Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

realdanbreen wrote: »

That's my point, 'divisive hardliners' should be marginalised not soft soaped.

He's flatly contradicting their claims, which is pretty much the opposite of "soft-soaping" them.

Itssoeasy

Looking at the tweet machine Leo varadkar and Simon Coveney are getting a lot of "thank you" and "well done" which I'm sure they appreciate.

fxotoole

realdanbreen wrote: »

Just heard the Taoiseach 'reassuring' the unionists. Why? You won't hear the DUP being polite towards the Republic. Those dinosauers/ bigots should be marginalised not soft soaped.

A touch of class and being the better man, I suppose

Enzokk

The response from Leave EU,

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/939027453191655424

While this is good for the UK, it will be like the referendum. It will just keep rumbling and I still don't see how the UK leaves the EU and satisfy the Brexiteers unless they break all contact with the EU, come what may. You do know there will be people interviewed in the streets that will be furious with this deal to move to phase 2.

flaneur

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see Leo varadkar is saying to the nationalists in the north that they will never be left behind by an Irish government. That sounds like jack lynch circa 1970.

Considering that they were left voiceless by circumstances in Westminster that left the DUP as power brokers, I think he's done a pretty decent job of ensuring they were heard loud and clear.

That's exactly what an Irish government and Taoiseach should do both as an Irish leader and also as a guardian of the Good Fridsy Agreement.

To be fair to the guy, he's really played a blinder here and managed to do it without causing a huge showdown with the UK too.

I'd have to give some credit to Sinn Fein too for being cool and collected and just keeping the diplomatic pressure on too. They've come out of this being seen as pragmatic, sane and sensible. The DUP on the other hand let their mask slip several times during debates and in the heat of augment and have come across internationally as very hard line British nationalists - which is what they are.

Rjd2

Enzokk wrote: »

The response from Leave EU,

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/939027453191655424

While this is good for the UK, it will be like the referendum. It will just keep rumbling and I still don't see how the UK leaves the EU and satisfy the Brexiteers unless they break all contact with the EU, come what may. You do know there will be people interviewed in the streets that will be furious with this deal to move to phase 2.

that site is pretty extreme iirc, the fact that Gove seems happy should be somewhat reassuring for them. Not a major fan, but compared to some leavers, one of the more reasonable.

Enzokk

Rjd2 wrote: »

that site is pretty extreme iirc, the fact that Gove seems happy should be somewhat reassuring for them. Not a major fan, but compared to some leavers, one of the more reasonable.

True, but its just an indication of what we are going to see for the next few weeks from staunch leavers, calling it capitulation and EU membership lite.

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Until the next election, the Tories don't have a huge amount of choice about this, do they?

Course they have. Convince a few opposition MP's to abstain(some local investment should do that) and they are sorted. Foster, Dodds and Co in a manner of speaking 'shot their load' last Monday. A party less predisposed to premature shows of gloating would have milked this deal with May a lot better.

flaneur

I’m wondering has the British business community, notably the banks, sat on the Tories? I noticed the mood music really changing over the last few days with the banks saying they would activate their contingency plans in Q1 2018, and begin moving operations out of the UK, if uncertainty persists.

It wasn’t coming across as politicking either. There were lots of interviews on Bloomberg, CNBC etc etc all talking about how they were going to have to move far more rapidly than they would like. One major bank was saying it takes about 5 years to create an operation in another jurisdiction but that they were going to have to do it in 12 months which isn’t ideal. But they were talking very coldly about the practicalities of finding offices, recruiting and moving staff, supporting housing and so on.

One of the issues mentioned was that they’d rather build new buildings than rush into squeezing into whatever’s available as no cities really have that kind of space hanging around idle.

What came across was more that these organisations weren’t going to be dragged into public debates with morons and were just going to make hard business decisions.

In a hard Brexit context early 2018 is as late as those big companies could wait.

Tigerandahalf

Does this all inevitably mean that we are going to see checks in place at Irish ports and airports re goods?

How can Europe ensure that goods coming out of Dublin are not out of the UK rather than Ire unless some checks are in place?

Northern Ireland and Belfast I guess is in a great place as a base for companies with full access to both markets.

Schorpio

It seems that May hasn't 'squared the circle', but moreover agreed to.

On Monday, the proposed agreement seeded to allow NI to maintain a special status within the EU (regulatory alignment), thus allowing the UK mainland to fundamentally do whatever they want, and they could work out internally what to do about the artificial sea border.

Now, the DUP have insisted that NI isn't a special status, so the regulatory alignment has essentially been extended to the rest of the UK. So, effectively the UK will still be beholden to the EU, without a seat at the decision making table?

I reckon we are going to have a lot of unhappy hardline Brexiteers in the not-too-distant future. This seems to be postponing issues rather than solving them.

Peregrinus

realdanbreen wrote: »

Course they have. Convince a few opposition MP's to abstain(some local investment should do that) and they are sorted. Foster, Dodds and Co in a manner of speaking 'shot their load' last Monday. A party less predisposed to premature shows of gloating would have milked this deal with May a lot better.

No. It's not just a question of winning votes on Brexit issues. The government relies on the DUP to get all it's business through, includind budgets, financial appropriations etc as well as legislation on every topic. On the current arithmetic, allowing for the fact that Sinn Fein do not take their seats, the government needs the support of 322 members to win votes. They have 315 members of their own, so they need a reliable deal with seven others. There are only 6 independents, so it simply can't be done with individual deals with independents. Even if it were politically possible, it's mathematically impossible. The only groups than can deliver 7 or more votes are the DUP (10), the Lib Dems (12) and the SNP (35), and the latter two options are not politically realistic.

It's the DUP or an early general election, basically.

Rjd2

Enzokk wrote: »

True, but its just an indication of what we are going to see for the next few weeks from staunch leavers, calling it capitulation and EU membership lite.

Oh aye, assume the likes Farage are seething, but they will never be happy anyhow.

https://order-order.com/2017/12/08/senior-brexiteers-back-deal/

A few quotes there which are reassuring somewhat from Tory leavers, they for now seem moderately content.

Peregrinus

Schorpio wrote: »

It seems that May hasn't 'squared the circle', but moreover agreed to.

On Monday, the proposed agreement seeded to allow NI to maintain a special status within the EU (regulatory alignment), thus allowing the UK mainland to fundamentally do whatever they want, and they could work out internally what to do about the artificial sea border.

Now, the DUP have insisted that NI isn't a special status, so the regulatory alignment has essentially been extended to the rest of the UK. So, effectively the UK will still be beholden to the EU, without a seat at the decision making table?

I reckon we are going to have a lot of unhappy hardline Brexiteers in the not-too-distant future. This seems to be postponing issues rather than solving them.

No, what you propose would solve issues. It just won't solve them in a way that appeals to hardline Brexiters.

But the fact is that the hardline Brexiters are a minority. 48% voted remain, remember, and at least some of the 52% who voted leave must be taken to have believed assurances that a leave vote was consistent with continued participation in the single market, continued close trading relationship with the UK, etc. Between those two groups, there;s undoubtedly a majority of th electorate who would definitely prefer softer Brexit over harder Brexit. And the same is true within the British political establishment.

Zubeneschamali

Arthur Daley wrote: »

As things have developed I just see years of filibuster and fudge, with domestic political chaos in the UK. So in essence little real change, with a lot of disillusioned leave voters who will draw their own conclusions that Europe has pulled the wool over their eyes once again.

Yes, I think that is very likely.

Of course the truth is that Europe has done no such thing - the people doing the wool-pulling are in Westminster, and always were, but the UK press (and not just the red-tops, I mean all the way up to the BBC) will continue to allow UK politicians to shift the blame to Brussels.

listermint

Rjd2 wrote: »

Oh aye, assume the likes Farage are seething, but they will never be happy anyhow.

https://order-order.com/2017/12/08/senior-brexiteers-back-deal/

A few quotes there which are reassuring somewhat from Tory leavers, they for now seem moderately content.

Tbf we have not heard a peep from Farage in some time, seems to have gone under the radar outside of harping on about hes right to keep his EU Pension 'because' Outside of that i dont think hes all to brexity post brexit only when asked its bluster but he doesnt appear to be going out of his way to be heard.

Peregrinus

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Does this all inevitably mean that we are going to see checks in place at Irish ports and airports re goods?

How can Europe ensure that goods coming out of Dublin are not out of the UK rather than Ire unless some checks are in place?

The aim of all this is to avoid that. We're moving towards an arrangement where the EU and the UK have agreed standards ("regulatory alignment") such that any goods which can be sold in the UK market can also be sold in the EU market. Supplement that with a trade deal which provides for zero tariffs in both directions, and it should be possible to have minimal or no controls over goods moving from the UK to the EU or vice versa.

Both parties have agreed in broad terms that this is what they would like. What remains to be agreed is the degree of "regulatory alignment" which is necessary if there is to be unfettered movement of goods between the EU and the UK. Also there needs to be arrangements to ensure that there is no undercutting of one another's customs tariffs with respect to third countries. (It shouldn't be cheaper for the US to export stuff to the UK, from where it can be freely moved to the EU, than to export it directly to the EU in the first place.) These are not trivial issues, so it may well be that in the end they don't get agreed.

But that's what both sides are trying to agree and, if they succeed, there should be minimal or no border controls between the EU and the UK.

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It's not just a question of winning votes on Brexit issues. The government relies on the DUP to get all it's business through, includind budgets, financial appropriations etc as well as legislation on every topic. On the current arithmetic, allowing for the fact that Sinn Fein do not take their seats, the government needs the support of 322 members to win votes. They have 315 members of their own, so they need a reliable deal with seven others. There are only 6 independents, so it simply can't be done with individual deals with independents. Even if it were politically possible, it's mathematically impossible. The only groups than can deliver 7 or more votes are the DUP (10), the Lib Dems (12) and the SNP (35), and the latter two options are not politically realistic.

It's the DUP or an early general election, basically.

Let's wait and see. May has been humiliated this week by the DUP. If she has any balls(so to speak) she will never ever allow that happen again. I can see MP's abstaining from votes in the 'National Interest' rather than allow a bunch of dinosauer/bigots rule the roost.

Zubeneschamali

flaneur wrote: »

It was interesting Arleen Foster talked about there being insufficient time and that May had gone to Brussels “in the national interest”.

That definitely sounds as if the DUP wanted to keep up the tantrums, and May said "No - it's this or an election, decide right now".

flaneur

One interesting fact is the £ has fluttered up a little in value but nothing very dramatic. A lot of traders seem to be very underwhelmed by all of this and are factoring in probable difficulties ahead.

That’s worrying as it would imply they’ve now lost confidence in the British political system to deliver on statements.

Chips Lovell

Itssoeasy wrote: »

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

She hasn't had any influence. Just the appearance of influence. All the DUP have managed to do is get additional reassurances that what was never going to happen isn't going to happen.

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

Let's wait and see. May has been humiliated this week by the DUP. If she has any balls(so to speak) she will never ever allow that happen again. I can see MP's abstaining from votes in the 'National Interest' rather than allow a bunch of dinosauer/bigots rule the roost.

Not understanding your point Dan. May needs the DUP for the day to day stuff or she is gone.

flaneur

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

She hasn't had any influence. Just the appearance of influence. All the DUP have managed to do is get additional reassurances that what was never going to happen isn't going to happen.

Well she took NI from a position having its cake and eating it to one where it’s handed the cake back and told the EU that it can shove it’s horrible papist conspiracy Euro cake!

The EU would likely have granted it the North thr abiliry to be almost in the EU yet in a Brexited UK simultaneously, due to the unique and dangerous circumstances in the region.

She threw away a massive economic advantage. NI was potentially going to be a gateway between the two.

Peregrinus

realdanbreen wrote: »

Let's wait and see. May has been humiliated this week by the DUP. If she has any balls(so to speak) she will never ever allow that happen again.

She will never allow it to happen again. Next time, she'll speak to them earlier.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I can see MP's abstaining from votes in the 'National Interest' rather than allow a bunch of dinosauer/bigots rule the roost.

How charmingly naive of you!

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

I still don't see how the UK leaves the EU and satisfy the Brexiteers unless they break all contact with the EU

Well, yes, but that's utterly unrealistic and cannot happen under any circumstances, so these people will never be happy, ever, no matter what. Best to just let them grumble to themselves.

Peregrinus

flaneur wrote: »

Well she took NI from a position having its cake and eating it to one where it’s handed the cake back and told the EU that it can shove it’s horrible papist conspiracy Euro cake!

The EU would likely have granted it the North thr abiliry to be almost in the EU yet in a Brexited UK simultaneously, due to the unique and dangerous circumstances in the region.

She threw away a massive economic advantage. NI was potentially going to be a gateway between the two.

No, that ability is still there. The agreement says that there'll be no separate treatment for NI unless by consent of the NI executive and assembly.

And the DUP need not always be the biggest unionist party in NI. Just sayin'. if unionist voters vote for Unionists who think that the best interests of NI are served by becoming more open to the EU market than the rest of the UK is, then that could happen.

Zubeneschamali

flaneur wrote: »

A lot of traders seem to be very underwhelmed by all of this and are factoring in probable difficulties ahead.

I think it is also likely that a lot of traders are aware that a no-deal Brexit would be utterly catastrophic and are operating under the assumption that this means a deal will be made (in the end) to avoid one.

I think they are probably right, but this also means that a if a no-deal Brexit becomes a real prospect, a London currency and stock market crash is likely as that risk has not been priced in.

Schorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, what you propose would solve issues. It just won't solve them in a way that appeals to hardline Brexiters.

But the fact is that the hardline Brexiters are a minority. 48% voted remain, remember, and at least some of the 52% who voted leave must be taken to have believed assurances that a leave vote was consistent with continued participation in the single market, continued close trading relationship with the UK, etc. Between those two groups, there;s undoubtedly a majority of th electorate who would definitely prefer softer Brexit over harder Brexit. And the same is true within the British political establishment.

I completely agree that this solution would probably be acceptable to the majority of the voting public. However, I'd imagine that a lot of them would be asking what the point of Brexit is, if it does transpire that the UK will be beholden to the EU without a seat at the table.

I disagree about the current political establishment though. Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg - all prominent Tories which are advocating a hard Brexit. The hard Brexit stance (and the subsequent red lines) have been popular in the Tory government. May doesn't have a very strong hand at the moment and she is liable to be toppled by a few key players. Indeed, most of the key 'hard Brexiteers' are coming out this morning with a fairly lukewarm message along the lines of 'glad to be moving to Stage 2 - we'll wait and see where we go from there'.

If the public goes to the polls, and there is a further shift away from the Tories, then we might see a different approach to Brexit - one which is more consistent with soft Brexit/Remains. However, until then the hard Brexiteers have an unrepresentative, but significant, say in where we go from here. And if they are still around deep into Stage 2, I'm not sure how the circle can be squared.

seamus

Enzokk wrote: »

True, but its just an indication of what we are going to see for the next few weeks from staunch leavers, calling it capitulation and EU membership lite.

Sure. But then since nobody ever defined what "Brexit" was supposed to look like, they can wail and gnash all they like about democracy, but they'll be wrong.

So long as the UK formally leaves the EU, then "Brexit" has been accomplished regardless of what concessions the UK has to make in order to retain access to the market.

Anyone claiming that "the people voted to completely cut off all ties with the EU" is a liar and a fantasist. And they're going to come to find that out.

The Tories either way will get completely savaged at the next election, but Labour are not going to withdraw from whatever Brexit deals the Tories cook up. They'll just let the UK trundle on and let Brexit be forgotten about.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it is also likely that a lot of traders are aware that a no-deal Brexit would be utterly catastrophic and are operating under the assumption that this means a deal will be made (in the end) to avoid one.

I think they are probably right, but this also means that a if a no-deal Brexit becomes a real prospect, a London currency and stock market crash is likely as that risk has not been priced in.

This.

The situation a week ago was "the UK needs a good trading relationship with the EU post-Brexit. The UK government recognises this, and is working towards this objective."

And now, after an exciting week, the situation is "the UK needs a good trading relationship with the EU post-Brexit. The UK government recognises this, and is working towards this objective."

In other words, no change. The wheels might have come off the whole thing this week, but they didn't. On the one hand, we know slightly more than we did a week ago about how alarmingly unprepared the UK government is for the task that lies ahead. On the other hand, the scope of the task that lies ahead has been narrowed somewhat by the parameters agreed this week. All in all, no great change in the perceived risk attaching to sterling.

Zubeneschamali

Schorpio wrote: »

If the public goes to the polls, and there is a further shift away from the Tories, then we might see a different approach to Brexit - one which is more consistent with soft Brexit/Remains. However, until then the hard Brexiteers have an unrepresentative, but significant, say in where we go from here.

But like the DUP, the prospect of an election will dissuade them from overt action. If there is an election now because of a Brexiteer heave against May, the Tories will lose maybe a hundred seats and be irrelevant for 10 years. They can't risk that.

Instead, they must wait until Brexit delivers some sort of a thing they can call a victory before they risk an election (although i think they will get destroyed next time out no matter what happens).

elefant

In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement

Forgive me if I'm reading this incorrectly but is this promising that, if they can't come to a future agreement similar to the one the DUP already rejected earlier this week, that the whole of the UK will necessarily have to arrange to remain in the customs union?

Surely Brexiters aren't going to be happy with this? Am I misunderstanding this?

Tigerandahalf

It definitely looks like Ireland are in a weaker position than on Monday. The DUP have got what they wanted - no customs border on the Irish sea.

The fact that the Irish gov have negotiated to have a voice in phase 2 of the talks shows that there is still a lot to be fought for.

There are huge issues here. If a Northern Irish citizen has EU rights how can they be stopped from exporting goods to the EU.

The only way out of this (if the UK insist on being out of the single market) is checks at Irish ports and airports. Perhaps that is the price to pay for no hard border.

Maybe those checks will be electronic in some way but hard to avoid some physical random checks.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, yes, but that's utterly unrealistic and cannot happen under any circumstances, so these people will never be happy, ever, no matter what. Best to just let them grumble to themselves.

If Cameron had just let them grumble the UK would not have had this disaster of a referendum. I am happy there is progress, I think the progress is because the UK has to some extent realised that EU lite is the only option that they have. I think Labour knows this as well and that's why they would most likely campaign on a single market customs union membership Brexit if there is a vote before 29 March 2019.

Not because they (the leadership) believe it but because they know its the only thing that will not result in a meltdown of the UK economy.

Chips Lovell

flaneur wrote: »

The EU would likely have granted it the North thr abiliry to be almost in the EU yet in a Brexited UK simultaneously, due to the unique and dangerous circumstances in the region.

She threw away a massive economic advantage. NI was potentially going to be a gateway between the two.

But that was never on the agenda this week.

Peregrinus

Schorpio wrote: »

I completely agree that this solution would probably be acceptable to the majority of the voting public. However, I'd imagine that a lot of them would be asking what the point of Brexit is, if it does transpire that the UK will be beholden to the EU without a seat at the table.

Well, as you know, I don't think that there is] much point to Brexit. But if you're a Brexiter looking for some point, in the current situation you'd identify (a) a greater degree of regulatory freedom for the UK, though at this point still unclear how much greater; (b) a greater degree of control over migration policy; (c) a lesser degree of subjection to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Schorpio wrote: »

I disagree about the current political establishment though. Gove, Johnson, Rees-Mogg - all prominent Tories which are advocating a hard Brexit. The hard Brexit stance (and the subsequent red lines) have been popular in the Tory government. May doesn't have a very strong hand at the moment and she is liable to be toppled by a few key players. Indeed, most of the key 'hard Brexiteers' are coming out this morning with a fairly lukewarm message along the lines of 'glad to be moving to Stage 2 - we'll wait and see where we go from there'.

But Gove, Rees-Mogg, etc are a minority. They particularly voluble at the moment because they're insecure - they know they're a minority; they didn't expect to win the Brexit referndum; they're constantly afraid that the fruits of victory will be snatched away from them.

Schorpio wrote: »

If the public goes to the polls, and there is a further shift away from the Tories, then we might see a different approach to Brexit - one which is more consistent with soft Brexit/Remains. However, until then the hard Brexiteers have an unrepresentative, but significant, say in where we go from here. And if they are still around deep into Stage 2, I'm not sure how the circle can be squared.

Neither are they. They are aware that they have disproportionate influence at the moment, but if they overplay their hand and an election results, the outcome is unlikely to improve their situation. So they want to push for the hardest Brexit that they think can be achieved (which means calling for a Brexit harder than that) but not to push so hard that the house of cards collapses.

Enzokk

elefant wrote: »

In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement

Forgive me if I'm reading this incorrectly but is this promising that, if they can't come to a future agreement similar to the one the DUP already rejected earlier this week, that the whole of the UK will necessarily have to arrange to remain in the customs union?

Surely Brexiters aren't going to be happy with this? Am I misunderstanding this?

No, I think you have it right. If there is a deal it will be a deal that has the whole of the UK closely aligned to single market and customs union regulations. If there is no deal then they will keep customs union and single market regulations to keep the peace in Northern Ireland. The price for peace for the UK is to align itself to the EU in other words.

That is what the DUP fought for, they fought for the whole of the UK to follow EU rules, not just themselves.

murphaph

flaneur wrote: »

The headline in The Express is remarkably calm! I was expecting fire and brimstone.

Gove was also fully accepting of the deal.

Perhaps at least at cabinet level even the sceptics realise that no deal really is not an option.

Rjd2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But like the DUP, the prospect of an election will dissuade them from overt action. If there is an election now because of a Brexiteer heave against May, the Tories will lose maybe a hundred seats and be irrelevant for 10 years. They can't risk that.

Instead, they must wait until Brexit delivers some sort of a thing they can call a victory before they risk an election (although i think they will get destroyed next time out no matter what happens).

Depends on who they choose to replace May, they have been okish in the polls and for many Corbyn is poison.

Likely hood it will be a remainer or at least a soft leaver who will replace her anyhow.

Proabbly a debate for an other thread anyhow.:)

kowtow

flaneur wrote:

That’s worrying as it would imply they’ve now lost confidence in the British political system to deliver on statements.

flaneur wrote:

One interesting fact is the £ has fluttered up a little in value but nothing very dramatic. A lot of traders seem to be very underwhelmed by all of this and are factoring in probable difficulties ahead.

Buy the rumour, sell the news.

The move in sterling happened yesterday... and in a wider sense since August.

Peregrinus

elefant wrote: »

In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement

Forgive me if I'm reading this incorrectly but is this promising that, if they can't come to a future agreement similar to the one the DUP already rejected earlier this week, that the whole of the UK will necessarily have to arrange to remain in the customs union?

Surely Brexiters aren't going to be happy with this? Am I misunderstanding this?

I think you are.

All the language which the DUP saw on Monday is still in the agreement. Nothing, so far as we know, has been removed. What spooked the DUP was not what the language said ("Regulatory alignment on both sides of the border") but what it didn't say - how far that regulatory alignment might extend into the UK. They DUP feared (probably correctly) was that the intention was for regulatory alignment to stop at the Irish Sea, so that NI would be aligned with the EU in a way that GB would not. For both practical and principled reasons, they wouldn't have that.

The agreement now contains a further commitment; the regulatory alignment will extend throughout the UK (unless a special degree of regulatory alignment is agreed for NI with the consent of the NI executive and assembly).

The agreement never said, and still does not say, that the required degree of regulatory alignment would be, or would be tantamount to, membership of the customs union/single market. Some people undoubtedly hoped that it would; other are determined that it will not. That's something that is still to be thrashed out. That's what phase 2 is for. That's what phase 2 was always going to be for.

First Up

Tigerandahalf wrote:

It definitely looks like Ireland are in a weaker position than on Monday. The DUP have got what they wanted - no customs border on the Irish sea.

Quite the opposite. Ireland's position in the Single Market has been secured. How the UK sorts its compliance with EU (including Ireland) market requirements has been firmly left at their own feet.

Tigerandahalf wrote:

The fact that the Irish gov have negotiated to have a voice in phase 2 of the talks shows that there is still a lot to be fought for.

We always had one.

Tigerandahalf wrote:

There are huge issues here. If a Northern Irish citizen has EU rights how can they be stopped from exporting goods to the EU.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

Tigerandahalf wrote:

The only way out of this (if the UK insist on being out of the single market) is checks at Irish ports and airports. Perhaps that is the price to pay for no hard border.

As above, today's agreement secures the opposite.

Tigerandahalf wrote:

Maybe those checks will be electronic in some way but hard to avoid some physical random checks.

I think you have missed the point.

Peregrinus

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It definitely looks like Ireland are in a weaker position than on Monday. The DUP have got what they wanted - no customs border on the Irish sea.

That's not a weaker position for the RoI - it's a stronger one. If GB as well as NI is in regulatory alignment with the EU, that's good for us.

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

The fact that the Irish gov have negotiated to have a voice in phase 2 of the talks shows that there is still a lot to be fought for.

We were always going to have a voice in phase 2. There was always going to be a lot to fight for. Neither of these things have changed since Monday.

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

There are huge issues here. If a Northern Irish citizen has EU rights how can they be stopped from exporting goods to the EU.

Rules about imports to the EU have never depended on the citizenship of the exporter.

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

The only way out of this (if the UK insist on being out of the single market) is checks at Irish ports and airports. Perhaps that is the price to pay for no hard border.

Under Monday's draft of the agreement, NI would have been in regulatory alignment with the EU, and there would have been no checks on the land border. But GB would, or might, have been in regulatory divergence, and there would have been checks at ports and airports on goods coming from GB.

Now, the same degree of regulatory alignment is expected to apply to both NI and GB. If it's a sufficient degree of regulatory alignment that no checks or controls are needed on goods coming from NI, it follows that no checks or controls will be needed on goods coming from GB either. From our point of view, that's win-win.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the one hand, we know slightly more than we did a week ago about how alarmingly unprepared the UK government is for the task that lies ahead.

Weeeelll, I still think Davis is lying through his teeth about that stuff.

He either lied to parliament when he said they were preparing 58 studies in excruciating detail, or he was lying last week when he said they never did.

And since we heard from boardsie Ambro25 at the time that they did do at least one of those 58, we know he is lying now.

And he had good reason to tell the truth back then, and good reason to lie now, so it makes sense that they are a lot more prepared for Phase 2 than they are letting on.

Chips Lovell

I think the agreement makes it more likely the UK will never effectively leave the single market or customs union. After formally agreeing to no hard border and complete regulatory alignment, they've even less room for maneuver (if it ever existed) for leaving both.

elefant

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you are.

All the language which the DUP saw on Monday is still in the agreement. Nothing, so far as we know, has been removed. What spooked the DUP was not what the language said ("Regulatory alignment on both sides of the border") but what it didn't say - how far that regulatory alignment might extend into the UK. They DUP feared (probably correctly) was that the intention was for regulatory alignment to stop at the Irish Sea, so that NI would be aligned with the EU in a way that GB would not. For both practical and principles reasons, they wouldn't have that.

The agreement now contains a further commitment; the regulatory alignment will extend throughout the UK (unless a special degree of regulatory alignment is agreed for NI with the consent of the NI executive and assembly).

The agreement never said, and still does not say, that the required degree of regulatory alignment would be, or would be tantamount to, membership of the customs union/single market. Some people undoubtedly hoped that it would; other are determined that it will not. That's something that is still to be thrashed out. That's what phase 2 is for. That's what phase 2 was always going to be for.

I see.

The wording 'those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which' leaves some wriggle room to align with certain regulatory rules, not all. Interesting.

Cheers.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not understanding your point Dan. May needs the DUP for the day to day stuff or she is gone.

She needs the 6 or 7 votes or whatever. They don't have to come from the DUP. They are working furiously to come to an abstain arrangement with wavering opposition MP's in order to avoid being humiliated by Sir Jeffrey and Co again.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Read more carefully:

"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements."

[The UK is on record as guaranteeing the avoidance of a hard border. And "any future arrangements" (read: an EU/UK trade deal) must be compatible. In other words, the UK accepts that there will be no EU/UK trade deal unless it is compatible with no hard border.]

"The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship."

[Read: we want a trade deal that delivers an open border.]

"Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."

[If we fail to negotiate a trade deal that delivers an open border, we will still maintain regulatory alignment with SM/CU rules which support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the GFA.]

The short version of this:

1. If the UK wants an EU trade deal (and, hint, they really, really do want one) then they understand and agree that the only feasible trade deal will be one which is compatible with an open border in Ireland.

2. Even if they are not geting an EU trade deal (e.g. because they cannot reach agreement on other points, or they change their mind and decide they don't want one after all) they still agree that they will maintain full alignment with both SM and CU rules supporting North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the GFA. This means, among other things, that they have less incentive to give up on a trade deal because they dislike the degree of regulatory alignment it demands; even if they give up on it, they are still committed to a fairly high degree of regulatory alignment.

The key point about number 2 is that they are only limited to those SM and CU rules supporting North-South co-operation. That doesn't mean there will be definitively an open border. Read Varadkar's remarks again:

"We have achieved all we set out to achieve in Phase 1. This is not the end but it is the end of the beginning. The Good Friday Agreement is fully protected & the Common Travel Area will continue. The UK is committed to avoiding a hard border"

The UK is committed to avoiding a hard border does not mean that a hard border will be avoided. Some people were committed to coming to work today but the snow and ice prevented them, doesn't take anything away from their commitment.

There is a long road to go on this, but the Irish government have achieved the maximum that was achievable at this stage (even though they are playing it up as meaning more than that) while the DUP also managed to get the deal extended to the whole of the UK. A good day for everyone.

Interesting comment by TM this morning:

And, on the Irish border, she admitted that “specific solutions to what are the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland” would still need to be found – suggesting the deal was still a fudge.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-northern-ireland-border-talks-brussels-eu-jean-claude-michel-barnier-a8098396.html

I think it shows that the DUP can't really be that happy with the outcome of todays talks surely? If TM is on about 'unique circumstances' re NI where is this uniformity of treatment for all of the UK going to come from that the DUP are so worried about? Expect more battles down the line me thinks.

Peregrinus

Rjd2 wrote: »

Depends on who they choose to replace May, they have been okish in the polls and for many Corbyn is poison.

It's an article of faith for the Tory press that Corbyn is unelectable and that everyone hates him.

You't think the results of the last election would have taught people to be a bit sceptical about that, but it still gets recycled quite a lot.

Corbyn is disliked by many, but he's much less unpopular than some people like to think. In recent opinion polls he has a higher rating for preferred prime minister than Teresa May does. The Labour party has consistently been polling higher than the Tories and, while they may not get a majority, they have far more, and far better, coalition options than the Tories do.

If there's a general election now, or at any time while May is still Tory leader, Corbyn is odds-on to be the next Prime Minister. I think both wings of the Tory party understand this. Corbyn, quite simply, is not the electoral poison that his opponents wish, and for along time believed, him to be.

I haven't seen any polls which ask about the popularity of other potential Tory leaders as against Corbyn. But if there's a putsch over the conduct of the Brexit talks, and a new leader goes to the polls seeking a personal mandate and trying to get the DUP off his back, the election will inevitably revolve to some extent around Brexit issues. And one thing we do know from the polls is that the voters started out thinking that the Tories were making quite a hames of the Brexit talks, and there preceptions have just got worse and worse as time goes on. A majority of self-identified Brexit voters think the UK is on course to get a bad deal out of Brexit because the government is making a mess of Brexit. The Tories do not want to fight an election immediately after a party heave which calls attention to their deep divisions over Brexit.