Brexit discussion thread III

Sam Russell

flatty wrote: »

The Scots have only themselves to blame for that. There were a majority of greasy til fumblers sadly.

Brexit was won using emotive arguments and lies.

The Scotindy vote was narrowly lost by the Indy side using facts and figures against Operation Fear - No EU, No Pound, No Oil, etc.

flatty

Exactly. National pride has a price.

WomanSkirtFan8

flatty wrote: »

Exactly. National pride has a price.

indeed. And one also needs to remember the old saying that pride goeth before a fall.

briany

Any well-made non-partisan documentaries out about Brexit at the moment?

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, it depends on how you categorise them.

They have local councils that have devolved powers - education and policing being two. They also raise taxes.

The Assemblies of NI Wales and Scotland are a little more than super county councils, with varying levels of autonomy.

Unfortunately, they did not bring idea of devolved Assemblies into the English regions, and if they did, then perhaps the pre-eminence of England within the UK might be reduced, along with the destructive emergence of English nationalism.

Talk of English Devolution has been on the cards for 100 years or so.

Most recently there was a referendum in "NE England" in 2004 that was resoundingly defeated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_England_devolution_referendum,_2004

Planned referenda for Humberside and Yorkshire never materialised on the same day due to postal vote issues.

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

Brexit was won using emotive arguments and lies.

The Scotindy vote was narrowly lost by the Indy side using facts and figures against Operation Fear - No EU, No Pound, No Oil, etc.

I still find it the absolute height of irony that one of the chief arguments used against the Indy side in Scotland was you will be out of the EU with no guarantee you will be accepted back in as Scotland and look where they find themselves thanks to the vote of the English just a few years later.

flatty

eire4 wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Brexit was won using emotive arguments and lies.

The Scotindy vote was narrowly lost by the Indy side using facts and figures against Operation Fear - No EU, No Pound, No Oil, etc.

I still find it the absolute height of irony that one of the chief arguments used against the Indy side in Scotland was you will be out of the EU with no guarantee you will be accepted back in as Scotland and look where they find themselves thanks to the vote of the English just a few years later.

Indeed, and the fact that there is even doubt which way a second indy ref would swing is frankly stunning. Pride comes before a fall was quoted above, which is incomprehensible to me. They wouldn't freeze or starve. A few might have less spending money for a while, but what price on nationhood? Ireland would still be ruled by may and her ilk with that sentiment. Scotland could be back in the eu within six or seven years. Yes they'd be tough, but well worth it. Its that or be dictated to by May, Boris, jrm, gove and fox, a mediocre GP who reckons he can outwit the entire EU on trade deals, and continue to get dragged into pointless wars by the likes of Blair. I just cannot understand it

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

Indeed, and the fact that there is even doubt which way a second indy ref would swing is frankly stunning. Pride comes before a fall was quoted above, which is incomprehensible to me. They wouldn't freeze or starve. A few might have less spending money for a while, but what price on nationhood? Ireland would still be ruled by may and her ilk with that sentiment. Scotland could be back in the eu within six or seven years. Yes they'd be tough, but well worth it. Its that or be dictated to by May, Boris, jrm, gove and fox, a mediocre GP who reckons he can outwit the entire EU on trade deals, and continue to get dragged into pointless wars by the likes of Blair. I just cannot understand it

You could use the exact same argument for Brexit!

Leroy42

I see JRM has stated that Dublin will pay a high price for a hard Brexit and that they (UK) will choose the Union over the Republic.

Well, exactly. That's the whole point. Clearly Ireland has been trying to limit the effects that Britain's decision, which only ever considered Britain and didn't even consider the effects on one of its constituent parts, would have on Ireland. It also neatly aligns with what many think is in the best interests of the UK.

The Brexiteers have been utilising the argument that the EU is bullying them, with the line that the EU bureaucrats annoyed that the UK still believes in democracy, as the basis for why they can't get their ideas across. So it seems that they have now taken to bullying Ireland to try to rescue something.

In a way, we should all take some pride in the fact that Ireland, only 100 years since being under the control of the British, have emerged to actually now be in a position of having them resort to childish threats against us to get their way.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

JRM doesn't speak for the UK government, still less for the UK as a whole. He gets a lot of notice, but he's actually quite a fringe character.

Would the UK government put the interests of the Union (the UK, not the EU) over the interests of the the Republic of Ireland? Of course they would. And they should; advancing the interests of their country is pretty much their job. (As it happens, I think they are making a complete hames of their job just at the moment, but I can't dispute the fact that it is their job.)

Are we "obliging" the UK government to choose between the Republic and the Union, as JRM asserts in his Telegraph article? No; you'd have to be a complete half-wit to think that. Any fool can see that what we like is the current state of affairs, in which no need for any such choice arises. It's Brexit that creates this dilemma for the UK government - a hard border in Ireland, or a hard border in the Irish Sea? But JRM is following a well-established tradition of Brexiteers who (a) are very angry that they have won the referendum, and (b) blame others for the consequences of that victory.

Leroy42

It is too easy to simply dismiss JRM as a backbencher. If he doesn't speak for the government, then TM should ensure that he keeps his mouth shut. Not about everything, but on such delicate matters as this he should at least be getting the government line and then stating that he is not speaking as a member of the ruling party but simply as an independent (on this issue).

Since he is allowed to continue in this vein for so long, one can only assume that it plays a part of the message that the government are trying to get out. Like a flag waving exercise. They are very quick to denounce Labour if they try to lay out a plan, you need to question why the same is not true for the likes of JRM. I think you are being naive to think that he is not speaking for, at least part, of the government.

I have no issue with the Union looking after itself, I expect the same of every country to some extent (there always comes a point when collective interests are considered. What the EU was good at, or at least tried to be, was getting individual nations to put aside the narrow self interests in the interests of the whole. So for example, fishing quotas were a negative to the UK and a benefit to other countries, but the offset was greater access by Ireland/Uk to other markets.

What I have an issue with is the likes of JRM claiming that the UK are being bullied by the EU, and then going out of his way to try to bully Ireland. And this is not anti-UK, anti-Brits etc, I have no hang-ups about the past. This is solely about the UK, whether officially government spokesman or simply a proxy, clearly setting out (not for the first time) that Ireland had better get on the UK side or the UK will make them pay for it.

Enzokk

The Telegraph is reporting that Theresa May had all the backbench MP's around to lay out the option they are currently looking at. Seems that somehow there was a admission that neither option is actually realistic though.

Theresa May hits wall over EU customs deal as she admits both her current options are unworkable

As per the article, her Chief of Staff, Gavin Barwell, laid out the the two options the UK is exploring side by side, and then acknowledge neither option will work and will need to be refined. That is why they have the cabinet looking at the two options in workgroups and then will try to magic a third option it seems.

Also according to the article reports Greg Clark went to the Swedish and Norway border to see how a possible "Max Fac" would work and it seems it concluded that border was not without friction. Also, Norway is in the EEA which the UK has rejected, so there is that as well.

To pivot to Norway and the EEA, here is an example of the changing attitudes of Brexiteers and what they sold the public to what they want to have happen now,

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/996304011019145216

The Nadine Dorries tweet is from June 2016 just after the referendum, but her reply is from today. So you wonder if she still believes that the Norway model is the way to go or whether she has abandoned that idea?

EdgeCase

I would imagine an EEA option would be unworkable. Give them 6 months and there'd be a campaign to either leave or destroy the EEA.

J Mysterio

Brexit: EU Withdrawal Bill set to be rejected by Scottish Parliament, in fresh blow for Theresa May

The move could trigger a constitutional crisis, as it would be the first time the UK Government has pushed through laws against the will of Scotland

Not so sure about the bit in italics, but anyway.

Anyway, other news today RE: May rounding up the backbenchers to present two solutions she knows are unworkable... that is just farcical.

How long can this useless leader stumble on?
This is getting dangerous in it's recklessness. May cant unify her (woeful) cabinet, what makes her think she can control the party at large? And then by presenting failed policies? What does she want, someone - anyone? - to propose the solution for her? The mind boggles.

Enzokk

EdgeCase wrote: »

I would imagine an EEA option would be unworkable. Give them 6 months and there'd be a campaign to either leave or destroy the EEA.

Any option would be "unworkable" it seems to me. Whether they go for EU light, stay in the EU, EEA, or hard Brexit there will be someone that will be upset or see it as unworkable.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Brexit: EU Withdrawal Bill set to be rejected by Scottish Parliament, in fresh blow for Theresa May

The move could trigger a constitutional crisis, as it would be the first time the UK Government has pushed through laws against the will of Scotland

Not so sure about the bit in italics, but anyway.

Anyway, other news today RE: May rounding up the backbenchers to present two solutions she knows are unworkable... that is just farcical.

How long can this useless leader stumble on?
This is getting dangerous in it's recklessness. May cant unify her (woeful) cabinet, what makes her think she can control the party at large? And then by presenting failed policies? What does she want, someone - anyone? - to propose the solution for her? The mind boggles.

Well if you look at this story you see that while Theresa May is incompetent, her ministers aren't much better. They treat the truth or facts as some annoyance and continue to make life difficult for themselves it seems,

Home Office accused of 'shambolic incompetence' over skilled migrants

Nokes last week told Yvette Cooper, the chair of the home affairs select committee, that she hadn’t had time to investigate revelations in the Guardian that at least 1,000 highly skilled migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain in the UK were wrongly facing deportation.

Officials were citing a paragraph of the Immigration Rules designed in part to tackle terrorists and individuals judged to be a threat to national security under the controversial 322(5) section of the Immigration Act.

At the committee hearing last week, Cooper asked Nokes: “Why have you not looked into what is happening, to find out how many of these cases are serious fraud cases and how many involve ‘trivial mistakes’?” Nokes replied: “Because there have been only two working days since this issue was flagged up”.

However, letters written by Nokes and obtained by the Guardian appear to show she was aware of the issue in February. They also suggest that concerns about the use of 322(5) were among the first issues she was made aware of when she took up theministerial role in January. Asked to respond, the Home Office declined to comment.

LeinsterDub

Top stories
The short version: Brexit’s still a steaming mess going nowhere fast.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/15/brexit-weekly-briefing-customs-battle-could-run-and-run

With barely 1 month , 3 months or 9 months to go depending on your timeline Britain is in major trouble.

trellheim

You raise an interesting point. As all 27 remaining states have to ratify the deal or they crash out ( with NO transition ) this has to be done over this summer or Jan/Feb next year will be squeaky bum time

What am I missing here ? This is getting real real crazy.

Leroy42

So in terms of the actual negotiations with the EU, is it fair to say that there is nothing happening?

The A50 timeline was always too tight, my guess is it was never envisaged to be actually needed, but the UK have spent so long messing about that they are simply making it impossible.

Is it a possibility that TM is actually looking for a hard Brexit. The red lines, her speeches all point to that, and this unending time wasting would appear to leave very little room to move. It appears that it will either be a hard Brexit or no Brexit at all (dressed up a a elongated transition period).

I think she was genuinely taken aback by the demands of the DUP last December. I think she was happy enough with a soft Brexit, but that really shook her and I get the feeling that she has decided that the only way to maintain her position os to deliver a hard Brexit. Someone will suffer the consequences.

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Indeed, and the fact that there is even doubt which way a second indy ref would swing is frankly stunning. Pride comes before a fall was quoted above, which is incomprehensible to me. They wouldn't freeze or starve. A few might have less spending money for a while, but what price on nationhood? Ireland would still be ruled by may and her ilk with that sentiment. Scotland could be back in the eu within six or seven years. Yes they'd be tough, but well worth it. Its that or be dictated to by May, Boris, jrm, gove and fox, a mediocre GP who reckons he can outwit the entire EU on trade deals, and continue to get dragged into pointless wars by the likes of Blair. I just cannot understand it

You could use the exact same argument for Brexit!

Not sure I follow.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is too easy to simply dismiss JRM as a backbencher. If he doesn't speak for the government, then TM should ensure that he keeps his mouth shut. Not about everything, but on such delicate matters as this he should at least be getting the government line and then stating that he is not speaking as a member of the ruling party but simply as an independent (on this issue) . . .

She can't. He's a backbencher. She has no leverage over him.

(This is a Prime Minister who can't even keep her own Foreign Seretary in line so, yeah, she's pretty weak. But even a conventionally secure Prime Minister has very little influence over a backbencher who is not seeking government office, and therefore cannot be effectively threatened or bribed. If he wants to be a tosser, he can be a tosser; there's not much that can be done about it.)

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

Not sure I follow.

One line in particular.

A few might have less spending money for a while, but what price on nationhood?

Isn't that the very core of the Brexit argument?

Seth Brundle

Leroy42 wrote: »

Someone will suffer the consequences.

Over 65 million people in the UK & NI along with millions around Europe will suffer!

ArthurDayne

trellheim wrote: »

You raise an interesting point. As all 27 remaining states have to ratify the deal or they crash out ( with NO transition ) this has to be done over this summer or Jan/Feb next year will be squeaky bum time

What am I missing here ? This is getting real real crazy.

You are missing nothing! It has now been 2 years since the referendum and the British political system is still only figuring out the intricacies of Brexit powers (with Scotland looking set to rebel against the Powers Bill -- which technically won't matter but is yet more evidence of the constitutional damage being done to the UK, which 'Project Fear' predicted). On top of that, the British Cabinet is in impasse -- and so somehow a divided executive has to gain some form of upper hand in negotiating with one of the world's most powerful political forces.

The impasse is based on the clash of three different visions. The first is that they remain in the customs union; the second is the basically customs union but don't call it a customs union custom partnership; the third is the 'maximum facilitation' model which is a technology solution involving using some sort of app to avoid physical customs checks. The problem of course is: the Brexiteers won't accept Option 1; the Brexiteers won't accept Option 2; and half her Cabinet, along with the EU, won't accept Option 3.

What we are witnessing therefore is the logical conclusion of a seismic political, constitutional and economic re-calibration undertaken in the absence of (a) a clear vision of outcome and (b) any firm notion of how it would be done. The only way forward I can see (aside from the very obvious but career-suicidal option to just end this madness) is further delay. That isn't much of an option, but what else can they do? They simply do not have the time. What makes it worse for the British English & Welsh voter is that the very clear temptation to utterly savage the Tories for spending the last few years playing poker on Britain's economic wellbeing is stymied by the fact that Labour doesn't know its arse from its elbow right now.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in terms of the actual negotiations with the EU, is it fair to say that there is nothing happening? . . .

No, lots is happening. It's just that right no there isn't much evident progress.

But that doesn't mean that there won't be. These things go in fits and starts. There has been a pattern of prolonged stasis followed by last-minute but substantial moves on the part of the UK government. Obviously, we can't guarantee that that pattern will repeat itself, but we can certainly hope that it may.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

She can't. He's a backbencher. She has no leverage over him.

(This is a Prime Minister who can't even keep her own Foreign Seretary in line so, yeah, she's pretty weak. But even a conventionally secure Prime Minister has very little influence over a backbencher who is not seeking government office, and therefore cannot be effectively threatened or bribed. If he wants to be a tosser, he can be a tosser; there's not much that can be done about it.)

JRM is very much looking for a government position, just not right at the moment. I don't agree that May can't do anything about it. The line from the government after the vote was that their position couldn't be discussed at it may harm their position in the negotiations. She could, through he spokespeople, send out the message that JRM is actively harming the UK's position by undermining the government negotiations.

Instead they have left him a very clear path to continually put out a very clear and consistent message. Once or twice, fair enough, but I take the view that as JRM is not some sort of powerhouse within the Tory party that he is being facilitated in his quest as it suits the government to do so.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Over 65 million people in the UK & NI along with millions around Europe will suffer!

What I meant was that someone else would suffer. TM will not. She is focused on maintaining her position as PM. It appears that she has a choice between a soft (almost nonexistent) Brexit which will mean she loses or a hard Brexit in which millions of others lose but she might just win.

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in terms of the actual negotiations with the EU, is it fair to say that there is nothing happening?

The A50 timeline was always too tight, my guess is it was never envisaged to be actually needed, but the UK have spent so long messing about that they are simply making it impossible.

It certainly wasn't ever intended to be triggered by the country who then spend the withdrawal period trying to figure out what kind of withdrawal they intended.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/996336858811510789


Big win for Ireland. Any idea what the tax take on this is?

Bit cynical

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The impasse is based on the clash of three different visions. The first is that they remain in the customs union; the second is the basically customs union but don't call it a customs union custom partnership; the third is the 'maximum facilitation' model which is a technology solution involving using some sort of app to avoid physical customs checks. The problem of course is: the Brexiteers won't accept Option 1; the Brexiteers won't accept Option 2; and half her Cabinet, along with the EU, won't accept Option 3.

Staying in a customs union is not on the cards because that prevents independent trade deals. The options being debated are "customs partnership" and "customs arrangement", the former being pushed by May and the latter by Boris.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

Staying in a customs union is not on the cards because that prevents independent trade deals. The options being debated are "customs partnership" and "customs arrangement", the former being pushed by May and the latter by Boris.

However, both options were rejected by the EU back in August.

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

Staying in a customs union is not on the cards because that prevents independent trade deals. The options being debated are "customs partnership" and "customs arrangement", the former being pushed by May and the latter by Boris.

There's a Simpson's quote about how North, South and East Springfield fought to stay In, Out and next to the Union I wish I could post. It makes about as much sense and the options the UK is 'evaluating'

Bit cynical

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, both options were rejected by the EU back in August.

Can you provide a link to the text where those options are rejected?

trellheim

That isn't much of an option, but what else can they do? They simply do not have the time.

As I see it : Brinksmanship till March 2018 and fingers crossed that the EU will simply cave ( Although in the absence of any non loony wish-list from UK I can't see what there is to cave TO)

OR

Beg for extension to A50 - likely forcing a UK GE by no-confidence immediately after said begging

Leroy42

Wouldn't the NCP place significant additional costs on UK business?

Both from having to pay tariffs up-front (so cashflow) and from an administrative cost. Have the UK government laid out any proposals on how UK business is going to pay for these additional costs? (I think I already know the answer but want to check if I understand it correctly)

Anthracite

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wouldn't the NCP place significant additional costs on UK business?

Goodbye burdensome EU regulations, hello burdensome EU regulations, UK regulations, and UK-EU regulations.

Seth Brundle

Anthracite wrote: »

Goodbye burdensome EU regulations, hello burdensome EU regulations, UK regulations, and UK-EU regulations.

Yes but they get to keep the queen's picture on their money!

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Staying in a customs union is not on the cards because that prevents independent trade deals. The options being debated are "customs partnership" and "customs arrangement", the former being pushed by May and the latter by Boris.

Well, a customs union is not on the cards if the ability to do independent trade deals is something you absolutely must have. But there's a wide acceptance within the UK establishment that the independent trade deals the UK could do won't make up for the damage that will be done to the UK by exiting the CU and the SM. So, if something has to give - and something certainly does have to give - then common sense and self-interest suggest that the ability to do independent trade deals is something on which it would be rational for the UK to be prepared to compromise. Can the UK government compromise on this, and survive? Well, that depends on when and how it compromises, maybe. So I wouldn't rule out compromise on this.

Sam Russell wrote: »

However, both options were rejected by the EU back in August.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Can you provide a link to the text where those options are rejected?

We can't get ahead of ourselves. Neither option has yet been formally put to the EU - the British haven't even decided which one they like - and neither is yet sufficiently developed to be put to the EU. So it's premature to look for a formal response text from the EU.

Both options were unvailed last August in the UK's position paper, and were immediately widely rubbished. There have been plenty of reports that the EU response has not been favourable, and we have no reason to doubt those reports, but there has been no formal response. More recently there have been hints from EU sources that they might be able to see the customs partnerhship as not actually functional, but at least something that might have some prospect of becoming functional, if sufficiently developed in a sufficiently realistic way. Whether they actually do think that, or whether they are just trying to throw May a lifeline, is anybody's guess.

LeinsterDub

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Yes but they get to keep the queen's picture on their money!

Kind of like this?

LuckyLloyd

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in terms of the actual negotiations with the EU, is it fair to say that there is nothing happening?

The A50 timeline was always too tight, my guess is it was never envisaged to be actually needed, but the UK have spent so long messing about that they are simply making it impossible.

Is it a possibility that TM is actually looking for a hard Brexit. The red lines, her speeches all point to that, and this unending time wasting would appear to leave very little room to move. It appears that it will either be a hard Brexit or no Brexit at all (dressed up a a elongated transition period).

I think she was genuinely taken aback by the demands of the DUP last December. I think she was happy enough with a soft Brexit, but that really shook her and I get the feeling that she has decided that the only way to maintain her position os to deliver a hard Brexit. Someone will suffer the consequences.

The problem for the Brexiteers is that they don't seem to understand that some of this is non negotiable. The EU were never going to agree to a resolution on the border that would contravene the GFA and / or position of the Irish Government. Once that was sketched out in December, it becomes an underpinning assumption on the part of the EU. It's no longer up for "negotiation". We're wasting time on the UK twisting and contorting itself to marry their December commitments with their Brexit faction, but there's nothing for the EU to really add while that happens.

And while it is happening of course, progress probably is not being made on any other area. And even within that, the EU has a myriad of commitments and hard lines that mitigate against the type of "negotiation" the Brexiteers imagined would play out. They had this puffy idea of Britain flexing its budget contribution, economic size and City of London muscles and the EU providing no strings FT with little attachments in return. It isn't like that, but then again - it was never going to be like that.

All that said, the A50 timeline may have been sufficient if Britain were unified, realistic and competent. They are none of those things, and so much time has been wasted on irrelevancies and spin. I would personally agree with your analysis that this is a way for May to play it if she desires a hard Brexit crash out that can be blamed on EU intransigence. But, irrespective of what they may want, the realities of how things are progressing significantly polarize the range of outcomes. We move ever quicker to abandonment / crash out as the ultimate outcomes.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

She can't. He's a backbencher. She has no leverage over him.

Is she not the leader of the Tories? She could surely oust him from the party in theory.

J Mysterio

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/996336858811510789


Big win for Ireland. Any idea what the tax take on this is?

Bueno

ambro25

J Mysterio wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

She can't. He's a backbencher. She has no leverage over him.

Is she not the leader of the Tories? She could surely oust him from the party in theory.

And risk alienating the hard Brexiteers’ fringe further?

She needs to husband all the votes, and so hostage to her party’s interplay : her lack of any action about JRM’s arseing about is just another manifestation of the factions-caused political vicious circle that is paralysing British politics.

Or she’s really a hard Brexiteer at heart, playing the clock for the gallery (of business types) and unbothered by JRM’s flagwaving, as some others have already posted.

First Up

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Anthracite wrote: »

Goodbye burdensome EU regulations, hello burdensome EU regulations, UK regulations, and UK-EU regulations.

Yes but they get to keep the queen's picture on their money!

Which nobody was threatening to take away.

J Mysterio

ambro25 wrote: »

And risk alienating the hard Brexiteers’ fringe further?

She needs to husband all the votes, and so hostage to her party’s interplay : her lack of any action about JRM’s arseing about is just another manifestation of the factions-caused political vicious circle that is paralysing British politics.

Or she’s really a hard Brexiteer at heart, playing the clock for the gallery (of business types) and unbothered by JRM’s flagwaving, as some others have already posted.

Yeah, I was just making the point that she can - in theory - remove whomsoever she likea from the party.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can't get ahead of ourselves. Neither option has yet been formally put to the EU - the British haven't even decided which one they like - and neither is yet sufficiently developed to be put to the EU. So it's premature to look for a formal response text from the EU.

Both options were unvailed last August in the UK's position paper, and were immediately widely rubbished. There have been plenty of reports that the EU response has not been favourable, and we have no reason to doubt those reports, but there has been no formal response. More recently there have been hints from EU sources that they might be able to see the customs partnerhship as not actually functional, but at least something that might have some prospect of becoming functional, if sufficiently developed in a sufficiently realistic way. Whether they actually do think that, or whether they are just trying to throw May a lifeline, is anybody's guess.

These comments are probably better addressed to the poster who said that the proposals had been rejected by the EU.

ArthurDayne

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/996336858811510789


Big win for Ireland. Any idea what the tax take on this is?

Not sure about the tax take but you can be sure that Ireland's favourable tax regime would have featured somewhat highly in their reasons for coming to Ireland.

I think the more important thing is that Dublin continues to attract this type of 'at the cutting edge' kind of business. The more trading floors we can establish in this city, the more revenue-generating business it creates to help feed our already very vibrant financial professional services support business -- the administrators, custodians, law firms, accountants. It's the kind of business we were once told to not expect in Dublin due to our lack of Michelin starred restaurants and international schools (!). We have been gradually defying the naysayers and I hope it continues.

In my own field, DLA Piper are the latest mega law firm to roll into Dublin in the wake of Brexit -- joining other large firms such as Simmons & Simmons and Pinsent Masons. If Brexit does happen, Ireland will be the only English-speaking and common law legal jurisdiction in the EU. These are crucial elements for attracting business opportunities from the USA -- itself a common law jurisdiction. I'm hoping it will also help us to retain young legal talent who once only had a handful of firms to get proper exposure to high-level work without jumping to London.

It's all amazing stuff for Ireland and is creating the kind of opportunities that will, I hope, help us to retain and attract talent. Now the drive has to be to supplement this post-Brexit business interest with the infrastructure!

sink

This is an excellent summation of the present position of brexiteers.

http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.ie/2018/05/brexiters-are-running-away-from.html?m=1

In summary he details 6 current talking points (excuses) brexiteers are using to wriggle their way out of responsibility for the mess and he comprehensively dismantles them.

1. It’s too late now
2. It’s not up to us
3. It hasn’t been done properly
4. It’s the Remainers’ fault
5. It’s the EU’s fault
6. It’s not about practical consequences, it’s about philosophical principles

I recommend reading the whole thing.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

These comments are probably better addressed to the poster who said that the proposals had been rejected by the EU.

We have a lot of publications that have said the EU has rejected the UK customs proposals already. Now either all of them are fishing, or there is noise from the EU that the UK proposals is not looked on fondly.

But I guess you are looking for a concrete EU releases that they have rejected the proposals and those have not been released. The best I can find is news articles, like the one below:

EU rejects UK’s post-Brexit customs fixes for Northern Ireland

But following talks on the Northern Ireland border issue in Brussels in the last two weeks, the EU has confirmed its opposition to one of the two proposals — known as the “new customs partnership.” Originally put forward by U.K. negotiators last August, it would allow Britain to maintain its own system of tariffs but act as a collector of EU customs duties on goods that enter the U.K. bound for an EU country.

The other proposal, known as the “highly streamlined customs arrangement,” involves using technological solutions to lower customs barriers. It is also viewed skeptically by the EU as merely a “list of best practice measures” applicable to any customs arrangement, according to one EU diplomat. That diplomat said EU negotiators do not regard it as a workable solution for the unique demands of the U.K.-EU relationship and the Irish border conundrum.

“These were already rejected before and for good reason,” another EU27 diplomat briefed on the negotiations said. “So either come up with something we can work with or the backstop remains.” EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said that if the U.K. leaves the EU customs union then some border checks are inevitable.

Edited to add:

Here is more links to show that the noise from the EU has been that the proposals has been rejected by the EU.

EU has 'pushed back' on UK customs proposals, Davis tells Lords – as it happened

Two weeks ago, after the Daily Telegraph reported that both proposals had been rejected by the EU, Downing Street played this down, saying it did not recognise the claims. Today Davis effectively admitted that the reports were accurate.

EU to Reject U.K. Brexit Plan for the Irish Border

European Union officials are set to reject a potential U.K. solution to the crucial issue of what happens to the Irish border after Brexit.

These articles are all around the end of April.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Yeah, I was just making the point that she can - in theory - remove whomsoever she likea from the party.

I don't think she can.

The party whips can remove the whip from him, and they would do if instructed by her, but that just makes him a heroic resister. It has no bad consequences for him. And it would not amount to expelling him from the Tory party. And a backbencher generally only has the whip withdrawn for actually voting against the party, not for criticising government policy.

He's the Member of Parliament for North-East Somerset. He could be deselected as Tory candidate for that constituency by the local party, but they may of course all be dyed-in-the-wool Brexiters who are just delighted with his antics. Anyway, it is vanishingly rare for a sitting Tory MP to be deselected. The local party is very reluctant to ditch a proven votewinner, especially one with a national profile.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

These comments are probably better addressed to the poster who said that the proposals had been rejected by the EU.

They were addressed to him. I quoted him in my post.

But they were also addressed to you. You asked for a citation to a formal text rejecting the two options, and I explained why no such text exists yet.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

We have a lot of publications that have said the EU has rejected the UK customs proposals already. Now either all of them are fishing, or there is noise from the EU that the UK proposals is not looked on fondly.

But I guess you are looking for a concrete EU releases that they have rejected the proposals and those have not been released. The best I can find is news articles, like the one below:

EU rejects UK’s post-Brexit customs fixes for Northern Ireland

from article wrote:

But following talks on the Northern Ireland border issue in Brussels in the last two weeks, the EU has confirmed its opposition to one of the two proposals — known as the “new customs partnership.” Originally put forward by U.K. negotiators last August, it would allow Britain to maintain its own system of tariffs but act as a collector of EU customs duties on goods that enter the U.K. bound for an EU country.

The other proposal, known as the “highly streamlined customs arrangement,” involves using technological solutions to lower customs barriers. It is also viewed skeptically by the EU as merely a “list of best practice measures” applicable to any customs arrangement, according to one EU diplomat. That diplomat said EU negotiators do not regard it as a workable solution for the unique demands of the U.K.-EU relationship and the Irish border conundrum.

“These were already rejected before and for good reason,” another EU27 diplomat briefed on the negotiations said. “So either come up with something we can work with or the backstop remains.” EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said that if the U.K. leaves the EU customs union then some border checks are inevitable.

I'm reading from this quote that the hard-line brexiteers favoured solution, the customs arrangement, "is also viewed skeptically by the EU". This is not the language I would expect reflected in the article if behind the scenes, the EU had rejected this proposal. "Viewed skeptically" is what one would expect by the opposing side in negotiations while they are ongoing. Everything proposed is going to be viewed skeptically. And remember that of the two, this is the more problematic.

When you actually look at what people have stated on the record, you do not see rejection.

Of course, none of this is to suggest that either option will eventually be agreed by the EU, but so far neither have been rejected.