Brexit discussion thread III

Tell me how

Skedaddle wrote: »

She has very few strong opinions on anything. It's part of the problem. You're looking at a leader who seems to just sit on the fence and check the wind direction all the time.

She was very unenthusiastically in favour of remain, because that was the party line. Now she's unenthusiastically pro Brexit because the line shifted.

Weak and wobbly!

The comparisons with Thatcher are completely inaccurate other than they're the same gender.

From what I can see they've no idea what they actually want.

And she is the best the have to offer :eek:. And Corbyn wouldn't excite anyone too much either if he was there I suspect. Michael Portillo reckons he might have already reached his high water mark in terms of popularity. Although, Portillo might be a tad biased.

The best comment I saw with respect to May and Thatcher was at the time of the Phase 1 agreement when some one tweeted

"Can you imagine the state of Arlene Foster's ear if it was Margaret Thatcher who had been on the phone instead of Theresa May"

when Foster through a spanner in the works.

Lemming

Tell me how wrote: »

And Corbyn wouldn't excite anyone too much either if he was there I suspect. Michael Portillo reckons he might have already reached his high water mark in terms of popularity. Although, Portillo might be a tad biased.

Corbyn is as popular as he is because a) he's not a Tory (which in itself isn't a high bar to aim for) and b) he's not sat in the hot-seat yet so it's easy for him to sit off to one side and sling mud until it sticks. The problem as I see it is that he isn't even showing himself capable of doing that so God only knows how useless he'd be in office ...

If he makes it into 10 Downing st whatever shine he still has with all but the most ardent of momentum sorts will quickly be washed away; he's May's mirror image except he's standing on the same side of the mirror as her because he can't even get that right.

Capt'n Midnight

Corbyn is attacking the Conservatives over the NHS funding.

It's autopilot stuff.

The Tories don't care for those who can't pay their way and that goes back to the 17th century.



It's like the potholes here , they won't ever get sorted properly because the game is to be seen fixing them (continuous present tense) rather than sorting out the problem once and for all.

ambro25

Uh-oh, the dog ate David Davis' homework again, about the UK financial services this time (link is free access in Google News if you google the article title).

<...> Last autumn, senior City figures say they were promised a detailed position paper in a matter of weeks setting out Britain’s negotiating priorities for a sector that employs more than 1m people across the country.

But delivery of the paper was delayed repeatedly and now ministers are considering not publishing it at all, according to business executives and government officials involved in the discussions. The government remains unable to agree a detailed position on the sector, and some officials are still reluctant to show Brussels their negotiating hand, they added.

The Department for Exiting the EU (Dexeu) would not commit to publishing the paper, saying it would “keep under review what is the best way of advocating our position — be that in private discussions with the EU, speeches or a formal position paper”.

<...> The position paper for the financial services industry was viewed as essential to City executives struggling to plot strategy for their post-Brexit operations. The failure of Dexeu to publish the blueprint could reinforce concerns in the City and on Wall Street that banks must plan for worst-case scenarios by moving more of their pan-European operations to the continent. <..>

I'm not sure how much more humiliating, and downright dangerous for the UK prosperity, his department's complacency and the government's continuing, slogan-led 'deep and special' vapourware can get for the UK.

blanch152

ambro25 wrote: »

Uh-oh, the dog ate David Davis' homework again, about the UK financial services this time (link is free access in Google News if you google the article title).



I'm not sure how much more humiliating, and downright dangerous for the UK prosperity, his department's complacency and the government's continuing, slogan-led 'deep and special' vapourware can get for the UK.

His is caught here.

He needs to publish something that will keep the financial institutions in London and stop them moving away. Whatever that is will not be achievable given the other positions taken by the UK, so they would be setting themselves up for a fall.

Leroy42

Maybe he can send them a copy of his sectoral analysis.

If one isn't done maybe I can start him off;

"The City of London is based, primarily, in London. Financial services are when services are provided in terms of financial products. Some of these are complicated and have fancy names. Wolf of Wall street is only partially based on a true story"

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Maybe he can send them a copy of his sectoral analysis.

If one isn't done maybe I can start him off;

"The City of London is based, primarily, in London. Financial services are when services are provided in terms of financial products. Some of these are complicated and have fancy names. Wolf of Wall street is only partially based on a true story"

I think it would be a bit scary to write down the organisation and rights of the City of London corporation.
It predates the English monarchy and has no real founding or charter details as it was already ancient when William the conqueror invaded.
It has an official named the Remembrancer who sits by the speaker in parliament to remind him of the rights of the City.
It's elected members can only come from restrictive guilds.
Companies are the voters for these elections.
Substantial assets outside the city itself.

Pre medieval hangovers that should be swept away.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it would be a bit scary to write down the organisation and rights of the City of London corporation.
It predates the English monarchy and has no real founding or charter details as it was already ancient when William the conqueror invaded.
It has an official named the Remembrancer who sits by the speaker in parliament to remind him of the rights of the City.
It's elected members can only come from restrictive guilds.
Companies are the voters for these elections.
Substantial assets outside the city itself.

Pre medieval hangovers that should be swept away.

Well I have learned something new today, thank you kind sir.

http://fromtone.com/who-is-the-the-remembrancer/

Nody

Ouch; you know things are bad when Germany manages to be "British" in their diplomacy over Brexit:

Peter Ptassek, Germany’s top diplomat in charge of Brexit said in a statement posted on social media that he had a “friendly reminder” for the UK negotiating team.

“‘Sufficient progress’ in withdrawal questions meant: we are not there yet. More work to be done,” he said.

Potential loose ends include the exact right EU and British citizens currently living abroad will have after Brexit – as well as exactly how the problem of the Northern Irish border will be resolved.

The initial draft mostly consisted of a guarantee from the UK to avoid a hard border with the Irish Republic rather than an actual negotiated solution for the province – though Britain did suggest it would keep rules aligned across the UK with the EU’s single market in the event of no other solution being found.

The EU’s negotiating team has however told member states it consisted this backstop to be incompatible with the UK’s stated policy of leaving the customs union and single market.

Oh dear; The Iron Lady in charge in the UK will have more headaches to bang her handbag on.

Sand

Skedaddle wrote: »

She has very few strong opinions on anything. It's part of the problem. You're looking at a leader who seems to just sit on the fence and check the wind direction all the time.

She was very unenthusiastically in favour of remain, because that was the party line. Now she's unenthusiastically pro Brexit because the line shifted.

Weak and wobbly!

The comparisons with Thatcher are completely inaccurate other than they're the same gender.

From what I can see they've no idea what they actually want.

In fairness, both the Remain and the Brexit campaigns were anti-EU and anti-Europe. There was not a huge ideological distance for May to cross. The Remain pitch was that the EU was awful, but marginally less awful than the alternative. May still considers the EU to be awful, and still believes the UK can and should exploit the EU, only from outside rather than inside.

If that's a realistic expectation remains to be proven.

Strazdas

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, both the Remain and the Brexit campaigns were anti-EU and anti-Europe. There was not a huge ideological distance for May to cross. The Remain pitch was that the EU was awful, but marginally less awful than the alternative. May still considers the EU to be awful, and still believes the UK can and should exploit the EU, only from outside rather than inside.

If that's a realistic expectation remains to be proven.

Yes indeed, Cameron admitted he was a Eurosceptic who disliked many aspects of the EU, including the flag and the Parliament - which tells us what an incredibly dangerous game he was playing by holding a referendum.

CrabRevolution

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, both the Remain and the Brexit campaigns were anti-EU and anti-Europe. There was not a huge ideological distance for May to cross. The Remain pitch was that the EU was awful, but marginally less awful than the alternative. May still considers the EU to be awful, and still believes the UK can and should exploit the EU, only from outside rather than inside.

If that's a realistic expectation remains to be proven.

The message of "Though a deeply unpleasant experience, having to deal with foreigners is a necessary evil" was a bemusing stance from the Remain side.

They seemed afraid to actually accentuate any benefits of being in the EU, as that would be seen as anti British (see the many debates where it was framed as Britain vs. Europe. It was one or the other, no way of being both). As a result of this, they campaigned on a half hearted " it's better than nothing" stance.

Capt'n Midnight

Really Interested wrote: »

Well I have learned something new today, thank you kind sir.

http://fromtone.com/who-is-the-the-remembrancer/

in that link important bit, given how the EU is starting to clamp down on such stuff.

The square mile has another major attraction: its almost non-existent approach to financial regulation
...

It’s no coincidence that London has been home to just about every major global financial scandal of the last decade, including Libor, Forex, MF Global, the London Whale and rampant gold and oil-price rigging.

Leroy42

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The message of "Though a deeply unpleasant experience, having to deal with foreigners is a necessary evil" was a bemusing stance from the Remain side.

They seemed afraid to actually accentuate any benefits of being in the EU, as that would be seen as anti British (see the many debates where it was framed as Britain vs. Europe. It was one or the other, no way of being both). As a result of this, they campaigned on a half hearted " it's better than nothing" stance.

Particularly the tories were caught in a real bind in the campaign. They have basically been blaming EU for every ill over the last 40 years, and so to suddenly turn around and proclaim that the EU is great would make them out to be the problem.

They couldn't, for example, come out and explain that contrary to Farange et al, a major proportion of the immigration was actually totally under their control but that they left it open in order to keep wages down.

They couldn't come out and say that had it not been for the EU, water quality would probably never improve, environmental protections would never have been introduced, that workers rights would probably still be stuck to 40 years earlier.

So they had little choice but to claim that whilst the EU was at fault for everything bad,it would be worse without it so from unknown reason.

Finally, the likes of May were political cowards. They were not prepared to stand by their beliefs, preferring to be all things to all people so that they could win whichever way the vote went. Had Remain won, you can bet your bottom dollar that May would be front and centre singing it praises, whilst blaming it for immigration levels and the problems in the NHS.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Particularly the tories were caught in a real bind in the campaign. They have basically been blaming EU for every ill over the last 40 years, and so to suddenly turn around and proclaim that the EU is great would make them out to be the problem.

They couldn't, for example, come out and explain that contrary to Farange et al, a major proportion of the immigration was actually totally under their control but that they left it open in order to keep wages down.

They couldn't come out and say that had it not been for the EU, water quality would probably never improve, environmental protections would never have been introduced, that workers rights would probably still be stuck to 40 years earlier.

So they had little choice but to claim that whilst the EU was at fault for everything bad,it would be worse without it so from unknown reason.

Finally, the likes of May were political cowards. They were not prepared to stand by their beliefs, preferring to be all things to all people so that they could win whichever way the vote went. Had Remain won, you can bet your bottom dollar that May would be front and centre singing it praises, whilst blaming it for immigration levels and the problems in the NHS.

Theresa May even blamed the EU for abolishing the credit card charges. - Hang on - no - she claimed it was The Tories that did it - nothing to do with the EU.

Such breathtaking hypocrisy is almost unbelievable.

https://twitter.com/theresa_may/stat...08358668038146

ambro25

US slaps 'America First' tariffs on washing machines and solar panels

Bad news for UK washing machines manufacturer EBAC, looks to be a serious kink in their export strategy:

<...> And looking forward to post-Brexit Britain, Hird sees no signs of the company’s rapid growth slowing down.

He concludes: “Looking forward, the United States is a huge opportunity for Ebac and we are on the verge of developing a major distribution deal in the US for our watercoolers. <...>

I wonder how many tons of chlorinated chickens Dr Fox is going to have to sign the UK up for, to gain a tariff exception for Made in UK washing machines.

Sierra Oscar

How Irish Border Issue Threatens to Erupt Back Into Brexit Talks

I thought the guarantee we secured was rock solid?! We better hope our EU partners stick with us on this issue now that we have allowed things to progress to stage two.

Nody

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

How Irish Border Issue Threatens to Erupt Back Into Brexit Talks

I thought the guarantee we secured was rock solid?! We better hope our EU partners stick with us on this issue now that we have allowed things to progress to stage two.

See my post above from the German diplomat pointing out that things are still to resolve from phase 1 which was retweeted by the Brexit team in Brussels; they are fully aware and not letting it go (as much as the UK team will cry unfair as always).

KindOfIrish

UK seats in the EU Parliament has been divided between other member states. Ireland will get 2 extra seats in May 2019 elections.
http://www.dw.com/en/eu-presents-post-brexit-plan-for-britains-73-european-parliament-seats/a-42271758

charlie14

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

How Irish Border Issue Threatens to Erupt Back Into Brexit Talks

I thought the guarantee we secured was rock solid?! We better hope our EU partners stick with us on this issue now that we have allowed things to progress to stage two.

I could not understand how this so called guarantee was getting so much publicity as being rock solid when Britain were adamant they were leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union, yet there would be no hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
To me it was a fudge that allowed Britain to kick the can down the road and move to Phase 2 based on nothing other than vague contradictory ramblings from May where we are now left hoping our EU partners stick with our interpretation of this so called guarantee.
We should have insisted on precise details as to how a hard border was going to be avoided before allowing progress to Phase 2 imo.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

To me it was a fudge that allowed Britain to kick the can down the road and move to Phase 2 based on nothing other than vague contradictory ramblings from May where we are now left hoping our EU partners stick with our interpretation of this so called guarantee.

Of course it was a fudge - it will be the very, very least of a post hard-Brexit UKs worries if Ireland goes to Hell, and if they are mad enough to do it, there really is very little anyone can say.

We just have to cross our fingers and hope that they are not as mad as they are acting.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course it was a fudge - it will be the very, very least of a post hard-Brexit UKs worries if Ireland goes to Hell, and if they are mad enough to do it, there really is very little anyone can say.

We just have to cross our fingers and hope that they are not as mad as they are acting.

A majority of Tories now believe no deal is better than a bad deal. A mixture of mad patriots, mad idiots and sane disaster capitalists. Mad or as good as unfortunately.

Zubeneschamali

demfad wrote: »

A majority of Tories now believe no deal is better than a bad deal.

And really, all the EU could do (in any negotiation, stage 1 or later) is say "IF you want a deal, then we need the border, citizens rights and the divorce bill settled", because IF they are mad enough to leave without a deal, there is really nothing rational that can be said to them.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course it was a fudge - it will be the very, very least of a post hard-Brexit UKs worries if Ireland goes to Hell, and if they are mad enough to do it, there really is very little anyone can say.

We just have to cross our fingers and hope that they are not as mad as they are acting.

My worry is that by allowing Phase 2 to go ahead without clarification from Britain on the border issue, we are now in the position of having to trust in our EU partners to interpret May`s rambling in the same context as we are, and not as Britain are now suggesting.
Many - if not all- of our EU partners have a lot less to lose in a hard border scenario than we do, and if the banking crisis has shown us anything it is that when it is deemed for the greater good, our EU partners can be very pragmatic.
When we had the ball in our own hand during Phase 1, imho, we should have insisted on detailed binding clarifications on the border issue before allowing talks to move on to Phase 2 rather than facilitating that fudge.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

When we had the ball in our own hand during Phase 1, imho, we should have insisted on detailed binding clarifications on the border issue before allowing talks to move on to Phase 2 rather than facilitating that fudge.

The only hope is that they are not quite mad, and realize they need a future relationship. If they do, then what May agreed is good enough. If not, it doesn't matter what they agree in Phase 1.

Water John

Boris is personally offended, by him being attacked at today's Cabinet meeting by Amber Rudd!!!
Suck it up, Boris.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I could not understand how this so called guarantee was getting so much publicity as being rock solid when Britain were adamant they were leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union, yet there would be no hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
To me it was a fudge that allowed Britain to kick the can down the road and move to Phase 2 based on nothing other than vague contradictory ramblings from May where we are now left hoping our EU partners stick with our interpretation of this so called guarantee.
We should have insisted on precise details as to how a hard border was going to be avoided before allowing progress to Phase 2 imo.

I also pointed out all of this at the time.

In fact, while the agreement said the UK was committed to an open border, the agreement never said that the EU was committed to it. Parts of the document had "both sides agree" but the important bits for Ireland only had "the UK is committed".

Well, as I said at the time, I am committed to not getting warnings or bans on boards.ie, but that doesn't mean I won't get them. Commitments change and get overtaken by events.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The only hope is that they are not quite mad, and realize they need a future relationship. If they do, then what May agreed is good enough. If not, it doesn't matter what they agree in Phase 1.

How mad they are or not does not really matter. I believe they want a deal and the EU wants a deal, but like every deal, therein will lie the devil.
It is pretty clear at this stage that within the EU there is no belief that it is possible to have a border such as we have interpreted May`s proposal.
By allowing the fudge on Phase 1 we have allowed negotiations to move to Phase 2 where it now appears we are into the area of interpretation.
We should never have let it get to this.
We should have nailed down exactly what was being proposed when it was in our own hands as a requirement before any Phase 2 negotiations could begin.

Gerry T

The EU has zero control of the border. If the UK leave without a deal, then theres a border.
Is it not the case that all 27 members have to ratify any proposed agreement, so in the event a proposal may be tabled IRL should make it clear that if such agreement has a irl land border, then we won't agree. We still have control, even if it is a weaker position.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

We should have nailed down exactly what was being proposed when it was in our own hands as a requirement before any Phase 2 negotiations could begin.

Then Phase 2 would never have started, we'd get the hardest of Brexits and we'd have to lock down the border ourselves. Not at all clever.

Peregrinus

Gerry T wrote: »

The EU has zero control of the border. If the UK leave without a deal, then theres a border.
Is it not the case that all 27 members have to ratify any proposed agreement, so in the event a proposal may be tabled IRL should make it clear that if such agreement has a irl land border, then we won't agree. We still have control, even if it is a weaker position.

If we act unilaterally, it's a very weak position. We can prevent a Brexit deal being made, but that would be a very poor outcome for us. We cannot compel anyone to make a Brexit deal on the terms that we want - neither the UK nor our fellow EU members.

Which means that keeping the support of our fellow EU member states for a no-hard-border Brexit is not just our best strategy; it's the only strategy that has any chance of working.

All of which makes the point the Brexit is pretty stupid. So far, the Brexit negotiations have gone much more our way than the UK's, and it's because we have pooled our sovereignty. On our own, our position would basically be as weak as the UK's position, if not weaker. But by working through the EU, we acheive far more.

Gerry T

Peregrinus wrote:

Which means that keeping the support of our fellow EU member states for a no-hard-border Brexit is not just our best strategy; it's the only strategy that has any chance of working.

I totally agree with this, and we need to tactfully continue to remind our EU and UK counterparts all the way through this process. And thankfully based recent performance I have confidence we will well represent ourselves

Peregrinus

Gerry T wrote: »

I totally agree with this, and we need to tactfully continue to remind our EU and UK counterparts all the way through this process. And thankfully based recent performance I have confidence we will well represent ourselves

This effort is already under way. (It never stopped, really.) And it continues to bear fruit. See for instance this tweet a couple of days ago from the German Foreign Office's point man on Brexit.

Harika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Then Phase 2 would never have started, we'd get the hardest of Brexits and we'd have to lock down the border ourselves. Not at all clever.

Phase 2 was also a present to May, to support her so that she is not replaced with someone who is either able or completely nuts. Cause as stated here and what should be clearly visible is that the negotiations are running in the EUs favour.

Peregrinus

charlie14 wrote: »

. . . We should have nailed down exactly what was being proposed when it was in our own hands as a requirement before any Phase 2 negotiations could begin.

We did nail down exactly what is being proposed. In the Joint Report, the UK acknowledges that it is committed to avoiding a hard border (para 43) and that it has guaranteed to avoid a hard border (para 49). It's explicitly stated that avoiding a hard border involves there being no physical infrastructure or related checks and controls (para 43). Furthermore, the UK has agreed that any Brexit deal, and any future trade deal, must be compatible with there being no hard border (para 49). Finally, the UK has said that even if it fails to reach agreement with the EU on how an open border is to be delivered, it will still "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" (para 49 again).

There's nothing ambiguous or unclear about this. Certain brexity voices may be presenting this as unclear or minimal, but it is neither. Brexity voices are capable of coming up with all kinds of surreal nonsense so, no matter what language was in the joint report, they could still say that it was unclear.

None of this forces the UK to sign a Brexit deal which keeps the border open. But that was never an attainable objective in phase 1. Until the UK signs a Brexit deal, they haven't signed a Brexit deal, and no amount of clear wording in phase 1 was ever going to change that.

What we have acheived, though, is an acknowledgement that there will be no Brexit deal unless it's a Brexit deal that delivers an open border. And we have done that not by exercising or threatening to exercise an Irish veto, but by getting the EU onside, which is a much more powerful position. It could still happen that the UK thinks better of the commitments and guarantees it has given and crashes out without a Brexit deal or a trade deal but, as already pointed out, that possibily can never be excluded until the UK actually signs a Brexit deal. And, if the UK does do that, sooner or later they are going to feel the resulting pain and come back looking for some kind of deal with the EU. And the starting point for that deal will be what the UK and the EU agreed last month, as set out in the phase 1 report, which includes an open border.

Leroy42

Harika wrote: »

Phase 2 was also a present to May, to support her so that she is not replaced with someone who is either able or completely nuts. Cause as stated here and what should be clearly visible is that the negotiations are running in the EUs favour.

Whilst I was initially disappointed with what appeared to be little more than a sop deal to the UK, and it certainly felt like the EU had caved, upon reflection we need to look at the real politik of the situation.

Clearly May was in serious trouble, facing mounting backlash in the UK and I see this, as Harika stated, a present to May to get things moving.

Whilst I still only see a hard brexit as the outcome, the EU and Ireland in particular, are working to help avoid this. Apparently even working against the wishes of the UK. So it would seem, and I hope this is true, that the EU are hoping to nudge the UK back towards reason before the deadline rather than what was looking like a strop at the time.

Some of the media (express etc) make a big thing out of Portuguese or Italian minister saying that they look forward to a deal, or Marcon saying that a deal in is everyones interests, but read down the article and you see that that is all they are saying. They are not saying they plan to leave the EU to support the UK, that they plan to back the UK in the negotiations. Nice diplomatic language to try to avoid inflaming the situation.

charlie14

Gerry T wrote: »

The EU has zero control of the border. If the UK leave without a deal, then theres a border.
Is it not the case that all 27 members have to ratify any proposed agreement, so in the event a proposal may be tabled IRL should make it clear that if such agreement has a irl land border, then we won't agree. We still have control, even if it is a weaker position.

Britain is adamant that it is leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. If so is it not the case a border will be a EU requirement.

It is the case that all 27 members will have to ratify any proposed agreement, but at that stage the pressure may be on Ireland from our EU partners to accept that proposal on a border.
In Phase 1, with the backing of our EU partners, Ireland where in the driving seat to pressurise Britain to clarify exactly what such a border would entail before negotiations could move on to Phase 2.
What we have now is looking increasingly like a fudge where we have left our fate in the hands of our EU partners.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Then Phase 2 would never have started, we'd get the hardest of Brexits and we'd have to lock down the border ourselves. Not at all clever.

If as Britain are adamant they are going to do - leave the Single Market and the Customs Union - then are we not going to have to lock down the border on the EU`s insistence anyway.
The border issue was one of the issues that was supposed to be clarified during Phase 1.
We are now in Phase 2 where what we have are vague proposals from Britain that even our EU partners are now looking on as impractical and unworkable.

Nody

But we can be in phase 314324 and as long as the phase 1 issues are not resolved the whole thing will still fail; which is why the German diplomat on Brexit reminded the UK team that they still need to square the circle of their promises.

Harika

charlie14 wrote: »

It is the case that all 27 members will have to ratify any proposed agreement, but at that stage the pressure may be on Ireland from our EU partners to accept that proposal on a border.
In Phase 1, with the backing of our EU partners, Ireland where in the driving seat to pressurise Britain to clarify exactly what such a border would entail before negotiations could move on to Phase 2.
What we have now is looking increasingly like a fudge where we have left our fate in the hands of our EU partners.

So far, the EU with its European Parliament's representative Guy Verhofstadt, was only backing Ireland and showed extremely strong support.

Last example from a week ago

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/953662444110602241

And not a single EU representative has come forward and asked Ireland to be creative or more understanding. The pressure is on the UK to provide a working solution as it already has agreed like Peregrinus showed in his last post above.

charlie14

Peregrinus wrote: »

We did nail down exactly what is being proposed. In the Joint Report, the UK acknowledges that it is committed to avoiding a hard border (para 43) and that it has guaranteed to avoid a hard border (para 49). It's explicitly stated that avoiding a hard border involves there being no physical infrastructure or related checks and controls (para 43). Furthermore, the UK has agreed that any Brexit deal, and any future trade deal, must be compatible with there being no hard border (para 49). Finally, the UK has said that even if it fails to reach agreement with the EU on how an open border is to be delivered, it will still "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" (para 49 again).

There's nothing ambiguous or unclear about this. Certain brexity voices may be presenting this as unclear or minimal, but it is neither. Brexity voices are capable of coming up with all kinds of surreal nonsense so, no matter what language was in the joint report, they could still say that it was unclear.

None of this forces the UK to sign a Brexit deal which keeps the border open. But that was never an attainable objective in phase 1. Until the UK signs a Brexit deal, they haven't signed a Brexit deal, and no amount of clear wording in phase 1 was ever going to change that.

What we have acheived, though, is an acknowledgement that there will be no Brexit deal unless it's a Brexit deal that delivers an open border. And we have done that not by exercising or threatening to exercise an Irish veto, but by getting the EU onside, which is a much more powerful position. It could still happen that the UK thinks better of the commitments and guarantees it has given and crashes out without a Brexit deal or a trade deal but, as already pointed out, that possibily can never be excluded until the UK actually signs a Brexit deal. And, if the UK does do that, sooner or later they are going to feel the resulting pain and come back looking for some kind of deal with the EU. And the starting point for that deal will be what the UK and the EU agreed last month, as set out in the phase 1 report, which includes an open border.

I get all that but for me at least it all a very ambiguous acceptance of a British proposal which was allowed to pass Phase 1 with little or no detail considering Britain are insistent it is leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union.
The onus was on Britain during Phase 1 to clarify exactly how this proposed open border was going to operate and the negotiations were allowed to move to Phase 2 without them doing so where now Britain are talking of this open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland only covering certain activities such as agriculture.
In light of the British insistence that they will leave the Customs Union and the Single Market, should this come to pass, I cannot see the EU simply accepting the type of vague border proposals that were proposed by Britain during Phase 1. So not only from our own point of view, but also from an EU point of view, I cannot see why this proposal was not clarified in detail during Phase 1 before moving to Phase 2, other than perhaps a belief in Brussels that Britain leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union as not going to happen.

charlie14

Harika wrote: »

So far, the EU with its European Parliament's representative Guy Verhofstadt, was only backing Ireland and showed extremely strong support.

Last example from a week ago

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/953662444110602241

And not a single EU representative has come forward and asked Ireland to be creative or more understanding. The pressure is on the UK to provide a working solution as it already has agreed like Peregrinus showed in his last post above.

My worry is not what is being said by our EU partners now.
It is what the final proposed draft will contain where the pressure may be on Ireland from our EU partners to accept, rather than when we controlled the pressure in Phase 1 with the backing of our EU partners too insist on detailed clarification from Britain on the border issue.
As I have said before, if the banking crisis showed us anything it is how our EU partners can be very pragmatic when it comes to deeming what is in the greater good.

charlie14

Nody wrote: »

But we can be in phase 314324 and as long as the phase 1 issues are not resolved the whole thing will still fail; which is why the German diplomat on Brexit reminded the UK team that they still need to square the circle of their promises.

Which as far as I`m concerned at least, when we had the driving hand during Phase 1 should have been clarified in detail before any move to Phase 2 or any other Phase.

CelticRambler

charlie14 wrote: »

In light of the British insistence that they will leave the Customs Union and the Single Market, should this come to pass, I cannot see the EU simply accepting the type of vague border proposals that were proposed by Britain during Phase 1. So not only from our own point of view, but also from an EU point of view, I cannot see why this proposal was not clarified in detail during Phase 1 before moving to Phase 2, other than perhaps a belief in Brussels that Britain leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union as not going to happen.

Perhaps because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of reasons why a hard border can and will never happen in reality, whereas there is only one reason why a border in the Irish Sea won't happen. The EU can play a waiting game knowing that if Britain decides to exit "hard" then NI gets special status. Tory-UKIP is happy, RoI is happy, the NI-Remain majority is happyish, and the DUP ... well, if their Tory bedfellows are happy, they should be happy too, shouldn't they, and if not, what are they going to do about it?

charlie14 wrote: »

our EU partners can be very pragmatic when it comes to deeming what is in the greater good.

It is for the greater good not to have a gaping hole in the Single Market/Custom Union border on the island of Ireland.

Harika

charlie14 wrote: »

My worry is not what is being said by our EU partners now.
It is what the final proposed draft will contain where the pressure may be on Ireland from our EU partners to accept, rather than when we controlled the pressure in Phase 1 with the backing of our EU partners too insist on detailed clarification from Britain on the border issue.
As I have said before, if the banking crisis showed us anything it is how our EU partners can be very pragmatic when it comes to deeming what is in the greater good.

Your fear is that the UK strategy wins: Wait until the united front of the EU27 breaks under pressure and then dictate the terms. We are 10 months in and this looks more and more unlikely. No EU industry has come forward and claimed that Brexit will costs so many EU jobs, but a lot of UK companies stated that.
I understand where you are coming from, but cannot see any signs yet that the actual situation with full support of Ireland and the border question with Ireland in the driver seat will change.

Skedaddle

Realistically, NI will need some kind of special status. The DUP will eventually just have to accept that there's a compromise that wouldn't involve NI loyalists being 'less British' but would potentially place NI in a rather unique position of being the only bit of the UK that could have its cake and eat it (within reason).

ancapailldorcha

Not sure how likely it is exactly but a referendum on the final deal looks far from impossible:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/953582066565820416

charlie14

CelticRambler wrote: »

Perhaps because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of reasons why a hard border can and will never happen in reality, whereas there is only one reason why a border in the Irish Sea won't happen. The EU can play a waiting game knowing that if Britain decides to exit "hard" then NI gets special status. Tory-UKIP is happy, RoI is happy, the NI-Remain majority is happyish, and the DUP ... well, if their Tory bedfellows are happy, they should be happy too, shouldn't they, and if not, what are they going to do about it?


It is for the greater good not to have a gaping hole in the Single Market/Custom Union border on the island of Ireland.

For all intents and purposes a border in the Irish Sea was what May was proposing until her Tory bedfellows expressed their unhappiness resulting in the fudge we have ended up with to facilitate May keeping said bedfellows on side.
There is no indication that come the final draft requiring approval by the EU 27 that politically the situation will be any different in Britain.
We had the power during Phase 1 when we were publicly guaranteed by our EU partners that there would be no move to Phase 2 until the border issue was settled to our satisfaction.
We are now in a situation where the British interpretation of what was agree is different to ours and our EU partners are doubting what was proposed is even viable.
As I have said already, whereas we had the pressure during Phase 1 to look for clarification on the border issue. My fear is that come the final draft requiring signatures, we may be the one under pressure based on what may be deemed as for the greater good of the EU.

As to your question is it for the greater good not to have a gaping hole in the Single Market/Customs Union border on the island of Ireland, based on the British proposal that moved the negotiations to Phase 2, there will be no border north, south, east or west. Just a gaping hole.

charlie14

Harika wrote: »

Your fear is that the UK strategy wins: Wait until the united front of the EU27 breaks under pressure and then dictate the terms. We are 10 months in and this looks more and more unlikely. No EU industry has come forward and claimed that Brexit will costs so many EU jobs, but a lot of UK companies stated that.
I understand where you are coming from, but cannot see any signs yet that the actual situation with full support of Ireland and the border question with Ireland in the driver seat will change.

My fear is not that the UK strategy win.
It is that we were in the diving seat during Phase 1 on the border issue due to the publicly stated support of the other EU members.
By agreeing to allow negotiations to move on without a definitive guarantee, the more likely it is that others in the EU27 will be doing a bit of back seat driving attempting to steer towards outcomes that suit them on a give a little get a little.
On that basis we may be the ones under pressure come the final draft, rather than the pressure that should have been on the UK when we had the steering wheel all to ourselves.

charlie14

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not sure how likely it is exactly but a referendum on the final deal looks far from impossible:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/953582066565820416

From my reading of that poll they appear determined enough to leave, other than the large numbers of don`t knows on leaving without a deal.
The problem I would see in a change of attitude there is getting through to them what a no deal would cost them.

Even within those that wish to remain there is skepticism of the EU. That plus them now knowing the lies they were peddled during their referendum campaign by some politicians and a large section of their media, it would look to be a very hard sell to get a ground-swell to even back another referendum.

Edit: Cameron caught today on camera in Davos saying Brexit will be difficult but not a disaster, a quote totally at variance with his referendum position is not going to make it any easier on getting support for another referendum even with no deal.

The main solace I would take from that poll is that it will hopefully concentrate political minds on there being a lack of support for leaving without a deal.