UK to stick to EU regulations for the sake of an open border with the Republic of Ireland. Where do you want the regulatory compliance to end? Is it throughout the UK? Or just the North? That gives some idea of where you want the border to be and how it must be enforced. You realise that it can't just be left entirely open due to a host of WTO regulations that the Prime Minister is worryingly unaware of? You might be grand with years of trade disputes, but there is no reason why the EU or Ireland should have to suffer the same just so Britain doesn't have to make any hard decisions at all.

God, Britain's position (at least that as represented by solo) is hopelessly naive.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



You can dress a pig in lipstick but unless Britain regains control over trade policy, laws and immigration then people will see through it.

Particularly when it is coming at a €55bn price tag potentially. That's how this payment is seen in the UK. The access received better be fantastic for that amount of money.



If the EU insist that the border must go up that won't be a hard sell at all. At least not within the UK. The Government have been clear so far that they want the border open. The only doubt is whether or not the EU will allow it to be.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Such nonsense Solo.

The UK can no more leave the border open than the EU can. The UK is compelled under WTO mfn rules to effectively levy tariffs on all goods entering the UK. If the UK failed in that duty with respect to the EU (leaky border with Ireland) then every other country in the WTO could sue the UK. It's a fantasy that the UK can present an open border to a bloc of 450 million people and face no consequences under WTO rules. Can. Not. Happen.

Oh and the 55 billion is to settle existing commitments. It has nothing to do with the FTA discussions apart from generating good will on the EU side.

Samaris

murphaph wrote: »

Such nonsense Solo.

The UK can no more leave the border open than the EU can. The UK is compelled under WTO mfn rules to effectively levy tariffs on all goods entering the UK. If the UK failed in that duty with respect to the EU (leaky border with Ireland) then every other country in the WTO could sue the UK. It's a fantasy that the UK can present an open border to a bloc of 450 million people and face no consequences under WTO rules. Can. Not. Happen.

Oh and the 55 billion is to settle existing commitments. It has nothing to do with the FTA discussions apart from generating good will on the EU side.

It's not even just the practicalities of trade that informs that WTO rule, but also rules regarding preventing smuggling.

How can there be all this demand for regaining control of borders and yet such a vague idea of what borders are?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree that it is "impossible". There are two other cases with countries outside the customs union in Europe which have individual free trade deals with other countries where the border is open to general traffic. Norway has stopping points for trucks. Switzerland doesn't. There are other options to be looked at and they should be explored.

The UK will be expecting a movement in terms of access for goods and services and a movement in terms of controls in return for this €55bn. That's the reality. There will be increasing calls for no deal if this isn't delivered on.

The UK see this as money for access. The EU need to give assurances in this regard soon. Preferably the transition needs to be on the table in January.

You do realise that if you want the deal of those countries there will be an even higher amount paid to the EU other than the reported "divorce" figure? This will be an annual payment for access to the market and with no say. That is what Switzerland and Norway has for an "open" border.

This is not for access, that still needs to be negotiated in the second phase. If the UK wants to still use EU institutions, like the EMA, EASA etc. they will have to provide payments for this. This is not in the divorce bill. So if the UK wants to continue operating as they are now while they set up their own institutions to do the work done already (more money spent) they will spend double the amount for the same work.

I will say it...it is stupid to be doing this. To believe this is the way to go is monumentally stupid.

I feel that the NHS is on the brink of being changed from what people know after Brexit. It is a little ironic that the message of funding the NHS properly that was used so effectively during the campaign may just be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Where Brexit Hurts: The Nurses and Doctors Leaving London

This worries Dr. Auzinger, who has to hire 407 nurses and doctors for the hospital’s new intensive care wing. Last month, not a single European applied for an advertised position as a senior consultant. “Before, at least a third of applicants were European,” he said.

Dr. Auzinger is happy to hire qualified Britons. “But there are not enough doctors and nurses in this country,” he said. “The numbers being trained do not cover the needs.”

In March, the government announced a plan to hurriedly train more British nurses. Yet in September, enrollment at nursing schools dropped, because the government also cut grants to nursing students. That is one reason Peter Absalom, associate director for recruitment at King’s, is now trying to replace one immigrant group with another. “We are looking to the Philippines, Australia and India,” he said. Three major recruitment drives are planned over the next 12 months.

So while control will be gained over EU migration they will choose to have more immigration from outside the EU. This will cost them more money as it is more expensive so it will cost the NHS more.

Schorpio

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree that it is "impossible". There are two other cases with countries outside the customs union in Europe which have individual free trade deals with other countries where the border is open to general traffic. Norway has stopping points for trucks. Switzerland doesn't. There are other options to be looked at and they should be explored.

Solo - you've been told time and time again why the Swiss and Norwegian models won't work for the UK. Primarily because the adopt some EU laws and pay a contribution.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK will be expecting a movement in terms of access for goods and services and a movement in terms of controls in return for this €55bn. That's the reality. There will be increasing calls for no deal if this isn't delivered on.

The UK see this as money for access. The EU need to give assurances in this regard soon. Preferably the transition needs to be on the table in January.

The €55bn isn't a payment for access. Don't confuse it as such. It's a settlement of the UK's obligations and commitments as a full member of the EU.

Also I like how you speak with such authority - "That's the reality". It's not though. The UK government has agreed a far higher sum than you said you'd like, so you're clearly not on the same page. Maybe it's time to start using phrases such as "in my opinion...." etc.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can't imagine much more than €20bn extra being offered. She won't sell it to the British public otherwise. I agree it will be higher than what she's offered at Florence and should be higher than that but the UK would need to see significant movement from the EU for this.

Here you go.

Where did you come up with 3 years? Do you think pensions etc stop after that?

Still have nothing to say about Davies trying to hide information for the parliament, the great sovereign parliament that all this is apparently worth?

So now you have voted for Brexit under false pretences, possibly having had improper election finances, have had the UK government now climb down on the 1st two demands they made (only yesterday Patel came out saying they should pay nothing and it is likely to be double what you expected) and they agreed to the timetable laid down by the EU despite Davies claiming it would be a major fight.

You have significant downward trends in your economic forecasts, many billions will be required to cover the cost of brexit itself, many billions will be needed to cover the set up of the agencies to cover for the previous EU ones.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Oh and the 55 billion is to settle existing commitments. It has nothing to do with the FTA discussions apart from generating good will on the EU side.

That's a big "apart", though.

Legally and conceptually, of course, you're quite right; the exit payment is a mechanism for drawing a line under past dealings, not the foundation for future dealings. But, politically, agreement on an exit payment is seen as building trust, faith and good will as foundations for an ongoing relationship. And this is acknowledged on both sides; the fact that the exit payment is identified as one of the phase 1 issues pretty clearly links reaching an agreement on the exit payment with progress on the future relationship.

So, all-in-all, solo has a point here. The UK aren't moving towards the EU position on the exit payment out of the goodness of their hearts or because they find the EU arguments on the topic intellectually compelling; they are moving because they hope to gain some advantage by doing so.

It may be that what the UK hopes to gain is a quid pro quo on the Irish border - "we've moved towards your position on the exit payment and on citizens' rights; can you not move towards ours on the Irish border?". If so, I think the hope is likely to be dashed. The three phase 1 issues were all identified because they're all important to the EU, so the EU is unlikely quietly to bury one of them.

flaneur

What worries me is that many of the key figures on the UK side seem to have very little regard for hard facts and are willing to bluster and more or less arrogantly make things up to suit whatever narrative they happen to be pushing on any given day.

I find the whole thing scary. I have quite literally no confidence whatsoever in the UK side of this. It’s not because of any particularly anti British sentiment, I just think they’re the worst combination of arrogance and incompetence you could possibly come up with.

The negotiation is between a bunch of wafflers with no grasp of the facts and technocrats who know every nuance of every trade deal and treaty and who have probably done extensive research before turning up st a meeting at all.

I mean you’ve people (at high level) in politics and also in the media prattling on about Swiss models and Norwegian models and US-Canada frictionless borders with largely imagined facts that they seem to be as reliable as what you’d hear in the back of a taxi.

You’d get far more informed debate here on this thread than up would from many of the people who are supposedly involved in this process.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be that what the UK hopes to gain is a quid pro quo on the Irish border - "we've moved towards your position on the exit payment and on citizens' rights; can you not move towards ours on the Irish border?". If so, I think the hope is likely to be dashed. The three phase 1 issues were all identified because they're all important to the EU, so the EU is unlikely quietly to bury one of them.

Firstly, the UK would have to have a position on the border before the EU could move towards it. "A hard border is bad, m'okay?" is not really a position.

Secondly, even if the EU's team were inclined to move, Ireland still has a veto on any deal.

Zerbini Blewitt

David Cameron announced the date for the referendum on 20 Feb 2016. So I imagine around then, there was a spike in activity for Putins troll batallions.

I go along with the theory (linked here earlier) that Putins objective isn’t so much a successful or sensible Brexit (in order to weaken the EU) but maximum chaos around Brexit – to weaken the EU and the UK.

In the early days of the Crimea annexation, from Putin downwards in the hierarchy they denied that the invading troops were Russian. This: “Up=Down” method of propaganda seems to be heavily favoured by the current authoritarian gang in power there.

In the same vein (while I’d say some of the troll army are quite sophisticated) I’ve seen this trademark characteristic quite often, in below the line comments on various websites.

The question is – what is the etiquette for interacting with or exposing such Putin agents? Because normal discussion just gives them free rein to use their chaos template.

CelticRambler

solodeogloria wrote: »

There are two other cases with countries outside the customs union in Europe which have individual free trade deals with other countries where the border is open to general traffic. Norway has stopping points for trucks. Switzerland doesn't.

Switzerland does! Both of those countries also have several other layers of free-movement agreements in place. If either one was acceptable to the UK (both of which include the free movement of people) why wouldn't the UK already have come out and said "we want to adopt the Norway [or Switzerland] model?"

For the first time last night, I actually watched some UK politicians talking about the Irish border problem, and only now do I appreciate how utterly detached from reality they are. I can see now why whoever it was said the other day that they're thinking of the Irish border in the same way as the Calais-Dover frontier. Perhaps they should visit Calais some time ... :rolleyes:

As for these imaginary electronic surveillance measures ... :pac: Over here in France, a previous government decided it'd be a good idea to introduce number-plate recognition and remote tracking for HGVs, so they could be levied with a "polluter pays" road tax. The infrastructure was put in place ahead of schedule and under budget. Then the Breton farmers decided to dismantle it, bit by bit until the (next) government did a U-turn.

It doesn't take much thinking to see how the same thing will happen in Ireland ... and yet these government spokespeople offer it as a feasible proposition? :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Firstly, the UK would have to have a position on the border before the EU could move towards it. "A hard border is bad, m'okay?" is not really a position.

I agree. So far, what we've had from the UK is a series of pronouncements about what they're not willing to do to facilitate an open border. It's past time for them to give some concrete indications as to what they are prepared to do to facilitate an open border. If the answer to that is, basically, "nothing" well, that would be unfortunate, but at least we'd know where we stood. And, from what the UK has said so far, the answer could in fact be "nothing", which is why I think there'll be no finding of "sufficient progress".

Kowtow suggested a couple of pages back that what is needed is a "fudge", and I think he's right. I suspect as we speak the the phone lines between Dublin, Brussels and London are glowing white-hot as the result of frenzied attempts to craft a UK position which facilitates the kind of co-ordination and convergence that an open border would require but definitely isn't participation in the Customs Union or the Single Market, no sir, there was never any question of that, and any suggestion to that effect is positively offensive. Fortunately the EU (and the UK as a member of the EU) have a great deal of experience in drafting insanely complex fudges in which the necessary movements by one or both parties are broken down into small chunks and widely distributed, so that face can be saved and appearances maintained.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Secondly, even if the EU's team were inclined to move, Ireland still has a veto on any deal.

Yes, but we'd much rather not have to exercise it. If the decision is not to move on to phase 2 at this point, ideally that will be the result of a Commission decision informed by Irish views, rather than the result of an exercise of an Irish veto.

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

For the first time last night, I actually watched some UK politicians talking about the Irish border problem, and only now do I appreciate how utterly detached from reality they are. I can see now why whoever it was said the other day that they're thinking of the Irish border in the same way as the Calais-Dover frontier. Perhaps they should visit Calais some time ... :rolleyes:

Perhaps they should visit Ireland.

VinLieger

Channel 4 did a street poll to see how many londoners could draw the actual border and what their knowledge of the situation is, its kinda unsurprising for many how little the average person knows or understands about NI and id imagine for any unionists a bit depressing to know they are a relationship where the other side hasn't really a clue about them and likely couldnt care less what happens to them.

video here

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935599685611515904

CelticRambler

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps they should visit Ireland.

Calais is closer ... and probably easier for them to find on a map. :pac:

solodeogloria

Leroy42 wrote: »

Here you go.

Where did you come up with 3 years? Do you think pensions etc stop after that?

Still have nothing to say about Davies trying to hide information for the parliament, the great sovereign parliament that all this is apparently worth?

So now you have voted for Brexit under false pretences, possibly having had improper election finances, have had the UK government now climb down on the 1st two demands they made (only yesterday Patel came out saying they should pay nothing and it is likely to be double what you expected) and they agreed to the timetable laid down by the EU despite Davies claiming it would be a major fight.

You have significant downward trends in your economic forecasts, many billions will be required to cover the cost of brexit itself, many billions will be needed to cover the set up of the agencies to cover for the previous EU ones.

Good morning!

You chose a post where I said that the payment should be more than €20bn. At the time I didn't think Theresa May would offer much more. In that regard I concede I was wrong.

You misread my post. £36bn net excludes assets. £10bn or so in assets would cover much more than the UK's share of pensions.

I didn't vote for Brexit by the by.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

swampgas

Interesting opinion piece in The Guardian, linking the psychology of military incompetence to Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/29/military-incompetence-brexit-psychology-britain-battlefield

Boris Johnson's offensive description of Brexit being a "liberation" from Europe, along with the hopelessly optimistic talk of "easy" trade deals with the rest of the world seem to fit the pattern too.

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Calais is closer ... and probably easier for them to find on a map. :pac:

Yes, but the Irish border, and how it works, is what they clearly have no clue about.

flaneur

The problem I find is that in England in particular there’s an element (by no means everyone but a significant element) that is openly hostile to the idea of other regions, never mind other countries. Ask some of them about “up north” (of England) and you’ll just get back a load of mocking stereotypes about northerners and no facts. The same goes for asking about Scotland or Wales even more so.

They’ve a complete blind spot about Ireland and Irish-British relations and simply don’t want to know or will make stuff up to suit whatever story they have in their head, which is usually a very English nationalistic one.

Usually it’s a sense that Ireland is just some annoyance that gets in the way and some kind of place full of people who keep disagreeing with them and cause trouble and are simply totally unreasonable.

I’ve also encountered shocking anti-catholic sentiment that’s basically just weird sectarianism. I’m not catholic and not at all religious, but I found it both strange and very offensive.

It’s often dressed up as liberalism but it is anything but. For example, I remember during the financial crisis seeing an article talking about how “catholic Europe” had failed because of an inherent flaw with Catholics. Now this ignored the fact that France, Austria, a large chuck of Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands and Belgium come from very similarly catholic backgrounds. It was like reading an article written in the 19th century and it just oozed arrogance and superiority complexes.

I’ve also had people tell me about *my* catholic guilt. I was brought up by a very non-religious family, with very left of centre views but because I’m Irish I’m apparently riddled with catholic guilt complexes... even though there’s absolutely nothing about me that would lead anyone who wasn’t just prejudiced against Irish people to jump to that conclusion.

I also regularly got the “oh you’re Irish you’re supposed to be good craic” jibes at work pretty much all the time if I had to be serious or drive some project forward or if I had to deal with something serious. I got the same when I went out and wasn't knocking back 40 pints.

If you look at that C4 news vox pop where they asked people to draw the Irish border, some of the comments illustrate that they just know absolutely nothing about the place and that they don’t want to know either.

They're seeing the world as a bunch of Allo Allo caricatures.

I lived in London briefly and even dealing with officialdom, on three occasions I had to explain that Ireland wasn’t part of the UK and that I wasn’t a British citizen. It’s almost like they don’t quite accept that we are an independent country at some level and sort of missed that memo entirely.

Again and I would stress this. It’s not everyone. The majority of English people I know are extremely open minded and engaged with the world, but none of those people voted for Brexit.

Sorry I’m if this is coming a accoss as a bit anti English. It’s not intended to be. I’m just highlighting my experience of a particular part of English society that is not reflective of all of it, but that is driving Brexit.

Reasoned debate isn't going to counter that. There isn't any logic to what's going on. It's just classic, old school nationalism and it's being whipped up and used by manipulative press, politicians and probably other actors at this stage too. There's always been an audience there who are willing to believe any ridiculous story, as long as it fits their worldview and particular prejudices. They're comfortably sitting in a bubble reading tabloids that reinforced their views and now with the internet, it's an even bigger bubble.

In many ways, I think the online phenomenon of the “filter bubble” (being fed stories that only suit your political outlook) has existed in England for a very long time because of how their press is structured and, to a large part, because of the history of a stratified society they was all about class and identity.

So the country has always been at risk of going off the deep end on crazy policies be it Brexit, how NI was misunderstood and mishandled or be it the miners vs the tories back in the day. It’s all the same story really.

Leroy42

Solo, my point is not that you are right or wrong, we are all just giving our opinions.

My question really relates to your continued faith in all things brexit, despite at every turn thing turning out to be much worse that was stated by either the leave campaign of since then the government.

Easiest trade deal in history, biggest fight to get agreement on the process, expecting that the UK could avoid paying the brexit bill. What did Boris etc say would be the overall cost of the brexit bill to the UK and was that taken into account in the £350m per week (no is the answer).

From my POV, if someone tells me something and pretty much everything about what they told me turns out to be, at best, overly optimistic, then I seriously question any future declarations and would question whether to continue on with their original plan.

I don't see that either from you, or indeed from the electorate based on the latest polls. And I simply cannot understand it.

Clearly, all the indications are that at best UK will suffer significant negative impact over the medium term (+5 years) and there are plenty of unknown outcomes that could make that even worse (the indications are based on most things staying the same, ie City of London remaining the European Centre for Trade) but at best they will simply stay the same.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I find flaneur's post interesting because I've never come across anything of that sort whilst living here. Mind you I am a Protestant and I'm pretty involved at my local CofE church. I've not heard much ignorant comments about Catholicism but then again I don't talk about it very much.

As for the Catholic Europe thing I think it's an outmoded form of thinking based on Max Weber's Protestant Work Ethic. I don't doubt that our philosophies can have an impact on how we see work but in a broadly secular Europe it doesn't seem to make much sense today.

I think you could also find a lot of ignorance in Ireland both about English people and about Protestantism. I remember being told lot of nonsense about my beliefs growing up from well meaning people. It was a good opportunity to set people straight and that was what Irish people said in Ireland about Irish people. I also had comments from people implying I must be somehow more English for being Protestant.

I think we need the mirror sometimes.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

kowtow

One more point on the border & regulatory equivalence etc.

One of the important points that is overlooked when everybody says "it would take years to... set up a [food health inspection point / aviation supervisor / .. fill in the blank] is that by dint of the fact that the UK is at present a full member of the single market regulatory equivalence or compliance does not have to converge at all - all it has to do during any transition period when border arrangements are being implemented etc. is not to diverge.

Hence the rather perplexing Great Repeal Bill which pretty much repeals nothing but simply restates UK law as a perfect snapshot of EU derived law on the day of departure. That alone is a source of irritation to many but in practical terms if the bill functions as intended it actually means that things carry on precisely as they are today straight after Brexit. If UK regulatory standards diverge from EU standards it will be as a result of a process which takes place in a future chapter of this saga.

All of which ought to be some comfort to those implementing any phased, or fudged, approach to the Irish border. I actually have a bit more hope and optimism than most here that an electronic solution to maintain an open border should be within the grasp of our two countries, although I accept that it is much easier to sketch that out than to implement it in practice. Sweden and Norway have the right principles, but have not gone completely electronic - as I understand it. Likewise there are some technologies now around which make the idea of electronic declarations by consignors and real time manifests potentially quite robust going forward. With the sea ports and air ports as a more traditional back up the worst case is that locally used goods cross the border a bit freely. Is this really such a price to pay? Surely in twenty years time we would be better off with a really world class electronic border and, following on from that, the most flexible trading arrangements possible with a UK outside the EU? I hear what everyone says about UK government tech projects etc. etc. (I've been on the wrong end of a few of them over the years) but if that is the case we'll have to offer those legendary Irish software skills to make sure everything works perfectly, on time, on budget, etc.

Just don't let the BOI business banking team near it.

Unless some sort of all Island customs union is possible outside the EU but with an Irish face and a UK face (can't really see how that could work).. then I think some really ambitious thinking by Dublin and London is what we should all be hoping for here.

A lot of posts on this thread are condemned as wishful thinking, but I would suggest that wishing the UK back into the EU, or NI into the CU, is probably the real wishful thinking. Brexit is not a genie which can be put back in the bottle.

Zubeneschamali

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

The question is – what is the etiquette for interacting with or exposing such Putin agents?

You begin with "Good Evening!" in the morning, and then post in uncharacteristically bad English every now and then as if you are more than one person in more than one country following a script.

This makes them think you are one of them.

Many Thanks,

Zube

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

One more point on the border & regulatory equivalence etc.

One of the important points that is overlooked when everybody says "it would take years to... set up a [food health inspection point / aviation supervisor / .. fill in the blank] is that by dint of the fact that the UK is at present a full member of the single market regulatory equivalence or compliance does not have to converge at all - all it has to do during any transition period when border arrangements are being implemented etc. is not to diverge.

Hence the rather perplexing Great Repeal Bill which pretty much repeals nothing but simply restates UK law as a perfect snapshot of EU derived law on the day of departure. That alone is a source of irritation to many but in practical terms if the bill functions as intended it actually means that things carry on precisely as they are today straight after Brexit. If UK regulatory standards diverge from EU standards it will be as a result of a process which takes place in a future chapter of this saga.

All of which ought to be some comfort to those implementing any phased, or fudged, approach to the Irish border. I actually have a bit more hope and optimism than most here that an electronic solution to maintain an open border should be within the grasp of our two countries, although I accept that it is much easier to sketch that out than to implement it in practice. Sweden and Norway have the right principles, but have not gone completely electronic - as I understand it. Likewise there are some technologies now around which make the idea of electronic declarations by consignors and real time manifests potentially quite robust going forward. With the sea ports and air ports as a more traditional back up the worst case is that locally used goods cross the border a bit freely. Is this really such a price to pay? Surely in twenty years time we would be better off with a really world class electronic border and, following on from that, the most flexible trading arrangements possible with a UK outside the EU? I hear what everyone says about UK government tech projects etc. etc. (I've been on the wrong end of a few of them over the years) but if that is the case we'll have to offer those legendary Irish software skills to make sure everything works perfectly, on time, on budget, etc.

Just don't let the BOI business banking team near it.

Unless some sort of all Island customs union is possible outside the EU but with an Irish face and a UK face (can't really see how that could work).. then I think some really ambitious thinking by Dublin and London is what we should all be hoping for here.

A lot of posts on this thread are condemned as wishful thinking, but I would suggest that wishing the UK back into the EU, or NI into the CU, is probably the real wishful thinking. Brexit is not a genie which can be put back in the bottle.

So basically what you are saying is that since no laws or regulations are going to be changed then there is no problem.

But if nothing is going to change then what exactly is the point of all this.

And even if all the regulations stay the same, the UK are going to have to prove that their system of controls meets the requirements of the EU. Currently that is governed, in large extent, by Eu wide controls. Each country has some leeway, but effectively they must meet certain requirements.

How do the UK intent to be able to prove that those standards are being met?

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

The problem I find is that in England in particular there’s an element (by no means everyone but a significant element) that is openly hostile to the idea of other regions, never mind other countries. Ask some of them about “up north” (of England) and you’ll just get back a load of mocking stereotypes about northerners and no facts. The same goes for asking about Scotland or Wales even more so.

They’ve a complete blind spot about Ireland and Irish-British relations and simply don’t want to know or will make stuff up to suit whatever story they have in their head, which is usually a very English nationalistic one.

Usually it’s a sense that Ireland is just some annoyance that gets in the way and some kind of place full of people who keep disagreeing with them and cause trouble and are simply totally unreasonable.

I’ve also encountered shocking anti-catholic sentiment that’s basically just weird sectarianism. I’m not catholic and not at all religious, but I found it both strange and very offensive.

It’s often dressed up as liberalism but it is anything but. For example, I remember during the financial crisis seeing an article talking about how “catholic Europe” had failed because of an inherent flaw with Catholics. Now this ignored the fact that France, Austria, a large chuck of Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands and Belgium come from very similarly catholic backgrounds. It was like reading an article written in the 19th century and it just oozed arrogance and superiority complexes.

I’ve also had people tell me about *my* catholic guilt. I was brought up by a very non-religious family, with very left of centre views but because I’m Irish I’m apparently riddled with catholic guilt complexes... even though there’s absolutely nothing about me that would lead anyone who wasn’t just prejudiced against Irish people to jump to that conclusion.

I also regularly got the “oh you’re Irish you’re supposed to be good craic” jibes at work pretty much all the time if I had to be serious or drive some project forward or if I had to deal with something serious. I got the same when I went out and wasn't knocking back 40 pints.

If you look at that C4 news vox pop where they asked people to draw the Irish border, some of the comments illustrate that they just know absolutely nothing about the place and that they don’t want to know either.

They're seeing the world as a bunch of Allo Allo caricatures.

I lived in London briefly and even dealing with officialdom, on three occasions I had to explain that Ireland wasn’t part of the UK and that I wasn’t a British citizen. It’s almost like they don’t quite accept that we are an independent country at some level and sort of missed that memo entirely.

Again and I would stress this. It’s not everyone. The majority of English people I know are extremely open minded and engaged with the world, but none of those people voted for Brexit.

Sorry I’m if this is coming a accoss as a bit anti English. It’s not intended to be. I’m just highlighting my experience of a particular part of English society that is not reflective of all of it, but that is driving Brexit.

I think one element which we forget here is simply the obvious effect of a very small country next to a very big one.

UK news is reported almost daily on Irish radio - UK politics, elections, manifestos, a lot of stories on the news here are simply lifted from English newspapers. The same goes for America - it amazes me the column inches and radio hours we give to blathering about Trump. It's as if we don't have our own politicians and institutions to hold to account.

The same just is not true in the UK. Although Ireland has been absolutely pivotal in modern UK politics (and by modern I mean 1840 onwards) the daily happenings in this country are not the stuff of the daily news in the UK. Plenty of people wouldn't be able to place Dublin on a map - but then plenty of people wouldn't be able to place Ayr or the Clyde, or the river Dart, or the Medway estuary on a map either.

What we do export by way of news - in recent years - has often reflected badly on the Catholic religion and might - given the amount of green beer and stag nights - suggest that it was all about the craic.

There are about forty towns and cities in the UK more populated than Cork.

flaneur

This is an example of the kind of odd commentary I’m talking about :

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18789154

Just ignore the fact that Greece is Greek Orthodox, that France is largely catholic, Austria etc and that the UK had a massive banking bailout itself and that Anglicanism is about as lightly reformed as you could get. Then ignore the fact that the most industrial and developed parts of Europe all sit or sat on sizable coal and iron ore reserves.

Nope, just put on your 17th century hat and conclude that it was obviously down to religion or some other intrinsic issue with the population.


I also do not buy the notion that it’s because it’s a big country vs a small country.

I was watching French news (also lived in France) and there has been well-informed analysis of the Irish election risk and even a brief discussion about the ins and outs of the McCabe case on several TV channels and in several papers I’ve read. The Frances Fitzgerald resignation actually got covered in quite a few newspapers.

People in France generally were very aware that Ireland isn’t part of the U.K. and I found many were even quite aware of the 19th century history and the famine as it’s covered in European history courses in secondary school.

I also found the French media had a fairly good grasp of how Irish politics and elections work (or were willing to Google it before talking) and did not clonclude that FG was just electioneering to avoid being ousted by SF, which is the narrative coming across in the UK quite a lot. They actually understand that all the Irish parties are going to be taking a similar position on the imposition of a border.

I would also add that the French are very aware that the English (and to a degree the US) media mocks them rather a lot. I’ve encountered quite a few articles over the years in France contemplating why this is the case.

I think sometimes think people in England don’t realize thah their tabloid media is noticed and picked up well beyond its own borders. It’s not like the rest of Europe knows nothing about what’s happening in England or the UK, yet I get the impression that the other way around, that is very much the case.

Sam Russell

kowtow wrote: »

Hence the rather perplexing Great Repeal Bill which pretty much repeals nothing but simply restates UK law as a perfect snapshot of EU derived law on the day of departure. That alone is a source of irritation to many but in practical terms if the bill functions as intended it actually means that things carry on precisely as they are today straight after Brexit. If UK regulatory standards diverge from EU standards it will be as a result of a process which takes place in a future chapter of this saga.

If the intention of 'The Great Repeal Bill' was to translate EU law into UK law, it would be little over a tweet in length. It would simple acknowledge that all historical EU laws and judgements would be fully accepted as UK law. However, Henry the Eighth it appears has other ideas. The requirement to add and subtract bits and pieces so that certain rights are omitted and certain powers become the gift of the minister of the day suggests a disingenuous attitude to that proclaimed by the Gov as to its intentions.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that since no laws or regulations are going to be changed then there is no problem.

But if nothing is going to change then what exactly is the point of all this.

And even if all the regulations stay the same, the UK are going to have to prove that their system of controls meets the requirements of the EU. Currently that is governed, in large extent, by Eu wide controls. Each country has some leeway, but effectively they must meet certain requirements.

How do the UK intent to be able to prove that those standards are being met?

I don't think it is a long term answer at all, but I think the fact that everyone starts at exactly the same point helps to make a fudge, or a transition of some sort, more feasible.

e.g. UK promise not to let NI standards diverge until a mutually workable electronic border is in operation, transition period, etc. etc.

Far from perfect, but surely easier than a situation where the standards were not already absolutely identical.

demfad

kowtow wrote: »

One more point on the border & regulatory equivalence etc.

One of the important points that is overlooked when everybody says "it would take years to... set up a [food health inspection point / aviation supervisor / .. fill in the blank] is that by dint of the fact that the UK is at present a full member of the single market regulatory equivalence or compliance does not have to converge at all - all it has to do during any transition period when border arrangements are being implemented etc. is not to diverge.

Hence the rather perplexing Great Repeal Bill which pretty much repeals nothing but simply restates UK law as a perfect snapshot of EU derived law on the day of departure. That alone is a source of irritation to many but in practical terms if the bill functions as intended it actually means that things carry on precisely as they are today straight after Brexit. If UK regulatory standards diverge from EU standards it will be as a result of a process which takes place in a future chapter of this saga.

The relevant UK regulatory bodies (all 32 of them) have not been set up yet.
When they are and are functioning they will provide paperwork establishing the standards and regulations. This paperwork will be checked at borders and ports unless the UK is staying in the EEA.

Sweden and Norway have the right principles, but have not gone completely electronic - as I understand it. Likewise there are some technologies now around which make the idea of electronic declarations by consignors and real time manifests potentially quite robust going forward.

Sweden and Norway are in the EEA.

With the sea ports and air ports as a more traditional back up the worst case is that locally used goods cross the border a bit freely. Is this really such a price to pay?

We can't turn a blind eye to smuggling, regulatory divergence, customs etc.
There is no border in the world that operates frictionless in such circumstances: because it's not possible.

The special circumstances of NI should have meant that it was not possible for a Brexit that included NI leaving CU or SM. The only solution is simply to
leave the entire UK in the SM/CU permanently or until they DO come up with a solution.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

I don't think it is a long term answer at all, but I think the fact that everyone starts at exactly the same point helps to make a fudge, or a transition of some sort, more feasible.

e.g. UK promise not to let NI standards diverge until a mutually workable electronic border is in operation, transition period, etc. etc.

Far from perfect, but surely easier than a situation where the standards were not already absolutely identical.

YEs I totally agree that it should be easier than starting from zero, but all that does is place the responsibility of maintaining the regulations onto the UK.

And again, none of this was really detailed out during the campaign. We are now moving, rightfully, to an extended transition period, where the UK will not get anything different except for massive additional costs (that was always going to be the case).

Again, at what point do the voters start to question whether all this worth it? There is no doubt that to keep exporting into the EU that EU standards will have to be maintained, no matter how long the transition period. So you are still left with the same rules, just now dictated by the EU but 'decided' upon by the parliament.

As was pointed out, if all the government wanted to do was transpose EU law into Uk law with no changes then why the massive bill?

flaneur

I don't think that this is going to be considered by the Tories to be perfectly honest. Unless people who have concerns about northern Ireland start to form a political lobby in England, Northern Ireland isn't relevant. Part of that is that it's running as a parallel political system with its own parties, so it's of absolutely no interest took the media and commentators who are caught in the Tory vs Labour politics, hardly even paying attention to the Lib Dems.

It was fairly obvious that when the DUP emerged to back the current government, most English people had no idea who they where and many where pretty shocked when they started looking into the party's history online.

The fact that the UK government is only in place due to a confidence and supply with the DUP and that it's the Tory party means you can forget anything remotely balanced coming out of this for NI.

It will be DUP policy and I suspect that, unless Arleen is a radically different type or DUP leader and really sees herself as a first minister and great stateswomen representing all of NI, it will be used to strengthen the DUP's position and weaken the cross border aspects of NI politics.

So I think short of a UK general election and a change of party positions between now and Brexit, you're going to see a NI mess.

The only other potential moderator might be the Ulster Farmers Union putting huge pressure on the DUP, but so far I'm not seeing much evidence of that happening. They're talking to them but it's not really like they're being heavily political.

I would also suspect the Tory assumption is that Ireland won't really veto the deal because it would undermine Irish economic interests by forcing a hard brexit without access for Irish trade, particularly food and agriculture, which would have a disproportionately huge impact outside Dublin, Cork and the cities.

Ireland's tactic will have to be to delay the movement to trade talks until this is dealt with as I think if we let go now, we lose a lot of ability to shape this.

I also suspect that the "divorce settlement" figures will still turn politically toxic and the Tories won't be able to get that over the line anyway. There is already ranting about how they can go whistle.

The best outcome from an Irish perspective would be for the UK to tip into a general election in first quarter of the new year.

FrancieBrady

There is a lot of stuff on this thread to wade through.

Would it be an idea, now that we are coming towards D-Day on the Irish issue that each of the principal contributors to the thread give an over view of the relative strengths/weaknesses of the current positions?

kowtow

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the intention of 'The Great Repeal Bill' was to translate EU law into UK law, it would be little over a tweet in length. It would simple acknowledge that all historical EU laws and judgements would be fully accepted as UK law. However, Henry the Eighth it appears has other ideas. The requirement to add and subtract bits and pieces so that certain rights are omitted and certain powers become the gift of the minister of the day suggests a disingenuous attitude to that proclaimed by the Gov as to its intentions.

Hmm.. not really true I'm afraid.

Consider the operation of any law (EU law included). All very well adopting the law but what about the functions delegated .. say.. to the European Food Safety Authority or the Standing Committee on Animal Health..?

Consider the number of orders in council, the ministerial delegation, the supervisory bodies etc. etc. referred to in legislation.

Those need to be transposed, rather than adopted, or the law would be nonsensical on the day the UK left the EU. Given that rewriting and voting on every one of those laws individually would be impractical the so called 'Henry VIII' clauses simply allow ministers in council to alter them by means of secondary legislation.

Not ideal, but practical. And those complaining about the Henry VIII clauses and the abrogation of Parliament's powers might want to reflect that, taken as a whole the EU legislation being dealt with here was the biggest set of Henry VIII clauses in history.

ambro25

kowtow wrote: »

One of the important points that is overlooked when everybody says "it would take years to... set up a [food health inspection point / aviation supervisor / .. fill in the blank] is that by dint of the fact that the UK is at present a full member of the single market regulatory equivalence or compliance does not have to converge at all - all it has to do during any transition period when border arrangements are being implemented etc. is not to diverge.

But then, if the plan is to gradually diverge post-transition, that divergence would nullify the basis on which a notional EU/UK post-Brexit relationship agreement manages to keep the on the NI/RoI border 'frictionless'.

Given that context, your statement should really be that "all it has to do is not to diverge whilever a hard border is to be avoided between NI and the RoI".

It's all coalescing. Very slowly, at the macro-economical scale of course. But inexorably so. And yet, still too slowly for the Article 50 timescale/deadline. The UK government seriously needs to kick up a gear or 10. Yesterday.

kowtow wrote: »

A lot of posts on this thread are condemned as wishful thinking, but I would suggest that wishing the UK back into the EU, or NI into the CU, is probably the real wishful thinking. Brexit is not a genie which can be put back in the bottle.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the paragraph, I have a feeling that the cumulative effects of the 2017/2018 winter body count in the UK, down to the under-resourced, understaffed and overstretched NHS; a can-kicking of the phase 2 talks by the EU26 into March 2018; and the UK economy's continuing dead-cat-bouncing in the meantime (aided and abetted by sub-par Xmas 2017 figures), may begin to yield some amount of genie-bottling capacity

kowtow wrote: »

Hmm.. not really true I'm afraid.

Consider the operation of any law (EU law included). All very well adopting the law but what about the functions delegated .. say.. to the European Food Safety Authority or the Standing Committee on Animal Health..?

Consider the number of orders in council, the ministerial delegation, the supervisory bodies etc. etc. referred to in legislation.

Those need to be transposed, rather than adopted, or the law would be nonsensical on the day the UK left the EU. Given that rewriting and voting on every one of those laws individually would be impractical the so called 'Henry VIII' clauses simply allow ministers in council to alter them by means of secondary legislation.

Not ideal, but practical. And those complaining about the Henry VIII clauses and the abrogation of Parliament's powers might want to reflect that, taken as a whole the EU legislation being dealt with here was the biggest set of Henry VIII clauses in history.

True or not is irrelevant: the single, most plain and obvious take-away point from the GRB, is that it fails completely to maintain regulatory and normative compliance (as same pertains to all cross-border goods and services: physical products, air travel services, etc.) between the UK as a third party country and the EU.

All the GRB does, is set a legislative equivalence at time t0 in the UK, but which would still be lacking the 'UK portion' of the legacy EU systems (organisations, procedures, datasets ,etc.>) established by these EU27 statutes and used by the UK as an EU member state until end March 2019.

Since the jurisdictional scope of the GRB is the UK and NI, the GRB is wholly unable to preserve the UK's acquis within the said EU systems. All it can do is preserve the UK's acquis that is not dependent upon the UK's membership of such systems.

By way of example,

the GRB could perfectly well preserve the UK 'portion' of existing EU trademarks and EU designs as of Brexit day, with any Minister exercising Henry VIII prerogatives, or even Parliament itself, amending both the UK Trademarks Act and the UK Registered Design Acts (plus a couple more) to formally codify and achieve that effect down the line (there are actually a metric ton of real-life costly problems for rights owners down the line with that fudge, but I'm K-I-S-S here )

but the GRB cannot keep UK-based IP professionals on the list of professional representatives maintained by the EU Intellectual Property Office post-Brexit, nor can it preserve their privilege rights across the EU or their rights of audience to the EUIPO <etc.>, whatever and however any Minister exercising Henry VIII prerogatives, or even Parliament itself, may say or do or write or amend the various UK IP Acts: only the EU can do that.

Both outcomes are highly lossy for the UK relative to the status quo regardless, short- to long-term.

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

This is an example of the kind of odd commentary I’m talking about :

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18789154

I was watching French news (also lived in France) and there has been well-informed analysis of the Irish election risk and even a brief discussion about the ins and outs of the McCabe case on several TV channels and in several papers I’ve read. The Frances Fitzgerald resignation actually got covered in quite a few newspapers.

People in France generally were very aware that Ireland isn’t part of the U.K. and I found many were even quite aware of the 19th century history and the famine as it’s covered in European history courses in secondary school.

I also found the French media had a fairly good grasp of how Irish politics and elections work (or were willing to Google it before talking) and did not clonclude that FG was just electioneering to avoid being ousted by SF, which is the narrative coming across in the UK quite a lot. They actually understand that all the Irish parties are going to be taking a similar position on the imposition of a border.

Do you think that coverage might be specifically related to the current Brexit negotiation or is it a general thing? The UK media & Sky has been covering recent politics in dublin as well - hell, they've even announced our Presidential Election! - presumably because of the impact on the upcoming summit.

As far as secondary school history is concerned I've mentioned before that the education in Irish history I received in the UK was infinitely deeper than that my Children received here. Come to think of it, when I returned to University in Dublin in the 1980's it was a lot deeper than anything my contemporaries had studied here as well. I will allow that I had already specialized in Modern History and Politics before I left school and that there is a great variety of schools in any country.

More generally, the more outrageous quotes we've been reporting and commenting on in the Irish media in the last few weeks have been a little selective. They haven't come - often - from Government Ministers or anything close. Taylor in Northern Ireland (as far as I recall) is long retired - I was surprised he was still alive, actually - that UKIP oddball, IDS, I don't think many people would regard them as representative of either the Government position or the bulk of the country. It makes good television because it has people shouting at the screen, but I don't think it's the general position.

What is true is that people in the UK are not as aware, or indeed as concerned, about Ireland and the border as we are, simply because it doesn't touch their daily lives or excite their interest.

In an earlier post you commented that English people seemed to believe Ireland was part of the UK when you were in London - in one way, of course, that doesn't say much for UK political awareness of Ireland. But in another way it should reassure us that the Common Travel Area really does reflect the feelings of the people on the ground - I don't think there is a single person in Britain who would not want to see Irish people living and working there freely and vice versa, as they always have done.

swampgas

demfad wrote: »

The special circumstances of NI should have meant that it was not possible for a Brexit that included NI leaving CU or SM. The only solution is simply to
leave the entire UK in the SM/CU permanently or until they DO come up with a solution.

This.

Had any serious preparatory work been done on the implications of various forms of Brexit, this would have emerged. In one sense the GFA has shackled NI to the EU, although this was never seen as a negative until hard Brexit made an appearance.

Hard Brexit means abandoning the GFA and creating a hard border with Ireland, or leaving NI in the SM/CU, and putting a border between NI and GB. Neither one is acceptable politically right now, so the impasse continues.

flaneur

Not to go into a total tangent but I think to a degree, the very specialist nature or A-Level subjects is in part to blame. What I’ve noticed about the English system in comparison to Ireland, France and Scotland is that they study too few subjects too deeply and it can result in a very narrow focus too early.

I wonder sometimes if it plays into the “silo” mentality you tend to get where people who maybe study maths and science, technology / engineering, even art and media types tend to have no idea about history and politics.

If you’re studying subjects around history and politics you’ll know everything. If you don’t, you barely touch the material.

The Leaving Cert (although it is destroyed by the CAO points race), Scottish Highers and the French Bac programmes all aim to be very broad, leaving specialisation for 3rd level. I always found the A levels seem to be trying to be more than they should be. They’re very good courses, but you do so few subjects and they’re more like the early stage of an undergraduate degree than second level.

I wouldn’t actually rate the Irish, England/Wales or French systems as particularly wonderful though all three have major flaws. Perhaps we should probably be looking at places like Finland which seems to be getting it very right.

Where France excels is on civics and philosophy programmes in the school system. Ireland and British systems seem to assume you just figure out the political system by osmosis unless you specifically study it later on. That being said, they tend to express their political opinions "dans la rue!!!" a bit too readily rather than engaging in normal politics...

Leroy42

Brexit has lost UK economy £300m per week since EU referendum result, analysis finds

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-uk-economy-losses-eu-referendum-result-billions-leave-european-union-a8081841.html

That is some serious damage to ones economy and forecasts of continued pain for the foreseeable future, until such time as this much heralded but as yet totally unknown, new trade deals start to propel UK future forward.

We could be looking at an entire generation lost to this in economic terms.

Now you'l get the usual comments about the veracity of the analysis, and of those that has some merit since it is based on a number of assumptions. But whilst the eye-catching headline figure can be assussed of being just that, along with the recent downgrade of the forecast by the government itself by 0.4%, it paints a very dark picture indeed.

This is all in addition to the 50bn settlement which has not been taken into account and the continuing additional costs which will be required (Hammond already set aside a further 3bn on top of 700m already spent).

In Irish terms, the cost of Brexit will dwarf the bank bailout, which was rightfully seen as a complete disaster in terms of wasted money. Yet the UK actively and willing asked for this!

flaneur

The biggest one that’s going to bite is inflation. The UK, being a medium sized country with no recent expectation of currency risks would have contracts signed in £. The supply chains are absorbing the fall in £ somewhere along the line and that can only continue for so long.

You’ll see prices rise as contracts expire and are renegotiated.

In a country with a small currency those impacts are usually instant and painful because suppliers all protect against small currencies by signing contacts in major ones like USD or EUR.

Unless sterling rapidly recovers for some reason, prices in the UK will keep rising relative to income until the majority of the slide in value is priced in and that’s about 15-20%

kowtow

ambro25 wrote: »

But then, if the plan is to gradually diverge post-transition, that divergence would nullify the basis on which a notional EU/UK post-Brexit relationship agreement manages to keep the on the NI/RoI border 'frictionless'.

No, to be clear, if the UK is leaving the EU it must have the capacity to set it's own regulatory standards and make trade agreements.

So it follows that I would like to see, in the fullness of time, a customs border. I want to see consignors declaring goods of certifiable origin online and transporters attaching those consignments in real time to known vehicles, recorded by camera as they cross an open border and subject to the bare minimum of targeted, risk based, physical checks away from the border - preferably at port security. I want those checks to employ technology so that they are effective but minimally intrusive. I want blockchain everywhere to take some of the politics out of the operation of the system. I want genuine co-operation between the Irish customs authorities and the UK customs authorities to make it happen. And I'd obviously like to see minimal or no tariffs on as many goods as possible to make compliance much more economical than smuggling.

In fact, I'd like a unique electronic border that we can all be as proud of as we are of the almost invisible frontier we drive across today - something which was utterly unthinkable when I left Ireland thirty odd years ago and still makes me smile when I drive across it.

I'll go further and say I'd like to see a customs border that the rest of the world looks to as an example of using technology, rather than regulation, to enable free and frictionless trade between nations for the benefit of everybody involved.

But in the end it is easy for me, quietly milking cows in retirement, to suggest these things. It's not me that has to implement it or live with it. If the younger generation want to concentrate on the reasons something might not work and dismiss possibilities out of hand, to put their energy into fighting old political battles rather than developing radical new solutions to the same old problems, then who am I to argue with them?

ambro25 wrote: »

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the paragraph, I have a feeling that the cumulative effects of the 2017/2018 winter body count in the UK, down to the under-resourced, understaffed and overstretched NHS; a can-kicking of the phase 2 talks by the EU26 into March 2018; and the UK economy's continuing dead-cat-bouncing in the meantime (aided and abetted by sub-par Xmas 2017 figures), may begin to yield some amount of genie-bottling capacity

I've never been surprised by regime change, but I've never found it profitable to rely on it as a central part of my economic plans

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

Not to go into a total tangent but I think to a degree, the very specialist nature or A-Level subjects is in part to blame. What I’ve noticed about the English system in comparison to Ireland, France and Scotland is that they study too few subjects too deeply and it can result in a very narrow focus too early.

It's a very difficult one that. My children begun their education, such as it was, in a continental style IB system, and continued it in the Irish system. Neither of them, IMO, ever studied enough of any subject to develop a love for it, let alone to know anything useful. If anyone in this family was particularly scientific I suppose we might have a different outlook.

The English immersive system at least has the depth to develop passion, particularly if there are some great teachers involved (although perhaps great teachers will make the best of any system). Given that neither the UK nor the Irish systems are particularly good for vocational training, neither of them really equip a student for Employment in a practical sense - so they might as well leave school with a love of Yeats, absolute recall of Shakespeare, the ability to decline Greek nouns to to themselves, or a comprehensive recollection of the Irish Land Acts in help them pass the time in those inevitable traffic jams at the border.

ambro25

kowtow wrote: »

I've never been surprised by regime change, but I've never found it profitable to rely on it as a central part of my economic plans

Indeed, and which happens to be exactly why we're leaving the UK early, and exactly why we left Dublin in 2008.

As any economic migrant of any age throughout history would tell you: your country is the one that feeds you