Brexit discussion thread III

Sand

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

Couple of points: we did get a definitive guarantee. We didn't get a detailed solution, or a signed treaty or a law passed but none of that was ever going to happen. We only had a veto on if sufficient progress had been made.

Secondly, the Ireland-UK border is going to be an EU-UK border. The EU wants the freest possible trade with the UK to continue - they have no incentive to stab Ireland in the back by accepting an unworkable border that simply cannot be policed with over 300 crossing points. That would be an invitation to smuggling into the single market. They will want a solution that requires no hard border just as much as Ireland will.

Thirdly, if this truly is a red line issue for Ireland it does not matter how much pressure others place on Ireland. We either represent our interests, or we do not. We cant contract that out to others and hope for the best. We saw how that worked out in the bailout.

charlie14

Sand wrote: »

Couple of points: we did get a definitive guarantee. We didn't get a detailed solution, or a signed treaty or a law passed but none of that was ever going to happen. We only had a veto on if sufficient progress had been made.

Secondly, the Ireland-UK border is going to be an EU-UK border. The EU wants the freest possible trade with the UK to continue - they have no incentive to stab Ireland in the back by accepting an unworkable border that simply cannot be policed with over 300 crossing points. That would be an invitation to smuggling into the single market. They will want a solution that requires no hard border just as much as Ireland will.

Thirdly, if this truly is a red line issue for Ireland it does not matter how much pressure others place on Ireland. We either represent our interests, or we do not. We cant contract that out to others and hope for the best. We saw how that worked out in the bailout.

That definitive guarantee from the UK does not appear to hold the same definitive guarantees we believe they do and the UK believe they do according to their beliefs now as to what areas they cover.
They even appear to be viewed as by our EU partners as being inoperable.

I fully agree that in all likeliihood there will be an EU-UK border, but where is this border going to be situated I am having problems with.
Especially with no border North, South, East or West according to this UK definitive guarantee.
I doubt if the EU would to be too enamoured with Ireland being an open back door.

On your third point I agree entirely, but imo it is something we could have sorted in Phase 1, when as another poster put it, we really were in the drivers seat regarding the border issue, rather than perhaps ending up in a battle with our EU partners on the final draft.

Christy42

charlie14 wrote: »

Sand wrote: »

Couple of points: we did get a definitive guarantee. We didn't get a detailed solution, or a signed treaty or a law passed but none of that was ever going to happen. We only had a veto on if sufficient progress had been made.

Secondly, the Ireland-UK border is going to be an EU-UK border. The EU wants the freest possible trade with the UK to continue - they have no incentive to stab Ireland in the back by accepting an unworkable border that simply cannot be policed with over 300 crossing points. That would be an invitation to smuggling into the single market. They will want a solution that requires no hard border just as much as Ireland will.

Thirdly, if this truly is a red line issue for Ireland it does not matter how much pressure others place on Ireland. We either represent our interests, or we do not. We cant contract that out to others and hope for the best. We saw how that worked out in the bailout.

That definitive guarantee from the UK does not appear to hold the same definitive guarantees we believe they do and the UK believe they do according to their beliefs now as to what areas they cover.
They even appear to be viewed as by our EU partners as being inoperable.

I fully agree that in all likeliihood there will be an EU-UK border, but where is this border going to be situated I am having problems with.
Especially with no border North, South, East or West according to this UK definitive guarantee.
I doubt if the EU would to be too enamoured with Ireland being an open back door.

On your third point I agree entirely, but imo it is something we could have sorted in Phase 1, when as another poster put it, we really were in the drivers seat regarding the border issue, rather than perhaps ending up in a battle with our EU partners on the final draft.

It could never be fully sorted out in phase 1. The UK will always have the option of no deal until the final deal is penned. I can't see any sort of steal forthcoming that would involve a border in place.

Either the UK makes some concessions on EU regulations in terms of goods or there is no deal. If concessions are made we can have no barriers for goods. If not then all this is just an expensive way of getting to no deal.

BonnieSituation

charlie14 wrote: »

That definitive guarantee from the UK does not appear to hold the same definitive guarantees we believe they do and the UK believe they do according to their beliefs now as to what areas they cover.
They even appear to be viewed as by our EU partners as being inoperable.

I fully agree that in all likeliihood there will be an EU-UK border, but where is this border going to be situated I am having problems with.
Especially with no border North, South, East or West according to this UK definitive guarantee.
I doubt if the EU would to be too enamoured with Ireland being an open back door.

On your third point I agree entirely, but imo it is something we could have sorted in Phase 1, when as another poster put it, we really were in the drivers seat regarding the border issue, rather than perhaps ending up in a battle with our EU partners on the final draft.

I've read your posts on the issue and there is a lot of stuff to agree with but I'm sure the fact that you are a Donegalman means that you are likely to be a tad more trepidatious when dealing with the Tans. :P

Simple thing is, there's no advantage for the EU to leave us hanging. I can't see how that would transpire and the UK at all times are the ones that have to make the running.

I don't see the December deal as weakening our hand at all. But ca see the POV where you might think it does.

As the weeks and months march on and the UK still have no answers they will pretty much just have to take on whatever the EU/Ireland suggest as has been the case so far in this "process".

I mean, we're now at the end of January and all the UK have done since the "deal" in December is undermine it and we've had no more movement from them with solutions.

We know how this is all gonna end for the UK. The thing is, though, they don't.

But we'll get a bridge to Scotland out of it sure.

Capt'n Midnight

Not really news but
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42809565

The Polish Prime Minister has said Britain will have to continue making financial contributions to the European Union if it wants to enjoy privileged access to the single market.
...
"... you cannot have your cake and eat the same cake," he said.

charlie14

Christy42 wrote: »

It could never be fully sorted out in phase 1. The UK will always have the option of no deal until the final deal is penned. I can't see any sort of steal forthcoming that would involve a border in place.

Either the UK makes some concessions on EU regulations in terms of goods or there is no deal. If concessions are made we can have no barriers for goods. If not then all this is just an expensive way of getting to no deal.

If, as the UK are adamant, they are leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, whether there is to be a deal or not, the border issue is going to have to be resolved at some point.
I cannot see how that could not have been conclusively done in Phase 1 when we were, as another poster put it, in the driving seat rather than down the line where we do not know who will be looking after the driving with an eye towards their own best interests.

charlie14

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I've read your posts on the issue and there is a lot of stuff to agree with but I'm sure the fact that you are a Donegalman means that you are likely to be a tad more trepidatious when dealing with the Tans. :P

Simple thing is, there's no advantage for the EU to leave us hanging. I can't see how that would transpire and the UK at all times are the ones that have to make the running.

I don't see the December deal as weakening our hand at all. But ca see the POV where you might think it does.

As the weeks and months march on and the UK still have no answers they will pretty much just have to take on whatever the EU/Ireland suggest as has been the case so far in this "process".

I mean, we're now at the end of January and all the UK have done since the "deal" in December is undermine it and we've had no more movement from them with solutions.

We know how this is all gonna end for the UK. The thing is, though, they don't.

But we'll get a bridge to Scotland out of it sure.

As a Donegal man alive long enough to remember a border before the Single Market or Customs Union, I can remember quite a few Donegal people who viewed the border as a financial opportunity as much as anything else.

With all our shared history with the "Tans" as you term, not just Donegal then perhaps it would be wisest to view any dealings with them with a certain degree of trepidation.
Especially when considering -not just in our own relatively recent past, but in many other instances historically - where the UK have been involved in negotiations they have shown themselves the masters of the art of dividing to conquer.


Either way, with Donegal`s history of emigrants to the UK favouring Scotland in the past resulting in many Donegal families now having relation in Scotland, that bridge you mention would be more than welcomed by Donegal.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

If, as the UK are adamant, they are leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, whether there is to be a deal or not, the issue border issue is going to have to be resolved at some point.
I cannot see how that could not have been conclusively done in Phase 1 when we were, as another poster put it, in the driving rather than down the line where we do not know who will be looking after the driving with an eye towards their own best interests.

It the UK leave the Single Market and the Customs Union, there will be a border.

It won't be on the Irish Sea because May cannot deliver that.

So either a change in government, a change in UK policy or a border on this island.

Leroy42

Davies admitted today that any transition period will be, in all but semantics, the UK staying in the EU, except that they will give up the right to have any say in the EU.

That's quite an admission for a start.

Second, it opens up a very clear division within the Tories. This is very important given that the plan to date seems to be centred on creating divisions within the EU.

It is also, although unspoken, an admission that the UK is not ready for this and is looking for something longer than the stated A50 timeline in order for the UK to be in a position to actually leave.

Now it doesn't take the world greatest genius to work out that that places a significant advantage in the EU hands. Davies has basically just announced that the UK would prefer to leave at least 2 years after Brexit day.

Rees-Mogg,as a counter argument said that the UK should break with EU rules and not care about the consequences. Hardly the sort of position that is going to ender them to future trade agreements. And least one forget, Rees-Mogg is one of the front runners to take over once May is tossed aside.

Rain Ascending

I suspect that Ireland's leverage is greater than some here think.

Northern Ireland is a political success story from a Brussels perspective, two nationalities sharing the same territory reaching an accommodation with each other as part of a peace process that largely put an end to a low-grade conflict. It's a story that resonates well with the vision the European Union has of itself, namely European nations working together for the common good. The EC has been happy to associate itself with, and provide support for, the GFA down through the years. It is no coincidence that Barnier, as well as speaking to the Joint Houses of Oireachtas, also visited the boarder region, months before any senior British politician did so.

The Commission is invested in the Northern Ireland peace process.

So when the Irish politicians and civil servants do the rounds of Europe, this back-story undoubtedly helps. No doubt they have a lot of hard slog to do to keep the Irish position accepted and supported. But it hugely helps that they are working to a narrative that reinforces the European Union's self-image rather than runs counter to it.

Will that enough on its own, to overcome a perceived serious existential threat to the Single Market as we get to the end game of negotiations? No. However, the end game will be a complex interplay of stakeholders, processes, and interests. Every lever we have, we'll need to play ... and this is one that has value.

Peregrinus

charlie14 wrote: »

If, as the UK are adamant, they are leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, whether there is to be a deal or not, the border issue is going to have to be resolved at some point.
I cannot see how that could not have been conclusively done in Phase 1 when we were, as another poster put it, in the driving seat rather than down the line where we do not know who will be looking after the driving with an eye towards their own best interests.

You keep saying this, but you are ignoring the point that has been made several times; the border issue could never have been "conclusively resolved" in phase 1. No matter what the British said in phase 1, it would not bind them until actually embodied in a treaty, and they could walk away from it.

You're lamenting the fact that we failed to acheive something that could never have been acheived and that we (wisely) did not seek to acheive, while ignoring the value of what we actually did achieve.

Can I ask you at this point to say what, exactly, should have been in the phase 1 agreement that you think would have "conclusively resolved" the border issue, and that wasn't there?

Harika

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not really news but
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42809565

Wow from the Polish one, that is surprising. Cause they were always supporting the British, as they feared the French-German axis and before Brexit started stated clearly they would prefer to have UK in EU as long as possible. Also they are fighting atm with the EU commission about their recent judicial reforms. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/20/eu-process-poland-voting-rights

Peregrinus

Harika wrote: »

Wow from the Polish one, that is surprising. Cause they were always supporting the British, as they feared the French-German axis and before Brexit started stated clearly they would prefer to have UK in EU as long as possible. Also they are fighting atm with the EU commission about their recent judicial reforms. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/20/eu-process-poland-voting-rights

I don't think there's anything surprising here.

As you say, they like having the UK in the EU because they feel the UK provides a counterweight to the Franco-German axis. For that reason, they very much don't like Brexit. (Plus, they don't like Brexit because of the threat to the situation of Poles already in the UK, because of the loss of opportunity for Poles to work in the UK in the future, and because of the possible impact on emigrants' remittances from the UK to Poland.)

Therefore, they are not inclined to back the UK in seeking anything that would make Brexit easier or less painful.

Poland's support for the UK in the EU is not based on a warm, frank love for the UK. It's based on the UK being useful to them in the EU. Brexit changes that, obviously.

CelticRambler

blanch152 wrote: »

It the UK leave the Single Market and the Customs Union, there will be a border.

It won't be on the Irish Sea because May cannot deliver that.

Of course she can - she came within hours of doing just that (if the reports were to be believed) to get through the Phase 2 door.

Despite Macron's recent sweet-talking, France - French farmers in particular - does not want the UK dumping their cheap American imports into the EU through an Irish border hole, and there's more than enough collective memory in Europe to know that a border between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six will be unpoliceable.

For entirely practical, cold, hard economic reasons, the logical place to put that border is in the Irish Sea. Since the Phase 1 May-DUP débacle, everyone knows now where the oppostion to that proposal is, and the measure of the threat. All discussions - on both sides of the English Channel - will have been and continue to be carried on with that in mind.

Skedaddle

To be honest, I wouldn't believe the reports. I think it's just spin to prevent GBP slipping backwards / spooking the city of London. They don't even seem to have an outline agreement yet.

I've lost all confidence in the UK Government to negotiate this. I can't see how it will be possible to get this done before the deadline and they still have to deal with the 27 other parliaments and democratic processes that will potentially throw up all sorts of problems with various aspects of any proposed agreement.

Ultimately, I think either Brexit will just fall off the tracks and it will be forgotten about as "that year we all went mad". Or, it will actually happen without an agreement and the outcome will largely depend on whether the EU is panicked enough into providing some kind of interim measure to allow it to happen more slowly, or whether it just stands firm and allows the whole thing to crash out, which could potentially cause a major economic shock on a regional and global scale.

The other aspect is that the US$ is sinking fast relatively to the EUR and GBP and a whole basket of currencies. I think Trump's sitting on a huge bubble that could go bang in 2018 and that could change a lot of things in both the UK and EU as people start to have to come up with a pragmatic solution to this if you're facing into a global financial mess all over again.

It's quite possible that Brexit ends up being overtaken by some kind of financial or even military mess emanating from the US

FrancieBrady

CelticRambler wrote: »

Of course she can - she came within hours of doing just that (if the reports were to be believed) to get through the Phase 2 door.

Despite Macron's recent sweet-talking, France - French farmers in particular - does not want the UK dumping their cheap American imports into the EU through an Irish border hole, and there's more than enough collective memory in Europe to know that a border between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six will be unpoliceable.

For entirely practical, cold, hard economic reasons, the logical place to put that border is in the Irish Sea. Since the Phase 1 May-DUP débacle, everyone knows now where the oppostion to that proposal is, and the measure of the threat. All discussions - on both sides of the English Channel - will have been and continue to be carried on with that in mind.

Indeed. The idea that the UK will be stopped doing the deal it ultimately wants to do because of what is essentially a pride issue for the DUP is fanciful, to say the least.

Skedaddle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Indeed. The idea that the UK will be stopped doing the deal it ultimately wants to do because of what is essentially a pride issue for the DUP is fanciful, to say the least.

The problem there is the DUP are probably the most stubborn political party in these islands and are also not the most logical or pragmatic. Their entire raison d'être is about identity politics and religious dogma. They're not a 'normal' political party and they really have no reason to budge on this either. They aren't going to see the 'greater good' or the 'UK national interest' this will all be about how it's playing out to voters in 'our community'.

They would refuse to budge, even if it crashed the entire UK economy as they've noting to lose and only care about the symbolism of loyalism and national identity.

So, I think the whole thing could crash into a general election if the May government tries anything on NI border changes.

Put yourself into the shoes of an NI loyalist and you'd have a very different view of what's going on. They'll see this as treachery and betrayal and go completely off the rails about it.

May simply does not have the numbers in Westminster to force anything on the DUP and they will not allow it. She's running a minority government. She's also not dealing with the Lib Dems this time. Negotiating with the DUP on this issue would make Brexit negotiations seem like a cake walk.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

It the UK leave the Single Market and the Customs Union, there will be a border.

It won't be on the Irish Sea because May cannot deliver that.

Of course she can - she came within hours of doing just that (if the reports were to be believed) to get through the Phase 2 door.

Despite Macron's recent sweet-talking, France - French farmers in particular - does not want the UK dumping their cheap American imports into the EU through an Irish border hole, and there's more than enough collective memory in Europe to know that a border between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six will be unpoliceable.

For entirely practical, cold, hard economic reasons, the logical place to put that border is in the Irish Sea. Since the Phase 1 May-DUP débacle, everyone knows now where the oppostion to that proposal is, and the measure of the threat. All discussions - on both sides of the English Channel - will have been and continue to be carried on with that in mind.

The EU is 100% resolute about maintaining the integrity of EU standards. No border hole will be allowed threaten that.

An Irish Sea border between Ireland and Britain is a lot better than an Irish Sea border between Ireland and the Continent.

FrancieBrady

Skedaddle wrote: »

The problem there is the DUP are probably the most stubborn political party in these islands and are also not the most logical or pragmatic. Their entire raison d'être is about identity politics and religious dogma. They're not a 'normal' political party and they really have no reason to budge on this either. They aren't going to see the 'greater good' or the 'UK national interest' this will all be about how it's playing out to voters in 'our community'.

They would refuse to budge, even if it crashed the entire UK economy as they've noting to lose and only care about the symbolism of loyalism and national identity.

So, I think the whole thing could crash into a general election if the May government tries anything on NI border changes.

They have one shot to force their will.
I will bet you it won't be over a border in the Irish sea. Because if Britain crashed out and there is a hard Brexit, they have everything to lose.

An Irish sea border is just a pride thing, nothing else. They will fold on it if it comes down to that or no deal.

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Skedaddle wrote: »

The problem there is the DUP are probably the most stubborn political party in these islands and are also not the most logical or pragmatic. Their entire raison d'être is about identity politics and religious dogma. They're not a 'normal' political party and they really have no reason to budge on this either. They aren't going to see the 'greater good' or the 'UK national interest' this will all be about how it's playing out to voters in 'our community'.

They would refuse to budge, even if it crashed the entire UK economy as they've noting to lose and only care about the symbolism of loyalism and national identity.

So, I think the whole thing could crash into a general election if the May government tries anything on NI border changes.

They have one shot to force their will.
I will bet you it won't be over a border in the Irish sea. Because if Britain crashed out and there is a hard Brexit, they have everything to lose.

An Irish sea border is just a pride thing, nothing else. They will fold on it if it comes down to that or no deal.

Meanwhile the rest of Europe is getting on with it. Companies are adjusting their supply chains and logistics.

The five new ferry crossings a week from Dublin and Cork to France and Spain starting in May aren't happening by accident.

The UK is being by-passed in more ways than one.

CelticRambler

Skedaddle wrote: »

Put yourself into the shoes of an NI loyalist and you'd have a very different view of what's going on. They'll see this as treachery and betrayal and go completely off the rails about it.

May simply does not have the numbers in Westminster to force anything on the DUP and they will not allow it. She's running a minority government. She's also not dealing with the Lib Dems this time. Negotiating with the DUP on this issue would make Brexit negotiations seem like a cake walk.

Put yourself in the shoes of a Labour party leader. You have a chance to back May in agreeing a soft-ish Brexit that includes special status for NI, which happens to look like a nudge towards a United Ireland, something that you've (allegedly) previously supported, and all it requires is for ten Labour MPs to be conveniently absent during upcoming votes ... The DUP don't have anything like the power in Westminster that's been attributed to them - because, as you say, their raison d'être is parochial religious dogma and maintaining their pseudo-British identity.

blanch152

CelticRambler wrote: »

Of course she can - she came within hours of doing just that (if the reports were to be believed) to get through the Phase 2 door.

Despite Macron's recent sweet-talking, France - French farmers in particular - does not want the UK dumping their cheap American imports into the EU through an Irish border hole, and there's more than enough collective memory in Europe to know that a border between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six will be unpoliceable.

For entirely practical, cold, hard economic reasons, the logical place to put that border is in the Irish Sea. Since the Phase 1 May-DUP débacle, everyone knows now where the oppostion to that proposal is, and the measure of the threat. All discussions - on both sides of the English Channel - will have been and continue to be carried on with that in mind.

Actually for Ireland, the practical, cold, hard economic reasons are a border in the Irish Sea, but for the North, the practical, cold, hard economic reasons are a border on this island, particularly as it copperfastens subsidies from the rest of the UK to maintain that land border.

Europe would prefer to put checks on Irish goods travelling to mainland Europe rather than compromise the Single Market or the Customs Union. If a border is required but unpoliceable, that it what will happen.

It all comes down to the UK, can May dump the North, if not can she change the policy on the CU and SM, if not can the government be changed and then change either of those.

If none of the above happens, the EU will insist on a hard border on this island. If you read the Phase 1 agreement, absolutely nowhere in it does it say that the EU will do everything it can to avoid a hard border.

blanch152

CelticRambler wrote: »

Put yourself in the shoes of a Labour party leader. You have a chance to back May in agreeing a soft-ish Brexit that includes special status for NI, which happens to look like a nudge towards a United Ireland, something that you've (allegedly) previously supported, and all it requires is for ten Labour MPs to be conveniently absent during upcoming votes ... The DUP don't have anything like the power in Westminster that's been attributed to them - because, as you say, their raison d'être is parochial religious dogma and maintaining their pseudo-British identity.

Why would you do that when you have a chance to bring the May government down, cause a general election and get back into power?

Come on, be realistic.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would you do that when you have a chance to bring the May government down, cause a general election and get back into power?

Come on, be realistic.

One chance and then it is into the unknown consequences of taking that one chance.

Interesting doc on the Beeb last night about Bombardier that showed when it comes to selfish Tory interests the DUP seem to have no clout at all.
Probably on the Player now.

breatheme

blanch152 wrote: »

CelticRambler wrote: »

Of course she can - she came within hours of doing just that (if the reports were to be believed) to get through the Phase 2 door.

Despite Macron's recent sweet-talking, France - French farmers in particular - does not want the UK dumping their cheap American imports into the EU through an Irish border hole, and there's more than enough collective memory in Europe to know that a border between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six will be unpoliceable.

For entirely practical, cold, hard economic reasons, the logical place to put that border is in the Irish Sea. Since the Phase 1 May-DUP débacle, everyone knows now where the oppostion to that proposal is, and the measure of the threat. All discussions - on both sides of the English Channel - will have been and continue to be carried on with that in mind.

Actually for Ireland, the practical, cold, hard economic reasons are a border in the Irish Sea, but for the North, the practical, cold, hard economic reasons are a border on this island, particularly as it copperfastens subsidies from the rest of the UK to maintain that land border.

Europe would prefer to put checks on Irish goods travelling to mainland Europe rather than compromise the Single Market or the Customs Union. If a border is required but unpoliceable, that it what will happen.

It all comes down to the UK, can May dump the North, if not can she change the policy on the CU and SM, if not can the government be changed and then change either of those.

If none of the above happens, the EU will insist on a hard border on this island. If you read the Phase 1 agreement, absolutely nowhere in it does it say that the EU will do everything it can to avoid a hard border.

NI can easily have both. No regulatory divergence between NI and the EU, plus a FTA agreement that removes tariffs for NI produced goods = a need to inspect goods coming from the UK (assuming they'd like to diverge) but not tariffs.

blanch152 wrote: »

CelticRambler wrote: »

Put yourself in the shoes of a Labour party leader. You have a chance to back May in agreeing a soft-ish Brexit that includes special status for NI, which happens to look like a nudge towards a United Ireland, something that you've (allegedly) previously supported, and all it requires is for ten Labour MPs to be conveniently absent during upcoming votes ... The DUP don't have anything like the power in Westminster that's been attributed to them - because, as you say, their raison d'être is parochial religious dogma and maintaining their pseudo-British identity.

Why would you do that when you have a chance to bring the May government down, cause a general election and get back into power?

Come on, be realistic.

I don't see a GE happening before Brexit day...

Skedaddle

blanch152 wrote: »

Actually for Ireland, the practical, cold, hard economic reasons are a border in the Irish Sea, but for the North, the practical, cold, hard economic reasons are a border on this island, particularly as it copperfastens subsidies from the rest of the UK to maintain that land border.

Europe would prefer to put checks on Irish goods travelling to mainland Europe rather than compromise the Single Market or the Customs Union. If a border is required but unpoliceable, that it what will happen.

It all comes down to the UK, can May dump the North, if not can she change the policy on the CU and SM, if not can the government be changed and then change either of those.

If none of the above happens, the EU will insist on a hard border on this island. If you read the Phase 1 agreement, absolutely nowhere in it does it say that the EU will do everything it can to avoid a hard border.

No chance of that happening. It would be a fundamental breech of EU Treaties. The only thing the EU could do is reinforce the border with Frontex support.

Skedaddle

blanch152 wrote: »

Actually for Ireland, the practical, cold, hard economic reasons are a border in the Irish Sea, but for the North, the practical, cold, hard economic reasons are a border on this island, particularly as it copperfastens subsidies from the rest of the UK to maintain that land border.

Europe would prefer to put checks on Irish goods travelling to mainland Europe rather than compromise the Single Market or the Customs Union. If a border is required but unpoliceable, that it what will happen.

It all comes down to the UK, can May dump the North, if not can she change the policy on the CU and SM, if not can the government be changed and then change either of those.

If none of the above happens, the EU will insist on a hard border on this island. If you read the Phase 1 agreement, absolutely nowhere in it does it say that the EU will do everything it can to avoid a hard border.

No chance of that happening. It would be a fundamental breech of EU Treaties. The only thing the EU could do is reinforce the border with Frontex support and/or take sancions against the UK for promoting smuggling and probably Ireland if we allowed it.

The UK faced enormous fines as an EU member for failing to adequately police goods coming into its ports and airports and onward into the EU. If Ireland failed to police the border, that's what we would be facing too.

The UK is facing a €2 billion fine over that one.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/uk-faces-2bn-fine-over-chinese-imports-scam-say-eu-anti-fraud-investigators

The scenario Ireland would be facing would be major court action over and over, until we enforced EU law. Or, deciding to leave the EU.

There are a lot of realities to be faced with this mess, if it ends up being a hard border.

Whatever one's view in the North, it's currently an integral part of the UK. So without a status change that border is going to be a huge issue.

I suspect if it's a hard Brexit, the Irish border will just be back to its pre 1993 self and the North will just have to deal with the economic consequences.

My view is we should demand full compensation for transportation infrastructure to be built into the Northwest, particularly to recoup anything paid to the UK for interregional funding, trans European networks TEN-T programmess, any monies paid by the republic towards infrastructure in the north that was intended to benefit the whole island etc etc

A lot of Irish and EU public money was invested into projects that Irish and EU citizens will no longer see much benefit from.

A claw back is entirely reasonable and fair.

charlie14

Peregrinus wrote: »

You keep saying this, but you are ignoring the point that has been made several times; the border issue could never have been "conclusively resolved" in phase 1. No matter what the British said in phase 1, it would not bind them until actually embodied in a treaty, and they could walk away from it.

You're lamenting the fact that we failed to acheive something that could never have been acheived and that we (wisely) did not seek to acheive, while ignoring the value of what we actually did achieve.

Can I ask you at this point to say what, exactly, should have been in the phase 1 agreement that you think would have "conclusively resolved" the border issue, and that wasn't there?

It is not a case of me, as you termed it "lamenting the fact that we failed to achieve something that could never have been achieved" during Phase 1.
It is more a case of me questioning just exactly what we did achieve and how practical and operable that supposed achievement is.

We had at that stage the publicly stated backing of our EU partners that there would be no move to Stage 2 until we were satisfied with the UKs proposals on the border issue.

From my understanding the UK position both then, and now, is that they are leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union which to all intents and purposes will require a border.
Again, and correct me if I am misinformed here, my understanding is on the border issue we have accepted a proposal from the UK which allowed the movement to Phase 2 where there would be no border either North South or East West with no detail how this would operate other than some vague mumbling from the UK on technology.

We are now at a stage from my point of view where we no longer hold that trump card on the border issue we held during Phase 1, and where the UK are saying that proposal does not cover what we believe it does, only covers certain areas such as agriculture, and where our EU partners are publicly doubting if the UK proposal is either practical or operable.
For just both those reasons alone I am having great difficulty understanding just what this achievement was.

As to what I believe should have been achieved.
The most obvious place to have started is the recognition that from the UKs stated position of leaving both the Customs Union and the Single Market, a border was going to be a requirement, so where exactly was this border going to be and a comprehensive detailed proposal as to how the UK intended it to operate.
That will not be just a requirement for us, but one that will be a requirement for the EU before, should there be an agreement, a final draft is signed off on.
I do not see how that could not have been done during Phase 1 when we held the power to demand it rather than it being kicked down the road until the final draft, where during the interim other interests may have come into play that had no say on the issue during Phase 1.

J Mysterio

Nice headline on the Independent today: 'Brexit is Dunkirk withou the boats'.

The UK position to the UK audience is "we are leaving The single market and The customs union" (my capitalisation).

The UK position to the EU is "we are leaving Your single market and Your customs union, but we will get exactly the same outcomes and guarantee existing trading arrangements by creating and welcoming you into Our single market and Our customs union".

Whether or not that is possible, realistic, ideal etc is up for debate (staunch), but at the heart of it there is some logic. In the event that the UK position actually played out as above, there is a chance that their Phase 1 commitments all hold true.

Supremely conditional of course, but the idealouges can claim that they are happy to sign Phase 1 off as they can believe it is deliverable under their ideal.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK position to the UK audience is "we are leaving The single market and The customs union" (my capitalisation).

The UK position to the EU is "we are leaving Your single market and Your customs union, but we will get exactly the same outcomes and guarantee existing trading arrangements by creating and welcoming you into Our single market and Our customs union".

Whether or not that is possible, realistic, ideal etc is up for debate (staunch), but at the heart of it there is some logic. In the event that the UK position actually played out as above, there is a chance that their Phase 1 commitments all hold true.

Supremely conditional of course, but the idealouges can claim that they are happy to sign Phase 1 off as they can believe it is deliverable under their ideal.

Some glimpse of logic to be sure, but very much depending on your perspective. Much more wishful thinking than logic though. Remember, the UK cannot be better off outside the EU than inside. More importantly, they must be seen to be worse off. Otherwise, the EU as a project is doomed as every country will rush to cherry pick.

Enzokk

charlie14 wrote: »

It is not a case of me, as you termed it "lamenting the fact that we failed to achieve something that could never have been achieved" during Phase 1.
It is more a case of me questioning just exactly what we did achieve and how practical and operable that supposed achievement is.

We had at that stage the publicly stated backing of our EU partners that there would be no move to Stage 2 until we were satisfied with the UKs proposals on the border issue.

From my understanding the UK position both then, and now, is that they are leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union which to all intents and purposes will require a border.
Again, and correct me if I am misinformed here, my understanding is on the border issue we have accepted a proposal from the UK which allowed the movement to Phase 2 where there would be no border either North South or East West with no detail how this would operate other than some vague mumbling from the UK on technology.

We are now at a stage from my point of view where we no longer hold that trump card on the border issue we held during Phase 1, and where the UK are saying that proposal does not cover what we believe it does, only covers certain areas such as agriculture, and where our EU partners are publicly doubting if the UK proposal is either practical or operable.
For just both those reasons alone I am having great difficulty understanding just what this achievement was.

As to what I believe should have been achieved.
The most obvious place to have started is the recognition that from the UKs stated position of leaving both the Customs Union and the Single Market, a border was going to be a requirement, so where exactly was this border going to be and a comprehensive detailed proposal as to how the UK intended it to operate.
That will not be just a requirement for us, but one that will be a requirement for the EU before, should there be an agreement, a final draft is signed off on.
I do not see how that could not have been done during Phase 1 when we held the power to demand it rather than it being kicked down the road until the final draft, where during the interim other interests may have come into play that had no say on the issue during Phase 1.

I guess that is why you were asked what should have been achieved, as any progress was down to the UK. Its such a complex issue that I still don't think the UK politicians understand what a difficult time it will be to negotiate the border and what implications this will have on the whole deal that the UK will achieve. Add in the DUP to an already complex negotiations and you have a position where the UK knows that it has to guarantee an open border for the GFA (parts of it) but the party controlling them does not seem to care about this.

The fact is that the UK cannot leave the EU and still maintain the GFA. I know it, the EU knows it and the UK knows it. But they don't want to tell the world they are prepared to risk destabilising not just Northern Ireland but another sovereign country and as a result the EU because they don't want foreigners living in their cities. But that is what it comes down to.

So the only way Ireland would have gotten stone cast guarantees is if the UK decided it wanted a deal like Norway. But they still don't know what they want so we have to get by with what we got. Its not the best, but we will hurt the most if there is no deal and to be honest I would be very upset if our politicians decided that the pointed gun at our foot needs to be armed. Let the UK do that, we will get more sympathy as the whole world would see the UK for what it is, a petulant child. But lets not act like children ourselves and hope the UK will grow up and face its responsibilities like a grown up nation.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK position to the UK audience is "we are leaving The single market and The customs union" (my capitalisation).

The UK position to the EU is "we are leaving Your single market and Your customs union, but we will get exactly the same outcomes and guarantee existing trading arrangements by creating and welcoming you into Our single market and Our customs union"

Reading that reminds me of a headline purportedly from The Times of London newspaper in the 1950`s.

"Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off."

demfad

charlie14 wrote: »

It is not a case of me, as you termed it "lamenting the fact that we failed to achieve something that could never have been achieved" during Phase 1.
It is more a case of me questioning just exactly what we did achieve and how practical and operable that supposed achievement is.

We had at that stage the publicly stated backing of our EU partners that there would be no move to Stage 2 until we were satisfied with the UKs proposals on the border issue.

From my understanding the UK position both then, and now, is that they are leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union which to all intents and purposes will require a border.
Again, and correct me if I am misinformed here, my understanding is on the border issue we have accepted a proposal from the UK which allowed the movement to Phase 2 where there would be no border either North South or East West with no detail how this would operate other than some vague mumbling from the UK on technology.

We are now at a stage from my point of view where we no longer hold that trump card on the border issue we held during Phase 1, and where the UK are saying that proposal does not cover what we believe it does, only covers certain areas such as agriculture, and where our EU partners are publicly doubting if the UK proposal is either practical or operable.
For just both those reasons alone I am having great difficulty understanding just what this achievement was.

As to what I believe should have been achieved.
The most obvious place to have started is the recognition that from the UKs stated position of leaving both the Customs Union and the Single Market, a border was going to be a requirement, so where exactly was this border going to be and a comprehensive detailed proposal as to how the UK intended it to operate.
That will not be just a requirement for us, but one that will be a requirement for the EU before, should there be an agreement, a final draft is signed off on.
I do not see how that could not have been done during Phase 1 when we held the power to demand it rather than it being kicked down the road until the final draft, where during the interim other interests may have come into play that had no say on the issue during Phase 1.

The UK is free to change its self imposed red lines on the SM and CU: the EU would welcome that. They are not as free to change their commitments to regulatory alignment. That is the difference.

Whether they admit it or not the UK is also not really free to accept no-deal.
And they are not free to have an FTA as a 3rd country to be honest.

The most favoured nation rule means that as a 3rd country, regulatory and customs alignment with the EU (not just for the border but for overall UK-EU trade), must be replicated by the UK for every other WTO country.

So they theoretically could get some cake, but the rest of the world would eat it.

Essentially, because the CU/SM exists the UK must be in it.

There is still a chance ofcourse, that the headbangers will secure a no-deal.

flutered

Leroy42 wrote: »

Davies admitted today that any transition period will be, in all but semantics, the UK staying in the EU, except that they will give up the right to have any say in the EU.

That's quite an admission for a start.

Second, it opens up a very clear division within the Tories. This is very important given that the plan to date seems to be centred on creating divisions within the EU.

It is also, although unspoken, an admission that the UK is not ready for this and is looking for something longer than the stated A50 timeline in order for the UK to be in a position to actually leave.

Now it doesn't take the world greatest genius to work out that that places a significant advantage in the EU hands. Davies has basically just announced that the UK would prefer to leave at least 2 years after Brexit day.

Rees-Mogg,as a counter argument said that the UK should break with EU rules and not care about the consequences. Hardly the sort of position that is going to ender them to future trade agreements. And least one forget, Rees-Mogg is one of the front runners to take over once May is tossed aside.

i have read on uk fourms that rees mogg will never be pm in the uk, due to his religious belifs

flutered

Rain Ascending wrote: »

I suspect that Ireland's leverage is greater than some here think.

Northern Ireland is a political success story from a Brussels perspective, two nationalities sharing the same territory reaching an accommodation with each other as part of a peace process that largely put an end to a low-grade conflict. It's a story that resonates well with the vision the European Union has of itself, namely European nations working together for the common good. The EC has been happy to associate itself with, and provide support for, the GFA down through the years. It is no coincidence that Barnier, as well as speaking to the Joint Houses of Oireachtas, also visited the boarder region, months before any senior British politician did so.

The Commission is invested in the Northern Ireland peace process.

So when the Irish politicians and civil servants do the rounds of Europe, this back-story undoubtedly helps. No doubt they have a lot of hard slog to do to keep the Irish position accepted and supported. But it hugely helps that they are working to a narrative that reinforces the European Union's self-image rather than runs counter to it.

Will that enough on its own, to overcome a perceived serious existential threat to the Single Market as we get to the end game of negotiations? No. However, the end game will be a complex interplay of stakeholders, processes, and interests. Every lever we have, we'll need to play ... and this is one that has value.

has not bernier stated that phase one has to be put in a legal standing before phase two can begin in march

charlie14

Enzokk wrote: »

I guess that is why you were asked what should have been achieved, as any progress was down to the UK. Its such a complex issue that I still don't think the UK politicians understand what a difficult time it will be to negotiate the border and what implications this will have on the whole deal that the UK will achieve. Add in the DUP to an already complex negotiations and you have a position where the UK knows that it has to guarantee an open border for the GFA (parts of it) but the party controlling them does not seem to care about this.

The fact is that the UK cannot leave the EU and still maintain the GFA. I know it, the EU knows it and the UK knows it. But they don't want to tell the world they are prepared to risk destabilising not just Northern Ireland but another sovereign country and as a result the EU because they don't want foreigners living in their cities. But that is what it comes down to.

So the only way Ireland would have gotten stone cast guarantees is if the UK decided it wanted a deal like Norway. But they still don't know what they want so we have to get by with what we got. Its not the best, but we will hurt the most if there is no deal and to be honest I would be very upset if our politicians decided that the pointed gun at our foot needs to be armed. Let the UK do that, we will get more sympathy as the whole world would see the UK for what it is, a petulant child. But lets not act like children ourselves and hope the UK will grow up and face its responsibilities like a grown up nation.

I am not looking at it as getting stone cast guarantees in the Norway context. I am looking at it in the context that during Phase 1 the UK had stated they did not want a deal like Norway`s and were leaving both the CU and the SM.

That scenario would result in a hard border between the UK and the EU.
In that context when we had the publicly stated backing of our EU partners during Phase 1 on the border issue then it was incumbent for the Irish Republic to know where this border was going to be and how it was going to operate.

If, as appears May`s original proposal was a border in the Irish Sea, then we would have been entitled to very little explanation, as it would operate same as a border between the UK and continental EU states. Although with that arrangement, as another poster pointed out there would invariable be the question of smuggling between Northern Ireland and the UK mainland. A potential problem I would view as an EU problem overall, not just the Republics, as it would have been a border in the Irish Sea the EU as a whole agreed to.
That to me would have been an achievement.
Not what we have now, which if the UK do leave as they stated they will, is something that based on the UK proposal we have accepted of no border North, South, East or West which is for all intents and purposes is impractical and inoperable.
That it is such is not just my opinion, it is an opinion that is now being expressed by some of our EU partners.

A proposed border between the Republic and Northern Ireland would have entailed a totally different scenario in what could have perhaps been achieved.

charlie14

demfad wrote: »

The UK is free to change its self imposed red lines on the SM and CU: the EU would welcome that. They are not as free to change their commitments to regulatory alignment. That is the difference.

Whether they admit it or not the UK is also not really free to accept no-deal.
And they are not free to have an FTA as a 3rd country to be honest.

The most favoured nation rule means that as a 3rd country, regulatory and customs alignment with the EU (not just for the border but for overall UK-EU trade), must be replicated by the UK for every other WTO country.

So they theoretically could get some cake, but the rest of the world would eat it.

Essentially, because the CU/SM exists the UK must be in it.

There is still a chance ofcourse, that the headbangers will secure a no-deal.

I am not questioning that the UK has a right to change its self imposed red lines on the SM or CU. I am merely expressing the opinion that as those red lines were the UK position Phase 1, what was achieved relating to a border should the UK stick with those red lines and exit, is impractical and inoperable.

Enzokk

charlie14 wrote: »

I am not looking at it as getting stone cast guarantees in the Norway context. I am looking at it in the context that during Phase 1 the UK had stated they did not want a deal like Norway`s and were leaving both the CU and the SM.

That scenario would result in a hard border between the UK and the EU.
In that context when we had the publicly stated backing of our EU partners during Phase 1 on the border issue then it was incumbent for the Irish Republic to know where this border was going to be and how it was going to operate.

If, as appears May`s original proposal was a border in the Irish Sea, then we would have been entitled to very little explanation, as it would operate same as a border between the UK and continental EU states. Although with that arrangement, as another poster pointed out there would invariable be the question of smuggling between Northern Ireland and the UK mainland. A potential problem I would view as an EU problem overall, not just the Republics, as it would have been a border in the Irish Sea the EU as a whole agreed to.
That to me would have been an achievement.
Not what we have now, which if the UK do leave as they stated they will, is something that based on the UK proposal we have accepted of no border North, South, East or West which is for all intents and purposes is impractical and inoperable.
That it is such is not just my opinion, it is an opinion that is now being expressed by some of our EU partners.

A proposed border between the Republic and Northern Ireland would have entailed a totally different scenario in what could have perhaps been achieved.

I agree that a sea border is the ideal solution for the EU and Ireland and in some ways the Conservative government. That way they get to leave the EU and get to take back control of their trade deals and borders. But, and its a very big but, the DUP doesn't see it that way.

In all honesty I don't see any solution from the DUP as workable as their stance is more ridiculous than those Brexit MPs. But you cannot get away from the fact that DUP voters will have concerns about their identity and they will want assurances. In any other time the UK Government would give the same assurances they have given the EU and the DUP would have to trust them. Right now they are in power due to their deal with the Tories so they have a say in how this goes. Whether the sea border is the best of those bad options for NI, its a no go for the DUP.

CelticRambler

Enzokk wrote: »

But you cannot get away from the fact that DUP voters will have concerns about their identity and they will want assurances. ... Right now they are in power due to their deal with the Tories so they have a say in how this goes.

Right now they have a disprortionate degree of influence over the Tories due entirely to TM's ill-judged election gamble. But they're not in a coalition.

Neither are the concerns of DUP voters any more important than those of, for example, the SNP or Plaid Cymru. When the whole of Westminster gets to vote on the Brexit deal, the propping-up arrangement will take a back seat to an unpredictable mix of "for the greater good" and "what's in it for us" and pandering to a bunch of irrational Irish MPs will be way down their list of priorities. Chances are a party like the SNP would see special status for NI as a way to lay the groundwork for IndyRef2 and decide to give the Tories just enough support for just long enough to allow them limp towards the first election in post-Brexit Britain.

charlie14

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree that a sea border is the ideal solution for the EU and Ireland and in some ways the Conservative government. That way they get to leave the EU and get to take back control of their trade deals and borders. But, and its a very big but, the DUP doesn't see it that way.

In all honesty I don't see any solution from the DUP as workable as their stance is more ridiculous than those Brexit MPs. But you cannot get away from the fact that DUP voters will have concerns about their identity and they will want assurances. In any other time the UK Government would give the same assurances they have given the EU and the DUP would have to trust them. Right now they are in power due to their deal with the Tories so they have a say in how this goes. Whether the sea border is the best of those bad options for NI, its a no go for the DUP.

The backing we got from our EU partners was that there would be no move to Phase 2 until we were happy with the UKs proposal on the border issue. Not that the DUP were happy with the UKs proposal.
That was an issue solely for May and the DUP.
Why we - which seems we apparently did considering May`s initial position - thought that any concern of ours which resulted in the fudge we are left with beats me.
The only possible explanation I can come up with is that the strong support express publicly by our EU partners, in private was not that particularly strong, with our EU partners seeing the DUP roadblock wantin the can kicked down the road to enable Phase 2 to begin.
If so, something that I fear may not auger well on the border issue when/if a final draft is reached requiring signatures.

demfad

charlie14 wrote: »

I am not questioning that the UK has a right to change its self imposed red lines on the SM or CU. I am merely expressing the opinion that as those red lines were the UK position Phase 1, what was achieved relating to a border should the UK stick with those red lines and exit, is impractical and inoperable.

You're missing the point. The UK redlines on SM and CU were not apart of the agreement hammered out in phase 1 with (EU/Ireland).
Sure they want to have their cake and eat it. They have committed to regulatory alignment with the EU. The EU will hold them to this.
We all know this means the UK red lines will get rubbed out. Or maybe they wont and they will crash out with no deal.
I think this was the best that Ireland could do. Any more from May would have seen her Govt collapse.
They see May as someone they can deal with. Not so the crooks lining up in the shadows.

Water John

Barnier is important to us. Was he not the EU point man on the GFA? So he has a vested interest in never seeing it undermined.

charlie14

demfad wrote: »

You're missing the point. The UK redlines on SM and CU were not apart of the agreement hammered out in phase 1 with (EU/Ireland).
Sure they want to have their cake and eat it. They have committed to regulatory alignment with the EU. The EU will hold them to this.
We all know this means the UK red lines will get rubbed out. Or maybe they wont and they will crash out with no deal.
I think this was the best that Ireland could do. Any more from May would have seen her Govt collapse.
They see May as someone they can deal with. Not so the crooks lining up in the shadows.

Perhaps I did not express the point clearly.

My point is that during the Phase1 border discussions the UK red lines were, and still are, that they are leaving the SM and CU.
If they do that then a border will be a requirement and one that we had in Phase1 the public stated backing of our EU partners to seek clarification on from the UK which unless we got to our satisfaction there would be no progress to Phase 2.
What we got was a vague no border either North South East or West with no clarification how this was supposed to operate.
In other words a fudge which even some of our EU partners have judged as not just impractical but inoperable.
That this was the best that Ireland could because May`s government would have collapsed was her problem not ours. Ours was the border issue, although I am starting to believe a major part of the fudge was our EU partners looking at her government collapse as a problem for them.

Many appear to have believed that the UK commitment on regulatory alignment was a commitment to alignment with EU regulations, How this could even be regarded as credible with the UK leaving the SM, the CU the ECJ etc. I just could not understand.
It is becoming increasingly clear that when the UK committed to regularity alignment, from their recent statements, far as they are concerned it is alignment under the GF agreement.

Nate--IRL--

Isn't phase 1 ongoing? The Completion of which is an agreed legal text encompassing what has been agreed?

If the UK doesn't reach agreement on a binding treaty text, Phase 1 never completes, therefore no other phases can complete.

The Commitments they've made in Phase one will be binding on the rest of the process.

Nate

CelticRambler

charlie14 wrote: »

What we got was a vague no border either North South East or West with no clarification how this was supposed to operate.

What we got was a committment to regulatory alignment unless and until the UK can come up with some (magical) solution to the impossible problem of an island-of-Ireland border. Peregrinus has explained this (with citations from the actual agreement) already.

The most practical solution is special status for NI and an Irish Sea border. All of the serious problems disappear in that situation, except for a lot of jumping up and down by the members of one small political party, and everyone knows that.

There's no need for anyone on the EU side to ask for more because there's no-one on the UK side who can grant it. Some ideas have to be allowed to cook for a while before they're palatable to those who don't want to swallow them ... and you can see that happening month after month with regard to the various "red lines" drawn by the UK so far.

charlie14

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Isn't phase 1 ongoing? The Completion of which is an agreed legal text encompassing what has been agreed?

If the UK doesn't reach agreement on a binding treaty text, Phase 1 never completes, therefore no other phases can complete.

The Commitments they've made in Phase one will be binding on the rest of the process.

Nate

15th Dec 2017 tweet from Tusk President of the European Council :

"EU leaders agree to move on to second phase of #Brexit talks. Congratulations PM @theresa_may"

Nate--IRL--

charlie14 wrote: »

15th Dec 2017 tweet from Tusk President of the European Council :

"EU leaders agree to move on to second phase of #Brexit talks. Congratulations PM @theresa_may"

Yes, there is sufficient progress to proceed on to Phase 2, Phase 1 has not concluded though. It doesn't conclude until the EU and UK agree a treaty text for what has been agreed.

Nate

charlie14

CelticRambler wrote: »

What we got was a committment to regulatory alignment unless and until the UK can come up with some (magical) solution to the impossible problem of an island-of-Ireland border. Peregrinus has explained this (with citations from the actual agreement) already.

The most practical solution is special status for NI and an Irish Sea border. All of the serious problems disappear in that situation, except for a lot of jumping up and down by the members of one small political party, and everyone knows that.

There's no need for anyone on the EU side to ask for more because there's no-one on the UK side who can grant it. Some ideas have to be allowed to cook for a while before they're palatable to those who don't want to swallow them ... and you can see that happening month after month with regard to the various "red lines" drawn by the UK so far.

The UK government would appear from their recent remarks to have a very different understanding on what this alignment means, with their reference to certain area like agriculture, which sound suspiciously like their views on their alignment requirements under the GF agreement,not alignment under EU regulations.

The most practical, and apparently May`s original proposal - was a border in the Irish Sea.
The fact that May had a problem with the DUP over that proposal was not our problem.

She should have been told to sort it out and come back when she had and she could move on to Phase 2, or alternatively told we were happy to let talks move to Phase 2 with the border issue put aside to be revisited under the same terms of Phase1. That there could not be a final draft no matter how many Phases until we were satisfied with her proposals rather than the nonsensical proposal were left with imho.

charlie14

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Yes, there is sufficient progress to proceed on to Phase 2, Phase 1 has not concluded though. It doesn't conclude until the EU and UK agree a treaty text for what has been agreed.

Nate

Our trump card was the assurances from our EU partners that the UK border proposals would have to be to our satisfaction governed Phase 1 though.
By accepting that UK proposal of no border anywhere Phase 1 then we have played that card have we not ?

P.S. With us accepting the UK proposal, sufficient progress was deemed to allow negotiations to proceed to Phase 2.