Brexit discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

Interesting video here. Didn't know about the up to 1952 thing.
http://www.thedetail.tv/articles/the-sea-border-that-s-there-already

Tropheus

Stop the press. I think we have a solution.



Although the Express mods aren't as vigilant as usual:

Samaris

He certainly sounds like he's from one.

What is the great solution though? Don't make me wade through the Express..

Tropheus

Samaris wrote: »

He certainly sounds like he's from one.

What is the great solution though? Don't make me wade through the Express..

I didn't actually read it. I just scrolled to the comments to amuse myself. JRM for Prime Minister is the general tone. If the Express thinks his solution is BRILLIANT, then you know it's not worth reading.

'Brilliant' solution is the same one we've been hearing for months - ignore international laws and have a porous border.

The solution was actually set out to the committee by the head of HMRC, on Wednesday, when he said that there was absolutely no need for hard border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, he could implement Government policy and there are declarations that people could make on customs, the same way they do with VAT, and he had no problem with implementing Government policy.

“Therefore, it is up to the European Union and the Republic of Ireland if they wanted to impose their own hard border, but the UK wasn’t going to, didn’t need to, and there is your solution.”

Which, as always, is nonsense.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Without Single Market membership (EEA at a minimum) there is no non hard border.

I wonder how many times this will need to be pointed out.

Heck, even the border that a 'in-EEA NI' would have is harder than today's.

Ardent brexiteers (but honest merchants) @ eureferendum.com flagged this issue up before the vote was even called. Here's an article from pre referendum on the topic http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86001

The DUP are walking NI into that scenario, unbelievably willingly!

.

whatever_

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.

That leading members of Sinn Fein should be calling the British Government "delusional", "living in cloud cuckoo land" etc. should surprise nobody. I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.
However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

I spoke about the Irish psyche. Here's an insight into the English psyche. You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power. If the EU cannot reach a deal with the UK then they will be dealing with a far tougher Johnson / Davis led government.

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

Kermit.de.frog

Sunday Times tomorrow reporting that chances of a deal are no more than 50 - 50 and there is still a long way to go to get a deal.

Sunday Independent saying they have details of an agreed Irish/EU text but May expected to come under pressure from DUP.

Both papers state the deal is that there will be no divergence in regulations between north/south.

Again it's the sea border for slow learners...

Samaris

And Rees-Mogg is the favourite to follow May. God help them. DUP might like him though.

ancapailldorcha

Samaris wrote: »

And Rees-Mogg is the favourite to follow May. God help them. DUP might like him though.

Probably though he is a committed Catholic. They might be willing to overlook that, possibly for a price.

Panrich

whatever_ wrote: »

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.

That leading members of Sinn Fein should be calling the British Government "delusional", "living in cloud cuckoo land" etc. should surprise nobody. I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.
However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

I spoke about the Irish psyche. Here's an insight into the English psyche. You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power. If the EU cannot reach a deal with the UK then they will be dealing with a far tougher Johnson / Davis led government.

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

Thank you for this fascinating post.

Junkyard Tom

whatever_ wrote: »

I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.

Gooooooooooooooood evening.

No Irish politician wants to be responsible for what could turn out be the hard re-partition of Ireland and perhaps the reemergence of conflict. The absolute only way to avoid the above is to prevent the re-imposition of a hard border.

That, Sir, is not a populist stance.

Much loveliness.

JYT.

Kermit.de.frog

SINDO - squint your eyes and you can just about make out the article;)


I feel dirty :pac:

whatever_

whatever_ wrote: »

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.

That leading members of Sinn Fein should be calling the British Government "delusional", "living in cloud cuckoo land" etc. should surprise nobody. I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.
However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

I spoke about the Irish psyche. Here's an insight into the English psyche. You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power. If the EU cannot reach a deal with the UK then they will be dealing with a far tougher Johnson / Davis led government.

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

If the UK maintains a 'soft-border' without a customs agreement, then it will be unable to, nor will there ever be any need whatsoever for them to make any trade deals with anyone. Given that unfettered access to the UK markets would be unilaterally extended to each and every nation in the WTO by such an event, under Most Favoured Nation rules.

This nonsense is rampant, and needs heading off as soon as possible. The UK is legally obliged to police its borders, as are all members of the EU, any contravention of this will open either party up to litigation.

The UK will not begin acting as a pariah state, ignoring the rule of law. Or if it does, then it will be treated as one. Not a great state of affairs by any stretch of the imagination.

The only way for there to be no hard border is for the EU and the UK to be in a customs union. That is it. And even a customs union has border checks. It was only the Single Market that removed borders internally within the EU.

LeinsterDub

whatever_ wrote: »

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.


However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

Why would you build infrastructure that wasn't needed the land bridge with the UK worked fine. What positives do you expect to come from Brexit?

whatever_ wrote: »

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

50 billion bill, ECJ oversight,on going membership fees and whatever NI fudge they come up with. All the winning so much winning

Samaris

whatever_ wrote: »

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

Grand, glad you're with the sea border, if it will make Westminster happy to say it is a brilliant win for them they're welcome to it, tbh. The EU weren't going to impose it though, it is down to the far more fundamental basics of how world trade works by WTO rules - rules that both the EU and the newly Brexited UK follow. Either country breaking that - such as by refusing to enforce borders between regulatory systems, of which NI and RoI would now be two rather than one - results in a breach of WTO rules, which tends to lead on to trade disputes. (Also smuggling and risk of blind-eyeing on tariffs and duties which falls afoul of MFN) That is what Westminster is blithely assuming the EU are happy to swallow when they insist that the border can be kept totally open and it's down to the EU to put one there if they insist. No, Britain would get blindsided by starting negotiations within the WTO with a huge breach going on and the EU would have disputes from trade partners as a result.

One regulatory system on the island itself is more sensible, and has been what the Irish government has been requesting all along (i.e. staying in the CU). The British government wanted a solution to the hard border issue but were doing everything they could to commit nothing to it. Looks like they've come around to the idea, so great, May puts it in writing with a certain amount of detail and we can all move on...

Rain Ascending

axer wrote: »

Some more excellent analysis from Tony Connelly on where things are at here :
https://www.rte.ie/amp/924399/
Phase 2 not starting until at least March means businesses will have to start the process of implementing their contingency plans for a no deal - those jobs moving will really put the fire under the UK during trade talks weakening their hand even further.

Yep. Increasing the perception that a "no deal" scenario is more likely will start to have real-world impact in the new year, by way of job moves (as you flag up) and by way of new investment, new jobs being directed to other countries (which will be less visible, less public). By structuring the negotiations the way they did, the EU actually gave the UK a huge incentive to negotiate Phase 1 to a successful completion. Failure to agree Phase 1 means no deal, which in the EU's eyes, would be a disaster for the UK.

To get around that, the UK, of course, tried to adopt the idea that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal" ... and then failed to take the necessary steps to make that position credible. Logically, they should have acknowledged the problems, the damage that a "no deal" would cause, educated the general public (i.e. released the impact assessments), start to work the mitigation actions, and then realistically articulate the potential benefits. None of this happened, caught as many of the Brexiter proponents were between their implausible arguments and the complex reality of European integration.

So now, to get over Phase 1, Theresa May is having to back down, as fast as she can, hemmed in as she is by hard Brexiters internally, within her party, and the DUP externally. It's not clear that she has enough time to avoid the pit-trap deliberately dug by her own rhetoric.

J Mysterio

:pac:

Stopping Brexit could provide the NHS £300m a week, Sir Vince Cable says

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

....
The only way for there to be no hard border is for the EU and the UK to be in a customs union. That is it. And even a customs union has border checks. It was only the Single Market that removed borders internally within the EU.

The UK knows this btw.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmexeu/372/372.pdf

page 24, note 47 reads:

We welcome the Government’s commitment to “no physical infrastructure” at the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We also welcome its rejection of a customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We do not currently see how it will be possible to reconcile there being no border with the Government’s policy of leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union, which will inevitably make the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland the EU’s customs border with the UK; i.e. including the land border in Northern Ireland and at the ports of Holyhead, Milford Haven and Fishguard that provide freight services to and from the Republic of Ireland. It will be made harder by the fact that the Government’s proposals, by its own admission, are untested and to some extent speculative. We call upon the Government to set out in more detail how a “frictionless” border can in practice be maintained with the UK outside the Single Market and the Customs Union.

steddyeddy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Gooooooooooooooood evening.

No Irish politician wants to be responsible for what could turn out be the hard re-partition of Ireland and perhaps the reemergence of conflict. The absolute only way to avoid the above is to prevent the re-imposition of a hard border.

That, Sir, is not a populist stance.

Much loveliness.

JYT.

How ya diddling?

Indeed Tom. It essentially amounts to repartition and that would be political suicide.

No, thank you!
SE

Rain Ascending

whatever_ wrote: »

I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these [Sinn Fein] populists at bay here at home than anything else.

whatever_ wrote: »

You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power.

Others have commented on other aspects of your post, but these two points stand out for me.

The first is a line that started to emerge in the UK newsmedia after Varadkar's Fine Gael conference speech, in an attempt to link Fine Gael to Sinn Fein. As anybody who follows Irish politics will tell you, this is one of the most implausible arguments ever -- Fine Gael's voter pool is completely separate from, and somewhat antagonistic to, that of Sinn Fein. Some senior political journalists like Laura Kuenssberg repeated this line, showing that they weren't doing the necessary research. Did somebody else from within the British establishment feed this analysis to journalists?

On your second point, I don't doubt your comment regarding the opinion many hold of Corbyn. But taking the broader, UK-wide view, I see that the Mail on Sunday has a poll with Labour eight percentage points ahead of the Conservatives...

Kermit.de.frog

Hear, hear Nigel.

Rain Ascending

For those interested in whether or not there will be disruption to air travel in and out of the UK post-Brexit, they will be glad to know that the UK is considering associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This would be a key move to avoid one set of issues around UK aviation and is good news for Ireland, given the importance of the Dublin-London route.

However it also throws up three interesting points around Phase 2 negotiations, all centered on the critical, boring, complex, unavoidable issue of regulation:

• In many cases, there are structures like the EASA associate membership here, that will help greatly to avoid at least some of the craziness of a hard Brexit. But these are pre-defined -- the UK won't be able to negotiate changes in the detail of these. It either picks them off the menu or discards them. I suspect that aside from the Canada-like trade that needs to be negotiated, a lot of Phase 2 will simply be the UK making decisions on what options it wants to pick and if the EU is not too irritated by the UK, it will agree to that selection.
• But there will be downsides from a UK perspective. My reading of the article is that while UK courts can be used to adjudicate disputes, it is the ECJ that is the ultimate court of appeal. I guess that there will be plenty of internal rows in the UK over the continued influence of the ECJ. It's just not possible to avoid the reach of the ECJ when you deal with the EU.
• Also note the key role played by the US FAA in pushing the UK towards EASA. The UK here has got caught between a rock and a hard place. Regulators with established rules don't do politics, but cold regulation and law. "Deals" and "common sense" do not apply.

Kermit.de.frog

whatever_ wrote: »

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal"

Junkyard Tom

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hear, hear Nigel.

They spelled VETO wrong.

Enzokk

Rain Ascending wrote: »

For those interested in whether or not there will be disruption to air travel in and out of the UK post-Brexit, they will be glad to know that the UK is considering associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This would be a key move to avoid one set of issues around UK aviation and is good news for Ireland, given the importance of the Dublin-London route.

However it also throws up three interesting points around Phase 2 negotiations, all centered on the critical, boring, complex, unavoidable issue of regulation:

• In many cases, there are structures like the EASA associate membership here, that will help greatly to avoid at least some of the craziness of a hard Brexit. But these are pre-defined -- the UK won't be able to negotiate changes in the detail of these. It either picks them off the menu or discards them. I suspect that aside from the Canada-like trade that needs to be negotiated, a lot of Phase 2 will simply be the UK making decisions on what options it wants to pick and if the EU is not too irritated by the UK, it will agree to that selection.
• But there will be downsides from a UK perspective. My reading of the article is that while UK courts can be used to adjudicate disputes, it is the ECJ that is the ultimate court of appeal. I guess that there will be plenty of internal rows in the UK over the continued influence of the ECJ. It's just not possible to avoid the reach of the ECJ when you deal with the EU.
• Also note the key role played by the US FAA in pushing the UK towards EASA. The UK here has got caught between a rock and a hard place. Regulators with established rules don't do politics, but cold regulation and law. "Deals" and "common sense" do not apply.

So this will cost the UK annually to be an associate member of EASA apart from the divorce bill. They will continue to pay into EU budgets, for those parts of the EU they need/want to participate in, and will continue to accept ECJ oversight for those institutions they continue to be part of. But they will not have voting rights.

Taking back control sounds a lot like giving it up to me, but whatever floats the boat I assume.

What's the story with the BBC's comments sections under articles? Just had a look there and I think I lost around 20 IQ trying to twist my head around the nonsense.


One of the highest posts was about the UK selling EU manufacturing tech to China, striking a good deal, and then buying it from them instead of the EU.

I thought that level of stupidity only existed in TV shows.

Pablo Escobar

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the story with the BBC's comments sections under articles? Just had a look there and I think I lost around 20 IQ trying to twist my head around the nonsense.


One of the highest posts was about the UK selling EU manufacturing tech to China, striking a good deal, and then buying it from them instead of the EU.

I thought that level of stupidity only existed in TV shows.

The internet has provided a platform for the stupid to raise their heads above the parapet. And they really have seized the opportunity.

solodeogloria

Rain Ascending wrote: »

For those interested in whether or not there will be disruption to air travel in and out of the UK post-Brexit, they will be glad to know that the UK is considering associate membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This would be a key move to avoid one set of issues around UK aviation and is good news for Ireland, given the importance of the Dublin-London route.

However it also throws up three interesting points around Phase 2 negotiations, all centered on the critical, boring, complex, unavoidable issue of regulation:

• In many cases, there are structures like the EASA associate membership here, that will help greatly to avoid at least some of the craziness of a hard Brexit. But these are pre-defined -- the UK won't be able to negotiate changes in the detail of these. It either picks them off the menu or discards them. I suspect that aside from the Canada-like trade that needs to be negotiated, a lot of Phase 2 will simply be the UK making decisions on what options it wants to pick and if the EU is not too irritated by the UK, it will agree to that selection.
• But there will be downsides from a UK perspective. My reading of the article is that while UK courts can be used to adjudicate disputes, it is the ECJ that is the ultimate court of appeal. I guess that there will be plenty of internal rows in the UK over the continued influence of the ECJ. It's just not possible to avoid the reach of the ECJ when you deal with the EU.
• Also note the key role played by the US FAA in pushing the UK towards EASA. The UK here has got caught between a rock and a hard place. Regulators with established rules don't do politics, but cold regulation and law. "Deals" and "common sense" do not apply.

Good morning!

Perhaps I'm becoming soft but this sounds like arbitration and not direct rule:

Norway and Switzerland have joint committees to allow that jurisdiction to operate indirectly, but it still exists.

I'm not opposed to associate membership as a temporary measure. I still think the end goal should be a regulatory body of its own.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Perhaps I'm becoming soft but this sounds like arbitration and not direct rule:


I'm not opposed to associate membership as a temporary measure. I still think the end goal should be a regulatory body of its own.

You may have missed this quote in there as well though,

Captain Mike Vivian, former head of flight operations and chief flight operations inspector at the CAA, told Sky News: "If you have an alternative system of jurisdiction... if you do that in aviation, you could of course open up different safety standards.

"That would be impossible to accede to, so you have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, which oversees the European agency, EASA, to avoid that happening.

"I can't see there's any way out of that. It's a red line, it seems to me, the Government is going to have to cross."

The FAA has warned the UK that it will make it difficult for them if they aren't a member of EASA. Now the UK brings a lot to the table for EASA, no doubt about that. But if they exit with no deal then the UK has no part in any aviation agreements that is currently has as part of EASA.

I have no doubt that an independent UK agency can do the work, however it is just adding cost to work already being done. But this only increases the pressure on Theresa May and her government to make a deal with the EU that will have the UK crossing the red lines from the exit date.

If the UK economy is stuttering and they are still sort of in the EU but not in the EU I think minds will start changing on why they are not part of the EU. Once the extra costs of setting up those agencies that they want to leave to ensure the ECJ has no say in the UK starts adding up it will make it even more obvious that pooling resources was a good idea.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

It's indirect jurisdiction through a joint committee. I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement on a temporary basis. This is also why I'm happy with joint arbitration on the Brexit deal.

The end state should be regulatory competence of its own but until that is met I think EASA as a transition is completely fine.

I don't know why you're bringing "no deal" up. I'm in favour of a negotiated exit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Igotadose

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's indirect jurisdiction through a joint committee. I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement on a temporary basis. This is also why I'm happy with joint arbitration on the Brexit deal.

The end state should be regulatory competence of its own but until that is met I think EASA as a transition is completely fine.

I don't know why you're bringing "no deal" up. I'm in favour of a negotiated exit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The day I'd fly a UK-regulated-only plane anywhere in this endgame is... never. Bad enough state of aircraft and flying these days *with* the EASA and the FAA running things. Old overworked planes, overworked crews, overworked ground crew.

Nope. Stay in the EASA/FAA forever, or lose customers.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's indirect jurisdiction through a joint committee. I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement on a temporary basis. This is also why I'm happy with joint arbitration on the Brexit deal.

The end state should be regulatory competence of its own but until that is met I think EASA as a transition is completely fine.

I don't know why you're bringing "no deal" up. I'm in favour of a negotiated exit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you have accepted a doubling of the settlement bill.
You have accepted that the £350m to NHS was a lie
You have accepted an (at least) 0.4% drop in growth for the next five years.
You have accepted a fall off of growth from the fastest growing economy to the slowest since the vote
You have accepted a fall from 5th to 6th in the rankings, that has cost around £20bn since the vote.
And now you are prepared to accept indirect jurisdiction from a European body.
You have accepted an undefined transition period (I thought this was going to be the easiest deal ever)
You seem to be prepared to accept regulatory compliance.
If there anything you are not prepared to accept to get this Brexit?

Water John

The retreat is awfully like ' The Races of Castlebar'.
Historocal ref.

Panrich

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you have accepted a doubling of the settlement bill.
You have accepted that the £350m to NHS was a lie
You have accepted an (at least) 0.4% drop in growth for the next five years.
You have accepted a fall off of growth from the fastest growing economy to the slowest since the vote
You have accepted a fall from 5th to 6th in the rankings, that has cost around £20bn since the vote.
And now you are prepared to accept indirect jurisdiction from a European body.
You have accepted an undefined transition period (I thought this was going to be the easiest deal ever)
You seem to be prepared to accept regulatory compliance.
If there anything you are not prepared to accept to get this Brexit?

The reality is that many Brexit supporters will have their own red lines that they will not accept and these might differ from one to the next.

As we are moving through this process, we seem to be adding to your list on a daily basis. Regulatory divergence (a sea border) between UK/NI seems inevitable to get to phase 2. That’s a red line for many more.

Once we get to phase 2 and the EU insist on punishment clauses for divergence, then that will be unacceptable to many many more again.

By the end of the process there will be precious few Brexit supporters who will have the Brexit that they wanted and that will include Solo as well as the Conservatives, UKIP and the DUP.

Leroy42

And isn't that one of the key problems.

The best that My has come up with is that 'Brexit means Brexit'. Nobody has any idea what it actually means, apart from what they themselves believe it to mean.

For example, one of the main points repeated during the campaign was that Brexit does not mean leaving the SM.

And if UK don't know what Brexit is supposed to actually mean, then how is anybody supposed to know. There are red lines, that are non negotiable negotiables. We have a non hard border position, unless we need one.

We have better trade deal with the EU, unless they are mean.

And that whats annoys me. The UK are so quick to blame others (the mean EU, the ungrateful and inexperienced Irish) when the fact is that they have no real idea what they want, how they can achieve it, or what their overall plan even is.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK knows this btw.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmexeu/372/372.pdf

page 24, note 47 reads:

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a member of the committee that drew up this paper repeats the assertion on Andrew Marr this morning that a border can just be ignored. -
"We have no intention of putting up a border".

Charlatan.

edgecutter

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the story with the BBC's comments sections under articles? Just had a look there and I think I lost around 20 IQ trying to twist my head around the nonsense.


One of the highest posts was about the UK selling EU manufacturing tech to China, striking a good deal, and then buying it from them instead of the EU.

I thought that level of stupidity only existed in TV shows.

Full of Russian bots

MPFGLB

whatever_ wrote: »

As an Irish resident and UK citizen who voted for Brexit, I think that the one-sided portrayal of Brexit in the Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you. However I would like to make a few points regarding the border debate.

That leading members of Sinn Fein should be calling the British Government "delusional", "living in cloud cuckoo land" etc. should surprise nobody. I understand that Leo Varadkar's tough talking over the border issue may have far more to do with keeping these populists at bay here at home than anything else.
However, if he really believes that there is a threat of a "hard border" then should he not be busy building Ireland's infrastructure ? Currently all our gas is imported from Britain. Why is there still no pipeline to France ? Why are our exports to mainland Europe sent across the border instead of directly to France ? Answer: our lack of investment in infrastructure means that the British route is cheaper. And don’t even get me started on Metro North (a major reason why we are unable attract any sports tournaments or European agencies here).

I am aware that the British press are reporting the border issue as a "done deal" and I know that this is not yet the case. However, this is looking very good for the Conservatives. I know both sides in this have compromised, but look at the likely outcome. No hard border, no customs union, more powers dumped on the NI Executive, and they get to blame Varadkar if things go wrong or if the Unionists get upset. It’s not really a compromise at all. It’s not even a win- win. It’s a win-win-win-win all the way for the Conservative Government.

I spoke about the Irish psyche. Here's an insight into the English psyche. You can't really be English and of a certain age without harbouring a deep respect for Jeremy Corbyn. We feel the same way about the Queen. But that does not mean that we will allow either of them to have any real power. If the EU cannot reach a deal with the UK then they will be dealing with a far tougher Johnson / Davis led government.

Either way, there will be no hard border unless the EU impose it. Like Hong Kong, this is starting to look like a triumph for British diplomacy. That was called “one country , two systems” .This is looking more like “two countries, one system”.

As an Irish person living in th UK of over 20 years standing who voted remain, married to an Englishman , who works daily with English people (some who voted leave) I have to comment on your post

The implication that the 'Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you.' I find distasteful especially if in comparison you do not accept that the Brexit loving British press with it jingoism and racism & ignorance says more about the Briitish Brexiter psyche than any intelligent Irish person should have to put up with ?

The English people I encounter everyday (of a certain age) do not all respect Jeremy Corby and the Queen and most are sick and ashamed of their press and government and find the whole thing distasteful, even the brexiters
But unlike you I will not talk for the British person psyche....

I will say that if you don’t understand that being Irish means that there is an emotional response to the issue of Northern Ireland by most Irish people that goes beyond borders, EU deals and is based in centuries of history that cannot be shaken then you really should not be speaking on the Irish psyche

That any of this is or will turn out to be a win for British diplomacy is delusional…guess (for the first time) I am with SF on that point

Samaris

Tbh, negotiating with a Johnson/Anyone group would be worse. The current group are bad enough, picking the wrong battles to fight, ignoring battles that they must fight and attacking their allies half the time. Johnson would do all that while being Boris fecking Johnson and god help Britain if they are to rely on his expertise and common sense for their future. The man is a buffoon with an even greater lack of understanding of what the EU is and how it works than the rest of them.

That has been a millstone around the necks of the British negotiators so far, a complete lack of understanding of their negotiating opponants and how they work by those in charge of Brexit. And worse, a critical lack of trying to either.

flaneur

On these points about “why isn’t there a gas line to France” or “why are Irish businesses over focused on the uk market”. The answer is simple: nobody ever imagined that the UK would suddenly pull the plug from the entire European single market project and all EU countries are closely integrated to neighbors. There’s absolutely nothing strange about that.

Why would Ireland have spent a fortune building gas lines under the Atlantic to France when we could share infrastructure with the UK? We all had a reasonable expectation of continuity of the single market.

We were encouraged to cooperate and see it as one bloc, one group, one market and to share and integrate networks. We were encouraged by policy to do things like integrate electricity markets and gas markets and our key partner in that has just torn up the contract and stormed off.

Should we also build a gas line to Norway, you know ... in case France ever goes completely bonkers and cuts us off? Or can we assume that the rest of the EU isn’t quite so unreliable?

Energy suppliers in Ireland buy gas on the global market which may transition the UK network. We aren’t buying gas from the UK exclusively.

If you are suggesting the UK cuts Ireland off or tariffs us, it would be behaving like Russia towards Eastern European states and cutting energy supplies for political reasons.

In that case, the EU should rightly impose trade sanctions as it would be utterly unacceptable behavior.

I’m also sure companies like Gasprom, Statoil, Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Total and so on would be highly unlikely to take legal action against a state blocking them from accessing customers too. They’d just accept Brexit politics...?!? They’re lovely and never sue or politically pressure anyone.

As for Irish businesses, they’re having fundamental parts of the foundations of the market torn up by the UK. How they operated was absolutely reasonable. Nobody in their right mind would have expected this to actually happen.

Creating this kind of chaos and uncertainty is going to cause problems similar to any other bout of geopolitical chaos. Nobody in business here where they’ve exposure to the UK or in the UK itself can reasonably plan.

The whole thing about the EU has been it creates a single, huge, STABLE and barrier free internal market. Brexit potentially returns Britain to a much less powerful version of how it was in the middle 20th century and in a world dominated by very different power structures and where it is just going to be a mid sized country being bounced around.

Assuming it does go for a hard Brexit, the consequences are just totally unpredictable. I wouldn’t really take any of the economic forecasts seriously as there’s no precedent and there are too many variables, many of which are political and not economic or rational.

Having watched yet more pontification and clueless arrogance on the Marr show on BBC this morning, I see nothing changing. Same characters ranting and raving and the same totally uninformed debate. You might as well be listening to a bunch of people discussing stuff they heard from a taxi driver after a few pints in the pub.

We should be preparing for the worst - the UK chaotically crashing out of the single market, probably a hard border with NI and the likely political and security problems that will bring and possible serious problems in Britain as the consequences of that will inevitably lead to a complete mess.

FrancieBrady

MPFGLB wrote: »

As an Irish person living in th UK of over 20 years standing who voted remain, married to an Englishman , who works daily with English people (some who voted leave) I have to comment on your post

The implication that the 'Irish media before and since the referendum says far more about the Irish psyche than any polite and reasonable Englishman would ever spell out to you.' I find distasteful especially if in comparison you do not accept that the Brexit loving British press with it jingoism and racism & ignorance says more about the Briitish Brexiter psyche than any intelligent Irish person should have to put up with ?

The English people I encounter everyday (of a certain age) do not all respect Jeremy Corby and the Queen and most are sick and ashamed of their press and government and find the whole thing distasteful, even the brexiters
But unlike you I will not talk for the British person psyche....

I will say that if you don’t understand that being Irish means that there is an emotional response to the issue of Northern Island by most Irish people that goes beyond borders, EU deals and is based in centuries of history that cannot be shaken then you really should not be speaking on the Irish psyche

That any of this is or will turn out to be a win for British diplomacy is delusional…guess (for the first time I am with SF) on that point

Two things flabberghast me about 'whatever's' post: one, that they could read this thread and believe that it is the Irish and EU who will impose/be responsible for a border and two, having lived in this country that he/she believes that SF are dictating the government's stance.

Ill-informed is not the word.

flaneur

Well the current UK government / Brexiteer tactic appears to be to try to blame the EU on all negative consequences of Brexit and to stamp their feet and scream like a toddler when they can’t get exactly what they want.

They’ll try to blame the Northern Irish border on the EU and the Irish government for not just rolling over and bending to their will.

It’s a bit like someone threatening self harm when they don’t get their own way and then blaming a 3rd party for making them do it.

What’s more worrying is a significant % of the public and media will 100% buy into this and you can fully expect a very strange and hostile rhetoric for the next few years.

The only way I see this resolving is a general election in the UK before it’s too late.

If Arleen had any sense, she’d pick a politically neutral issue like failure to fund NI social projects or health and pull the plug. But, sadly, I think the DUP is blinded by sectarianism and will become more committed the harder the Brexit as it suits them to be cut off from the “south”.

LeinsterDub

The text in the Sindo if true amounts to a complete compliance of the UK to the EU's position

MPFGLB

Just watched the Andrew Marr show and Simon Covney was the only one on it who talked sense about Brexit

Where are the British government (with their great diplomacy:D) on this matter
Only Rees Mogg & Farage on with their usual biased spittle there to put the British case

(In fact Farage should be prosecuted for inciting hate imo)

Samaris

Can't link, but it's in the Guardian. So a bunch of 30-odd wild Brexiteers lead by Redwood, Duncan Smith et al have, day before deadline, added a whole bunch of red lines. This is actually adding red lines, unlike the Irish gov saying "so, that border we agreed to talk about".

The square to be circled is now a Rorshach blob with spikes.

No ECJ juristiction DURING transition.
Divorce bill must guarentee free trade deal with no tariffs or non-tariff barriers (last bit may be D-S alone). Also, incredulous lol.
Must be able to implement other trade deals diring transition.
Free movement must end.
UK must be exempt from any new rules.

Exactly how are we going to keep regulatory convergeance here anyway?

flaneur

If nothing else, I think it’s given a lot of Europeans a view of the kind of crazy we have had to deal with in the past. I’ve had a few comments to that effect from people in Germany, Belgium and France.

Samaris

This whole bloody thing just can't work, can it. We're trying, but the arch-Brexiteers inexplicably in charge are talking out of their rear ends.

LeinsterDub

Samaris wrote: »

Can't link, but it's in the Guardian. So a bunch of 30-odd wild Brexiteers lead by Redwood, Duncan Smith et al have, day before deadline, added a whole bunch of red lines. This is actually adding red lines, unlike the Irish gov saying "so, that border we agreed to talk about".

The square to be circled is now a Rorshach blob with spikes.

No ECJ juristiction DURING transition.
Divorce bill must guarentee free trade deal with no tariffs or non-tariff barriers (last bit may be D-S alone). Also, incredulous lol.
Must be able to implement other trade deals diring transition.
Free movement must end.
UK must be exempt from any new rules.

Exactly how are we going to keep regulatory convergeance here anyway?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/03/tory-brexiters-set-new-red-lines-over-ecj-and-free-movement

Here you go.

ArmaniJeanss

Samaris wrote: »

Can't link, but it's in the Guardian. So a bunch of 30-odd wild Brexiteers lead by Redwood, Duncan Smith et al have, day before deadline, added a whole bunch of red lines. This is actually adding red lines, unlike the Irish gov saying "so, that border we agreed to talk about".

Link here.