Brexit discussion thread II

flatty

ambro25 wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

<...> I have actually friends returning to Ireland because the funding is not being renewed next year because it's European funding they cannot get from the UK government they've tried.

These are real people and real scenarios occurring right now.

Not some random scenario that is being dreamt up.

Project reality in full effect despite your usherings to the Contrary.
<...>

We had at least one UK tech start-up as a client, which is now in admin (effectively, folded) because the EIF culled its funding to their (middleman) UK investor and so they're not getting their next, life-giving investment round. That's about 3 months after this article.

I spoke with the CEO only last week, about ways and means to keep servicing levels and their IP portfolio alive, whilst they scramble for alt funding and phoenixing. He said the UK investor (Newcastle based) had confirmed that the EIF had pulled the funding on the back of the June 2017 GE result.

They're not alone, I'm afraid (other UK start-ups depending on that particular UK investor are not getting their slice of EIF funding either).

That's about £20k's worth of business per annum to us, to say nothing of the start-up's employees, and other suppliers, etc. That's on top of the EU work we're beginning to lose (and may eventually lose completely come 2019...and that is 'comfortable' 6 figures' worth) per my earlier post above.

Put it that way: so far as I'm concerned, from my caseload and figures over the past 12 months, it's like 2008 all over again, more or less. Fewer clients hitting the buffers than then, sure...but most of them sitting on their waiting-and-seeing thumbs, and not spending a dime on IP. You'd tell me the UK went from G7 powerhouse to G7 red lantern inside one year, I'd easily believe you. Because that's exactly what the coalface is showing me.

It's only going to get worse. Quite a lot worse. It may be that it is merely hastening a reckoning that was overdue, as it may well mean that the UK can no longer borrow money cheaply, and has to begin to cut its cloth, but it is going to be really quite nasty.
Teresa et al will, as we all know, blame the EU.

steddyeddy

Andre Geim, Nobel prize winning discoverer of graphene is considering leaving the UK with his research. Graphene is one atom thick and 200 times stronger than steel. He says the level of international applications have dropped post Brexit. A survey by the publication Nature revealed that 83% of researchers would vote to remain. Geim commented “I went to bed acknowledging the human species were not very smart animals.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/brexit-latest-scientist-andre-geim-graphene-discovery-university-manchester-eu-exit-withdrawal-a7886416.html

joeysoap

To be fair

considering leaving both Britain and the EU

Nody

Enjoy a laugh; here's the UK position paper on trade. It includes the following:

Principles for an agreement on goods
15.
To achieve these objectives, the UK proposes the following four principles.
a.
First, to ensure the continued availability of products on EU and UK markets at the date of withdrawal, goods placed on the Single Market before exit should continue to circulate freely in the UK and the EU, without additional requirements or restrictions.
b.
Second, to avoid unnecessary duplication of activities and provide legal certainty, where businesses have undertaken compliance activities prior to exit, they should not be required to duplicate these activities in order to place goods on the UK and the EU market after exit. This includes recognising the validity of type approvals, certificates and registrations issued prior to exit.
c.
Third, to ensure that goods in circulation continue to comply with product legislation, and market surveillance authorities can ensure the necessary action is taken with respect to non-compliant products, the agreement should facilitate the continued oversight of goods.
d.
Fourth, where goods are supplied with services, there should be no restriction to the provision of these services that could undermine the agreement on goods

Now A makes sense; if goods were legal under EU law when produced they should still be legal after Brexit. B is a stretch since there is now no oversight to confirm they are still complying or checking if the product has changed and C is a pipe dream which would require EU to break their own laws to make it happen (among other 6 month time period to review quality of controls) AND would require UK to have set up ALL duplication standards AND be complaint with all EU laws inc. ECJ decisions. How does this square with May's "Brexit is Brexit" again? And of course they expect EU to accept that UK "we want our own legislation" will somehow not only comply but that UK companies will be allowed to use UK certifications as valid after Brexit... Eat cake and have it much lately?

steddyeddy

joeysoap wrote: »

To be fair

considering leaving both Britain and the EU

He also said:

“We cannot even expect a neutral outcome anymore,” he says. “The question now is simply: to what extent is this going to be a disaster for science in the U.K.” Geim suspects the U.K. will be summarily “kicked out of crucial scientific collaborations” such as the European Innovation Council and Horizon 2020, an enterprise touted as “the biggest EU Research and Innovation program ever” which provides almost €80 billion ($94 billion) to researchers seeking to take their ideas “from the lab to the market.”

steddyeddy

Nody wrote: »

Enjoy a laugh; here's the UK position paper on trade. It includes the following:
Now A makes sense; if goods were legal under EU law when produced they should be still legal after Brexit. B is a stretch since there is now no oversight to confirm they are still complying or checking if the product has changed and C is a pipe dream which would require EU to break their own laws to make it happen (among other 6 month time period to review quality of controls) AND would require UK to have set up ALL duplication standards AND be complaint with all EU laws inc. ECJ decisions. How does this square with May's "Brexit is Brexit" again? And of course they expect EU to accept that UK "we want our own legislation" will somehow not only comply but that UK companies will be allowed to use UK certifications as valid after Brexit... Eat cake and have it much lately?

Exactly a have cake and eat it scenario. It would be crazy to accept this.

Peregrinus

joeysoap wrote: »

To be fair

considering leaving both Britain and the EU

As far as I can see from the article, he's considering leaving the EU only in the sense that, if he is to move out of the UK, he is not committed to moving to somewhere in the EU; he'll look at all options, whether within or without the EU. He doesn't express any dissatisfaction with the funding or environment for scientific research within the EU.

Nody

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Apparently, about 20% of Leave Voters are still expecting the NHS to be funded with the money that is currently spent on EU membership:

And more telling from another poll:

According to a survey by Opinium, 26 per cent of all Brexit voters said they were misled by promises made during the campaign.

When respondents were asked whether they believed the £350m pledge, a quarter of all voters said they did: 35 per cent of Leave voters and 16 per cent of voters who voted to Remain.

The poll found that more than a year after the vote, half of all respondents found the Leave campaign mostly or completely misleading with only 19 per cent describing it as truthful.

Not in the article but the poll data the figure for the remain campaign lying is 37% as a reference. But according to solodeogloria and I quote:

The gullible, feeble minded people argument doesn't wash with me and it never will. It's full of condescending attitudes to what was the biggest vote on a matter in British history in terms of turnout.

jm08

Nody wrote: »

And yet with this "sacrifice" under EU the export of fish has grown as part of total export from 0.7% (before joining) to 2.9% (after joining) on top of modernizing the fleets, providing actual ships to protect the fishing grounds etc. The simple fact is Ireland had not, would not and has never had a better fishing fleet then what it got under EU inc. possibility to protect it's waters. However the story how countless hundreds of billions were either given away or stolen by EU keeps popping up as regularly as the gazillions of gas/oil that the state is "giving away" through licenses and regulation (fanned by a handful of small exploration companies who've failed to find these wast natural resources for decades somehow).

At one stage one fishing boat was responsible for 1/3 of the Irish catch (Atlantic Mist out of Killybegs). It was banned from fishing in European waters and ended up fishing off the coast of Africa where it was also banned from fishing. Its now in Dutch ownership (called the Annelies Ilena) and can be seen regularly fishing off the coast of Ireland.

The Irish navy are looking out for EU interests which includes making sure Irish fishermen are keeping to the rules.

This is an interesting read on the saga of Atlantic Mist and its then owner, Kevin McHugh.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/controversial-millionaire-trawler-owner-dies-of-cjd-26353310.html

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Enjoy a laugh; here's the UK position paper on trade. It includes the following:

Principles for an agreement on goods
15.
To achieve these objectives, the UK proposes the following four principles.
a.
First, to ensure the continued availability of products on EU and UK markets at the date of withdrawal, goods placed on the Single Market before exit should continue to circulate freely in the UK and the EU, without additional requirements or restrictions.

Weasel words there , "placed on the Single Market"

Ships take years to build. Rolls Royce sell jet engines years and years ahead with very long service contracts.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/yr-2017/16-03-2017-rr-wins-long-term-service-contract-for-mtu-engines.aspx

The EU is talking about goods actually in transit at the time of Brexit.

Water John

Many sectors now getting jittery, esp aviation.

ArthurDayne

bill66 wrote: »

Wow, what an amazing comment, I am surprised you have time to post here, what with counting your money from your 100% success in economic forecasting.

I would suggest that no one knows what the impact of Brexit will be, good, bad or indifferent or which parts of the EU or Britain will be affected in which way. There is simply not enough evidence to make a reasoned and accurate prediction. Anyone who offers any such a prediction on either side of the debate is merely pissing in the wind.

In fairness, there is a truth in what you are saying but I think also a misapplication of the effect of 'risk'. Ultimately, risk in the business sense is simply the uncertainty of outcome -- and the greater the uncertainty, the greater the risk. Over the past year or so, directors and senior management in Boardrooms were adopting a 'wait and see' approach on how the shock of the Brexit referendum result would ultimately pan out. But 'wait and see' is not a long-term stance which sits very well with anyone involved in navigating the choppy and risky seas of the financial markets. Companies have 'waited and seen' and what they have seen is nothing but an ongoing fumbling around as to what Brexit actually entails, never mind the means by which it will be executed or the timeframe for that execution.

Maybe nothing will really come of Brexit, maybe it wouldn't be all that bad of a thing when it is given the chance to fully embed. But Mr CEO and his colleagues simply cannot afford to sit around waiting for nothing to happen -- they cannot justify to their shareholders a stance of "Oh we can't really say with any certainty right now how Brexit is going to pan out because nobody has a clue so we're just going to keep rolling with the same business model and hope it all works out". No, they have to take action to mitigate the risk of Brexit uncertainty, and the best way to do that is to start assessing what parts of the business can be shifted to remain within the 'safety' of the economic superpower of the EU. We are seeing the beginnings of that leakage now, but also still a little bit of 'wait and see'. Bit by bit, patience wears out and a decision is made to mitigate.

So, going back to the truth of your post -- yes, we cannot predict how Brexit will pan out. But it is the very existence of that doubt which is already causing damage -- and will continue to do so.

Kermit.de.frog

Irish Times tomorrow saying the government has rejected British proposals for an "invisible" border.

solodeogloria

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Irish Times tomorrow saying the government has rejected British proposals for an "invisible" border.

Good morning!

I just read the article. It's got lots of Leo Varadkar saying that the British should stay in the single market and the customs union and the claim that the British proposals are insufficient without a single reason why they would be.

Following this you have James Brokenshire giving very clearly the reason why Britain cannot stay in the single market and customs union and explaining how their proposals can work in practice.

I think people need to realise that the UK won't be moved on this including the Taoiseach. What's needed is constructive engagement within the red lines.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

I can't read the article because it's paywalled.

I think it's probably true that the UK won't move on this - unless there's a change of government, which right now doesn't seem imminent.

I don't think anybody expects the UK to change their minds and embrace the EEA and the customs union. What they do expect, or at least hope, is that the UK will come to understand that its fixed determination to leave the customs union and the single market does mean that its border proposals are unrealistic. At some point the British will have to accept that if they want an open border, as they claim, they must compromise to some extent on customs/market autonomy. The present "we can have it all!" stance is simply not credible.

They need to make choices here, and they need to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Until they get to that stage of realism attempts to negotiate with them will be frustrating and largely fruitless. All the while time is running out. Britain will suffer for its persistent wishful thinking, but Ireland - north and south - will suffer more. Is it any wonder if Varadkar sounds a bit cranky?

Christy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I just read the article. It's got lots of Leo Varadkar saying that the British should stay in the single market and the customs union and the claim that the British proposals are insufficient without a single reason why they would be.

Following this you have James Brokenshire giving very clearly the reason why Britain cannot stay in the single market and customs union and explaining how their proposals can work in practice.

I think people need to realise that the UK won't be moved on this including the Taoiseach. What's needed is constructive engagement within the red lines.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leo said that the British were trying to remain a part of the customs union by proxy which does appear to be what the British are doing by attempting to remove tariffs for a large percentage of northern Irish businesses when the bring goods into the EU.

The UK know what the line is on the customs union. Trying to sneak in through the back door is pathetic.

Leonard Hofstadter

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can't read the article because it's paywalled.

Article not behind a paywall for me.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can't read the article because it's paywalled.

I think it's probably true that the UK won't move on this - unless there's a change of government, which right now doesn't seem imminent.

I don't think anybody expects the UK to change their minds and embrace the EEA and the customs union. What they do expect, or at least hope, is that the UK will come to understand that its fixed determination to leave the customs union and the single market does mean that its border proposals are unrealistic. At some point the British will have to accept that if they want an open border, as they claim, they must compromise to some extent on customs/market autonomy. The present "we can have it all!" stance is simply not credible.

They need to make choices here, and they need to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Until they get to that stage of realism attempts to negotiate with them will be frustrating and largely fruitless. All the while time is running out. Britain will suffer for its persistent wishful thinking, but Ireland - north and south - will suffer more. Is it any wonder if Varadkar sounds a bit cranky?

Good morning!

It depends on what your definition of "realistic" is. Given the assumption that the European Union can't and won't be flexible then of course it isn't realistic. At this point we're not certain if this being true.

As for criticism of the UK being aspirational and trying to get the best deal possible - the only response is obviously that it is. The whole point of putting an opening gambit on the table is that progress can be made to a final conclusion. That's how negotiating works.

It isn't Britain's role to decide what the European Union will or won't accept. It is for the European Union to decide what it will and won't accept and moreover the responsibility for what the European Union will or won't accept rests with it alone. As for our Taoiseach, he could begin to discuss the British proposals with James Brokenshire and see how these could work instead of being shrill about them.

Of course there will be push back back and forwards but that's what negotiations are for. You don't concede everything at the start. It seems like you think Britain should just roll over in the discussion. Obviously that isn't their stance.

There are still 3 months of discussion before the European Council summit in October. We've got one next week on August 28th, September 18th and October 9th before the summit. Given the direction of travel so far I think there's every chance that good progress can be made.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It depends on what your definition of "realistic" is. Given the assumption that the European Union can't and won't be flexible then of course it isn't realistic. At this point we're not certain if this being true.

As for criticism of the UK being aspirational and trying to get the best deal possible - the only response is obviously that it is. The whole point of putting an opening gambit on the table is that progress can be made to a final conclusion. That's how negotiating works.

It isn't Britain's role to decide what the European Union will or won't accept. It is for the European Union to decide what it will and won't accept and moreover the responsibility for what the European Union will or won't accept rests with it alone. As for our Taoiseach, he could begin to discuss the British proposals with James Brokenshire and see how these could work instead of being shrill about them.

Of course there will be push back back and forwards but that's what negotiations are for. You don't concede everything at the start. It seems like you think Britain should just roll over in the discussion. Obviously that isn't their stance.

There are still 3 months of discussion before the European Council summit in October. We've got one next week on August 28th, September 18th and October 9th before the summit. Given the direction of travel so far I think there's every chance that good progress can be made.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I'm assuming you think that their proposal is realistic?

Because that's a direct question I'm asking forget the negotiation flight of fancy in the text above. Do you think the proposal is realistic.

Specifically the open border.

Chips Lovell

I think the message intended for Brokenshire to take back to London is that the ball is in the UK government's court now. What they're proposing is "insufficient" for Ireland to vote for advancing negotiations to the second phase in October.

jm08

Leo's interview on bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-21/ireland-s-varadkar-puzzled-by-u-k-trade-demands-video

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

URL=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-rejects-british-proposals-on-invisible-border-1.3195104]I just read the article[/URL]. It's got lots of Leo Varadkar saying that the British should stay in the single market and the customs union and the claim that the British proposals are insufficient without a single reason why they would be.

Following this you have James Brokenshire giving very clearly the reason why Britain cannot stay in the single market and customs union and explaining how their proposals can work in practice.

I think people need to realise that the UK won't be moved on this including the Taoiseach. What's needed is constructive engagement within the red lines.

Am I missing something here or does the UK want the be separate of the customs union but not have customs checks? That seems to be what they are proposing with the border, to have a border where there are no customs checks but not to be party to the customs union and negotiate their own trade deals.

Do you think that is a working solution? Why would the EU continue if this is possible for any other countries?

Kermit.de.frog

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think the message intended for Brokenshire to take back to London is that the ball is in the UK government's court now. What they're proposing is "insufficient" for Ireland to vote for advancing negotiations to the second phase in October.

They are staring down the barrel of a veto on to the next stage.

In fact the mood music in the EU suggest this could be unanimous.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It depends on what your definition of "realistic" is. Given the assumption that the European Union can't and won't be flexible then of course it isn't realistic. At this point we're not certain if this being true.

As for criticism of the UK being aspirational and trying to get the best deal possible - the only response is obviously that it is. The whole point of putting an opening gambit on the table is that progress can be made to a final conclusion. That's how negotiating works.

It isn't Britain's role to decide what the European Union will or won't accept. It is for the European Union to decide what it will and won't accept and moreover the responsibility for what the European Union will or won't accept rests with it alone. As for our Taoiseach, he could begin to discuss the British proposals with James Brokenshire and see how these could work instead of being shrill about them.

Of course there will be push back back and forwards but that's what negotiations are for. You don't concede everything at the start. It seems like you think Britain should just roll over in the discussion. Obviously that isn't their stance.

There are still 3 months of discussion before the European Council summit in October. We've got one next week on August 28th, September 18th and October 9th before the summit. Given the direction of travel so far I think there's every chance that good progress can be made.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

When you consider that nowhere in the world is there an open border between two large economies without a customs union, then you realise that the UK's proposals are unrealistic.

The UK position remains that they want to leave the EU, stop paying the money, get out from under the ECJ, control immigration, but still want all the benefits of free trade, being able to retire to the sun etc. Until the UK realises that there are downsides to leaving the EU, there won't be any progress.

I think what's beginning to happen in UK government circles is that the realisation is slowly dawning that the upside of being able to negotiate a different FTA with Indonesia doesn't outweigh the downside of losing full access to the EU hence the unworkable proposal to have their cake and eat it.

First Up

blanch152 wrote:

I think what's beginning to happen in UK government circles is that the realisation is slowly dawning that the upside of being able to negotiate a different FTA with Indonesia doesn't outweigh the downside of losing full access to the EU hence the unworkable proposal to have their cake and eat it.

Especially if the different FTA with Indonesia is worse than the one they have as an EU member.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for our Taoiseach, he could begin to discuss the British proposals with James Brokenshire and see how these could work instead of being shrill about them.

If the UK want to play silly games that is on them. There is no reason for us to play along. The bottom line is that there is no way Ireland or the EU is going to allow a situation where GMO products or whatever can flow unrestricted into the EU. Either the UK enters into a customs union with the EU, accepts restrictions on its right to negotiate trade deals or it does not. That is up to them. As TM would say it is a red line item.

steddyeddy

I get the impression the UK are trying to use the Irish border as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. Not surprising considering May's attitudes to the North.

Nody

steddyeddy wrote: »

I get the impression the UK are trying to use the Irish border as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. Not surprising considering May's attitudes to the North.

Except EU has already said they are not going to talk trade until it's resolved to a satisfactory level (which clearly is not the case today and has been stated by multiple countries); it's once again Brexit style "If you don't give me what I want I'll shoot myself in my knee cap" style negotiation where EU honestly has a lot less to lose compared to UK yet UK thinks threatening self harm will sway EU somehow.

murphaph

Yes I believe they are trying to leverage the Irish border to sneak in a porous border for themselves (that they can point to when it comes to discussing cross channel customs arrangements).

It's patent nonsense to call for a porous border for some firms. It's completely unworkable and would be a burocratic nightmare.

Jim2007

Nody wrote: »

"If you don't give me what I want I'll shoot myself in my knee cap" style negotiation where EU honestly has a lot less to lose compared to UK yet UK thinks threatening self harm will sway EU somehow.

They should be encouraged to take the next step - a hunger strike.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seems like you think Britain should just roll over in the discussion.

That is not the point at all.

The UK is leaving, and can jump directly to hard borders and WTO rules if they want. But they apparently want something else. These position papers are supposed to set out what their ideal is. Then negotiations would start on where the compromise could be between the UK position and the position the EU side published months ago.

But the UK position is nonsensical and self-contradictory. Take the border - they want to control immigration, but have no immigration control. They want to leave the customs union but have no customs checks. It is impossible.

What Varadkar is saying is that IF they want to have no customs checks, they need to stay in the customs union OR come up with some actual proposal.

I have a very strong suspicion that they really want immigration control and to leave the customs union, and they are only pretending to care about the border, and are hoping to blame the EU when they give up their frictionless fantasies.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have a very strong suspicion that they really want immigration control and to leave the customs union, and they are only pretending to care about the border, and are hoping to blame the EU when they give up their frictionless fantasies.

Of course they want ultimately to leave the customs union. They have been saying that consistently from very early on.

Do they care about the border? Well I think they want to have a border that is as frictionless as possible, given their stated goal of leaving the customs union but this very much depends on negotiations with the EU.

Does the EU care about the border? I think they too want as frictionless a border as possible, but they, like the UK, have other concerns which may make that difficult.

For Ireland, of course, the border is a big issue but we need to remember that we are only a very small part of a very large picture. Not every aspect of being members of the EU can be expected to work in our favour.

What I think our politicians are concerned about is maintaining the impression that they have influence in Europe. This means going along with the EU line and hoping that things will turn out well for us.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK is leaving, and can jump directly to hard borders and WTO rules if they want.

Not until their application for full membership has been agreed... David Davis has indicated that their application will propose that they are accepted on the same basis as the EU in terms of agreements etc...but this has to be agreed.

The other issue is the global tariff free quotas included in some of the agreements with the EU. These have already been allocated and not surprisingly no one wants to give up their allocation in favour of the U.K. I read a piece on this a few weeks ago, it seems EU officials at the WTO raise the subject and did not get any where with it.

Note how the countries willing to discuss trade deals with the U.K. have all added some variation of: when it is legally possible to their statements.

This idea that they can go off and do as they please is fantasy like all the rest of it.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Do they care about the border? Well I think they want to have a border that is as frictionless as possible, given their stated goal of leaving the customs union but this very much depends on negotiations with the EU.

It simply is not possible for the EU to wave a wand and say the UK is out of the customs union but there will be no customs checks at the border. That's what a customs union is: a region with standard checks on all the external borders.

If the UK leaves, they are subject to the external rules. If they don't want to be, they should stay.

It's like the UK saying they want the EU to repeal the law of gravity, and then blaming the EU when they trip over their feet.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It simply is not possible for the EU to wave a wand and say the UK is out of the customs union but there will be no customs checks at the border. That's what a customs union is: a region with standard checks on all the external borders.

If the UK leaves, they are subject to the external rules. If they don't want to be, they should stay.

It's like the UK saying they want the EU to repeal the law of gravity, and then blaming the EU when they trip over their feet.

Given all the carp they are coming out with, one can only wonder what impression it is creating in the minds of trade negotiators in the countries they are hoping to get deals with.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It simply is not possible for the EU to wave a wand and say the UK is out of the customs union but there will be no customs checks at the border. That's what a customs union is: a region with standard checks on all the external borders.

If the UK leaves, they are subject to the external rules. If they don't want to be, they should stay.

It's like the UK saying they want the EU to repeal the law of gravity, and then blaming the EU when they trip over their feet.

It depends on which position you see as fixed. I think the consensus here is to see the EU position as unmovable and therefore it is up to the other side to come up with all the suggestions.

It is not the only position though. It is equally reasonable to regard the UKs position of leaving the customs union as fixed. We just choose to look at it the first way and not the other.

The gamble Ireland is taking is that the UK will at some stage back down and Ireland is therefore backing the EU line. But this may not be the correct stance from Ireland's perspective. I can see why Varadkar might choose this course of action: it is politically the easiest thing to do. If it all goes wrong, then he can blame the British for leaving the customs union. He himself can wash his hands of the whole affair. Also if he takes a line that is not that of the mainstream EU, then he will expose Ireland's lack of influence at the EU level and, again, this would work against him personally. But this is not the same as acting in Ireland's interests.

My own view is that it is quite right to point out unworkable aspects of the UKs proposals, but we also have to come up with proposals of our own and have them accepted at the EU level if Ireland is to avoid a hard border. We also have to act likewise in the broader area of Ireland's economic welfare given that the UK is still a major trading partner in certain sectors that employ a lot of people. One would hope this is going on behind the scenes.

murphaph

But the EU position is naturally "immovable" because it must comply with existing treaties. There is no time for any solutions that might require treaty change and the treaties form the basis of European law.

The UK "only" HS to convince parliament to pass X laws relating to the negotiations. The EU requires consent of all the member states. It is naïve to believe the EU can turn on a sixpence. Any compromises the EU negotiation team can offer will have to comply with existing EU treaties (for example on the customs union and single market) to have a chance.

Personally I do not believe a hard border with at least random customs checks can be avoided if the UK insists on leaving the customs union.

ambro25

murphaph wrote: »

But the EU position is naturally "immovable" because it must comply with existing treaties. There is no time for any solutions that might require treaty change and the treaties form the basis of European law.

The UK "only" HS to convince parliament to pass X laws relating to the negotiations. The EU requires consent of all the member states. It is naïve to believe the EU can turn on a sixpence. Any compromises the EU negotiation team can offer will have to comply with existing EU treaties (for example on the customs union and single market) to have a chance.

Personally I do not believe a hard border with at least random customs checks can be avoided if the UK insists on leaving the customs union.

You can't do "random" checks for fret. Which is why the UK mooted its ANPR- and database-driven vapourware...and we (-UK residents at least) all know what a fantastic track record the UK has for delivering resilient, fit-for-purpose IT solutions on time and on budget. I mean, it's 2017 and the Home Office can't even get mailings right :pac:

With the UK effectively wanting to become a third party country beyond the scope of the least EU-compatible or -integrated CU member, i.e. still further removed from harmonised custom procedures <etc.> as even Turkey, there simply cannot be "no border", to the virtual extent mooted by the UK. For fret or for people.

But as it's what the UK wants, it's up to the UK to come with the goods, and to deliver them in a form compatible with EU Treaties -as compatible as what form already exists and applies to third party countries- for making it work. At least on paper, and to begin with.

Bit cynical

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I do not believe a hard border with at least random customs checks can be avoided if the UK insists on leaving the customs union.

I think the UK do insist on leaving the customs union and have been for some time, though there may be a transitional period. However I think there may be a lot of scope in the degree of hardness of the border so to speak. For example, if a good trade deal emerges between the UK and EU as Ireland hopes, then standard EU external border measures (such as between Poland and Russia) need not apply. But at present, Ireland's interests and the general EU position are somewhat at odds.

blanch152

Bit cynical wrote: »

It depends on which position you see as fixed. I think the consensus here is to see the EU position as unmovable and therefore it is up to the other side to come up with all the suggestions.

It is not the only position though. It is equally reasonable to regard the UKs position of leaving the customs union as fixed. We just choose to look at it the first way and not the other.

The gamble Ireland is taking is that the UK will at some stage back down and Ireland is therefore backing the EU line. But this may not be the correct stance from Ireland's perspective. I can see why Varadkar might choose this course of action: it is politically the easiest thing to do. If it all goes wrong, then he can blame the British for leaving the customs union. He himself can wash his hands of the whole affair. Also if he takes a line that is not that of the mainstream EU, then he will expose Ireland's lack of influence at the EU level and, again, this would work against him personally. But this is not the same as acting in Ireland's interests.

My own view is that it is quite right to point out unworkable aspects of the UKs proposals, but we also have to come up with proposals of our own and have them accepted at the EU level if Ireland is to avoid a hard border. We also have to act likewise in the broader area of Ireland's economic welfare given that the UK is still a major trading partner in certain sectors that employ a lot of people. One would hope this is going on behind the scenes.

You are looking at this all wrong.

You are assuming that the EU and the UK are equals in this discussion.

However, (and Ireland is the clear example of this, with our particular difficulty with the Border), there are 27 different countries backing the EU position. If you want a more flexible EU position, you need to get 27 to agree on it. If Ireland wants the EU to change, we have to persuade 26 to change. If we want the UK to change, we have to persuade one.

Persuading one to change is far easier than persuading 26 or 27.

You are also incorrect about Ireland's interests in this. Ireland will lose from Brexit. If the UK insist on a hard border (and it seems they are making it inevitable), Ireland has a Hobson's choice to leave the EU and become a vassal of the UK or make a new path forward within the EU without the UK and take advantage of their departure. The second option is clearly the correct one.

blanch152

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the UK do insist on leaving the customs union and have been for some time, though there may be a transitional period. However I think there may be a lot of scope in the degree of hardness of the border so to speak. For example, if a good trade deal emerges between the UK and EU as Ireland hopes, then standard EU external border measures (such as between Poland and Russia) need not apply. But at present, Ireland's interests and the general EU position are somewhat at odds.

Once there is the possibility that US GM food or cheap Brazilian beef can be imported into the UK and exported to the EU through Ireland, then there must be a hard border. I do not understand how this concept isn't universally understood.

Jim2007

blanch152 wrote: »

Once there is the possibility that US GM food or cheap Brazilian beef can be imported into the UK and exported to the EU through Ireland, then there must be a hard border. I do not understand how this concept isn't universally understood.

It is not just that, it is also quality standards etc of UK goods. At this stage we have no idea how their quality standards and check will stack up. Given it is so late in the game, probably not so well in the early years.

Jim2007

Bit cynical wrote: »

For example, if a good trade deal emerges between the UK and EU as Ireland hopes, then standard EU external border measures (such as between Poland and Russia) need not apply.

The only allowable way to achieve that kind of deal under WTO rules would be a customs union, similar to that with Turkey. So good bye their ability to make their own free trade deals etc...

When all the faffing around is over the UK will get to make one really good trade deal along the lines they are seeking, if they want it, that will require them to enter into a customs union with the other party. And if that is the EU or the US you can bet it will be the bigger party that gets to make the deal for them both.

The option they are looking for is simply not possible under any set of rules. No trading block is going to allow the UK to become a back door into their market.

demfad

Let's take the hypothetical situation that Brexit must happen as Theresa May did. What would be the best Brexit for the UK (she promised this)?

I would suggest Brexit should last at least a decade. You would need to replace the existing supports such as the CU and SM with similar supports probably by rejoining and/or extending them with a transition agreement. This would avoid very serious or catastrophic damage to the economy.

You would be very nice to the EU over the negotiating period to get the best and longest transition on offer. The more time you have for Brexit the smoother it will be, the better for the UK.

Then you can dismantle the supports you don't need and keep the ones that are still of benefit. This would involve some juristiction of the ECJ, naturally enough over the common bodies. Preferably a lot as leaving the single market will really hurt the UK.

What she actually did was immediately draw disastrous and impossible red lines. She promised a red, white and blue Brexit to stoke up her new right wing base...or to fulfill promises to hard Brexiters in the Tory party and media who backed her leadership. Disastrous because politically her red lines are very difficult to row back from now.

These red lines are not a reasonable position. Ireland alone should be a reason to have not contemplated this approach at all. But to keep her political promises she intends to play chicken with the EU who have told her all along that the UK can't have their cake and eat it.

The idea that the EU or Ireland should adopt any of the UKs impossible/ludicrous policies just so that Theresa May can keep her absurd promises and do the bidding of the powerful people manipulating her shouldnt be entertained.

The Brexit solution for the divorce bill as to seek a reasonable reduction of what the EU ask. But pay.
The solution for citizens is to give them full rights as EU citizens under the ECJ. End of.
The solution for Ireland is to remain in the CU and SM. End of.

That is the best Brexit for the UK, EU and Ireland.

If anything else happens it means that the Tories have put party above country and that powerful people who gain financially, politically and ideologically from a hard Brexit are now 'managing' the the UK as they are in the US.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is equally reasonable to regard the UKs position of leaving the customs union as fixed.

That's what I just said - they are leaving, a hard, hard Brexit and a hard border, and they are (for some reason) pretending they want a frictionless border, a pretence they will drop when push comes to shove.

Jim2007

Bit cynical wrote: »

We also have to act likewise in the broader area of Ireland's economic welfare given that the UK is still a major trading partner in certain sectors that employ a lot of people. One would hope this is going on behind the scenes.

The UK represents 14% of our exports it either joint second with Belgium or in third place depending on when you look at the stats.

But more important than that is that we get to trade in the Euro, an undervalued currency from our perspective and at little or no cost to the exchequer. Now private client studies by Credit Suisse have concluded that were the Euro to break up then two strong currencies would emerge the D-Mark and the Punt! And the reasoning is very simple: long term net exporting countries have strong currencies because they need to get paid for what they export.

Now if that were to happen then the Irish Central Bank, simple does not have remotely close to the reservers to push the Punt down long term. The Swiss National Bank tried to do this with the Franc for the same reasons and eventually had to give up, but in the process it acquired Euro bonds equal to the deficit of the 7 biggest Euro Group economies - so right now little Switzerland is financing a major part of the Euro Economy. On a regular basis it conducts market operations in defence of Irish bonds etc... to protect its positions. It can only do this because it has capabilities equal to that of the ECB.

So it would not just be stupid for Ireland to turn it's back on the EU, it would be suicide!

PeadarCo

demfad wrote:

If anything else happens it means that the Tories have put party above country and that powerful people who gain financially, politically and ideologically from a hard Brexit are now 'managing' the the UK as they are in the US.

The biggest issue with Brexit is that its the EU that has control largely. At the end of the two year period the UK is out with the hardest possible Brexit. Any extension will only happen with the agreement of all remaining 27 EU states. All these position papers should have been prepared, debated within the UK before triggering article 50. Hard Brexiters both Labour tory and DUP have all ready put their own ideology above the good of the UK.

Brexit talks were always going to be difficult but it horrifying and laughable that even a number of months after triggering the Brexit clock that the UKs position can still be summed up as having their cake and eating it. At no point does there appear to have been talks aimed at making Brexit a success given what the EUs negotiation position was going to be.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's what I just said - they are leaving, a hard, hard Brexit and a hard border, and they are (for some reason) pretending they want a frictionless border, a pretence they will drop when push comes to shove.

I'm not convinced. I get the impression of lot of what we are seeing is an unwillingness within the cabinet to get down to the nuts and bolts of the issues for fear of a split. So we get vague concepts rather than any kind of details plan, something everyone can sign up to.

Of course something will have to blow, but what the fall out will be is hard to say - a new PM, another GE... who knows. If things continue, my guess is that it could happen when the impact of an Open Skies agreement starts to result in no flights.....

In Switzerland (after the anti FMOP vote) it hit home when the EU told us we were no longer in the Horizon 2020 project, students were rejected from the Erasmus program and so on. Suddenly it all became very real and attitudes changed PDQ.

Bit cynical

Jim2007 wrote: »

The only allowable way to achieve that kind of deal under WTO rules would be a customs union, similar to that with Turkey. So good bye their ability to make their own free trade deals etc...

What WTO rules say this?

solodeogloria

listermint wrote: »

I'm assuming you think that their proposal is realistic?

Because that's a direct question I'm asking forget the negotiation flight of fancy in the text above. Do you think the proposal is realistic.

Specifically the open border.

Good evening!

It depends on what definition of "realistic" you hold to. Theoretically achievable, yes. The position papers are documentary form of what the UK is seeking in an ideal world. They are inherently aspirational.

If you mean "realistic" in the sense of whether or not the EU will accept it. That's another question and it's for the European Union to determine, not for the UK. It is the UK's job to represent the whole United Kingdom. That is a difficult task but it manages to do it extremely well from my reading of them.

I also think some of the European Union's demands aren't "realistic" in the sense that the UK won't accept them. For example demanding it to be subject to the ECJ.

Speaking of which, the UK Government whitepaper today in respect to joint arbitration and how flexible the UK is willing to be is impressive. They gave a whole host of options that they are willing to discuss without the ECJ having supreme authority over Britain's law.

If I was to honestly say I had one frustration with the UK Government it would be that they are not pinning the tail on the donkey. Instead of providing a single definitive option in each paper they have provided a multiplicity of options. Now this could be argued both ways of course. On one hand it is the UK being indecisive. On the other hand it is the UK being open minded and giving itself latitude to discuss a multiplicity of options.

I suspect it's probably my impatience that the UK hasn't left the EU yet and we don't have the certainty that we would all like. The direction of travel is much much clearer than after the referendum.

Obviously there will be movement from the ideal where possible within the red lines, but I suspect this movement will be on both sides as a deal is hammered out. I'm still optimistic and I'm still confident about Brexit.

Jim2007 wrote: »

In Switzerland (after the anti FMOP vote) it hit home when the EU told us we were no longer in the Horizon 2020 project, students were rejected from the Erasmus program and so on. Suddenly it all became very real and attitudes changed PDQ.

This is an example of how Swiss politicians didn't respect the democratic verdict of their people and sold them short. This isn't a good example.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria