Brexit discussion thread II

swampgas

blanch152 wrote: »

To use a famous political quotation - it's the economy, stupid.

Northern Ireland will suffer more economically with an Irish Sea border - its closest economic ties are with the rest of the UK. Ironically, large Protestant farmers will suffer most with a hard border with the Republic, might make them rethink on the unity question.

The economic effects on NI are only one factor being considered by the British government. The economy of the UK as a whole, and of England, is going to get most of their attention. If they have to throw the NI economy under a bus to secure a deal that protects the much larger economy of GB, well I wouldn't be so sure that "it's the economy, stupid" wouldn't be wheeled out to justify doing just that.

jm08

Calina wrote: »

That is Ray Bassett's paper, isn't it? It has been massively criticised.

That adds more weight to it as Policy Exchange have come up with the figure of 65% of NI's agricultural exports go to Ireland (and not the UK).

Thats time sensitive produce that will perish if held up (unlike Bombardier plane parts, or London Busses).

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that most of their trade is with the rest of the UK, not with the South.

A hard border with the Republic would be a serious economic problem for Northern Ireland, a border on the Irish Sea would be an economic disaster. It is extremely short-sighted of republicans to be calling for a border on the Irish Sea because of this. It will lead to the people of the North blaming the border on the Irish Sea for their economic disaster and wishing to have the border with the Six Counties reinstated*. By contrast, if a hard border with the South is seen as the cause of economic problems, it will increase pressure for closer ties with the South.




*Unless of course you believe in the fairytale that a united island economy is the solution to all our problems.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a republican. A land border contravenes the Good Friday agreement. That's why people are looking for a solution not involving a land border.

Here's a fact that's being overlooked. Most of Northern Ireland's trade is with the rest of the EU. 54.7% is exported to other EU countries, 33% to Ireland. They were in receipt of massive EU grants and also agriculture grants.

A border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would mean Northern Ireland staying in the single market. This would mean no tariffs on goods to EU countries, grants for business and agriculture and passporting rights for financial services.

You seriously think staying in the single market will be a bigger economic disaster than having a sea border between Northern Ireland and Britain? It seems that you're presenting an ideological opposition rather than an economic one.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a republican. A land border contravenes the Good Friday agreement. That's why people are looking for a solution not involving a land border.

Here's a fact that's being overlooked. Most of Northern Ireland's trade is with the rest of the EU. 54.7% is exported to other EU countries, 33% to Ireland. They were in receipt of massive EU grants and also agriculture grants.

A border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would mean Northern Ireland staying in the single market. This would mean no tariffs on goods to EU countries, grants for business and agriculture and passporting rights for financial services.

You seriously think staying in the single market will be a bigger economic disaster than having a sea border between Northern Ireland and Britain? It seems that you're presenting an ideological opposition rather than an economic one.

I have asked a number of times how a sea border would be significantly more damaging in an economic disaster for the north - one way or another.
Not getting much by way of an answer,

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

A land border contravenes the Good Friday agreement.

Where exactly is that reference coming from? The GFA makes ten references to the border, all in the context of cross border cooperation. It makes no reference to the nature of the border and indeed seems to accept that the border will be a fact of life for the foreseeable future given the emphasis of cross-border cooperation.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

Where exactly is that reference coming from? The GFA makes ten references to the border, all in the context of cross border cooperation. It makes no reference to the nature of the border and indeed seems to accept that the border will be a fact of life for the foreseeable future given the emphasis of cross-border cooperation.

Brexit clearly impacts on a number of elements of the GFA, and foremost among these is the issue of citizenship and identity. The agreement made specific allowances for the people of Northern Ireland to be recognised and accepted as Irish or British citizens (or both). Many have availed of their right to hold an Irish passport. While this is unlikely to change after Brexit, it gives rise to the unprecedented situation in which several hundred thousand Irish citizens will, overnight and in most cases against their will, find themselves outside the European Union.

Questions can also be raised over the future of North-South bodies established under the GFA. Some of these bodies either exist exclusively to disburse EU peace and reconciliation funds (funds which themselves could evaporate after Brexit), or have an explicit mandate to consider the EU dimension of bilateral relations, including relevant programmes and policy implementation.

And one cannot discuss Northern Ireland today without returning to the question of the deeply symbolic open border with Ireland. Through the combination of EU and bilateral rules on free movement and rights to residence, membership of the EU’s customs union, and the Good Friday Agreement the border had until recently all but receded into memory. Brexit reopens the question of customs posts, at the very least, and creative solutions must be employed to ensure that neither cross-border trade nor intercommunity relations suffer unduly.

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_hard_borders_of_the_mind_brexit_northern_ireland_and_the_7273

munsterlegend

swampgas wrote: »

The economic effects on NI are only one factor being considered by the British government. The economy of the UK as a whole, and of England, is going to get most of their attention. If they have to throw the NI economy under a bus to secure a deal that protects the much larger economy of GB, well I wouldn't be so sure that "it's the economy, stupid" wouldn't be wheeled out to justify doing just that.

He doesn't seem to get that NI is not an equal member of the UK. It's a problem child that will be easily disposed of. All that matters is what is good for England and to a lesser extent Scotland. There will be a sea border between NI and the rest of the UK. It's geography stupid.

Water John

But May is stuck with the DUP, ATM. That alters things, for the present.

ambro25

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

I agree with your first point. But an "indefinite transition period" doesn't work for business and industry, which require certainty for lengthy structural/contextual predictability. It would not solve the economical issues anticipated form Brexit (-eventual form irrespective).

True. But what's the alternative? I don't any firm would prefer a sudden withdrawal in 2019.

Perversely, that 'sudden withdrawal in 2019' provides its own certainty for business and industry.

Which goes a long way to explain the increasingly (brutally-) frank views (openly dissing May & Co.) publicly expressed by ever more respectable business leaders of ever bigger FTSE & foreign companies.

No.10 and the Tory body political have been merrily peeing UK plc's goodwill up a wall since around February 2016, and UK plc 'shareholders' are warning No.10 that the bladder is getting to its last dregs.

The Rape of Lucretia

steddyeddy wrote: »

You seriously think staying in the single market will be a bigger economic disaster than having a sea border between Northern Ireland and Britain? It seems that you're presenting an ideological opposition rather than an economic one.

As an economic question, there is no question but that staying in the single market is the better option for the six.

The issue is a political one - unionist sensibilities about creeping further from London, and closer to Dublin. And it is an understandable one. I dont think violence will result, but it will be a very bitter pill for them to swallow - with no real inbetween solution possible to assuage. Other than money. Which will flow from both London and the EU to make it work as best as possible. It will be imperfect - but no one said Brexit was going to be a victimless crime.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

As an economic question, there is no question but that staying in the single market is the better option for the six.

The issue is a political one - unionist sensibilities about creeping further from London, and closer to Dublin. And it is an understandable one. I dont think violence will result, but it will be a very bitter pill for them to swallow - with no real inbetween solution possible to assuage. Other than money. Which will flow from both London and the EU to make it work as best as possible. It will be imperfect - but no one said Brexit was going to be a victimless crime.

I'm sure it is not lost on Arlene that the DUP risk handing electoral dominance back to the UUP (or damaging the DUP so badly that unionism itself would be politically weakened) over their support for Brexit.
Finding a way to agree to a sea border would be an astute move...but then this is the DUP.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_hard_borders_of_the_mind_brexit_northern_ireland_and_the_7273

That isn't a quotation from the Good Friday Agreement.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't a quotation from the Good Friday Agreement.

Did I say it was?

I posted a quote and a link to where it came from. If it was from the GFA them I would have linked to that.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't a quotation from the Good Friday Agreement.

Given up on the economic arguement yet?

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Given up on the economic arguement yet?

He hasn't made one. Just stated a sea border will never happen for economic reasons.

The only reason I can see for not doing it is fear of hurting pride. Seems the only option in this particular posters textbook is to appease the DUP on all things.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have just had the biggest single mass shooting in the US despite the 'hardening'.
And according to some, western civilisation is under threat from ISIS.
So public opinion is clearly not all it is cracked up to be.

Have you missed the widespread condemnation of the Las Vegas shooting? Yes, it will be impossible to stop individual nutcases like him - and I am sure there are few good republicans who will try and protest a border, but in the world of today, it would be impossible to secure public support for such violence and to organise it as before.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Please explain how a sea border will be much more economically damaging than an - all things considered - hard border?

This was covered extensively early in the Border and Brexit thread. No need to repeat it here.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He hasn't made one. Just stated a sea border will never happen for economic reasons.

The only reason I can see for not doing it is fear of hurting pride. Seems the only option in this particular posters textbook is to appease the DUP on all things.

To quote something someone once said:

"Could you possibly write a post that is not about trying to have a go at how you perceive me? That would be good."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104219055&postcount=56

The Rape of Lucretia

blanch152 wrote: »

This was covered extensively early in the Border and Brexit thread. No need to repeat it here.

It was. The sea border being significantly less economically harmful to NI is beyond dispute at this point.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Have you missed the widespread condemnation of the Las Vegas shooting? Yes, it will be impossible to stop individual nutcases like him - and I am sure there are few good republicans who will try and protest a border, but in the world of today, it would be impossible to secure public support for such violence and to organise it as before.




This was covered extensively early in the Border and Brexit thread. No need to repeat it here.

Access to the biggest single market in the world VS a sea border. You're not repeating the arguement because it's nonsense, not because it was repeated elsewhere.

blanch152

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It was. The sea border being significantly less economically harmful to NI is beyond dispute at this point.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Access to the biggest single market in the world VS a sea border. You're not repeating the arguement because it's nonsense, not because it was repeated elsewhere.

No, it wasn't, it was clearly established the opposite is the case. The export statistics quoted in this thread don't include internal trade within the UK.

Northern Ireland is dependent on mainland UK economically, it could not survive outside of that dependency.

Anyway, my views or yours don't matter, the GFA is absolutely clear on one point, the status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide, not for the European Parliament, not for the Irish Government, and certainly not for some internet posters to decide. And I certainly don't see them deciding for an Irish Sea border, do you?

Neither are we going to see a 500km wall, as some of the scaremongers are suggesting. What we will see is technology, number plate recognition, cameras, etc.

The Rape of Lucretia

Some choice quotes from the tory conference :
(and no, I didnt even have to make ANY of these up myself!)

Boris : “Without pain and doubt and anxiety, there can be no pleasure, no triumph and no success. There is no country better placed than Britain. Let that lion roar.” "I can tell you, the whole Cabinet is united."


Rees-Mogg : “It’s Waterloo, it’s Agincourt, it’s Crécy … we win all these things".


Davis : “There is a determined exercise in Whitehall devoted to every contingency. Prizes for success are enormous, as are the costs of failure.”
“But we are the country of William Shakespeare and Jane Austen, of Alexander Fleming and James Dyson." "David Beckham's left foot, come to that".



(OK, the last line I did rob - but it doesnt even sound out of place!).

The Rape of Lucretia

blanch152 wrote: »

What we will see is technology, number plate recognition, cameras, etc.

'Magical thinking' is the technical term you are looking for here.

No. A border in the Irish sea is the only workable solution. If Brexit goes ahead of course.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

To quote something someone once said:

"Could you possibly write a post that is not about trying to have a go at how you perceive me? That would be good."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104219055&postcount=56

You want republicans to appease the DUP on rights, and you don't agree with a sea border. The only problem with which is unionist pride.

Is there anything untrue there? In these instances that is how I perceive your argument.

FrancieBrady

After Brexit what is going to hinder the north shipping product into the UK? Customs?

Professor Moriarty

Lest there be any lingering doubt as to the true nature of the Little Englander mentality of the Tory party, this from Boris Johnson at the Tory conference tonight:


I look at Libya, it's an incredible country," he told the meeting.

"Bone-white sands, beautiful sea, Caesar's Palace, obviously, you know, the real one.

"Incredible place. It's got a real potential and brilliant young people who want to do all sorts of tech.

"There's a group of UK business people, actually, some wonderful guys who want to invest in Sirte on the coast, near where Gaddafi was captured and executed as some of you may have seen.

"They have got a brilliant vision to turn Sirte into the next Dubai.

"The only thing they have got to do is clear the dead bodies away," he said, before laughing.

BBC

steddyeddy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Lest there be any lingering doubt as to the true nature of the Little Englander mentality of the Tory party, this from Boris Johnson at the Tory conference tonight:


I look at Libya, it's an incredible country," he told the meeting.

"Bone-white sands, beautiful sea, Caesar's Palace, obviously, you know, the real one.

"Incredible place. It's got a real potential and brilliant young people who want to do all sorts of tech.

"There's a group of UK business people, actually, some wonderful guys who want to invest in Sirte on the coast, near where Gaddafi was captured and executed as some of you may have seen.

"They have got a brilliant vision to turn Sirte into the next Dubai.

"The only thing they have got to do is clear the dead bodies away," he said, before laughing.

BBC

The Tory government hired this man to represent the UK in other countries. That tells me everything I need to know anout how they'll handle Brexit. Complete idiots.

Jim2007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_hard_borders_of_the_mind_brexit_northern_ireland_and_the_7273

This is just an option piece - I'm still waiting for someone to point to an actual clause in the agreement which states that the border can not be controlled and I suspect I'll be waiting along time because it just is not there.

jm08

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

'Magical thinking' is the technical term you are looking for here.

No. A border in the Irish sea is the only workable solution. If Brexit goes ahead of course.

They were happy to go along with an Irish sea border in 1996 when it suited:

A CROSS-PARTY delegation of Northern Ireland MPs and the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union will meet the British Prime Minister, Mr Major, today to appeal for special status for Northern Ireland in the BSE crisis.
At the same time, the SDLP leader, Mr John Hume, his fellow MEP, the Ulster Unionist Mr Jim Nicholson and the deputy president of the UFU, Mr Walter Elliott, will meet the EU Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Franz Fischler in Strasbourg.


"Basically we will be saying to the Prime Minister that given - that there is a willingness in Europe to look at Northern Ireland sympathetically and separately, then the UK government should not be holding us back," said Mr Wesley Aston, director of commodities for the farming union.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/major-faces-pressure-on-north-s-bse-status-1.87727

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You want republicans to appease the DUP on rights, and you don't agree with a sea border. The only problem with which is unionist pride.

Is there anything untrue there? In these instances that is how I perceive your argument.

Yes, there is plenty of wrong there. Ascribing "unionist pride" to my arguments is a cop-out and a way to escape debating the merit of the points raised.

I am not going to go off-topic on the rights issue but Varadkar nailed it in the Dail this week.

On the sea border issue, the economic facts were presented in the other thread and exposed the problems with the idea, apart all together that imposing such a border without letting the people of Northern Ireland vote on it would be a breach of the GFA.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

No, it wasn't, it was clearly established the opposite is the case. The export statistics quoted in this thread don't include internal trade within the UK.

Northern Ireland is dependent on mainland UK economically, it could not survive outside of that dependency.

You are assuming that the UK economy will continue to be strong. What will actually happen is that with the UK losing access to the single market, NI will be unable to compete with GB in the UK internal market. Infact, NI would probably be protected in the EU from steel dumping now that the UK won't be there to block the increase in tariffs.

Anyway, my views or yours don't matter, the GFA is absolutely clear on one point, the status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide, not for the European Parliament, not for the Irish Government, and certainly not for some internet posters to decide. And I certainly don't see them deciding for an Irish Sea border, do you?

Didn't the people of NI vote to remain in the EU?

Neither are we going to see a 500km wall, as some of the scaremongers are suggesting. What we will see is technology, number plate recognition, cameras, etc.

How will cameras and drones operate at night on the backroads on the border?

breatheme

Jim2007 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_hard_borders_of_the_mind_brexit_northern_ireland_and_the_7273

This is just an option piece - I'm still waiting for someone to point to an actual clause in the agreement which states that the border can not be controlled and I suspect I'll be waiting along time because it just is not there.

This is something I've been biting my lip on. People say that a border goes against the GFA agreement. It doesn't. The CTA is also not mentioned in the GFA, and it itself exists out of agreements that are not legally binding. This means that, effectively, Ireland could leave the CTA tomorrow and join Schengen and it would not be breaking the GFA. As long as people born in NI can claim Irish citizenship, it doesn't matter if there's border infrastructure in place, Ireland's not breaking the GFA.

Capt'n Midnight

Monarch airlines folded, one of the reasons was the fall in sterling.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41466722
A part of me thinks they on of the final nails in the coffin was Brexit because it wasn't going to make things any easier.

Still it means Ryanair might have some new hires.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, there is plenty of wrong there. Ascribing "unionist pride" to my arguments is a cop-out and a way to escape debating the merit of the points raised.

I am not going to go off-topic on the rights issue but Varadkar nailed it in the Dail this week.

On the sea border issue, the economic facts were presented in the other thread and exposed the problems with the idea, apart all together that imposing such a border without letting the people of Northern Ireland vote on it would be a breach of the GFA.

There are problems with all solutions.
There are no 'facts' that I can see that make a sea border more economically damaging if you are looking at all the implications.

And given our history is it important to look at all the implications and not to get blinded.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Monarch airlines folded, one of the reasons was the fall in sterling.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41466722
A part of me thinks they on of the final nails in the coffin was Brexit because it wasn't going to make things any easier.

Still it means Ryanair might have some new hires.

Monarch are mainly Airbus, Ryanair are Boeing. Aer Lingus, Whizz Air and Easy jet have already approached Monarch pilots, Ryanair will miss out.

AirBerlin have gone into receivership as well as Alitalia, what we’re seeing is survival of the fittest and biggest and doesn’t really have much to do with Brexit.

FrancieBrady

Jim2007 wrote: »

This is just an option piece - I'm still waiting for someone to point to an actual clause in the agreement which states that the border can not be controlled and I suspect I'll be waiting along time because it just is not there.

I don't think anyone said that the 'GFA states that a border cannot be controlled'.

Some more reading on it here. Plenty to be very concerned about. And I think there is no doubt that it has 'implications' for the agreement.


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI(2017)583116_EN.pdf

http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2017/JCIGFA_Brexit_Report_FINAL.pdf

solodeogloria

swampgas wrote: »

Because one part is on a different island with a complex land border with an EU neighbour? Because it might help address issues with the GFA after Brexit? Because it might be part of a creative and flexible solution to the impact of Brexit on NI?

Never say never. We're being creative and flexible, remember.

An internal border between NI and GB is a distinct solution for the Irish border. Surely all those technical marvels that were going to work on making the Ireland-NI border "frictionless" would work even better on the NI-GB border?

Good morning!

The question you need to answer is why are we trying to keep the border in Ireland open?

For Northern Ireland's benefit primarily along with more isolated border counties.

So if you propose a more harmful solution to Northern Ireland than a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland then if course it will be rejected because it isn't in Northern Ireland's interests to be isolated from Britain economically. The UK obviously won't permit an internal border within the UK.

Again, this is why the EU need to consider a bespoke arrangement recognising the particular challenges that wouldn't cripple Northern Ireland's economy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The question you need to answer is why are we trying to keep the border in Ireland open?

For Northern Ireland's benefit primarily along with more isolated border counties.

So if you propose a more harmful solution to Northern Ireland than a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland then if course it will be rejected because it isn't in Northern Ireland's interests to be isolated from Britain economically. The UK obviously won't permit an internal border within the UK.

Again, this is why the EU need to consider a bespoke arrangement recognising the particular challenges that wouldn't cripple Northern Ireland's economy.

You are correct that a bespoke arrangement is needed, but I see it only counting towards Northern Ireland and not the UK. There are a few of reasons for this. You cannot discount the history, very recent history, of violence on the island.

Secondly the fact that its the only border that is shared with the UK also has an influence. Thirdly, the people of Northern Ireland voted to STAY in the EU. As you have pointed out before democracy should be followed, and while the UK voted to leave the EU I think in the interests of democracy you have to look at this as a factor.

Now the deal that the EU can propose Northern Ireland cannot be that the UK don't have to have borders or customs checks along the whole UK border and still be outside of the customs union. There is a natural border already that makes this easy to control and it would be foolish not to look at it.

If the UK won't look at a bespoke arrangement recognizing those factors then they are just not prepared to negotiate.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Perhaps we're looking at different negotiations.

The UK is ready and willing to discuss and has provided papers for discussing options for keeping the border open. The EU are holding up progress on the border by refusing to discuss trade and customs by their unreasonable demand for Britain to bend 100% to it's view.

"Sufficient progress" is and was a rat because like many terms that come out of Brussels it wasn't defined.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

There is no bespoke arrangement. NI either gets special status within the EU customs union and single market or we get land border controls because the UK has insisted that it won't subject itself to the ECJ which by definition precludes membership of the single market.

A single market needs a single court of last resort. That is the ECJ.

NI getting special status would 100% be more damaging than the land border in the short term due to NI's close economic ties with GB. It just might work out better for NI (relatively!) if the UK economy really tanks, to be outside and able to trade with a presumably stable EU. It may even profit from GB firms relocating there. But that's pure speculation.

Our government must look out for the economic interests of the majority in the Republic. Northern Ireland must come as a secondary concern.

My personal preference is for a sea border but NI would need additional propping up to offset the lost trade with GB for an indeterminate period of time. Who would provide this funding?

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Perhaps we're looking at different negotiations.

The UK is ready and willing to discuss and has provided papers for discussing options for keeping the border open. The EU are holding up progress on the border by refusing to discuss trade and customs by their unreasonable demand for Britain to bend 100% to it's view.

"Sufficient progress" is and was a rat because like many terms that come out of Brussels it wasn't defined.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If the UK had made sufficient progress in the other 2 strands then they would probably have been satisfied in Brussels to move towards trade and Ireland in one go, but not one of the 3 key areas, agreed by both sides, have been nailed down.

The UK is seemingly not prepared to compromise to a degree where anything more than a FTA like CETA can be offered. The EU is not going to make another mistake like the unwieldy agreement with CH.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Perhaps we're looking at different negotiations.

The UK is ready and willing to discuss and has provided papers for discussing options for keeping the border open. The EU are holding up progress on the border by refusing to discuss trade and customs by their unreasonable demand for Britain to bend 100% to it's view.

"Sufficient progress" is and was a rat because like many terms that come out of Brussels it wasn't defined.

I see negotiations where the UK has proposed to leave the customs union but still wants to have an open border. That has been rejected as,

Michel Barnier wrote:

"Creativity and flexibility can't be at the expense of the integrity of the single market and customs union.
"This would be not fair for Ireland and it would not be fair for the European Union."

EU 'worried' by UK's Irish border proposals

All I do see is that the UK has said Northern Ireland will leave the single market and the customs union along with the UK. The UK seems intent on this, but apparently it is the EU that is not "flexible" in finding solutions.

I don't see how you have no checks but are out of the customs union. I think you and James Brokenshire are both in dream land if you think this is possible. You clearly, along with the UK government, want your cake and want to eat it as well. You cannot be outside the customs union without customs checks. Is that clear?

Minister insists UK will leave EU 'as one nation', spurning suggestion Northern Ireland could stay in single market


But let me guess, this isn't the UK being unreasonable or setting hard lines in the negotiations, its just a starting position.

Zubeneschamali

A leaked memo from Juncker's office early this year on the RTE news, suggesting that NI could be included in an all-island zone for agrifood, with EU standards in effect in NI, no border (hooray say NI farmers) and checks at NI ports on food and animals crossing from the UK (boo say unionists).

Also an offhand remark from the reporter that Varadkar told Irish officials to stop technical work on border solutions as they were getting ahead of the political situation, and risked doing the UK's homework for them.

Samaris

No harm to have some ideas in reserve for if/when this whole thing crashes up against the deadline and nothing's done. We need our own safeguards in place in case the UK absolutely cannot get its act together.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is ready and willing to discuss and has provided papers for discussing options for keeping the border open. The EU are holding up progress on the border by refusing to discuss trade and customs by their unreasonable demand for Britain to bend 100% to it's view.

And rightly so! There is no way to even have relaxed border control as in the case of Switzerland unless the U.K. commits to enforcing EU standards in all of it's trade deal. They are not willing to do that, so it is not going to happen. Just because the inhabitants of fantasy island think it is possible does not mean the rest of the EU have to go along with it.

Chips Lovell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In the past month, May, Davis and Johnson have individually, publicly and categorically rejected the Norway option.

Sorry, I may not have explained it clearly. May said in Florence they'd seek a two year transition deal, post exit, which would temporarily leave them in an arrangement not unlike Norway's. I speculated that this transition period would be continually extended. Hence, "de-facto Norway".

Nobody in the British government will come out and say they want a permanent Norway-style arrangement, because it won't fly politically. The only thing that might is a fudge where it is dressed up as temporary.

mickoneill31

Samaris wrote: »

No harm to have some ideas in reserve for if/when this whole thing crashes up against the deadline and nothing's done. We need our own safeguards in place in case the UK absolutely cannot get its act together.

The longer this goes on the more likely this is to be required.
From what I've seen, the uk will be unable to square this circle so it'll be the EUs responsibility to police our side.

I'm not educated in the possibilities so all I can see that is possible is a hard border. This will give the UK a reason to blame the EU for the next several years which will suit the UK government and appeal to the leaver voters.

The Rape of Lucretia

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, this is why the EU need to consider a bespoke arrangement recognising the particular challenges that wouldn't cripple Northern Ireland's economy.

Which I am sure they would, if one was proposed. But so far, all they have heard is "frictionless", "invisible", "bespoke", "creative" - with no substance. Just 'magical thinking'. As long as the EU is given nothing concrete to consider, then there is nothing to consider.
And without that, then clearly 'substantial progress' has not been made, when such a critical issue is still no more than waffle, or a blank page.

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A leaked memo from Juncker's office early this year on the RTE news, suggesting that NI could be included in an all-island zone for agrifood, with EU standards in effect in NI, no border (hooray say NI farmers) and checks at NI ports on food and animals crossing from the UK (boo say unionists).

Also an offhand remark from the reporter that Varadkar told Irish officials to stop technical work on border solutions as they were getting ahead of the political situation, and risked doing the UK's homework for them.

JC seems to have a big issue with leaks in his office. A cynic might think he did this deliberately :rolleyes:

Ireland needs to have a good plan, because there is no plan B for Ireland. There is a lot of talk about Ireland having the right to veto any deal, but in reality, that is the worst possible scenario for Ireland,because that means hardest of Brexits with a full blown hard border.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think anyone said that the 'GFA states that a border cannot be controlled'.

Some more reading on it here. Plenty to be very concerned about. And I think there is no doubt that it has 'implications' for the agreement.


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI(2017)583116_EN.pdf

http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2017/JCIGFA_Brexit_Report_FINAL.pdf

I read the Oireachtas Report (why did you get it from the Sinn Fein website?) and there is absolutely no mention of a border being in conflict with the GFA.

Jim2007

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Sorry, I may not have explained it clearly. May said in Florence they'd seek a two year transition deal, post exit, which would temporarily leave them in an arrangement not unlike Norway's. I speculated that this transition period would be continually extended. Hence, "de-facto Norway".

Nobody in the British government will come out and say they want a permanent Norway-style arrangement, because it won't fly politically. The only thing that might is a fudge where it is dressed up as temporary.

The EU parliament put an end to that yesterday day! Any transition period will require full compliance with EU law both current and newly introduced during the transition period, acceptance of ECJ rulings, FMOP etc...

There is no justification for allowing this nonsense to continue indefinitely, we need to bring it to a close and move on, so that the EU can concentrate on it's own issues.