Brexit discussion thread II

ambro25 · 18-09-2017 11:58am

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Just to return to BoJo and his article in the Telegraph. It's an interesting strategy he's playing to get the leadership. First of all, the reason he was brought in as Foreign Sec was to stop him plotting from the back benches - the idea being he would spend so much time in the air and at meetings that he wouldn't have time. Now he sees his chance to get out of that role. So we have TM going to make a speech where it is expected in some quarters that she will soften her stance on the bill land transition. Now that BoJo has put down his marker and she's been too weak to sack him, if the above softening transpires he will resign (in glory) and go for the leadership at the conference.

I'll buy that, and I can see May flat-footing all such expectations with another Brexit-means-Brexit hardline speech in Florence, to try and head off the domestic challenge.

briany · 18-09-2017 12:08pm

Good loser wrote: »

Did you hear Self quote the guy that said to Cameron

'Not even my golf club changes its rules on the basis of a simple majority'

Brewer fairly bristled at that.

Oh, how I'm sure Cameron would like to go back and do things differently.

Did he not try to stack the deck a bit by specifying that the referendum be passed through a supermajority, given its apparently irrevocable nature, and long-lasting consequences? Or can this not happen under UK referendum law?

Peregrinus · 18-09-2017 1:18pm

briany wrote: »

Oh, how I'm sure Cameron would like to go back and do things differently.

Did he not try to stack the deck a bit by specifying that the referendum be passed through a supermajority, given its apparently irrevocable nature, and long-lasting consequences? Or can this not happen under UK referendum law?

There is no "UK referendum law". Each referendum they've had is conducted under a special Act of Parliament passed for the purpose. They can provide for it to be conducted however they like.

They have used qualified majorities before, and they could have done so on this occasion if they thought it desirable. I think, however, that Cameron was confident that he would win on a simple majority.

murphaph · 18-09-2017 1:36pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - I feel you're missing the point.

Free travel for EU citizens is what the UK desires post-Brexit (on any border with the EU). Checks will happen in respect to employment. That's what the UK Government are deciding to do. How effective or not that happens to be is a matter for the UK Government, not for the EU or anyone else.

EDIT: Again, the ID card myth. Every national in the EU (asides from Irish) will have to apply for "settled status" which issues a biometric ID. This is how the UK Border Force deal with non-EU illegal immigration already. It's remit will be simply extended to EU nationals. I've been through this already very clearly on this thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're ignoring the salient points.

Currently the UK doesn't have a huge problem (it's still a big enough problem I'd say) with third country nationals working illegally because the UK border force or the Irish Immigration Service are looking out for potential illegal economic migrants and refuse leave to land if they have the slightest suspicion the person is not a genuine visitor.

This ability will be removed from the UK border force for approximately 430 million people who will in the future be able to sidestep these checks via Ireland. That is a massive cohort of people, like 1/16th of the world's population!

Put it another way. If every 16th third country visitor was simply allowed land in the UK today, rather than face questions, do you believe there would be no increase in illegal working?

The ID cards issued to settled Poles etc. will be worthless. Pole A looks and sounds like Pole B. Both Claim to be naturalised British citizens. British citizens don't have to carry ID. You can't start racially profiling which British citizens you ask to identify themselves. That won't fly as it's blatant discrimination. So, either all Brits get ID cards or you have a big problem.

Currently this isn't a huge problem because all third country nationals get checked at the border (British or Irish) but post Brexit 1/16th of the world's population will be able to enter the UK unchecked.

Do you get that EU nationals post Brexit won't be like third country nationals today because they won't necessarily be checked at the border.

Professor Moriarty · 18-09-2017 1:41pm

murphaph wrote: »

You're ignoring the salient points.

Currently the UK doesn't have a huge problem (it's still a big enough problem I'd say) with third country nationals working illegally because the UK border force or the Irish Immigration Service are looking out for potential illegal economic migrants and refuse leave to land if they have the slightest suspicion the person is not a genuine visitor.

This ability will be removed from the UK border force for approximately 430 million people who will in the future be able to sidestep these checks via Ireland. That is a massive cohort of people, like 1/16th of the world's population!

Put it another way. If every 16th third country visitor was simply allowed land in the UK today, rather than face questions, do you believe there would be no increase in illegal working?

The ID cards issued to settled Poles etc. will be worthless. Pole A looks and sounds like Pole B. Both Claim to be naturalised British citizens. British citizens don't have to carry ID. You can't start racially profiling which British citizens you ask to identify themselves. That won't fly as it's blatant discrimination. So, either all Brits get ID cards or you have a big problem.

Currently this isn't a huge problem because all third country nationals get checked at the border (British or Irish) but post Brexit 1/16th of the world's population will be able to enter the UK unchecked.

Do you get that EU nationals post Brexit won't be like third country nationals today because they won't necessarily be checked at the border.

A taste of how that particular problem might impact post-Brexit: The notorious and elusive arch criminal Prawo Jazdy.

breatheme · 18-09-2017 3:12pm

Never mind the fact that EU Citizens are basically undeportable from an EU country, so if someone is deported from the UK, they can just enter again through Ireland.

View · 18-09-2017 4:50pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

View wrote: »

This is incorrect.

The first formal mention of the CTA in an international treaty was in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Even there it just gets a brief mention in Protocol 20 (the Schengen opt-out one). As such the court that gets to decide future cases in relation to it is the CJEU and if they rule that it is incompatible with EU law, then that's the end of it.

And, no, it doesn't matter what the UK promises as the UK is fully aware that, under EU law, it has no legal authority whatsoever to make promises about how EU law will or will not be applied.

Good morning!

This is pedantry. The arrangements existed before the EU even if they weren't referred to by this title. Free movement existed between Ireland and Britain since the early 1920's. This wasn't dependent on the EU.

Law deals in pedantry whether you like it or not.

The only basis for the continued existence of the CTA now is because Protocol 20 of the EU Treaties allow it. Equally the only basis for it to continue to exist after Brexit is if the EU Treaties allow it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Ireland's position in UK law is based on the Republic of Ireland Act which dealt with the implications in UK law for Ireland ceasing to be a crown dominion.

This act is also the reason why Irish citizens have more rights in the UK than other EU citizens.

So?

Neither Ireland nor the EU have to care two hoots about UK law now, much less after Brexit. It has no legal force whatsoever outside the UK. And, after Brexit, the CJEU is going to pay as much heed to some ancient UK law, back from the twilight days of their Empire, as they would to a comparable act by the Mongolian or Peruvian Parliaments.

View · 18-09-2017 5:03pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - the CTA is a bilateral agreement between the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and its crown dependencies.

CTA stands for common travel AREA. There is no agreement and nor has there been a bilateral agreement between the two countries on the existence of it (other than on a "Gentleman's Agreement" ad hoc basis).

On the other hand, the EU Treaties are quite clear about the Schengen obligations and on what basis Ireland has an "opt out" to them.

View · 18-09-2017 5:08pm

breatheme wrote: »

Never mind the fact that EU Citizens are basically undeportable from an EU country, so if someone is deported from the UK, they can just enter again through Ireland.

EU citizens are deportable from EU countries and this is routinely done. EU countries basically operate a relaxed immigration system for each other's citizens - they haven't dispensed with the system altogether though.

demfad · 18-09-2017 5:25pm

Just a comment:

I think there is no chance of an exit being negotiated on time. Infact there is no chance of a transition being negotiated on time. There must be an extension or suspension of A50.
Article 50 is the legal way for exit but it is not the only way. It is not fit for purpose. I saw it described today as an ornament rather than a tool: it was never meant to be used. Written by diplomats not lawyers.
Of all the huge blunders in Brexit to date the all emcompassing one was triggering A50 to begin with. Technically the UK needed to have the ability to leave with no-deal to improve their negotiating position. That would have required being ready for that before triggering A50.
They can't leave with no-deal now. There isnt time and it kills their economy.
Perhaps agreeing with the other a way to leave: Leaving and trade deal all in one and ratified by all 27?
May be too late now. But the mistake, the giant mistake was triggering A50 too soon.

Professor Moriarty · 18-09-2017 5:29pm

demfad wrote: »

Just a comment:

I think there is no chance of an exit being negotiated on time. Infact there is no chance of a transition being negotiated on time. There must be an extension or suspension of A50.
Article 50 is the legal way for exit but it is not the only way. It is not fit for purpose. I saw it described today as an ornament rather than a tool: it was never meant to be used. Written by diplomats not lawyers.
Of all the huge blunders in Brexit to date the all emcompassing one was triggering A50 to begin with. Technically the UK needed to have the ability to leave with no-deal to improve their negotiating position. That would have required being ready for that before triggering A50.
They can't leave with no-deal now. There isnt time and it kills their economy.
Perhaps agreeing with the other a way to leave: Leaving and trade deal all in one and ratified by all 27?
May be too late now. But the mistake, the giant mistake was triggering A50 too soon.

Hubris is a terrible thing and is very much part of Tory thinking.

Zubeneschamali · 18-09-2017 5:35pm

demfad wrote: »

But the mistake, the giant mistake was triggering A50 too soon.

Brexit itself is a giant mistake. Holding the referendum was a giant mistake. Losing the referendum was a giant mistake.

Each mistake caused by the Tories being more interested in internal party politics than in the good of the nation.

breatheme · 18-09-2017 5:38pm

View wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

Never mind the fact that EU Citizens are basically undeportable from an EU country, so if someone is deported from the UK, they can just enter again through Ireland.

EU citizens are deportable from EU countries and this is routinely done. EU countries basically operate a relaxed immigration system for each other's citizens - they haven't dispensed with the system altogether though.

I said "basically" undeportable. They can only be deported for public policy or public security reasons. Furthermore, a criminal record is not reason enough to deem an EU Citizen deportable. The point being: The UK can deport them, but they will still have a right to enter Ireland, and thus, the CTA.

demfad · 18-09-2017 5:39pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Brexit itself is a giant mistake. Holding the referendum was a giant mistake. Losing the referendum was a giant mistake.

Each mistake caused by the Tories being more interested in internal party politics than in the good of the nation.

All true. But from the technical position of being able to actually do it with any competence: triggering article 50, starting the timebomb with no plan was devastating.
Better to have said: 'We wish to leave: A50 is not fit for purpose. We need to find a better way to do this, we won't be triggering anything anytime soon, Euro '19 elections or not.'
Make preparations for a no-deal without the time pressure.
Brexit still a woeful idea, but the UK in a much stronger relative position.

Billy86 · 18-09-2017 5:56pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - If Ireland joins Schengen the UK is still perfectly entitled to decide who enters the UK and on what terms. It isn't true to say that Ireland or the EU can insist on who the UK allows through its borders.

Ireland and the EU can make their own decisions about their borders but not about the UK border and who can enter.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What you are saying is only true if the UK (or Ireland) end the CTA. So what do you reckon the British public want - to end the CTA and gain full control of their borders, or do they want to keep the CTA and not have full control of their borders?

Edited to point out the obvious folly:

solodeogloria wrote: »

Free travel for EU citizens is what the UK desires post-Brexit (on any border with the EU). Checks will happen in respect to employment. That's what the UK Government are deciding to do. How effective or not that happens to be is a matter for the UK Government, not for the EU or anyone else.

Explain this scenario: The UK decided to suspend anyone from being allowed from country X (let's say Saudi Arabia) to enter, even on holiday. The EU and Ireland do not. Someone from Saudi Arabia flies into the Republic of Ireland. With the CTA in place they can cross into Northern Ireland and so the UK with zero checks.

The UK's borders have been breached, and there is nothing they can do about it. They are not in full control of their borders.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-09-2017 6:04pm

demfad wrote: »

Just a comment:

I think there is no chance of an exit being negotiated on time. Infact there is no chance of a transition being negotiated on time. There must be an extension or suspension of A50.
Article 50 is the legal way for exit but it is not the only way. It is not fit for purpose. I saw it described today as an ornament rather than a tool: it was never meant to be used. Written by diplomats not lawyers.
Of all the huge blunders in Brexit to date the all emcompassing one was triggering A50 to begin with. Technically the UK needed to have the ability to leave with no-deal to improve their negotiating position. That would have required being ready for that before triggering A50.
They can't leave with no-deal now. There isnt time and it kills their economy.
Perhaps agreeing with the other a way to leave: Leaving and trade deal all in one and ratified by all 27?
May be too late now. But the mistake, the giant mistake was triggering A50 too soon.

A reminder, the UK wrote Article 50.

As for time running out , there's only about a year left to get the deal sorted because dotting the i's and crossing the t's and getting the EU countries all to agree to the deal isn't going to happen overnight.

Even getting an extension will require getting 36 parliaments to agree, again not going to happen overnight.

View · 18-09-2017 6:27pm

breatheme wrote: »

View wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

Never mind the fact that EU Citizens are basically undeportable from an EU country, so if someone is deported from the UK, they can just enter again through Ireland.

EU citizens are deportable from EU countries and this is routinely done. EU countries basically operate a relaxed immigration system for each other's citizens - they haven't dispensed with the system altogether though.

I said "basically" undeportable. They can only be deported for public policy or public security reasons. Furthermore, a criminal record is not reason enough to deem an EU Citizen deportable. The point being: The UK can deport them, but they will still have a right to enter Ireland, and thus, the CTA.

That's partially true. A person with a criminal record can be deported under public security grounds but it must be based on solid grounds in their specific case for it to happen. In other words, a person who has turned over a new leaf can't be deported "just because", a person with a continuing involvement in crime could be.

Gerry T · 18-09-2017 6:58pm

Enzokk wrote:

An example, as a South African you can enter Ireland for 90 days without a visa. If you want to go to the UK you need a visa, even if it is to transit to another country, so severe restrictions. How does the UK control who comes in from South Africa to the UK via the CTA? Its easy to bypass the system as a South African to not need a visa to travel to the UK. DO you think people that want to go to the UK but finds tougher measures will not make use of the CTA after Brexit?

View wrote:

That's partially true. A person with a criminal record can be deported under public security grounds but it must be based on solid grounds in their specific case for it to happen. In other words, a person who has turned over a new leaf can't be deported "just because", a person with a continuing involvement in crime could be.

Agh but the UK will write their own laws, so might bring one in to deport a person "just because" one of the perks of brexit.

Christy42 · 18-09-2017 7:29pm

Gerry T wrote: »

Agh but the UK will write their own laws, so might bring one in to deport a person "just because" one of the perks of brexit.

I think the point is that if they continue with the cta in some form and the person has the right to be in the EU then they can simply come to Ireland and walk across the border back into the UK.

Nody · 18-09-2017 7:54pm

demfad wrote: »

All true. But from the technical position of being able to actually do it with any competence: triggering article 50, starting the timebomb with no plan was devastating.
Better to have said: 'We wish to leave: A50 is not fit for purpose. We need to find a better way to do this, we won't be triggering anything anytime soon, Euro '19 elections or not.'
Make preparations for a no-deal without the time pressure.
Brexit still a woeful idea, but the UK in a much stronger relative position.

It does not work in reality however. UK needs closer to 20 years to sort this out with an competent government and no way would any party last that long to execute it. Hence any idea of delaying to plan the exit properly falls accordingly. Add in political incompetence and weak party leaders and it's at best a theoretical exercise.

Gerry T · 19-09-2017 1:09am

Christy42 wrote:

I think the point is that if they continue with the cta in some form and the person has the right to be in the EU then they can simply come to Ireland and walk across the border back into the UK.

I totally agree, a CTA can't work with IRL post brexit.
The situation is like Texas having a CTA with California, Texas then leaves the USA and then takes the position that the CTA with Calafornia should continue. Hahahahaha, it's really funny, the logic is bewildering. If an Irish politician were to spout this nonsense the radio and TV would tear it to pieces. It's interesting to watch the UK making idiotic statements. Maybe 150 yrs ago, the empire would get their way as they did yield alot of power, but those days are long gone, but the mentality doesn't seem to be.

solodeogloria · 19-09-2017 6:58am

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, technically the UK will control who can enter the country as they decide who is able to enter with or without a visa. But when you take away border checks how do you control who comes into the country? This is what the CTA does, it takes away border checks between Ireland and the UK.

You are having difficulty distinguishing between the right to travel and the right to work. The UK is saying that European citizens should have the right to travel. Others on visa-free entry have this privilege also. However, if there is evidence that this is being abused, the UK Border Force have the right to remove people from the country.

This is the same as the status quo with a wider remit.

Enzokk wrote: »

An example, as a South African you can enter Ireland for 90 days without a visa. If you want to go to the UK you need a visa, even if it is to transit to another country, so severe restrictions. How does the UK control who comes in from South Africa to the UK via the CTA? Its easy to bypass the system as a South African to not need a visa to travel to the UK. DO you think people that want to go to the UK but finds tougher measures will not make use of the CTA after Brexit?

This could happen and does happen today. The scenario that I have mentioned above applies. Free entry, but if one is caught with a visa violation one can and will be removed.

Enzokk wrote: »

In any case you are talking about who makes decisions, I am asking about how it will be implemented. You are correct, but you are avoiding the questions being asked about how it can be implemented.

If this were true, I'd understand. It isn't true however. I've repeatedly mentioned that violations will be dealt with by employment checks, not by entry checks for those who have a visa-free waiver to travel.

View wrote: »

Law deals in pedantry whether you like it or not.

The only basis for the continued existence of the CTA now is because Protocol 20 of the EU Treaties allow it. Equally the only basis for it to continue to exist after Brexit is if the EU Treaties allow it.

No, the basis for the CTA is in Irish and in British law. The recognition that the EU holds may be through the Treaty of Amsterdam, but the legal basis is in Irish and in British law.

View wrote: »

So?

Neither Ireland nor the EU have to care two hoots about UK law now, much less after Brexit. It has no legal force whatsoever outside the UK. And, after Brexit, the CJEU is going to pay as much heed to some ancient UK law, back from the twilight days of their Empire, as they would to a comparable act by the Mongolian or Peruvian Parliaments.

You seem to misunderstand what Brexit is all about.

The UK is looking to control its laws, its border, its money, its trade policy, etc, etc. That means that matters within the borders of the UK are a matter for the UK Government and for Parliament to settle.

The UK isn't looking to do anything with Ireland's border or with the external EU border. That is for the EU to settle.

Billy86 wrote: »

What you are saying is only true if the UK (or Ireland) end the CTA. So what do you reckon the British public want - to end the CTA and gain full control of their borders, or do they want to keep the CTA and not have full control of their borders?

Edited to point out the obvious folly:

Explain this scenario: The UK decided to suspend anyone from being allowed from country X (let's say Saudi Arabia) to enter, even on holiday. The EU and Ireland do not. Someone from Saudi Arabia flies into the Republic of Ireland. With the CTA in place they can cross into Northern Ireland and so the UK with zero checks.

The UK's borders have been breached, and there is nothing they can do about it. They are not in full control of their borders.

This scenario could happen today. I've explained how the border is enforced by the UK Border Force above. Anyone in theory can overstay a visa.

demfad wrote: »

Just a comment:

I think there is no chance of an exit being negotiated on time. Infact there is no chance of a transition being negotiated on time. There must be an extension or suspension of A50.
Article 50 is the legal way for exit but it is not the only way. It is not fit for purpose. I saw it described today as an ornament rather than a tool: it was never meant to be used. Written by diplomats not lawyers.
Of all the huge blunders in Brexit to date the all emcompassing one was triggering A50 to begin with. Technically the UK needed to have the ability to leave with no-deal to improve their negotiating position. That would have required being ready for that before triggering A50.
They can't leave with no-deal now. There isnt time and it kills their economy.
Perhaps agreeing with the other a way to leave: Leaving and trade deal all in one and ratified by all 27?
May be too late now. But the mistake, the giant mistake was triggering A50 too soon.

Extending Article 50 isn't an option. I'd hope the EU would reject it if it were. I personally would rather leave on whatever terms are given. Transitional terms are the ideal. But if they are not available, I would just leave on whatever terms are given and start life outside the EU from day one.

It's encouraging that progress is being made to hold onto existing free trade arrangements with other countries first.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 19-09-2017 7:27am

solodeogloria wrote: »

You are having difficulty distinguishing between the right to travel and the right to work. The UK is saying that European citizens should have the right to travel. Others on visa-free entry have this privilege also. However, if there is evidence that this is being abused, the UK Border Force have the right to remove people from the country.

This is the same as the status quo with a wider remit.

This could happen and does happen today. The scenario that I have mentioned above applies. Free entry, but if one is caught with a visa violation one can and will be removed.

If this were true, I'd understand. It isn't true however. I've repeatedly mentioned that violations will be dealt with by employment checks, not by entry checks for those who have a visa-free waiver to travel.

You posted that the UK government has promised to keep the CTA between Ireland and the UK.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have promised to keep this commitment to Irish citizens by ensuring the preservation of the Common Travel Area arrangements after Brexit.

But you also post the below,

solodeogloria wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand what Brexit is all about.

The UK is looking to control its laws, its border, its money, its trade policy, etc, etc. That means that matters within the borders of the UK are a matter for the UK Government and for Parliament to settle.

The UK isn't looking to do anything with Ireland's border or with the external EU border. That is for the EU to settle.

I am asking, how can the UK control its border if it gives up control of a border to Ireland? You haven't explained how its possible. Do you honestly think those that are concerned about immigration and voted to leave the EU due to that cares about the CTA?

In any case of the four things you mention the UK wants to control the only thing they aren't in total control of is trade. They will have the GBP as they do now after Brexit, they always had control over their laws and on the border they will still let people from the EU in from passport control and will still have an open back door via Ireland.

Regarding trade, again it seems like the UK is trying to say it never had any say when the EU was in negotiations with other nations regarding trade.

That is why in some cases just replicating a trade deal will not be possible with third countries that already have a trade deal with the EU. The UK concessions are already built into the EU trade deals, if a country were to duplicate the same deal for the UK, surely that is double the concessions a country will give up for the UK and the EU?

Samaris · 19-09-2017 7:57am

If, say, Greece had Grexited, do you really think that Britain would be queuing up to push for a good independent trade deal for them? Or would it comment that Greece is in no position to be choosy and should take what it's offered if it doesn't want to collapse?

I somehow don't think it would be the "we must give them a good deal rather than pushing for benefits to ourselves" approach.

Given potential for expanding elsewhere rather than waiting for Britain to cop the hell on, I don't quite know why people expect that EU countries will line up to give Britain sweetheart deals rather than deals that will be primarily beneficial to themselves while Britain's over a barrel.

murphaph · 19-09-2017 8:08am

solodeogloria wrote: »

You are having difficulty distinguishing between the right to travel and the right to work. The UK is saying that European citizens should have the right to travel. Others on visa-free entry have this privilege also. However, if there is evidence that this is being abused, the UK Border Force have the right to remove people from the country.

This is the same as the status quo with a wider remit.

...

If this were true, I'd understand. It isn't true however. I've repeatedly mentioned that violations will be dealt with by employment checks, not by entry checks for those who have a visa-free waiver to travel.

...

This scenario could happen today. I've explained how the border is enforced by the UK Border Force above. Anyone in theory can overstay a visa.

This scenario couldn't happen today despite your hand waving on the issue.

Today third country nationals must pass through British or Irish immigration controls and they will be recorded as landed and get a stamp in their passport, so you know they have actually overstayed!

Post Brexit 430 million people from third countries within easy reach of the UK via budget airlines will be able to enter the UK undocumented through Ireland. No database entry. No stamp in the passport.

And as there is no national ID card in the UK it'll be nigh on impossible to tell the difference between the naturalised British citizen of Polish birth and the illegal who came in via Dublin!

Not only will we see widespread illegal EU workers we'll also see an increase in non-EU as the whole enforcement system is stretched to breaking point.

But you keep on ignoring this reality of you like.

Peregrinus · 19-09-2017 8:22am

Samaris wrote: »

If, say, Greece had Grexited, do you really think that Britain would be queuing up to push for a good independent trade deal for them? Or would it comment that Greece is in no position to be choosy and should take what it's offered if it doesn't want to collapse?

I somehow don't think it would be the "we must give them a good deal rather than pushing for benefits to ourselves" approach.

Given potential for expanding elsewhere rather than waiting for Britain to cop the hell on, I don't quite know why people expect that EU countries will line up to give Britain sweetheart deals rather than deals that will be primarily beneficial to themselves while Britain's over a barrel.

Trade deals only happen if they're mutually beneficial. However badly off the UK would be without an EU trade deal, they can always reject any deal the EU offers which would actually make them worse off still. Thus the only deal which can actually happen is one which advantages both the UK and the EU.

But there's plenty of scope for a mutually beneficial trade deal between the UK and the EU. I'll be very surprised if one isn't arrived at.

The principal barriers to a good trade deal, thus far, are mostly coming from the British side. They've drawn a number of "red lines" - no single market, no customs union, no acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction - which, if not revised, must result in a trade deal that is much less free, and so much less beneficial to both parties, than the present arrangements. The EU has drawn some red lines of its own - principally, no pick-n-mix of the features of the single market.

There's a certain Brexit perspective - becoming less vocal recently, it has to be said - which sees every limitation on UK/EU trade as "punitive". If that's correct, then the UK must be seen as masochistic, since as noted most of the limitations are coming from the UK side, and indeed are being insisted on by those who favour a harder Brexit. (Possibly its this very consideration which has led to the quiet dropping of the "punitive" line.) But if we take a less entitled line, and accept that both parties are going to approach this negotiation with the object of benefitting themselves, then there is plenty of scope for a trade deal which will benefit them both, and so there will be a trade deal.

solodeogloria · 19-09-2017 8:28am

murphaph wrote: »

This scenario couldn't happen today despite your hand waving on the issue.

Today third country nationals must pass through British or Irish immigration controls and they will be recorded as landed and get a stamp in their passport, so you know they have actually overstayed!

Post Brexit 430 million people from third countries within easy reach of the UK via budget airlines will be able to enter the UK undocumented through Ireland. No database entry. No stamp in the passport.

And as there is no national ID card in the UK it'll be nigh on impossible to tell the difference between the naturalised British citizen of Polish birth and the illegal who came in via Dublin!

Not only will we see widespread illegal EU workers we'll also see an increase in non-EU as the whole enforcement system is stretched to breaking point.

But you keep on ignoring this reality of you like.

Good morning!

Yes, it could.

Entrant A to Ireland has an Irish visa. Not a British visa.

Entrant A goes across the UK border either by the land border or by sea to Holyhead or by air to any UK airport (most airports have a special exit for CTA travellers to avoid border checks).

Entrant A may have an Irish visa but he doesn't have a British visa. Therefore he's not entitled to enter the UK but has done so.

Entrant B with a British visa but not an Irish visa could do the same with the exception of air travel because Ireland has passport checks for all air passengers.

This can and does happen today with smaller scope. This is very much reality.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris · 19-09-2017 8:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Trade deals only happen if they're mutually beneficial. However badly off the UK would be without an EU trade deal, they can always reject any deal the EU offers which would actually make them worse off still. Thus the only deal which can actually happen is one which advantages both the UK and the EU.

But there's plenty of scope for a mutually beneficial trade deal between the UK and the EU. I'll be very surprised if one isn't arrived at.

I'd be a bit worried about how EU countries are going to face into this. Let's face it, Britain, as seen by the world (i.e through its media, through the rantings of idiots like Foreign Secretary Johnson) has been doing nothing but insulting other countries, swaggering about how much the EU needs them, making comments about not paying their bill, gleefully commenting that it will harm its neighbouring countries MORE if they drop out, and otherwise acting the complete pillock for months now. Britain isn't the only country with media sway affecting the political outlook of the people and of their politicians, and if Britain insults EU countries repeatedly, then jumps out of the EU and then wants trade deals, it may be politically disadvantageous to be seen as going too easy.

As for better or worse, well, they're absolutely not going to get deals with the EU that match the deals they already had. From the get-go, it's going to be a worse deal. With all the lies that are being fed to the British public, I don't know if they are going to realise that and what they will have to accept.

Britain has demanded special treatment on the basis of what its populace wants, while stoking up those opinions through the media and through some of the leaders of the country. I'm not convinced anyone's going to feel overly kindly towards Britain when it comes to making deals. Sure, they'll get them, but they're going to have to accept that they won't be as nice as they had before. Britain will be negotiating from a much more precarious position anyway.

Peregrinus · 19-09-2017 8:49am

Samaris wrote: »

I'd be a bit worried about how EU countries are going to face into this. Let's face it, Britain, as seen by the world (i.e through its media, through the rantings of idiots like Foreign Secretary Johnson) has been doing nothing but insulting other countries, swaggering about how much the EU needs them, making comments about not paying their bill, gleefully commenting that it will harm its neighbouring countries MORE if they drop out, and otherwise acting the complete pillock for months now. Britain isn't the only country with media sway affecting the political outlook of the people and of their politicians, and if Britain insults EU countries repeatedly, then jumps out of the EU and then wants trade deals, it may be politically disadvantageous to be seen as going too easy.

As for better or worse, well, they're absolutely not going to get deals with the EU that match the deals they already had. From the get-go, it's going to be a worse deal. With all the lies that are being fed to the British public, I don't know if they are going to realise that and what they will have to accept.

Britain has demanded special treatment on the basis of what its populace wants, while stoking up those opinions through the media and through some of the leaders of the country. I'm not convinced anyone's going to feel overly kindly towards Britain when it comes to making deals. Sure, they'll get them, but they're going to have to accept that they won't be as nice as they had before. Britain will be negotiating from a much more precarious position anyway.

Both sides will be seeking to maximise their own advantage out of the trade deal. Since the EU has the much stronger bargaining position it's in a better position to gain its objectives so, where there are trade-offs between UK advantage and EU advantage, the deal will probably lean towards the EU most of the time. That's not the EU being punitive; it's the EU doing what parties to trade deals generally do when negotiating them. It's the EU doing what the UK also wishes to do.

But it's a mistake to approach this with the Trump-like mentality that every advantage secured by one party is a loss to the other. Trade deals are mutually beneficial, and on many points what is in the interests of the Union will also be in the interests of the UK.

ambro25 · 19-09-2017 8:51am

solodeogloria wrote: »

You are having difficulty distinguishing between the right to travel and the right to work. The UK is saying that European citizens should have the right to travel. Others on visa-free entry have this privilege also. However, if there is evidence that this is being abused, the UK Border Force have the right to remove people from the country.

But still you cling to the notion that British employers will happily become the proxy of HM Border Force to operate the distinction between EU nationals entitled work and not, once the said EU nationals are in-country.

You do realise that there is a cost for performing these proxy functions, right? And that UK consumers at the tail end of every supply chain will bear it?

Any chance of a reply comment about my point of yesterday in respect of the associated and additional training and other HR employment overheads of said British employers to achieve that?

I mean, do you think the average British employer (SME with less than 50 employees) is going to happily take on those tasks (and the liabilities, no doubt of a criminal nature)?

Do you think this will not impact the knowledge and skills base, and the competitiveness, of British businesses?

You don't seem to be thinking this through with a business head. At all.

You could think this through as a British taxpayer, I suppose: having the employers check the situation of EU nationals saves scaling up HM Border Force at border posts...but then, you'll still need to scale up HMBF for the larger detention facilities and increased deportation operations. I wonder how many heavy weight Tory party animals are in the pocket of G4S? :pac:

solodeogloria · 19-09-2017 9:01am

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

You posted that the UK government has promised to keep the CTA between Ireland and the UK.

Yes, I have.

Enzokk wrote: »

But you also post the below,

I am asking, how can the UK control its border if it gives up control of a border to Ireland? You haven't explained how its possible. Do you honestly think those that are concerned about immigration and voted to leave the EU due to that cares about the CTA?

I've already explained how the UK will enforce it. Employment checks, tip offs and raids by the UK Border Force. The same way any overstaying or abuse of a visa is policed in the UK today.

The official leave campaign supported preserving the CTA as do the UK Government.

Enzokk wrote: »

In any case of the four things you mention the UK wants to control the only thing they aren't in total control of is trade. They will have the GBP as they do now after Brexit, they always had control over their laws and on the border they will still let people from the EU in from passport control and will still have an open back door via Ireland.

Regarding trade, again it seems like the UK is trying to say it never had any say when the EU was in negotiations with other nations regarding trade.

That is why in some cases just replicating a trade deal will not be possible with third countries that already have a trade deal with the EU. The UK concessions are already built into the EU trade deals, if a country were to duplicate the same deal for the UK, surely that is double the concessions a country will give up for the UK and the EU?

The UK will have control over its trade policy in that it will be able to negotiate trade deals on its own. Much like other countries outside the EU do frequently with great success.

I've explained how the border will be policed despite claims to the contrary. So I won't be replying to this question again because it's unnecessary repetition. I hope it's clear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 19-09-2017 9:06am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Yes, it could.

Entrant A to Ireland has an Irish visa. Not a British visa.

Entrant A goes across the UK border either by the land border or by sea to Holyhead or by air to any UK airport (most airports have a special exit for CTA travellers to avoid border checks).

Entrant A may have an Irish visa but he doesn't have a British visa. Therefore he's not entitled to enter the UK but has done so.

Entrant B with a British visa but not an Irish visa could do the same with the exception of air travel because Ireland has passport checks for all air passengers.

This can and does happen today with smaller scope. This is very much reality.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The scope is tiny today.

The vast majority of third country citizens fall under identical visa regimes in Ireland and the UK and even those few that don't are still documented when they land in either country and get their passport stamped and both countries share data about these arrivals.

None of these things would apply to EU nationals post Brexit because Ireland will not be entitled to stamp anything and their arrival data cannot be shared with the UK obviously.

Can't you see the difference??

Zubeneschamali · 19-09-2017 9:21am

Peregrinus wrote: »

there is plenty of scope for a trade deal which will benefit them both, and so there will be a trade deal.

Certainly, in 20 years time (if Brexit happens and sticks) the UK will have a trade deal with the EU, and barriers to trade (at least in goods) will be low.

The problem I see is that there is only a very slim chance that this can be in place in 18 months, which means the UK will either beg for and get a long transitional period (i.e. will not Brexit the Single Market for many years) or the UK economy will fall off a cliff into a full-blown recession in March 2019.

The longer the 2nd remains a possibility, the more businesses will activate their "get out of Dodge" contingency plans, and the poorer the UK will be even in 20 years when stability has returned.

Peregrinus · 19-09-2017 9:32am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Certainly, in 20 years time (if Brexit happens and sticks) the UK will have a trade deal with the EU, and barriers to trade (at least in goods) will be low.

The problem I see is that there is only a very slim chance that this can be in place in 18 months, which means the UK will either beg for and get a long transitional period (i.e. will not Brexit the Single Market for many years) or the UK economy will fall off a cliff into a full-blown recession in March 2019.

The longer the 2nd remains a possibility, the more businesses will activate their "get out of Dodge" contingency plans, and the poorer the UK will be even in 20 years when stability has returned.

Oh, sure. But that's not in anybody's interests, so I expect it not to happen.

I predict (a) an agreed transitional period, during which (b) a trade deal will be agreed, to come into operation as the transitional period ends.

(Mind you, I confidently predicted that Donald Trump would lose the US presidential election, so you may not want to place too much reliance on my predictions. But, for whatever it's worth, that's my prediction.)

Panrich · 19-09-2017 9:38am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Both sides will be seeking to maximise their own advantage out of the trade deal. Since the EU has the much stronger bargaining position it's in a better position to gain its objectives so, where there are trade-offs between UK advantage and EU advantage, the deal will probably lean towards the EU most of the time. That's not the EU being punitive; it's the EU doing what parties to trade deals generally do when negotiating them. It's the EU doing what the UK also wishes to do.

But it's a mistake to approach this with the Trump-like mentality that every advantage secured by one party is a loss to the other. Trade deals are mutually beneficial, and on many points what is in the interests of the Union will also be in the interests of the UK.

How do you see the EU's political need for this to be a showcase for the benefits of membership balancing with the realities of mutual benefit?
If the UK come out of this process relatively unscathed then bubbling of discontent will surely follow in other countries like Italy. The EU has circled the wagons effectively since the Brexit vote and will want to keep that momentum as epitomised by Junckers speech last week.

Enzokk · 19-09-2017 9:47am

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes, I have.

I've already explained how the UK will enforce it. Employment checks, tip offs and raids by the UK Border Force. The same way any overstaying or abuse of a visa is policed in the UK today.

The official leave campaign supported preserving the CTA as do the UK Government.

The UK will have control over its trade policy in that it will be able to negotiate trade deals on its own. Much like other countries outside the EU do frequently with great success.

I've explained how the border will be policed despite claims to the contrary. So I won't be replying to this question again because it's unnecessary repetition. I hope it's clear.

I don't expect you to be able to solve the border issue, especially with the promises that has been made. I am trying to point out to you that what they promised and what they can deliver isn't possible. You cannot control your borders and have a CTA with Ireland that has a open border with the EU. The fact that you cannot see this, not solve it but acknowledge it, will mean you will be disappointed when the solutions are presented as round pegs don't fit into square holes.

You are presenting solutions that isn't working right now, before Brexit. Remember the immigration minister that had a illegal worker working for him? If a cabinet member doesn't do proper checks, what hope is there for the rest of the UK?

A question on trade, would you consider a trade deal that leaves the UK worse off a success as long as the UK negotiated on its own?

Peregrinus · 19-09-2017 9:56am

Panrich wrote: »

How do you see the EU's political need for this to be a showcase for the benefits of membership balancing with the realities of mutual benefit?
If the UK come out of this process relatively unscathed then bubbling of discontent will surely follow in other countries like Italy. The EU has circled the wagons effectively since the Brexit vote and will want to keep that momentum as epitomised by Junckers speech last week.

I don't think any disadvantage for the UK needs to be engineered; it will happen without any engineering at all. To the extent that it is engineered, it's being engineered by the UK.

Cast your mind back to about 15 months ago, just after the Brexit vote, when there were loud voices calling for the UK to be allowed to participate in the single market, but not accept free movement, and suggesting that refusal to allow this was the EU being "punitive". Well, it wasn't the EU being punitive; the problem was that all talk of participating in the single market while not having free movement was simply a contradiction in terms. This having been realised, most in the UK now accept that single market participation is not compatible with the red lines which the UK government has laid down for itself.

There's no doubt that not being in the single market will cost the UK a great deal, but this is no longer being positioned by anybody as a punishment inflicted by a scorned and vengeful EU; depending on your point of view, it's either an inevitable consequence of True Brexit, or an injury inflicted on the UK by its own government, through the "red lines" they have adopted in a pathetic attempt to place the Tory right wing. It actually doesn't matter which of these views you take; both of them have moved on from the "punishment" discourse.

And this is just a particular example of a general truth. The UK is withdrawing from the customs union (which will cost them) in order to have the freedom to negotiate trade agreements with third countries. But there is no prospect whatsoever that the trade agreement network they can negotiate will be as good as the one they are leaving, which is the largest and freest trade agreement network the world has ever seen. All of this spells bad news, economically speaking, for the UK; none of it can be described as a punishment inflicted by the EU.

Basically, the EU doesn't need to take any special steps to punish the UK in economic terms for leaving, or to make an example of them; at least as currently oriented by the UK government, Brexit is itself the economic punishment, the awful example.

listermint · 19-09-2017 9:57am

I see the EU giving the UK no assistance in deciding their Trade deal make up. I am pretty confident that at this point the EU will want the UK to put forward proper proposals that are workable and nothing short of that will be considered.

I dont believe the EU now care for any of the nonsense the UK is getting up to and are quite happy to swallow any deficit should they fall off the cliff.

There is quite literally no reason for the EU nations to allow a handy exist assisted by a prolonged deal for the UK to exist the EU unscathed. I dont see why they would / should.

Peregrinus · 19-09-2017 10:04am

listermint wrote: »

I see the EU giving the UK no assistance in deciding their Trade deal make up. I am pretty confident that at this point the EU will want the UK to put forward proper proposals that are workable and nothing short of that will be considered.

I dont believe the EU now care for any of the nonsense the UK is getting up to and are quite happy to swallow any deficit should they fall off the cliff.

There is quite literally no reason for the EU nations to allow a handy exist assisted by a prolonged deal for the UK to exist the EU unscathed. I dont see why they would / should.

They have no interest in allowing an exit on favourable terms. But, if an exit is to happen at all, they do have an interest in it happening quickly, and with minimal disruption or cost to the EU and the EU-27. Since a cliff-edge Brexit would be disruptive, they'll prefer to avoid that, and since a trade deal which includes a little bit of sugar for the UK can be negotiated more quickly than one which doesn't, they won't push their bargaining advantage over the UK to the limit. They'll give a little bit more than they need to, strictly speaking, in order to remain on friendly terms with the UK and to conclude a deal sooner rather than later, both of which are in the EU's interests.

Jaggo · 19-09-2017 10:41am

listermint wrote: »

I see the EU giving the UK no assistance in deciding their Trade deal make up. I am pretty confident that at this point the EU will want the UK to put forward proper proposals that are workable and nothing short of that will be considered.

I dont believe the EU now care for any of the nonsense the UK is getting up to and are quite happy to swallow any deficit should they fall off the cliff.

There is quite literally no reason for the EU nations to allow a handy exist assisted by a prolonged deal for the UK to exist the EU unscathed. I dont see why they would / should.

I actually do think that the EU is trying to help the UK on Brexit. I can't remember where I heard it but the EU have prepared a number of options for the UK on different means to exit.

The obvious one is the EEA option, but the EU has also prepared a face saving EES option (almost identical to the EEA, but allows the UK to claim a unique trade deal, a win).

The problem with the EU trying to assist, it that on many issues, the UK might have to 'give up control', so what you have is the EU offering the UK a suggestion that will leave in control of certain factors. This isn't really an option for the Tory 'Ultras' at the moment.

ambro25 · 19-09-2017 10:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, sure. But that's not in anybody's interests, so I expect it not to happen.

That is a sensible view of the issue...but premised on the domestic political play eventually giving enough ground to the pragmatic economical view.

But 15 months on from the referendum, all things considered including the running timescale to March 2019, I'm not the least bit convinced that this can happen, to a sufficient extent at least, by then.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I predict (a) an agreed transitional period, during which (b) a trade deal will be agreed, to come into operation as the transitional period ends.

(Mind you, I confidently predicted that Donald Trump would lose the US presidential election, so you may not want to place too much reliance on my predictions. But, for whatever it's worth, that's my prediction.)

I predict Theresa giving the hard line a fresh lick of paint on Friday, to try and bring some semblance of order to the party at home just before its annual conference.

Which, in context, would give a fresh stalling impetus to the negotiations.

listermint wrote: »

I see the EU giving the UK no assistance in deciding their Trade deal make up. I am pretty confident that at this point the EU will want the UK to put forward proper proposals that are workable and nothing short of that will be considered.

I dont believe the EU now care for any of the nonsense the UK is getting up to and are quite happy to swallow any deficit should they fall off the cliff.

There is quite literally no reason for the EU nations to allow a handy exist assisted by a prolonged deal for the UK to exist the EU unscathed. I dont see why they would / should.

In the context of my reply to Peregrinus above, I am confident that the EU(27) are well and long aware that the entire Brexit shambles and its noisy PR in the UK are entirely down to political single-party in-fighting playing to the domestic audience.

And so the EU(27) are adopting a matching attitude to the negotiations: "let us know when you come to your senses, m'kay?"

demfad · 19-09-2017 11:15am

https://waitingfortax.com/2017/09/18/16188/

Excellent blog post by Jocelyn Maugham QC, one of the top Barristers in the UK, who people may remember from the Dublin case about reversibility of A50. It highlights the joke that was the UK electoral commisions protection of the UKs democracy during the Brexit referendum.
This blog exposes this and may trigger criminal prosecutions against Leave campaigns.

The background to this is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

THis is the Law on elections:

(youll get the insertions after reading blog)

This is what Steve Baker (of Legatum and now now secretary of Brexit dept) said.

If Vote Leave did as Baker said it is a criminal offence.

A Leave campaign called 'beLeave' was set up by Darren Grimes. It employed a company called AggregateIQ to do work worth £625,000 and Vote Leave paid the Bill.

This was the reason given by Grimes (his lawyer)

Whats the truth of this matter?

Here is one explanation; this is what Mr Grimes and/or Vote Leave invite us to believe.

Not one but two very substantial donations, no strings attached, just happened to be made to the unknown Mr Grimes.
Vote Leave donated £625,000 to someone who thought its messaging was poor.
Mr Grimes independently decided to spend £625,000 with the same obscure foreign organisation as was delivering Vote Leave’s messaging.
Mr Grimes spent time campaigning and socialising with Vote Leave activists but no understanding arose between them as to what and with whom Mr Grimes would spend a very large donation on.
Aggregate IQ were happy to carry out £625,000 of work for an obscure student in another country without knowing its bill would be met.
Darren Grimes was sufficiently confident Vote Leave would make a donation to him that he was happy to incur £625,000 of debt to Aggregate IQ.
Darren Grimes and Aggregate IQ – both little known and in different continents – got comfortable with one another quickly enough to undertake a huge transaction in such a short period of time.
Is that explanation more or less likely than this alternative explanation?

Vote Leave wanted to spend more than the law allowed, just as Steve Baker had foretold. It told Aggregate IQ that it would foot the bill for extra work via Mr Grimes. Mr Grimes was happy to channel Vote Leave money to Aggregate IQ because it would mean he would make friends in high places.

Oh. Mr Grimes is now the Deputy Editor of Brexit Central.

There has been reaction to the blog already from those on the remain side who told marketing companies to walk on egg shells because of this very electoral law.

Zubeneschamali · 19-09-2017 11:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, sure. But that's not in anybody's interests

Not even Boris Johnson's?

The whole mess has been precipitated by internal Tory politics - it may suit Boris's career plans to grab the wheel from May and crash the Brexit negotiations into the ditch.

solodeogloria · 19-09-2017 12:12pm

Enzokk wrote: »

A question on trade, would you consider a trade deal that leaves the UK worse off a success as long as the UK negotiated on its own?

Good afternoon!

I'm skipping the border enforcement bit as I've been crystal clear on this.

In discussing a trade deal - with whom?

Overall I'm convinced that if the UK retains as much trade as possible into the European Union whilst improving trade terms with the other 56% of trade that it will be significantly better off in the long term.

For Brexit to have been a success we need to see how taking back control can be an overall benefit to the UK. I think this will be very clear in 10-15 years time.

I also think Brexit was the right decision for the UK because it would have never been a willing adherent of the Euro-federalist superstate that inevitably will come about.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 19-09-2017 12:20pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Overall I'm convinced that if the UK retains as much trade as possible into the European Union whilst improving trade terms with the other 56% of trade that it will be significantly better off in the long term.

"As much trade as possible" will be less than now. See Margaret Thatcher's views on the benefits of the Single Market for why.

There is no reason in the world why any third country should give the UK on its own a better deal than the EU as a whole. Free trade deals will come with significant costs to the UK, like allowing crap food from the US which is banned today or granting visas to Indians in return for trade, which will not go down well with Colonel Blimp & co.

ancapailldorcha · 19-09-2017 12:21pm

The director of the IFS has weighed in on Boris' £350 million a week for the NHS claim:

https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/910033210981072897

Billy86 · 19-09-2017 12:32pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

This scenario could happen today. I've explained how the border is enforced by the UK Border Force above. Anyone in theory can overstay a visa.

Of course it could happen today - Britain are in the EU with a CTA and so by your estimation do not have full control of their own borders. This was not the point, which I'm quite sure you're aware. In this scenario e are not talking about overstaying, we are not talking about checks while in the UK - we are talking about crossing over to the UK. The moment they step over the border without anyone there to check them, the UK's borders will have been breached.

The point is simple: if the CTA continues post Brexit, this would continue to happen to be the case and so Britain would not have control of it's own borders. There is no border force in place on the Northern Irish border, and introducing any such system would be the end of the CTA. It's a straight forward, black and white issue.

So again - do you think the British people would rather end the CTA to have full control of their borders, or keep the CTA and thus have Ireland and the EU continuing to influence who can enter the UK (via Northern Ireland)?

View · 19-09-2017 12:47pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

View wrote: »

Law deals in pedantry whether you like it or not.

The only basis for the continued existence of the CTA now is because Protocol 20 of the EU Treaties allow it. Equally the only basis for it to continue to exist after Brexit is if the EU Treaties allow it.

No, the basis for the CTA is in Irish and in British law. The recognition that the EU holds may be through the Treaty of Amsterdam, but the legal basis is in Irish and in British law.

The CJEU makes judgments on EU law. Its only concern with the laws of a member state are to address whether those laws are compatible with EU law or not.

Right now, the CTA is compatible with EU law because the EU Treaties make specific allowance for it. That is the legal basis for its (continued) existence and NOT because of any Irish or British law. If the EU Treaties did not provide such a legal basis, then both Ireland and Britain would be legally obliged to implement Schengen, like every other member state.

solodeogloria wrote: »

View wrote: »

So?

Neither Ireland nor the EU have to care two hoots about UK law now, much less after Brexit. It has no legal force whatsoever outside the UK. And, after Brexit, the CJEU is going to pay as much heed to some ancient UK law, back from the twilight days of their Empire, as they would to a comparable act by the Mongolian or Peruvian Parliaments.

You seem to misunderstand what Brexit is all about.

The UK is looking to control its laws, its border, its money, its trade policy, etc, etc. That means that matters within the borders of the UK are a matter for the UK Government and for Parliament to settle.

What you refer to above though concerns the internal matters of the UK. Even there it is largely a Brexiters' fantasy, as they have already indicated, in the UK government's white paper on Brexit, that they want multiple special bi-lateral treaties with the EU in various areas, to continue much of the existing arrangements, so, that will, in practise, mean they continue to accept both current and future EU law in many areas without having any say in deciding those laws.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK isn't looking to do anything with Ireland's border or with the external EU border. That is for the EU to settle.

Again, this is wrong. The border is an external matter for the UK. Clearly, that means that decision (and indecisions) taken on one side of it will have effects on the other side, in the case of an open border such as currently exists.

A "la-la-la, stick my head in the sand" refusal to spell out concrete proposals and make definite decisions, such as we have seen to date, will by default mean the border will cease to be open. The only question in that case is how closed will it become and the answers to that largely lie - for now - with Brexiters making some concrete proposals that could form a basis for real negotiations. After Brexit, it won't be up to them at all, since it will then be over to the CJEU to examine the arrangements in place and to decide whether they are compatible with EU law. And, I for one doubt, that the current arrangements, were anyone to try to continue to run them by default after Brexit, would be judged to be even remotely compatible with EU law.

View · 19-09-2017 12:56pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also think Brexit was the right decision for the UK because it would have never been a willing adherent of the Euro-federalist superstate that inevitably will come about.

There is no commitment in either the EU Treaties or from any of the member states to either create or even work toward a "Euro-federalist superstate". Hence, it is complete nonsense to claim that one will "inevitably" come about.

That's a bit akin to claiming that a united Ireland would inevitably mean we'd become a Marxist-Leninist state. :-)

Enzokk · 19-09-2017 12:56pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm skipping the border enforcement bit as I've been crystal clear on this.

In discussing a trade deal - with whom?

Overall I'm convinced that if the UK retains as much trade as possible into the European Union whilst improving trade terms with the other 56% of trade that it will be significantly better off in the long term.

For Brexit to have been a success we need to see how taking back control can be an overall benefit to the UK. I think this will be very clear in 10-15 years time.

I also think Brexit was the right decision for the UK because it would have never been a willing adherent of the Euro-federalist superstate that inevitably will come about.

On the border issue you have been very clear that you will just ignore the points that people are trying to point out to you. There can be no border control if there is a CTA.

In any case, take any trade deal that the EU has at the moment, if the UK gets a trade deal with a country that already has a EU trade deal, but the terms leave them slightly worse off than before, is that the price to pay for control?

What I am asking, are you happy that people will be worse off just to have a illusion of control.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments