Brexit discussion thread II

steddyeddy

Anthracite wrote: »

If it comes to that, how clever a move was it for the DUP to back Brexit?

Don't get what the DUP would like in this deal. It seperates the North further.

Water John

Ireland may not have to worry about using their veto. Brexiteer MPs may use their veto on the Tory Cabinet, over the divorce bill.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/tory-brexiters-to-protest-to-no-10-about-deal-on-60bn-divorce-bill

Mr.Nice Guy

A possible border deal based on devolution of powers to Northern Ireland to ensure regulatory convergence with the Republic, and thus the EU.

The "devolution of powers to Northern Ireland" bit raises alarm bells since there is currently no Executive, and the DUP would be required to consent to any arrangement to restore Stormont.

Is this a sneaky way for the British to kick this issue down the line and then shrug their shoulders if/when the DUP decide not to go for it?

flaneur

Water John wrote: »

Ireland may not have to worry about using their veto. Brexiteer MPs may use their veto on the Tory Cabinet, over the divorce bill.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/tory-brexiters-to-protest-to-no-10-about-deal-on-60bn-divorce-bill

I'd say they'll just rip themselves apart before any deal is done tbh.

kowtow

Water John wrote:

Ireland may not have to worry about using their veto. Brexiteer MPs may use their veto on the Tory Cabinet, over the divorce bill.

I think the saving grace of the divorce bill is that it comes with strings attached ... ie. A satisfactory trade deal. The walk away option paying nothing is still available to the hard core at least - I would have thought - until the transition period of full access starts at which point money will start changing hands anyway. So in practice it's going to become a case of looking for a good enough trade deal at an acceptable price to make it worth exiting transition. That's why Boris and co were so keen to place strict time limits on transition.

J Mysterio

Scathing articles in the Irish Times:


Kathy Sheridan: Why is British public so ignorant on Brexit?Infantile ideas like Ireland should pay for Border part of UK cultivating obtuseness

Kermit.de.frog

Irish gov needs to be careful here. Could be a stunt to give effective DUP control of Irish border matters.

With no executive either.

I smell a rat.

J Mysterio

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Irish gov needs to be careful here. Could be a stunt to give effective DUP control of Irish border matters.

With no executive either.

I smell a rat.

That wouldnt be respecting the GFA.

zetalambda

blanch152 wrote: »

We've only got 3% of the jobs, which is less than I hoped, but we are still batting above our EU weight of 1%.

Good news; We now have about 9%


In addition to the 150 jobs announced for Dublin, 300 jobs linked to Brexit have been announced for Dundalk:

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

Charles Babbage

Rumours of the British beginning to crack
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-britain-close-to-irish-border-deal-pltcgrvcj

with agriculture devolved to NI and EU harmonised.
still a lot to do though

Peregrinus

The Times report is behind a registration wall.

The Guardian also has a report. No mention in the Guardian report of the role of devolution.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

If those five demands are accurate, it's eminently doable. The wording is deliberately sufficiently open to allow real and functional progress during phase two. At that point, with trade also on the table, Ireland will be more easily persuaded to accept a practical solution because clearly a successful trade deal is very much in our interests. If the inflamatory rhetoric on both sides can be dialled down then the kind of creative partnership which I hoped for up the thread is still possible.

The "no regulatory divergence on EU matters" (from memory) is going to cause something of a talking point.

I think if that article is anything to go by that we can say that Ireland has made it's point very effectively, without - so far - throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I think you're correct to say that "a successful trade deal is very much in our interests", as of course is an open border, both for economic reasons and for the good of the peace process.

But, ironically, this gives rise to a problem which has not been (publicly) appreciated or recognised on the UK side. Much of the popular press rhetoric presents Ireland as the awkward buggers who are blocking progress and holding everyone to ransom, but in fact a concern in Brussels is that Ireland has such a strong interest in an open border, and such a strong interest in a good trade deal, that in order to achieve those it might be tempted to agree to measures to protect the integrity of the single market that are, um, less than 100% effective. It's Brussels, even more than Dublin, which is most concerned to see that, e.g. chlorinated chicken and hormone-laced beef can't be imported into the Single Market across the Irish border.

So when the UK proposes technological solutions to regulate and monitor cross-border trade, Ireland's concern is mainly that the nature of those solutions won't hamper movement of people, goods and services and won't inflame tensions in a way that that will jeopardise the peace process, and only secondarily that they will effectively prevent contraband, while in Brussels the effective prevention of contraband is the primary preoccupation. Similarly Ireland may be happy to accept a lower degree of regulatory convergence as necessary to support an open border than Brussels is.

Up to now, Brussels and Dublin have been 100% in lock-step. That's been easy, since the British have made no substantial proposals with regard to measures to police the border that require a response from the EU side, and similarly they've said little about what degree (if any) of regulatory convergence they might commit to. When they do, however, and when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of addressing the UK's position the difference in emphasis between Brussels and Dublin may begin to make itself felt.

murphaph

Water John wrote: »

This will not be specific to NI so the DUP will be fine with it.

That looks like what will happen. But basically we all know, like the Brexit bill of €50 + Bn is the UK caving in e very time. Just don't say it out loud.

The funny thing is if it turns out to be true then Ireland has literally saved the UK from itself. I know that at least half the people of the UK will be delighted that we were "awkward".

But if true it highlights even further what a joke Brexit is. I agree with hard Brexiteers in this respect...if you're gonna Brexit then Brexit (stupid but whatever). Leaving the decision making club (especially as a member with a lot of say) only accept large swathes of what it decides is monumentally stupid. It's British pride that's preventing them from just admitting they actually did rather well in the EU.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Disagree. They mentioned the Irish gov not following the GFA. Despite the fact that all I see in England is Arelene and unionists claiming they represent NI.

Good morning!

The Good Friday Agreement is as much for unionists as it is for nationalists. That's one point that seems to be routinely ignored on this thread.

Does anyone have any further detail on what's being rumoured without a paywall. Is it just for agricultural goods?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The Good Friday Agreement is as much for unionists as it is for nationalists. That's one point that seems to be routinely ignored on this thread.

Does anyone have any further detail on what's being rumoured without a paywall. Is it just for agricultural goods?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The GFA is certainly not a safeguard of how one side 'feels' about their nationhood.
It most certainly is about doing what is best for 'all' the people of northern Ireland firstly and the island of Ireland secondly.

steddyeddy

People over here, remain and leave voters seem to be getting pretty p1ssed at the thought of paying 50 billion over decades. The UK is in huge debt already and this is a large amount of money.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

When a new news item or a link to e.g. the GFA are relevant, please identify specific sections and set out your own commentary as per the charter.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

It also seems like Barnier is being bit of a jerk again. The more nonsense comments like this are made from the European Commission, the more I want to see the UK leave the EU.

This time implying that Brexit means that the UK hasn't been pulling its weight with ISIS despite being one of the foremost countries involved in the effort to defeat them and being one of the key countries involved in defence and counterterrorism efforts across Europe.

European defence is about much more than the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

VinLieger

steddyeddy wrote: »

People over here, remain and leave voters seem to be getting pretty p1ssed at the thought of paying 50 billion over decades. The UK is in huge debt already and this is a large amount of money.

Tough sh1t?

LeinsterDub

Circa 50 billion bill, NI stays in the CU more or less surely May can't survive this deal?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The Good Friday Agreement is as much for unionists as it is for nationalists. That's one point that seems to be routinely ignored on this thread.

The DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement when it was concluded, refused to sign it, and campaigned against it in the ensuing referendum. To this day, SFAIK, they have never signed it. Since 2007 they have, of course, participated in the institutions for which the GFA provided, but it took them 9 years to get to that point. And - I'm open to correction here - I think their party position is still that they oppose the GFA and would like to see it revoked and replaced with something more to their taste.

So, the DUP don't seem to think it's "as much for unionists as it is for nationalists". And this is part of what underlies fears that the DUP may use its present influence in Westminster to press the UK government towards a Brexit which is not, shall we say, GFA-friendly.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Does anyone have any further detail on what's being rumoured without a paywall. Is it just for agricultural goods?

I haven't seen any more detail. I suspect we won't, for some time. What the parties will (hopefully) agree to at this stage is a commitment to avoiding regulatory divergence "such as to require a hard border”, or some such wording. (The exact wording is still under discussion.) This deliberately fudges the question of exactly what degree of regulatory divergence would require a hard border, but it certainly opens the way to an approach which says, in effect, in relation to goods and services traded across the Irish border in high volume (like agribusiness products and services, food, chemicals, consumer goods) we need a high degree of convergence but, in relation to goods and services hardly traded across the Irish border at all (like, I don't know, precision engineering products, heavy machinery) maybe not so much.

That's just guesswork on my part, though.

Another possibility opened up by the wording is different approaches to convergence for different sectors/products. For example, all livestock imported into NI from GB is already inspected at Larne (this has been so since mad cow days, if not before) so it would be easy to say that NI will maintain EU livestock standards (and control for this at Larne) while GB need not. Whereas something like pharmaceuticals, that probably wouldn't be a viable approach; whatever degree of convergence is required would have to operate on a UK-wide basis; anything else would be impractical or unduly onerous.

Harika

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Circa 50 billion bill, NI stays in the CU more or less surely May can't survive this deal?

Yes, until Brexit is finalised she will stay in power, but is a lame duck that will be sacrificed as soon as it is deemed necessary. However Brexit goes, I don't see a situation where Britain will come out as winner, especially as the economic reality will hit at some point, then she will be blamed and removed. No idea if the prime minister can be swapped without GE, but this is happening.

Beechwoodspark

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It also seems like Barnier is being bit of a jerk again. The more nonsense comments like this are made from the European Commission, the more I want to see the UK leave the EU.

This time implying that Brexit means that the UK hasn't been pulling its weight with ISIS despite being one of the foremost countries involved in the effort to defeat them and being one of the key countries involved in defence and counterterrorism efforts across Europe.

European defence is about much more than the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good morning!!

Labelling Barnier as a bit of a jerk is objectionable.

Barnier is articulating a view about the Brexit vote that the UK should take heed of, so that the UK can gain some insight on the thinking of the EU.

The UK govt and populace at the moment have a totally unrealistic view of how these negotiations are going to play out, fuelled by the jingoism of their gutter press.

Much thanks(?!)

Beechwoodspark

solodeogloria

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Good morning!!

Labelling Barnier as a bit of a jerk is objectionable.

Barnier is articulating a view about the Brexit vote that the UK should take heed of, so that the UK can gain some insight on the thinking of the EU.

The UK govt and populace at the moment have a totally unrealistic view of how these negotiations are going to play out, fuelled by the jingoism of their gutter press.

Much thanks(?!)

Beechwoodspark

Good morning!

I've got no issue calling a spade a spade. Claiming Brexit means Britain isn't committed to supporting European defence is insensitive and ignorant nonsense.

Britain has committed military support to Eastern European countries against Russia, committed itself firmly to defeating IS on the ground and in sharing information with other countries.

So yes, he's being a jerk! If that's the "thinking" of the EU then I'm happy the UK is coming out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Vronsky

solodeogloria wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

Disagree. They mentioned the Irish gov not following the GFA. Despite the fact that all I see in England is Arelene and unionists claiming they represent NI.

Good morning!

The Good Friday Agreement is as much for unionists as it is for nationalists. That's one point that seems to be routinely ignored on this thread.

Does anyone have any further detail on what's being rumoured without a paywall. Is it just for agricultural goods?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It has to be for all goods. Exclude one type then those goods will flow via the open NI border into the EU.
If there are exclusions, new border and customs infrastructure will be required, which crosses the Irish red line.

So it looks like the UK will technically be outside the customs union, but will be forced to mirror it. Worst of both worlds, no freedom and no say.

Brilliant!

flaneur

They’re extremely tetchy and looking for any comment to make out that they’re victims of a conspiracy.

His point is completely valid. At a time when the EU and world in general is facing security risks and also only a few years after the global financial crisis which Europe, the UK and the US, they decided to throw their toys out of the pram just as things are starting to return to stability.

This is a period when most of the world was trying to get back to some kind of normality, after a lot of chaos and the result was both the UK and US spinning into unprecedented political turmoil.

In a way, however I think I think Brexit and Trump are a consequence of the chaos of preceding years both financial and the horrific terrorist incidents that seem to be happening with alarming frequency. The EU reaction to threats has largely been to cluster together and batten down the hatches. However at least half of the UK doesn’t recognise that sense of solidarity and seems to hanker after a bygone era and a rose tinted glasses version of the 1950s (or earlier) that never really existed.

That’s happening because politicians, media and other influential parts of society have been whipping up a sense of fear really since 9/11.

I think the EU itself has played some part in causing this, particularly by the way it mishandled the financial crisis in 2008 and more so by the rhetoric that was reportedly coming from Germany and elsewhere. However, a lot of that was also as perceived through the lens of the British media. For example, terms of abuse like PIGS, PIIGS and ClubMed and ranting about lazy countries didn’t originate in Brussels. They were British tabloid and financial media taunting of the countries in crisis. I distinctly remember it was London traders laughing and mocking Brian Lenhian on a conference call back in the middle of Ireland crisis. Some of the rhetoric also came from Germany and certain northern European countries and was also amplified by the British tabloid media but it certainly wasn’t Brussels doing the ranting and raving.

There has been a long history of constantly mocking the EU, trying to undermine the Euro with articles that speak about "the single European currency" like as it were almost unspeakable disease or something and it's always "doomed to failure".

You can see why a lot of people in Europe are just fed up with the whole thing.

There's every possibility this mess is going to spawn another financial crisis too. I really do not want to go through another 2008 myself. Once was more than enough!

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've got no issue calling a spade a spade. Claiming Brexit means Britain isn't committed to supporting European defence is insensitive and ignorant nonsense.

Britain has committed military support to Eastern European countries against Russia, committed itself firmly to defeating IS on the ground and in sharing information with other countries.

So yes, he's being a jerk! If that's the "thinking" of the EU then I'm happy the UK is coming out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

God, given what the Brexiteers (and the people in charge, hi Johnson) have been saying about the EU (and now Ireland), bit precious to get upset at a relevant point, even if it was also a dig.

Stick a plaster on it and get back to the actually important stuff. Like that sole land border with another customs regime.

Beechwoodspark

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've got no issue calling a spade a spade. Claiming Brexit means Britain isn't committed to supporting European defence is insensitive and ignorant nonsense.

Britain has committed military support to Eastern European countries against Russia, committed itself firmly to defeating IS on the ground and in sharing information with other countries.

So yes, he's being a jerk! If that's the "thinking" of the EU then I'm happy the UK is coming out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good morning!!

I worry for the UK if your attitude to Barnier is widespread in their Govt and negotiating team.

Speaking of spades, when you are digging a hole the first rule is stop digging.

The UK govt and ppl, including I dare say, your good self, will be taught a sorry lesson if/when they crash out of the EU.

Much thanks(?!)

Beechwoodspark

steddyeddy

VinLieger wrote: »

Tough sh1t?

Indeed it is. The bigger problem is that they haven't realised dropping out of the single market will cost them more than 50 billion.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

But if true it highlights even further what a joke Brexit is. I agree with hard Brexiteers in this respect...if you're gonna Brexit then Brexit (stupid but whatever). Leaving the decision making club (especially as a member with a lot of say) only accept large swathes of what it decides is monumentally stupid. It's British pride that's preventing them from just admitting they actually did rather well in the EU.

Unless you're going to go all Patrick Minford, forget about trade deals entirely and have unilateral free trade with the entire world - and, apart from Patrick Minford, I really don't see anyone signing up for that - then any half-way rational Brexit strategy will recognise that, yeah, getting a good trade deal, and a good trading relationship, with the EU is pretty much a sine qua non of any Brexit that might be considered even half-way successful or beneficial for Britain.

Which means, inevitably, right from day 1, they were always going to have to negotiate with the EU, to advance interests which both sides have in common and, where interests/objectives diverge, to compromise until they reach a mutually acceptable position.

In any negotiation, both sides have to be ready to compromise - if you're not prepared to compromise, then you might as well not bother to start the negotiations, and move straight to the Minfordy Plan B. But who gets to compromise more, and who gets more of what they aspire to, depends on a number of things, but most of all on the strategic bargaining position of the two parties.

And here's the thing that I think at least some Brexiters were in denial about, and some other recognised but found it politic to pretend to be in denial about; the EU always had the much stronger bargaining position. Vastly more populous, vastly wealthier, vastly better resourced. And most significantly of all, vastly better able to withstand a "no deal" outcome than the UK was. From a trading, economic, etc relationship point of view, the UK is simply much less significant to the EU than the EU is to the UK. If it all went completely pear-shaped, both sides would suffer but the UK would suffer relatively much more.

In other words, the UK always had more to lose from unsuccessful negotiations, and the EU knew it. That's a very strong bargaining position for the EU, and a very weak one for the UK.

So it was always the case that most of the movement, most of the compromise, was likely to be on the UK side, and so it has proved. In the initial discussions about the sequencing of events, there was supposed to be a row that would last all summer and in fact the UK accepted the EU position without amendment on day 1. On each of the phase 1 issues identified in that sequencing decision, the UK has found it necessary to move a lot further towards the EU position than the EU has found it necessary to move to the UK position. And I doubt that this pattern will change very much in the next phase.

Possibly in anticipation of this, the UK staked out some very high positions from which to start; no Single Market, no Customs Union, no ECJ jurisdiction, etc. They haven't abandoned any of those positions, but they have compromised significantly on all of them. For example, the UK won't be in the Customs Union, but it's going to accept a lot of the incidents and characteristics of customs union membership. Or, as I can't remember who put it, "the European Customs Union is incompatible with Brexit; a customs union isn't".

This is a bit galling for people who actually believed the Brexity rhetoric, and we must expect them to be a bit bad-tempered about it. But, remember, 48% of the population voted to remain and, of the rest, presumably at least some took a somewhat nuanced view of what they were being told, and never really though that it would be as easy as they were glibly assured it would be. A year ago people were talking about how the German can manufacturers would press Merkel, and Merkel would press the EU, and the EU would grant the UK full trading rights into the Single Market without any of this free movement/ECJ Jurisidction nonsense. It's many months now since anyone peddled nonsense like that. I think the British public is a bit more realistic about where they stand that last year's Brexity rhetoric would indicate.

flatty

Outstanding post peregrinus.
That is exactly the feeling I get living here.
One has to ignore the cr@p in the papers, as the younger generations increasingly are (in part, I reckon, because they have been so badly screwed in the UK that a newspaper is a luxury many wouldn't want to waste money on).

flaneur

I think the one thing we all need to be careful about is not to be trolled by tabloids and shrill brexiteers or NI divisive politicians trying to whip up tensions.

The UK has a distorted view of the EU due to viewing it through tabloid lenses and we risk getting a distorted view of the UK as the tabloids try to whip up anti-irish sentiment and also to get a reaction from us or from the EU.

We need to rise above it. Part or the problem in England is people get caught up in this stuff way too readily. A bit of cynicism about the press and politics isn't s bad thing.

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

God, given what the Brexiteers (and the people in charge, hi Johnson) have been saying about the EU (and now Ireland), bit precious to get upset at a relevant point, even if it was also a dig.

Stick a plaster on it and get back to the actually important stuff. Like that sole land border with another customs regime.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Good morning!!

I worry for the UK if your attitude to Barnier is widespread in their Govt and negotiating team.

Speaking of spades, when you are digging a hole the first rule is stop digging.

The UK govt and ppl, including I dare say, your good self, will be taught a sorry lesson if/when they crash out of the EU.

Much thanks(?!)

Beechwoodspark

Good morning!

Unlike both of you. I think it's important that stakeholders take responsibility for what they say particularly when it isn't true and isn't helpful. The UK is and always has been committed to security cooperation. It's good to point out ignorant and insensitive comments when they are made. This is particularly true in the context of an important negotiation.

Claiming that Britain is somehow helping ISIS by leaving the EU is being a jerk. I'm not "digging" anything in highlighting what someone else is digging!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

I have to say that I'm with solo here. I found the Barnier remarks very surprising. What could he possibly hope to achieve by them, at just this time (or at any time)? They're all the more surprising because, so far, he has proved himself a very deft operator. But these comments strike me as pretty much the opposite of deft, whatever that is.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Up to now, Brussels and Dublin have been 100% in lock-step. That's been easy, since the British have made no substantial proposals with regard to measures to police the border that require a response from the EU side, and similarly they've said little about what degree (if any) of regulatory convergence they might commit to.

If they were any good, the UKs negotiators would have been pushing a wedge into this crack from day one.

Fortunately, they are not any good and their attempts to drag Ireland onto their side were comically bad.

flaneur

I think that's largely down to a whole load of erroneous assumptions about Irish politics, political structures and public opinion.

Also I think there’s a total misunderstanding of the fact that when it comes to the EU the UK is already being considered a “third country” whereas Ireland is a core Eurozone member and very fundamentally part of the EU. The EU will of course take the side and look out for the interests of its own members ahead of what is increasingly looking like a belligerent third country.

The UK side seems to assume that the EU will still treat it as if it’s just one of the club. That's a major mistake and failure to understand that leaving means a totally redefined relationship is one of the things that is poisoning the debate.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

getting a good trade deal, and a good trading relationship, with the EU is pretty much a sine qua non of any Brexit that might be considered even half-way successful or beneficial for Britain.

There is no Brexit that is beneficial for the UK. There is damaging, more damaging or catastrophically damaging.

And each one damages Ireland and the EU in proportion. A smaller proportion than the damage to the UK, but still. When the UK government were estimating 3-6% damage to the UK, the Irish government were saying 0.5 % to Ireland.

Zubeneschamali

flatty wrote: »

One has to ignore the cr@p in the papers, as the younger generations increasingly are (in part, I reckon, because they have been so badly screwed in the UK that a newspaper is a luxury many wouldn't want to waste money on).

I am not so sure - younger folks are ignoring newspapers everywhere because a) they cost money and information is "free" these days and b) they are physical and awkward.

Unfortunately, relying on "free" information often is the same as swallowing lies. Living in an online echo chamber may be even worse than reading crappy tabloids for distorting your world view.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's good to point out ignorant and insensitive comments when they are made.

Barnier is a model of tact and diplomacy beside Boris and Davis.

Beechwoodspark

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Barnier is a model of tact and diplomacy beside Boris and Davis.

And don't forget the likes of Ian Duncan Smith who exposed himself as being woefully ignorant about the Irish political system a day ago.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But these comments strike me as pretty much the opposite of deft, whatever that is.

He's doing it on purpose, of course.

The pressure is coming onto the UK team, time is running out. So Barnier starts to act less diplomatic, less accommodating, less friendly. Get the point across that yes, the EU really will block Phase 2 if they don't get it together.

Rub their noses in it a bit.

Professor Moriarty

In the background, the EP is taking a gloomy perspective on current negotiations despite the recent positivity in the media. In a letter to Barnier yesterday, Verhofstadt had this to say regarding Citizens' Rights:

Finally, we can only again reiterate our position that in order to guarantee the coherence and integrity of the EU legal order, the CJEU must remain the sole and competent authority for interpreting and enforcing European Union law and not least the citizens’ rights provisions of the withdrawal agreement. It is with great concern that we note that negotiations in this respect are stalled, and even some progress reversed.

On Ireland, there seems to be a red line, especially on regulations:

Concerning Ireland, the BSG believes that the UK must make a clear commitment, to be enshrined in a form which would guarantee its full implementation in the withdrawal agreement, that it would protect the operation of the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, ensure, by means of continued regulatory alignment between the North and the South, there is no hardening of the border on the island of Ireland and that there is no diminishing of the rights of people in Northern Ireland.

If these positions are the EP's bottom line then they are Barnier's bottom line.

solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He's doing it on purpose, of course.

The pressure is coming onto the UK team, time is running out. So Barnier starts to act less diplomatic, less accommodating, less friendly. Get the point across that yes, the EU really will block Phase 2 if they don't get it together.

Rub their noses in it a bit.

Good morning!

Saying things that are patently ignorant and untrue about the UK's counterterrorism and defence efforts across Europe doesn't put pressure on anyone. It just makes you look like a jerk.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Saying things that are patently ignorant and untrue about the UK's counterterrorism and defence efforts across Europe doesn't put pressure on anyone. It just makes you look like a jerk.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

While I am disappointed in Barnier's remarks, they're nothing compared to the stream of poison that the British press and Eurosceptics have been emanating for a long time.

Calina

I seem to recall the Article 50 letter being interpretable as implying the UK would use security as a bargaining chip...

FrancieBrady

Calina wrote: »

I seem to recall the Article 50 letter being interpretable as implying the UK would use security as a bargaining chip...

Absolutely, I well remember plenty of veiled threats for want of a better word.

Maybe Barnier is better informed than us to judge just what effect it will have on EU security.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Saying things that are patently ignorant and untrue about the UK's counterterrorism and defence efforts across Europe doesn't put pressure on anyone.

I read the article - it is not ignorant or untrue. It is just not friendly or diplomatic.

And even if all it does is make Barnier look like a jerk, that is to the point. Remind the UK team that Barnier is not their friend and reinforce the notion in their heads that yes, he really will block phase 2. Next week, for 3 months.

mickoneill31

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Saying things that are patently ignorant and untrue about the UK's counterterrorism and defence efforts across Europe doesn't put pressure on anyone. It just makes you look like a jerk.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If only you held the UK negotiators to the same standards solo. I don't remember seeing any posts where you called anybody on the UK side a jerk for the piles of fabrications we've being listening to for the last year.
But the first time you can see one on the EUs side, he's a jerk.

Leroy42

One thing the whole Brexit does show, or at least should, is that by being in the EU Ireland is far stronger than had we never entered it.

The talk from some of the media in the UK (today in the Telegraph they have an article titled "Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands") points to the sort of relationship we would have had we just been two countries.

That why I am in the camp that Ireland should be using this own goal by the UK to drive for a massive takeover of industries etc that have traditionally been the UK's. This is a very rare event, a chance to actually change the dynamic. Yes it requires that we take advantage of the UK, but does anybody really believe that wouldn't be the case if the roles were reversed?

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

That why I am in the camp that Ireland should be using this own goal by the UK to drive for a massive takeover of industries etc that have traditionally been the UK's. This is a very rare event, a chance to actually change the dynamic. Yes it requires that we take advantage of the UK, but does anybody really believe that wouldn't be the case if the roles were reversed?

Ideally, yes but the fact is that Dublin's infrastructure is medieval when compared with that of London. Instead of shrewdly investing in it during the boom years, the government opted for lavishing a luxurious lifestyle on its civil servants and the public sector.

Here's a piece from the Irish Independent on the subject:

https://www.independent.ie/business/jp-morgan-warns-of-infrastructural-constraints-as-ireland-seeks-brexit-spoils-35713324.html