Brexit discussion thread III

McGiver

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd only considered the cause of Brexit through the narrow spectrum of the last few years but trust in Anglo-Saxon and American elites has been steadily ebbing since the Iraq War, the financial crash, the trebling of tuition fees, etc culminating in as vote against the elite as much as anything else.

Yes, it was a mainly protest vote, but the background in the English case, we know it's overall an English issue, is completely different than the American. US is a superpower, no one can really challenge its economic and military (naval) dominance. Whereas the UK is a former superpower which lost all its empire in last 100 years. This British Empire nostalgia, along with crude English insularism and Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism are all combined in Brexit. All these combined with the lack of trust in elites and severe democratic deficit due to FPTP system, and all that fuelled by Kremlin propaganda and disinformation (social media). Russia finances all europhobic nationalist parties all over Europe and it is is obvious they helped with Brexit too. Their goal is to divide, undermine and potentially decompose the EU.

J Mysterio

Well, the EU said they wanted to hear UK proposals by June, so it could be parsed, discussed in EU Summit with a view to agreement in October (latest), so final arrangements can be rushed into place by March.

As far as I understand, the UK is still looking at Max Fac (rejected by EU and half of the UK cabinet) or a Customs Union (rejected by the EU and half of the UK cabinet). May said she will give a speech or make some sort of announcement about the preferred option in 'about three weeks'. That was about a week ago. So in two weeks, May will let us know which of the options rejected by the EU and half of the UK cabinet she prefers. So, mid-June.

In the meanwhile, we can read about how the UK is angry that it cannot participate in EU programs as before.

McGiver

I'd bet on Max Fac. Which solves exactly nothing.

EU has had a paper on impacts of Brexit, which shows that Brexit is overwhelmingly more negative for the UK than for the EU27. The funny thing is that the paper written June 2017 suggests the most likely option UK will likely select based on their red lines despite the UK never actually confirmed anything concrete!
Its described as DCFTA (deep comprehensive free trade agreement) along the lines of the EU-Ukraine DCFTA but not exactly it.

The options summarised in the paper:
1. EEA - Close to the status quo, too close for UK

1. 1 EEA+customs union - Theoretical case, very close to status quo, too close for UK

2. WTO - Considerable lessening of market access, default regime for UK

2.1 WTO + aggressive competition - With non-cooperative tax and regulatory competition

3.1 Simple FTA - Possible, but UK wants a more ambitious ‘Comprehensive FTA'

3.2 Customs union (with FTA) - More than simple FTA, but UK does not want customs union

3.3 Swiss model - Selective and flexible in the past, but not available for the UK

3.4 CETA (Canada) - Comprehensive, beyond simple FTA; no EU acquis content

3.5 DCFTA (Ukraine) - Deep and Comprehensive, with much EU acquis content

3.6 SAA (Balkans) - Weaker than DCFTA, for accession candidates, not for UK

3.7 PCA (Kazakhstan) - Little more than WTO, not for UK

3.8 Strategic Partnership - Summit level global diplomacy

3.9 Idem with CFTA = UK objective (i.e. a Comprehensive FTA, somewhere between CETA & DCFTA?)

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

Well, the EU said they wanted to hear UK proposals by June, so it could be parsed, discussed in EU Summit with a view to agreement in October (latest), so final arrangements can be rushed into place by March.

As far as I understand, the UK is still looking at Max Fac (rejected by EU and half of the UK cabinet) or a Customs Union (rejected by the EU and half of the UK cabinet). May said she will give a speech or make some sort of announcement about the preferred option in 'about three weeks'. That was about a week ago. So in two weeks, May will let us know which of the options rejected by the EU and half of the UK cabinet she prefers. So, mid-June.

In the meanwhile, we can read about how the UK is angry that it cannot participate in EU programs as before.

I'm not sure the EU will let the UK kick the can down the road until October, it might be too risky. They've already come up with very little for the last 12 months.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not sure the EU will let the UK kick the can down the road until October, it might be too risky. They've already come up with very little for the last 12 months.

From a perception point of view, the EU may not want to be the one who calls a halt to talks - it gives Brexiters an opportunity to say that it was the EU that called off a deal. View is strong in Brussels at the moment that UK must acknowledge responsibility for the consequences both for the Brexit decision and the way in which it has been implemented.

So if May in still looking for unicorns at the June summit, I suspect the EU position will be:

1. May is still looking for unicorns. What she is proposing is not a credible basis for a functioning withdrawal agreement/transition period.

2. The EU remains anxious to conclude a withdrawal agreement, and stands ready at any time to receive proposals from May on the subject or (of course) to talk further to May about the proposal which the EU has already advanced). But time is short and we cannot lose still more time dealing with unrealistic proposals.

3. Because of the shortness of time the EU is increasingly concerned that realistic proposals, when eventually advanced, may come too late to be made operational by March 2019. It will therefore accelerate its preparations for a no-deal Brexit. But this does not mean that it wants, or even expects, a no-deal Brexit.

Of course, it will be put more diplomatically. The word "unicorn" will not actually feature. But that will be the gist of it, I'm betting.

Privately, people on the EU side will say one of two things. Either (a) they do in fact now think that a no deal Brexit is the most likely outcome; there simply isn't enough time left for everything else, or (b) they expect a withdrawal agreement substantially in the terms published by the EU in February, with the UK caving at the last minute and accepting virtually the whole of it. "The last minute" would be September, maybe October. May will not cave before this because she does not want to present ultra-Brexiters with a fait accompli.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

From a perception point of view, the EU may not want to be the one who calls a halt to talks - it gives Brexiters an opportunity to say that it was the EU that called off a deal.

I think most on the EU side are past caring about appearances and how the English will spin things. We know they will blame the EU no matter what happens.

EdgeCase

You have to remember too that UK media ranting and domestic politics has no bearing on what goes on in the EU institutions and most (all) other EU countries, it's purely a UK matter.

The tories seem to think the rest of Europe gets up every morning worrying what the Daily Mail says, just like they do.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think most on the EU side are past caring about appearances and how the English will spin things. We know they will blame the EU no matter what happens.

Well if they don't they should.

There is a clear ideological hatred (might to too strong but close to it) of the EU by groups like the ERG. JRM comes across as level headed and calm (hence him being at the front of it) but some of the others want nothing more than the complete destruction of the EU, aided and abetted by the likes of the Express.

This is a win-win negotiation for them, they see it as a zero sum game. Either they win or the EU win. And in their minds the EU losing is worth any price the UK have to pay.

EU have little option but to continue on with the facade, but the leaks have been steadily increasing outlining the EU's exasperation with the UK in the hope, I assume, of trying to get the UK to act differently. If anything it is having the opposite effect.

Leroy42

EdgeCase wrote: »

You have to remember too that UK media ranting and domestic politics has no bearing on what goes on in the EU institutions and most (all) other EU countries, it's purely a UK matter.

The tories seem to think the rest of Europe gets up every morning worrying what the Daily Mail says, just like they do.

The Italian mess is being reported in the Express etc as the break up of the EU. It is being seen as the perfect time to drive the UK advantage home.

I think the EU see it another way. The Italian mess is certainly a major issue, and they will likely see that the continued waste of time and resources on Brexit would be better spent trying to deal with the countries staying in the EU.

Peregrinus

Nevertheless, there is no mileage for the EU in closing down talks, as far as I can see. As long as there is any chance at all that May will cave, why close off the possibility? And while Brexiters will undoubtedly blame the EU no matter what happens, why offer them any vaguely colourable excuse for doing so?

A no-deal Brexit is going to be incredibly painful for ordinary Brits. The EU does not want to be the one that is seen to take the final step that ensures there will be a no-deal Brexit. I can't see any upside at all for them in doing that.

It's not just the institutions; it's also the individuals. There is enormous kudos for Barnier and Weyand personally if this process ends up with an operative withdrawal agreement that meets the EU's requirements. They, too, have no reason to want to eliminate this possibility.

The only scenario in which it would be in the EU's interest to end talks is one in which doing so was seen to increase the likelihood of a withdrawal agreement. And I can't think of a plausible scenario for that.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Italian mess is being reported in the Express etc as the break up of the EU. It is being seen as the perfect time to drive the UK advantage home.

I think the EU see it another way. The Italian mess is certainly a major issue, and they will likely see that the continued waste of time and resources on Brexit would be better spent trying to deal with the countries staying in the EU.

Yes, I agree. The Brexity press is obsessed with supposed EU plots and scheming to keep the UK in the EU. In fact the EU has long accepted that the UK is going; their objective is to ensure that this happens with minimal damage to the EU. Unfolding events in Italy are a much bigger issue for them, as is the more slow-burning but equally serious problem of the erosion of the rule of law in the Visegrad group of countries.

(But the EU is not about to pull Barnier and Weyand off the Brexit case and send them to Rome or Warsaw. They have other people on these matters.)

Leroy42

For a perfect example of the double talk being used by the likes of JRM and the Express, IMO this article sums it all up.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/967273/brexit-news-jacob-rees-mogg-uk-border-EU-customs-union-swiss-model-switzerland

Starts off by "Brexit border MADNESS: Ress-Mogg urges UK to follow Swiss model that simplifies customs" with it alluding to some of its journalists crossing the border easily.

But it then goes on the state a few key points;

- imported goods are declared at a forwarding agency post which receives advanced notice of the load before documents are verified by Swiss customs. Officials say 95 per cent of the paperwork is above board and clearance takes around 20 minutes.
- Switzerland rejected EU membership in 1992 and has instead signed more than 100 bilateral agreements with the EU, including the free movement of people and agriculture.
- Tory MEP David Campbell Bannerman said “People are using the border issue as an excuse to claim that there are a lot of problems with Brexit. The onus should be on them to explain why a Swiss solution would not work for the UK and Ireland. If you ask the experts, they don’t see that there are such problems.”

They have debunked their own proposals within the article itself. Free movement, not frictionless, agreeing to abide by EU rule and a hard border. Aren't these the red lines, the very ideals that Brexit is demanding?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

For a perfect example of the double talk being used by the likes of JRM and the Express, IMO this article sums it all up.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/967273/brexit-news-jacob-rees-mogg-uk-border-EU-customs-union-swiss-model-switzerland

Starts off by "Brexit border MADNESS: Ress-Mogg urges UK to follow Swiss model that simplifies customs" with it alluding to some of its journalists crossing the border easily.

But it then goes on the state a few key points;

- imported goods are declared at a forwarding agency post which receives advanced notice of the load before documents are verified by Swiss customs. Officials say 95 per cent of the paperwork is above board and clearance takes around 20 minutes.
- Switzerland rejected EU membership in 1992 and has instead signed more than 100 bilateral agreements with the EU, including the free movement of people and agriculture.
- Tory MEP David Campbell Bannerman said “People are using the border issue as an excuse to claim that there are a lot of problems with Brexit. The onus should be on them to explain why a Swiss solution would not work for the UK and Ireland. If you ask the experts, they don’t see that there are such problems.”

They have debunked their own proposals within the article itself. Free movement, not frictionless, agreeing to abide by EU rule and a hard border. Aren't these the red lines, the very ideals that Brexit is demanding?

Away with you and your inconvenient facts, Leroy! The People have had enough of experts! And truth! And reality!

flatty

Does anyone think that breakup of the Union is actually the end game for some of the brexiteers?
Teresa May is not particularly bright, and is a willing puppet of more cunning minds, likely in blissful ignorance.
There must be a swathe of southern English types who would be only too happy to see NI, Scotland and Wales off the balance sheet, and the majority of English would be indifferent enough I'd imagine?

LeinsterDub

An EU diplomat handling Brexit said: “VAT is a huge issue, huge, but it's not talked about publicly because nobody understands it. How on earth do you deal with it? And the Brits just saying we’ll be part of the system without the ECJ? Give me a break. It is like suggesting they take part in every month with 29 days.”

https://www.ft.com/content/7ff44a0c-59e2-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0
The Brexit Vat problem. Very interesting read about yeah a other layer of the onion Britain hasn't even considered yet.

EdgeCase

I think you have to remember that the UK isn't and never has been a federal state. There isn't an equal partnership between the constituent countries, it's very much ENGLAND and others.

The system has never particularly cared about Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. They care if they try to leave a they are seen almost like possessions, but other than that, they don't really give a damn and never have.

That's fundamentally why Ireland's situation after the Act of Union was pretty intolerable without Irish government at a 'state' level, and why there was such indifference to the 19th century famine here.

I wouldn't say that their 'endgame' is the dissolution of the union, but rather that the union is a dysfunctional mess that has never really even contemplated becoming a proper, reasonable, fair federal structural.

Despite all the modernity, an aspect of the UK is still steeped in a class system and a hierarchy of English notions of dominance and superiority over everything else. It's a weird hybrid of a very modern and progressive country in most respects however, it is still lumbered with this largely unreformed traditional monarchy, a formalised social class system, the Lords, bishops in legislature, and all of that.

What could destroy the union is attempting to drag Scotland and Northern Ireland into a damaging position that they didn't vote to be in, all to suit a narrow, but powerful element of English populism and jingoism.

It's a country that should have had massive constitutional reform probably a couple of centuries ago, but instead has just stumbled onwards, layering modernity on tradition and never really doing anything to consign all of that stuff to history where it should belong.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nevertheless, there is no mileage for the EU in closing down talks, as far as I can see. As long as there is any chance at all that May will cave, why close off the possibility? And while Brexiters will undoubtedly blame the EU no matter what happens, why offer them any vaguely colourable excuse for doing so?

I do not think the EU should close down talks in the sense of refusing to listen to the UK.

I think they should let the UK present their proposals, then say "Non".

And then stop talking. Let the UK talk, let them wail, but mainly let them fight it out in Westminster and come up with a real proposal.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I do not think the EU should close down talks in the sense of refusing to listen to the UK.

I think they should let the UK present their proposals, then say "Non".

And then stop talking. Let the UK talk, let them wail, but mainly let them fight it out in Westminster and come up with a real proposal.

That is the De Gaule strategy. It sort of worked but that is a longer story that is now playing out.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I do not think the EU should close down talks in the sense of refusing to listen to the UK.

I think they should let the UK present their proposals, then say "Non".

And then stop talking. Let the UK talk, let them wail, but mainly let them fight it out in Westminster and come up with a real proposal.

I think that it's important that some kind of deal is reached for both sides. However, for the UK it's going to be a CETA-type deal or a package of single market and customs union membership. 2 years on and the British establishment still haven't accepted this.

Professor Moriarty

EdgeCase wrote: »

I think you have to remember that the UK isn't and never has been a federal state. There isn't an equal partnership between the constituent countries, it's very much ENGLAND and others.

The system has never particularly cared about Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. They care if they try to leave a they are seen almost like possessions, but other than that, they don't really give a damn and never have.

That's fundamentally why Ireland's situation after the Act of Union was pretty intolerable without Irish government at a 'state' level, and why there was such indifference to the 19th century famine here.

I wouldn't say that their 'endgame' is the dissolution of the union, but rather that the union is a dysfunctional mess that has never really even contemplated becoming a proper, reasonable, fair federal structural.

Despite all the modernity, an aspect of the UK is still steeped in a class system and a hierarchy of English notions of dominance and superiority over everything else. It's a weird hybrid of a very modern and progressive country in most respects however, it is still lumbered with this largely unreformed traditional monarchy, a formalised social class system, the Lords, bishops in legislature, and all of that.

What could destroy the union is attempting to drag Scotland and Northern Ireland into a damaging position that they didn't vote to be in, all to suit a narrow, but powerful element of English populism and jingoism.

It's a country that should have had massive constitutional reform probably a couple of centuries ago, but instead has just stumbled onwards, layering modernity on tradition and never really doing anything to consign all of that stuff to history where it should belong.

Very good post.

mayo.mick

This is a joke, surely?

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1002146105247793152

laoch na mona

mayo.mick wrote: »

This is a joke, surely?

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1002146105247793152

privatise the border

Sam Russell

mayo.mick wrote: »

This is a joke, surely?

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1002146105247793152

Surely he realises that the driver could just give his mobile from his pocket and let someone else drive away with it while he just goes across the border in his truck undetected - or perhaps his accomplice goes across the border and he does not. I think he should talk to the boyos on the border with their mobile laundries.

This is either utterly stupid or else it is absolute stupidity. Have we reached peak Brexit stupidity yet?

listermint

Sam Russell wrote: »

Surely he realises that the driver could just give his mobile from his pocket and let someone else drive away with it while he just goes across the border in his truck undetected - or perhaps his accomplice goes across the border and he does not. I think he should talk to the boyos on the border with their mobile laundries.

This is either utterly stupid or else it is absolute stupidity. Have we reached peak Brexit stupidity yet?

Its in his 'opinion' that the details are for other people to sort out whatever the cost. Sure isnt technology great i can watch a movie on my phone


:rolleyes:

An Ciarraioch

Nigel Lawson applies for French residency status:

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/nigel-lawson-brexit-french-residency-vote-leave/

Enzokk

Even if there is a General Election and Labour is elected I only see a re-run of the current climate where the UK doesn't know what it wants. The irony will be that this time it would be the leadership that will want to steer the ship to a hard Brexit and the backbenches shouting for something different.

Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour vs. the Single Market

In three interrelated areas EU rules would place severe restrictions on a future Corbyn government: State Aid, public procurement and nationalization. These are not minor issues. They lie at the heart of any attempt to transform Britain’s economy in a socialist direction, especially when it comes to industrial policy. As the debate over Brexit rumbles on it is clear that the EU would place unique barriers to a Corbyn-led Labour government—making even a reversal to WTO rules more advantageous than either EU or Single Market membership in these respects.

Basically if Labour/Corbyn wants to continue the policy of state aid, nationalization and public procurement the rules of the single market will make this impossible. So a customs union can be reached but there would be no way the UK under Labour will agree to the single market. Thinking about it Labour will toss NI aside to get what they want. That way they can secure the GFA, no border between Ireland and NI but be able to do what they want on state aid.

Inquitus

Enzokk wrote: »

Even if there is a General Election and Labour is elected I only see a re-run of the current climate where the UK doesn't know what it wants. The irony will be that this time it would be the leadership that will want to steer the ship to a hard Brexit and the backbenches shouting for something different.

Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour vs. the Single Market



Basically if Labour/Corbyn wants to continue the policy of state aid, nationalization and public procurement the rules of the single market will make this impossible. So a customs union can be reached but there would be no way the UK under Labour will agree to the single market. Thinking about it Labour will toss NI aside to get what they want. That way they can secure the GFA, no border between Ireland and NI but be able to do what they want on state aid.

The genius who changed the rules for the Labour leadership contest has a lot to answer for! It's yet another piece of the Brexit Clusterféck puzzle! It's almost impossible for any sort of sensible outcome to come to bear, no matter what happens, due to this convergence of May, Brexiteers, Labour and Corbyn!

An Ciarraioch

Chelsea abandon their new stadium plans due to the "unfavourable investment climate" - admittedly Abramovich's visa problems could be partially to blame, but clearly, even multibillion pound enterprises are waiting for the Brexit dust to settle:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/new-chelsea-stadium-club-puts-plans-on-hold-due-to-unfavourable-investment-climate-a3852421.html

J Mysterio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chelsea abandon their new stadium plans due to the "unfavourable investment climate" - admittedly Abramovich's visa problems could be partially to blame, but clearly, even multibillion pound enterprises are waiting for the Brexit dust to settle:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/new-chelsea-stadium-club-puts-plans-on-hold-due-to-unfavourable-investment-climate-a3852421.html

I think it's basically just Abromavichs call. He's saying 'i'm not being treated well here, i'm not welcome, i'm not investing'. I see he is now an Israeli citizen. Maybe he will buy Maccabi Tel Aviv.

ambro25

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Nigel Lawson applies for French residency status:

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/nigel-lawson-brexit-french-residency-vote-leave/

If there is any justice, France should reciprocate all the care and attention that the Home Office has been giving to residency applicants in the U.K. over the past few years of ‘hostile environment’ policy.

View

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Nigel Lawson applies for French residency status:

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/nigel-lawson-brexit-french-residency-vote-leave/

A member state is entitled to refuse a residency request and hopefully that is exactly what France will do.

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

mayo.mick wrote: »

This is a joke, surely?

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1002146105247793152

Surely he realises that the driver could just give his mobile from his pocket and let someone else drive away with it while he just goes across the border in his truck undetected - or perhaps his accomplice goes across the border and he does not. I think he should talk to the boyos on the border with their mobile laundries.

This is either utterly stupid or else it is absolute stupidity. Have we reached peak Brexit stupidity yet?

No, we are probably still far short of peak Brexit stupidity.

flutered

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Chelsea abandon their new stadium plans due to the "unfavourable investment climate" - admittedly Abramovich's visa problems could be partially to blame, but clearly, even multibillion pound enterprises are waiting for the Brexit dust to settle:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/new-chelsea-stadium-club-puts-plans-on-hold-due-to-unfavourable-investment-climate-a3852421.html

quite a hit on future treasury takings is it not, hit em where it hurts em

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Italian mess is being reported in the Express etc as the break up of the EU. It is being seen as the perfect time to drive the UK advantage home.

I think the EU see it another way. The Italian mess is certainly a major issue, and they will likely see that the continued waste of time and resources on Brexit would be better spent trying to deal with the countries staying in the EU.

Italy has a goverment again, about the 65th since the end of WWII

Two populist parties just picked a different finace minister. Yes there will be confilcts with the EU but it's a trying to reform the sytem from within vibe.




The other thing is that the EU has delegated responsibilty for Brexit to the team. No EU premier is loosing sleep over how Brexit will affect their re-election. We are perhaps the ones doing the most work because it affects us most and because we have a couple of hundred border crossings




This a nice dig at the UK politicians
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0531/967284-border-poll/

The Tánaiste said from his experience, the British civil service was arguably the best in the world, but that it needed political direction in terms of making progress on the very complex set of issues linked to Brexit.

Nody

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This a nice dig at the UK politicians
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0531/967284-border-poll/

I'd not even call it a dig; it's factual. The best civil servants in the world can't make up policy based on unicorns and rainbows as the vision for reality; and that's exactly where the UK political establishment is with their idea of some magical world where EU gives them all the benefits and none of the downsides of a EU membership as a third party country.

Capt'n Midnight

UK industry doesn't want Max Fac.

And the US/Canada border isn't that easy if you are a Canadian company.

https://www.eef.org.uk/about-eef/media-news-and-insights/media-releases/2018/may/industry-calls-for-max-fac-option-to-be-dropped

In a letter to the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, Mr Phipson revealed that despite a decade of substantial investment on both sides of the Border by two willing partners only 100 of the most trusted Canadian companies are able to use a ‘fast track’ system across the Border. The vast majority of goods are still subject to normal customs checks.

LeinsterDub

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6423932/david-davis-northern-ireland-brexit-plans-dup/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

OK I've been following this for year two years but Cád é? What is this idea, what does it mean in terms of border etc?

I'm at a lose.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6423932/david-davis-northern-ireland-brexit-plans-dup/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

OK I've been following this for year two years but Cád é? What is this idea, what does it mean in terms of border etc?

I'm at a lose.

Everyone's at a loss. Even the Brexit geeks who make a living out of explaining Brexity things in the media are all tweeting, basically, "WTF?"

Maybe the Sun just made made a total pig's ear out of explaining the propopsal - always possible - but, based on what the Sun said, this is totally unintelligible. If NI is remaining aligned to the EU, why is there a need for a border, never mind a ten-mile buffer zone next to the border? Why is it ten miles, rather than one mile or 100 miles? And what happens at the, um, margin between the buffer zone and the rest of NI? Another border? And how, exactly, does this eliminate the need for controls between NI, aligned to the EU, and GB, not aligned to the EU?

FFS, even by David Davis's standards, this is a low point.

Larbre34

We're in the twilight zone now alright.

Zubeneschamali

The 10 mile buffer is nonsense.

This is the important bit (if true): giving Northern Ireland joint EU and UK status

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The 10 mile buffer is nonsense.

This is the important bit (if true): giving Northern Ireland joint EU and UK status

Well, it might be important, if we had the faintest clue what it meant.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it might be important, if we had the faintest clue what it meant.

Let's make it even shorter:


giving Northern Ireland ... EU ... status

Peregrinus

Define "EU status"!

The proposed buffer zone implies different regimes (a) within ten miles of the border (or about 16 km, as we Europeans like to say) and (b) everywhere else. Which of the two regimes will amount to "EUstatus"? Are they both "EU status"? If so, what's the point of the buffer zone?

Zubeneschamali

It sounds to me as if they are hinting that they are coming around to the inevitable: NI stays in the Single Market and CU.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It sounds to me as if they are hinting that they are coming around to the inevitable: NI stays in the Single Market and CU.

It would look a lot more like that if they weren't flannelling on about a "buffer zone", which seems to me to have no relevance in that arrangement. Which makes me suspect that they have some different arrangement in mind.

Call me Al

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It sounds to me as if they are hinting that they are coming around to the inevitable: NI stays in the Single Market and CU.

Which crosses the DUP red lines....
So who blinks first?
Arlene brought the whole thing to a standstill and consequential fudge over a somewhat similar approach last Nov/Dec

Wanderer78

Why is this 'buffer zone' reminding me of the Korean demilitarised zone?

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would look a lot more like that if they weren't flannelling on about a "buffer zone", which seems to me to have no relevance in that arrangement. Which makes me suspect that they have some different arrangement in mind.

Well reading the article in the sun it appears that UK basically wants to give 10 miles at the border back to Ireland ("Dubbed a ‘special economic zone’, it will be for local traders such as dairy farmers – who make up 90 per cent of the cross border traffic – and share the same trade rules as south of the border.") while the rest of NI would operate dual legislation set up of having both UK and EU rules on the books and the applicable law would be dependent to whom it is being shipped.

Both items will piss DUP off and I highly doubt EU would be very happy with imports arriving to NI according to UK rules only to have someone relable it as EU compliant and driving it over the border without controls.

Dont be at yourself

That 10 mile buffer zone would encompass the cities of Derry and Newry, not just a few dairy farms...

EdgeCase

This buffer zone thing makes absolutely no sense. You'd just be moving the NI border by 16km for no particular reason. The same problem occurs, just at a slightly different distance from the old border.