Brexit discussion thread III

Enzokk

So the report on RTE means that the UK will effectively be in the EU until they can find a solution to be out but be in (impossible). So the solutions from there would be a united Ireland (no need to appease the DUP or worry about maintaining standards between Ireland the the UK) or a new government charters a new course when there is a new election after 2022 or this government collapses.

We could be in a situation where, with a new election, Labour either has a majority and charters the hard Brexit course to get around the rules on subsidies of nationalized services. Or Labour gets in power with the help of the SNP, which interestingly would be a reverse of the current situation where the DUP is calling the shots from Belfast. Instead the SNP would be steering the ship from Holyrood towards a softer Brexit.

I do find it interesting that with the Scotland vote to oppose the UK Brexit bill that the Scottish Conservatives opposed all the other parties in voting for the bill. They have effectively put their eggs into the Brexit basket now. This is against not just the people of Scotland but also all other parties. It would be interesting to see how this plays out in a future election.

On other matters, I do hope there is no Brexit because nationals of EU nations will have an incompetent Home Office in charge of their fates. Reading the below story is chilling in the calculating way they are going about enforcing immigration to the UK. Basically be incompetent at the Home Office and then threaten and intimidate using Immigration Officers to get people to leave. This is not just Windrush but all immigrants which, if there is a hard Brexit, will include all EU nationals.

Footage emerges of 'distressing' home visit by immigration officers

An enforcement team visited the home of Zixuan Qu and her fiance, Duncan Watkinson, at around 5.30am on 1 May. They searched the property and told Qu she had “no leave to remain in the UK” and that she had been classified as an “immigration offender”.

After 25 minutes in the couple’s home, the officials appeared to acknowledge an error had been made and retreated, leaving Qu terrified and Watkinson in tears.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

No, it isn't, not quite. The phase 1 agreement was for NI to remain in "full alignment with those rules of the internal market and customs union which support north-south cooperation, the all-island economy and the Good Friday Agreement". This proposal extends full alignment with customs union rules to the whole of the UK, but not full alignment with single market rules, which would still apply to NI only.

It is an attempt to placate the DUP (by minimising the disruption to GB/NI trade) but there's more to it than that. Allowing NI to remain in alignment only with SM rules which "support north-south cooperation, the all-island economy and the Good Friday Agreement" is actually allowing a bit of cakeist cherry-picking of which Single Market rules you will accept and which you won't, which the EU is normally dead against. The have compromised to allow this in NI because of the border issue, and the fact that the whole of NI is so close to the border. The EU would not agree to allow this degree of cherry-picking for the whole of the UK. So the UK isn't proposing it, because the last thing they want is their third attempt at squaring the border circle shot down immediately.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

So the report on RTE means that the UK will effectively be in the EU until . . .

No. Under this proposal the UK will be effectively in the Customs Union unless and until, but GB will not be in the Single Market.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Under this proposal the UK will be effectively in the Customs Union unless and until, but GB will not be in the Single Market.

Sure, but doesn't it follow that the reason why there is no border infrastructure is as much to do with the customs union as the single market? So while we are discussing the customs union now, once that is settled the conversation will go to avoiding a border between Ireland and NI and that can only be achieved if both are in the single market, right?

J Mysterio

Government admits it is checking if Theresa May's Brexit customs plan is legal

David Lidington, the prime minister's 'deputy', says it will be a 'week or so' before proposals are fully examined - after ministers made 'serious criticisms'

Igotadose

Sorry for being slow, but if the RTE piece is accurate, what is the impact of trade between ROI and NI, ROI/GB (across the sea), and ROI/EU?

I would expect no changes ROI/EU, but it seems like some sort of customs checks will be needed between ROI/NI and ROI/EU? Which aren't there today?

I mean, it seems like if the only changes end up being to movement of people (which really was the driving force behind Leave as far as I can tell), then there wasn't any point to Brexit - UK could've enforced their existing immigration laws, couldn't they? And with what we're learning via Windrush and general Home Office failings we hear about nearly daily, Brexit was really a ginned up way for the UK government to bypass their own manifest inabilities to solve their immigration problems?

I guess I'm getting optimistic about Brexit in that it seems like, "Nothing will change" will be the outcome? Or is that too positive? Kind of hard to be positive about current events these days...

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Under this proposal the UK will be effectively in the Customs Union unless and until, but GB will not be in the Single Market.

Isn't this quite advantageous for Ireland? We can continue exporting tariff free cheddar and poach (their own fault) their SM dependent financial services jobs to boot..and no hard border.

The UK have really painted themselves into a terrible corner if this comes to pass.

ambro25

murphaph wrote: »

Isn't this quite advantageous for Ireland? We can continue exporting tariff free cheddar and poach (their own fault) their SM dependent financial services jobs to boot..and no hard border.

It’s advantageous for the entire EU27 indeed, and concerns any SM-dependent (directly and not) services, not just financial services.

Zubeneschamali

murphaph wrote: »

The UK have really painted themselves into a terrible corner if this comes to pass.

No, I think that corner is not so bad. It is dark and a bit lonely, but at least it is not the corner that smells of pee, or the the one beside the burning skip.

Sam Russell

If it is as stated, then the fear of Irish agriculture will be removed. There will be no chlorinated chicken, or hormone fed beef, or GMO food allowed into NI, and therefore UK.

However, there is a weasel loose in the Brexit camp. Let us see what words come out of its mouth.

murphaph

However, no SM membership for GB would mean regulatory compliance checks on additional goods that are not currently checked (eg foodstuffs) at EU ports like Dublin and Calais. I am pretty sure the reciprocal GB checks will involve a lot of hand waving to keep the place fed.

J Mysterio

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.

May making more friends today.

Theresa May has paved the way for a constitutional crisis by refusing to amend her Brexit plans, despite their rejection by the Scottish parliament.

Pleas by the SNP for the government to step back from “breaking the 20-year-old devolution settlement” were rebuffed by the prime minister, who vowed to plough ahead.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westminster-live-updates-pmqs-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-labour-brexit-customs-a8353586.html

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Sure, but doesn't it follow that the reason why there is no border infrastructure is as much to do with the customs union as the single market? So while we are discussing the customs union now, once that is settled the conversation will go to avoiding a border between Ireland and NI and that can only be achieved if both are in the single market, right?

NI needs to be fairly closely aligned to the single market, but not actually formally in it. But GB does not need to be closely aligned, and the latest proposal implies that it won't be.

And, yes, this implies a "border" between NI and GB at which goods entering NI from GB are subject to controls to ensure that they conform to the single market regulations that apply in NI.

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

Sorry for being slow, but if the RTE piece is accurate, what is the impact of trade between ROI and NI, ROI/GB (across the sea), and ROI/EU?

No change to RoI/NI trade.

No customs border between RoI and GB, but at GB will be outside single market there will be a regulatory border, so some restrictions/costs on RoI/GB trade. Remains to be seen how signficant this will be.

Same goes for NI/GB trade.

No change to RoI/rest of EU trade, or to NI/rest of EU trade.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it is as stated, then the fear of Irish agriculture will be removed. There will be no chlorinated chicken, or hormone fed beef, or GMO food allowed into NI, and therefore UK.

Not correct. There will be no hormonal beef/chemical chicken imported in NI, but GB can import them if it wishes. Which may present challenge to Irish producers selling into UK; they will have to compete with cheap low-grade chlorinated hormonal US produce.

Leroy42

Hold on, getting a bit lost here. Is this not very like the original deal that May was going to agree to back in December and effectively makes NI different from the Britain?

If that is the case then surely the DUP will simply collapse the government

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not correct. There will be no hormonal beef/chemical chicken imported in NI, but GB can import them if it wishes. Which may present challenge to Irish producers selling into UK; they will have to compete with cheap low-grade chlorinated hormonal US produce.

RTE News:
UK 'considering third option' over customs dilemma - Tony Connolly.
The British government is examining the possibility of the UK as a whole remaining aligned to the EU Customs Union for several years to come as a way of resolving the dilemma over its future relationship with the EU and drawing some of the controversy out of the Irish "backstop" obligation, RTÉ News understands.

If it applies to the whole of the UK, then - No chlorinated Chicked, Hormone beef, or GMO crops.

Now, that is just a report, not direct from a Gov or EU source, but Tony Connolly is quite a respected reporter.

EdgeCase

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, getting a bit lost here. Is this not very like the original deal that May was going to agree to back in December and effectively makes NI different from the Britain?

If that is the case then surely the DUP will simply collapse the government

That might be the best solution for all concerned! If the DUP had any sense at all, they'd pick their moment, take the high ground and collapse the UK Government in the Northern Ireland interest.

sink

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, getting a bit lost here. Is this not very like the original deal that May was going to agree to back in December and effectively makes NI different from the Britain?

If that is the case then surely the DUP will simply collapse the government

It's subtly different. Both will be in the customs union so there will be no customs border. Britain won't be aligned with the single market but NI will, so there will have to be single market compliance checks on goods entering NI from Britain. However Britain can unilaterally decide to accept all single market compliant goods as compliant in Britain, this would allow for no regulatory barriers for goods moving from NI into Britain. Meaning NI business are not at any administrative disadvantage when exporting to Britain. However they will have to compete in a market which may have lower regulatory standards than their own which will put them at a disadvantage with their competitors.

The DUP will have to weigh up their balance of interest. If they don't accept they may risk a) collapsing the government and ushering Labour into power b) collapsing the talks and crashing out of the EU without at deal (bad economic news for their supporters). They may be willing to accept this compromise.

Christy42

A mini sea border essentially with GB staying far enough within the EU regulations to avoid needing a full border but still requiring checks for goods entering NI from GB.

The DUP will likely go mental at it unless they have already agreed privately to climb down from their stringent conditions.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

The DUP will likely go mental at it unless they have already agreed privately to climb down from their stringent conditions.

May could have reached the point where she has to call their bluff - some red line has to be crossed or it's out they go with no deal in March which is an appalling vista for a PM.

flatty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

The DUP will likely go mental at it unless they have already agreed privately to climb down from their stringent conditions.

May could have reached the point where she has to call their bluff - some red line has to be crossed or it's out they go with no deal in March which is an appalling vista for a PM.

I would love to know whether deep down she now regrets her haste to be the one to trigger article 50.

Jim2007

Christy42 wrote: »

The DUP will likely go mental at it unless they have already agreed privately to climb down from their stringent conditions.

Somewhere in the last few days the have hinted that their preference would be for the UK to stay in a CU with the EU rather than have a border in the Irish Sea...

Enzokk

Just some information on a potential FTA between the UK and the USA. Remember the UK Government's own position on potential impacts of Brexit all were done with the assumption that the UK gets a FTA with the US which would lessen the impacts of Brexit.

This is from the Harvard Kennedy School.

On the Rebound:Prospects for a US-UK Free Trade Agreement

I am just going to quote why the paper was done and list the conclusions headlines and you will get the idea of what they found:

The purpose of this research paper is to attempt to cut through the rhetoric on both sides of the Atlantic to examine whether a US-UK FTA is likely to happen and what the potential benefits might be for both countries. The research is based on interviews with senior officials in the US, UK and EU, companies that might benefit from an FTA, and a wide range of trade, academic, and sectoral experts, plus a review of existing literature on the topic.

Finding 1: The UK needs a deal, but it is unclear how committed the US is

Finding 2: There is a clear power imbalance between the US and UK

Finding 3: The UK must strike a deal with the EU before it can negotiate an FTA with the US

Finding 4: The UK will have little to gain and will have to concede more on tariff reductions than the EU offered in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”)

Finding 5: The US demands on non-tariff and regulatory issues will be politically contentious and difficult for the UK to meet

Finding 7: The US cannot, or will not, concede on many British non-tariff and regulatory objectives

Conclusion: Both US and UK officials are doubtful that a meaningful deal can be reached.

I will not pretend that I read the whole paper but for me the interesting finding is number 3. Basically the US will want to know where the UK stands in regards to EU regulations before they can commence a FTA discussion with the UK. The US also will want to see where the UK stand in regard to the customs union as well. Even then it estimates a 2-3 year timeframe for the EU trade deal and after that is takes on average almost 4 years for US FTA's to be negotiated. So best case scenario for the UK it will be another 6 years before they see the "benefits" of a US FTA, or rather it will be another 6 years before the US sees the benefit of a UK FTA.

An Ciarraioch

Jim2007 wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

The DUP will likely go mental at it unless they have already agreed privately to climb down from their stringent conditions.

Somewhere in the last few days the have hinted that their preference would be for the UK to stay in a CU with the EU rather than have a border in the Irish Sea...

Indeed this article would be consistent with such a position:

https://amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-opposed-to-hard-brexit-and-border-checkpoints-says-arlene-foster-36911027.html?__twitter_impression=true

Sand

Christy42 wrote: »

A mini sea border essentially with GB staying far enough within the EU regulations to avoid needing a full border but still requiring checks for goods entering NI from GB.

The DUP will likely go mental at it unless they have already agreed privately to climb down from their stringent conditions.

But there will still be a border between the mainland UK and the single market (including NI). It will have to be enforced, on the single market side and the DUP do not want the optics of Britain being treated as foreign to Northern Ireland as Turkey. The EU is going to be particularly strong to ensure that if NI remains in the single market it is not exploited as a false flag by the mainland UK.

The regulatory checks are by far the most difficult and time consuming. It is not a box ticking exercise, so the whole customs union is a bit of a red herring, much like the divorce bill was in 2017.

I do not see a viable solution in this. May needs to either bow to reality and embrace single market membership, with all the bells and whistles. Or accept the UK is going to be a third country, in its entirety. She does not have the Commons majority for a dirty compromise no one supports wholeheartedly.

Strazdas

Sand wrote: »

But there will still be a border between the mainland UK and the single market (including NI). It will have to be enforced, on the single market side and the DUP do not want the optics of Britain being treated as foreign to Northern Ireland as Turkey. The EU is going to be particularly strong to ensure that if NI remains in the single market it is not exploited as a false flag by the mainland UK.

The regulatory checks are by far the most difficult and time consuming. It is not a box ticking exercise, so the whole customs union is a bit of a red herring, much like the divorce bill was in 2017.

I do not see a viable solution in this. May needs to either bow to reality and embrace single market membership, with all the bells and whistles. Or accept the UK is going to be a third country, in its entirety. She does not have the Commons majority for a dirty compromise no one supports wholeheartedly.

She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Every scenario here is a losing one for the UK (and Brexiteers specifically). If they remain in the Single Market, it will immediately beg the question as to why on earth they voted to leave the EU.

Sand

Strazdas wrote: »

She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Every scenario here is a losing one for the UK (and Brexiteers specifically). If they remain in the Single Market, it will immediately beg the question as to why on earth they voted to leave the EU.

Well, the single market only requires about 25% of "EU" law. So moving from the EU to the EEA would immediately remove about 75% of "Brussels red tape". Surely some halfway competent British politician could spin a heroic victory out of that given the precedent of Dunkirk?

I think the dismissal of the EEA as being a rules taker, not a rules maker misses that Norway is quite comfortable in the EEA and is under no pressure to join the EU and accept the missing 75% of EU law. Its not necessarily in Irish interests to join the jeering about the UK accepting "vassal status" in the EEA. Its not actually true, and such an outcome is in our interests and indeed the UK's interests.

briany

Sand wrote: »

Well, the single market only requires about 25% of "EU" law. So moving from the EU to the EEA would immediately remove about 75% of "Brussels red tape". Surely some halfway competent British politician could spin a heroic victory out of that given the precedent of Dunkirk?

I think the dismissal of the EEA as being a rules taker, not a rules maker misses that Norway is quite comfortable in the EEA and is under no pressure to join the EU and accept the missing 75% of EU law. Its not necessarily in Irish interests to join the jeering about the UK accepting "vassal status" in the EEA. Its not actually true, and such an outcome is in our interests and indeed the UK's interests.

I agree that staying in the EEA would be an economically sane choice, but I don't see how you'd square the circle with Brexit supporters who I think would see staying in the EEA as selling out on key Brexit principles, i.e. continuing to 'let them come' and accepting continued 'meddling from Brussels'.

An Ciarraioch

Telegraph leak tonight - UK could stay in customs union until "max fac" feasible, and the backstop would be time limited - no way Dublin could take such a pig in a poke!

https://mobile.twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/996863206395170817

LeinsterDub

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Telegraph leak tonight - UK could stay in customs union until "max fac" feasible, and the backstop would be time limited - no way Dublin could take such a pig in a poke!

https://mobile.twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/996863206395170817

The UK hoping Dublin are as incompetent as they themselves were in December?

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The UK hoping Dublin are as incompetent as they where in December?

Single Market is needed in NI - CU is not enough.

Could EU agree to SM + CU in NI without the four freedoms? The UK would stay in CU, and some 'regulatory alignment'.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Telegraph leak tonight - UK could stay in customs union until "max fac" feasible, and the backstop would be time limited - no way Dublin could take such a pig in a poke!

https://mobile.twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/996863206395170817

From your link we have the following quote from Jacob Rees-Mogg,

"The risk of the Government using all its mental energy on the fallback position is that it creates a position that is more attractive than a permanent deal."

Is he saying that the fallback position if it is staying in the EU is a more attractive option? Or is he saying that if the Government just thinks a little bit harder about a EU deal it will be better than staying in the EU?

Seems to me that he is trying to blame the Government for not talking about the Brexit deal and instead focusing on the interim deal instead. That is the problem, the UK Government just haven't been thinking hard enough about the exit deal and that is why their options are that rock, or that hard place. Think harder and the solution will present itself.

Enzokk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Single Market is needed in NI - CU is not enough.

Could EU agree to SM + CU in NI without the four freedoms? The UK would stay in CU, and some 'regulatory alignment'.

The EU could think like that, but what would the EFTA think about that though? How would they feel about a country having access to the single market but not having to accept the four pillars of the SM? This is with the proviso that the DUP will get their way and NI will not be treated any differently than the UK.

Capt'n Midnight

briany wrote: »

I agree that staying in the EEA would be an economically sane choice,

EEA means probably paying as much as they do now, without any say in the rules, and no passporting for financials.

EEA also means
"four freedoms", i.e. the free of movement of goods, services, capital and persons, as well as certain horizontal and flanking policies.

On the plus side they will have more control on the export of raw materials and food :rolleyes:

So not sane , just not as insane

joeysoap

If the Uk decide to stay in the CU (and SM?) for a longer transitional period

A) it should be for 10 years

And

there is another referendum before the end date asking the UK voters If they now want to leave the CU and SM ( they will have exited the EU long ago)

Charles Babbage

briany wrote: »

I agree that staying in the EEA would be an economically sane choice, but I don't see how you'd square the circle with Brexit supporters who I think would see staying in the EEA as selling out on key Brexit principles, i.e. continuing to 'let them come' and accepting continued 'meddling from Brussels'.

They are not coming as before. Someone could spin this to the statistically illiterate, which is most Brexiteers, as a consequence of the move to EEA, not something that was going to happen in any case.

joeysoap wrote: »

If the Uk decide to stay in the CU (and SM?) for a longer transitional period

A) it should be for 10 years

And

there is another referendum before the end date asking the UK voters If they now want to leave the CU and SM ( they will have exited the EU long ago)

+1

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Single Market is needed in NI - CU is not enough.

Could EU agree to SM + CU in NI without the four freedoms? The UK would stay in CU, and some 'regulatory alignment'.

No; it's a contradiction in terms. The four freedoms define the single market. If you are "without the four freedoms" then you are, by definition, not in the single market.

This was Boris Johnson's "have cake and eat it" solution which was incoherhentg when he advanced it nearly two years ago, and is still incoherent.

Cookie_Monster

joeysoap wrote: »

If the Uk decide to stay in the CU (and SM?) for a longer transitional period

A) it should be for 10 years

but why would any other European country want to allow that? Drawing it out forever and ever has no benefit to the EU.

Strazdas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but why would any other European country want to allow that? Drawing it out forever and ever has no benefit to the EU.

Correct, and I don't see how the UK could be a "partial" member of the CU. You're either a full member of the Single Market and Customs Union or completely outside it. This thing about the UK being in "alignment" with the CU sounds a rather weird solution. Why would the EU allow it and what would be in it for them?

Leroy42

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but why would any other European country want to allow that? Drawing it out forever and ever has no benefit to the EU.

I wouldn't see it as dragging it out forever but rather putting a clear time frame before the UK can start this again.

All countries are free to invoke A50, but as we have seen with the UK it is quite an undertaking and will take time.

What you want to avoid is that the UK threaten to leave every time they feel they are not getting their way.

Seth Brundle

Leo has come out critical of the UK's Trojan work so far...

Taoiseach casts doubt on future of Brexit talks

The Taoiseach has cast ‘serious’ doubt over the future of Brexit talks this morning.

Ahead of his bi-lateral meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May he said "we need to seriously question if we’re going to have a Withdrawal Agreement."

The British have just a couple of weeks to issue a workable text on guaranteeing there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland after Brexit.

"We need to know that it’s workable and legally operable, but we’re yet to see anything that remotely approaches that," said Mr Varadkar today.

"The deadline for the Withdrawal Agreement of course is October but if we’re not making substantial progress by June, then we need to seriously question if we’re going to have a Withdrawal Agreement."

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/taoiseach-casts-doubt-on-future-of-brexit-talks-36916170.html

trellheim

Barnier's speech ref post-Brexit security arrangements.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3785_en.htm

He made a good slide desk at EUIA18 yesterday; photos going round twitter; wonder if anyone has the slides ?

sorry here's the hashtag. Interesting he is putting up the same slides

https://twitter.com/IEE_Bruxelles

cml387

Reported by the BBC this morning (Laura Kuenssberg and an article in the Telegraph)that there is a reluctant view now by the majority of the cabinet that customs arrangements will have to stay "as is" after the two year transition period.
Apparently a HMRC presentation earlier this week indicated that the facilities for a "customs partnership" or max fac could not be put in place by the end of the transition phase.

More or less the same story as Tony Connolly had earlier in the week, he does have to seem his finger on the pulse of this.

Strazdas

cml387 wrote: »

Reported by the BBC this morning (Laura Kuenssberg and an article in the Telegraph)that there is a reluctant view now by the majority of the cabinet that customs arrangements will have to stay "as is" after the two year transition period.
Apparently a HMRC presentation earlier this week indicated that the facilities for a "customs partnership" or max fac could not be put in place by the end of the transition phase.

More or less the same story as Tony Connolly had earlier in the week, he does have to seem his finger on the pulse of this.

Would the EU even allow this? What would be in it for them to have the UK half in and half out of the Customs Union for the next few years? The idea for this seems to be coming solely from the British side and nobody else.

Leroy42

Maybe the reality of the situation is finally dawning on them, that leaving the EU is very complicated and needs to be taken seriously as part of a very complex project.

What the UK appear to have done up till now is deal with (I use that term loosely) each item totally separate. So no border on NI, we must have a border around the UK. We must have international trade deals, we don't want to change anything with our trade deal with the EU.

On a podcast (can't remember which) an example of the flights to the US. Before a plan can depart they must send the passenger info to the US. This process is pretty simply for the Carrier and the US and is well established. What happens on 1 April. The agreement with the EU no longer cover the UK. Will the US continue to accept the records, will the UK have the legislation necessary to allow them to send the information? It is pretty easy to fix and overcome, but the point raised was had anybody even thought about it? Maybe it will only take 5 minutes to fix, but then you need that 5 minutes multiplied by a seemingly endless list of other small things.

The way that the UK government cannot even agree amongst themselves on what they want, and there has been little to indicate that large projects are going on behind the scenes (how could they as the minister would need to sign them off and they haven't agreed what they are looking for) it would appear that rather than some intricate project which clear definitions, milestones, lines of responsibility, goals and timelines, we have individual ministers making stuff up to try to get around the latest issue.

From the very outset TM and others have claimed that to give any details on positions would be to give away their advantage in the negotiations. With the continued infighting within the cabinet it is very clear that there never has been a position to detail.

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

Would the EU even allow this? What would be in it for them to have the UK half in and half out of the Customs Union for the next few years? The idea for this seems to be coming solely from the British side and nobody else.

I don't think they would be half-in anything. My feeling is that the UK will basically stay with the control of the EU. Whether that involves a deferral of A50 itself or they leave and become Norway++ (so all the current set up but without any say) remains open.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

Would the EU even allow this? What would be in it for them to have the UK half in and half out of the Customs Union for the next few years? The idea for this seems to be coming solely from the British side and nobody else.

There will be a price to pay for this. The EU will expect to get financial contributions, plus they may insist on the rights for EU citizens, jurisdiction of ECJ, plus freedom of movement, etc. etc.

The 'No Border on The Island of Ireland' appears to be accepted by the UK Gov. This implies that NI remains within the SM and therefore a border with the rest of the UK on the Irish Sea.

Seth Brundle

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think they would be half-in anything. My feeling is that the UK will basically stay with the control of the EU. Whether that involves a deferral of A50 itself or they leave and become Norway++ (so all the current set up but without any say) remains open.

How long would a deferral of A50 (and agreement on the various milestones) take to agree?

Leroy42

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How long would a deferral of A50 (and agreement on the various milestones) take to agree?

I think the UK can see that whatever options they are currently thinking of, even if they are acceptable to the EU, simply will not be ready in time.

So push the exit (either the A50 date or the transition date) back to an unspecified date based on when the technologies/processes will be in place.

My bet would be that the EU would place the onus on the UK to prove that the solutions are workable (probably by means of a testing period). So we are looking at at least 5 years parking of the A50 process (5 years is just a top of the head number)