Brexit discussion thread III

sink

_Puma_ wrote: »

Take the politics out of it, propose the governments work through our own Anglo-Irish back channels in tandem with the NI Executive to get something worked on to protect the GFA. This grandstanding in the Brexit "negotiations" are getting us nowhere and unless someone blinks first it will be disastrous for NI. Time to think about a contingency plan.

Couple of issues with your strategy.

1. Ireland as an EU member has no authority to negotiate bilaterally on what will be an EU external border.
2. It is impossible to take politics out of Northern Ireland
3. There is no Stormont Executive to negotiate with
4. The DUP will dismiss any suggestion put forward by Dublin on principle as 'fenian' meddling in UK internal affairs.
5. The EU has far more leverage over the UK than Ireland on it's own

_Puma_

That's very short term thinking. The DUP and Theresa May won't be around for much longer. Let's not give them a get out of jail card in terms of the GFA before they exit the stage with a no deal Brexit. There is a lot of damage short term about to be brought down on NI if the current course continues. Hold them to account but if we do nothing history look back too kindly on any Irish government that allows the GFA to be dismantled by Brexit crazed Tory/DUP coalition.

J Mysterio

"Philip Hammond has insisted the UK will refuse to sign a Brexit trade deal with the European Union unless financial services are included in it.

"Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Chancellor said that a deal that did not include financial services, which account for roughly 7 per cent of the UK economy and support one million jobs, would not be “fair”."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-deal-davos-hammond-financial-services-a8177421.html

They really don't seem to be getting the message in Westminster. This is not going well.

Meanwhile, it's transpired that Davis is yet to visit the EU in 2018. The last meeting between Barnier and Davis was in London, in February.

They are due to meet next week to discuss arrangements on the transition period. I don't think anything will be agreed given the cery serious lack of progress.

sink

_Puma_ wrote: »

That's very short term thinking. The DUP and Theresa May won't be around for much longer. Let's not give them a get out of jail card in terms of the GFA before they exit the stage with a no deal Brexit. There is a lot of damage short term about to be brought down on NI if the current course continues. Hold them to account but if we do nothing history look back too kindly on any Irish government that allows the GFA to be dismantled by Brexit crazed Tory/DUP coalition.

You'll have to point out what is short term about my points. 1,2,4,5 are permanent state of affairs and 3 is for the foreseeable future. You'll have to overcome each of the points for your strategy to have any efficacy.

We can't make the UK do anything. There is not some brilliant formulation of words and numbers yet to be articulated that will loosen the gordion knot that the UK has bound itself in. The best we can do is be forthright about protecting our interests and use all the leverage we have at our disposal.

J Mysterio

"A report for TheCityUK lobby group, compiled by the consultancy Oliver Wyman last year, estimated UK finance firms could ultimately shed 35,000 finance jobs if firms here did not achieve financial regulatory equivalence with the EU."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-deal-davos-hammond-financial-services-a8177421.html

The UK will not achieve regulatory equivalence with the EU, i'm pretty sure. 35,000 jobs. Thirty five thousand jobs. What an appaling prospect.

trellheim

The UK will not achieve regulatory equivalence with the EU, i'm pretty sure. 35,000 jobs. Thirty five thousand jobs. What an appaling prospect.

Said jobs will go to Frankfurt , Luxembourg, or wherever or whatever's passported in. Not here though apart from a few token ones.


PS "financial regulatory equivalence with the EU" = Pass legislation to accept ECJ rulings

Skedaddle

I really do not get this:

The Independent wrote:

“The idea that you can recreate in Frankfurt, or Paris, or Madrid, or Amsterdam, or Dublin, London’s financial centre is a fantasy – it isn’t going to happen. The loser will not only be the UK but Europe.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-deal-davos-hammond-financial-services-a8177421.html

They seem to not comprehend that what they are proposing to do is take the UK and the London financial centre fully outside the EU. It will be completely disassociated with the EU and even competing with it. Yet, they think the EU still has some concern for its future or that it should be 'bad for Europe' if it doesn't.

London becomes just another financial centre. It will have a relationship with the EU as close as Wall Street. So, I simply do not see why the EU would care about the future of that financial centre. It wants nothing to do wit the EU anymore.

It's also an excellent opportunity for the EU and ECB to deal with the regulatory loopholes that were created by London and come up with a more stable financial services system.

Also, do we even need a single bricks and mortar financial centre? Can the EU not operate as a network of interconnected financial centres - that would probably include Frankfurt, Dublin, Amsterdam, Paris, Madrid and so on.

We're not living in the 1980s. Technology has moved on enormously and the EU members are not some kind of incapable places without any kind of financial ability. London will become very irrelevant to the EU's plans.

It's in the EU's interests to replace London and not be dependent on it. In the short term it will be about avoiding financial shocks, but in the medium and long term it will be about ensuring that there is financial centre competence within the EU and that simply has no role for London, at least not in the Hard Brexit scenario.

The UK really seems to not quite comprehend what leaving means. It's not that anyone's wishing them ill will. It's just that they're gone, much like someone who's left a football team or a golf club. You cannot expect to still have access to the facilities or anything else. You're gone. Good luck with that.

jobbridge4life

Skedaddle wrote: »

I really do not get this:



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-deal-davos-hammond-financial-services-a8177421.html

They seem to not comprehend that what they are proposing to do is take the UK and the London financial centre fully outside the EU. It will be completely disassociated with the EU and even competing with it. Yet, they think the EU still has some concern for its future or that it should be 'bad for Europe' if it doesn't.

London becomes just another financial centre. It will have a relationship with the EU as close as Wall Street. So, I simply do not see why the EU would care about the future of that financial centre. It wants nothing to do wit the EU anymore.

It's also an excellent opportunity for the EU and ECB to deal with the regulatory loopholes that were created by London and come up with a more stable financial services system.

Also, do we even need a single bricks and mortar financial centre? Can the EU not operate as a network of interconnected financial centres - that would probably include Frankfurt, Dublin, Amsterdam, Paris, Madrid and so on.

We're not living in the 1980s. Technology has moved on enormously and the EU members are not some kind of incapable places without any kind of financial ability. London will become very irrelevant to the EU's plans.

It's in the EU's interests to replace London and not be dependent on it. In the short term it will be about avoiding financial shocks, but in the medium and long term it will be about ensuring that there is financial centre competence within the EU and that simply has no role for London, at least not in the Hard Brexit scenario.

The UK really seems to not quite comprehend what leaving means. It's not that anyone's wishing them ill will. It's just that they're gone, much like someone who's left a football team or a golf club. You cannot expect to still have access to the facilities or anything else. You're gone. Good luck with that.

Fully agreed.

A number of things pop out from this article.

If you are asking for (or pleading as the case is here), for 'fairness' when speaking publicly for a negotiation you are not in a winning position. Not in the least. His entire argument is predicated upon weakness, in appealing for... in essence support?

If pushed the EU can make any sort of arrangements it wants to ensure that banking business doesn't go elsewhere. Plenty of countries have tried before within the strictures of the Union, and have failed because the UK got carve outs. The UK will not be part of the decision making process anymore, and will not be a member of the Union, so we can expect swift enough changes coming forward. That part about the UK not being in the Union anymore also nullifies Hammond's second argument. Why would a post hard-Brexit EU care if the jobs migrated from London to New York, Hong Kong or Singapore? All would be Third Countries.

trellheim

you see, what happens if those jobs don't move to the EU, but rather to Shanghai, Tokyo ; the EU would rightly see it as its job to keep them local

Skedaddle

trellheim wrote: »

you see, what happens if those jobs don't move to the EU, but rather to Shanghai, Tokyo ; the EU would rightly see it as its job to keep them local

Why? The UK is no longer "local" after Brexit. It's a competing country on a path towards ultra light touch regulation and is openly hostile to everything the EU does.

All the EU will be concerned about is getting as many of those jobs to the EU as possible, other than that - London's just another international financial centre. It really has no interests in it any more so than it does in Singapore.

Actually, when you look at it from the point of view of trade deals and arrangements, the EU will have closer relationships with Japan, South Korea and Canada than those that the UK is proposing.

All that they would have in common is geographic proximity, which in financial services is increasingly irrelevant anyway, as everything is digital.

Also why would the EU give preferential treatment to the UK over say Wall Street? It doesn't make any sense and would actually contravene WTO rules if there is going to be no trade agreement anyway. You can't just grant an ex-member of the EU access to the market unless you also grant other 3rd party countries similar access.

How would that be fair on the US or Singapore or anywhere?

There's no good reason why the EU would give preferential treatment to London based off-shore trading over NYC based trading and I think in that case Trump would be right to be angry if they did.

_Puma_

sink wrote: »

You'll have to point out what is short term about my points. 1,2,4,5 are permanent state of affairs and 3 is for the foreseeable future. You'll have to overcome each of the points for your strategy to have any efficacy.

We can't make the UK do anything. There is not some brilliant formulation of words and numbers yet to be articulated that will loosen the gordion knot that the UK has bound itself in. The best we can do is be forthright about protecting our interests and use all the leverage we have at our disposal.

That's my point. We have leverage over the UK as co-guarantors of the GFA. We either use it or let our interests in NI be dictated by the increasingly futile brexit negotiations.

1 & 5- Agreed to the point of brexit day. Let's get the groundwork in now for a post brexit world.

2 & 4 - NI has progressed in the past 20 years that these begin to become less relevant. Especially with a new administration across the Irish Sea after brexit that some sort of dialogue in place will put the terms of the GFA first and foremost. Otherwise its back to the politics of the partition era if this Tory/DUP coalition get free reign in NI and we allow it.

Nody

_Puma_ wrote: »

That's my point. We have leverage over the UK as co-guarantors of the GFA. We either use it or let our interests in NI be dictated by the increasingly futile brexit negotiations.

1 & 5- Agreed to the point of brexit day. Let's get the groundwork in now for a post brexit world.

2 & 4 - NI has progressed in the past 20 years that these begin to become less relevant. Especially with a new administration across the Irish Sea after brexit that some sort of dialogue in place will put the terms of the GFA first and foremost. Otherwise its back to the politics of the partition era if this Tory/DUP coalition get free reign in NI and we allow it.

Ireland has zero leverage over UK as UK are ready to ignore the GFA and toss it in the bin; you're greatly overplaying the value or importance it has in UK's mind. It is important to you; that does not make it important for May and honestly the best bet to defend the GFA is through EUs Brexit negotiations and not the other way around.

sink

_Puma_ wrote: »

That's my point. We have leverage over the UK as co-guarantors of the GFA. We either use it or let our interests in NI be dictated by the increasingly futile brexit negotiations.

In what way can we exert that leverage, which we are not already doing?

_Puma_ wrote: »

1 & 5- Agreed to the point of brexit day. Let's get the groundwork in now for a post brexit world.

I'm not sure what you mean, Ireland's not leaving the EU, Ireland will still be bound by the EU treaties when the UK leaves. Ireland will still not be able to negotiate bilaterally.

Ireland's border with Northern Ireland will be the EU's border with the UK. Anything that moves across the border from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland will have free range to move anywhere in the EU from Helsinki to Athens to Lisbon without any further checks or barriers.

We agreed to enforce a common set of rules with our EU partners so there wouldn't be any checks or barriers, so Irish businesses could benefit from being able to trade with the EU without any encumbrances. If we don't hold up our end of the bargain we will have to forfeit our own ability to trade freely within the EU.

_Puma_ wrote: »

2 & 4 - NI has progressed in the past 20 years that these begin to become less relevant. Especially with a new administration across the Irish Sea after brexit that some sort of dialogue in place will put the terms of the GFA first and foremost. Otherwise its back to the politics of the partition era if this Tory/DUP coalition get free reign in NI and we allow it.

The GFA set up the devolved administration of Stormont so the different communities of NI would have an equal say over the running of their local government. We need it's input as the only body that can be truly representative of the people living there. There can be no permanent agreement on such a significant matter to NI without its input and consent.

The trouble is there is no possibility of consent right now as the two side are implacably opposed, even on issues of far less importance than Brexit. How do you put the terms of the GFA 'first and foremost' when the very institution it set up to find consensus is not functioning? You're asking for a solution to an impossible problem without even putting forward a suggestion.

The only inkling of an idea I can work out from your paragraph is that Leinster House and Westminster should impose a solution worked out between them. Yet this ignores that 1. the EU still has sole authority to negotiate on Irelands behalf wrt border/trade issues, 2. it ignores Stormont, i.e. the very GFA you claim to be protecting, 3. supposes Ireland has some 'magic powers of negotiation' which the EU does not already posses.

Jim2007

trellheim wrote: »

you see, what happens if those jobs don't move to the EU, but rather to Shanghai, Tokyo

That does not make any sense. The reason that London will decline is because it has no advantage Singapore or NY in accessing the EU. So the jobs will either move to the EU or disappear.

_Puma_

Nody wrote: »

Ireland has zero leverage over UK as UK are ready to ignore the GFA and toss it in the bin; you're greatly overplaying the value or importance it has in UK's mind. It is important to you; that does not make it important for May and honestly the best bet to defend the GFA is through EUs Brexit negotiations and not the other way around.

The UK are increasingly looking like they are also ready to ignore the EU brexit negotiations. The UK are far more likely to see NI as a liability post brexit. The GFA is still our best bet in ensuring NI has a future relationship with us. May has not yet imposed direct rule but come brexit day be under no illusion that NI will become less relevant to the UK as it is now. There will be no impairment to the likes of the loyalist and nationalist mobs having free reign up there. If ya think it is bad now with the the DUP's antics it will be a lot worse for the more middle of the ground saner voting population up there post brexit unless the GFA is preserved at all costs.

Nody

_Puma_ wrote: »

The UK are increasingly looking like they are also ready to ignore the EU brexit negotiations. The UK are far more likely to see NI as a liability post brexit. The GFA is still our best bet in ensuring NI has a future relationship with us. May has not yet imposed direct rule but come brexit day be under no illusion that NI will become less relevant to the UK as it is now. There will be no impairment to the likes of the loyalist and nationalist mobs having free reign up there. If ya think it is bad now with the the DUP's antics it will be a lot worse for the more middle of the ground saner voting population up there post brexit unless the GFA is preserved at all costs.

And Ireland will still have exactly ZERO influence about that; exactly as now. NI is part of UK and if UK decides to stuff the GFA in the bin there is nothing Ireland can do about it. You however appear to think that Ireland has some magic power to strike deals with another country (Ireland does not; that's EU competence) and that Ireland has some influence over NI (they do not) or that they can influence DUP who's ensuring May remains in power (Ireland does not). Hence in summary Ireland has zero power to enforce the GFA, now, in the future or after Brexit of any kind; Ireland does however have power to influence the Brexit debate and has done so to push UK to give NI the best possible future in the deal (even though DUP are doing their best to sabotage that); as seen compared to for example the status of Gibraltar and Spain's veto on it.

_Puma_

sink wrote: »

The only inkling of an idea I can work out from your paragraph is that Leinster House and Westminster should impose a solution worked out between them. Yet this ignores that 1. the EU still has sole authority to negotiate on Irelands behalf wrt border/trade issues, 2. it ignores Stormont, i.e. the very GFA you claim to be protecting, 3. supposes Ireland has some 'magic powers of negotiation' which the EU does not already posses.

1. The EU and the UK will come to an accommodation over trade. The markets will demand it. However this accommodation will not encompass free movement of people and the basis of nationality the peoples on this island the GFA was set up to enshrine.

2. The Stormont Impasse is a temporary situation. The Stormont institutions will be up and running in the medium term, but it cannot be allowed to go the way of the Scottish Parliament in terms of self determination. The Gerrymandering of constituencies the DUP have started and the elimination of the prospect of a Border poll must not be allowed.

3. We have a long history in Anglo-Irish relations that has led to one of the most enduring peace arrangements in the world. The brexit negotiations so far have led to nothing and going by the looks of the hurdles they have yet to cross I find it hard to envisage they will lead to anything.

Its time to start thinking about plan b. A hard brexit is bad for Europe and the UK, a hard brexit will be calamitous for us and Northern Ireland unless we work with the UK (Present and future governments) in ensuring arrangements are in place to ensure the basis for peace in NI is upheld.

Water John

This 'Green Week' will give Ireland a great opportunity to push their case. Terence O'Rourke, Chairman of EI, on Quest Means Business CNN ATM. Quest exposing the UK fudge.
That's the benefit of St Patrick's Day access, around the world.

sink

_Puma_ wrote: »

1. The EU and the UK will come to an accommodation over trade. However this accommodation will not encompass free movement of people and the basis of nationality the peoples on this island the GFA was set up to enshrine.

Trade is all that is at issue. So far no one on any side has raised the prospect of passport controls on the border, for the simple reason that it's not necessary, even when taking into account all of the UK, EU, Irish, NIrish red lines. The reason being that Ireland is not part of Schengen and is part of the CTA. We don't have to control migrants from outside the EU gaining access to the EU Schengen zone because you still have to show official identification at sea ports and airports when you travel between the CTA and Schengen. In contrast the CTA allows for passport free movement between Ireland and the UK. It's a more informal agreement than Schengen but is based on data sharing and cooperation between immigration agencies.

_Puma_ wrote: »

2. The Stormont Impasse is a temporary situation. The Stormont institutions will be up and running in the medium term, but it cannot be allowed to go the way of the Scottish Parliament in terms of self determination. The Gerrymandering of constituencies the DUP have started and the elimination of the prospect of a Border poll must not be allowed.

One day Stormont will be back but can anyone say with confidence if that will happen before March 2019, or even October 2018 which is when the EU want to wrap up negotiations on the exit agreement? It's going to be difficult for either side to compromise on A. North-South trade border controls B. East-West trade border controls and at the same time uphold the GFA. The GFA mandates that matters of major importance to NI be consented to by both communities through the devolved institutions.

_Puma_ wrote: »

3. We have a long history in Anglo-Irish relations that has led to one of the most enduring peace arrangements in the world. The brexit negotiations so far have led to nothing. Its time to start thinking about plan b.

The GFA agreement was agreed with a different calibre of politicians, namely Tony Blair a centrist liberal, David Trimble a more pragmatic unionist who agreed to share power and with the aid of Bill Clinton again a liberal centrist with a keen personal interest through close ties to Ireland. It was also at a different time when global trade liberalisation and conflict resolution was in the ascendancy.

Today the Brexit negotiations have to work with hard line Unionist party who opposed the GFA and refuse to share power if they have to even give an inch, a Jingoistic hard right Tory party who believe their own propaganda, a similarly minded protectionist US president who is at best disinterested and at worst hostile to the EU. At a time when protectionism and geopolitical hostility are on the rise.

Claiming the the lack of progress on the Brexit negotiation is the fault of the EU negotiating team and that Ireland would do better on it's own based purely on past performance is to have a complete blind-spot as to who one is negotiating with.

carrickbally

'Brexit will require deletion of references to the EU within the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.'

The English tearing up the GFA.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Ireland has zero leverage over UK as UK are ready to ignore the GFA and toss it in the bin; you're greatly overplaying the value or importance it has in UK's mind. It is important to you; that does not make it important for May and honestly the best bet to defend the GFA is through EUs Brexit negotiations and not the other way around.

If the UK tosses an agreement under the bus then it's going to mean they'll have to concede a little more in future agreements.

Like the ones they'll need to do with 70 odd countries to replace the existing EU trade deals.

The flip side is that , as looks likely, the UK won't have a deal in place and needs an extension, then our Veto kicks back in.

_Puma_

sink wrote: »

Trade is all that is at issue. So far no one on any side has raised the prospect of passport controls on the border, for the simple reason that it's not necessary, even when taking into account all of the UK, EU, Irish, NIrish red lines. The reason being that Ireland is not part of Schengen and is part of the CTA. We don't have to control migrants from outside the EU gaining access to the EU Schengen zone because you still have to show official identification at sea ports and airports when you travel between the CTA and Schengen. In contrast the CTA allows for passport free movement between Ireland and the UK. It's a more informal agreement than Schengen but is based on data sharing and cooperation between immigration agencies.



One day Stormont will be back but can anyone say with confidence if that will happen before March 2019, or even October 2018 which is when the EU want to wrap up negotiations on the exit agreement? It's going to be difficult for either side to compromise on A. North-South trade border controls B. East-West trade border controls and at the same time uphold the GFA. The GFA mandates that matters of major importance to NI be consented to by both communities through the devolved institutions.



The GFA agreement was agreed with a different calibre of politicians, namely Tony Blair a centrist liberal, David Trimble a more pragmatic unionist who agreed to share power and with the aid of Bill Clinton again a liberal centrist with a keen personal interest through close ties to Ireland. It was also at a different time when global trade liberalisation and conflict resolution was in the ascendancy.

Today the Brexit negotiations have to work with hard line Unionist party who opposed the GFA and refuse to share power if they have to even give an inch, a Jingoistic hard right Tory party who believe their own propaganda, a similarly minded protectionist US president who is at best disinterested and at worst hostile to the EU. At a time when protectionism and geopolitical hostility are on the rise.

Claiming the the lack of progress on the Brexit negotiation is the fault of the EU negotiating team and that Ireland would do better on it's own based purely on past performance is to have a complete blind-spot as to who one is negotiating with.

Your putting words in my mouth . I began this by saying it was a mistake by the Irish government to expect the EU in their negotiations with the UK to uphold the terms of the GFA. It is our responsibility as co-guarantors to ensure it is upheld. We haven't to date, and by the sounds of what you are saying you put little stock in some of the non economic rights that it has enshrined for the people of this Island.

The EU are strong arming the UK in their brexit economic negotiations. It is yet to be seen out how the freedom of movement of people will play out and is one of those hurdles that I envisage will ultimately lead to a no deal outcome.

The DUP and Tory coalition will not survive for much longer but it cannot be allowed to damage the GFA and its institutions irrevocably before it is finished. This is why I said the Irish government need to now start taking decisions about our future policy relationship with the UK.

Econ_

Nody wrote: »

Ireland has zero leverage over UK as UK are ready to ignore the GFA and toss it in the bin; you're greatly overplaying the value or importance it has in UK's mind. It is important to you; that does not make it important for May and honestly the best bet to defend the GFA is through EUs Brexit negotiations and not the other way around.

The GFA is quite important to May, whether she wants it to be or not.

It is the GFA that ultimately lead her to signing a deal in December that promised 'no hard border; no physical infrastructure or related checks at the border'


That deal signed in December is also an international treaty agreement. This means that if a hard border is reinstated - the UK will have violated two international treaty agreements. This matters a lot - particularly when you need to negotiate entry into vital EU agencies and plan to swan around the world with cap in hand looking for bilateral trade agreements.

Who could trust them?

sink

_Puma_ wrote: »

Your putting words in my mouth . I began this by saying it was a mistake by the Irish government to expect the EU in their negotiations with the UK to uphold the terms of the GFA. It is our responsibility as co-guarantors to ensure it is upheld. We haven't to date, and by the sounds of what you are saying you put little stock in some of the non economic rights that it has enshrined for the people of this Island.

The EU are strong arming the UK in their brexit economic negotiations. It is yet to be played out how the freedom of movement of people will play out and is one of those hurdles that I envisage will ultimately lead to a no deal outcome.

The DUP and Tory coalition will not survive for much longer but it cannot be allowed to damage the GFA and its institutions irrevocably before it is finished. This is why I said the Irish government need to now start taking decisions about our future policy relationship with the UK.

Perhaps I'm 'putting words in your mouth', because I'm misunderstanding what your concerns are. What specifically are the EU doing to threaten the Good Friday Agreement? They've sworn to uphold it and all of their demands so far only work towards that aim.

They're demanding no border infrastructure and custom controls between ROI-NI. They're acceding to the people of NI to retaining their Irish and by extension EU citizenship. They're not pursuing any demands of introducing passport controls between Ireland & UK, nor any derogation of the rights of Irish and UK citizens to work and settle in each others constituencies. The only thing they can't make demands on is the internal structure of the UK, i.e a border down the Irish sea for trade or people, as only the UK government in consultation with NI assembly has competency in that area.

Nate--IRL--

_Puma_ wrote: »

I began this by saying it was a mistake by the Irish government to expect the EU in their negotiations with the UK to uphold the terms of the GFA. It is our responsibility as co-guarantors to ensure it is upheld. We haven't to date .......

Which GFA Terms, specifically, are currently not being upheld?
Could you detail what mechanism within the agreement, the Irish government should have already invoked, to enforce the specific terms being broken currently?

Nate

_Puma_

sink wrote: »

Perhaps I'm 'putting words in your mouth', because I'm misunderstanding what your concerns are. What specifically are the EU doing to threaten the Good Friday Agreement? They've sworn to uphold it and all of their demands so far only work towards that aim.

They're demanding no border infrastructure and custom controls between ROI-NI. They're acceding to the people of NI to retaining their Irish and by extension EU citizenship. They're not pursuing any demands of introducing passport controls between Ireland & UK, nor any derogation of the rights of Irish and UK citizens to work and settle in each others constituencies. The only thing they can't make demands on is the internal structure of the UK, i.e a border down the Irish sea for trade or people, as only the UK government in consultation with NI assembly has competency in that area.

It's more what they will not be doing. The Brexit negotiations are based to date around trade and the divorce settlement. It has not yet moved onto the movement of people or status of EU peoples post brexit (and in my opinion will never reach that stage)

The GFA was an agreement based around nationality, identity and shared devolution of powers to the people of NI from Westminster. This is now under threat due to the current arrangement of the British government. It is a mistake for us to think that the EU brexit negotiations will address these threats to the GFA.

I believe its time our government started to think long term here in terms of our future relationship with the UK and how the increasingly likely a no deal scenario will play out for the people of Ireland, North and South.

Nody

Econ_ wrote: »

The GFA is quite important to May, whether she wants it to be or not.

It is the GFA that ultimately lead her to signing a deal in December that promised 'no hard border; no physical infrastructure or related checks at the border'

You mean the same deal she had to run back home and have EU cancel it's press conference because DUP threw a hissy fit? Yea clearly the GFA matters more than DUP; oh wait...

That deal signed in December is also an international treaty agreement. This means that if a hard border is reinstated - the UK will have violated two international treaty agreements.

Nothing new in the world of international politics today.

This matters a lot - particularly when you need to negotiate entry into vital EU agencies

They will not get any access to the agencies as this requires a deal to be signed in the first place which is not going to happen.

and plan to swan around the world with cap in hand looking for bilateral trade agreements.

They expect everyone in the world to give them the same deal as when they were in EU; see their approach to US on airlines, reaching out to countries in regards to trade deals etc.

Who could trust them?

No one but you're making a significant mistake; you assume first of all that May and the UK government gives a damn about UK and its people and secondly that May would not sell UK to the USA if it meant another 5 minutes as PM. May has about as much spine as a jellyfish but the one thing she's consistent about is her action to remain in power as PM no matter what needs to be done. What keeps her in power? DUP. What does DUP demand? That NI don't get any special deal compared to UK. What will the rest of the hardcore Brexit team demand? Hard brexit. Want to take a stab at what May is most likely going to do?

Skedaddle

Bear in mind that a lot of people in the EU institutions see the Northern Ireland peace process and the GFA as having been made possible by the existence of the EU.

In many ways it's a perfect illustration of why the EU exists as a tool for stability in Europe.

I think the UK makes the mistake of assuming that the EU is an entirely financial / economic project. It's got a large political element, which is what they have never really liked anyway.

The GFA is safe enough while the EU is still negotiating with the UK. The concern I would have is that the UK may just crash out and that's where the GFA turns into a high risk mess, as at that stage neither the EU nor the Irish Government will have much leverage and the UK goes off into Max Max zone.

sink

_Puma_ wrote: »

It's more what they will not be doing. The Brexit negotiations are based to date around trade and the divorce settlement. It has not yet moved onto the movement of people or status of EU peoples post brexit (and in my opinion will never reach that stage)

The GFA was an agreement based around nationality, identity and shared devolution of powers to the people of NI from Westminster. This is now under threat due to the current arrangement of the British government. It is a mistake for us to think that the EU brexit negotiations will address these threats to the GFA.

I believe its time our government started to think long term here in terms of our future relationship with the UK and how the increasingly likely a no deal scenario will play out for the people of Ireland, North and South.

You're concerns are completely unfounded. I take it you haven't read the draft withdrawal treaty, written up by the EU and based on the agreement reached at the end of phase 1 of the Brexit negotiations last December. You can find it here, page 98-99 is the protocol on Ireland, I recommend you read it. There is no legal ambiguity whatsoever as to the EU's upholding and enforcement of the Good Friday Agreement.

Here is the specific paragraph on the GFA

AFFIRMING that the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations (the "1998 Agreement"), which is annexed to the British-Irish Agreement of the same date (the "British-Irish Agreement"), including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, should be protected in all its parts;

Here is the specific paragraph on nationality & identity.

RECOGNISING that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland, by virtue of their Union citizenship, will continue to enjoy, exercise and have access to rights, opportunities and benefits, and that this Protocol should respect and be without prejudice to the rights, opportunities and identity that come with citizenship of the Union for the people of Northern Ireland who choose to assert their right to Irish citizenship as defined in Annex 2 of the British-Irish Agreement Declaration on the Provisions of Paragraph (vi) of Article 1 in Relation to Citizenship";

Given the weight of evidence against your position, you have to produce some credible evidence that your concerns are merited. If you can not, then they must be dismissed.

Aside from all that Ireland also has a de-facto veto over any future agreement between the EU and the UK. If our concerns with regards to Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement are not me we can block any virtually any meaningful agreement.

Havockk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43370999

Is it completely mad to think this was influenced by a government in already chaos over brexit worrying what the public response would have been? I knew this was coming in April, but hardly anyone was aware of it.

steddyeddy

Nody wrote: »

And Ireland will still have exactly ZERO influence about that; exactly as now. NI is part of UK and if UK decides to stuff the GFA in the bin there is nothing Ireland can do about it. You however appear to think that Ireland has some magic power to strike deals with another country (Ireland does not; that's EU competence) and that Ireland has some influence over NI (they do not) or that they can influence DUP who's ensuring May remains in power (Ireland does not). Hence in summary Ireland has zero power to enforce the GFA, now, in the future or after Brexit of any kind; Ireland does however have power to influence the Brexit debate and has done so to push UK to give NI the best possible future in the deal (even though DUP are doing their best to sabotage that); as seen compared to for example the status of Gibraltar and Spain's veto on it.

With all due respect that's rubbish. The GFA will be enforced to de facto sanctions on the British economy in the form of no trade deals.

Peregrinus

Skedaddle wrote: »

Bear in mind that a lot of people in the EU institutions see the Northern Ireland peace process and the GFA as having been made possible by the existence of the EU.

In many ways it's a perfect illustration of why the EU exists as a tool for stability in Europe.

I think the UK makes the mistake of assuming that the EU is an entirely financial / economic project. It's got a large political element, which is what they have never really liked anyway.

The GFA is safe enough while the EU is still negotiating with the UK. The concern I would have is that the UK may just crash out and that's where the GFA turns into a high risk mess, as at that stage neither the EU nor the Irish Government will have much leverage and the UK goes off into Max Max zone.

This. If Ireland says that the GFA needs urgent attention now, Ireland ie effectively saying that it expects the Brexit negotiations to crash, and this completely undercuts the position of the EU, which is still pursuing those negotiations, and still attempting to avoid a hard border. And the EU has vastly more leverage to bring to the table to achieve that outcome than Ireland, negotiating alone about the GFA, could ever have.

What _Puma_ is calling for would be a disastrous mistake.

Nody

steddyeddy wrote: »

With all due respect that's rubbish. The GFA will be enforced to de facto sanctions on the British economy in the form of no trade deals.

No, that is with all due respect rubbish. No deal does not suddenly make the GFA enforceable or not or give the Irish government power to enforce it one single bit. The no deal hard crash out will have nothing to do with the GFA because DUP is not blocking the current deal due to the GFA but because it would in practice give different rules for NI compared to UK. Hence a no deal scenario has NOTHING to do with the GFA nor will it in any way enforce the GFA or be sanctions due to the GFA. What will happen is that when UK crashes out without a deal is that EU will enforce their laws and regulation in respect of UK which are not sanctions but simply what they legally have to do; sanctions would imply blocking UK goods which will not happen. The upcoming queues at the border etc. are not due to a blockade but simply EU enforcing quality standards as per WTO most favoured nation scheme to ensure all goods entering the EU block meets the required quality standards.

Peregrinus

Well, I think the GFA/Brexit link may be this. If the UK crashed out without a deal because they won't accept a deal that includes an open border, a couple of things will ensue.

1. There'll be a hard border, and this will put enormous pressure on the GFA. It doesn't, as already pointed out, breach the GFA, but it may well be a situation in which there is no longer sufficient cross-community support for the GFA to be functional.

2. There'll be no Brexit deal, and this will put enormous pressure on the UK. Fight-them-on-the-beaches rhetoric notwithstanding, it's pretty catastrophic for the UK. This will be a much bigger problem, and a much more immediate problem, for HMG than the paralysis of the GFA. And sooner or later - probably after the inevitable change of government - the UK will come back to the EU to say, look, can we make a deal?

At this point it's crucial that the EU continues to hold the line that they have held all along, which is that part of any deal has to be no hard border (or the removal of any hard border which has by then appeared) in Ireland. The starting point in talking about any post-Brexit deal, in short, has to be the point over which talks about the Brexit deal collapsed. "We take up from where we left off", has to be the EU attitude.

That's why it is crucial that Ireland should not separate, or be seen to do anything that appears to separate, questions about the border from the broader questions about the EU/UK relationship. If we start ploughing our own furrow on this, we give up all the advantages that two years of solid diplomatic effort by the Dept of Foreign Affairs has secured for us. Currently the EU is solidly onside with us on the question of the border. It would be madness for us to surrender this. If we start to "take back control" of the border question from the EU (even if we could do that) we would be making exactly the mistake that the Brexiters have been making, and which has reduced the UK to such a hapless position.

_Puma_

A no deal scenario will almost certainly lead to direct rule or some form of such, effectively undoing the GFA as collateral damage to a hard brexit. While not directly looking to dismantle the GFA, the DUP/Tory coalition will effectively sideline it and we should not allow that to happen.

The EU negotiations so far have covered the GFA, as you point out above sink, but the rowbacks by May since the December agreement have basically signaled her intention to allow the GFA be used as a bargaining chip and as they say, never gamble with something you are not willing to lose.

This is why I have believe the Irish government should open a Dialogue directly with Westminster specific to the GFA. While most likely it wont be pushed through under the current British administration it allows us to have leverage over the next administration who will likely only see NI as a burden. I would think that having this avenue open would also help to negate the DUP's influence over the current British government and could lead to opportunities to help enshrine the GFA as part of any future Anglo-Irish deal.

The 2 outcomes I can see from the current EU negotiations are no deal, or some form of trade compromise for NI that does not cover the non-economic rights that the GFA enshrines (which is what I believe Donald Tusk was signalling to Theresa May in his "Ireland First" speech). Of course I might be wrong but I certainly hope that at the very least the Department of foreign affairs are well abreast of what Donald Tusk had in mind before making that speech.

How bad it will be for the people of NI will depend on how long the DUP/Tory coalition can cling onto power in Westminster. I have no doubt that when the dust has settled after Brexit there will be real appetite for progress in NI and we cannot allow the current British administration cut this avenue off using failed brexit negotiations.

While I understand the opposition of not undermining the EU negotiations we are staring at either a Bad(Trade Compromise for goods) or disastrous (no deal) outcome for the GFA with current EU strategy as I see it.

Hurrache

Somebody needs to explain something to Liam Fox

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-brexiteer-liam-fox-vows-12176113

An ardent Brexiteer minister tonight laid out Britain's plan to fight Donald Trump's steel tariffs - by "working closely with the EU".

Liam Fox highlighted the muscle of the Brussels-based European Commission as he addressed MPs on the crippling 25% tax.


"The government has worked closely with the EU as part of our unified response...

It is important that the UK and EU response works within the boundaries of the rules-based international trading system.
....
Over the coming days, we will be working closely with British industry and the EU to seek swift clarification and mitigation."

The vid of his speech in embedded in the article.

LeinsterDub

Hurrache wrote: »

Somebody needs to explain something to Liam Fox

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-brexiteer-liam-fox-vows-12176113



The vid of his speech in embedded in the article.

You honestly couldn't make it up! This is very reason the sane world has been telling the UK that leaving the EU is a bad idea. You're a small fish in a big pond on your own Liam.

Skedaddle

It's weird. You can tell that on the one hand they seem to know this is a bad idea but on the other they're almost religiously bound to Brexit.

It's very illogical.

Leroy42

I think you are all seeing this wrong, and to be fair that is coming from the article.

My reading of it is that Fox is saying that he is bound by the EU to go to Washington on the basis of the EU proposals to tackle these tariffs.

Fox is, IMO, betting that these will fall on deaf ears with Trump, and thus Fox can then claim, once Brexit is complete and he manages to get rid of the tariffs for the UK, that he was right all along and that the EU was holding the UK back.

Nothing will be revealed as to what he gave away in order to get tariff reductions, it will be lost in the backslapping and general giddyness that the UK is the only "EU" country with no tariffs.

Peregrinus

He has to work with the EU. The UK is still a member state and can't (as yet) plough its own furrow on this matter. And right now would not be a good time for the UK to be accused of ignoring the obligations of membership.

Besides, think it through: suppose he did seek, and obtain, an exemption for the UK, but the EU was not successful. The EU would then likely apply punitive counter-tariffs on the US which the UK, as an EU member state, would be bound to apply. And that would obviously put the kibosh on the UK's just-negotiated exemption from the US.

Hurrache

I understand that they're still bound to work with the EU as they're still a member, but the whole statement and mentioning the bargaining power of the EU is grating considering his stance.

murphaph

Juncker and Barnier both made Brexit related statements in the European Parliament today. They could not have been more emphatic about their commitment to Ireland. They are making a point out of the fact that a small member state will get the backing of the whole union in such an important matter (to the member state).

trellheim

Juncker - multilang translation so apologies

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-1881_en.htm

349 days ago, on 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom notified the European Council of its intention to leave the European Union.

In 381 days, on 29 March 2019 at midnight, the United Kingdom will have left the European Union.

From the earliest days of these unique and difficult negotiations, our objective has always been, and will remain, to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the United Kingdom, in its own interest and that of the European Union.

But every day that passes the urgency to meet all the conditions necessary for such withdrawal is greater.

This urgency should inspire us all, the European Union and the United Kingdom, to act with method, pragmatism and transparency.

It is this method, this pragmatism and this transparency which are at the heart of the draft text on the withdrawal agreement that the Commission approved on February 28th and which only legally translates the commitments we have taken together, Commission and the United Kingdom, last December in the "Joint Report".

Michel Barnier now discusses in detail our proposed text with this Parliament and with the Council of Ministers. Because the final draft on the withdrawal agreement that will be transmitted to our British partners, as a basis for negotiation, will reflect the unity of the 27 Member States of the European Union and its institutions.

I would like to thank Michel and his team for the tremendous work they have been doing for months, days and nights to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion.


My friend Michel Barnier, his team, we all stand for a structured and prudent approach from our side. In that sense, we have cast the agreements we have made with the United Kingdom into a solid text of the Treaty, which above all clarifies citizens' rights.

So this text is much more than a collection of paragraphs - it's about tens of thousands, if not more, biographies. We make sure that the life choices of these people, the citizens of Europe, do not fall prey to Brexit. That is why we have succeeded in ensuring that EU citizens in the United Kingdom retain their rights even after Brexit. The draft exit agreement is so specific that citizens can refer to it before the British courts in order to claim their rights.

We also enjoyed close partnership after the UK's exit. However, the unity of the internal market must be preserved. Citizens and companies must be able to rely on their achievements - on the same rules and institutions. A cherry picking cherry - picking will not be possible. Nor will we allow standards in social, environmental standards, tax standards to be undercut.

I would have preferred that the British had not decided to quit. But who wants to leave the European Union, must honestly say what that means. If you want to leave four decades of joint agreements and solutions behind you, you have to take responsibility for the fact that everything can not stay as it is.

en days ago Prime Minister May gave us some more clarity on how the UK sees its future relationship with the EU.

As my good friend John Bruton wrote in a recent article: "The most valuable test that Mrs May wishes to apply to a Brexit agreement is that it should be one that would endure, and not require constant renegotiation."

I could not agree more, which means that everything that we say and that we do, on both sides, will require the utmost of clarity to help us pass the test.

It is obvious that we need further clarity from the UK if we are to reach an understanding on our future relationship. We are preparing for this on the European Union side. Last week President Tusk circulated draft guidelines that will be discussed by the Leaders of the EU 27 next week.

As the clock counts down, with one year to go, it is now time to translate speeches into treaties; to turn commitments into agreements; broad suggestions and wishes on the future relationship to specific, workable solutions.

This is especially important when it comes to Ireland. Both the United Kingdom and the European Union have agreed that there should be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement must be preserved in all its dimensions. And life for citizens on both sides of the border should be the same as it is today.

Both sides agreed in December that there are three options to do this. The first is through the future partnership agreement, if possible. The second is through specific solutions that the United Kingdom has said it will put forward. We are ready to work on these two options but we need to receive concrete proposals from the United Kingdom first.

The third option is the backstop solution. It would apply only if the first two options do not materialise. This scenario would see full alignment on those rules that protect the Good Friday Agreement, North-South cooperation and the all-island economy.

The draft Protocol on Ireland should not come as a surprise or a shock. It translates faithfully last December's agreement into a legal text.

The European Union, this House, the 27 Member States stand firm and united when it comes to Ireland. For us, this is not an Irish issue. It is a European issue.

It is all for one and one for all – that is what it means to be part of this Union. We pool our resources and our sovereignty to strengthen one another and to give ourselves more sovereignty when dealing with the rest of the world. We see this with Brexit, we see this with trade, we see this across the board.

As we build our future together, we must continue to make each other stronger by working together and building a more united, stronger and more democratic Union.

This must be our joint focus. We need to focus on our European future – not on the past, and not on Brexit.

Thank you.

trellheim

Barnier - Google Translate
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-1925_en.htm

Statement by Michel Barnier to the European Parliament plenary session on negotiations Article 50 with the United Kingdom
Strasbourg, 13 March 2018
Thank you, President Tajani, and President Juncker for allowing me to speak at the end of this debate, which we listened to with great attention.
Madam Minister,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I'm happy to meet you to take stock.
The majority of British citizens have chosen to leave the European Union.
It is a choice that we regret. It's a choice we respect.
And now we implement it.
Brexit means Brexit.
But at this point, I would like to say two things before everyone, here and elsewhere, must understand and remember.
First of all, about the United Kingdom, which has chosen to leave the Union, we have had - I have always had - and we will keep to the end in any case and under all circumstances for this country, this great country its culture, its people, its history, in solidarity with ours in the most tragic moments, for its diplomacy, we keep for this country the respect due to a great country, a friendly country and an allied country.
The second point is that everyone understands that in this extraordinary, complex, extraordinarily complex negotiation, our responsibility, your responsibility, that of the Council, of course, that of the Commission under the authority of President Juncker, our responsibility is to preserve for the future and for the long term what we are, our Union, our values, our identity, our single market, our common policies. None of this is negotiable. We are responsible for it.

Every day in the mission entrusted to me, I have in mind a phrase of a French statesman, whom I respected respected a lot, Pierre Mendès-France:

"Never sacrifice the future to the present."

Mr Hökmark and Mrs McGuinness also said that just now with a lot of force.

At the moment we are in this negotiation, at the end of this debate, I want to share with you three messages.

1 / We must put things in the right order, as we have done from the beginning.

In order to prepare and build an ambitious new partnership with the UK, the prerequisite is to organize its withdrawal in an orderly rather than disorderly manner. Roberto Gualtieri insisted on this point.

Under the authority of President Jean-Claude Juncker, whom I once again thank for his confidence, the Commission, which is doing its work, presented the complete draft treaty 15 days ago. Things are now clear. We can have them in the hands.

This is to facilitate and speed up the discussion with the British. Now working on a legal text.
Because, as Danuta Hübner said just now, like President Juncker, the time is very short. It is short for the negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, it will be short for the negotiation of any future relationship and it is also short - let me stress this point - for the preparation that we must perform in each of our countries and together with the stakeholders to prepare the inevitable consequences of Brexit that the British have chosen. This preparation, I wish to say thank you, is also conducted at the level of the Commission by our Secretary General, Martin Selmayr.

The time is short.

And we have on this text, particular points of vigilance that you have reminded each other in your interventions and that you recall, Guy, in this resolution.

Citizens first, our common priority. We will remain attentive until the moment of the ratification of this withdrawal agreement - on the guarantees we obtained in the December Joint Report and on the effective implementation of the all rights, in the context of simple and non-costly procedures.

Ms. Miranda, earlier, you mentioned, like Gabriela Zimmer or Barbara Spinelli, Ms. Evans and Mr. Weidenholzer, this priority issue of the rights of British citizens who live and work in one of our 27 countries, and the rights of the three million and half of European citizens, including many students, who live and work in the United Kingdom.

We also expect from the UK a sincere commitment and progress in the coming days on all other topics, such as the governance of the agreement, Euratom, I could multiply examples of topics that we do not have completely negotiated, on which we do not yet have agreement and which are part of all the subjects of separation and which are indispensable to an orderly withdrawal.

This obviously also concerns the transition.
We accept - and you have accepted - the British government's request, submitted by Theresa May, to include a transitional period in the withdrawal agreement.

Obviously, in this short period, in compliance with Article 50, all the Union rules will have to apply without distinction.

A citizen, for example, who will arrive during this transition period will have to enjoy the same rights as the one who arrived before the day of Brexit.

2 / There is a second point which is obviously the one mentioned in your resolution of our future partnership. In this text you draw the architecture and the content, as the European Council will do in a few days under the authority of Donald Tusk of what could be this ambitious partnership with the United Kingdom. Guy Verhofstadt evoked the future association with this great country around four pillars and I find myself in this architecture that you propose.

First of all, our trade relationship - Mr Sulik earlier mentioned trade - obviously we have to manage these trade exchanges and continue to trade with the United Kingdom. And including in this commercial relationship, as mentioned by Mr. Vandenkendelaere, Mr. Millán Mon or Ms. Miranda, a balanced agreement on the issue of fisheries.

Two, thematic cooperation. Mr López Aguilar mentioned aviation, Mr Peter van Dalen referred to research or universities. I could quote Erasmus. We will establish in a different financial and regulatory framework than today because the UK has chosen to no longer be in the Union. We will establish a framework for cooperation to keep this work with the British in the common interest.

Three, cooperation on justice and home affairs, police or judicial cooperation.

And finally, of course, with this great country, a strategic partnership for foreign policy, security and defense.

With regard to the first pillar, economic cooperation, as we speak, all models of cooperation with third countries are still on the table. They are available.
e are open for business. It's the UK that is closing doors.

I listened attentively to Theresa May's Mansion House speech, which confirms the doors that the UK is closing objectively by confirming red lines. Exit the domestic market, leave the customs union. Elmar Brok earlier recalled this red line, Esteban González Pons too. To regain a regulatory and commercial autonomy, this was told to us earlier by many of you. Never be bound by the Court of Justice. These are the red lines that the United Kingdom confirms.

We take note of it. But then we have to go to the obvious. One can not want both the status of a third country and at the same time ask for benefits belonging to the Union and only to the Union as Philippe Lamberts, who called for this clarification. We can not, we will not be able to use the internal market à la carte - Mr Lenaers or Mr Danti have said it again, while it constitutes an integrated ecosystem and the four freedoms, including freedom of movement, are indivisible and inseparable.

We can not want to participate in our agencies without the legal commitment to adopt and apply EU law and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

We can not, we can not solicit from the outside the mutual recognition of rules and standards, whereas this can only be based on trust, ie a common law, a coherent supervision and a single jurisdiction.

And, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, it is a rather surprising idea indeed to believe that the 27 EU Member States and your Parliament could somehow accept convergence when the United Kingdom so wishes. and at the same time give it the opportunity to diverge when it comes to creating a comparative advantage.

To coin a sentence, it is time to face up to hard facts.

Mr. Ferreira earlier, Mr. Lange, Ms. Scott Cato, in particular have raised the issue of standards in the United Kingdom. It will be a third and sovereign country. And then at home too. This is a very important point and it is a question that I asked a few weeks ago and for which we do not yet have an answer from the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom chooses to leave the Union, chooses to leave the single market and the customs union. We take note of it. Does he also want to leave or move away from our regulatory model? The very one we patiently built together with you and you with us for 44 years. A regulatory model that is not just about standards, standards or laws. Behind which there are in fact societal choices that we have made together. The social market economy, social protection, security and a certain food model, financial regulation. I could cite other examples of those common corporate choices we made at 28 that are translated, consolidated by this regulatory model.

And this question is very important. Does the United Kingdom also want to move away from this model that we have done with it and engage in the path of regulatory competition, even dumping against us.

This question is not only important, I say in passing for the economy itself, for citizens, for consumers. It is also very important for the political conditions of the ratification of any future relations agreement between us and the United Kingdom because, on that day, it will be for the European Parliament to decide, for the Council too, but also unanimously by the 27 national parliaments and perhaps even by some regional parliaments. And I recommend on this question the divergence, or even the risk of dumping, to be very attentive right now to the conditions of this ratification.

3 / Finally, this is my last point, there is the question of Ireland. At the hinge, at the junction of who we are, the European Union, and what Brexit stands for and what it means. Ms. McGuinness spoke on this point with great force. Everyone knows that the Union has played its role, has held its place for dialogue and peace in Ireland, to bring closer and give a common horizon. The conditions of stability and dialogue between previously divided communities.
The Union is not responsible for the consequences of Brexit. But she is accountable for this cooperation, this stability and this common future. That is why, as many have wished, a strong and lasting agreement on Brexit, listen to me, a lasting and strong agreement on Brexit, on orderly withdrawal must include a solid and lasting solution for Ireland and for Europe. North Ireland. This is the meaning of the protocol we proposed in this draft withdrawal agreement.

This option, this third option that we have operationalized, is part of the joint commitments between us and the United Kingdom at the highest level, that of Theresa May, President Juncker and Donald Tusk. And this document only implements one of the options of the December Joint Report. I already told you, Ms. Dodds, when we saw each other in my office a few days ago. I also told Mr. Nicholson that I always listen carefully. It is no more and no less than the options we decided to study to provide concrete solutions. It is our responsibility to operationalize how we will avoid a hard border on the Isle of Ireland in the absence of other solutions and taking into account the UK's decision to leave the market and leave the customs union.

And I will not cease to repeat, this solution of "backstop", one of the three, we are ready to replace it by any other better solution that would be proposed by the British government, this is a point mentioned by Mr. Carthy or Richard Corbett just now.

In conclusion, Mr President Tajani, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I simply want to confirm that the strength, the clarity of the Union's position, our unity on the subjects of withdrawal as well as on the future, that is our strength in this negotiation. Obviously it would not be possible, this clarity, this solidity, without the trust you place in our bargaining team, in your bargaining team. And we will continue to work as I told the Brexit Steering Group, Guy Verhofstadt, in a permanent attitude of dialogue and transparency with you.

I would like to thank you, Mr President, as well as Guy and each of the members of the Brexit Steering Group, the Group Presidents and the Commission Chairs, your coordinators for the quality and sincerity of our joint work. And I think that the resolution you are going to adopt is essential for the success of the steps we have before us. Thank you for your attention.

Leroy42

There is a massive gap between how the EU regard the December agreement and how the UK see it. The EU clearly sees it as the basis for the final agreement, any deviation from it must be agreed.

The UK see it as nothing more than an advisory wish list.

So, the EU is busy working on implementing the December agreement, or better solutions should the UK provide them and both agree.

The UK seems to be of the view that they are starting from scratch and that everything and anything is open, like December never happened.

Not sure how you even start to square that circle.

Infini

I honestly think there is no squaring it. Its down to 3 options

1) 2nd Referendum
2) Agree to all the EUs conditions
3) Hard Brexit with severe economic and diplomatic damage.

I honestly wish the UK would just drop the BS and go with option 1 if they dont want option 3 to happen because they will be forced to take 2 regardless if they dont want to ruin their country.

Think were all tired at this stage of the endless stonewalling.

ancapailldorcha

Infini wrote: »

I honestly think there is no squaring it. Its down to 3 options

1) 2nd Referendum

As much as I'd love to see Parliament exert it's sovereignty, and in British society it is Parliament which is sovereign as opposed to the people, a second referendum might not be such a good idea.

The referendum of 2016 exposed deep, deep divisions and rancor within British society, particularly in the lower and working classes. Wages have stagnated while house prices, especially in the prosperous south east where I have spent most of the past 7 years have soared to near comical levels. Check out Rightmove and see what £150,000 gets you. Spoiler: Sod all. A second referendum will not address any of this. In fact, it is more likely to foster resentment instead of resolving it. People feel that politicians don't give a damn about them and care only about enriching themselves and a second referendum where remain wins by 50-55% will just prove this to them. Even if Jeremy Corbyn bothered to campaign for remain or Boris Johnson put country ahead of career or whatever, this division would still be there, festering away until something gave.

As I said, I deeply oppose Brexit and would love to see it stopped. However, the poorer parts of the country feel like they have nothing to lose. I don't know how I would convince someone from Stoke-on-Trent why the EU is good for them personally.

Infini wrote: »

2) Agree to all the EUs conditions
3) Hard Brexit with severe economic and diplomatic damage.

Basically, you have to satisfy both Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Do you think that this is possible? I do not. Ultimately, I think both the Conservative and Labour parties need to split. Ideally, there'd be a functioning PR system in place to make the notion less dreadful but, well...

PeadarCo

ancapailldorcha wrote:

As I said, I deeply oppose Brexit and would love to see it stopped. However, the poorer parts of the country feel like they have nothing to lose. I don't know how I would convince someone from Stoke-on-Trent why the EU is good for them personally.

The problem is the only way to convince someone in Stoke is for a hard brexit to happen. At that point maybe you have some chance when it hits them personally. And even that might not be enough. The UK can't leave the EU tomorrow. The physical infrastructure and required legal frameworks aren't there. But if you ever see comments on UK sites about Brexit it's not unusual for you to see people saying why they can't leave tomorrow /today. A lot of what the EU does is taken for granted. Its only when it's gone maybe people will see what they had.

But a hard brexit is bad for everyone EU States and UK. Only that it will hit the UK far far harder. But that isn't the way hard brexiters see it

Seth Brundle

They need a trial separation before they finally agree to the divorce!

trellheim

Basically, you have to satisfy both Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Do you think that this is possible? I do not. Ultimately, I think both the Conservative and Labour parties need to split. Ideally, there'd be a functioning PR system in place to make the notion less dreadful but, well...

That's a bit pessimistic - your case basically says its a slide over the cliff with no redemption - do we really believe that ? Worse, we will shoulder a lot of the fallout

I can nearly guarantee you foreign affairs and the other govt departments are frantically trying to get the EU onside to keep it light while looking over the shoulder at the UK going "throw us a frickin bone here" . However as you do point out the current UK governments best answer at the mo where this issue is concerned is self-annihilation over principle.