Brexit discussion thread III

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

The likes of IDS and JRM's position is understandable. JRM has met recently with Bannon who devised the CA election weapon.
The impotence of everyone else is a sign of the success of the attack where such a massive once a century scandal disapears into the sea of hype and other disinformation in the hyper-normalised world.

Excellent observation and very well put.

trellheim

The revised EUCO guidelines are quite depressing, looks like they are letting them move onto trade without a border issue lockdown.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/33458/23-euco-art50-guidelines.pdf

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

The revised EUCO guidelines are quite depressing, looks like they are letting them move onto trade without a border issue lockdown.

But to coin a phrase - nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

If the exit agreement does not guarantee no hard border, we simply veto it and see how the UK manages without a transition period, free trade agreement with the EU, access to EU bodies, flights in or out of Europe, hard customs borders at Calais ... WTO terms March 2019, and good luck.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But to coin a phrase - nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

If the exit agreement does not guarantee no hard border, we simply veto it and see how the UK manages without a transition period, free trade agreement with the EU, access to EU bodies, flights in or out of Europe, hard customs borders at Calais ... WTO terms March 2019, and good luck.

The problem with that is that we will then be seen as landing hardship on everyone. We will be under massive pressure from every direction to get in line. The further this goes, the more skilful I see the UK position as being. They are continually pushing the EU further back. The says things need to be agreed, but then agree that agreement can come later.

Of course the UK are also backing themselves further into a corner, but ever week they can dig out is better from them.

Time is the one thing that the EU has over everything else. You can argue about the outcomes, but the deadlines are fixed. EU controlled that. But they continually seem to be happy to move on the process.

Not saying that it is the wrong way to do it, but I am getting increasingly concerned that the EU is being far more pragmatic than their position on the NI border would signify.

Nody

trellheim wrote: »

The revised EUCO guidelines are quite depressing, looks like they are letting them move onto trade without a border issue lockdown.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/33458/23-euco-art50-guidelines.pdf

What lock down? The deal clearly states that NI will remain in the customs union IF they can't come up with anything else. That has locked down the border and now it's up to UK to figure out how to get out of that bind OR they will default the whole deal. That is about as iron clad as you're going to get it but for some reason people on this site appears to expect UK to cede NI to Ireland and a unified Ireland in law at a minimum and anything less means EU are throwing Ireland under the buss.

The simple reality is that NI will scupper the deal and there will be a hard border but EU has ensured that when it happens that will be due to UK's failure to live up to their part of the deal and not the other way around.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem with that is that we will then be seen as landing hardship on everyone. We will be under massive pressure from every direction to get in line. The further this goes, the more skilful I see the UK position as being. They are continually pushing the EU further back. The says things need to be agreed, but then agree that agreement can come later.

Of course the UK are also backing themselves further into a corner, but ever week they can dig out is better from them.

Time is the one thing that the EU has over everything else. You can argue about the outcomes, but the deadlines are fixed. EU controlled that. But they continually seem to be happy to move on the process.

Not saying that it is the wrong way to do it, but I am getting increasingly concerned that the EU is being far more pragmatic than their position on the NI border would signify.

We are getting screwed either way though. The only way we are not getting screwed is if Brexit is stopped. If they leave with a Norway deal we are still getting hurt. The further away from that the more hurt we will be.

The UK is actually being helped by the EU urgency to not hurt their members, us. So the EU is pushing to move things forward to get a good deal for Ireland because we need it, not because of the wonderful UK negotiation positions. But still with this in mind the EU has not had to compromise on anything major so far. The UK has had to give in to all of its positions so far, but you think they are doing well?

Nody wrote: »

What lock down? The deal clearly states that NI will remain in the customs union IF they can't come up with anything else. That has locked down the border and now it's up to UK to figure out how to get out of that bind OR they will default the whole deal. That is about as iron clad as you're going to get it but for some reason people on this site appears to expect UK to cede NI to Ireland and a unified Ireland in law at a minimum and anything less means EU are throwing Ireland under the buss.

The simple reality is that NI will scupper the deal and there will be a hard border but EU has ensured that when it happens that will be due to UK's failure to live up to their part of the deal and not the other way around.

That is probably the outcome of the negotiations. The EU is setting up the best deal they can but trying to make sure they are not the one to blame when the UK hardliners derails everything.

trellheim

Hold on a second. The opening EU position was - no trade talks till NI was locked down. That was fairly unequivocal.

Now, we find that somehow we are onto trade talks. I see your logic above - but it doesn't matter - if It gets scuppered anyway, then why bother in the first place .


Your argument seems to imply that NI will break the deal; therefore thats a discussion we should have right now before this farce goes further because everyone is acting under false pretenses.

My canary in the coalmine ? The DUP are onside.

Nody

trellheim wrote: »

Hold on a second. The opening EU position was - no trade talks till NI was locked down. That was fairly unequivocal.

Now, we find that somehow we are onto trade talks. I see your logic above - but it doesn't matter - if It gets scuppered anyway, then why bother in the first place .


Your argument seems to imply that NI will break the deal; therefore thats a discussion we should have right now before this farce goes further because everyone is acting under false pretenses.

My canary in the coalmine ? The DUP are onside.

It will go one of two ways come the leave date.

Either UK panics and agrees NI will remain in the CU - Win for Ireland, Win for EU because no other solution will be place at the time and DUP can sulk about it all they want. How UK aligns that internally we honestly could not care less about.

Or UK crashes out because they refuse to accept the deal they signed and look as a bad partner in general who don't want to stick to what they agree. EU simply points to the deal signed and says we did our part.

That is why the negotiations continue and the closer we get to the final deadline the more likely UK is to panic and go for option 1 (which is preferable) simply because they don't have the maneuvering space to fudge it and delay any more. In essence EU is giving UK enough rope to hang itself but offers them a way out via remaining in the CU as a whole in some form. Now due to May and DUP I think the second option of hard crash out is the by far more likely scenario but I can still understand the point of continue the negotiation.

Leroy42

Exactly. If the NI border is always going to be the piece that brings the whole thing crashing down then why even bother with the trade talks. What is the point? They had a position that everything in Phase 1 needed to be signed off before moving on to trade (the thing that the UK wanted) but have we really got that? All we have is a default position if something else doesn't come up but without putting any really hard lines on what that actually means.

But, even if you think that the lines are drawn, again what is the point of going on? Why won't the UK sign up to it now, and why won't the EU stick to their original position?

Leo, I think, is seeing this too. He mentioned yesterday that the EU needs to show that it is valuable to be in the EU, to make it worthwhile to be a country such as Ireland to remain. What is the point if when something bigger than us comes up (such as Brexit) the EU is more worried about the bigger countries than the individual members.

trellheim

My big worry is something big thing like the UK agreeing to pay their budget sub for another 20 years in return for a hard border

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. If the NI border is always going to be the piece that brings the whole thing crashing down then why even bother with the trade talks. What is the point? They had a position that everything in Phase 1 needed to be signed off before moving on to trade (the thing that the UK wanted) but have we really got that? All we have is a default position if something else doesn't come up but without putting any really hard lines on what that actually means.

But, even if you think that the lines are drawn, again what is the point of going on? Why won't the UK sign up to it now, and why won't the EU stick to their original position?

Leo, I think, is seeing this too. He mentioned yesterday that the EU needs to show that it is valuable to be in the EU, to make it worthwhile to be a country such as Ireland to remain. What is the point if when something bigger than us comes up (such as Brexit) the EU is more worried about the bigger countries than the individual members.

Wasn't the position that there had to be significant progress in phase 1 before we move on to phase 2? Seeing that the UK has agreed to basically being in the CU and SM via Northern Ireland to get their progress, the move now for the EU is to get that down in legal text and signed. Also, isn't phase 2 just the withdrawal period and not trade? We haven't moved to trade yet as this is what will happen after they leave in March 2019. The work that happened before that will dictate what trade deal there will be so it is not wasted for the EU, but laying the foundations for trade.

trellheim wrote: »

My big worry is something big thing like the UK agreeing to pay their budget sub for another 20 years in return for a hard border

The EU will be monitored by the smaller countries in the EU as well. Will they throw a country in the EU under the bus to get a good deal for Germany and France?

Harika

trellheim wrote: »

My big worry is something big thing like the UK agreeing to pay their budget sub for another 20 years in return for a hard border

UK also doesn't want a hard border, so they won't be paying to get something they don't want.

josip

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. If the NI border is always going to be the piece that brings the whole thing crashing down then why even bother with the trade talks. What is the point? They had a position that everything in Phase 1 needed to be signed off before moving on to trade (the thing that the UK wanted) but have we really got that? All we have is a default position if something else doesn't come up but without putting any really hard lines on what that actually means.

But, even if you think that the lines are drawn, again what is the point of going on? Why won't the UK sign up to it now, and why won't the EU stick to their original position?
...

Because the Conservatives get to stay in power longer, the longer they can fudge and keep the DUP in the coalition.
And there's nothing that the Tories won't consider in order to stay in power.

trellheim

why even bother with the trade talks.

I think he was writing that from the EU point of view, not the UK's.

Why carry on when the result will be a crap one

FreudianSlippers

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no. You have reset Ireland to 1914 or so when Home Rule was passed at Westminster and the Unionists and Nationalists started arming for civil war.

Thomas__. wrote: »

Your suggestion is not working in reality and you haven't solved anything, it rather would feed the extremists on both sides in NI to start another Trubles era.  
The best thing would be that the UK would simply abandon NI and leave it to reunite with the Republic and preparations should be made to keep the militant Unionists in check (which is easier said than done but nonetheless necessary) militant Dissos would also had to be under surveilliance in case they would use that for some retaliations.

Look up and you might see the tongue-in-cheekness of that comment flying up there with the commercial airliners.

demfad

Brittany Kaiser has openly contradicted Alexander Nix and said that Cambridge Analytica carried out unpaid for work for Leave.EU campaign.

Cambridge Analytica misled MPs over work for Leave.EU, says ex-director

Also it looks like the AggregateIQ Brexit angle is coming our way soon. This is "Vote Leave"'s Dominic Cummings getting poor excuses in early. Note Carole C's letter to him at bottom:

Should be interesting!

https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/23/on-the-referendum-24-global-conspiracies-and-a-scooby-doo-ending/

demfad

Owen Smith just fired by Corbyn for:

https://twitter.com/OwenSmith_MP/status/977249900877500416

J Mysterio

Corbyn has sacked Owen Smith over the latter's call for a second referendum in a newspaper article.

Pretty shocking. Smith seems a decent and able politician and was a considered a potential future alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn really likes a bit of Brexit.

J Mysterio

This is the article in question:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/23/labour-brexit-ireland-european-union

J Mysterio

Smith was also the Shadow NI Secretary. Said Brexit bad for NI.

LeinsterDub

trellheim wrote: »

My big worry is something big thing like the UK agreeing to pay their budget sub for another 20 years in return for a hard border

The EU isn't for sale and it would be a mere few euros extra per citizen per year to cover the UK's contribution.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem with that is that we will then be seen as landing hardship on everyone.

That is not a problem, that is the whole point.

Guarantee no hard border, the way you promised in Phase 1, or the puppy gets it.

And if you don't think we'll do it, take a good look at our Eurovision voting history.

joeysoap

J Mysterio wrote: »

Corbyn has sacked Owen Smith over the latter's call for a second referendum in a newspaper article.

Pretty shocking. Smith seems a decent and able politician and was a considered a potential future alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn really likes a bit of Brexit.

Corbyn hates the EU. More than he hates the Conservative party. He has the Government at the end of a barrel, but the result might be a second referendum or even not leaving the EU. Given the choice it’s pretty clear Corbyn is more than happy to leave. And leave the Tory’s in power.

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

Corbyn has sacked Owen Smith over the latter's call for a second referendum in a newspaper article.

Pretty shocking. Smith seems a decent and able politician and was a considered a potential future alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn really likes a bit of Brexit.

That's... pretty shocking alright. It's also somewhat portentous that Corbyn is sacking senior Labour figures who disagree with him. It will make that bit harder to attract moderate voters which the party will really need for the next election.

Capt'n Midnight

trellheim wrote: »

My big worry is something big thing like the UK agreeing to pay their budget sub for another 20 years in return for a hard border

NI costs more than the EU.

Between 2017 and 2020 there'll be 144,000 more jobs in Ireland. But only 5,000 north of the border. So NI isn't going to get cheaper.

Capt'n Midnight

Do the BBC check stuff anymore ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43509309

Last-minute wrangling by Spain has led to the inclusion of a reference to the EU's position on Gibraltar. It says that Spain and the UK have to reach a separate deal over it.

The EU published their negotiation guidelines on 29 April 2017
www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21763/29-euco-art50-guidelinesen.pdf

24. After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United
Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom
of Spain and the United Kingdom.

Peregrinus

Nobody at the BBC should have to fact-check something like that. How can any journalist not remember last year's pathetically hysterical tabloid willy-waving about how the UK could wallop those greasy Spaniards just like they biffed the Argies back in '83? The trigger for that stomach-turning spectacle was the EU's adoption of the very position Capt. Midnight mentions. If any British journalist covering Brexit-related stories needs "fact checking" before he recollects this, quite honestly, he's in the wrong profession.

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

My big worry is something big thing like the UK agreeing to pay their budget sub for another 20 years in return for a hard border

If they wanted a hard border, they could have it for free. A hard border would be the result of crashing out of the EU with no deal, and no Brexit divorce payment.

The UK are insistent that they want to avoid a hard border and, up to a point, they are telling the truth. Nobody fears that they secretly want a hard border. The fear is that, although they do want an open border, they don't want it enough to be willing to compromise some of their other aspirations to the extent necessary to make an open border possible.

There's two possibilities here. One is that the UK would look at the tensions between its various objectives, regretfully conclude that they couldn't achieve them all, and give up on the open border.

The other is that the UK would continue to be in denial about there being any tensions at all between its various objectives, and would refuse to choose between them. At some point the power of making any choice would pass away from them and they would crash out without a deal (which of course would mean a hard border).

If the latter situation unfolds, there will be nothing Ireland or the EU can do to prevent it. There never was anything that could be done to prevent it.

However if the former situation unfolds, we are better-positioned. To borrow a phrase from Teresa May, no deal is better than a bad deal. And any deal which includes an agreed hard border would be a bad deal; we would prefer no deal. Therefore, we should endeavour to prevent such a deal from been accepted by the EU.

There are no certainties in political life, but we are quite well positioned to do that. Last December the UK agreed that, if other mechanisms for keeping the border open could not be agreed, NI would remain fully aligned with the single market and the customs union, and this state of affairs would continue not just for the duration of the transitional period but indefinitely, unless and until alternative mechanisms are agreed.

They are not yet legally bound to that; that is merely something which, it has been agreed in negotiations, will be a term of the withdrawal agreement; it won't bind the UK until the withdrawal agreement is signed and ratified by both sides. So if the UK turns around now and says, no, we won't sign a withdrawal agreement that commits us to regulatory alignment in NI, they aren't in breach of any legal obligations. But they are abandoning the prospect of a withdrawal agreement; they are choosing to crash out. It's unthinkable that the EU would continue to negotiate a withdrawal agreement if the UK starting tearing up the agreements reached on points already settled in the negotiations.

This would be far more irrational, damaging and self-harming than all the irrational, damaging, self-harming choices they have made since Cameron first decided to call this misbegotten referendum. So lets hope they don't do it.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

At some point the power of making any choice would pass away from them and they would crash out without a deal (which of course would mean a hard border).

If the latter situation unfolds, there will be nothing Ireland or the EU can do to prevent it. There never was anything that could be done to prevent it.

But in practice, this could only be temporary. Crashing out would be so damaging that they would have to come back to the table.

This is why I would prefer us to veto a deal with a hard border in it - if they crash out, they will be back, and the border will be on the table again.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But in practice, this could only be temporary. Crashing out would be so damaging that they would have to come back to the table.

This is why I would prefer us to veto a deal with a hard border in it - if they crash out, they will be back, and the border will be on the table again.

You are inferring that the British decision makers -whoever they happen to be in the context at hand and at the material time- would finally begin to act in the national interest.

I have yet to be convinced that this could -never mind would- happen.

Because the said decision makers, current and potential, know very well that the worst effects of a crash-out would not be felt in the short term, no more than the worst effects of the referendum result and its handling to date have yet been felt at street level.

CelticRambler

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Crashing out would be so damaging that they would have to come back to the table.

Not if you're a true believer in Brexit-means-Brexit-at-any-price. So far, Brexiteers have been consistent in saying that they are prepared to suffer whatever pain is required to "take back control".

Even assuming that a younger, less nationalistic electorate decides that being part of the EU would be better for Britain, you're looking at 10, 15 or 20 years before they come back to the table.

The one 'advantage' of such a crashing out would be the effect on Northern Ireland, where they have an easy route back into the EU. I'm still of the opinion that the hard Brexiteers' ideology will be responsible for accelerating the reunification of Ireland, either by dragging NI into the post-Brexit economic abyss and the NI electorate opting to save themselves; or by accepting the backstop arrangement, an Irish Sea border and effectively telling NI that they really are second-class citizens of the UK.

First Up

Not sure about the NI bit. Unionists hate the ROI more than they love the UK - or NI for that matter.

Nitrogan

They've already thrown their fishermen overboard (excuse the pun), which leaves the Unionists with a difficult calculation to make. Not that they will ever rationally consider the reality of their situation.

Either they adopt their default 'No Surrender' position and risk bringing down the government leading to a near certain Corbyn Labour government which will sell them off for good or they agree to an Irish sea border in all but name with enough caveats and fudges to sell to their constituents without looking like they surrendered.

The EU has the UK over a barrel, the question is how committed the EU is to Ireland as a member over the UK as a vital trade partner.

In Ireland we're used to being used and abused by our bigger political partners/owners if the EU bucks that trend and backs us over the UK I think we'd go all in with the EU and ditch neutrality (but not our corporate tax ).

Professor Moriarty

Regarding fishing, NI etc., if you view Brexit as being England wishing to leave the EU then what is happening and what will happen becomes a lot clearer. Anything will be thrown under the bus so that the Little Englanders preserve what's left of 'England'. The fact that the last vestiges of their version of 'England' faded away in the 1950s is irrelevant to that deluded mindset.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

Because the said decision makers, current and potential, know very well that the worst effects of a crash-out would not be felt in the short term, no more than the worst effects of the referendum result and its handling to date have yet been felt at street level.

A crash-out would absolutely be felt from day 1. Planes grounded, exports stopped at Dover, trucks queued back to London...

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A crash-out would absolutely be felt from day 1. Planes grounded, exports stopped at Dover, trucks queued back to London...

Planes won't be stopped as airlines need many months to plan flight schedules in advance. There'll just be no flights scheduled.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But in practice, this could only be temporary. Crashing out would be so damaging that they would have to come back to the table.

This is why I would prefer us to veto a deal with a hard border in it - if they crash out, they will be back, and the border will be on the table again.

Yes. If we have to choose between a Withdrawal Agreement that allows a hard border, and a no-deal Brexit that results in a hard border, we should definitely choose the latter. A Withdrawal Agreement hard border is permanent; a crash-out hard border less so.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Not if you're a true believer in Brexit-means-Brexit-at-any-price. So far, Brexiteers have been consistent in saying that they are prepared to suffer whatever pain is required to "take back control".

Even assuming that a younger, less nationalistic electorate decides that being part of the EU would be better for Britain, you're looking at 10, 15 or 20 years before they come back to the table.

I think not. Remember the promise of an easy Brexit, with the EU begging for forgiveness and the world beating a path to the UK's door, and with all the hard questions being met with fudge or outright lies, could only command 52% in the referendum. The Brexit that was all things to all men could barely command a majority. A real Brexit which is an obvious train-wreck would struggle to retain majority support. Faced with the reality of a crash-out Brexit, I doubt that a party dominated by hard Brexiters wanting to prolong the crash could win an election.

After an election, the Corbyn government would be looking for a deal with the EU. And of course it's already their policy for the UK to seek a customs union with the EU, which doesn't in itself deliver an open border, but it makes one a lot more deliverable.

Zubeneschamali

CelticRambler wrote: »

Even assuming that a younger, less nationalistic electorate decides that being part of the EU would be better for Britain, you're looking at 10, 15 or 20 years before they come back to the table.

Oh, I am not at all hopeful that they will be back to rejoin. i mean they will be back to negotiate a free trade deal, reciprocal treatment of citizens, memership or co-operation with European bodies like standards, medicines, nuclear power etc.

And the EU wil say no problem, lets talk. Item 1, that frictionless Irish border...

murphaph

I wonder are any more Labour front benchers prepared to stand up and defy Corbyn over his Brexit "stance". One would hope so, but so far no real sign of it. You could tell Corbyn's position hasn't sat well with Owen Smith for a long time.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

However if the former situation unfolds, we are better-positioned. To borrow a phrase from Teresa May, no deal is better than a bad deal. And any deal which includes an agreed hard border would be a bad deal; we would prefer no deal. Therefore, we should endeavour to prevent such a deal from been accepted by the EU.

However in reality is going to come down to some sort of compromise. We can use our veto as a threat but we can't really use it in practice for economic reasons.

The UK are leaving the EU and the customs union. We would rather they were not but we have to accept that reality. Because of this the EU will insist that Ireland build border controls of some sort. Ireland will therefore seek the minimum necessary to keep the EU happy. Ideally, if the UK get a very good trade deal then issues of smuggling will not arise to any great extent and so a Norway style border with relatively free movement of traffic should be possible.

Peregrinus

Well, possibly. But, remember, timing.

The Withdrawal Agreement is finalised by October, and actually signed and ratified by March. But what’s it going to say about Ireland?

We know it will contain a “legally operative version” of Option C, full regulatory alignment. It will say how that is going to work, and it will not leave any significant detail for later agreement between the EU and the UK.

What will it say about Option A (super duper trade deal) or Option B (unicorn technology)? Necessarily, much less. Talks about the trade deal will be just starting when the Withdrawal Agreement is finalised, and as for the unicorn technology, well, it won’t be invented by October, will it?

So the Withdrawal Agreement will contain a more-or-less fully worked out version of Option C, and will provide that it is to apply unless and until Option A or Option B is fleshed out and agreed. There will be not much detail on Option A or Option B.

Of course, none of the Options will kick in on Brexit Day, in March 2019. On Brexit Day, the transition period starts. The whole of the UK will remain in the Single Market and the Customs Union and that, of course, will mean an open border in Ireland. These Options only become relevant when the transition period ends, in January 2021.

So, when finalising the Withdrawal Agreement in October 2018, the UK will be signing up to a fully-fleshed out version of Option C, and agreeing that that will operate from January 2021, unless in the meantime Options A or B get worked out and agreed. And the UK will have two-and-a-quarter years to work out Option A or B or some combination of the two to a point that the EU finds acceptable. It insists that it expects to do this. This puts the UK in a weak position, between now and October, to demand changes to the Option C text that the EU has proposed. Option C is never going to apply if the UK can develop workable versions of A or B that satisfy the EU, and the UK insists that it can and will do this. So why would they be fussed about the details of Option C? On their view of the matter, it need never actually come into operation.

I predict that the UK will cave on this point, and Option C will appear in the final Withdrawal Agreement in something very like the text already drafted by the EU. There will be only modest changes. The UK will sell this concession to its own ultra-Brexiters by saying that it doesn't matter, because Option C will never apply in practice.

OK. When the UK does get around to proposing fleshed-out versions of Options A and/or B, the EU is under no pressure to find them acceptable because, the default, Option C, guarantees an open border and protects the integrity of the single market, which ticks all the EU’s boxes. There is no reason why they would settle for anything less than that. And that puts the EU in a pretty strong position when it comes to considering the merits of whatever the UK proposes.

Right. At some point after October 2018 the UK is going to say to itself, and then to the EU, OK, we have to admit that we can’t (consistent with our red lines) make a trade deal that will deliver a truly open border. And that unicorn technology turns out to be strangely difficult to find. How about a deal plus some quite nifty technology that between them deliver a largely open border?

Both Ireland and the EU really want a good trade deal with the UK. But for Ireland in particular not having an open border would really harm us economically, so the deal the UK would be offering here, even viewed in purely economic terms, is distinctly suboptimal; by definition it cannot be a really good trade deal if it doesn't deliver an open border. Add the political dimension - the political and communal signficance to Ireland of having an open border - and unless the degree of border restriction is very, very small, we’re really not going to like it. We’d rather have the open border, thanks. And, because Option C continues indefinitely, we can have a permanently open border simply by vetoing the trade deal. (The UK/EU FTA , although yet to be negotiated, is almost certainly going to be a “mixed agreement” which, as a matter of EU law, requires the consent of each Member State, so we will have a veto.) That’s a pretty strong position for us to be in.

Will the EU pressurise us not to use our veto? Will they lean on us to accept some border restrictions so as to facilitate a trade deal for the greater good of the Union? I don’t think they will, to any great extent. There has been a very consistent understanding of Ireland's concerns about the border, and it's significance, at the EU level, and we have had solid support.

That’s why the EU has put the Irish border front and centre of the negotiation process right from the get-go, to the puzzlement and then fury of Brexiters who just don’t get it. The Brexiters see the EU as purely about countries co-operating for economic advantage, and that is part of the reason why they have completely misunderstood the EU position on Brexit, and been completely wrong about the attitudes and actions that the EU would take. The EU's raison d'etre is the prevention of conflict in Europe; free trade, the single market, etc are good because they help prevent conflicts. Closing the Irish border will not help to prevent conflict, and the EU will not find a Free Trade Agreement that involves a hard border in Ireland a particularly attractive proposition.

I don’t see any reason why the EU's support for Ireland's position would change. Yes, the EU would like a good FTA with the UK, but the UK needs one much more than the EU does, and the EU knows this. The EU’s position will be that if somebody has to give ground make an FT possible, it should be the UK, not an EU member state. And an EU member state should certainly not be asked to jeopardise political stability, risk intercommunal tensions and set back a peace process in order to secure favourable trade terms.

trellheim

I still think the DUP is the canary here. It is telling Arlene made Zero mention of Brexit at last nights DUP policy conference ( text of her speech HERE https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/dup-leader-arlene-fosters-speech-to-party-spring-policy-conference-full-text-36739874.html )

so they MUST be onside ( no wish to delve into NI politics on this thread ) and if they are onside then, for me, we are not seeing everything.

backspin.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I am not at all hopeful that they will be back to rejoin. i mean they will be back to negotiate a free trade deal, reciprocal treatment of citizens, memership or co-operation with European bodies like standards, medicines, nuclear power etc.

And the EU wil say no problem, lets talk. Item 1, that frictionless Irish border...

I have no faith that the EU will give much consideration to the Irish border over the medium to long term. It's a stick to beat the British with during the negotiations. But as per usual we will be flung under the bus when the time is right. Ireland and Greece have both learned how the EU operates.

First Up

backspin. wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I am not at all hopeful that they will be back to rejoin. i mean they will be back to negotiate a free trade deal, reciprocal treatment of citizens, memership or co-operation with European bodies like standards, medicines, nuclear power etc.

And the EU wil say no problem, lets talk. Item 1, that frictionless Irish border...

I have no faith that the EU will give much consideration to the Irish border over the medium to long term. It's a stick to beat the British with during the negotiations. But as per usual we will be flung under the bus when the time is right. Ireland and Greece have both learned how the EU operates.

As usual?

steddyeddy

J Mysterio wrote: »

Corbyn has sacked Owen Smith over the latter's call for a second referendum in a newspaper article.

Pretty shocking. Smith seems a decent and able politician and was a considered a potential future alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn really likes a bit of Brexit.

In the light of the fact he allows Kate Hoey free reign this is pretty shocking.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

In the light of the fact he allows Kate Hoey free reign this is pretty shocking.

She isn't in the shadow cabinet, he can't fire her from being a backbencher.

Peregrinus

steddyeddy wrote: »

In the light of the fact he allows Kate Hoey free reign this is pretty shocking.

Hoey is not on the front bench, so she can't be fired from it.

(Nor is she likely to be on the front bench under the present regime. She does not like Corbyn, and the feeling is by all accounts mutual.)

trellheim

Corbyn really likes a bit of Brexit.

He is the worst sort here - an ideologue in a position of relative power - but he is far more in favour of Brexit than May, who was a campaigner for Remain before the referendum.

Zubeneschamali

backspin. wrote: »

Ireland and Greece have both learned how the EU operates.

Indeed, the EU shows more concern for both nations long-term interests than the feckless eejits we elect.

ancapailldorcha

trellheim wrote: »

He is the worst sort here - an ideologue in a position of relative power - but he is far more in favour of Brexit than May, who was a campaigner for Remain before the referendum.

Much has been made of the man's principles. It beggars belief that people aren't seeing through this, especially his younger liberal supporters. He said that he supported remain but put as little effort into campaigning as possible while his office did as much as possible to hobble the Labour Remain campaign lead by Alan Johnson.