Brexit discussion thread III

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote:

So another plank of Brexit will be discarded. The good ship Brexit is little more than a raft at this stage.

Rafts have been the traditional means of escape from sinking ships throughout history!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nothing is entirely true in politics, yet I struggle to see any sign of any influence that Sinn Fein have had on the negotiations or even the debate about the negotiations either North or South.

Keeping quiet is a clever glic operation in the mode of FF in days gone past.

May was in contact with the DUP and SF last night trying to broker a deal.
If that is your definition of 'no influence' I suggest you are allowing your noted bias to blinker your view.
Leo and May know exactly what has to be satisfied here.

mickoneill31

flaneur wrote: »

To me that reads :

“Thank you for your email. We will consider its contents and get back to you in due course”.

Many of us have had one of those. They’re often known as a polite PFO.

I don't think it matters how it reads to you. Or to me.
It doesn't read to me as PFO.

PFO is most likely but it's always possible that the UK comes up with another acceptable option. Which would obviously be considered. Anybody who said now they wouldn't consider future proposals wouldnt be that smart.

breatheme

steddyeddy wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

The one chicken that could still come home to roost on that one is the Good Friday Agreement. Regulatory equivalence on issues covered by the GFA may only mean a small amount and may not result in membership of the SM and CU nor in a completely open border.

Again you completely missunderstand the GFA. One of the tenants enshrined in the GFA is cross border co-operation. I've asked you thee times no and you've dodged the lot. Does a closed border have any negative impact on crossed border co-operation.

Secondly was the GFA written with EU cross border regulation in mind?

You are absolutely right. The border could be closed and that's not a violation of the GFA. You could argue, however, that it doesn't violate the text, but it does violate the spirit.
But then that begs the question: Why is the UK insisting they are leaving the CU+SM and keeping the border open? They could come out and say, "hey, there won't be an Open Border. Ireland, start getting ready for that."
And it would also mean that there would be less good will from Ireland when it comes to the future FTA.

swampgas

My reading of the DUP (and I've no idea how accurate it is) is that anything that promotes goodwill and cooperation between Dublin and London is considered a threat, and anything that causes rancour and antagonism between them is reassuring. I don't know if they balked at the last minute partly because London and Dublin were appearing to cooperate in a way that might not suit the narrow interests of the DUP.

Looking at the bigger picture, the flaws in the UK's political system are really being laid bare. Brexit is not a single issue problem, it's just a symptom of a much deeper dysfunction. Another election won't fix it, a temporary national unity government won't fix it, a pro-EU labour government won't fix it. The UK seems to be overdue a political revolution of some kind, perhaps a move to PR and STV, with multiple smaller parties forming coalitions as happens in many other countries. Maybe a shake-up in rules controlling media ownership.

But as this stands right now I can't see it getting any better in the long run, if anything (like the US) the polarisation will continue, and will be exploited for political gain, in an ever more destructive cycle.

LeinsterDub

kowtow wrote: »

Rafts have been the traditional means of escape from sinking ships throughout history!

I've not heard anyone peddling the EU is a sinking ship line for quite some time . In fact I stopped hearing it about the time the EU economy leapfrogged the UK economy.

flaneur

mickoneill31 wrote: »

I don't think it matters how it reads to you. Or to me.
It doesn't read to me as PFO.

PFO is most likely but it's always possible that the UK comes up with another acceptable option. Which would obviously be considered. Anybody who said now they wouldn't consider future proposals wouldnt be that smart.

It’s just a statement that they’re willing to listen to reasonable proposals.
I don’t really see why it’s newsworthy. That has been the Irish government’s position the entire time.

Professor Moriarty

swampgas wrote: »

My reading of the DUP (and I've no idea how accurate it is) is that anything that promotes goodwill and cooperation between Dublin and London is considered a threat, and anything that causes rancour and antagonism between them is reassuring. I don't know if they balked at the last minute partly because London and Dublin were appearing to cooperate in a way that might not suit the narrow interests of the DUP.

Looking at the bigger picture, the flaws in the UK's political system are really being laid bare. Brexit is not a single issue problem, it's just a symptom of a much deeper dysfunction. Another election won't fix it, a temporary national unity government won't fix it, a pro-EU labour government won't fix it. The UK seems to be overdue a political revolution of some kind, perhaps a move to PR and STV, with multiple smaller parties forming coalitions as happens in many other countries. Maybe a shake-up in rules controlling media ownership.

But as this stands right now I can't see it getting any better in the long run, if anything (like the US) the polarisation will continue, and will be exploited for political gain, in an ever more destructive cycle.

I think you're right, Britain is due a political revolution. Unfortunately, they rejected a move away from FPTP to Alternative Voting (loosely, a form of PR) in a referendum in 2011 so it's unlikely to be mooted again anytime soon.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It still remains to be seen what "regulatory alignment" means. Does it mean similar or exactly the same? The thinking in the Government seems to suggest that it means legislation with a similar outcome in certain areas. Chris Grayling is stating such on BBC Radio 4 this morning.

It means a commitment to sufficient regulatory alignment to allow for an open border in Ireland without jeopardising the integrity of the single market. That's a pretty high degree of regulatory alignment, realistically speaking. And to keep the DUP onside this has to apply accross the UK, not just in NI.

The Tory face-saver seems to be that they won't directly apply EU regs in the UK (as they do in, e.g., Norway) or enact UK regs which pretty much mirror the text of EU regs; they'll enact UK regs which produce the same regulatory outcomes as the EU regs. So, for example, the EU regs might say that the minimum fat content in whole milk is so many grammes per litre, while the UK regs might say that it is so many grains per hogshead. And the UK level might actually be higher, when converted, than the EU level, but it won't be lower.

OK, they won't all be quite as facile as that, but that's pretty much what we're talking about. However they are worded, the UK regs must operate so that products that cannot be released onto the single market cannot be released into the UK market either.

solodeogloria wrote: »

In certain sectors regulations will need to be broadly similar in order for the border to remain open.

Pretty much all sectors. If it were, say, just in agribusiness, then goods crossing the Irish border would need to be inspected to see if they were agribusiness produce (can cross freely) or something else (can't). But a border where such inspections are carried out wouldn't be an open border.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If this applies to the whole of Britain this doesn't just affect the Irish border but the sea frontier with mainland Europe.

Yes, this is a big plus for the UK. It will make it much, much easier to negotiate a high degree of trade openness with the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The scope for free trade agreements are reduced but not nullified. It simply means that trade needs to happen within the agreed regulations.

I think the scope is going to be reduced quite a lot, to be honest. Not only will goods imported into the UK from third countries have to comply with UK standards which are no weaker than EU standards (so no chlorinated chicken, hormone-fed beef, whole milk with less than x grammes of fat per litre, etc) but also customs tariffs for goods entering the UK cannot be less than the tariffs for the same goods entering the EU. (Think about it.)

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the UK can do this without formal membership of the customs union and single market then it still allows for more freedom than the status quo. Admittedly not as much as I and some others would have liked but control of borders are regained and there is increased scope for free trade agreements.

TBH, the scope for trade agreements is not very great, but if we're realistic this may be a good deal for the UK; it opens the way to a very good EU trade deal, and, given their geographic and economic situation, that was always going to be hugely more beneficial to them than any amount of trade deals they might negotiate with third countries. What they are giving up here might have considerable symbolic signficance, but it never had much practical value.

As for regaining "control of borders", the whole point of this deal is so that the Irish border will not be controlled, and the deal seems likely to be done on terms that, even if the UK retains the right to control the UK/EU sea border, there won't be much point in doing so.

The question really comes down to; if the free trade arrangements that the UK seeks to negotiate on the basis of a commitment to regulatory alignment begins to approach the degree of freedom that they enjoy currently as participant in the Single Market, will the EU demand in return that the UK make continuing financial contributions, and accept free movement, as Norway, etc do for a similar degree of access? And the answer, of course, is "yes", the EU must demand this, for obvious reasons. And one or both of these things will be a bridge too far for Brexiters, and they will therefore negotiate a less favourable trade deal with the EU than would otherwise be possible, in order to avoid continuing contributions to the EU budget and in order to avoid free movement (and of course in order to accept only a limited degree of ECJ jurisdiction).

And that's the trade-off they needed to start thinking about 18 months ago. Still, better late than never. They now have maybe 9 months, realistically, to come up with a position on this outstanding question, talk to the EU, and make a deal.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I've not heard anyone peddling the EU is a sinking ship line for quite some time . In fact I stopped hearing it about the time the EU economy leapfrogged the UK economy.

More like the UK economy is stumbling and falling rather than the EU leapfrogging.

Leroy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I've not heard anyone peddling the EU is a sinking ship line for quite some time . In fact I stopped hearing it about the time the EU economy leapfrogged the UK economy.

I thought he meant that he agreed that Brexit was the sinking ship!

No way he could consider Brexit as anything other than a sinking ship at this stage.

All the talk of future trade deals, more sovereinty etc, it all noise.

In case anybody was asleep yesterday, the government of the UK, those in charge of the process have stated that they haven't discussed in cabinet what they want at the end, haven't done any planning on different outcomes, don't understand the implications of any decision they will make.

So all these people coming on here stating that they have some insight into how things will work out for the UK after a hard brexit are talking through their hoop. They have no idea, since no reports have been done. Nothing.

Brexit is little more than a dart throw in the dark. Could it end up working? There is always the chance that luck will play its part. The problem is that the UK are dealing with other countries, countries that have done their homework and know what they are talking about. They are not just going to sit idly by and let the UK have all the benefits while taking their trade.

Bar_Prop

swampgas wrote: »

My reading of the DUP (and I've no idea how accurate it is) is that anything that promotes goodwill and cooperation between Dublin and London is considered a threat, and anything that causes rancour and antagonism between them is reassuring.

As a politicians they're a great deal more pragmatic than that. No really.
As a party though, they have to be seen to be pretty much as you say, because there's a significant section of their core vote that think exactly thay way.

The most most public failure at the hustings for the DUP in recent times has been Peter Robinson losing E. Belfast to an Alliance candidate. Now, was this because of his wife (also a DUP member) playing away from home & being involved in financial impropriety? Certainly the media suggested as much. Or may it be because he had agreed with SF the terms of building a reconciliation centre on the Maze site? Hmmm.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again you completely missunderstand the GFA. One of the tenants enshrined in the GFA is cross border co-operation. I've asked you thee times no and you've dodged the lot. Does a closed border have any negative impact on crossed border co-operation.

Secondly was the GFA written with EU cross border regulation in mind?

From the GFA:

"Areas for North-South co-operation and implementation may include the following:

1. Agriculture - animal and plant health.

2. Education - teacher qualifications and exchanges.

3. Transport - strategic transport planning.

4. Environment - environmental protection, pollution, water quality, and waste management.

5. Waterways - inland waterways.

6. Social Security/Social Welfare - entitlements of cross-border workers and fraud control.

7. Tourism - promotion, marketing, research, and product development.

8. Relevant EU Programmes such as SPPR, INTERREG, Leader II and their successors.

9. Inland Fisheries.

10. Aquaculture and marine matters

11. Health: accident and emergency services and other related cross-border issues.

12. Urban and rural development.

Others to be considered by the shadow North/ South Council."


Firstly, note the word "may" and consider that it allows for the use of the words "may not". There is no "shall" or "will" or other such determinative phrase.

I believe that it is quite possible for a form or wording to be agreed on North/South co-operation as outlined in the GFA which doesn't require membership of the Single Market or the Customs Union and which may or may not require an open border. I fully expect that May will come back with a fudge like that, which moves the border question on to the second phase where the real decision about what type of border comes into play.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I thought he meant that he agreed that Brexit was the sinking ship!

No way he could consider Brexit as anything other than a sinking ship at this stage.

All the talk of future trade deals, more sovereinty etc, it all noise.

In case anybody was asleep yesterday, the government of the UK, those in charge of the process have stated that they haven't discussed in cabinet what they want at the end, haven't done any planning on different outcomes, don't understand the implications of any decision they will make.

So all these people coming on here stating that they have some insight into how things will work out for the UK after a hard brexit are talking through their hoop. They have no idea, since no reports have been done. Nothing.

Brexit is little more than a dart throw in the dark. Could it end up working? There is always the chance that luck will play its part. The problem is that the UK are dealing with other countries, countries that have done their homework and know what they are talking about. They are not just going to sit idly by and let the UK have all the benefits while taking their trade.

Pat Kenny interviewed Hilary Benn this morning. Kenny quoted Davis on numerous occasions over the past 14 months where Davis categorically stated that sectorial analysis was being conducted. He then played Davis's answers to the committee yesterday. It was astonishing stuff. Plain and simple, he was lying all along.

Peregrinus

rock22 wrote: »

Because it is reasonable to assume that the text on Monday was as far as EU ( with Ireland) and UK could reach out to each other.
The new text has to be essentially the DUP text, otherwise there is no sense in doing a new text. And it is hard, maybe impossible, to see any such DUP text being acceptable to EU and Ireland.

No. The EU absolutely cannot accept anything less than May offered them on Monday. How could they? May wouldn't even bother putting anything less to them, since it could only intensify the impression that has already been created that the UK is not serious/not realistic about the negotations it needs to undertake.

Any new text will contain more or less the same deal as was offered on Monday, but with additional language to secure buy-in from the DUP to the affect that regulatory alignment, or whatever you want to call it, will apply UK-wide, and not just in NI. That suits the EU (and Ireland) very well.

rock22 wrote: »

However we will then be in a position for UK to say the problem is Ireland's not accepting a text which probably the rest of EU will have no problem with. And UK will , again , have managed to separate the Irish and EU positions. Whatever way it wil be spun from London, it will no longer be a UK problem but rather the Irish government being inflexible. I would be surprise if the pressure does not come on Ireland to change it's position in those circumstances while at the moment Ireland can simply stay quite and let EU /UK talks continue.

No. Nothing in this situation presents an opportunity for the UK to drive a wedge between Ireland and the rest of the EU. The EU aren't backing us on this because they want to be nice to us or because we have called in favours with other EU governments. They are backing us because the integrity of the single market is important to the EU. Nothing in the past week has changed, and nothing in any revised text will change, that position.

rock22 wrote: »

I fully agree with e governments position by the way, just feel that this need which Leo and Simon seem to have to play everything for the media is making agreement hard to reach. I am convinced that we would have had agreement on Monday had they kept off the radio etc.

Again, Nope. The Tory government has tried to spin it that way because, if this mess is not the fault of the Irish, then it's definitely the fault of the Tories, and we can't have that, can we?

But the truth is that it is the fault of the Tories. It has become clearer and clearer that as the week has gone on the Tory government doesn't have its own basic position worked out. May is flying by the seat of her pants. She hasn't even got buy-in from her own party, never mind from the DUP. Making a snap agreement with the EU on Monday and presenting to everyone as a fait accompli just might have worked with her own party - she'd be daring them to dump her - but it was never, ever going to work with the DUP, as anyone who knows the DUP of old would recognise. May is fortunate that this deal fell apart just before she announced agreement, because the alternative was that it was going to fall apart just after she announced agreement.

Bar_Prop

He may have perpetrated terminological inexactitudes but he didn't lie. He literally cannot lie in the house.

Which is one of those anachronistic things that Westminster should probably fix, but won't.

swampgas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think you're right, Britain is due a political revolution. Unfortunately, they rejected a move away from FPTP to Alternative Voting (loosely, a form of PR) in a referendum in 2011 so it's unlikely to be mooted again anytime soon.

A strong Labour government might be the best hope for PR, see for example:
https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/labour4pr/
But it's not looking very likely to be a big issue with the general public any time soon, especially after the disasterous handling of the AV referendum.

The Tories know they are finished forever (in the current form anyway) if PR ever comes about. The violence of the campaign against AV last time round showed just how afraid the Tories are of any move away from FPTP.

phater phagan

The impetus for leaving the EU is based upon an ideal that never existed. It was created by fantasists who dream of a halcyon time represented in the books of Frank Richard, Richmal Crompton, et al - of their youth.
The EU is imperfect, but it is a fact of life for most of Europe and UK, and leaving it is a bit like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. It is here to stay, to grow and improve, hopefully.

I remember in the 1960's as a young boy my parents discussing how Britain was doing somersaults to get into the European Common Market - as it was then - and de Gaulle's unbending position blocking their application. If their Brexit strategy fails, and it very possibly could, they might find themselves back in the same position as then.

Personally it is wasn't for their hold on the six counties I would be happy for them to leave, and thus let them realise their huge mistake, but unfortunately their mess is creating a big dilemma for here in the Republic.
Nothing good can come of this if the DUP continue with their intransigence, but such positions by them are part and parcel of their ethos.

Professor Moriarty

swampgas wrote: »

A strong Labour government might be the best hope for PR, see for example:
https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/labour4pr/
But it's not looking very likely to be a big issue with the general public any time soon, especially after the disasterous handling of the AV referendum.

The Tories know they are finished forever (in the current form anyway) if PR ever comes about. The violence of the campaign against AV last time round showed just how afraid the Tories are of any move away from FPTP.

Time is on the side of logic and reason. Demographics will (hopefully) see off the Tories eventually. As an aside, Survation published a poll at the weekend from last Thursday/Friday. Lab 45% and Con 37%. If that truly reflects current and near future voting intentions (and this is prior to this week's debacles), then the Tories will implode like rats in a barrel in a sinking ship.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

. . . I believe that it is quite possible for a form or wording to be agreed on North/South co-operation as outlined in the GFA which doesn't require membership of the Single Market or the Customs Union and which may or may not require an open border. I fully expect that May will come back with a fudge like that, which moves the border question on to the second phase where the real decision about what type of border comes into play.

I think there's a confusion here that needs to be cleared up.

The agreement that the EU and the UK were trying to make on Monday, and are still trying to make, covered two points.

1. If there is a trade agreement, it will be such as will enable an open border. That will require a high degree of regulatory alignment.

2. Even if there is no trade agreement, the UK will still maintain a sufficient degree of regulatory alignment to support the continued operation of the GFA.

The UK, of course, wants a trade agreement (and so does the EU) and in that context the question of what the GFA requires is irrelevant. It's all about what is needed to protect the integrity of the single market.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

From the GFA:

"Areas for North-South co-operation and implementation may include the following:

1. Agriculture - animal and plant health.

2. Education - teacher qualifications and exchanges.

3. Transport - strategic transport planning.

4. Environment - environmental protection, pollution, water quality, and waste management.

5. Waterways - inland waterways.

6. Social Security/Social Welfare - entitlements of cross-border workers and fraud control.

7. Tourism - promotion, marketing, research, and product development.

8. Relevant EU Programmes such as SPPR, INTERREG, Leader II and their successors.

9. Inland Fisheries.

10. Aquaculture and marine matters

11. Health: accident and emergency services and other related cross-border issues.

12. Urban and rural development.

Others to be considered by the shadow North/ South Council."


Firstly, note the word "may" and consider that it allows for the use of the words "may not". There is no "shall" or "will" or other such determinative phrase.

I believe that it is quite possible for a form or wording to be agreed on North/South co-operation as outlined in the GFA which doesn't require membership of the Single Market or the Customs Union and which may or may not require an open border. I fully expect that May will come back with a fudge like that, which moves the border question on to the second phase where the real decision about what type of border comes into play.

It will not suprise me if FG sell out in that way in face of British pressure.
But I think what is in play here is the EU guessing that at worst, they will get a CU In Ni and at best the whole UK in the CU and the softest of Brexits with the UK having no say.
Hence the imo unusual resilience of FG on this.

Water John

Thanks Peregrinus. You bring superb clarity to the various strands of the issues.
I range across a number of Forums on Boards. If there were annual Boards awards, I would nominate Pere as Poster of the year.

Hopefully a little tweak to the text, will give the DUP room to agree. It may have been a great help in the long run, to achieve a soft Brexit.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there's a confusion here that needs to be cleared up.

The agreement that the EU and the UK were trying to make on Monday, and are still trying to make, covered two points.

1. If there is a trade agreement, it will be such as will enable an open border. That will require a high degree of regulatory alignment.

2. Even if there is no trade agreement, the UK will still maintain a sufficient degree of regulatory alignment to support the continued operation of the GFA.

The UK, of course, wants a trade agreement (and so does the EU) and in that context the question of what the GFA requires is irrelevant. It's all about what is needed to protect the integrity of the single market.

That is clear to me, the wording that the DUP dispute relates to (2). Their view is that the wording agreed goes further than the GFA.

steddyeddy

The DUP are claiming to speak for all of Northern Ireland even thought they only represent the loyalist vote. If they get their wishes during Brexit this will cause massive friction in Northern Ireland. I don't see how there can't be trouble.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

That is clear to me, the wording that the DUP dispute relates to (2). Their view is that the wording agreed goes further than the GFA.

Their basic beef, as I see it, is that they don't want any regulatory divergence between NI and GB. Whatever degree of regulatory alignment applies, is to apply throughout the UK.

Secondly, they really do want a low-impact border. It's right there in their manifesto, and it was also explicit in the campaign they ran during the Brexit referendum. The Brexit they want is one that involves an open border. And that's not just rhetoric; NI's interests will suffer badly if the Irish border is not open; they know that.

Of course, they had the same problem as brexiters in GB that I mentioned earlier; they were in denial about the tensions between regulatory freedom and an open border. They didn't want to acknowledge that having an open border would mean much less regulatory freedom that Brexiters typically aspired to. And now, like other Brexiters, they have to confront that tension and pick one or the other.

But they have a much, much stronger incentive than GB Brexiters have to pick the open border, because they and their constituents will pay a much, much higher price if they don't.

So, their overriding concern is No Regulatory Divergence Beween GB and NI. After that, they would like As Much Regulatory Alignment With The EU as will keep the border open. For the DUP, the Freedom To Make Unrestricted Trade Deals With Teapotistan comes third. A very, very distant third. More of an also-ran, really.

Water John

But Davis has said since, that the open border will also apply to all the UK. So if that is put into the wording, everyone except extreme Brexiteers will be happy.

Bar_Prop

steddyeddy wrote: »

The DUP are claiming to speak for all of Northern Ireland even thought they only represent the loyalist vote. If they get their wishes during Brexit this will cause massive friction in Northern Ireland. I don't see how there can't be trouble.

Frankly that's the case no matter which way it goes.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

Their basic beef, as I see it, is that they don't want any regulatory divergence between NI and GB. Whatever degree of regulatory alignment applies, is to apply throughout the UK.

Secondly, they really do want a low-impact border. It's right there in their manifesto, and it was also explicit in the campaign they ran during the Brexit referendum. The Brexit they want is one that involves an open border. And that's not just rhetoric; NI's interests will suffer badly if the Irish border is not open; they know that.

Of course, they had the same problem as brexiters in GB that I mentioned earlier; they were in denial about the tensions between regulatory freedom and an open border. They didn't want to acknowledge that having an open border would mean much less regulatory freedom that Brexiters typically aspired to. And now, like other Brexiters, they have to confront that tension and pick one or the other.

But they have a much, much stronger incentive than GB Brexiters have to pick the open border, because they and their constituents will pay a much, much higher price if they don't.

So, their overriding concern is No Regulatory Divergence Beween GB and NI. After that, they would like As Much Regulatory Alignment With The EU as will keep the border open. For the DUP, the Freedom To Make Unrestricted Trade Deals With Teapotistan comes third. A very, very distant third. More of an also-ran, really.

And in a perverse way, that makes them our allies within the Brexit camp compared to the hardline UK Brexiteers.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Their basic beef, as I see it, is that they don't want any regulatory divergence between NI and GB. Whatever degree of regulatory alignment applies, is to apply throughout the UK.

Secondly, they really do want a low-impact border. It's right there in their manifesto, and it was also explicit in the campaign they ran during the Brexit referendum. The Brexit they want is one that involves an open border. And that's not just rhetoric; NI's interests will suffer badly if the Irish border is not open; they know that.

Of course, they had the same problem as brexiters in GB that I mentioned earlier; they were in denial about the tensions between regulatory freedom and an open border. They didn't want to acknowledge that having an open border would mean much less regulatory freedom that Brexiters typically aspired to. And now, like other Brexiters, they have to confront that tension and pick one or the other.

But they have a much, much stronger incentive than GB Brexiters have to pick the open border, because they and their constituents will pay a much, much higher price if they don't.

So, their overriding concern is No Regulatory Divergence Beween GB and NI. After that, they would like As Much Regulatory Alignment With The EU as will keep the border open. For the DUP, the Freedom To Make Unrestricted Trade Deals With Teapotistan comes third. A very, very distant third. More of an also-ran, really.

Their manifesto is as trustworthy as the Tory one is. There are many in the DUP who have no probs with a hard border and there is a view it was that wing who marched a very rattled Arlene down the stairs in Stormont

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

But Davis has said since, that the open border will also apply to all the UK. So if that is put into the wording, everyone except extreme Brexiteers will be happy.

Exactly. The threat to May, and to the UK, comes from the Europhobic wing of her own party.

And to think that the whole reason Cameron had this misbegotten referendum in the first place was to try and outflank the Tory Europhobes. That worked well, didn't it?

Ewan Hoosarmi

steddyeddy wrote: »

The DUP are claiming to speak for all of Northern Ireland even thought they only represent the loyalist vote. If they get their wishes during Brexit this will cause massive friction in Northern Ireland. I don't see how there can't be trouble.

They don't even represent the entire loyalist vote, just a section of it.

Remember that a majority of NI voters expressed the wish to remain.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

From the GFA:

"Areas for North-South co-operation and implementation may include the following:

1. Agriculture - animal and plant health.

2. Education - teacher qualifications and exchanges.

3. Transport - strategic transport planning.

4. Environment - environmental protection, pollution, water quality, and waste management.

5. Waterways - inland waterways.

6. Social Security/Social Welfare - entitlements of cross-border workers and fraud control.

7. Tourism - promotion, marketing, research, and product development.

8. Relevant EU Programmes such as SPPR, INTERREG, Leader II and their successors.

9. Inland Fisheries.

10. Aquaculture and marine matters

11. Health: accident and emergency services and other related cross-border issues.

12. Urban and rural development.

Others to be considered by the shadow North/ South Council."


Firstly, note the word "may" and consider that it allows for the use of the words "may not". There is no "shall" or "will" or other such determinative phrase.

I believe that it is quite possible for a form or wording to be agreed on North/South co-operation as outlined in the GFA which doesn't require membership of the Single Market or the Customs Union and which may or may not require an open border. I fully expect that May will come back with a fudge like that, which moves the border question on to the second phase where the real decision about what type of border comes into play.

May might come back with a dishonest appraisal of the GFA. Considering her proximity to the DUP it would be a likely thing. The thing is May isn't really in the driving seat, the EU are.

They have provided us with full backing. Not just to the letter of the GFA, nor in a way that some cynic might view the GFA, but in a way that ensures they will only back a deal that the Irish government are happy with.

Blowfish

rock22 wrote: »

The new text has to be essentially the DUP text, otherwise there is no sense in doing a new text. And it is hard, maybe impossible, to see any such DUP text being acceptable to EU and Ireland.
However we will then be in a position for UK to say the problem is Ireland's not accepting a text which probably the rest of EU will have no problem with. And UK will , again , have managed to separate the Irish and EU positions. Whatever way it wil be spun from London, it will no longer be a UK problem but rather the Irish government being inflexible. I would be surprise if the pressure does not come on Ireland to change it's position in those circumstances while at the moment Ireland can simply stay quite and let EU /UK talks continue.

They may try, but I think the Irish government are prepared for it. You'll notice that they've started mentioning that other parties in the North should be represented. I'm guessing that's because of stuff like the LucidTalk poll below showing that 75% of those in NI support keeping EU standards and ~58% support a 'special status' for NI to keep it in the EU.

If they get pushed, I'd imagine Leo & co will start pointing out that the DUP aren't representing their constituents and in fact the ROI position is the one NI actually want.

https://twitter.com/M_AndersonSF/status/938685328147337216

As an aside, it's a bizarre world we've moved into where SF politicians are outright cheering on Leo, to the point of giving him a mural.

First Up

rock22 wrote:

Because it is reasonable to assume that the text on Monday was as far as EU ( with Ireland) and UK could reach out to each other. The new text has to be essentially the DUP text, otherwise there is no sense in doing a new text. And it is hard, maybe impossible, to see any such DUP text being acceptable to EU and Ireland. However we will then be in a position for UK to say the problem is Ireland's not accepting a text which probably the rest of EU will have no problem with. And UK will , again , have managed to separate the Irish and EU positions. Whatever way it wil be spun from London, it will no longer be a UK problem but rather the Irish government being inflexible. I would be surprise if the pressure does not come on Ireland to change it's position in those circumstances while at the moment Ireland can simply stay quite and let EU /UK talks continue.

It won't be a new text. Maybe some riders to allow the DUP some wriggle room but the essence won't change.

It has been obvious all along that the UK hopes to use Ireland as hostage to a "cake and eat it" deal in which the EU is required to offer the UK free trade and mutual standards recognition in order to preserve a border free Ireland.

That strategy was seen a mile off and a long time ago and you can rest assured there is no risk of the rest of the EU being happy with it.

Professor Moriarty

Blowfish wrote: »

They may try, but I think the Irish government are prepared for it. You'll notice that they've started mentioning that other parties in the North should be represented. I'm guessing that's because of stuff like the LucidTalk poll below showing that 75% of those in NI support keeping EU standards and ~58% support a 'special status' for NI to keep it in the EU.

If they get pushed, I'd imagine Leo & co will start pointing out that the DUP aren't representing their constituents and in fact the ROI position is the one NI actually want.

https://twitter.com/M_AndersonSF/status/938685328147337216

As an aside, it's a bizarre world we've moved into where SF politicians are outright cheering on Leo, to the point of giving him a mural.

The Irish response to Brexit transcends party politics for now and rightly so. Ní neart go cur le chéile

Zubeneschamali

rock22 wrote: »

The new text has to be essentially the DUP text, otherwise there is no sense in doing a new text.

The new text will be the old text with a different form of words. This will (in Leo's simplistic language) "mean the same thing", but will be different enough to let the DUP claim a victory, Theresa May claim a last-minute reprieve, and the EU to shake their heads sadly at these antics.

I guess the possibility of Ireland and the DUP being heroes is still on the cards.. If Ireland, by threatening its use of a veto, and the DUP, by insisting on same standards across the UK, end up forcing the UK into a very soft Brexit that would make trade as easy as possible, it would be a strange turn of events that millions in the UK would be thankful for.

flaneur

Well this is what happens when you base major policy on pure bluster. Reality eventually catches up.

McMurphy

Did anyone else hear the article Jonathan Healy covered on the absolute bigoted and crackpot extremist views and actions of the DUP?

I never knew that Paisley once had to be thrown out of the European parliament because he launched a barrage of abuse at the pope back in 1988?(I wasn't even a teenager then)

Healy touched on their homophobic, creationist and religious extremist views also.

It really is shocking that such a hate filled - narrow minded group of extremists are masquerading as a political party in 2017.

Well worth a listen back

Chips Lovell

I expect the outcome will be something along the lines of what happened with Lisbon. The agreement remains the same but the text includes additional guarantees/assurances.

The important thing for the DUP at the moment is not that it be different, just that it look different.

Chips Lovell

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I never knew that Paisley once had to be thrown out of the European parliament because he launched a barrage of abuse at the pope back in 1988?(I wasn't even a teenager then)

I think it happened twice. Once with the pope and another time when Thatcher was addressing it.

Vronsky

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Did anyone else hear the article Jonathan Healy covered on the absolute bigoted and crackpot extremist views and actions of the DUP?

I never knew that Paisley once had to be thrown out of the European parliament because he launched a barrage of abuse at the pope back in 1988?(I wasn't even a teenager then)

Healy touched on their homophobic, creationist and religious extremist views also.

It really is shocking that such a hate filled - narrow minded group of extremists are masquerading as a political party in 2017.

Well worth a listen back

I would think that most people who keep an eye on politics in Ireland know what the DUP are all about. If you're a nationalist in NI you are probably depressingly familiar with it.

In summation, the DUP politics are that of "No".

FrancieBrady

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Did anyone else hear the article Jonathan Healy covered on the absolute bigoted and crackpot extremist views and actions of the DUP?

I never knew that Paisley once had to be thrown out of the European parliament because he launched a barrage of abuse at the pope back in 1988?(I wasn't even a teenager then)

Healy touched on their homophobic, creationist and religious extremist views also.

It really is shocking that such a hate filled - narrow minded group of extremists are masquerading as a political party in 2017.

Well worth a listen back

The incident is on YouTube.
I agree, there really isn't a parallel for their religion fuelled British nationalism.

joeysoap

If UK did agree to remain in the CU

1) do they still have to contribute - on an ongoing basis for access to the EU

2) where does the CU and the 4 freedoms diverge?

funkey_monkey

How does all this correlate with the main thrust of the Brexit proponents which was to gain control of immigration?
Has that been forgotten about?

I struggle to see how this fits into things and where any people checks will be performed.

I live in the north and I really worry about how this is all going to end. I watched an interesting interview on C4 News with one of the few people who correctly predicted the correct outcome of the last UK General Election. His current opinion is that a deal will be done, but it will not be implemented - due to fear of how history will judge them - and the UK will actually remain in the EU.

Chips Lovell

The four freedoms are principles of the single market, not the customs union.

funkey_monkey

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Did anyone else hear the article Jonathan Healy covered on the absolute bigoted and crackpot extremist views and actions of the DUP?

Got a link?

They are truly disgusting. However, I also need to say that Sinn Fein are no angels either. Our politics are now one of fear, whereby we vote for one to keep the other in check.

Whats worse is to see the younger generation are aligning with these parties too. And so the cycle continues.

flutered

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Did anyone else hear the article Jonathan Healy covered on the absolute bigoted and crackpot extremist views and actions of the DUP?

I never knew that Paisley once had to be thrown out of the European parliament because he launched a barrage of abuse at the pope back in 1988?(I wasn't even a teenager then)

Healy touched on their homophobic, creationist and religious extremist views also.

It really is shocking that such a hate filled - narrow minded group of extremists are masquerading as a political party in 2017.

Well worth a listen back

one only has to listen to their attack on the indy unionist in the commons yesterday

Infini

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Irish response to Brexit transcends party politics for now and rightly so. Ní neart go cur le chéile

Sinn Feins endgame is a United Ireland. Theyre WELL smart enough to know that if they play this right they could end up with their final goal and it wouldve been handed to them by the Conservatards Idiot Wing.

All they gotta do is hammer home the DUPs incoherent and regressive policies and how Hard Brexit will wreck the peace and prosperity of the North. Hammer this home long enough and clear enough and build a strong case for reunification (London Ignores the north/Better Representation and influence in the South) and win over enough moderate unionists and a UI becomes a serious possibility.

LeinsterDub

Theresa May has failed to get the EU to agree that Britain will retain a voice at the European court of justice in return for her concession that the Luxembourg court will retain a role in protecting citizens’ rights in the UK after Brexit.

Yet a other win for the UK in the easiest negotiations of all time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-fails-to-retain-voice-in-european-court-of-justice