Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

It's for that reason that I would welcome them in a borderless yet non unified Ireland. Our population isn't that big. If there was an extra 700,000 Unionists that were rowing with Ireland on all things it could push the whole island to a better economic future.

I don't want to be uncharitable, but I struggle to see the unionists - at least, as exemplified by the DUP - as an asset to any nation.

As to the suggestion of a "better economic future" with unionists, the economic history of both parts of Ireland since 1922 does not offer much empirical support for your hopes.

Peregrinus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Presumably something along the lines of "Constitutional status of NI within the UK can only be altered in accordance with the GFA" - certainly, anything stronger than that would be unacceptable to Varadkar.

They don't need that - they've already got that in the GFA itself.

What they need is a commitment that the regulatory alignment needed to maintain the open border will apply across the UK, and not just in NI. Varadkar (and the EU) would be fine with that. Delighted, even.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Have they? I thought we were getting a quid pro quo on citizens rights and the free movement of people?

Nope. Just on citizens rights (for EU citizens already in the UK).

LeinsterDub

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What's being reasonable? We don't have to move one inch from our 'no-hard-border' stance, we have the whole EU on the same page.

They have to be reasonable and not kick the border issue into phase two so they can use Ireland as a pawn.. 'if you don't give us a no-consequences deal you'll be imposing a border in Ireland'.

Let's not be naive and believe Brexiters won't try use their border in Ireland as leverage in future negotiations.

I miss read your original post in fairness. Sorry about that.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So let's assume a deal has been done for regulatory alignment, a massive exit bill and citizens rights .

What benefits has brexit delivered the UK if any?

Well, I could ask what benefits was Brexit ever going to deliver the UK?

But leave that snide remainy (but entirely rational and correct) comment aside. Suppose we phrase the question as "What benefits has brexit delivered the UK from a Ukippy point of view?"

I think the answer is:

1. As much regulatory freedom as results from the difference between (a) the obligations of single market membership and (b) such regulatory alignment as is necessary to keep the Irish border open. It remains to be seen exactly how much regulatory freedom that is and it may not be a lot but, still, it will be some.

2. Greater control over migration policy. Again, the degree of control is limited by the requirements of the Common Travel Area, and even more limited by the labour force requirements of the UK economy, but it will be more control, on the face of it, than they currently have.

3. (Fair chance of) lesser degree of jurisdiction for the ECJ within the UK. There will be some, especially since the need for regulatory alignment will mean the the ECJ rulings in relation to relevant trading rules will, in effect, bind the UK. And there's be a new disadvantage there in that the UK won't be able to participate in cases before the ECJ that are going to affect the UK (whereas at present they can). But UK residents will (mostly) lose the right to take disputes to the ECJ, which will gratify those of a Ukippy bent.

All-inall, not a huge hill of beans, you might think, and I wouldn't disagree. But, remember, if a total train wreck is to be averted there has to be a deal of some kind, and there won't be a deal unless there is something in it to gratify Ukippy sensibilities. If we just approach this on the basis that we're going to grind them beneath our chariot wheels until we hear the lamentations of their women well, there'll be no deal, and that's not a good outcome for Europe.

Junkyard Tom

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I miss read your original post in fairness. Sorry about that.

No worries.

There are potential dire consequences from getting a bad deal for Ireland on the border. The PSNI don't want a border, the Irish don't want it, I daresay the British Army would dread it too having watched Soldier's Stories on Youtube the other night.

While I want Ireland to stay strong and veto if necessary, I think it's kind of clear that letting this slide into Stage 2 and letting the UK use it as leverage for a no-consequences deal, could easily be the best thing for Ireland.

If they can buy that open border with some favorable trade deal, Ireland would stand to benefit more than anyone in Europe from it because of our trade links.


However, that's pie in the sky stuff so going for the no deal thing is better for us right now.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

While I want Ireland to stay strong and veto if necessary, I think it's kind of clear that letting this slide into Stage 2 and letting the UK use it as leverage for a no-consequences deal, could easily be the best thing for Ireland.

If they can buy that open border with some favorable trade deal, Ireland would stand to benefit more than anyone in Europe from it because of our trade links.


However, that's pie in the sky stuff so going for the no deal thing is better for us right now.

No. The question to be decided next week is whether we* will let this slide into phase 2.

(* By "we" I mean we, the EU; not we, Ireland.)

The agreed test - or one of the tests - is "has there been sufficient progress on the border?"

Our position, basically, is "sufficient progress means a credible commitment that any trade deal will be such as to support an open border, and this means accepting the requisite degree of regulatory alignment between NI (or the whole of the UK - officially, we don't care) and the EU".

If this test is met, and the talks proceed to phase 2, this does not mean that it's a done deal. There might still be no trade agreement if, e.g., the parties cannot agree on what degree of regulatory alignment is needed to support an open border. Or agreement on a trade deal might collapse for entirely unrelated reasons. Or their could be a change of government in the UK and the new government might decide they don't want a trade deal after all.

All that the test really means is that, if we do proceed to phase 2, both sides understand that any successful trade deal is going to have to include regulatory alignment/an open border, and both sides have made a good faith commitment to aim for that. There will be no point in one side tabling trade deal proposals which the other is not likely to regard as sufficient to maintain an open border.

Which in turn means that, if we drop the test and just let the talks proceed to phase 2 on the nod, without getting this acknowledgement from the UK, then the range of potential trade deals is much wider, and includes deals which might not or would not support an open border. We will have conceded that the UK can propose, and we will at least consider, trade deals which do not support an open border, and the UK has not accepted that any successful trade deal must support an open border.

That would be a significant weakening of our position. If the UK will not accept at this point that a trade deal must support an open border, why would we expect them to change their minds and accept it later in the negotiations? If we concede now that there could be an acceptable trade deal that doesn't support an open border, our position is very weak if we later change our minds and say no, there couldn't. The UK would (rightly) accuse us of stringing them along, of not being serious, of shifting the goalposts.

There is no reason why we would want to weaken our position in this way at this point.

If we're not prepared to accept a trade deal that doesn't support an open border, we are doing nobody any favours by pretending that we are. We cannot accept a trade deal that does not support an open border. We must be clear and consistent about this.

judeboy101

Rte reporting DUP has got text changed to include words that guarantee no barrier to trade between UK and NI. How that squares with no border is beyond me.

Kermit.de.frog

Sky News reports that DUP leader Arlene Foster is saying “substantive changes” have been made to the text concerning a post-Brexit Irish border following all-night talks.

Substantive changes? Varadkar said this would not happen only yesterday.

Nothing from Irish govt as of yet.

Kermit.de.frog

Theresa May now has “a text she feels she can take back to Europe”, Foster says.

So the Irish government has not signed off yet?

DUP claiming they got 6 changes including confirmation UK is leaving CU and SM

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

Rte reporting DUP has got text changed to include words that guarantee no barrier to trade between UK and NI. How that squares with no border is beyond me.

It means that the regulatory alignment necessary to keep the Irish border open will substantially apply across the UK, and not just in NI.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Substantive changes? Varadkar said this would not happen only yesterday.

My take: What Varadkar is ruling out is any substantive change in the already-more-or-less-agreed language committing to regulatory alignment to enable an open border. What DUP will get is not a change to that language, but additional substantive language committing (in effect) that required alignment will not create barriers between NI and GB (which is acheived by having both NI and GB align, which is just fine as far as Varadkar is concerned).

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nothing from Irish govt as of yet.

After what happened on Monday, you won't hear a peep out of the Irish government until after May and Juncker have said whatever they are going to say.

judeboy101

Junkers chief of staff just tweeted picture of "white smoke". Looks like EU is happy, but remember what happened last time an Irish government made a decision in the middle of the night!.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So the Irish government has not signed off yet?

This is a negotiation between the EU and the UK. The Irish government is not a (separate) party to it. The EU won't sign it, though, unless the Irish government is happy (just as May won't - now - sign it unless the DUP are happy).

Kermit.de.frog

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a negotiation between the EU and the UK. The Irish government is not a (separate) party to it. The EU won't sign it, though, unless the Irish government is happy (just as May won't - now - sign it unless the DUP are happy).

There is no confirmation the Irish Govt is happy. Tusk address has been postponed. Don't know if related.

judeboy101

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There is no confirmation the Irish Govt is happy. Tusk address has been postponed. Don't know if related.

Foster says "6 changes made including guarantee uk leaves cu and sm. Some concern still over "alignment" but pm made judgement call in national interest."

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There is no confirmation the Irish Govt is happy. Tusk address has been postponed. Don't know if related.

There's no confirmation that IrlGov is happy because, if this deal falls over yet again at the last minute, nobody is going to be given the opportunity to blame it on premature rejoicing/celebration/triumphalism by IrlGov.

At this point, the Irish government doesn't need to confirm to us that it's happy; it just needs to confirm that to Juncker. And my guess is that they have confirmed this to him.

The DUP are signalling their happiness publicly at this point because, politically, it benefits them to draw attention to their influence. They need to emphasis that, if it weren't for their buy-in, there'd be no deal. IrlGov has no need to signal this, and has more to lose than to gain by speaking at this point. So they are staying silent. Doesn't mean they're not happy.

The Tusk address has been postponed because he wants to meet May after her meeting with Juncker. That wasn't originally scheduled. The fact that such a meeting is now to happen is a good sign, not a bad one.

Kermit.de.frog

Guarantee the UK leaves the SM and CU? WTF are we doing? Why should that be on there??? There is still a healthy debate on that in the UK.

Itssoeasy

The DUP have some neck on them. Theresa May should have told them where to go.

Itssoeasy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Guarantee the UK leaves the SM and CU? WTF are we doing? Why should that be on there??? There is still a healthy debate on that in the UK.

Because the DUP wanted it.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Guarantee the UK leaves the SM and CU? WTF are we doing? Why should that be on there??? There is still a healthy debate on that in the UK.

In May-land there is no debate; the UK is leaving the CU and the SM. They said that months ago and they have never resiled from it, or hinted that they might.
They may of course agree to some regulatory alignment which may look to the casual observer quite strikingly like membership of the CU and the SM, but that's a slanderous allegation without any basis in fact and the relationship will be quite, quite different from CU/SM membership because, um, passports will be blue.

What Arlene says she has got is a commitment that the UK will leave the CU/SM in its entirety. The highlighted words are the important bit, as far as she is concerned. Whatever relationship the UK has with the CU/SM that is not-quite-membership, it will be the same relationship for the whole of the UK. She's less concerned about the degree of actual leaving involved.

Futures of countries being decided through the post-university equivalent of doing an all-nighter for a final exam. Pile of **** the lot of them in fairness.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Futures of countries being decided through the post-university equivalent of doing an all-nighter for a final exam.

Brings back old times. It's just like 1998. Ah, good times!

Kermit.de.frog

Peregrinus wrote: »

In May-land there is no debate; the UK is leaving the CU and the SM. They may of course agree to some regulatory alignment which may look to the casual observer quite strikingly like membership of the CU and the SM, but that's a slanderous allegation without any basis in fact and the relationship will be quite, quite different from CU/SM membership because, um, passports will be blue.

What Arlene says she has got is a commitment that the UK will leave the CU/SM in its entirety. The highlighted words are the important bit, as far as she is concerned. Whatever relationship the UK has with the CU/SM that is not-quite-membership, it will be the same relationship for the whole of the UK. She's less concerned about the degree of actual leaving involved.

Reference to CU and SM for the UK is irrelevant. Irish government should have demanded reference should not be included.

What has that got to do with us? As if we endorse it?

I'll calm myself till I see the text.

Again this has not yet been agreed.

Itssoeasy

Morning Ireland is saying that Arlene Foster is saying the DUP got clarification there would be no border between the north and the UK.

Kermit.de.frog

So the text is suppose to read that UK is leaving CU yet no border.

Something does not add up.

European Commission: 'sufficient progress has been made'

The European Commission has today recommended to the European Council (Article 50) to conclude that sufficient progress has been made in the first phase of the Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom. It is now for the European Council (Article 50) on 15 December 2017 to decide if sufficient progress has been made, allowing the negotiations to proceed to their second phase.[

The Commission’s assessment is based on a Joint Report agreed by the negotiators of the Commission and the United Kingdom Government, which was today endorsed by Prime Minister Theresa May during a meeting with President Jean-Claude Juncker.

The Commission is satisfied that sufficient progress has been achieved in each of the three priority areas of citizens’ rights, the dialogue on Ireland / Northern Ireland, and the financial settlement, as set out in the European Council Guidelines of 29 April 2017. The Commission’s negotiator has ensured that the life choices made by EU citizens living in the United Kingdom will be protected. The rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom and United Kingdom citizens in the EU27 will remain the same after the United Kingdom has left the EU. The Commission has also made sure that any administrative procedures will be cheap and simple for EU citizens in the United Kingdom.

As regards the financial settlement, the United Kingdom has agreed that commitments taken by the EU28 will be honoured by the EU28, including the United Kingdom.

With regard to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom acknowledges the unique situation on the island of Ireland and has made significant commitments to avoid a hard border.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Reference to CU and SM for the UK is irrelevant. Irish government should have demanded reference should not be included.

We've never adopted that position up to now, and it would raise the stakes considerably to introduce this as a new demand at this point. Plus, last Monday the EU was happy (with our assent) to agree to a text which did not include any such commitment. Even if the Irish government were now to press for this to be included, there's no reason why the EU would back us. If an open border without UK membership of CU/SM was possible last Monday, it still is.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What has that got to do with us? As if we endorse it?

The EU is accepting that the UK has decided not to seek CU/SM membership after Brexit. There's nothing new here; that has long been the UK's position, and the EU has never objected to it.

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

We've never adopted that position up to now, and it would raise the stakes considerably to introduce this as a new demand at this point. Plus, last Monday the EU was happy (with our assent) to agree to a text which did not include any such commitment. Even if the Irish government were now to press for this to be included, there's no reason why the EU would back us. If an open border without UK membership of CU/SM was possible last Monday, it still is.


The EU is accepting that the UK has decided not to seek CU/SM membership after Brexit. There's nothing new here; that has long been the UK's position, and the EU has never objected to it.

Well I sincerely hope phase 2 doesn't allow them unfettered access otherwise what's the point of the CU

Juncker says: “We have now made the breakthrough we needed.”

He says May has assured him that the new text has the backing of the UK government.

He says the agreement is “of course a compromise”.

I don't like the sound of this at all.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's nothing new here; that has long been the UK's position, and the EU has never objected to it.

It's as if your overweight neighbours bought a giant trampoline and are setting it up in the garden.

You know it is a really, really bad idea, they are SO going to hurt themselves, but it is their decision to make.

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

Well I sincerely hope phase 2 doesn't allow them unfettered access otherwise what's the point of the CU

Phase 2 doesn't allow them anything except the possiblity of continuing to negotiate with a view to arriving at a Brexit deal. It's still entirely possible that the two sides may not be able to agree a Brexit deal. Or, they may be able to agree a Brexit deal, but not a continuing EU/UK trade agreement.

We'll have to wait for the publication of the "Joint Report" to which the Commission's press statement refers, but it seems like that it says, in effct, that both sides agree that any trade deal will have to be based on sufficient regulatory alignment between them to support an open border in Ireland. That doesn't guarantee that there will be a trade deal; just that there will be no trade deal if there isn't an open border, and there will be no open border unless there is sufficient regulatory alignment. And of course both sides have to agree what "sufficient regulatory alignment" means in detail, in practice. If agreement is not reached on any of these points, then there's no trade deal.

Kermit.de.frog

Juncker: On the Irish border. The UK has made significant commitments to avoid a hard border. But "we still have a lot of work to do" #brexit

Pushed to phase 2. We lose the veto now.

Varadkar caved.

Peregrinus

You're jumping at shadows, Kermit. There's nothing in the Commission statement to support your views.

The UK was never going to agree, at this point, that there would definitely be an open border in Ireland. Nor were they asked to. What they have agreed, I think, is (a) if there is no open border, there will be no trade deal, and (b) there will be no open border without sufficient regulatory alignment.

If that's what they have agreed, then that's a big win for us.

https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/939024307811860480/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Looks okay? Similar to Monday.

steddyeddy

Simon Coveney on Twitter:

Deal Confirmed! Ireland supports Brexit negotiations moving to Phase 2 now that we have secured assurances for all on the island of Ireland - fully protecting GFA, peace process, all-Island economy and ensuring that there can be NO HARD BORDER on the Island of Ireland post Brexit

Zubeneschamali

The UK will maintain full alignment with the rules.

That reads (especially with the new DUP paragraph added) as the whole UK, not just NI.

steddyeddy

Sorry can't link on phone but more Twitter from Simon. I'm in England at the mo. Is there any way of me watching this?

Simon Coveney
@simoncoveney
·
1m
Will be on @morningireland shortly to explain and outline detail of Irish assurances on Brexit deal - very good outcome for everyone on the island of Ireland - no Hard Border guaranteed!

Calina

I do not see what the DUP got out of this charade.

May stated there would be no hard border. There are only two ways for that to happen. One is more likely than the other. CU and SM membership for the UK.

Calina

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry can't link on phone but more Twitter from Simon. I'm in England at the mo. Is there any way of me watching this?

Simon Coveney
@simoncoveney
·
1m
Will be on @morningireland shortly to explain and outline detail of Irish assurances on Brexit deal - very good outcome for everyone on the island of Ireland - no Hard Border guaranteed!

RTE News Now website. I dont think it is region locked.

steddyeddy

Calina wrote: »

RTE News Now website. I dont think it is region locked.

Thanks Calina!

steddyeddy

Arlene Foster from the Telegraph:

She said: "There is no red line down the Irish sea and clear confirmation that the entirety of the UK is leaving the Europen Union, leaving the single market and leaving the customs union."

A hard Brexit it is. She signed Northern Ireland's death warrant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/08/brexit-deal-theresa-may-expected-meet-donald-tusk-two-sides/

Itssoeasy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Arlene Foster from the Telegraph:

She said: "There is no red line down the Irish sea and clear confirmation that the entirety of the UK is leaving the Europen Union, leaving the single market and leaving the customs union."

A hard Brexit it is. She signed Northern Ireland's death warrant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/08/brexit-deal-theresa-may-expected-meet-donald-tusk-two-sides/

Again I'll ask why has she had this amount of influence ? Arlene Foster won't be seen well when history is written.

steddyeddy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Again I'll ask why has she had this amount of influence ? Arlene Foster won't be seen well when history is written.

She will, but not in the way she wants to be. Dragging NI out of the single market against its wishes must have conseqeunces for her domestic votes.

Panrich

steddyeddy wrote: »

Arlene Foster from the Telegraph:

She said: "There is no red line down the Irish sea and clear confirmation that the entirety of the UK is leaving the Europen Union, leaving the single market and leaving the customs union."

A hard Brexit it is. She signed Northern Ireland's death warrant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/08/brexit-deal-theresa-may-expected-meet-donald-tusk-two-sides/

Section 49 guarantees full alignment to CU and SM in the absence of a deal. That is no hard Brexit.

steddyeddy

Panrich wrote: »

Section 49 guarantees full alignment to CU and SM in the absence of a deal. That is no hard Brexit.

It's still a hard Brexit if they're out of the single market. Regulatory alignment just means an alignment of regulations not trading tariffs.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK will maintain full alignment with the rules.

That reads (especially with the new DUP paragraph added) as the whole UK, not just NI.

From what we could see of the bits of the draft agreement that were in circulation earlier in the week, the language was always consistent with regulatory alignment applying across the UK, but it was also consistent with regulatory alignment applying just in NI.

What the DUP has achieved is insertion of language which rules out the latter, (unless "the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct
arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland"). But the language about the degree of regulatory alignment that is required doesn't seem to have changed.

Teyla Emmagan

This seems positive. And makes Monday's kerfuffle seem very staged, an opportunity for the DUP to blast off and regain some face. You can generally tell a deal is done once they get into the "negotiations went on all night" fluff. Mind you, I wouldn't have wanted to be Theresa May this week.

They have not regrouped yet on the DM, the "analysts" have still to get up to start gibbering. I must get in early with some trolling that they are now leaving the EU in name only.

Panrich

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's still a hard Brexit if they're out of the single market. Regulatory alignment just means an alignment of regulations not trading tariffs.

That cannot be the case as the tariffs imposed by the UK would surely contravene EU common market rules and therefore section 49.

Nody

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's still a hard Brexit if they're out of the single market. Regulatory alignment just means an alignment of regulations not trading tariffs.

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its GUARANTEE OF AVOIDING A HARD BORDER. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.==

Talk about DUP being sold a red bridge about no sea border...

Full text is here.