Brexit discussion thread III

Capt'n Midnight

Again nothing new. The banks have been saying things like this for ages. Only change is that there is numbers are clearer.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42825244

The boss of Goldman Sachs has warned that the US bank's contingency planning is reaching the point of no return.

Some parts of Brexit can't be undone.


http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42809691

The chief executive of JP Morgan has told the BBC it could cut its 16,000 UK workforce by more than a quarter if financial rules diverge after Brexit.

Water John

Hammond has spoken to limit Brexit and May raps his knuckles.

Zubeneschamali

charlie14 wrote: »

By accepting that UK proposal of no border anywhere Phase 1 then we have played that card have we not ?

"This proposed phase 2 agreement does not appear to fulfill the conditions we all agreed in phase 1. I'm sure that is an oversight on the part of your negotiating team, and they just forgot to ensure there is no border in Ireland.

I'm sure with a little more time, they can sort that out and avoid the unpleasant situation where we must use our veto, and you get NOTHING! You lose! Good day, sir!"

Harika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"This proposed phase 2 agreement does not appear to fulfill the conditions we all agreed in phase 1. I'm sure that is an oversight on the part of your negotiating team, and they just forgot to ensure there is no border in Ireland.

I'm sure with a little more time, they can sort that out and avoid the unpleasant situation where we must use our veto, and you get NOTHING! You lose! Good day, sir!"

And all the big Guns backed the Irish in the border question, they won't risk their reputation.

Enzokk

I think solo was right when he said this thread was a echo chamber, but when most of the evidence just shouts out that leaving the EU is wrong and it is a opinion shared on here by most it would seem like a echo chamber.

Bank of England governor risks wrath of Brexiteers by 'claiming vote to leave EU has cost the economy £200m a week in growth'

Mark Carney has risked the wrath of Brexiteers by claiming Brexit is costing the UK £200million a week.

The Bank of England governor is said to have made the remark at a private breakfast at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

He suggested the economy would be £10billion bigger if the country had not voted to leave the EU in June 2016.

https://twitter.com/Open_Britain/status/956481088628633600

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney sees a 'conscious recoupling' of the UK and global economies

Earlier this week the International Monetary Fund (IMF) upgraded global growth forecasts to 3.9% this year, while at the same time cutting the UK's economic growth prospects to just 1.5%.

I have no doubt that the UK economy will recover some of the lost ground, I also know this will be used as evidence that Brexit will not be as bad. Those that will peddle this line of thought will not stop to think that the reason its not going as bad as predicted is because there is a general recovery in the world markets and this is holding the UK up. But experts need not say anything as their opinion is there to be ignored if it doesn't line up with your prejudices.

First Up

Water John wrote: »

Hammond has spoken to limit Brexit and May raps his knuckles.

Symptomatic of the disarray. Hammond is trying to bring some reality into it and will be stoned as a heretic one of these days. The divide between UK industry and the political establishment (both main parties) is enormous - and growing.

Harika

Enzokk wrote: »

I think solo was right when he said this thread was a echo chamber, but when most of the evidence just shouts out that leaving the EU is wrong and it is a opinion shared on here by most it would seem like a echo chamber.

That is very true and it is really hard to find unbiased opinions on developments in the negotiations as UK and EU medias are mostly biased. If there are newspapers or websites that are pro or against Brexit or even better unbiased, please link them. And outside of the EUK area it is hardly mentioned.

Leroy42

Harika wrote: »

That is very true and it is really hard to find unbiased opinions on developments in the negotiations as UK and EU medias are mostly biased. If there are newspapers or websites that are pro or against Brexit or even better unbiased, please link them. And outside of the EUK area it is hardly mentioned.

Sometimes one side simply has all the facts. That doesn't mean it is an echo chamber.

Plenty of people have posted lots of very thorough pieces ranging from the economic impact to the logistics, the effect on the NHS staff, the effect on defence, travel, medicines, agriculture, education (Erasmus etc), legal, political, issues with trying to negotiate so many separate trade agreements etc etc.

What has been totally lacking from those supporting Brexit is any counterpoints to these (and many more) beyond the stock 'it won't be as bad as you make out', 'Britain is too big to fail'. There is simply nothing to back up the claims.

That of course doesn't make them wrong, but if one can ignore reports and predictions based on them having no crystal ball (but based on the available facts and detailed presumptions) then one can even more readily ignore opinions based on nothing at all.

Even from the UK government, we see nothing to indicate anything positive. The recent headline that Cameron stated in Davos that it was a mistake but not catastrophic sums it up. They are claiming 'victory' because it will only be bad. Not positive, just not as negative as people are making out.

Jobs moving from the CoL, no problem, we were told it would be much worse. But you opted to lose jobs. How is that ever a good idea?

So if you want this thread to be more even, then post some evidence that Brexit will be good. And people will debate it. Simply claiming that nobody takes you seriously, whilst giving them nothing on which to take seriously, is not going to achieve anything

Nody

Harika wrote: »

That is very true and it is really hard to find unbiased opinions on developments in the negotiations as UK and EU medias are mostly biased. If there are newspapers or websites that are pro or against Brexit or even better unbiased, please link them. And outside of the EUK area it is hardly mentioned.

By definition everyone are biased but when third party sites that have no real meat in the game (such as US based newspapers or knowledge like the Economist (who are very much pro free trade)) all say this is really stupid decision and the only counterpoint are national papers with headlines such as "The 12 traitors of UK" etc. it's sort of hard to have an unbiased discussion on the topic. It's facts on one side and emotions only on the other and when your whole argument is emotional only without facts you're preaching and not discussing a topic.

First Up

Never mind the media. If you want to measure the likely impacts of Brexit, just follow the money.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

By definition everyone are biased but when third party sites that have no real meat in the game (such as US based newspapers or knowledge like the Economist (who are very much pro free trade)) all say this is really stupid decision and the only counterpoint are national papers with headlines such as "The 12 traitors of UK" etc. it's sort of hard to have an unbiased discussion on the topic. It's facts on one side and emotions only on the other and when your whole argument is emotional only without facts you're preaching and not discussing a topic.

As Daniel Moynihan famously said "You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts".

ambro25

Enzokk wrote: »

I think solo was right when he said this thread was a echo chamber, but when most of the evidence just shouts out that leaving the EU is wrong and it is a opinion shared on here by most it would seem like a echo chamber.

Harika wrote: »

That is very true and it is really hard to find unbiased opinions on developments in the negotiations as UK and EU medias are mostly biased. If there are newspapers or websites that are pro or against Brexit or even better unbiased, please link them. And outside of the EUK area it is hardly mentioned.

Sub-topically, I find Dr Richard North's blog to be just that perfect echo antichamber. Same taking in of facts and advocating of prudence...but from a (very) long-time, fully paid-up, card-carrying pro-brexiter.

That very rare beast indeed: the Leaver who doesn't feel entitled to his facts, and objective enough to be scathing of the current debacle (procedural as much as political).

I wouldn't take it as a source of unbiased opinion of course. But it's a nice counterweight to any "echo chamber" effect from too many Remainers crowding a board or thread. Besides occasionally providing some unusual/though-provoking angle or viewpoint on a Brexit topic.

Skedaddle

It seems the banks are running out of patience and starting to put major pressure on. I think there’s been an assumption that Brexit was going to either be soft or just break down and never happen. The amount of uncertainty that this is causing is really bad for business decision making.

I think there’s a stark reality check coming, probably by March.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42825244

Leroy42

ambro25 wrote: »

Sub-topically, I find Dr Richard North's blog to be just that perfect echo antichamber. Same taking in of facts and advocating of prudence...but from a (very) long-time, fully paid-up, card-carrying pro-brexiter.

That very rare beast indeed: the Leaver who doesn't feel entitled to his facts, and objective enough to be scathing of the current debacle (procedural as much as political).

I wouldn't take it as a source of unbiased opinion of course. But it's a nice counterweight to any "echo chamber" effect from too many Remainers crowding a board or thread. Besides occasionally providing some unusual/though-provoking angle or viewpoint on a Brexit topic.

Then why don't you repost those arguments in here rather than simply bemoan the fact that the majority don't side with your thinking.

It is an open forum, nobody can stop somebody putting whatever viewpoint across, (although of course that doesn't mean it cannot be challenged) so I fail to see how people can call it an echo chamber. For that to work it would need to be set-up so that no contrary views could be heard, when that is clearly not the case.

Even, admittedly brief, reading of the blog you linked, again there is a lot of wishful and hopeful language. Nothing wrong in that per se.

A sample of his post, regarding the lack of skills in Foxes department

As it stands, though, if the real work of negotiating non-EU trade deals cannot start until we have finalised our trading relationships with the EU, and we will not have finalised our relations with the EU until the end of the transitional period, then it is questionable as to whether Dr Fox's department can get fully to grips with its brief until the beginning of 2021 (assuming the transition period ends at the end of December 2021).

A valid point, but of course it begs the question of why, based on nothing at all, there is any belief that any deals they will do will not only make up for the loss from Brexit, but power them ahead. Davies, for example, has stated that they will get deals worth 10 times the deals with the EU.

And that is the fundamental flaw in the argument for Brexit. It is all dependent on an unknown future. As James O'Brien said, it is like scrapping your car, which is working if not the best model, on the basis of someone telling you that at some point in the future you may get a better car, but in the meantime you had better get used to walking.

It is quite a risk to take. Could it end up better off, of course, but all the indicators point to that unlikely to be the case. Britain's past as a major player has diminished over time. The world had become more global with the likes of China & India playing an increasing role. None of that is going to change because of Brexit yet brexit seems to be based on it changing.

The simple question to ask yourself is, are you prepared for lower living standards, lower pay, lower rights, higher taxes and worse services over the short term to get to this, as yet, unknown destination.

Professor Moriarty

Skedaddle wrote: »

It seems the banks are running out of patience and starting to put major pressure on. I think there’s been an assumption that Brexit was going to either be soft or just break down and never happen. The amount of uncertainty that this is causing is really bad for business decision making.

I think there’s a stark reality check coming, probably by March.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42825244

Ditto the CBI. In advocating that Britain remains within the Customs Union and other soft Brexit terms, the CBI is beginning to voice its concerns to the point that Jacob Rees Mogg is accusing them of trying to "keep Britain in the EU by the back door" and labelled them "The provisional wing of the Treasury". Anything that makes Jacob squeal can only be a good thing.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

And that is the fundamental flaw in the argument for Brexit. It is all dependent on an unknown future. As James O'Brien said, it is like scrapping your car, which is working if not the best model, on the basis of someone telling you that at some point in the future you may get a better car, but in the meantime you had better get used to walking.

It is quite a risk to take. Could it end up better off, of course, but all the indicators point to that unlikely to be the case. Britain's past as a major player has diminished over time. The world had become more global with the likes of China & India playing an increasing role. None of that is going to change because of Brexit yet brexit seems to be based on it changing.

The simple question to ask yourself is, are you prepared for lower living standards, lower pay, lower rights, higher taxes and worse services over the short term to get to this, as yet, unknown destination.

Well in defence of the blog he does not support the current style of Brexit in any shape or form and thinks it's a slow moving disaster. His vision of Brexit was a move towards a Norwegian model and then leverage the EEA to expand FTA further as originally planned and basically turn back the clock on EU overall to reduce the scope.

This is also why he outlines all the issues, failures and flaws consistently and cal lout the failures (inc. EU) or the areas lacking clarity and/or legal foundation.

charlie14

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"This proposed phase 2 agreement does not appear to fulfill the conditions we all agreed in phase 1. I'm sure that is an oversight on the part of your negotiating team, and they just forgot to ensure there is no border in Ireland.

I'm sure with a little more time, they can sort that out and avoid the unpleasant situation where we must use our veto, and you get NOTHING! You lose! Good day, sir!"

"Thank you for that.
Just a few points for your consideration.
We were well aware of your position in not wishing a North/South border on the island of Ireland.
In respect of those wishes, and with the public backing of your EU partners we gave you a veto of talks not moving on from Phase 1 unless you we satisfied on the matter.
In light of that veto it really is a bit Irish (if you will excuse the expression) to now blame our negotiating team for you agreeing to a proposal from the UK allowing talks to progress to Phase 2 of no border North/South or East/West.
A proposal I`m afraid that some of your fellow EU members are now expressing opinions of being not just impractical but inoperable.

Of course, when there is a final draft should the UK decide to carry through on its stated intentions, you are entitled to use your veto. where Where that will leave us all would most likely be a North/South border where the EU would have no influence in what your entitled are other than attempting to enforce the 1998 Good Friday Agreement."

Best Regards.

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"This proposed phase 2 agreement does not appear to fulfill the conditions we all agreed in phase 1. I'm sure that is an oversight on the part of your negotiating team, and they just forgot to ensure there is no border in Ireland.

I'm sure with a little more time, they can sort that out and avoid the unpleasant situation where we must use our veto, and you get NOTHING! You lose! Good day, sir!"

"Thank you for that.
Just a few points for your consideration.
We were well aware of your position in not wishing a North/South border on the island of Ireland.
In respect of those wishes, and with the public backing of your EU partners we gave you a veto of talks not moving on from Phase 1 unless you we satisfied on the matter.
In light of that veto it really is a bit Irish (if you will excuse the expression) to now blame our negotiating team for you agreeing to a proposal from the UK allowing talks to progress to Phase 2 of no border North/South or East/West.
A proposal I`m afraid that some of your fellow EU members are now expressing opinions of being not just impractical but inoperable.

Of course, when there is a final draft should the UK decide to carry through on its stated intentions, you are entitled to use your veto. where Where that will leave us all would most likely be a North/South border where the EU would have no influence in what your entitled are other than attempting to enforce the 1998 Good Friday Agreement."

Best Regards.

I think you misunderstand how these things work. Ireland did not have a veto and even it did, it would have been foolish to use it.

There are more effective ways of promoting our interests in the EU and we have a pretty good record in doing so. I realise it may be a bit too subtle for you but don't worry, the people who need to, know what they are doing.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

Then why don't you repost those arguments in here rather than simply bemoan the fact that the majority don't side with your thinking.

I stopped reading your post here.

Giz a shout once you've taken the time to read at least some of my earlier contributions to this and the earlier thread, to demonstrate that you have at least a passing knowledge and understanding of my 'thinking' about Brexit and its various ins and outs.

Then we can look at this 'bemoan' thing, which you allege that I did.

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

I think you misunderstand how these things work. Ireland did not have a veto and even it did, it would have been foolish to use it.

There are more effective ways of promoting our interests in the EU and we have a pretty good record in doing so. I realise it may be a bit too subtle for you but don't worry, the people who need to, know what they are doing.

Did I misunderstand that we had the public stated backing of our EU partners during Phase1 that if we were not satisfied with the UK proposal on the border issue then there would be no movement to Phase 2 until we were ?

If you wish to have unquestioning belief based on "the people who need to, know what they are doing" that is entirely up to you.
Personally I would be of the opinion, when it comes to politics especially if the past has taught us anything, that can be rather unwise.

When it comes to foreign policy, I fully understand the need for subtlety, but to paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, there are times while speaking softly you also need to carry a big stick.

Leroy42

ambro25 wrote: »

I stopped reading your post here.

Giz a shout once you've taken the time to read at least some of my earlier contributions to this and the earlier thread, to demonstrate that you have at least a passing knowledge and understanding of my 'thinking' about Brexit and its various ins and outs.

Then we can look at this 'bemoan' thing, which you allege that I did.

I agree, I take it back. I misunderstood where you were coming from.

Nate--IRL--

charlie14 wrote: »

Did I misunderstand that we had the public stated backing of our EU partners during Phase1 that if we were not satisfied with the UK proposal on the border issue then there would be no movement to Phase 2 until we were ?.

Again you are not comprehending that Phase 1 is still in progress, concurrently with Phase 2. Phase 2 means nothing if Phase 1 does not complete with a legal treaty text of what has been agreed so far in Phase 1.

Should the UK decide that it will not put the commitments it has agreed to so far in Phase 1, in a legally binding text, Phase 2 is irrelevant. Ireland got the commitments it wanted, and the UK can't back out of it, if they want any result from Phase 2 at all.

If the UK changes it's mind at a later date on the commitment it made in Phase 1, Phase 2 is blown to smithereens, and it's a hard exit for the UK. This would be very unfortunate for us, but the EU/Irish side can't control the UK reneging on the commitments it has made.

Nate

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just saw this in the IT from Denis O'Brien: "Brexit is like Dunkirk without the ships"

You actually thanked my post yesterday :pac:

J Mysterio wrote: »

Nice headline on the Independent today: 'Brexit is Dunkirk without the boats'.

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

When it comes to foreign policy, I fully understand the need for subtlety, but to paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, there are times while speaking softly you also need to carry a big stick.

When your sticks are as small as ours, best to use them wisely. Better still, persuade others to use theirs on your behalf.

Have a look at this recent presentation by Tony Connolly, RTE's man in Brussels and someone who has a good insight into what is going on. It might help you get a wider view.

https://www.iiea.com/brexit/brexit-ireland-dangers-opportunities-inside-story-irish-response/

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

You actually thanked my post yesterday :pac:

Deleted! Must buy a memory.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

I have no doubt that the UK economy will recover some of the lost ground, I also know this will be used as evidence that Brexit will not be as bad. Those that will peddle this line of thought will not stop to think that the reason its not going as bad as predicted is because there is a general recovery in the world markets and this is holding the UK up. But experts need not say anything as their opinion is there to be ignored if it doesn't line up with your prejudices.

There's a saying about a rising tide lifting all boats.

Our GDP is forecast to go up by 4.4% this year.
Compared to that the UK is lagging behind.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0125/936076-central-bank-economic-growth/

The bank said the upgrade is due to a more favourable international outlook. The IMF recently upgraded its forecast for global growth in both 2018 and 2019.

...
The bank predicts an additional 89,000 people will be hired here over the next two years. That would bring employment to 2.3 million, past the peak in 2007.

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

When your sticks are as small as ours, best to use them wisely. Better still, persuade others to use theirs on your behalf.

Have a look at this recent presentation by Tony Connolly, RTE's man in Brussels and someone who has a good insight into what is going on. It might help you get a wider view.

https://www.iiea.com/brexit/brexit-ireland-dangers-opportunities-inside-story-irish-response/

I am not sure what it is you thought I would learn from listening to that, that I do not know already.
Other than perhaps not to waste my money buying his book.

It is a no brainer that the EU were worried that any agreement on the UK border issue proposal during Phase1 would, if beneficial too the UK, be then used by them as a template in discussions on their borders with EU members in continental Europe.

The EU had already rejected the border proposal - "magic thinking" I believe the phrase was - by the UK as, well basically impractical and inoperable.
By acceptance of the UK proposal in Phase1 we have accepted a template from the UK of no border North, South, East or West with not detail how it is supposed to operate other than "magic thinking".
Hardly the specific and explicit details Tony Connelly mentioned the Irish government were looking for.

I fairness to him he did go to great pains to point out what we were entitled too under the Good Friday Agreement, and the subject of alignment.
Many seem to believe the use of the term full alignment by the UK in paragraph 49 is their acceptance that on their leaving the EU block all rules and regulations governing the EU, SM,CU, ECJ etc. would still apply to Northern Ireland, deal or no deal.
The UK, again where there is no clarity, are now saying that this applies in only certain instances such as agriculture and sciences, which sounds suspiciously like "that is what you are entitled to under the auspices of the EU under the 1998 Agreement, and if you read paragraph 49 it would be difficult to argue otherwise. At best a he says she says situation imo.

"... maintain full alignment with these 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".

I would have thought the ability to stop negotiations moving from Phase1 to Phase 2 unless we were fully satisfied with the UK proposal on a border was a pretty hefty stick.
Even if not, I would be more inclined to use it when needed than leave myself depending on others big stick that not long ago we were beaten over the head with.

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

When your sticks are as small as ours, best to use them wisely. Better still, persuade others to use theirs on your behalf.

Have a look at this recent presentation by Tony Connolly, RTE's man in Brussels and someone who has a good insight into what is going on. It might help you get a wider view.

https://www.iiea.com/brexit/brexit-ireland-dangers-opportunities-inside-story-irish-response/

I am not sure what it is you thought I would learn from listening to that, that I do not know already.
Other than perhaps not to waste my money buying his book.

It is a no brainer that the EU were worried that any agreement on the UK border issue proposal during Phase1 would, if beneficial too the UK, be then used by them as a template in discussions on their borders with EU members in continental Europe.

The EU had already rejected the border proposal - "magic thinking" I believe the phrase was - by the UK as, well basically impractical and inoperable.
By acceptance of the UK proposal in Phase1 we have accepted a template from the UK of no border North, South, East or West with not detail how it is supposed to operate other than "magic thinking".
Hardly the specific and explicit details Tony Connelly mentioned the Irish government were looking for.

I fairness to him he did go to great pains to point out what we were entitled too under the Good Friday Agreement, and the subject of alignment.
Many seem to believe the use of the term full alignment by the UK in paragraph 49 is their acceptance that on their leaving the EU block all rules and regulations governing the EU, SM,CU, ECJ etc. would still apply to Northern Ireland, deal or no deal.
The UK, again where there is no clarity, are now saying that this applies in only certain instances such as agriculture and sciences, which sounds suspiciously like "that is what you are entitled to under the auspices of the EU under the 1998 Agreement, and if you read paragraph 49 it would be difficult to argue otherwise. At best a he says she says situation imo.

"... maintain full alignment with these 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".

I would have thought the ability to stop negotiations moving from Phase1 to Phase 2 unless we were fully satisfied with the UK proposal on a border was a pretty hefty stick.
Even if not, I would be more inclined to use it when needed than leave myself depending on others big stick that not long ago we were beaten over the head with.

The bit you seem to have missed is how well aligned the Irish issue has been incorporated into the EU's overall approach.

The Irish border is just an illustration of how the EU is keeping the pressure on the UK to specify what it will do to deliver the commitments it has made. Up to now the UK has been waffling its way along - saying yes, but not saying how. So the EU has been thanking them for the yeses, but quietly and patiently insisting on the hows.

It has been an educational journey for the UK - one they haven't completed. Their initial idea that they could "Trojanise" the process by using Ireland as a loophole was seen a mile off.

Its not about vetoes or Phases; its about 27 (with Ireland in the middle) dealing with a divided, delusioned, uninformed and hopelessly ill-equipped UK.

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

The bit you seem to have missed is how well aligned the Irish issue has been incorporated into the EU's overall approach.

The Irish border is just an illustration of how the EU is keeping the pressure on the UK to specify what it will do to deliver the commitments it has made. Up to now the UK has been waffling its way along - saying yes, but not saying how. So the EU has been thanking them for the yeses, but quietly and patiently insisting on the hows.

It has been an educational journey for the UK - one they haven't completed. Their initial idea that they could "Trojanise" the process by using Ireland as a loophole was seen a mile off.

Its not about vetoes or Phases; its about 27 (with Ireland in the middle) dealing with a divided, delusioned, uninformed and hopelessly ill-equipped UK.

Did you actually read that post of mine before replying, or even listen to the Tony Conneely link you posted ?

The EU on the border issue, according to Conneely, - and something I was of the opinion on after our acceptance of the UK proposal,- had been spending a lot of time attempting to get clarity from the UK on what they believed their commitments were under the 1998 Agreement, (the C in Conneely`s ABC)

They were also determined that acceptance by Ireland of any proposal would not leave the UK with a template the UK would then attempt to have applied to all other borders between them and other EU states.
If you take the acceptance of no border North, South, East, or West is that not that the very template the EU did not want. That plus the "magic thinking" in that proposal that the EU had rejected way back down the line.

Now if you take the time and effort the EU has spent on the 1998 Agreement, along with the UK`s paragraph 49, is it not a very strong possibility that the EU being, naturally enough very reticent to get involved in issues of sovereignty, are seriously looking at a North/South border ?
Gets them out of the hole of a very dodgy template, and they can say the fleshed out the ambiguity in the 1998 Agreement as to what we are entitled to under that agreement and they will ensure it is complied with.
A win/win for them and something we would have little grounds on which to use a veto on if it comes to a final draft.

We were off the opinion we were nicely tucked in in the middle of 19 of that 27 you have so much faith in a few years back as well.
That was up until they used that big stick.
Perhaps we would have been best advised to have done a bit of stick welding ourselves on those UK proposals!

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The bit you seem to have missed is how well aligned the Irish issue has been incorporated into the EU's overall approach.

The Irish border is just an illustration of how the EU is keeping the pressure on the UK to specify what it will do to deliver the commitments it has made. Up to now the UK has been waffling its way along - saying yes, but not saying how. So the EU has been thanking them for the yeses, but quietly and patiently insisting on the hows.

It has been an educational journey for the UK - one they haven't completed. Their initial idea that they could "Trojanise" the process by using Ireland as a loophole was seen a mile off.

Its not about vetoes or Phases; its about 27 (with Ireland in the middle) dealing with a divided, delusioned, uninformed and hopelessly ill-equipped UK.

Did you actually read that post of mine before replying, or even listen to the Tony Conneely link you posted ?

The EU on the border issue, according to Conneely, - and something I was of the opinion on after our acceptance of the UK proposal,- had been spending a lot of time attempting to get clarity from the UK on what they believed their commitments were under the 1998 Agreement, (the C in Conneely`s ABC)

They were also determined that acceptance by Ireland of any proposal would not leave the UK with a template the UK would then attempt to have applied to all other borders between them and other EU states.
If you take the acceptance of no border North, South, East, or West is that not that the very template the EU did not want. That plus the "magic thinking" in that proposal that the EU had rejected way back down the line.

Now if you take the time and effort the EU has spent on the 1998 Agreement, along with the UK`s paragraph 49, is it not a very strong possibility that the EU being, naturally enough very reticent to get involved in issues of sovereignty, are seriously looking at a North/South border ?
Gets them out of the hole of a very dodgy template, and they can say the fleshed out the ambiguity in the 1998 Agreement as to what we are entitled to under that agreement and they will ensure it is complied with.
A win/win for them and something we would have little grounds on which to use a veto on if it comes to a final draft.

We were off the opinion we were nicely tucked in in the middle of 19 of that 27 you have so much faith in a few years back as well.
That was up until they used that big stick.
Perhaps we would have been best advised to have done a bit of stick welding ourselves on those UK proposals!

charlie14 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The bit you seem to have missed is how well aligned the Irish issue has been incorporated into the EU's overall approach.

The Irish border is just an illustration of how the EU is keeping the pressure on the UK to specify what it will do to deliver the commitments it has made. Up to now the UK has been waffling its way along - saying yes, but not saying how. So the EU has been thanking them for the yeses, but quietly and patiently insisting on the hows.

It has been an educational journey for the UK - one they haven't completed. Their initial idea that they could "Trojanise" the process by using Ireland as a loophole was seen a mile off.

Its not about vetoes or Phases; its about 27 (with Ireland in the middle) dealing with a divided, delusioned, uninformed and hopelessly ill-equipped UK.

Did you actually read that post of mine before replying, or even listen to the Tony Conneely link you posted ?

The EU on the border issue, according to Conneely, - and something I was of the opinion on after our acceptance of the UK proposal,- had been spending a lot of time attempting to get clarity from the UK on what they believed their commitments were under the 1998 Agreement, (the C in Conneely`s ABC)

They were also determined that acceptance by Ireland of any proposal would not leave the UK with a template the UK would then attempt to have applied to all other borders between them and other EU states.
If you take the acceptance of no border North, South, East, or West is that not that the very template the EU did not want. That plus the "magic thinking" in that proposal that the EU had rejected way back down the line.

Now if you take the time and effort the EU has spent on the 1998 Agreement, along with the UK`s paragraph 49, is it not a very strong possibility that the EU being, naturally enough very reticent to get involved in issues of sovereignty, are seriously looking at a North/South border ?
Gets them out of the hole of a very dodgy template, and they can say the fleshed out the ambiguity in the 1998 Agreement as to what we are entitled to under that agreement and they will ensure it is complied with.
A win/win for them and something we would have little grounds on which to use a veto on if it comes to a final draft.

We were off the opinion we were nicely tucked in in the middle of 19 of that 27 you have so much faith in a few years back as well.
That was up until they used that big stick.
Perhaps we would have been best advised to have done a bit of stick welding ourselves on those UK proposals!

Far too inarticulate (not to mention miss-spelt) to merit a reply.

Lets see how it goes, shall we?

CelticRambler

charlie14 wrote: »

Now if you take the time and effort the EU has spent on the 1998 Agreement, along with the UK`s paragraph 49, is it not a very strong possibility that the EU being, naturally enough very reticent to get involved in issues of sovereignty, are seriously looking at a North/South border ?
Gets them out of the hole of a very dodgy template ...

Were you following this thread when this topic was ... well, topical? Because you're going round and round in your own circle when everyone else - including the Brits! - have moved on.

The EU may or may not be reticient regarding sovereignty, but it is very concerned about its external borders. Post Brexit, one of those will be on the island of Ireland, and everyone in the EU (except the Tories, it seems) knows that that particular border will never be "hard" and will be impossible to secure, not least because that would create an enclave of pro-EU, EUIrish citizens on the "wrong" side of the wall.

It's not going to be like the Norway-Sweden border; it's not going to be like Italy-Switzerland; it's not going to be like Poland-Ukraine; and for as long as NI remains United Kingdom territory, it's for the UK to come up with a solution to the EU's problem. But seeing as the UK can't even come up with solutions to its own problems, they were handed one on a plate: regulatory alignment by default, unless they can come up with something better.

What's so hard to understand about that? When Ireland has got the best out of a bad situation, without issuing any threats, why then use a veto to block the very negotiations that need to be completed so that plans can be made for exports to the UK and the transit of goods to the continent?

And there's no point even discussing the whataboutery of a veto that wasn't used in respect of a border that hasn't been established when the UK still hasn't set down in writing what it actually wants. Soundbites, tweets and campaign promises are irrelevant.

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

Far too inarticulate (not to mention miss-spelt) to merit a reply.

Lets see how it goes, shall we?

If you wish to avoid dealing, or feel unable to deal, with the points I have made that is entirely your prerogative.

Btw, just something that you may be unaware of, but that old Nazi grammar police line has been exposed for what it is many many times on Boards.ie already, and I am really surprised you should attempt using it while using miss-spelt.

charlie14

CelticRambler wrote: »

Were you following this thread when this topic was ... well, topical? Because you're going round and round in your own circle when everyone else - including the Brits! - have moved on.

The EU may or may not be reticient regarding sovereignty, but it is very concerned about its external borders. Post Brexit, one of those will be on the island of Ireland, and everyone in the EU (except the Tories, it seems) knows that that particular border will never be "hard" and will be impossible to secure, not least because that would create an enclave of pro-EU, EUIrish citizens on the "wrong" side of the wall.

It's not going to be like the Norway-Sweden border; it's not going to be like Italy-Switzerland; it's not going to be like Poland-Ukraine; and for as long as NI remains United Kingdom territory, it's for the UK to come up with a solution to the EU's problem. But seeing as the UK can't even come up with solutions to its own problems, they were handed one on a plate: regulatory alignment by default, unless they can come up with something better.

What's so hard to understand about that? When Ireland has got the best out of a bad situation, without issuing any threats, why then use a veto to block the very negotiations that need to be completed so that plans can be made for exports to the UK and the transit of goods to the continent?

And there's no point even discussing the whataboutery of a veto that wasn't used in respect of a border that hasn't been established when the UK still hasn't set down in writing what it actually wants. Soundbites, tweets and campaign promises are irrelevant.

I would agree with a lot in what you say.
The border will be North/South and more than likely alignment based on the 1998 Agreement.
A hard border would be impossible to patrol regardless of anything else, but with it becoming an external EU border smuggling, as another poster pointed out, could become an issue for us with the EU.

The whataboutery on a veto may raise its head though when we get to the final draft with it being pretty widely believed that after the movement on from Phase 1 that there will be no North/South border
I could never see the EU agreeing to anything else.

I was simply questioning what some felt the achievement was in the apparent acceptance of the UK proposal of no border North/South or East/West and no detail as to how it was expected to operate.
To me at best, it just seems a fudge.

Good loser

charlie14 wrote: »

I would agree with a lot in what you say.
The border will be North/South and more than likely alignment based on the 1998 Agreement.
A hard border would be impossible to patrol regardless of anything else, but with it becoming an external EU border smuggling, as another poster pointed out, could become an issue for us with the EU.

The whataboutery on a veto may raise its head though when we get to the final draft with it being pretty widely believed that after the movement on from Phase 1 that there will be no North/South border
I could never see the EU agreeing to anything else.

I was simply questioning what some felt the achievement was in the apparent acceptance of the UK proposal of no border North/South or East/West and no detail as to how it was expected to operate.
To me at best, it just seems a fudge.

You've been flogging a very dead horse for a very, very long time now.

Give us all a break!

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

I have no doubt that the UK economy will recover some of the lost ground

Brexit hasn't even happened yet, and if it does, the damage will be much, much worse than this. The UK economy will never, ever make up the lost ground.

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

If you wish to avoid dealing, or feel unable to deal, with the points I have made that is entirely your prerogative.

Btw, just something that you may be unaware of, but that old Nazi grammar police line has been exposed for what it is many many times on Boards.ie already, and I am really surprised you should attempt using it while using miss-spelt.

I suppose it isn't really a surprise that you missed the essential point of Tony Connelly's piece when you can't get his name right.

"Public backing" isn't a veto and even if it was, it would have been a crude and ultimately self defeating way to try to advance our interests.

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

I suppose it isn't really a surprise that you missed the essential point of Tony Connelly's piece when you can't get his name right.

"Public backing" isn't a veto and even if it was, it would have been a crude and ultimately self defeating way to try to advance our interests.

If you feel their is some essential point I missed I`m all ears, but can we have less of the childish grammar police carry on please.

Words such as "public backing" taken in isolation are open to interpretation.
Taken in the context of, we had the public stated backing of our EU partners that there would be no movement from Phase 1 until we were satisfied with the UK proposals regarding the border issue, very limited room for interpretation there imo.
Only two that I can think of.
We either had the power to veto the movement to Phase 2 not.
We were satisfied with the UK proposal.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

You've been flogging a very dead horse for a very, very long time now.

Give us all a break!

If you mean the dead horse of no North, South, East or West border operating on the basis of magic thinking, I totally agree.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

If you feel their is some essential point I missed I`m all ears, but can we have less of the childish grammar police carry on please.

Words such as "public backing" taken in isolation are open to interpretation.
Taken in the context of, we had the public stated backing of our EU partners that there would be no movement from Phase 1 until we were satisfied with the UK proposals regarding the border issue, very limited room for interpretation there imo.
Only two that I can think of.
We either had the power to veto the movement to Phase 2 not.
We were satisfied with the UK proposal.

... what?

I literally have read this post 3 or 4 times and don't understand what point you're trying to make here... I'm not being funny but I just don't understand at all what you're trying to say.

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I suppose it isn't really a surprise that you missed the essential point of Tony Connelly's piece when you can't get his name right.

"Public backing" isn't a veto and even if it was, it would have been a crude and ultimately self defeating way to try to advance our interests.

Only two that I can think of.
We either had the power to veto the movement to Phase 2 not.
We were satisfied with the UK proposal.

A third one is that there are many, many moving parts to Brexit and we would get no thanks for nailing them all to the floor while one is sorted.

I don't think you have much idea about how multilateral relations work. The people who do are quite good at it so I suggest you leave them to it.

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

A third one is that there are many, many moving parts to Brexit and we would get no thanks for nailing them all to the floor while one is sorted.

I don't think you have much idea about how multilateral relations work. The people who do are quite good at it so I suggest you leave them to it.

When it comes to thanks from others I believe thought Michael "Babs" Keating of Tipperary summed it up well.

"A clap on the back is only about two feet away from a kick in the arse"

I have no idea how much experience you have in multilateral diplomatic relations, so I really do not know where your total unquestioning belief comes from.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

I have no idea how much experience you have in multilateral diplomatic relations, so I really do not know where your total unquestioning belief comes from.

Are you going to keep deflecting or are you going to actually provide some answer to the point?

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Are you going to keep deflecting or are you going to actually provide some answer to the point?

I vaguely remember engaging with you on the subject of water charges when you were off the opinion the system in place then was here to stay, but I am in somewhat of a quandary as to where you believe I am deflecting some point of yours as I cannot recall having engaged with you on the subject under discussion.

If you could perhaps make it clear what answer you are seeking I will do my best to get back to you when I have both the time and/or inclination.

ancapailldorcha

charlie14 wrote: »

When it comes to thanks from others I believe thought Michael "Babs" Keating of Tipperary summed it up well.

"A clap on the back is only about two feet away from a kick in the arse"

I have no idea how much experience you have in multilateral diplomatic relations, so I really do not know where your total unquestioning belief comes from.

Cut out the snarkiness please.

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

I have no idea how much experience you have in multilateral diplomatic relations, so I really do not know where your total unquestioning belief comes from.

Interesting that you interpret informed analysis as "unquestioning belief" but there ya go.

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

Interesting that you interpret informed analysis as "unquestioning belief" but there ya go.

You posted a link to a Tony Connelly presentation, which I presume you felt would give me a better understanding of this informed analysis.
I replied with an analysis of what I felt it contained, to be told by you that I missed the essential point. As you choose not to reply as to what this essential point was when asked, I honestly have no idea of what you consider as your informed analysis.

My reference to unquestioning belief is in relation to your statement
"The people who need to know, know what they are doing"
I`m afraid I wouldn`t be as unquestioning on anything to issue that kind of blank cheque. But then again as you have said yourself, there ya go.

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Interesting that you interpret informed analysis as "unquestioning belief" but there ya go.

You posted a link to a Tony Connelly presentation, which I presume you felt would give me a better understanding of this informed analysis.
I replied with an analysis of what I felt it contained, to be told by you that I missed the essential point. As you choose not to reply as to what this essential point was when asked, I honestly have no idea of what you consider as your informed analysis.

My reference to unquestioning belief is in relation to your statement
"The people who need to know, know what they are doing"
I`m afraid I wouldn`t be as unquestioning on anything to issue that kind of blank cheque. But then again as you have said yourself, there ya go.

The essential point is that smart negotiation doesn't need vetoes, as illustrated in Tony Connolly's presentation.

The informed part is knowing that Ireland has been punching above its weight since we joined the EU because it understands that, and acts accordingly.

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

The essential point is that smart negotiation doesn't need vetoes, as illustrated in Tony Connolly's presentation.

The informed part is knowing that Ireland has been punching above its weight since we joined the EU because it understands that, and acts accordingly.

Really, that is what you believe the essential point was of Tony Connelly`s presentation.

For me, it was the amount of time and effort the EU negotiators spent on seeking detail from the UK government on what the felt their commitments were under the 1998 Agreement. Plus that there would be no deal with the Irish Republic which the UK could point too as a template during discussions on other EU external borders.

For me at least that came down to the EU preference for a North/South border from a very early stage in conjunction with the 1998 Agreement, and which will ensue regardless if the UK leave.

Do you not feel that perhaps your example of, as you put it, "the informed part" does not stand up to much scrutiny when you consider the banking crisis of a few years ago.

First Up

charlie14 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The essential point is that smart negotiation doesn't need vetoes, as illustrated in Tony Connolly's presentation.

The informed part is knowing that Ireland has been punching above its weight since we joined the EU because it understands that, and acts accordingly.

Really, that is what you believe the essential point was of Tony Connelly`s presentation.

For me, it was the amount of time and effort the EU negotiators spent on seeking detail from the UK government on what the felt their commitments were under the 1998 Agreement. Plus that there would be no deal with the Irish Republic which the UK could point too as a template during discussions on other EU external borders.

For me at least that came down to the EU preference for a North/South border from a very early stage in conjunction with the 1998 Agreement, and which will ensue regardless if the UK leave.

Do you not feel that perhaps your example of, as you put it, "the informed part" does not stand up to much scrutiny when you consider the banking crisis of a few years ago.

I offered Connelly's presentation to illustrate the strength of the Irish position and therefore why talk of a veto is missing the point (which you seem to be still doing.)

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

I offered Connelly's presentation to illustrate the strength of the Irish position and therefore why talk of a veto is missing the point (which you seem to be still doing.)

Only in the sense that regardless of what our EU partners were saying publicly, we never had any.

From Connelly`s presentation it is clear the EU negotiators had decided long before the Phase 1 December 2017 talks where the border would be situated and the terms would be in line with the 1998 Agreement.