Brexit discussion thread III

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

Theresa May categorically ruled that out in her statement last night though. Downing Street said the UK would not be part of 'the' customs union, nor 'a' customs union after Brexit.

Hence it will be sold as a "customs arrangement" or customs alignment or some other that the UK can sell as not being in the customs union but it will look like it in anything but name. Did you not see the phase 1 conclusion and how the UK basically agreed to be part of the single market and customs union in all but name to get to phase 2? The UK honouring that agreement is a different argument.

Strazdas wrote: »

Why would the EU go along with such a ridiculous arrangement though? Keeping hard Brexiteers happy is not their problem.

Because it is the best deal for the EU? There are no winners from this farce, but staying as close to status quo as possible is the aim for the EU as we need that. It will be up to Theresa May to sell it to her party.

First Up wrote: »

The EU doesn't have to help the UK sell anything - and won't.

I mean the EU will call it an arrangement or agreement or something other than customs union. They will do this to appease the UK but everyone else (all other third countries) will see it as EU membership in all but name if that is what the UK wants.

First Up

Enzokk wrote: »

Strazdas wrote: »

Theresa May categorically ruled that out in her statement last night though. Downing Street said the UK would not be part of 'the' customs union, nor 'a' customs union after Brexit.

Hence it will be sold as a "customs arrangement" or customs alignment or some other that the UK can sell as not being in the customs union but it will look like it in anything but name. Did you not see the phase 1 conclusion and how the UK basically agreed to be part of the single market and customs union in all but name to get to phase 2? The UK honouring that agreement is a different argument.

Strazdas wrote: »

Why would the EU go along with such a ridiculous arrangement though? Keeping hard Brexiteers happy is not their problem.

Because it is the best deal for the EU? There are no winners from this farce, but staying as close to status quo as possible is the aim for the EU as we need that. It will be up to Theresa May to sell it to her party.

First Up wrote: »

The EU doesn't have to help the UK sell anything - and won't.

I mean the EU will call it an arrangement or agreement or something other than customs union. They will do this to appease the UK but everyone else (all other third countries) will see it as EU membership in all but name if that is what the UK wants.

What the UK wants is not the EU's problem. The EU is 27 countries and the only thing that matters to the EU is getting each of them the best outcome possible. Yes, those interests vary and there will be some compromises to reach agreement. But those compromises will be internal to the EU, not to keep the various UK factions happy - or to keep May in office.

The UK waived its power to get compromises from the EU when it triggered A50.

Enzokk

First Up wrote: »

What the UK wants is not the EU's problem. The EU is 27 countries and the only thing that matters to the EU is getting each of them the best outcome possible. Yes, those interests vary and there will be some compromises to reach agreement. But those compromises will be internal to the EU, not to keep the various UK factions happy - or to keep May in office.

The UK waived its power to get compromises from the EU when it triggered A50.

I agree, when I say the EU will throw the UK a bone it will be because this will be good for the EU. If there was no positives to the EU striking a good deal for its members then there you would see this. But we know it is in the interests of everyone from the EU 27 to get a good deal. The problem is that the UK hasn't said what they want so its hard for the EU to get down to the the final details on what can be offered.

So any "help" to the UK will be because it is in the interest of the EU to offer it, not because they have to give it. This is the assumption I am working from when I say that the EU will help the UK. It's no good for the EU to have a deal on the table that Theresa May is willing to agree to but that will be torn down by some faction in her party/partnership. The EU saw this with the DUP already so its no use ignoring it. If the UK Government realises it needs to be in the EU to not have to economy fall down around them but needs to fudge the wording for it to happen then the EU will help them with it.

Harika

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree, when I say the EU will throw the UK a bone it will be because this will be good for the EU. If there was no positives to the EU striking a good deal for its members then there you would see this. But we know it is in the interests of everyone from the EU 27 to get a good deal. The problem is that the UK hasn't said what they want so its hard for the EU to get down to the the final details on what can be offered.<-snip->

So far, no one, not even the Brexiteers are claiming that the negotiations are running in favour or even on even ground for the UK. That's why all the other exit movements in Europe have become like hot potatoes and are not touched anymore. So in light of that the EU is also interested to let the humiliating negotiations (as Farage called it) go on, but also avoid that the UK goes bat**** crazy and actually leaves without a deal. So it has to be a fine line between humiliating Britain and giving them a deal both sides can live with but discourages countries to follow them. And as May is not able to formulate what Britain wants, it is actually the EU side that curves the future contract for them.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree, when I say the EU will throw the UK a bone it will be because this will be good for the EU. If there was no positives to the EU striking a good deal for its members then there you would see this. But we know it is in the interests of everyone from the EU 27 to get a good deal. The problem is that the UK hasn't said what they want so its hard for the EU to get down to the the final details on what can be offered.

So any "help" to the UK will be because it is in the interest of the EU to offer it, not because they have to give it. This is the assumption I am working from when I say that the EU will help the UK. It's no good for the EU to have a deal on the table that Theresa May is willing to agree to but that will be torn down by some faction in her party/partnership. The EU saw this with the DUP already so its no use ignoring it. If the UK Government realises it needs to be in the EU to not have to economy fall down around them but needs to fudge the wording for it to happen then the EU will help them with it.

Depends what you mean by "good for the EU". It might not be in their political interest to do any of the things you are suggesting, even if it might make sense economically. There is a lot more going on here than simply balancing the books.

BoatMad

Strazdas wrote: »

It certainly sounds that way, I've no idea how a hard border can be avoided.

on the current path. it would seem that commitments to the NI /ROI border arnt worth the paper they weren't written on

in my view , the UK will crash out with little agreement , there will be a hard border in ireland , VAT at point of entry alone is an enormous manpower issue

Skedaddle

I'm finding I'm just getting frustrated listening to various condescending, RP-accented Brexiteers who just pontificate about international trade with absolute confidence, based on nothing but hot air and arrogance.

Based on what I've been witnessing over the past 24 hours, I think short of a general election in the UK, it's going to be a hard, unplanned and extremely messy Brexit with all sorts of unintended economic fallout, followed by blaming everyone else for their own decision.

First Up

Skedaddle wrote: »

I'm finding I'm just getting frustrated listening to various condescending, RP-accented Brexiteers who just pontificate about international trade with absolute confidence, based on nothing but hot air and arrogance.

Based on what I've been witnessing over the past 24 hours, I think short of a general election in the UK, it's going to be a hard, unplanned and extremely messy Brexit with all sorts of unintended economic fallout, followed by blaming everyone else for their own decision.

I don't think a General Election would be enough to prevent a mess. They are careering towards the cliff with unbridled enthusiasm.

BoatMad

Skedaddle wrote: »

I'm finding I'm just getting frustrated listening to various condescending, RP-accented Brexiteers who just pontificate about international trade with absolute confidence, based on nothing but hot air and arrogance.

Based on what I've been witnessing over the past 24 hours, I think short of a general election in the UK, it's going to be a hard, unplanned and extremely messy Brexit with all sorts of unintended economic fallout, followed by blaming everyone else for their own decision.

Jingoism is virtually a British invention, this is a nation that convinced itself it won ww2 and spend most of the next 15 years virtually bankrupt and suffering food rationing !!!!

leaving the EU is nothing compared to that .

CelticRambler

BoatMad wrote: »

on the current path. it would seem that commitments to the NI /ROI border arnt worth the paper they weren't written on

in my view , the UK will crash out with little agreement , there will be a hard border in ireland , VAT at point of entry alone is an enormous manpower issue

A quick reminder:

The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Whatever value you place on the paper, if the UK does not respect a formal committment given in the context of (what are essentially) international trade negotiations, the rest of the world will know that the UK cannot be trusted. Not a great starting point for doing all these wonderful deals that are going to save the Empire.

I wonder how they're getting on with those specific solutions they promised to propose ... :rolleyes:

BoatMad

Whatever value you place on the paper, if the UK does not respect a formal committment given in the context of (what are essentially) international trade negotiations, the rest of the world will know that the UK cannot be trusted. Not a great starting point for doing all these wonderful deals that are going to save the Empire.

if you think that a commitment to a border, most people in the UK have no idea where it is , will be allowed to significantly alter the UKs interaction with the EU , ( whatever that is) , your kidding yourself.

I for one cannot wait to hear the British proposals on how to deliver what they are hoping to.

It is going to be revolutionary. Copied globally instantly by any and all. The ability to have open and closed borders, be in and out of customs unions, operate in single and non-single markets, all at the same time.

It truly is an exciting time for geo-politics. The EU's approach which has been to harmonise trade, trade barriers, trade rules, trade regulations in order to facilitate ease of trade will soon be shown up to be a terrible model. As the Red, White, Blue and Multi-Dimensional Brexit that will be delivered gets all of those advantages with none of the costs.

I do hope they share with us their remarkable framework, as it would incredibly disappointing if only the UK made use of this paradigm-shifting model for trade.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

on the current path. it would seem that commitments to the NI /ROI border arnt worth the paper they weren't written on

in my view , the UK will crash out with little agreement , there will be a hard border in ireland , VAT at point of entry alone is an enormous manpower issue

I agree with this. The current trajectory is exactly this.

Without a serious change in Govt / Govt attitudes / public attitudes (I see zero) then quite simply the timeframe and the people involved means we're just not going to get anywhere near what needs doing before the deadline date in order for the above not to happen at this stage.

Leroy42

BoatMad wrote: »

if you think that a commitment to a border, most people in the UK have no idea where it is , will be allowed to significantly alter the UKs interaction with the EU , ( whatever that is) , your kidding yourself.

I doubt the EU placed much credence on that paper either, given the shambles that May had presided over with the DUP and her own party.

What it does do, though, it show the rest of the world and the EU, that regardless of what you are being told by whatever civil servant, minister or even the PM, no deal is worth anything unless the folks at home have had their say an the reaction of the press is taken into account.

I think the effect it will have on these negotiations is that the EU will be much less likely to accept any 'word' from the UK that regulatory convergence will be maintained for any medium term

BoatMad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I doubt the EU placed much credence on that paper either, given the shambles that May had presided over with the DUP and her own party.

What it does do, though, it show the rest of the world and the EU, that regardless of what you are being told by whatever civil servant, minister or even the PM, no deal is worth anything unless the folks at home have had their say an the reaction of the press is taken into account.

I think the effect it will have on these negotiations is that the EU will be much less likely to accept any 'word' from the UK that regulatory convergence will be maintained for any medium term

yes but my point was that the UK " crashing " out for all sorts of reasons is now the likely outcome and in that scenario , commitments to regulatory alignment or the mitigation of ROI/ NI borders is meaningless and illusory

There is no up side either in this for the Republic, were likely to get royally screwed in the process , never mind the Brits.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

I for one cannot wait to hear the British proposals on how to deliver what they are hoping to.

It is going to be revolutionary. Copied globally instantly by any and all. The ability to have open and closed borders, be in and out of customs unions, operate in single and non-single markets, all at the same time.

It truly is an exciting time for geo-politics. The EU's approach which has been to harmonise trade, trade barriers, trade rules, trade regulations in order to facilitate ease of trade will soon be shown up to be a terrible model. As the Red, White, Blue and Multi-Dimensional Brexit that will be delivered gets all of those advantages with none of the costs.

I do hope they share with us their remarkable framework, as it would incredibly disappointing if only the UK made use of this paradigm-shifting model for trade.

With the exception of the French , and by comparison they are in the ha'penny place, there isnt a nation on Earth that can practice self delusion better then the UK and in particular the English

CelticRambler

BoatMad wrote: »

yes but my point was that the UK " crashing " out for all sorts of reasons is now the likely outcome and in that scenario , commitments to regulatory alignment or the mitigation of ROI/ NI borders is meaningless and illusory

It's not meaningless: come 23h00 on B-day, and assuming the British government hasn't already seen the light, Ireland and the EU will hold up that paragraph and say "this is what you promised the people of Northern Ireland - what's it going to be, regulatory alignment for the whole of the UK, or special status for NI?"

Because I can think of one party in NI that's not going to cooperate with new border controls in places like Derry and Fermanagh, and I doubt that even the thickest of Brexiteers is stupid enough to want to throw good English pounds at a bad Irish problem. That's when the DUP will see how un-British they're seen by rest of the UK.

ancapailldorcha

BoatMad wrote: »

With the exception of the French , and by comparison they are in the ha'penny place, there isnt a nation on Earth that can practice self delusion better then the UK and in particular the English

No more of the lazy generalisations please.

Vronsky

BoatMad wrote: »

With the exception of the French , and by comparison they are in the ha'penny place, there isnt a nation on Earth that can practice self delusion better then the UK and in particular the English

Exceptionalism isn't unique to the British - it's a trait seen all societies that became empires - French, German, American, Japanese and Chinese all have elements that believe their society is the greatest on Earth

Vronsky

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's not meaningless: come 23h00 on B-day, and assuming the British government hasn't already seen the light, Ireland and the EU will hold up that paragraph and say "this is what you promised the people of Northern Ireland - what's it going to be, regulatory alignment for the whole of the UK, or special status for NI?"

Because I can think of one party in NI that's not going to cooperate with new border controls in places like Derry and Fermanagh, and I doubt that even the thickest of Brexiteers is stupid enough to want to throw good English pounds at a bad Irish problem. That's when the DUP will see how un-British they're seen by rest of the UK.

And the British will go back to the start of the agreement and point their great get out clause "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

First Up

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because I can think of one party in NI that's not going to cooperate with new border controls in places like Derry and Fermanagh, and I doubt that even the thickest of Brexiteers is stupid enough to want to throw good English pounds at a bad Irish problem. That's when the DUP will see how un-British they're seen by rest of the UK.

A porous Irish border is not in our interest. If it offers the UK an unregulated door into the EU then there will be a border between Ireland and the continental EU - port inspections etc.

That would be a disaster.

BoatMad

That would be a disaster.

you think its not going to be a disaster, ..... LOL

what you meant is . " one of the many disasters will be........." ( insert a long list here )

First Up

BoatMad wrote: »

That would be a disaster.

you think its not going to be a disaster, ..... LOL

what you meant is . " one of the many disasters will be........." ( insert a long list here )

???

Charles Babbage

BoatMad wrote: »

if you think that a commitment to a border, most people in the UK have no idea where it is , will be allowed to significantly alter the UKs interaction with the EU , ( whatever that is) , your kidding yourself.

The whole thing about Brexit is that the English cannot decide what their interaction with the EU will be by themselves, the EU brings its own wishes to the negotiation.

BoatMad

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The whole thing about Brexit is that the English cannot decide what their interaction with the EU will be by themselves, the EU brings its own wishes to the negotiation.

The EU has not brought its " wishes " to the table , it has simply said to the UK " what do you want "

it has yet to get a coherent answer

BoatMad

First Up wrote: »

???

the least of Brexits issues will be a ROI/NI border disaster

such a disaster is almost certain to occur amongst the many disasters Brexit will visit on us and the UK

Peregrinus

BoatMad wrote: »

yes but my point was that the UK " crashing " out for all sorts of reasons is now the likely outcome and in that scenario , commitments to regulatory alignment or the mitigation of ROI/ NI borders is meaningless and illusory

There is no up side either in this for the Republic, were likely to get royally screwed in the process , never mind the Brits.

It's a bad scenario, right enough, but there is actually a small upside for us in it. If the UK crashes out because they can't commit to a deal that implements the promises they made in Phase I both sides will suffer, but the UK will suffer much more than the EU.

And, assuming democracy doesn't actually collapse in the UK, sooner or later - and probably sooner - there'll be a new government in the UK which will want to try and improve the UK's situation, and which will approach the EU to try and mend fences, and reconstruct a UK/EU relationship which is less damaging than "no deal". In other words, they'll want a deal.

And, as the phase 1 agreement establishes, part of the price of a deal is an open border in Ireland; the UK has already accepted this. That'll be part of the starting point for discussions for any new deal.

And, of course, in this scenario, after a UK general election, the DUP doesn't have the leverage it has now.

catrionanic

I still think Teresa May may go back on her promise to Arlene and create an Irish Sea border. It is the best way to appease her party and keep the EU on side re: the border. Anyone else?

Nody

catrionanic wrote: »

I still think Teresa May may go back on her promise to Arlene and create an Irish Sea border. It is the best way to appease her party and keep the EU on side re: the border. Anyone else?

Only problem is how she gets it through parliament (Labour support possibly) and and then survive as a PM (Labour will after that specific vote happily vote her out with DUP which was the basis of the deal in the first place); with the previous fiasco "guaranteed election in a bag" in mind they are not likely to gamble an election again after all. She'd need to basically struck a deal of some sort with enough MPs to replace DUP permanently and I don't see any party or group that would do that which blocks such a deal. After Tories and May lose the next election the Labour government can go back to EU and honour such a idea though and DUP (having gone through a few years of chaos due to a no deal Brexit) are not really going to be in a position to disagree.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

1. “No customs union” may, as others have suggested, be more about optics than about substance. It could be that the UK will have, um, a “special customs relationship” with the EU, but it won’t be called a “union”; it’ll be called something else. From this point of view, yesterday’s announcement may not be that signficant, and could have more to do with managing May’s short-term problems with the lunatic wing of her own party than about shaping the UK’s long-term relationship with the EU.

2. If so, it doesn’t really change anything with respect to the Irish border. The position is as it has been since December.

3. But they can’t keep up this balancing act for ever. At some point - and that point is quite soon - they’re going to have to stop saying that they don’t want a customs union, and start putting some flesh on the bones of the customs arrangement/partnership/relationship/holiday fling that they do want. And, when they do, they’re either going to have to piss off the hard Brexiteers, or opt for a hard border in Ireland, or an Irish sea customs border (which would of course piss off the DUP).

4. There are downsides to any of these. Pissing off hard Brexiters may result in May fallling. The hard Brexiters do not command a majority in Parliament, but they do have sufficient numbers to mount a leadership heave within the party, and May is very vulnerable. Pissing off the DUP may, of course, result in the fall of the Tory government. Opting for a hard border in Ireland means no transition deal, and quite possibly no exit deal, which would be hugely damaging to the UK.

5. The thing is, if May falls and is replaced by a hard Brexiteer who insists on customs freedom, then a hard Irish border follows, and the UK crashes out anyway. So as I see it there are only two routes to a Brexit deal/transition deal/open border future:

(a) May signals that she will compromise with the EU on customs sufficiently to keep the Irish border open. This is more than hard Brexiters can swallow so they mount a leadership heave. But either May survives, in which case the hard Brexiters are weakened in the party, or May falls but the party elects a realist leader, since they want a Brexit deal/transition deal. That realist leader then follows, basically, May’s policy of compromising on customs sufficiently to keep the Irish border open.

(b) May pisses of the DUP by committing to a customs border in the Irish sea. This would be a difficult one to pull off, since she’d have to find support from somewhere other than the DUP. Possibly the SNP? They wouldn’t enter into a confidence-and-supply agreement, of course, but they might well support her to the extent necessary to get a less damaging Brexit through Parliament, as opposed to a more damaging one. Plus, of course, an internal customs border within the UK would be a welcome precedent from an SNP point of view.

First Up

BoatMad wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

???

the least of Brexits issues will be a ROI/NI border disaster

such a disaster is almost certain to occur amongst the many disasters Brexit will visit on us and the UK

I said border checks between Ireland and the rest of the EU would be a disaster.

Leroy42

Barnier said yesterday it the time is fast approaching for the UK to make some decisions.

They can call it whatever they like, but in order to maintain "as frictionless a border as possible" they need to step on one side of the fence or the other.

At the end of Phase 1, May attempted to opt for one side but was tossed back by the DUP. Has her position of strength changed such that the DUP are no longer an issue? No, in many respect her position is even weaker as the hard brexiteers like Rees-Mogg seemed to have gained power, or at least in voice.

The EU has been pretty clear from Day 1 what their position is, and I can;t see them changing it. I think they would like to, it is in their interests to give a great deal to the UK, but the knock on effects are too great (other non EU countries looking for the same deal) and open the EU up to so much uncertainty (other member countries looking for the same a la carte menu) that it is simply not something that is viable.

So we are left we the EU having a black/white position, and the UK having red lines and a government seemingly intent on pulling out of the CU. This is, unless the UK change their stance, going one way.

And whatever goodwill the UK were hoping to keep with the EU in terms of financial services etc will be blown out of the water

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

I said border checks between Ireland and the rest of the EU would be a disaster.

Would such a thing be legally possible under the treaties?

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Barnier said yesterday it the time is fast approaching for the UK to make some decisions.

They can call it whatever they like, but in order to maintain "as frictionless a border as possible" they need to step on one side of the fence or the other.

At the end of Phase 1, May attempted to opt for one side but was tossed back by the DUP. Has her position of strength changed such that the DUP are no longer an issue? No, in many respect her position is even weaker as the hard brexiteers like Rees-Mogg seemed to have gained power, or at least in voice.

The EU has been pretty clear from Day 1 what their position is, and I can;t see them changing it. I think they would like to, it is in their interests to give a great deal to the UK, but the knock on effects are too great (other non EU countries looking for the same deal) and open the EU up to so much uncertainty (other member countries looking for the same a la carte menu) that it is simply not something that is viable.

So we are left we the EU having a black/white position, and the UK having red lines and a government seemingly intent on pulling out of the CU. This is, unless the UK change their stance, going one way.

And whatever goodwill the UK were hoping to keep with the EU in terms of financial services etc will be blown out of the water

Agreed. However, given the xenophobic vitriol directed at the EU over decades from the British press, there wasn't much goodwill to begin with. I doubt if there is any left at all now given the jingoistic posturing since the referendum. Quite the opposite in fact. It's also important to remember that the EU is fighting for its existence and anything Britain wants that threatens that existence will be refused.

CelticRambler

First Up wrote: »

A porous Irish border is not in our interest. If it offers the UK an unregulated door into the EU then there will be a border between Ireland and the continental EU - port inspections etc.

That would be a disaster.

It would, and the EU knows it, because for all the talk of a "hard" border, everyone (except the Brexiteers, seemingly) know that there is no way to secure the RoI-NI border.

catrionanic wrote: »

I still think Teresa May may go back on her promise to Arlene and create an Irish Sea border. It is the best way to appease her party and keep the EU on side re: the border. Anyone else?

Me!

When it comes to balancing acts, someone's got to be sacrificed. If we can believe TM's declaration of intent to remain as leader of the government until the bitter end, then she will have to make some concessions to the hard right of her own party. The "hard Brexit" promise is going to be harder/more politically costly to break than the "no special status" promise to the DUP.

Remember that the DUP have already voted against the Tories since they entered the confidence and supply agreement; there are only a few votes where their support is really critical, the budget being one. I would be very surprised if there weren't already manoeuvres taking place behind scenes on both sides of the Tory divide to "fix" the problem of being dependent on the DUP over the next year or two.

FreudianSlippers

Really Interested wrote: »

Would such a thing be legally possible under the treaties?

There isn't a short answer to this tbh... maybe is the best I've got for you. It's another one of those issues that the EU didn't exactly map out because it wasn't foreseen that an issue such as Brexit would pop up. Schengen countries can temporarily re-introduce internal borders for specific security reasons, but Ireland isn't a Schengen country so does the opt-out Ireland holds for Schengen extend to an EU law amending Schengen? Not sure really.

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I said border checks between Ireland and the rest of the EU would be a disaster.

Would such a thing be legally possible under the treaties?

If the Irish border is open to unregulated trade, then Irish trade will already be in breach of the treaties.

The EU is very, very serious about the integrity of the single market.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Agreed. However, given the xenophobic vitriol directed at the EU over decades from the British press, there wasn't much goodwill to begin with. I doubt if there is any left at all now given the jingoistic posturing since the referendum. Quite the opposite in fact. It's also important to remember that the EU is fighting for its existence and anything Britain wants that threatens that existence will be refused.

Agreed, but the UK doesn't seem to be able to see that side of it. All the media runs out the line that the EU is punishing the UK. Even yesterday, Mattis on Newsnight stated that since it (Brexit) was unprecedented, the line that tariffs had to come in (in the event of no customs union) was simply the EU playing hardball.

That, and many other examples, seem to indicate that the UK, citizens, politicians, media, think that the EU can simply choose whichever deal they want as if they have no competing obligations. It seems to me that the UK think this is a straight discussion with them and the EU, in a total vacuum, and they the UK are the only ones which have to deal with the pushback.

blanch152

CelticRambler wrote: »

A quick reminder:


Whatever value you place on the paper, if the UK does not respect a formal committment given in the context of (what are essentially) international trade negotiations, the rest of the world will know that the UK cannot be trusted. Not a great starting point for doing all these wonderful deals that are going to save the Empire.

I wonder how they're getting on with those specific solutions they promised to propose ... :rolleyes:

I have said before that it is a very limited commitment.


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

North-South co-operation and the 1998 Agreement are limited enough - just read the agreement, and they can survive a hard border, just about.

The only question is supporting the all-island economy. It has been pointed out many times that there is greater economic integration between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and between Ireland and the rest of the EU, than there is between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Arguably protecting these arrangements by way of a hard border does more for an all-Ireland economy.

The real loss in a hard border is trade between Ireland and the rest of the UK excluding Northern Ireland.

Of course, all of this ignores the political realities. Sinn Fein will be jumping up and down, but the day the first violent incident occurs at a border post and SF refuse to condemn it is the day their support plummets in the polls. Only a very small minority of hard-core psychopaths and uneducated kids would support a return to violence even in the event of a hard border.

Really Interested

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There isn't a short answer to this tbh... maybe is the best I've got for you. It's another one of those issues that the EU didn't exactly map out because it wasn't foreseen that an issue such as Brexit would pop up. Schengen countries can temporarily re-introduce internal borders for specific security reasons, but Ireland isn't a Schengen country so does the opt-out Ireland holds for Schengen extend to an EU law amending Schengen? Not sure really.

My opinion and not backed up that any internal checks could not hamper trade. For example how does a check discover that the milk powder was produced from ROI cows EU regulation or NI cows no EU regulation. I off the top think a trade customs regulation border between ROI and EU would on the face of it fly in the face of EU law. But I will ask a few EU law experts.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

If the Irish border is open to unregulated trade, then Irish trade will already be in breach of the treaties.

The EU is very, very serious about the integrity of the single market.

But the ROI NI border will be a EU border. Can you point to some evidence for your claim. Is there any other country with external EU border that has been closed to EU. What about Spain and Gibraltar?

Or are you saying you believe ROI will not police its border? What do you base that on.

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If the Irish border is open to unregulated trade, then Irish trade will already be in breach of the treaties.

The EU is very, very serious about the integrity of the single market.

But the ROI NI border will be a EU border. Can you point to some evidence for your claim. Is there any other country with external EU border that has been closed to EU. What about Spain and Gibraltar?

It won't be closed but goods crossing it will be subject to whatever checks are required under the trade terms agreed between the EU and UK. These may include import duties but are certain to include checks that goods entering the EU are in complance with EU standards.

FreudianSlippers

Really Interested wrote: »

My opinion and not backed up that any internal checks could not hamper trade. For example how does a check discover that the milk powder was produced from ROI cows EU regulation or NI cows no EU regulation. I off the top think a trade customs regulation border between ROI and EU would on the face of it fly in the face of EU law. But I will ask a few EU law experts.

Apologies, I thought you meant borders generally for passports/etc.

"Internal frontiers" such as customs checks are contrary to Article 26/28 of the TFEU.

Really Interested

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Apologies, I thought you meant borders generally for passports/etc.

"Internal frontiers" such as customs checks are contrary to Article 26/28 of the TFEU.

That’s why I stayed clear of passport checks. I believe that been proposed by another poster is legally incorrect.

CelticRambler

Really Interested wrote: »

My opinion and not backed up that any internal checks could not hamper trade.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Apologies, I thought you meant borders generally for passports/etc.

"Internal frontiers" such as customs checks are contrary to Article 26/28 of the TFEU.

Ah yes, but there are exceptions, where there are good reasons to impose movement restrictions and the accompanying checks e.g.

....


....


....


between Great Britain and the territory of Northern Ireland, where disease control measures treat NI and RoI as a single area, and cattle arriving from England, Scotland or Wales are considered just as foreign as any coming from France or Finland.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

It won't be closed but goods crossing it will be subject to whatever checks are required under the trade terms agreed between the EU and UK. These may include import duties but are certain to include checks that goods entering the EU are in complance with EU standards.

And in a customs union such check may be illegal. The problem is that the foods passing from NI to ROI are in the EU they are in the Union. EU checks can not be imposed from one EU country to another. Of course checks can remain for drugs etc but not to check for goods already in the EU. Can you back up your claim that such a internal border may or will be imposed between ROI and rest of EU?

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If the Irish border is open to unregulated trade, then Irish trade will already be in breach of the treaties.

The EU is very, very serious about the integrity of the single market.

But the ROI NI border will be a EU border. Can you point to some evidence for your claim. Is there any other country with external EU border that has been closed to EU. What about Spain and Gibraltar?

Or are you saying you believe ROI will not police its border? What do you base that on.

I'm saying that there has to be (and will be) an effective border between the EU and non-EU. A lot is being made of the sanctity of free movement across the Irish border. If that is decided to be more important than anything else (and in the absence of checks between Britain and NI), the EU will agree but will then require that trade between the island of Ireland and the rest of the EU is subject to customs procedures.

That will be to ensure that both goods of UK origin and goods of third country (non- EU) origin imported to the UK under terms different than the EU's terms with those countries are not able to enter the EU via an Irish back door.

FreudianSlippers

Really Interested wrote: »

That’s why I stayed clear of passport checks. I believe that been proposed by another poster is legally incorrect.

I'm a lawyer - I don't profess to be an EU law expert, but I would definitely know more than your average corner solicitor doing wills and probate.

Any customs border between Ireland and the EU would be unlawful and impossible. It's also not realistic to suggest that the UK could be out of a customs union and there could be still a seamless border between the UK and the EU (whether that's Ireland or Spain).

Really Interested

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ah yes, but there are exceptions, where there are good reasons to impose movement restrictions and the accompanying checks e.g.

....


....


....


between Great Britain and the territory of Northern Ireland, where disease control measures treat NI and RoI as a single area, and cattle arriving from England, Scotland or Wales are considered just as foreign as any coming from France or Finland.

Most EU rules have exceptions for example free movement of persons and public health.

The question raised is will there be a EU frontier between ROI and rest of EU?

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If the Irish border is open to unregulated trade, then Irish trade will already be in breach of the treaties.

The EU is very, very serious about the integrity of the single market.

But the ROI NI border will be a EU border. Can you point to some evidence for your claim. Is there any other country with external EU border that has been closed to EU. What about Spain and Gibraltar?

Or are you saying you believe ROI will not police its border? What do you base that on.

I'm saying that there has to be (and will be) an effective border between the EU and non-EU. A lot is being made of the sanctity of free movement across the Irish border. If that is decided to be more important than anything else (and in the absence of checks between Britain and NI), the EU will agree but will then require that trade between the island of Ireland and the rest of the EU is subject to customs procedures.

That will be to ensure that both goods of UK origin and goods of third country (non- EU) origin imported to the UK under terms different than the EU's terms with those countries are not able to enter the EU via an Irish back door.

All members of the single market are required to police the EU's external border. If they cannot be trusted on that, the EU will take whatever measures are necessary.