Brexit discussion thread III

Jim2007

Infini wrote: »

And WHO has the veto to crash YOUR economy Sir Dumbus Assus? Do I detect a hint of tranquil panic there? ^_^

And of course Irish agri exports world wide total about 5%... and how will his voters like the new prices???

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think the point is that the GFA is being undermined as opposed to being visibly violated.

If that is the point, then fine. That is a genuine concern.

I made a comment earlier in the thread about bull**** and mud throwing. This is a perfect example.

Infini

Infini wrote: »

And WHO has the veto to crash YOUR economy Sir Dumbus Assus? Do I detect a hint of tranquil panic there? ^_^

Don’t fall for a bit of classic click bait from the Express.

Infini

Aegir wrote: »

Don’t fall for a bit of classic click bait from the Express.

I'm not they actually have a video of him SAYING that lol. It's both hilarious and sad how deluded and devoid of reality he is.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

If that is the point, then fine. That is a genuine concern.

I made a comment earlier in the thread about bull**** and mud throwing. This is a perfect example.

I am not sufficiently well informed regarding the GFA to make claims of that nature but it does seem to me that it looks like it may be being undermined.

Econ_

Tropheus wrote: »

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/925453/Brexit-news-latest-update-UK-EU-Norther-Ireland-border-European-Union-video

'We could RUIN them' Jacob Rees-Mogg issues STERN warning to Ireland over EU border threat?

Who's "we". His friends Gussie Fink-Nottle and Tuppy Glossop?

Not surprising. A few months ago he referred to us as 'not a serious country'.

murphaph

Econ_ wrote: »

Not surprising. A few months ago he referred to us as 'not a serious country'.

A small part of me wants to see him and his mates eat humble pie after their economy melts down but of course it's not them that will suffer. There are millions of innocent people who either voted against the madness or are children. None of them deserve the misery that awaits.

LeinsterDub

Econ_ wrote: »

Not surprising. A few months ago he referred to us as 'not a serious country'.

In the grand scheme of things he may be right we aren't a serious country but either is his anymore the empire is gone and the difference between us and them is we've some serious friends and they are all alone.

Peregrinus

Tropheus wrote: »

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/925453/Brexit-news-latest-update-UK-EU-Norther-Ireland-border-European-Union-video

'We could RUIN them' Jacob Rees-Mogg issues STERN warning to Ireland over EU border threat?

Who's "we". His friends Gussie Fink-Nottle and Tuppy Glossop?

Rees-Mogg is an idiot. An absolute numbskull. Solid bone from ear to ear.

Of course a hard border would be very damaging to Ireland. Of course we know this. We have been saying exactly this, very publicly, and very loudly, for more than a year.

That is precisely why we will not contemplate any brexit agreement which results in a hard border. This is precisely why we have no patience for ultra-Brexiteer handwaving that says it won't be a problem; just trust us. This is precisely why Brexiteers who say we are using "no hard border" as a means to the end of derailing Brexit are completely wrong. "No hard border" is not a means to any end; it is an end in itself, and a very important one.

None of this should be hard to grasp.

If Jacob Rees Mogg - or anyone on the Tory side,really - has a proposal for a different brexit agreement which would deliver no hard border in Ireland in a feasible, sustainable, effective way, let him set it out now.

Until that happens, if we have to choose between a brexit agreement that would deliver a hard border, or a no-deal brexit that would deliver a hard border, we'll chose the latter, in a heartbeat. If Jacob Rees Mogg really does not understand why this is the rational choice for us, he should ask his nanny, who will explain it to him in nursery language.

Peregrinus

Very good article in the Financial Times: “10 observations on the draft withdrawal agreement”.

Sadly, it’s paywalled. For the general benefit, the ten observations are:

1. Up to now, discussion has been in general, and often strident, terms. But now there are substantial proposals and details to focus on.

2. The EU, not the UK, has produced this draft. The UK could have done, but didn’t; the EU doing it has pushed the process forward.

3. Brexit supporters who object to this draft should ask why the UK did not prepare its own. In any negotiations, the party preparing the first draft secures a significant tactical advantage.

4. It’s only a draft. It can and will be discussed and amended. The aim is to finalise it by October. So the UK has an opportunity to seek changes to bits it doesn’t like.

5. It’s not a draft out of nowhere. Most of it reflects December’s Phase 1 Report, which in turn builds on an array of published position papers and negotiation documents. it neatly ties together various strands of discussion. (It’s almost as if the EU knows what it’s doing, and what goals it’s working towards!)

6. There is nothing new in the draft. It won't surprise anyone who read the Phase 1 Report. Anyone who is shocked and outraged has not been paying attention.

7. The draft is clear and well-written. If there are disagreements, it will at least be easy to see what they are about. The document is far more a legal one than a diplomatic one.

8. The Irish border proposals are set out in a schedule as a “protocol”. They are a default backstop which will only apply if no different arrangement is agreed. The EU is still open to the UK making its own positive proposals which, if agreed, will supersede the protocol.

9. This is intended to be an agreement with bite. It has effective enforcement mechanisms, including a robust provision for “suspension of benefits” if the agreement is not implemented.

10. The draft agreement makes Brexit more certain than before. Nothing is fixed; unstable UK politics and a weak British government could still mean dramatic changes in policy in the UK. But the draft shows that there is little interest on the EU side in extending the Article 50 notice period, or in encouraging the UK to revoke its Article 50 notification.

ArthurDayne

Peregrinus wrote: »

Very good article in the Financial Times: “10 observations on the draft withdrawal agreement”.

Sadly, it’s paywalled. For the general benefit, the ten observations are:

1. Up to now, discussion has been in general, and often strident, terms. But now there are substantial proposals and details to focus on.

2. The EU, not the UK, has produced this draft. The UK could have do so, but didn’t; the EU doing so has pushed the process forward.

3. Brexit supporters who object to this draft should ask why the UK did not prepare its own. In any negotiations, the party preparing the first draft secures a significant tactical advantage.

4. It’s only a draft. It can and will be amended. The aim is to finalise it by October. So the UK has an opportunity to seek changes to bits it doesn’t like.

5. It’s not a draft out of nowhere. Most of it reflects December’s Phase 1 Report, which in turn builds on an array of published position papers and negotiation documents. it neatly ties together various strands of discussion. It’s almost as if the EU knows what it’s doing, and what goals it’s working towards!

6. There is nothing new in the draft. It is not intended to surprise anyone who read the Phase 1 Report. Anyone who is shocked and outraged has not been paying attention.

7. The draft is clear and well-written. If there are disagreements, it will at least be easy to see what they are about. The document is far more a legal one than a diplomatic one.

8. The Irish border proposals are set out in a schedule as a “protocol”. They are a default backstop which will only apply if no different arrangement is agreed. The EU is still open to the UK making its own positive proposals which, if agreed, will supersede the protocol.

9. This is intended to be an agreement with bite. It has effective enforcement mechanisms, including a robust provision for “suspension of benefits” if the agreement is not implemented.

10. The draft agreement makes Brexit more certain than before. Nothing is fixed; unstable UK politics and a weak British government could still mean dramatic changes in policy in the UK. But the draft shows that there is little interest on the EU side in extending the Article 50 notice period, or in encouraging the UK to revoke its Article 50 notification.

Little trick to get round the FT paywall - just Google the article title! Think you can only get away with a couple of times a day though.

Skedaddle

Also they can't really bully Ireland or threaten to single us out for special tarrifs or anything like that without doing the same to the entire EU and cutting their nose off to spite their face.

I've always been fairly sure that this will turn into a load of Ireland bashing as soon as things start to get tough.

I'm not saying that the hard-line Brexiteers and aristocratic little Englander types are representative of modern Britian. However, we need to accept this is fake concern and we would be thrown under the first bus if we were depending on them as a trade partner.

This is absolutely not the aspect of the UK that we developed warm and positive relationships with since the late 20th century. It's more of an echo of the England, or rather a Brirish elite establishment that we were desperately trying to get away from at the turn of the 20th century and who saw (and probably still see us) as an inferior annoyance who wouldn't fall into line and accept our role as humble peasants.

We just need to look after our own interests on this. I can assure you the Brexiteers don't give a flying ... about Ireland. Most of them have a completely sanitised and imagined version of history and many probably couldn't locate us on a map.

Junkyard Tom

Skedaddle wrote: »

I can assure you the Brexiteers don't give a flying ... about Ireland.

I'd like to believe that over 90% of the people in Ireland including the northeast would be fully aware of this.

Enzokk

murphaph wrote: »

A small part of me wants to see him and his mates eat humble pie after their economy melts down but of course it's not them that will suffer. There are millions of innocent people who either voted against the madness or are children. None of them deserve the misery that awaits.

Him and his mates at Somerset Capital will probably make a lot of money from Brexit. They will not suffer in the slightest and I find that disturbing but then again the UK press seems okay with this so he is just a quirky new possible leader for the country.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

No, I was questioning what part of the GFA was being broken by having a harder border between NI and the RoI.

Well, if you're looking for a breach of the GFA, I'd point to the provisions dealing with the British-Irish intergovernmental conference. Para 5 provides that the BIGC will meet to consider "non-devolved Northern Ireland matters, on which the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals", and also to "deal with all-island and cross-border co-operation on non-devolved issues". All decisions at the BIGC are to be " by agreement between both Governments" and there is a provision that "the Governments will make determined efforts to resolve disagreements between them".

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the British Government's brexit plans, in so far as they affect the Irish border and/or Northern Ireland, and in particular in so far as they involve UK proposals for implementing para 49 of the Phase 1 Report, are "non-devolved Northern Ireland matters". As such they need to come before the BIGC, they need to be dealt with by agreement between the two governments, and the two governments need to make determined efforts to resolve disagreements.

So far as I know they haven't been brought before the BIGC as yet, and the UK government hasn't sought any agreement from the Irish government for its intentions with respect to Northern Ireland, or acknowledged that it needs to do so. In fairness, this may be because the UK government hasn't yet formulated its plans with respect to Northern Ireland; all they have done is hyperventilate about plans formulated by others. But when the UK government eventually gets around to making a counter-suggestion about this, as it will have to do someday, it seems to me that they have to seek the agreement of the Irish government through the mechanisms of the BIGC. If they don't, that will look to me like a breach of the GFA.

But the real issue here isn't breaches of the consultation and agreement processes required by the GFA; it's unilateral actions taken by the UK government which fundamentally undermine the basis on which the GFA rests. That may not be a breach of the terms of the GFA, strictly speaking, but it's a huge problem nevertheless. To my mind, it's a much bigger concern that the breach of the GFA that I anticipate above. It's absolutely no defence or vindication of the UK's attitude here to say that it doesn't [yet] involve a breach of the GFA.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

If that is the point, then fine. That is a genuine concern.

I made a comment earlier in the thread about bull**** and mud throwing. This is a perfect example.

I'm actually struggling to understand how you think it's bulk or mud throwing to Believe the GFA is undermined by the British government going into a coalition with one side of the devide in northern Ireland and offering 1 billion for their assistance and relying on their support to prop up the government of the day.

It's questionable how you think that is 'gravy' to coin a term.

Do you?

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

I'm actually struggling to understand how you think it's bulk or mud throwing to Believe the GFA is undermined by the British government going into a coalition with one side of the devide in northern Ireland . . .

Aegir doesn't say that. He says its bullsh1t to say that the GFA is breached by the Tories' confidence-and-supply agreement with the DUP at Westminster.

And he's right. That's not a breach of the GFA. It's definitely an impediment to the smooth working of the GFA, and/or to people's confidence in the working of the GFA, but it's not a breach.

(And hopefully it will only be a transient impediment. The next UK general election can't come a day too soon, for all our sakes, on both sides of the Irish Sea.)

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

Aegir doesn't say that. He says its bullsh1t to say that the GFA is breached by the Tories' confidence-and-supply agreement with the DUP at Westminster.

And he's right. That's not a breach of the GFA. It's definitely an impediment to the smooth working of the GFA, and/or to people's confidence in the working of the GFA, but it's not a breach.

And hopefully it will only be a transient impediment. The next UK general election can't come a day too soon, for all our sakes.

Who said it's breached? You or him because I didn't . Aegir knows what he is saying he is down playing the significance of Tories and dup involvement under the guise of a fancy title . No need for someone to smooth the language over for him.

It's not helpful to the GFA what so ever and that should be pointed to front and centre given the current twists and turns on the border.

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

Who said it's breached? You or him because I didn't .

You did, though.

If you drill down through the conversation, it goes like this:

Tigerandahalf [in post #4970]: I can see May’s point [that treating NI differently from GB will breach the UK constitution].

Sam Russell: No. Parliament is sovereign. An Act of Parliament [that treats NI differently from GB] can’t breach the constitution; it just changes it. However Parliament can breach the GFA, which is an international treaty that can only be changed by agreement of both governments.

Aegir: Which part of the GFA is being broken?

Listermint: The part where the Tories interfered with being non-partisan by going into government with [the DUP].

Aegir: Where is the word ‘partisan’ in the GFA?

Ancapailldorcha: I think the point is that the GFA is being undermined as opposed to being visibly violated.

Aegir: If that’s the point, fine. That is a genuine concern. I made a comment earlier in the thread about bull**** and mud throwing. This is a perfect example.

TL;DR: Aegir says its legitimate to argue that the GFA is being undermined, but bullsh1t to say that it’s being breached.

And he’s right. The Tories relying on the DUP at Westminster may undermine the GFA, but it doesn’t breach it.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if you're looking for a breach of the GFA, I'd point to the provisions dealing with the British-Irish intergovernmental conference. Para 5 provides that the BIGC will meet to consider "non-devolved Northern Ireland matters, on which the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals", and also to "deal with all-island and cross-border co-operation on non-devolved issues". All decisions at the BIGC are to be " by agreement between both Governments" and there is a provision that "the Governments will make determined efforts to resolve disagreements between them".

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the British Government's brexit plans, in so far as they affect the Irish border and/or Northern Ireland, and in particular in so far as they involve UK proposals for implementing para 49 of the Phase 1 Report, are "non-devolved Northern Ireland matters". As such they need to come before the BIGC, they need to be dealt with by agreement between the two governments, and the two governments need to make determined efforts to resolve disagreements.

So far as I know they haven't been brought before the BIGC as yet, and the UK government hasn't sought any agreement from the Irish government for its intentions with respect to Northern Ireland, or acknowledged that it needs to do so. In fairness, this may be because the UK government hasn't yet formulated its plans with respect to Northern Ireland; all they have done is hyperventilate about plans formulated by others. But when the UK government eventually gets around to making a counter-suggestion about this, as it will have to do someday, it seems to me that they have to seek the agreement of the Irish government through the mechanisms of the BIGC. If they don't, that will look to me like a breach of the GFA.

But the real issue here isn't breaches of the consultation and agreement processes required by the GFA; it's unilateral actions taken by the UK government which fundamentally undermine the basis on which the GFA rests. That may not be a breach of the terms of the GFA, strictly speaking, but it's a huge problem nevertheless. To my mind, it's a much bigger concern that the breach of the GFA that I anticipate above. It's absolutely no defence or vindication of the UK's attitude here to say that it doesn't [yet] involve a breach of the GFA.

I think it is perfectly right to point to that clause and make sure both governments adhere to it, but the BIC have met to discuss this and are engaged in the process

https://www.britishirishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/communiqu%C3%A9s/Extraordinary%20Summit%20-%20Cardiff%20-%2022072016.pdf

its worth noting though, that this is well out of the scope of the GFA and the fact that there is a third party involved, namely the EU means that the BIC just isn't suitable for this kind of negotiation.

The spirit of the GFA with regards the British and Irish governments is that they talk, openly and regularly, which they are doing.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Who said it's breached? You or him because I didn't . Aegir knows what he is saying he is down playing the significance of Tories and dup involvement under the guise of a fancy title . No need for someone to smooth the language over for him.

It's not helpful to the GFA what so ever and that should be pointed to front and centre given the current twists and turns on the border.

If Sinn Fein went into coalition with Fine Fail to form the Irish government, would you also consider that a "Breach" of the GFA?

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

You did, though.

If you drill down through the conversation, it goes like this:

Tigerandahalf [in post #4970]: I can see May’s point [that treating NI differently from GB will breach the UK constitution].

Sam Russell: No. Parliament is sovereign. An Act of Parliament [that treats NI differently from GB] can’t breach the constitution; it just changes it. However Parliament can breach the GFA, which is an international treaty that can only be changed by agreement of both governments.

Aegir: Which part of the GFA is being broken?

Listermint: The part where the Tories interfered with being non-partisan by going into government with [the DUP].

Aegir: Where is the word ‘partisan’ in the GFA?

Ancapailldorcha: I think the point is that the GFA is being undermined as opposed to being visibly violated.

Aegir: If that’s the point, fine. That is a genuine concern. I made a comment earlier in the thread about bull**** and mud throwing. This is a perfect example.

TL;DR: Aegir says its legitimate to argue that the GFA is being undermined, but bullsh1t to say that it’s being breached.

And he’s right. The Tories relying on the DUP at Westminster may undermine the GFA, but it doesn’t breach it.

Afraid not. Buddy I never did it was breached , broken meaning not working I never indicated at all it was breached.

I had no doubt though youd attempt some mental linguistics though.

And I'm confident you'll also say that power sharing arrangements that are in the bin have nothing to with the dups position propping up the Tories



. Any comment on the response you gave earlier about the telegraph when Rees was on video saying those comments you said he didn't make.


No thought not

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

If Sinn Fein went into coalition with Fine Fail to form the Irish government, would you also consider that a "Breach" of the GFA?

Not really no because the Irish government don't set budgets or anything remotely related to finance within northern Ireland so really can't pick sides. The Tories however....

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Not really no.

No, I didn’t think you would somehow.

Skedaddle

The problem isn't so much that it's a breech of the GFA, rather that it shows up a major flaw in how the oversight of the treaty would work.

It assumes that neither government could ever be belligerent to the concepts behind the GFA and fbag they can act with a distance from North Irish sectarianism. That's proving not to be the case.

Perhaps the GFA should have had an independent set of "guardians of the treaty" who could at least exert moral authority should the GFA be put at risk by a political mess like this. I mean perhaps something like a council of state but drawn from beyond Ireland with the sole objective of monitoring implementation of the GFA and with an ability to at the very least stand up and call out problems like this.

It's something that probably should be reviewed as soon as this Brexit fiasco is settled.

It's not unreasonable considering plenty of other similar bodies exist as checks and balances in both the Irish and British systems.

Also I would argue that what should have been put in place was a Northern Irish constitution. Something that was put beyond Westminster politics.

However, we are where we are and it's going to have to be us : civil society in Ireland, north and south and also politicians who have some moral fibre and sense of perspective to keep talking and keep shining a spotlight on this and protecting that agreement.

To give some credit to Michel Barnier and his team, they have been very much trying to protect the GFA. It's been one of their key concerns since the very start.

I think what the UK may be a bit surprised to notice is that economics is only one aspect of what the EU is about. It isn't just a simple trade bloc. It's showing a lot of metal in its willingness to stand behind Ireland on this one and appears to genuinely be very concerned about the future of peace on this island.

You also have to remember that Northern Ireland is almost the perfect example of how the structures and concepts of the EU were able to facilitate a peaceful, locally built, resolution to a centuries old and very hot and dangerous conflict.

I'm by no means saying the EU is perfect, but at least it's coming from the point of view of an optimistic, open minded vision of striving for something better than just a bunch of small, petty nations continuously fighting. That's been Europe's history and it seems to be where the Brexiteers are most comfortable.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Afraid not. Buddy I never did it was breached , broken meaning not working I never indicated at all it was breached.

I had no doubt though youd attempt some mental linguistics though.

And I'm confident you'll also say that power sharing arrangements that are in the bin have nothing to with the dups position propping up the Tories



. Any comment on the response you gave earlier about the telegraph when Rees was on video saying those comments you said he didn't make.


No thought not

I believe you are confused as to whom you are replying.

Econ_

‘‘The EU produces papers and drafts.

The UK produces newspaper articles and speeches.’’


Brilliant summary of the entire Brexit process delivered by a FT correspondent.

whatstherush

Tropheus wrote: »

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/925453/Brexit-news-latest-update-UK-EU-Norther-Ireland-border-European-Union-video

'We could RUIN them' Jacob Rees-Mogg issues STERN warning to Ireland over EU border threat?

Who's "we". His friends Gussie Fink-Nottle and Tuppy Glossop?

The irony never lost of them that they think they can ruin a country because they can put up barriers to 14% of our exports, but the very same barriers reciprocated to the market for 50% of their exports will have no affect.

Enzokk

whatstherush wrote: »

The irony never lost of them that they think they can ruin a country because they can put up barriers to 14% of our exports, but the very same barriers reciprocated to the market for 50% of their exports will have no affect.

Brexit negotiation strategy in a nutshell there. We can harm other countries so please give us a deal, even though the harm we would feel would be multiples worse for our own country.

I think the cakeist thinking is very much that other countries will be the sane ones and will not allow themselves to be slightly hurt by Brexit, that way they will not get harmed even worse because others are smarter than they are. Then again if it works who really are the smart ones?

FrancieBrady

The DUP position continues to erode. Expect more mudslinging emanating from there as they attempt to put the blame on anyone they can.
They don't have the finesse to stop a fast moving train.

The DUP knows to get what it can, when it can, however it can. But there still comes a point when you need to know your limitations and maintain relationships. In humiliating May to no avail, the DUP crossed that line, in London and Brussels. The collapse of the Stormont talks suggests it has crossed that line in Belfast as well.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-dup-has-played-hardball-and-lost-1.3409274

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Brexit negotiation strategy in a nutshell there. We can harm other countries so please give us a deal, even though the harm we would feel would be multiples worse for our own country.

I think the cakeist thinking is very much that other countries will be the sane ones and will not allow themselves to be slightly hurt by Brexit, that way they will not get harmed even worse because others are smarter than they are. Then again if it works who really are the smart ones?

It can't work at all. What the UK doesn't seem to realise or understand is that the EU as an entity is fighting for its very existence. Any deal where the UK is better off outside the EU, rather than within, is the equivalent of the EU shooting itself in the head as there will be a scramble by every other country to cherry pick new agreements. Ultimately, the UK's only tactic will be to try to divide and conquer, as if the EU remains united then they really are powerless other than throwing their toys out of the pram with a hard Brexit. Given the rise of far right elements within the EU, a cohesive and united stance on Brexit isn't a given. Ní neart go cur le chéile.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It can't work at all. What the UK doesn't seem to realise or understand is that the EU as an entity is fighting for its very existence. Any deal where the UK is better off outside the EU, rather than within, is the equivalent of the EU shooting itself in the head as there will be a scramble by every other country to cherry pick new agreements. Ultimately, the UK's only tactic will be to try to divide and conquer, as if the EU remains united then they really are powerless other than throwing their toys out of the pram with a hard Brexit. Given the rise of far right elements within the EU, a cohesive and united stance on Brexit isn't a given. Ní neart go cur le chéile.

The thing is divide and conquer will not work for the simple reason they need ALL countries to agree to the deal; it does not matter if Italy wants to pay UK 50 billion a year if Poland is pissed off for being limited in the working market and will veto the deal. That is the part UK does not get; it's an all or nothing deal and all 27 countries need to sign the dotted line; trying to pitch various faction against each other is only a way to guarantee that there will be no deal signed from EU's side in the end. Hence instead of trying to sweet talk each country and pitch them against each other UK should speak to each country of the benefits of the deal and how that country will benefit from it (and listen to the concerns instead of having someone like David or Boris creating headlines for all the wrong reasons).

Water John

I think Davis said yesterday that some EU countries were getting impatient as they were anxious to get trade deals done with the UK. What a load of bluster and codswallop. No EU could have negotiations with the UK.
The utter tripe they come out with.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

The thing is divide and conquer will not work for the simple reason they need ALL countries to agree to the deal; it does not matter if Italy wants to pay UK 50 billion a year if Poland is pissed off for being limited in the working market and will veto the deal. That is the part UK does not get; it's an all or nothing deal and all 27 countries need to sign the dotted line; trying to pitch various faction against each other is only a way to guarantee that there will be no deal signed from EU's side in the end. Hence instead of trying to sweet talk each country and pitch them against each other UK should speak to each country of the benefits of the deal and how that country will benefit from it (and listen to the concerns instead of having someone like David or Boris creating headlines for all the wrong reasons).

That's assuming that the EU remains cohesive. Britain isn't the most Eurosceptic country in the EU. No less than the Brexiteers, there are large swathes of parties and voters across Europe who want to leave the EU and would be very happy to see its demise in order to achieve 'independence'. Ironically, Britain's misfortune might be their opportunity. A nasty Brexit squabble where the EU cohesion comes under pressure might be just such an opportunity.

Skedaddle

Seems the line coming from the Brexiteers is that this empass is a conspiracy by Brussels, Dublin and the remainers against them, rather than accepting that the NI border is extremely difficult to resolve.

It's more of a conspiracy of reality against fantasy. You can vote for something and make a decision, but it doesn't absolve you of all consequences.

The NI problem was flagged and warned about repeatedly by pretty much everyone who knows anything about it well before Brexit was even a thing! It shouldn't be a surprise that this is a huge issue.

They chose not to listen and then they brought one side or the conflict almost into government with them, just to make it about 1 million times worse and snooker themselves entirely.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's assuming that the EU remains cohesive. Britain isn't the most Eurosceptic country in the EU. No less than the Brexiteers, there are large swathes of parties and voters across Europe who want to leave the EU and would be very happy to see its demise in order to achieve 'independence'. Ironically, Britain's misfortune might be their opportunity. A nasty Brexit squabble where the EU cohesion comes under pressure might be just such an opportunity.

It does not matter if 15 countries wants to break out as long as 1 country is ready to vote the deal down however. It's an all countries agree or no country agree deal which means UK needs to get all 27 countries to sign up to it. That is why the flirting with Frexit etc. was such a stupid idea to push because it simply would not get UK a better deal; if anything it would ensure no deal (and hard brexit) happens instead.

Water John

Poland and Hungary would be stretching the EU ATM. Not exactly paragons of democracy. Also the EU has never dealt with the internal beaurocrats desire for further integration, a position only backed by about 17% of the population.

Capt'n Midnight

This comment.
https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/02/28/eu-document-is-the-equivalent-of-a-government-white-paper-so-the-telling-detail-is-yet-to-come/

The EU have been absolutely crystal clear, the UK can adhere as much/little as they want to the EU - Norway, Switzerland, Moldova or Turkey. The more you do - the more you get, ditto the opposite. They have no interest in any ongoing - two way flexible arrangements, its anathema to their interests (overall EU cohesion) & they have repeated this ad nauseum at this stage.

This is not a traditional "you give a little/I give a little" negotiation.

What the Brexiters are asking of the EU is that it destroys its rasion d' etre, hegemony, and leaves itself open to destructive break up via future cherry picking from the other EU27 (all bad for EU) in return for giving the UK goodies it wants.

What the Brexiters are asking of the EU is lose:lose for it.

In an negotiation it helps to look at things from the other side.

The EU has a lot of constraints, like every existing deals with members and 70 other countries.


Also the EU doesn't need money.

It's always nice to have but the EU isn't going to fall apart with the UK's reduced contribution. Anything except The CU means payment of Tariffs , anything except Hard Brexit means payments to EU , anything else is a bit of both.

The Eurozone has grown faster the the UK since Brexit was announced. And the EU only takes a little over 2% of EU government spending, and the UK only supplies a fraction of that. The amount the UK would have to pay as an EU member is going down. IIRC 9 of the 10 top economic black spots (European Regional Development ?) in Northern EU are in the UK , with one in the Netherlands.

Skedaddle

When you're talking about a population of nearly half a billion, it works out at roughly one cappuccino each per year. We'll probably survive!

It's very easy to blow figures out of perspective.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

It does not matter if 15 countries wants to break out as long as 1 country is ready to vote the deal down however. It's an all countries agree or no country agree deal which means UK needs to get all 27 countries to sign up to it. That is why the flirting with Frexit etc. was such a stupid idea to push because it simply would not get UK a better deal; if anything it would ensure no deal (and hard brexit) happens instead.

That's fine assuming no Eurosceptic parties wield power if/when a Brexit deal is reached. That would then be their opportunity to bring the house of cards down. Depending on your perspective, it could be argued that, as an entity, the EU is in a much more precarious position than the UK

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

The thing is divide and conquer will not work for the simple reason they need ALL countries to agree to the deal; it does not matter if Italy wants to pay UK 50 billion a year if Poland is pissed off for being limited in the working market and will veto the deal. That is the part UK does not get; it's an all or nothing deal and all 27 countries need to sign the dotted line; trying to pitch various faction against each other is only a way to guarantee that there will be no deal signed from EU's side in the end. Hence instead of trying to sweet talk each country and pitch them against each other UK should speak to each country of the benefits of the deal and how that country will benefit from it (and listen to the concerns instead of having someone like David or Boris creating headlines for all the wrong reasons).

That's assuming that the EU remains cohesive. Britain isn't the most Eurosceptic country in the EU. No less than the Brexiteers, there are large swathes of parties and voters across Europe who want to leave the EU and would be very happy to see its demise in order to achieve 'independence'. Ironically, Britain's misfortune might be their opportunity. A nasty Brexit squabble where the EU cohesion comes under pressure might be just such an opportunity.

Which countries are the most "Eurosceptic" and how are you measuring that? Yes, there are eurosceptic (aka populist among other things) parties in almost all EU countries but if there was a brexit style referendum carried out in each member state, which ones would vote leave?

And would we care? 99% of Brexit angst in Ireland is directly connected to our physical, economic and historic connections with the UK. Would we worry that much if it was Malta or Slovakia or Latvia? Would anyone else?

Roanmore

I keep hearing about how the UK want to be able to ditch regulations that they don't like. Do we know what these regulations are?
Has anybody from the Brexit side come out and said specifically which ones they don't agree with or is it hypothetically speaking regulations they may not agree with in the future?

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It can't work at all. What the UK doesn't seem to realise or understand is that the EU as an entity is fighting for its very existence. Any deal where the UK is better off outside the EU, rather than within, is the equivalent of the EU shooting itself in the head as there will be a scramble by every other country to cherry pick new agreements. Ultimately, the UK's only tactic will be to try to divide and conquer, as if the EU remains united then they really are powerless other than throwing their toys out of the pram with a hard Brexit. Given the rise of far right elements within the EU, a cohesive and united stance on Brexit isn't a given. Ní neart go cur le chéile.

so what you are effectively saying, is that if needs be, the EU will throw Ireland under a bus in order to keep its doctrine in place?

Which would mean a hard border and the 150,000 tonnes of beef imported from Ireland in to the UK each year subject to tariffs of up to 70% which would ruin the Irish beef industry and hurt Ireland very badly?

So JRM was right in his assessment?

Water John

Where are you suggesting the UK gets its beef and cheese? Or maybe JRM wants to put the plebs on a vegan diet whilst they work 60+ hours a week.

Skedaddle

Roanmore wrote: »

I keep hearing about how the UK want to be able to ditch regulations that they don't like. Do we know what these regulations are?
Has anybody from the Brexit side come out and said specifically which ones they don't agree with or is it hypothetically speaking regulations they may not agree with in the future?

I don't think they don't know (or care) what the regulations are. That's the worrying bit.

CrabRevolution

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's assuming that the EU remains cohesive. Britain isn't the most Eurosceptic country in the EU. No less than the Brexiteers, there are large swathes of parties and voters across Europe who want to leave the EU and would be very happy to see its demise in order to achieve 'independence'. Ironically, Britain's misfortune might be their opportunity. A nasty Brexit squabble where the EU cohesion comes under pressure might be just such an opportunity.

A year ago I might have agreed, but now I'm not so sure. In the months after Brexit we were supposed to be hit with an avalanche of anti EU leaders coming to power across Europe, all taking the UKs side in negotiations, if not leading their countries out of the EU too. The election after election came where the likes of Le Pen, Wilders, AFD all finished well behind the pro-european parties and now the UK looks even more isolated.


Even the more eurosceptic countries like Poland and Hungary have stopped well short of suggesting they leave the EU. These countries have a huge interest in continuing the freedom of movement to the UK, I cannot see them agreeing with the UKs "we'll take your money but not your people" line.

The EU has been remarkably united in their Brexit dealings so far. (In a way it's amazing how 27 countries can agree on their position a year ago, but 1 country somehow hasn't agreed with itself yet. )

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Where are you suggesting the UK gets its beef and cheese? Or maybe JRM wants to put the plebs on a vegan diet whilst they work 60+ hours a week.

who are the plebs you refer to in your somewhat bizarre post?

people who eat beef, often eat chicken, lamb, pork.........

First Up

Aegir wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It can't work at all. What the UK doesn't seem to realise or understand is that the EU as an entity is fighting for its very existence. Any deal where the UK is better off outside the EU, rather than within, is the equivalent of the EU shooting itself in the head as there will be a scramble by every other country to cherry pick new agreements. Ultimately, the UK's only tactic will be to try to divide and conquer, as if the EU remains united then they really are powerless other than throwing their toys out of the pram with a hard Brexit. Given the rise of far right elements within the EU, a cohesive and united stance on Brexit isn't a given. Ní neart go cur le chéile.

so what you are effectively saying, is that if needs be, the EU will throw Ireland under a bus in order to keep its doctrine in place?

Which would mean a hard border and the 150,000 tonnes of beef imported from Ireland in to the UK each year subject to tariffs of up to 70% which would ruin the Irish beef industry and hurt Ireland very badly?

So JRM was right in his assessment?

Nothing to do with "doctrine". The EU is 27 countries that can each decide for themselves if they are better off inside or outside the EU.

A 70% hike in beef prices in the UK (as a result of tariffs imposed by the UK government) would be an interesting outcome of Brexit. You think the government that did it would be rewarded at the ballot box?

Skedaddle

Skedaddle wrote: »

The problem isn't so much that it's a breech of the GFA, rather that it shows up a major flaw in how the oversight of the treaty would work.

It assumes that neither government could ever be belligerent to the concepts behind the GFA and fbag they can act with a distance from North Irish sectarianism. That's proving not to be the case.

you mean in addition to the EU, the UN and the ECHR?

the only body more powerful than that lot is the United Federation of Planets.

Skedaddle wrote: »

Also I would argue that what should have been put in place was a Northern Irish constitution. Something that was put beyond Westminster politics.

you mean make Northern Ireland an independent country?

Really?

Skedaddle wrote: »

To give some credit to Michel Barnier and his team, they have been very much trying to protect the GFA. It's been one of their key concerns since the very start.

as it has the British Government. The unique history and relationship and the common travel area were one of the main priorities in the white paper issued over a year ago.

Skedaddle wrote: »

I think what the UK may be a bit surprised to notice is that economics is only one aspect of what the EU is about. It isn't just a simple trade bloc. It's showing a lot of metal in its willingness to stand behind Ireland on this one and appears to genuinely be very concerned about the future of peace on this island.

You also have to remember that Northern Ireland is almost the perfect example of how the structures and concepts of the EU were able to facilitate a peaceful, locally built, resolution to a centuries old and very hot and dangerous conflict.

I'm by no means saying the EU is perfect, but at least it's coming from the point of view of an optimistic, open minded vision of striving for something better than just a bunch of small, petty nations continuously fighting. That's been Europe's history and it seems to be where the Brexiteers are most comfortable.

you do know that Britain has always been in europe, right? it didn't magically parachute in from outer space. The UK was there at the start and finish of both world wars, so knows as well as anyone how and why the EU came about.

But where does it go? what does ever closer union mean? does this mean a federal europe?

PeadarCo

Aegir wrote: »

so what you are effectively saying, is that if needs be, the EU will throw Ireland under a bus in order to keep its doctrine in place?

Which would mean a hard border and the 150,000 tonnes of beef imported from Ireland in to the UK each year subject to tariffs of up to 70% which would ruin the Irish beef industry and hurt Ireland very badly?

So JRM was right in his assessment?

You are aware the year is 2018. Its a long time that Irelands economy was reliant on agriculture. The agri sector contributes a relatively small percentage to overall Irish GDP.

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/gdp-from-agriculture