Brexit discussion thread III

Actually the UK do have that ability.

If they choose to remain in single market and the customs Union, and Ireland put up any borders whatsoever, the UK would be straight to the ECJ to have them for breakfast..

It's one of the benefits of working with a supranational organisation with an established dispute resolution system....

demfad

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually the UK do have that ability.

If they choose to remain in single market and the customs Union, and Ireland put up any borders whatsoever, the UK would be straight to the ECJ to have them for breakfast..

It's one of the benefits of working with a supranational organisation with an established dispute resolution system....

As the ECJ oversees the single market the reverse would also be true.
But why on earth would Ireland or anyone else put up an internal border in the single market?

demfad

demfad wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually the UK do have that ability.

If they choose to remain in single market and the customs Union, and Ireland put up any borders whatsoever, the UK would be straight to the ECJ to have them for breakfast..

It's one of the benefits of working with a supranational organisation with an established dispute resolution system....

As the ECJ oversees the single market the reverse would also be true.
But why on earth would Ireland or anyone else put up an internal border in the single market?

They wouldn't.

Kowtow was trying to paint Ireland as having some role in the definition of the border, when the reality is that only the UK has any power in this regard.

Alignment within the Single Market is how we got rid of the border before.

Any similar alternatives either don't exist (as otherwise all countries would adopt them immediately), or aren't similar in any way.

If the UK is leaving the Single Market, then it is rebuilding borders. It is that simple.

kowtow

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually the UK do have that ability.

If they choose to remain in single market and the customs Union, and Ireland put up any borders whatsoever, the UK would be straight to the ECJ to have them for breakfast..

It's one of the benefits of working with a supranational organisation with an established dispute resolution system....

True, and if Leo is expecting the UK to sign up to remain in the single market prior to trade negotiations beginning then everyone can go home.

But I don't think that is on the table at the moment.

kowtow

kowtow wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually the UK do have that ability.

If they choose to remain in single market and the customs Union, and Ireland put up any borders whatsoever, the UK would be straight to the ECJ to have them for breakfast..

It's one of the benefits of working with a supranational organisation with an established dispute resolution system....

True, and if Leo is expecting the UK to sign up to remain in the single market prior to trade negotiations beginning then everyone can go home.

But I don't think that is on the table at the moment.

Yeah I agree. Not a hope that the UK could or should be signing up to that

demfad

Deleted User wrote: »

Alignment within the Single Market is how we got rid of the border before.

Any similar alternatives either don't exist (as otherwise all countries would adopt them immediately), or aren't similar in any way.

If the UK is leaving the Single Market, then it is rebuilding borders. It is that simple.

They do exist. Countries wanting to join the EU must be aligned. The UK is now aligned obviously.

The 3 options are:

1: UK/EU deal is so comprehensive that border is frictionless. No such deal possible outside single market and have cake and eat it UK fantasies.

2: Deal is not close enough but special deal on trade between NI/ROI to bridge teh gap.

3: No deal/Insufficient deal: UK obliged to keep full alignment between NI and ROI (and therefore UK and EU) till deal found.

In reality if UK insist on leaving the CU/SM then you are correct sooner or later there will be a hard border. The EU could not be asked to have a no-deal situation just on the Irish border. Many millions affected in Europe compared to relatively small amount in border areas here.

I don't think politically (internal UK politics + phase 1 agreement) the UK can carry anything but a soft option.

I think a Norway + is the logical option.

kowtow

demfad wrote: »

They do exist. Countries wanting to join the EU must be aligned. The UK is now aligned obviously.

The 3 options are:

1: UK/EU deal is so comprehensive that border is frictionless. No such deal possible outside single market and have cake and eat it UK fantasies.

2: Deal is not close enough but special deal on trade between NI/ROI to bridge teh gap.

3: No deal/Insufficient deal: UK obliged to keep full alignment between NI and ROI (and therefore UK and EU) till deal found.

In reality if UK insist on leaving the CU/SM then you are correct sooner or later there will be a hard border. The EU could not be asked to have a no-deal situation just on the Irish border. Many millions affected in Europe compared to relatively small amount in border areas here.

I don't think politically (internal UK politics + phase 1 agreement) the UK can carry anything but a soft option.

I think a Norway + is the logical option.

I think there are a whole range of ways of achieving it in a full withdrawal agreement, with a trade deal in scope, as you say.

I just can't see how a binding agreement could be concluded in the meantime which is what Leo seems to be asking for this morning.

I suspect that everyone will say afterwards that they have agreed that they will all stand by the existing agreement, whether it is binding or not

flutered

Deleted User wrote: »

They wouldn't.

Kowtow was trying to paint Ireland as having some role in the definition of the border, when the reality is that only the UK has any power in this regard.

in the event of brexit would not the uk have to implement one under wto rules

flutered

kowtow wrote: »

True, and if Leo is expecting the UK to sign up to remain in the single market prior to trade negotiations beginning then everyone can go home.

But I don't think that is on the table at the moment.

the no1 item at the minute is legally copperfastening last friday's agreement, then its on to see what the uk's demands are

An Ciarraioch

Granted, the DUP have had enough swipes at Ireland over the weekend, but perhaps Leo should have taken the high moral ground:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/941323511947251712

flutered

flutered wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

They wouldn't.

Kowtow was trying to paint Ireland as having some role in the definition of the border, when the reality is that only the UK has any power in this regard.

in the event of brexit would not the uk have to implement one under wto rules

Yes. And Ireland

demfad

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Granted, the DUP have had enough swipes at Ireland over the weekend, but perhaps Leo should have taken the high moral ground:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/941323511947251712

His comments there are fine. The DUP have got away with murder so far with Brexit. Their accusations of Dublin undermining the good Friday agreement were cynical hypocrisy.
It's not good to get in a slanging match: but it's fine to stand your (firm) ground with them.

Water John

The EU/Barnier said days ago, that they wanted Phase 1 in a legally binding contract or words to that effect. This arose in response to the Davis nonsense last weekend.

steddyeddy

Just to post Leo's tweet:

Leo Varadkar in Bxl asked for his message to unionists: “I would hope that some of the people who supported Brexit and campaigned for it would realize, or at least acknowledge, that they’re the ones who created this problem and I’m one of the people who is trying to resolve it.”

That is brilliant.

mickoneill31

flutered wrote: »

in the event of brexit would not the uk have to implement one under wto rules

Yes so then UK could blame WTO.
It's always somebody else's fault.

An Ciarraioch

Declan Lynch, of the Sindo, may be on to something with his theory that Brexit will never actually happen - May confirms that the UK will remain in Erasmus "at least until 2020":

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/941382579235753984

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I know lots of us are cheering Leo Varadkar's bullish tone, but he said something I'm personally disappointed in on the way into the EU Summit. Primarily because I don't think it's actually true.

"Ireland is a member of the EU so our best friends are the 27 member states," he said.

"But after that of course we'll be Britain's closet friend.

"But as a remaining member, obviously our very closest relations have to be with other members of the EU just as they were our best friends in the weeks gone by."

It's not even just untrue in my mind, but extremely unhelpful.

I think Ireland has a much closer relationship with Britain than it will ever have with France or Germany and I'm pretty sure it will stay that way. I certainly hope people aren't taking the unhelpful things he's saying in respect to Britain too seriously.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Declan Lynch, of the Sindo, may be on to something with his theory that Brexit will never actually happen - May confirms that the UK will remain in Erasmus "at least until 2020":

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/941382579235753984

Cut out the childish misnaming of organisations please. There have been multiple warnings.

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I know lots of us are cheering Leo Varadkar's bullish tone, but he said something I'm personally disappointed in on the way into the EU Summit. Primarily because I don't think it's actually true.



It's not even just untrue in my mind, but extremely unhelpful.

I think Ireland has a much closer relationship with Britain than it will ever have with France or Germany and I'm pretty sure it will stay that way. I certainly hope people aren't taking the unhelpful things he's saying in respect to Britain too seriously.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

From a governmental point of view that is how the future is going to have to be.
To paraphrase something else he said, 'it wasn't us that decided to Brexit...'

recedite

"But after that of course we'll be Britain's closet friend.

I presume that is meant to be Britain's closest friend
Though maybe "closet friend" is more accurate.

Phase 2 will test the solidarity of the 27 friends much more than Phase 1
There will be conflicting interests at play within the EU.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I know lots of us are cheering Leo Varadkar's bullish tone, but he said something I'm personally disappointed in on the way into the EU Summit. Primarily because I don't think it's actually true.



It's not even just untrue in my mind, but extremely unhelpful.

I think Ireland has a much closer relationship with Britain than it will ever have with France or Germany and I'm pretty sure it will stay that way. I certainly hope people aren't taking the unhelpful things he's saying in respect to Britain too seriously.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Seems true enough to me. The UK didn't consider Ireland for one second during their Brexit referendum debate. That wasn't very friendly! The EU has consistently taken consideration of Ireland's unique circumstances since this crap began. I know where my loyalties lie.

Also...take a read of the Mail or Express, especially the comments sections to see what is currently being said about Ireland!

steddyeddy

Dominic Grieve, one of the Tory rebels has been recieving death threats lately. There's a more sinister politics that has developed with Brexit, ranging from opponents being told to shut up or die unless they agree with you. To me this just means that there is a lack of cogent arguement at the heart of the Brexit debate. Only slogans and shutting up those who dare disagree.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/14/dominic-grieve-says-he-has-had-death-threats-after-brexit-rebellion

Sam Russell

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dominic Grieve, one of the Tory rebels has been recieving death threats lately. There's a more sinister politics that has developed with Brexit, ranging from opponents being told to shut up or die unless they agree with you. To me this just means that there is a lack of cogent arguement at the heart of the Brexit debate. Only slogans and shutting up those who dare disagree.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/14/dominic-grieve-says-he-has-had-death-threats-after-brexit-rebellion

Death threats? Remember Jo Cox MP was murdered over her stand against Brexit by a right wing English fanatic. Also this was before the vote - now any backsliding gets vicious threats for High Court Judges that try to define the law, MPs that dare oppose draconian legislation, and vitriol aplenty for anyone opposing Brexit on the internet.

That is English British democracy in action - or at least according to Brexiteers - 'We won, you lost - get over it! It's democratic, innit!' or words to that effect.

backspin.

murphaph wrote: »

Seems true enough to me. The UK didn't consider Ireland for one second during their Brexit referendum debate. That wasn't very friendly! The EU has consistently taken consideration of Ireland's unique circumstances since this crap began. I know where my loyalties lie.

Also...take a read of the Mail or Express, especially the comments sections to see what is currently being said about Ireland!

Look at this headline, the daily mail is really trying to stir up bad feeling against the Irish.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5177445/Humiliated-Theresa-heads-Brussels-summit.html

"You're not our best friends any more". Such childishness.

murphaph

backspin. wrote: »

Look at this headline, the daily mail is really trying to stir up bad feeling against the Irish.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5177445/Humiliated-Theresa-heads-Brussels-summit.html

"You're not our best friends any more". Such childishness.

The headline is a blatant lie. He did not say ‘You’re not our best friends anymore’ at all.

Rjd2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Death threats? Remember Jo Cox MP was murdered over her stand against Brexit by a right wing English fanatic. Also this was before the vote - now any backsliding gets vicious threats for High Court Judges that try to define the law, MPs that dare oppose draconian legislation, and vitriol aplenty for anyone opposing Brexit on the internet.

That is English British democracy in action - or at least according to Brexiteers - 'We won, you lost - get over it! It's democratic, innit!' or words to that effect.

Sadly with the internet and with politics over last few years politics has to say the least has got more repugnant. Brexit or no Brexit this sort of behaviour would exist. Plenty of death and rape threats from the hard left aimed at Tories and supposedly "Blue Tories" aka the more moderate Labour MPS. Laura Kussenberg one of the best UK journos needed a bodyguard earlier in the year ffs.

I genuinely pity anyone in politics in the UK at the moment, got to deal with the wrath of the hardcore Brexit massive and far left who deem anyone not on the Corbyn bandwagon worthy of threats of the worst kind.

flutered

Rjd2 wrote: »

Sadly with the internet and with politics over last few years politics has to say the least has got more repugnant. Brexit or no Brexit this sort of behaviour would exist. Plenty of death and rape threats from the hard left aimed at Tories and supposedly "Blue Tories" aka the more moderate Labour MPS.

I genuinely pity anyone in politics in the UK at the moment, got to deal with the wrath of the hardcore Brexit massive and far left who deem anyone not on the Corbyn bandwagon worthy of threats of the worst kind.

the problem is the papers who support brexit has kept up such headlines for many many years, the eu was always seen as the uk's worst enemy, this enemy is constantly changing week in week out, with no let up in the vitrol, however tehy have suceeded in their no1 objective, dumb down the populance, by teaching them to believe their every utterence

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

It's not even just untrue in my mind, but extremely unhelpful.

solodeogloria wrote:

I think Ireland has a much closer relationship with Britain than it will ever have with France or Germany and I'm pretty sure it will stay that way. I certainly hope people aren't taking the unhelpful things he's saying in respect to Britain too seriously.

This is the crux, the UK has never ever being a friend of irl, what has the UK done in the last 1000 yrs that could even remotely construe as friendly.
Irl has developed its economy through the UK, but that wasn't a friendly act by the UK, more the UK needed a supply of food and as history has shown irl has been the bread basket for the UK.
Maybe I have it all wrong, so can you give me some reasons why you think the UK is a friend of irl.

lawred2

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I know lots of us are cheering Leo Varadkar's bullish tone, but he said something I'm personally disappointed in on the way into the EU Summit. Primarily because I don't think it's actually true.



It's not even just untrue in my mind, but extremely unhelpful.

I think Ireland has a much closer relationship with Britain than it will ever have with France or Germany and I'm pretty sure it will stay that way. I certainly hope people aren't taking the unhelpful things he's saying in respect to Britain too seriously.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

With all due respect, there's nothing unhelpful about reality. The EU have the power to bring the UK to a position where Irish interests can be served. As such they are most definitely our closest allies currently during these discussions.

recedite

Gerry T wrote: »

Maybe I have it all wrong, so can you give me some reasons why you think the UK is a friend of irl.

Its been a place that the unemployed of Ireland could always go to, and always entitled to the same opportunities and benefits as the natives under the CTA.

Weren't they also the first to give us a loan when we were bankrupt back in 2010?

FrancieBrady

Of course they have been friends and so have we. But there have been very bad times too.

The point Leo is making, just as the UK have done, is state very clearly where our future interests will lie if the UK leave.

Anthracite

murphaph wrote: »

The headline is a blatant lie. He did not say ‘You’re not our best friends anymore’ at all.

Most of the British press has never been too troubled about adhering to the actual truth. It's a long tradition.

Anthracite

Gerry T wrote: »

Maybe I have it all wrong, so can you give me some reasons why you think the UK is a friend of irl.

Indeed. I'm racking my brain trying to think of genuine altruistic gestures (rather than self-interested plays) that Ireland has benefited from in the last few hundred years and I'm coming up empty.

Conversely, Britain received support from Ireland during WW2.

Anthracite

recedite wrote: »

Its been a place that the unemployed of Ireland could always go to, and always entitled to the same opportunities and benefits as the natives under the CTA.

Well, to be fair, the reason Ireland was so economically underdeveloped was due to British maladministration. It was certainly kind of them to allow Irish people slave away at the bottom of their labour market, but I think that falls under the category of self-interest.

recedite wrote: »

Weren't they also the first to give us a loan when we were bankrupt back in 2010?

The first? I don't know about that, but it's a loan, being paid back with hundreds of millions in interest, and the UK happened to have several large banks operating here and a collapse of the Irish banking system would not have helped them very much. Again, self-interest.

(And I'm by no means anti-British - usually labelled a West-Brit, for what it's worth)

Rain Ascending

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Declan Lynch, of the Sindo, may be on to something with his theory that Brexit will never actually happen - May confirms that the UK will remain in Erasmus "at least until 2020":

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/941382579235753984

The BBC's Nick Watts reported on a Newsnight broadcast a few months ago that (a) the UK government was willing to pay in the order of £30-40B as the settlement amount -- this has turned out to be true -- and (b) wanted in the "future relationship" deal to gain access into four EU bodies. He listed these as

1. Erasmus
2. Horizon2020 -- the big EU collaborative science & technology R&D programme
3. Gallileo -- the European GPS system
4. Euratom (? - my memory is a bit fuzzy on this one)

I suspect that as Whitehall get their act together and do proper impact assessments, that list will get a lot longer. We already know that the UK is likely to look for associate membership of the EASA, the European Aviation Safety Authority, if only to get the FAA off their case.


This Brexit is going to get softer and softer, albeit very, very gradually. Last night's vote was another step in that direction, by proving that the "soft Brexit" elements in the House of Commons could get their act together and vote for amendments to the current government's direction.

Valmont

I've lived in the UK for the best part of the past decade and the fear-mongering here is starting to really annoy me.

For example the article I linked to states:

The document, drawn up by legal experts on behalf of the Traveller Movement (TM), concludes that many of the rights currently enjoyed by Irish nationals in the UK exist only because they are EU citizens

It seems to me like a few decades of Irish - English diplomacy on the reciprocal rights of our citizens has been ignored to get people frightened for a few clicks. How could they not mention the Ireland Act of 1949 which dealt in part with this exact issue?! And how could these 'legal experts' seriously discount the Common Travel Area in their analysis? Is it so hard for people to believe that the UK and Ireland can (and they have) solved problems together without the EU holding their hands?

Valmont

Gerry T wrote: »

This is the crux, the UK has never ever being a friend of irl, what has the UK done in the last 1000 yrs that could even remotely construe as friendly.

Are you serious? During the last century, every few years they welcome with open arms thousands of Irish people as de facto citizens who have to emigrate because the occupants of Leinster house couldn't help running things into the ground again.

Christy42

Valmont wrote: »

I've lived in the UK for the best part of the past decade and the fear-mongering here is starting to really annoy me.

For example the article I linked to states:


It seems to me like a few decades of Irish - English diplomacy on the reciprocal rights of our citizens has been ignored to get people frightened for a few clicks. How could they not mention the Ireland Act of 1949 which dealt in part with this exact issue?! And how could these 'legal experts' seriously discount the Common Travel Area in their analysis? Is it so hard for people to believe that the UK and Ireland can (and they have) solved problems together without the EU holding their hands?

Why do we have to solve our problems alongside the UK? Surely we can deal with whoever is offering us the best deal (EU), who have an interest in Ireland having a strong economy (EU). Essentially we can solve problems with whoever we want. It is far more beneficial for us to do so along side the UK than a struggling UK.

You only have to look at recent comments on the Irish from many in the English government (and not even talking about the dup and that is not even mentioning the press) to see we are hardly held in high regard. Remember they mismanaged a large chunk of this island to be a massive failed state which still has under currents of sectarian violence.

Sure there are examples of agreements we managed with out closest neighbour but our interests are best served in the EU. With or without the UK. We may as well go for the best trade agreements we can which is by being part of the EU.

joeysoap

I watched Question Time on BBC tonight and it’s clear a lot of UK citizens will believe anything and nothing. Nicky Morgan explained the reason for her vote last night but only half the audience was listening. The other half have her (+11) down as traitors.

I don’t think the UK will ever be united for a long time (if ever) again.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

I know lots of us are cheering Leo Varadkar's bullish tone, but he said something I'm personally disappointed in on the way into the EU Summit. Primarily because I don't think it's actually true . . . .

It's not even just untrue in my mind, but extremely unhelpful.

I think Ireland has a much closer relationship with Britain than it will ever have with France or Germany and I'm pretty sure it will stay that way. I certainly hope people aren't taking the unhelpful things he's saying in respect to Britain too seriously.

Culturally, and in terms of shared experience, Ireland as a nation is of course closer to Britain that it is to France or Germany. This is not likely to change.

But, politically, the UK has recently not been a good friend to Ireland - ignoring, then dismissing, then rubbishing entirely legitimate Irish concerns about the serious adverse consequences for Ireland - both parts - of decisions that the UK is taking. If Leo adopted a “bullish tone”, that’s because he had to do so in order to get the UK to pay any attention to the serious issues we were raising. The Irish border issue was raised repeatedly over many months, yet it seems to have taken the UK entirely by surprise when, in mid-November, it finally dawned on them that the EU really did expect them to address it in a realistic and constructive way.

If there has been a failure of friendship in this episode, it is not on Ireland’s part, or on Varadkar’s. It’s reasonable for Varadkar to say, in effect, that we do have other friends and that, lately, they have been better friends to us than the UK has. And, if the UK is Ireland’s friend, the UK should be able to hear that message and understand why it has been given.

I hope the British do take what he says seriously, because there’s a necessary lesson in it for them; you can’t treat your friends like that, and expect your friendship not to suffer somewhat. You need to invest in your friendships, and not take them for granted

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

. . . . Equally the preferred UK backstop of "agreed solutions" is fine for a statement of intent, but I can't imagine them signing up to a binding agreement unless Ireland is under some obligation to try to agree these solutions first in good faith, otherwise Ireland might as well have a veto. That's the bit where the existing document works as a statement of intent but isn't really complete enough to make a binding agreement.

All parties to international agreeements are under obligations of good faith in relation to the operation, implementation, etc, of the terms of the agreement. That comes as standard; there is no need for an explicit provision on the point.

Parties can certainly undertake legally binding obligations to try, in good faith, to reach agreement on some point, but that doesn't guarantee that they will actually reach agreement, obviously. So the treaty (or whatever) will usually go on to provide what happens if they don't - e.g. "The parties will seek to agree on the maritime border dividing their respective territorial waters but, if they don't reach agreement, they will jointly refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice to give a binding determination in light of the relevant provisions of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea". That kind of thing.

As regards the Irish border, what we have in the Joint Report is a three-layered commitment.

First, the UK will seek to agree a trade deal which will avoid a hard border. Implicit in that is an obligation for the UK to make a good faith effort - i.e. to propose terms which it believes in good faith will result in an open border, and not so seek trade terms which are inconsistent with an open border. Also implicit is a good faith obligation on the part of the EU to be open to such a trade deal. The "good faith" obligation means that each party needs to consider the position of the other. For example, the UK knows that the EU is committed to maintaining the integrity and coherence of the single market (because the Joint Report says so), so the UK would not be acting in good faith if it put forward proposals which would work to support an open border only if, say, the EU was prepared to wear a high degree of smuggling. Similarly the EU's approach has to be conditioned by its knowledge of the UK's stated intent to leave the SM and the CU; the EU would not be acting in good faith if it would only consider deals which involve the UK staying in both those structures.

Secondly, if that doesn't work, the UK will seek to agree other measures for keeping the border open. Again, there are implicit obligations on the part of the UK and the EU, and to seek agreement on terms which will actually work to keep the border open, taking account of one another's positions.

Thirdly, if that also doesn't work, the UK will "maintain full regulatory alignment" etc, etc. And the parties have the same obligations of good faith in trying to work out what "full regulatory alignment" means.

OK. The Joint Report doesn't represent the end stage on the issue of the Irish border (or anything else); it's just "sufficient progress" on the issue to allow discussions on the Withdrawal Agreement to broaden out to other topics as well, e.g. the transitional period. It also allows the start of "preliminary and preparatory discussions" about the framework for a future trade agreement.

By October, on the current timetable, there's to be a settled text of a Withdrawal Agreement. It's a racing certainty that, in relation to the Irish border, it will contain all of the above commitments, and almost certainly in a more fleshed-out form. (It will also say what the status of the Irish border will be during the transitional phase.) The Withdrawal Agreement has to enter into force, at the very latest, by 23 March 2019, and at that date there still won't be certainty about a future trade deal, so the withdrawal agreement will have the same hierarchy of commitments - first, to endeavour to agree a trade deal; secondly, tp endeavour to agree other measures; thirdly, to maintain full regulatory alignment. They'll all still be on the table as live possibilities, even if all sides devoutly hope and expect that there will be a trade deal.

But the "fleshing out" with additional detail will certainly force the UK to do more reconciling than they have done so far of the tension between their competing aspirations. If they're going to have an open border, then they must either compromise their objective of leaving the SM/CU - they'll still leave, but they will enter into a new association which replicates some of the features of membership relevant to an open border - or they must compromise their objective of having no regulatory divergence between NI and GB. (Or a bit of both, of course.) And the reluctance of the UK to do this up to now, or even to acknowledge that it needs to be done, does call into question, if not their good faith in making these competing commitments, at least their realistic ability to deliver on them.

The commitment the EU is particularly interested in seeing delivered, of course, is the open border. So I expect in the negotiations for the final text of the withdrawal agreement, the EU will be looking to be firm and clear about what exactly constitutes an open border (which, based on the Joint report, involves at least no physical border infrastructure and no checks or controls relating to cross-border trade; the UK having signed the Joint Report cannot in good faith argue that it means less than this), and they will be looking for more detail on the nature and scope of the "full regulatory alignment" that would support that, in the absence of any other agreement. And in light of the aparent back-pedalling that has been noted in London, I think this will be an early item on the phase 2 agenda.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's not even just untrue in my mind, but extremely unhelpful.

It really does not matter what you think, but it is a fact that we are an EU state and will remain one. And while the UK is an important trading partner, it ranks about the same as Belgium.

And we are one of the most pro EU states in the union:



That is a reality that you and the UK will need to learn to deal with.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think Ireland has a much closer relationship with Britain than it will ever have with France or Germany and I'm pretty sure it will stay that way. I certainly hope people aren't taking the unhelpful things he's saying in respect to Britain too seriously.

Well first of all I'd be will to bet that most Germans and French people have a more factual view of Ireland than your average UK citizen. Our values, believes and expectations for the future are clearly in line with our EU partners than they are with the UK.

The fact that you are finding the reality of the situation to be unhelpful, is your problem, we for our part will make no apology for defending our side and our partners.

Jim2007

Valmont wrote: »

Are you serious? During the last century, every few years they welcome with open arms thousands of Irish people as de facto citizens who have to emigrate because the occupants of Leinster house couldn't help running things into the ground again.

Well first of all, at the time the UK at the time need labour and that is the reason they were welcome, not because they were Irish. They also at the time were happy to welcome people for all their colonies.

The there was the agricultural policy - in the 50s, 60s and early 70s they massively subsidised UK farmers in order to keep prices very low and force Ireland, NZ etc to subsidies their exports to the UK....

There was the whole ground rents issue...

There was their activities to ensure that Ireland did not get any significant Commissionership back in the early days of EEC membership, so we ended up with what was the HR job!!!

There was/is the issue of being unable to repay that little loan they gave us, so we are forcing us to pay higher interest rates than is necessary

There was all the BS over the past few weeks.....

At best the UK is a sometimes friend when it suits them and that is all.

Peregrinus

Valmont wrote: »

Are you serious? During the last century, every few years they welcome with open arms thousands of Irish people as de facto citizens who have to emigrate because the occupants of Leinster house couldn't help running things into the ground again.

Are you serious? It requires profound historical ignorance to believe that h high rates of Irish emigration arose because "the occupants of Leinster house couldn't help running things into the ground again". Irish emigration patterns were established and settled in the days of British rule, and that was when they were at their peak. How could anybody possibly not know this? And while it's obviously the case that the economic policy of successive Irish government was influential in determining how far and how fast Irish emigration would decline from its peak under British rule, the notion that it was the primary driver of that emigration is not one that you can really expect people to take seriously.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Its been a place that the unemployed of Ireland could always go to, and always entitled to the same opportunities and benefits as the natives . . .

Yes, though for the past 26 years it has not been the only such place; there are currently 26 others. And none of those 26 is currently going through the process of trying to disengage itself from engagements like this.

I'd be very optimistic that the rights of Irish citizens in the UK under the Ireland Act and the Common Travel Area would survive the UK's current bout of small-mindedness. But I wouldn't take it absolutely for granted. After all, a few years ago I would have said that the UK would never do anything that threatened the closure of the Irish border and imperilled the Good Friday Agreement, and yet here we are.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

a few years ago I would have said that the UK would never do anything that threatened the closure of the Irish border and imperilled the Good Friday Agreement, and yet here we are.

I can see a happy path where relations stay friendly between the UK and Ireland, and things are not much different than they were before the Single Market.

But there is also the possibility that things will get very much worse. In a worst case scenario, the UK crashes out, ports are closed, hard border in place, trucks queued all the way to London from Dover, planes are grounded, a run on Sterling, stock market crash, inflation, capital flight, emigration of anyone with an EU passport and a qualification, shortages in shops, closures, unemployment, protests in the streets, baton charges, riots...

Who will the Brexiteers and UK press blame? The EU, including Ireland. The pro-EU young people will vote with their feet, Scotland will leave, and the UK England will grow increasingly elderly, insular and xenophobic.

In a generation, England-Ireland relations could be unrecognizable.

Peregrinus

Well, that is very much a worst-case scenario, Zub, and I like to think not at all a likely one.

But, who knows? Perhaps in years to come Cameron's wizard wheeze of calling a referendum will be seen as the modern equivalent of the Defenestration of Prague. The future history books may have chapters that begin "Nobody could have foreseen that calling a referendum would set in train a series of events that was to culminate in the deaths of millions, but England at the time was a tinderbox . . . "

Nody

I'm starting to wonder if the whole UK government is actually actively trying to sabotage the Brexit process at this time; between Davis Davis and Boris statements ensuring harder controls, wording and controls to May's ineptitude in execution they appear to do their damnedest to cause as much damage as possible to the whole process. The latest message coming out that they had not even talked about what FTA they wanted while constantly pushing for the FTA discussion to start for the last year or so...

Eyebrows were raised in Brussels about the future of the trade framework talks earlier this month after Downing Street confirmed that the Cabinet had not actually discussed what trade deal the Government wanted.

murphaph

Nody wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder if the whole UK government is actually actively trying to sabotage the Brexit process at this time; between Davis Davis and Boris statements ensuring harder controls, wording and controls to May's ineptitude in execution they appear to do their damnedest to cause as much damage as possible to the whole process. The latest message coming out that they had not even talked about what FTA they wanted while constantly pushing for the FTA discussion to start for the last year or so...

What do you make of this Solo? Don't you think the cabinet at least should have a goal in mind at this late stage? Can you still maintain this is anything but chaos?