Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

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.

Yes, but you can't draw any implications from this. Neither option has been rejected by the EU because neither has yet been put to the EU. But of course part of the reason why neither has yet been put to the EU is that, if put in their current form, they are fairly certain to be rejected, and the British government doesn't want that.

Janelle Monae has not yet rejected my proposal of marriage. Should I take that as indication that, when I actually make a proposal, there is some chance that she will accept it?

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

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.

You are correct to say that the EU hasn't officially come out to reject the proposals. But were these proposals just part of the negotiations where they were mentioned by the UK as possible solutions and the EU has not reacted positively to them, or were they the official position of the UK to the EU on what they want the relationship to be?

I would guess that the UK floated these two as potential solutions to the EU, seeing that they actually haven't decided themselves yet what they want to do. Theresa May just recently asked her cabinet to look at the two potential solutions to see which one would be the best, so how could the EU reject something officially when it hasn't been officially proposed?

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but you can't draw any implications from this. Neither option has been rejected by the EU because neither has yet been put to the EU. But of course part of the reason why neither has yet been put to the EU is that, if put in their current form, they are fairly certain to be rejected, and the British government doesn't want that.

I'm not drawing implications. This is my point I'm rejecting an implication put forward by a poster, specifically, that certain proposals had been "rejected" by the EU. I agree that you can't draw implications from what the EU are saying, one of which is that the proposals had been rejected. Negative comments and scepticism, after all, are to be expected.

Outright rejection can happen in negotiations while they are still ongoing but we would expect to see much stronger language in such a case.

Janelle Monae has not yet rejected my proposal of marriage. Should I take that as indication that, when I actually make a proposal, there is some chance that she will accept it?

Well all I can say is good luck with that!

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

You are correct to say that the EU hasn't officially come out to reject the proposals. But were these proposals just part of the negotiations where they were mentioned by the UK as possible solutions and the EU has not reacted positively to them, or were they the official position of the UK to the EU on what they want the relationship to be?

I would guess that the UK floated these two as potential solutions to the EU, seeing that they actually haven't decided themselves yet what they want to do. Theresa May just recently asked her cabinet to look at the two potential solutions to see which one would be the best, so how could the EU reject something officially when it hasn't been officially proposed?

Again, talk to the poster who said they had already been rejected by the EU.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

Again, talk to the poster who said they had already been rejected by the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-scoffs-at-britains-customs-proposal-ahead-of-brexit-talks/

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-dismisses-britains-post-brexit-customs-plan/

Bit cynical

Sam Russell wrote: »

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-scoffs-at-britains-customs-proposal-ahead-of-brexit-talks/

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-dismisses-britains-post-brexit-customs-plan/

Again, if you read the actual article and in particular the official statements quoted you see things like:

“We will now study the U.K. position paper on customs carefully in the light of the European Council guidelines and the Council’s negotiating directives,” the statement said.

This is not a rejection.

Like I said earlier, for a rejection we would need to see stronger language from named sources.

For example, on the "sea border" proposal, Theresa May said:

"The draft legal text the Commission has published would, if implemented, undermine the United Kingdom common market and threaten the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom by creating a custom and regulatory border down the Irish Sea.

No United Kingdom prime minister could ever agree to it. I will be making it crystal clear to President Juncker and others that we will never do so."

That is a rejection.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

(EU statement)
This is not a rejection.


(May talking)
That is a rejection.

If you have read statements by either source before, you would recognize that the EU are not going to accept the thing you said they are not rejecting, whereas May is quite likely to cave at the last minute and do the thing she is saying she rejects.

Because while the EU are talking to May, May is actually talking to the Brexiteers within her party, not the EU.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you have read statements by either source before, you would recognize that the EU are not going to accept the thing you said they are not rejecting, whereas May is quite likely to cave at the last minute and do the thing she is saying she rejects.

Because while the EU are talking to May, May is actually talking to the Brexiteers within her party, not the EU.

Of course, proposals may ultimately be rejected in the event of no deal. The proposals have not yet been agreed with the EU. But that is not the same as saying they have been rejected.

I think you are right to an extent on May's tendency to u-turn. However I would still need to see stronger language from named EU officials before judging a particular proposal rejected - not merely editorial spin.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Of course, we don't at this stage know which side will compromise. It is quite possible that neither side will give and we'll end up with a no deal scenario. We in Ireland are caught in the middle used as a football by both and will take a disproportionate share of the brunt if talks fail.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

Again, if you read the actual article and in particular the official statements quoted you see things like:

“We will now study the U.K. position paper on customs carefully in the light of the European Council guidelines and the Council’s negotiating directives,” the statement said.

This is not a rejection.

In the light of the quoted texts, then yes it is a rejection. There is no fudge with legal texts.

Like I said earlier, for a rejection we would need to see stronger language from named sources.

For example, on the "sea border" proposal, Theresa May said:

"The draft legal text the Commission has published would, if implemented, undermine the United Kingdom common market and threaten the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom by creating a custom and regulatory border down the Irish Sea.

No United Kingdom prime minister could ever agree to it. I will be making it crystal clear to President Juncker and others that we will never do so."

That is a rejection.

I think the response that Davis got from some of the EU27 Governments he spoke to on his tour to split the EU27 was 'We'll see' which is the way diplomats say 'No!'

There is no sign of a change of heart from the EU side. They still say 'No!' but they add 'Tick Tock!'

Infini

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.

In all honesty the "bullshyteers" of her party are essentially a 5th column hijacking the party for their regressive and dehabilitating agenda. In a more normal democracy they would've been ejected and ended up in UKIP as a group of cage rattlers and nothing else.

Bit cynical

Sam Russell wrote: »

In the light of the quoted texts, then yes it is a rejection. There is no fudge with legal texts.

How so? How is what the UK is proposing against EU law?

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

How so? How is what the UK is proposing against EU law?

I am not saying it is 'against' EU law - it is incompatible with the four freedoms, and so it is not going to happen. It is politically impossible for the EU to agree with the current UK proposals without the four freedoms.

The EU side have been wholeheartedly of this opinion throughout the negotiations. Terms like 'magical thinking' and other such expressions.

The UK have been quoting the 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' which leads to 'Nothing' - a hard crash out.

Bit cynical

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am not saying it is 'against' EU law - it is incompatible with the four freedoms, and so it is not going to happen. It is politically impossible for the EU to agree with the current UK proposals without the four freedoms.

Well the EU is free to apply the four freedoms to other countries selectively as it sees fit. For example, Turkey which is not an EU member has freedom of trade as it is in a customs union with the EU but not freedom of movement of people.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well the EU is free to apply the four freedoms to other countries selectively as it sees fit. For example, Turkey which is not an EU member has freedom of trade as it is in a customs union with the EU but not freedom of movement of people.

Turkey is not in the Single Market, which is what is required for 'frictionless border' between NI and here.

The EU are insisting on no barriers, or infrastructure on or near the border, as currently exists now. For that to happen NI would need to be in the single market and CU for all intents and purposes, as it affects N/S trade, relations, bodies that operate under the GFA.

An Ciarraioch

The most bizarre Brexit story of the day surrounds the Tories and discussions about NI - firstly, the talk about a Border poll seems to have been based on a LucidTalk poll from last October, and secondly, the Taoiseach has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't believe the conditions for such a vote have arrived yet either. Still, if it convinces the Brexiteers to accept a customs union, perhaps it will have served its purpose:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/most-people-in-northern-ireland-dont-want-border-poll-prime-minister-theresa-may-36909399.html

Bit cynical

Sam Russell wrote: »

Turkey is not in the Single Market, which is what is required for 'frictionless border' between NI and here.

But it indicates that the four freedoms are not set in stone. It is possible to have one or two freedoms shared with a country outside the EU but not all four.

The EU are insisting on no barriers, or infrastructure on or near the border, as currently exists now. For that to happen NI would need to be in the single market and CU for all intents and purposes, as it affects N/S trade, relations, bodies that operate under the GFA.

So therefore if the UK leaves the CU and single market as they intend, the EU will not make any deal thus making the border and trade worse. That does not make sense.

Can you point out where that is the EUs stated position? I can see where some of their rhetoric might be aiming changing the political landscape in the UK such that they my soften their brexit stance, but I have not seen it said officially that no deal will occur with a UK outside of the customs union or single market.

Lemming

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

ambro25 wrote: »

And risk alienating the hard Brexiteers’ fringe further?

Despite how weak she looks, none of her party - most least of all the ardent Brexiteers amongst them - have attempted to remove May. She's their patsy for when it all goes wrong. None of them want to be in her position come crunch-day so they can deny all responsibility. So in that respect, she has one very crucial piece of leverage over the likes of JRM; she can make a decision and call their bluff(s). Either way Brexit pans out she's toast come the next election cycle, so she can choose to be dragged through the mud in humiliation or go down in defiance and possibly salvage some - any - level of dignity before the public. Of course, I'm not sure she's capable of such imaginative thought or foresight.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am not saying it is 'against' EU law - it is incompatible with the four freedoms, and so it is not going to happen. It is politically impossible for the EU to agree with the current UK proposals without the four freedoms.

Well the EU is free to apply the four freedoms to other countries selectively as it sees fit. For example, Turkey which is not an EU member has freedom of trade as it is in a customs union with the EU but not freedom of movement of people.

Turkey does not have freedom of trade with the EU. It is in the customs union only for manufactured goods, not agri produce. And as a member of the CU for manufactured goods, Turkey applies the EU's external tariffs, which the Brexiteers say is a crazy ask.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

But it indicates that the four freedoms are not set in stone. It is possible to have one or two freedoms shared with a country outside the EU but not all four.
So therefore if the UK leaves the CU and single market as they intend, the EU will not make any deal thus making the border and trade worse. That does not make sense.

Can you point out where that is the EUs stated position?

Listen to Michel Barnier, and perhaps Coveney and Varadkar.

I think they are official enough. CU and SM implies four freedoms. Absent either SM or CU and you have to have a border. A border is not frictionless, no matter what JRM thinks.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

Turkey does not have freedom of trade with the EU. It is in the customs union only for manufactured goods, not agri produce.

It has partial freedom of trade but no equivalent freedom of movement for people.

And as a member of the CU for manufactured goods, Turkey applies the EU's external tariffs, which the Brexiteers say is a crazy ask.

Sure but the UK is not joining the customs union. The point about Turkey is that freedom of trade (selectively in the case of Turkey) can be implemented without other corresponding freedoms.

Bit cynical

Sam Russell wrote: »

Listen to Michel Barnier, and perhaps Coveney and Varadkar.

I think they are official enough. CU and SM implies four freedoms. Absent either SM or CU and you have to have a border. A border is not frictionless, no matter what JRM thinks.

But the UK aren't proposing a completely frictionless border. There will, if their proposals are accepted, be some infrastructure, paperwork etc. But such a border would have less friction than if no deal occurs. The friction is simply a consequence of the UK exercising their right to leave the EU and its institutions. The question is how can the EU and the UK work together to minimize this friction remembering that failure to do so would have a disproportionate effect on Ireland.

Can you point out where Barnier (for example) has said that the EU will not make a deal with the UK if they leave the customs union?

First Up

Turkish goods entering the EU go through customs procedures. The queue at the land border with Bulgaria can be several kilometers long.

The integrity of the Single Market is not negotiable. Unless the UK stays in the CU, meaning that it enforces the EU's external tariffs and certification requirements, then there will be customs checks at the Irish border and all EU points of entry.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

Turkish goods entering the EU go through customs procedures. The queue at the land border with Bulgaria can be several kilometers long.

Not manufactured goods which is covered under the customs union.

The integrity of the Single Market is not negotiable. Unless the UK stays in the CU, meaning that it enforces the EU's external tariffs and certification requirements, then there will be customs checks at the Irish border and all EU points of entry.

Hence the need for creative solutions. We can't allow the EU to force us to build old-style customs posts on the Ireland of Ireland which is what would happen if no deal is agreed.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the UK aren't proposing a completely frictionless border.

They already agreed a frictionless border in phase 1.

If that is off the table, then no deal, no transition period, out goes the UK in March with nothing.

Which is impossible in practice, so back to the phase 1 agreement we go.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not manufactured goods which is covered under the customs union.
Hence the need for creative solutions. We can't allow the EU to force us to build old-style customs posts on the Ireland of Ireland which is what would happen if no deal is agreed.

That is exactly what will happen because UK are to incompetent to manage their way out of a wet paper bag. UK can't be forced to do anything; they signed an agreement to avoid the above scenario and now don't want to have to honour it. Well here's the deal; either they stick to it or border controls goes up; exactly like any other country with a third country border has to deal with and no magic unicorn hand waving will change that reality. UK are proposing ideas which simply don't work or exist which even Brexiteers recognise; yet May still thinks if she mushes them together and squint enough EU will somehow be fooled. That goes beyond wishful thinking into madness territory...

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not manufactured goods which is covered under the customs union.
Hence the need for creative solutions. We can't allow the EU to force us to build old-style customs posts on the Ireland of Ireland which is what would happen if no deal is agreed.

A sea border is a 'creative solution'.

Solves the problem as far as I can see.

Bit cynical

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A sea border is a 'creative solution'.

Solves the problem as far as I can see.

The solution, however, has to be acceptable to both sides.

Far better for us, of course, if the sea border was happening but then again it would be far better for us if brexit was not happening or if the UK was staying in the customs union and single market but that is not the case.

Failing these, what do we want in Ireland that is also agreeable to the UK? Either there's common ground (as I believe there is) or there's no deal, in which case we get all the things we are trying to avoid.

jobbridge4life

Bit cynical wrote: »

We can't allow the EU to force us to build old-style customs posts on the Ireland of Ireland which is what would happen if no deal is agreed.

The UK took the decision to exit the EU. The UK voted for this. Part of the reason the UK voted for this was, in no small part, in order to 'take back control' of their borders.

Now, if you want to take back control of your borders, it is not a logical position to say 'well we never wanted a border and we won't enforce one' on what will be your only land border with the EU.

That is the core of the current Brexit position. It demonstrates perfectly what Brexit is.

Leroy42

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A sea border is a 'creative solution'.

Solves the problem as far as I can see.

I think you misunderstand the brexiteers we they state that the EU should come up with solutions. What they really mean to say is that the EU should come up with a way to agree to the UKs wishes.

That would solve the problem straight away.

Bit Cynical, you keep mentioning Turkey as an example but TM right from the off has laid down red lines that mean onlya complete capitulation from the EU is agreeable. She then indicated she agreed with a solution with the EU before being put back in her box by the DUP. Despite this, the EU worked to find a solutionthat May could sell and survive.

With the ink still wet, May and her ministers then set about denouncing the agreement as nothing more than bar room talk.

At what point are you going to realise that TM and the UK are not looking for compromise?

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

The solution, however, has to be acceptable to both sides.

Far better for us, of course, if the sea border was happening but then again it would be far better for us if brexit was not happening or if the UK was staying in the customs union and single market but that is not the case.

Failing these, what do we want in Ireland that is also agreeable to the UK? Either there's common ground (as I believe there is) or there's no deal, in which case we get all the things we are trying to avoid.

So everyone else has to move on this but not the UK?

A sea border is the only practical solution to the problem other than not Brexiting at all.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A sea border is a 'creative solution'.

Solves the problem as far as I can see.

The solution, however, has to be acceptable to both sides.

Far better for us, of course, if the sea border was happening but then again it would be far better for us if brexit was not happening or if the UK was staying in the customs union and single market but that is not the case.

Failing these, what do we want in Ireland that is also agreeable to the UK? Either there's common ground (as I believe there is) or there's no deal, in which case we get all the things we are trying to avoid.

So you think giving the UK a massive advantage is the answer? FDI would be gone in a flash to the UK to get the best of both worlds. Access to all these new international agreements, freedom from EU regulations. Something as simple as regulated holidays. Currently 20 days in the EU. UK could revert to 15. Straight away you are losing.
Or state support. UK could freely give whatever sweetheart deals they like.
Or how about they don't need to comply with the new GDPR rules. Thats a massive admin saving.

jobbridge4life

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So everyone else has to move on this but not the UK?

A sea border is the only practical solution to the problem other than not Brexiting at all.

A sea border is only a half a solution though at best. And possibly less than that, let us not forget that violence is not the preserve of the nationalist tradition.

Aside from that it still leaves Ireland at a massive economic disadvantage. We want the best possible deal for the UK. Whether that means staying in, EEA, a custom's partnership/arrangement/marriage/bonding ceremony under the stars or whatever.

Sam Russell

jobbridge4life wrote: »

A sea border is only a half a solution though at best. And possibly less than that, let us not forget that violence is not the preserve of the nationalist tradition.

Aside from that it still leaves Ireland at a massive economic disadvantage. We want the best possible deal for the UK. Whether that means staying in, EEA, a custom's partnership/arrangement/marriage/bonding ceremony under the stars or whatever.

There is already a sea border for agriculture and related matters. Extending this would not be too difficult, and the application of technology ( even of the magical variety) would be a great testing of the ingenuity of the Brexiteers.

I do not see any violence happening as a result of such an arrangement.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Turkish goods entering the EU go through customs procedures. The queue at the land border with Bulgaria can be several kilometers long.

Not manufactured goods which is covered under the customs union.

The integrity of the Single Market is not negotiable. Unless the UK stays in the CU, meaning that it enforces the EU's external tariffs and certification requirements, then there will be customs checks at the Irish border and all EU points of entry.

Hence the need for creative solutions. We can't allow the EU to force us to build old-style customs posts on the Ireland of Ireland which is what would happen if no deal is agreed.

I suggest you visit the border between Turkey and Bulgaria.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Of course, we don't at this stage know which side will compromise. It is quite possible that neither side will give and we'll end up with a no deal scenario. We in Ireland are caught in the middle used as a football by both and will take a disproportionate share of the brunt if talks fail.

The course of events to date, an analysis of the relative bargaining strengths of the two sides, and an observation of the coherence and rationality of their respective positions all suggest that most of any compromising will be done on the UK side. The EU has already compromised; Northern Ireland is being offered a degree of cakeist cherry-picking than the EU generally rules out. The question is whether the UK is willing to accept that.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well the EU is free to apply the four freedoms to other countries selectively as it sees fit. For example, Turkey which is not an EU member has freedom of trade as it is in a customs union with the EU but not freedom of movement of people.

Turkey does not have freedom of trade; it is in a Customs Union, but not in the Single Market. For that reason there is a hard border between Turkey and the EU.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU are insisting on no barriers, or infrastructure on or near the border, as currently exists now. For that to happen NI would need to be in the single market and CU for all intents and purposes, as it affects N/S trade, relations, bodies that operate under the GFA.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Can you point out where that is the EUs stated position? I can see where some of their rhetoric might be aiming changing the political landscape in the UK such that they my soften their brexit stance, but I have not seen it said officially that no deal will occur with a UK outside of the customs union or single market.

"No physical infrastructure" is in fact the UK's stated position, first articulated in their Position Paper in August 2017, and reiterated by May in the Florence speech in September 2017. The EU accepted it in the December agreement, since when it has been the agreed position of both sides. Certain Brexiteers like to present it as something the EU is trying to force or extort from the UK, but that is either because they are very stupid, or because they think their supporters are. It came from the UK.

This, incidentally, is one of the reasons why everybody is confident that, if the EU makes a formal judgment about the Max-Fac and Customs Partnership proposals, it will reject them. Neither, as currently developed, is capable of meeting the no-physical-infrastructure, no-inspections-in-lieu criteria that the two sides have agreed.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not manufactured goods which is covered under the customs union.

Manufactured goods still have to be controlled at the Turkey/EU border because Turkey is not in the Single Market. They just don't have to be controlled for customs purposes.

Remember the state of the Irish border between 1973 and the early 1990s? During that period Ireland and the UK were in a customs union but not in a single market. That's the condition that now prevails at the Turkish border.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Hence the need for creative solutions. We can't allow the EU to force us to build old-style customs posts on the Ireland of Ireland which is what would happen if no deal is agreed.

But the EU has proposed a creative solution, which is a special status for NI. The UK has said that it doesn't like that solution, but isn't offering any functional or realistic alternative. As noted above, neither Max-Fac nor the Customs Partnership seem capable as yet of meeting the criteria for openness which the UK itself proposed.

As matters stand, if there's no deal agreed, I struggle to see that this will be the fault of the EU.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

The solution, however, has to be acceptable to both sides.

Far better for us, of course, if the sea border was happening but then again it would be far better for us if brexit was not happening or if the UK was staying in the customs union and single market but that is not the case.

Failing these, what do we want in Ireland that is also agreeable to the UK? Either there's common ground (as I believe there is) or there's no deal, in which case we get all the things we are trying to avoid.

Genuinely, I'm not seeing the space for common ground just yet.

The border issue is a microcosm of the wider Brexit issue. It has been widely noted that the UK adopted a set of contradictory and inconsistent red lines. Any proposal framed so as to satisfy one red line inevitably infringes another. There's not much space for common ground here.

Space for common ground can be found if some of the red lines are varied or relaxed. But we have good reason to think this will happen since, as already mentioned, the UK must modify some of its red lines if it is to acheive others. Our task is to try to arrange matters so that they have an incentive to modify the particular red lines which impede an open border in Ireland. Since the border arises as a consequence of the UK's withdrawal from the single market and the customs union, those are the aspects of Brexit that we want to see relaxed, and relaxed to a point where no hard border will result in Ireland.

J Mysterio

The Scottish parliament has voted against backing Theresa May’s key piece of Brexit legislation, paving the way for a constitutional crisis.

Politicians at Holyrood refused to grant consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill, meaning Downing Street may have to take the unprecedented step of overruling the Edinburgh assembly to make Brexit happen.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

The Scottish parliament has voted against backing Theresa May’s key piece of Brexit legislation, paving the way for a constitutional crisis.

Politicians at Holyrood refused to grant consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill, meaning Downing Street may have to take the unprecedented step of overruling the Edinburgh assembly to make Brexit happen.

Westminster can overrule the Scottish Parliament but they never have, on any issue, since the Parliament was established 19 years ago. There is a strong preference for dealing with such matters by negotiation and compromise instead. There's no doubt that if Westminster overrides Holyrood on this occasion, that will add fuel to the movement for another indyref, which is something Westminster would rather avoid.

Kermit.de.frog

On the Thompson Reuters move...

https://www.ft.com/content/5b04d32e-578f-11e8-bdb7-f6677d2e1ce8


Reading the comments concensus seems to be a HUGE blow to London. Probably the biggest since the vote!

Most expect the divisions employees to be fired for new employees in Dublin and that it is great news for Irish professional traders who will want to come home. This and with other announcements too.

Happy for the Irish but sad for the Londoners at the stupidity of the situation they find themselves due to those that govern.

It elevates Dublin as a financial hub big time too.

Peregrinus

Breaking story on RTE suggesting that the UK is going to propose that the whole of the UK remains "aligned with" (which I think effectively means "in") the Customs Union until Max-Fac or Customs Partnership (or, presumably, something else) is developed to the point where it is (a) functional, and (b) acceptable to both sides.

This would mean no customs border between NI and RoI, or between NI and GB (or, for that matter, between UK and EU).

There would remain, as the RTE piece points out, the matter of alignment with Single Market rules. If there's to be no hard border in Ireland, then NI would also have to remain aligned to a largish chunk of the Single Market rules, and that would mean checks on goods moving between from GB to NI (though not necessarily vice versa). (It would also mean checks on goods moving from GB to the continental EU-27.) Of course, there are already some regulatory checks on goods entering NI from GB; this would mean more checks but HMG could argue that this is a matter of degree, not a fundamental change in the trading relationship between NI and GB.

UK-wide alignment with Customs Union would mean limited or no scope for the UK to do its own trade deals, but UK government's position would be that this would be a temporary state of affairs until a new customs relationship was developed and agreed. Still, expect ultra-Brexiters to have the screaming habdabs. Also expect them to point out that "temporary" and "transitional" relationships between the EU and third countries have a habit of lasting sometimes for decades.

flatty

It'll be interesting to see what sterling does.
The Thompson - Reuters move is surely at last a definitive enough warning to may and her ilk that they need to stop messing about, and to give some clarity.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Breaking story on RTE suggesting that the UK is going to propose that the whole of the UK remains "aligned with" (which I think effectively means "in") the Customs Union until Max-Fac or Customs Partnership (or, presumably, something else) is developed to the point where it is (a) functional, and (b) acceptable to both sides.

This would mean no customs border between NI and RoI, or between NI and GB (or, for that matter, between UK and EU).

There would remain, as the RTE piece points out, the matter of alignment with Single Market rules. If there's to be no hard border in Ireland, then NI would also have to remain aligned to a largish chunk of the Single Market rules, and that would mean checks on goods moving between from GB to NI (though not necessarily vice versa). (It would also mean checks on goods moving from GB to the continental EU-27.) Of course, there are already some regulatory checks on goods entering NI from GB; this would mean more checks but HMG could argue that this is a matter of degree, not a fundamental change in the trading relationship between NI and GB.

UK-wide alignment with Customs Union would mean limited or no scope for the UK to do its own trade deals, but UK government's position would be that this would be a temporary state of affairs until a new customs relationship was developed and agreed. Still, expect ultra-Brexiters to have the screaming habdabs. Also expect them to point out that "temporary" and "transitional" relationships between the EU and third countries have a habit of lasting sometimes for decades.

If all of the above is borne out, then I would expect the Brexiteers like JRM and Boris to act exactly as they did in relation to the divorce settlement. From the outset, there were demands that not one cent be paid, that this was a trump card. When it was agreed there was a few murmors, 'not what we wanted but if it the price of leaving then its worth it' stuff came out and now its hardly even mentioned.

The Brexiteers can see that they face a no win situation. Continue to drive the bus over a cliff or find some way to extracate themselves from the outcome.

The above would seem to be the best available solution as the Brexiteers to can continue to claim that this is but a stalling tactic (they have already accepted the basis of a transition period which was never mentioned during the campaign) so this is simply an extension of that

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

The above would seem to be the best available solution as the Brexiteers to can continue to claim that this is but a stalling tactic (they have already accepted the basis of a transition period which was never mentioned during the campaign) so this is simply an extension of that

So, if they do what's theorized in the RTE piece, isn't this just a no-Brexit, Brexit? Seems like nothing will change at all? No bordersor checks, while adherening to EU regs and requirements, ECJ jurisdiction, etc., for some number of years?

I don't see where on the day prior to what RTE is saying taking effect, and the day after it takes effect, for anything to be different. Perhaps a few years after that, maybe?

Leroy42

Igotadose wrote: »

So, if they do what's theorized in the RTE piece, isn't this just a no-Brexit, Brexit? Seems like nothing will change at all? No bordersor checks, while adherening to EU regs and requirements, ECJ jurisdiction, etc., for some number of years?

I don't see where on the day prior to what RTE is saying taking effect, and the day after it takes effect, for anything to be different. Perhaps a few years after that, maybe?

Pretty much, and mainly because the UK have simply not got their act together. From all that we can see (lack of industry reports etc) the UK simply are not in a position to leave by March 2019 or December 2020.

They need to go away and carry out a full, industry by industry and regulation by regulation, review of the current processes and formulate a plan for what they actually want out of Brexit.

They have moved very little from the slogans of the campaign, "Brexit means Brexit", "Take back control", "British laws for Britain". They all sound great, but even yesterdays Scottish vote shows just how difficult it will be to even agree within the UK, never mind bringing that to the EU table and having to compromise there as well.

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

So, if they do what's theorized in the RTE piece, isn't this just a no-Brexit, Brexit? Seems like nothing will change at all? No bordersor checks, while adherening to EU regs and requirements, ECJ jurisdiction, etc., for some number of years?

I don't see where on the day prior to what RTE is saying taking effect, and the day after it takes effect, for anything to be different. Perhaps a few years after that, maybe?

Not much would change as between NI and RoI (indeed, as between NI and whole of EU) but there would definitely be a change between GB and EU.

GB would be out of single market and not aligned with its regulations. So, even though goods moving from GB to EU would not attract tariffs, and so would not be subject to customs control, they would still have to be controlled to ensure they complied with EU market regulations.

Effectively, GB would be like Turkey; in a customs union with the EU, but not in the Single Market. So there would be a hard border between GB and EU, though not as hard as it would be if GB were out of Customs Union as well. It would be somewhat like the current EU/Turkey border, which is hard enough to impose measurable costs and delays, and so would impact British industry to some extent at least. But there would be no free movement rights between GB and EU, which is important to the Brexiters. And Liam Fox would have no job to do, which I think would be a great blessing.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Breaking story on RTE suggesting that the UK is going to propose that the whole of the UK remains "aligned with" (which I think effectively means "in") the Customs Union until Max-Fac or Customs Partnership (or, presumably, something else) is developed to the point where it is (a) functional, and (b) acceptable to both sides.

This is just the phase 1 agreement for NI applied to the whole UK so that the DUP don't bring down the government.