Brexit discussion thread III

Really Interested

ambro25 wrote: »

Again, I don't know where that claim was made in the debate. But irrespective, as a direct answer: none, because that cannot happen unless the RoI exits the EU by triggering Article 50.

Doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

Skedaddle: our sectoral analysis (note the date). I posted the other side of the table's own analysis a couple of days ago (EUIPO's Q&A factsheet). Full and entire correlation, no adjustment required to account for any intervening developments. Because there haven't been any. Still.

In relation to the claim look at posts of “First Up”

In your second comment you said “But I understood from earlier posts that you were fond of statutory references. So call it a professional courtesy, from a fellow (actual EU law-practicing...amongst others) practitioner ”

i assumed you going to post a statutory references as I asked First Up to back up his claim that there could be a customs border between ROI and EU, my comment on same was what you replied to.

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

In relation to the claim look at posts of “First Up”

i assumed you going to post a statutory references as I asked First Up to back up his claim that there could be a customs border between ROI and EU, my comment on same was what you replied to.

I made no "claim" and I can no more predict what the final picture will look like than anyone else.

However I can assure you with 100% certainty that there will be no agreement between the EU and UK that allows goods from the UK to circulate in the EU Single Market via an Irish back door.

Either the UK fully adheres to EU standards or there will be border controls between the UK and the EU. Where that border ends up is still to be decided but nothing is off the table.

The EU may be flexible on some issues but there will be no compromise on the integrity of the Single Market and you can write that down.

ArmaniJeanss

Fairly hardcore document (strategically?) leaked from the EU side this evening, laying out their terms for the transition period.

There should be a mechanism allowing the EU to "suspend certain benefits" of single market membership during the transition period without necessarily having to resort to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).


Such a move would be considered if referring the matter to the ECJ "would not bring in time the necessary remedies"

according to The Standard, Guardian, Independent etc.

Politics.eu is also reporting this is in the text.

The EU is demanding the U.K. not take “any action or initiative … likely to be prejudicial” to the bloc’s interests in any international body or forum during a Brexit transition period, according to draft legal text prepared by the European Commission.

David Davis's DExEU spokesperson has said it's merely a negotiating position, hmmm.

All a bit of a red rag to a bull I'd have thought.

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

In relation to the claim look at posts of “First Up”

i assumed you going to post a statutory references as I asked First Up to back up his claim that there could be a customs border between ROI and EU, my comment on same was what you replied to.

I made no "claim" and I can no more predict what the final picture will look like than anyone else.

However I can assure you with 100% certainty that there will be no agreement between the EU and UK that allows goods from the UK to circulate in the EU Single Market via an Irish back door.

Either the UK fully adheres to EU standards or there will be border controls between the UK and the EU. Where that border ends up is still to be decided but nothing is off the table.

The EU may be flexible on some issues but there will be no compromise on the integrity of the Single Market and you can write that down.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

I made no "claim" and I can no more predict what the final picture will look like than anyone else.

However I can assure you with 100% certainty that there will be no agreement between the EU and UK that allows goods from the UK to circulate in the EU Single Market via an Irish back door.

Either the UK fully adheres to EU standards or there will be border controls between the UK and the EU. Where that border ends up is still to be decided but nothing is off the table.

The EU may be flexible on some issues but there will be no compromise on the integrity of the Single Market and you can write that down.

What you said “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.”



You said “there will be a border between Ireland and the Continental EU”

ambro25

Skedaddle wrote: »

We are actively avoiding long-term contracts with UK companies and starting to look very actively at alternative markets and suppliers. This isn't something anyone really wants to be doing. It's hugely disruptive and potentially could cause plenty of businesses here and in the UK very dire consequences.

That's called an opportunity.

Sounds like you just need to see it for what it is, and make your internal peace with it first. It's not easy. Trust me, I do know.

But it's so liberating once you do, you'll be wondering why you didn't look at these alternatives sooner.

Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant, but I am just fed up listening to the circular arguments. If they're Brexiting, they need to be bloody well clear about what their plans are because businesses and those of us in the real world can't really just exist in regulatory limbo for the next 12+ months while the UK drifts into an iceberg with the captain being too busy having fights with deckchairs!

"Hope for best, but plan for worst". Never truer than with Brexit.

Don't expect improved clarity anytime soon, due to the political checkmate in the UK.

You don't have to remain a hostage to them (otherwise you wouldn't be looking at alternatives). The rest is up to you(-r business, industry, sector, ...).

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

You said “there will be a border between Ireland and the Continental EU”

If there is unregulated traffic between the UK and Ireland across the Irish border there is no alternative.

Skedaddle

Ambro25 : appreciate the optimism but that’s not very realistic either. There are parts of the business that won’t be easily be able to adapt and may have to be closed down. Moving entire businesses to alternative markets in many cases isn’t possible. Altering supply chains is hugely disruptive and in many cases it’s not opening up new ways of thinking, rather it’s forcing companies to chose suppliers they may not have considered in the past for good reason.

All of these things are very easy from the other side of a keyboard or theorising about them in politics. A lot of aspects of a lot of businesses are highly unlikely to be able to adapt. If you’ve tight margins and a lot of exposure to the UK, Brexit is absolutely not an opportunity. It’s a set of challenges which may result in absolute turmoil or the end of some businesses entirely.

It’s not very often that you find the entire rules of a market turned upside down like this. There are very few precedents for it in modern economic history in developed capitalist economies.

Like it or not, for many companies in Ireland this is going to cause turmoil and probably job losses and the same challenges are being faced in the UK. That’s the unfortunate reality of this.

The notion that you can just take an established business and find new markets overnight, potentially with services and products that were highly developed and honed to the needs of specific customers, is frankly impossible for many companies.

The reality of this is it will cost jobs and it will cause some businesses to collapse. There’s no other way of spinning it.

Some companies will be flexible enough or have an ability to refocus quickly. Many won’t.

Brexit, without a deal, is simply an absolute disaster. I don’t think some commentators fully appreciate just how problematic that scenario could be.

Also to anyone suggesting Ireland should follow the UK, that would be a major and dramatic mess too. So that’s absolutely not a solution either.

Basically, we’ve no choice but to just deal with whatever is thrown at us by UK policies and to try and minimise exposure and mitigate risks. The problem is we can't even be sure what those risks are because they're doing so much faffing about !!!

Do I have optimism? Yes.

However, you have to be realistic about what the risks are and understand what's possible and what isn't. Some businesses will be OK. Some will even benefit (especially where Irish service providers / producers can replace UK counterparts in Europe) but, others will undoubtedly face huge difficulties. What the UK's doing is basically illogical, reckless and downright stupid. However, that's democracy! The decision appears to be made and those that made it seem to be of the opinion that it's a case of to hell with the consequences.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

If there is unregulated traffic between the UK and Ireland across the Irish border there is no alternative.

Yes there is as has been pointed out. Again I ask you to show how a customs border between ROI and EU is legal in EU law.

BTW I thought you made no claim can you please make up your mind 1 is a customs border a possibility between ROI and EU and 2 can you show under EU law that it is legal.

Skedaddle

A customs border within the EU is a fundamental breach of the treaties and the concepts that the EU's founded upon. It would be placing Ireland outside the single market and the EU. It's simply not going to happen.

It's also ludicrous to think that the UK can just have no external border on a customs agreement. There would be issues there regarding operation of normal international law and WTO rules. You can't allow preferential access to Ireland (i.e. the EU) without a WTO authorised trade deal, as it would be unfair on other WTO members. So, this notion that the UK will just not enforce the border is another pile of nonsense from Westminster.

Fundamentally, you're dealing with an unprecedentedly incompetent British Government that is willing to just say absolutely anything and one that has given up all ability to deal with facts or reality.
It's a disgrace, an embarrassment and a complete and utter joke. They are governing the UK with all the sophistication of a discussion at the back of a pub. It's actually scary to see just how ridiculous things have been allowed to get. The UK used to be a country that valued facts, reality and logical decision making. Very little of this makes any sense anymore and I think we really should be bracing ourselves for a whole lot of ridiculousness over the next few months.

Peregrinus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Fairly hardcore document (strategically?) leaked from the EU side this evening, laying out their terms for the transition period.



according to The Standard, Guardian, Independent etc.

Politics.eu is also reporting this is in the text.


David Davis's DExEU spokesperson has said it's merely a negotiating position, hmmm.

All a bit of a red rag to a bull I'd have thought.

Well, on the one hand it's a red rag to a bull. On the other, it's a bull's response to a previously-waved red rag.

Ever since the Phase 1 agreement of 8 December, the UK has been talking down the commitments they made in that agreement. This could be tactical, for domestic consumption, to placate the Brexity ideologues. Or it could indicate that, yeah, they didn't really make those commitments in good faith, and they will honour them to the least extent that they can get away with.

In response the EU has set about drafting a Brexit agreement that will embody those commitments in clear and unambiguous terms, and has talked very publicly and pointedly about why they need to do this. And, now, they are talking about the need to have swift and effective mechanisms included in the agreement for enforcing it against the UK, should it proved not to be disposed to keep its word.

Yes, it may be "merely a negotiating tactic", in the sense that it may be intended to bring home to the UK that the EU regards the Phase 1 commitments as serious and enduring commitments, not as convenient fudges to enable talks to move to Phase 2, which can be forgotten now that their purpose has been served. The more the UK appears to try to row back from what it signed up for in December, the more the EU will be looking for effective mechanisms to make it necessary for the UK's welfare and interests for it to stand by the agreements it has made. If the UK takes this to heart now, then maybe much unpleasantness can be avoided later.

Harika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The point is that it can be a customs union as long as it doesn't say "Customs Union" on the box. And the EU absolutely does do customs unions.

May has categorically ruled out anything called a customs union. So the EU offers them a bespoke UK only "Cake union", which is just the customs union with a new label. Everyone is happy.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-trade-spokesman/britain-offers-two-options-for-future-customs-ties-with-eu-mays-spokesman-idUKKBN1FP1HP

It is now a customs partnership or customs arrangement

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If there is unregulated traffic between the UK and Ireland across the Irish border there is no alternative.

Yes there is as has been pointed out. Again I ask you to show how a customs border between ROI and EU is legal in EU law.

BTW I thought you made no claim can you please make up your mind 1 is a customs border a possibility between ROI and EU and 2 can you show under EU law that it is legal.

Laws can be adapted to deal with circumstances. If the integrity of the Single Market is the price for free movement in Ireland, you can be confident that the necessary laws will come into effect.

So wave all the laws you like but people need to be disabused of the notion that the reality of the Irish border as the EU's boundary can be ignored or fudged.

I don't think it will come to that because I think Ireland has secured the support of the rest of the members to tighten the screw on the UK.

But the only way to square a circle is to redraw the lines and it would be wise to remember that.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

Laws can be adapted to deal with circumstances. If the integrity of the Single Market is the price for free movement in Ireland, you can be confident that the necessary laws will come into effect.

So wave all the laws you like but people need to be disabused of the notion that the reality of the Irish border as the EU's boundary can be ignored or fudged.

I don't think it will come to that because I think Ireland has secured the support of the rest of the members to tighten the screw on the UK.

But the only way to square a circle is to redraw the lines and it would be wise to remember that.

To allow for what you say may happen would be a fundamental change to the EU and would be a direct attack on one of the four freedoms that been free movement of goods.

While laws can change any change to the treaty would require the support of 27 members and guess what it would require in Ireland.

In your world there must first be a customs border between NI and ROI second the UK must refuse to police that border (huge back door for EU citizens into UK as well as goods, third the ROI despite its obligations must refuse or be unable to police the customs border. And despite there being a legal way to deal with such refusal or inability you say the EU will change its laws that in my opinion will require a fundemental change in the EU and need a treaty change which the EU will require the support of the majority of the voting Irish people.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Laws can be adapted to deal with circumstances. If the integrity of the Single Market is the price for free movement in Ireland, you can be confident that the necessary laws will come into effect.

So wave all the laws you like but people need to be disabused of the notion that the reality of the Irish border as the EU's boundary can be ignored or fudged.

I don't think it will come to that because I think Ireland has secured the support of the rest of the members to tighten the screw on the UK.

But the only way to square a circle is to redraw the lines and it would be wise to remember that.

A customs border or quasi-customs border between Ireland and the rest of the EU would itself be a violation of the integrity of the single market - a major violation. The EU wouldn't regard it as an acceptable solution to any problem, except perhaps as a very temporary stopgap.

If there's excessive leakage over the RoI/NI border, the EU will not seek to fix that problem by erecting a second line of defence, as it were, between the RoI and the EU-26; they'll seek to fix it by strengthening controls at the RoI/NI border.

(The problem shouldn't arise, of course, unless the UK reneges on the commitments that it gave in the Phase 1 agreement, in which case we are looking at a hard border in Ireland. So it wouldn't be a case of the EU saying "introduce a hard border"; it would be the EU saying that, given that there is a hard border, it needs to be an effective hard border.)

Sam Russell

'Darkest Hour' is a film about the last time the UK withdrew from Europe at Dunkirk - a bedraggled army saved by an armada of tiny boats plucking a straggle of soldiers from the beaches and taking them back to Blighty to fight again.

Reuters recall this disaster, but in more realistic terms and relates it to Brexit.

Britain’s checkered relationship with Europe since World War Two demonstrates a capacity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That trait is culminating in Brexit, a decision that continues to roil the UK as Prime Minister Theresa May’s grip on power looks ever shakier. The past week has seen growing pressure on her to quit and a dispute over a leaked government document putting hard numbers on potential damage to the economy as a result of Brexit.

The British knack of turning triumph to disaster in its relations with Europe goes back to the aftermath of World War Two, and is not confined to May’s Conservative Party. In the late 1940s Britain had an unrivalled opportunity to shape a more united Europe on its own terms, concentrating on economic rather than political integration. But following the landslide Labour victory over the Conservative Party in 1945 the new government failed to seize the chance, focusing instead on securing American commitment to the economic revival and security of Western Europe.

Given that Teresa May sees herself as 'the second female PM' and is a torch bearer for MT, she is undoing may of the achievements of MT in pushing for the Single Market. Weak and Wobbly is an apt description of here.

Leroy42

There a number of outcomes to this, as I see it.

Hard Brexit - This is currently the most likely. May seem more intent in fending off any possible challenges to her position that actually looking out for the interests of the UK and certainly the EU.

Soft Brexit - This would appear to be the best solution for all concerned. UK maintains uninterrupted access, as does the EU, and gives them the space needed to set up these long favoured trade deals. There is a cost to this, mainly the continuation of free movement and having to abide by EU regulations and effectively losing any say over the future direction. This will be a hard sell to the Brexiteers, even more so as May continues to give the impression that she favours Hard Brexit. But one must way up the cost of the possible lost EU trade and the time it will take to get these new trade deals working to maximum level against the cost of staying within some sort of EU agreement.

Nothing - This is not going to happen, too much time & effort has been spent on both sides.

It really all seems to boil down to whether May can lead her country, never mind her own party, in whatever direction she deems correct. It would seem odd that, in all the reports we have been privy to, the civil service are clearly advocating a soft brexit that May is choosing to, at the very least, flirt with the idea of a hard brexit. What is she basing this decision on? I have seen nothing, apart for lofty ambitions and hopes, that the hard brexit is the right choice.

And the Uk people seem happy enough that a single biggest decision taken since WWII is based on what exactly? It can't be from the civil service, so where are they getting their information from? And has anybody checked that for bias? For example Davies continues to say that future trade deals with be worth it, but have given no indication of how they arrived at that position.

What seems staggering is that this is a debate with a total absence of any data from one side. They are very quick to point out any flaws on the other side but even now, nearly 2 years after the vote itself, they have come up with nothing of any substance.

Really Interested

I am not sure if this has been discussed but let’s assume hard Brexit. As all people born in NI are by operation of law ROI citizens. So a state that is a third country will have as a fact all of its citizens either in possession of or entitled to an EU passport, and that will include all children yet to be born!

CelticRambler

Really Interested wrote: »

As all people born in NI are by operation of law ROI citizens. So a state that is a third country will have as a fact all of its citizens either in possession of or entitled to an EU passport, and that will include all children yet to be born!

Assuming such a hard brexit included the UK's refusal to submit to the jurisdictin of the ECJ and ECHR, another unholy mess will become apparent if/when NI holders of RoI citizenship seek the intervention of the ECHR in respect of a dispute. A decision in favour of the NI resident identifying as an RoI citizen against another NI resident would open up the challenge that NI residents benefitted from protections that were not available to residents/citizens of the rest of the UK.

One could almost call that a "special status" ... :rolleyes:

First Up

Really Interested wrote: »

In your world there must first be a customs border between NI and ROI second the UK must refuse to police that border (huge back door for EU citizens into UK as well as goods, third the ROI despite its obligations must refuse or be unable to police the customs border. And despite there being a legal way to deal with such refusal or inability you say the EU will change its laws that in my opinion will require a fundemental change in the EU and need a treaty change which the EU will require the support of the majority of the voting Irish people.

My world is the one we currently inhabit in which we have two contradictory aspirations - retaining a single market on the island of Ireland but part of which is not part of a larger single market in Europe.

The simple solution to these conflicting situations is for the UK to retain full compliance with EU Ts & Cs and abandon its ideological commitment to "taking back control". If that doesn't happen the solution will be something else.

All options are being explored; some pose logistical/technical challenges, some pose political challenges and some pose legal challenges. You can decide for yourself which combination works best.

FreudianSlippers

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU wouldn't regard it as an acceptable solution to any problem, except perhaps as a very temporary stopgap.

+1, but just to add:

Ireland shouldn't regard a customs border between Ireland and the EU-26 as an acceptable solution.

First Up

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU wouldn't regard it as an acceptable solution to any problem, except perhaps as a very temporary stopgap.

+1, but just to add:

Ireland shouldn't regard a customs border between Ireland and the EU-26 as an acceptable solution.

Then we are also in cake and eat it territory. We can chose between being a single market in Irealnd or being in a single market in Europe. We can't have both so which do you want?

FreudianSlippers

First Up wrote: »

My world is the one we currently inhabit in which we have two contradictory aspirations - retaining a single market on the island of Ireland but part of which is not part of a larger single market in Europe.

The simple solution to these conflicting situations is for the UK to retain full compliance with EU Ts & Cs and abandon its ideological commitment to "taking back control". If that doesn't happen the solution will be something else.

All options are being explored; some pose logistical/technical challenges, some pose political challenges and some pose legal challenges. You can decide for yourself which combination works best.

I don't disagree with the generality of what you're saying here, but I can tell you that a customs border between Ireland and the EU-26 is not one of those options being explored - from a legal and technical standpoint it is impossible, but more importantly from a fundamental EU core principle point of view it's not going to happen.

It would be the end of the EU.

FreudianSlippers

First Up wrote: »

Then we are also in cake and eat it territory. We can chose between being a single market in Irealnd or being in a single market in Europe. We can't have both so which do you want?

It's not our choice - we are a member of the European Union and the only single market. If the UK (including Northern Ireland) cannot come to an acceptable agreement with the EU (including Ireland) then there is no "choice".

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

My world is the one we currently inhabit in which we have two contradictory aspirations - retaining a single market on the island of Ireland but part of which is not part of a larger single market in Europe.

The simple solution to these conflicting situations is for the UK to retain full compliance with EU Ts & Cs and abandon its ideological commitment to "taking back control". If that doesn't happen the solution will be something else.

All options are being explored; some pose logistical/technical challenges, some pose political challenges and some pose legal challenges. You can decide for yourself which combination works best.

A wife may be in a unhappy relationship with her husband. There are legal ways to deal with that including staying together either legally seperated or not, or living apart, then she can divorce or not, but she can not murder him because she thinks he will not play fair. A customs border between a member of EU and the rest of the members is legally the same as killing what the EU currently is. It really is that simple. If it happens then Ireland is a sub member of the EU and it can not happen.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

Then we are also in cake and eat it territory. We can chose between being a single market in Irealnd or being in a single market in Europe. We can't have both so which do you want?

Ireland is making no choice it is simply saying there is a legal problem for the UK with a border between NI and ROI. Any choice for a solution is in the hands of the UK.

If it is a customs border on the Island then so be it. The EU of which Ireland is a member will police that border. It will be difficult for Ireland but from 1920’s to 70’s we did it outside EU we will do it again if we have to with assistance of the EU.

First Up

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

My world is the one we currently inhabit in which we have two contradictory aspirations - retaining a single market on the island of Ireland but part of which is not part of a larger single market in Europe.

The simple solution to these conflicting situations is for the UK to retain full compliance with EU Ts & Cs and abandon its ideological commitment to "taking back control". If that doesn't happen the solution will be something else.

All options are being explored; some pose logistical/technical challenges, some pose political challenges and some pose legal challenges. You can decide for yourself which combination works best.

I don't disagree with the generality of what you're saying here, but I can tell you that a customs border between Ireland and the EU-26 is not one of those options being explored - from a legal and technical standpoint it is impossible, but more importantly from a fundamental EU core principle point of view it's not going to happen.

It would be the end of the EU.

There are no technical problems; Ireland is physically detached from the other 26, all of whom trade both within and outside the single market.

Legalities can be changed; the only issue is political and we are facing political changes anyway.

I'm neither advocating or predicting trade checks between Ireland and the 26. I'm just saying it would be niaive to base our strategy on the belief they cannot happen.

And I don't know what is your definition of being "explored" but I can tell you I've heard it discussed.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Then we are also in cake and eat it territory. We can chose between being a single market in Irealnd or being in a single market in Europe. We can't have both so which do you want?

No, Ireland is not in cake-and-eat-it territory. We know a choice has to be be made.

It's not really our choice, the first instance, it will be the UK that decides if there is to be a hard border in Ireland. Either the UK will stand by the commitments it made in the Phase 1 agreement, and there will be no hard border, or it will renege on them, and there will.

If the UK makes the latter choice, then we do have a choice; accept a hard border in Ireland (at least, until the UK comes to its senses and tries to make a new deal with the EU) or join the UK in leaving the EU (which is what you do if you want a hard border between Ireland and the EU-26).

If we have to make that choice, we'll choose Europe, obviously. But we will bitterly resent being forced into the choice by the stupidity, arrogance, blindness, disdain and duplicity of the Tory government of the UK.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Then we are also in cake and eat it territory. We can chose between being a single market in Irealnd or being in a single market in Europe. We can't have both so which do you want?

No, Ireland is not in cake-and-eat-it territory. We know a choice has to be be made.

It's not really our choice, the first instance, it will be the UK that decides if there is to be a hard border in Ireland. Either the UK will stand by the commitments it made in the Phase 1 agreement, and their will be no hard border, or it will renege on them, and their will.

If the UK makes the latter choice, then we do have a choice; accept a hard border in Ireland (at least, until the UK comes to its senses and tries to make a new deal with the EU) or join the UK in leaving the EU.

If we have to make that choice, we'll choose Europe, obviously. But we will bitterly resent being forced into the choice by the stupidity, arrogance, blindness, disdain and duplicity of the Tory government of the UK.

Some people in this discussion are very fond of their cake.

FreudianSlippers

First Up wrote: »

There are no technical problems; Ireland is physically detached from the other 26, all of whom trade both within and outside the single market.

There are way more technical problems than the actual physical border checks.

Legalities can be changed; the only issue is political and we are facing political changes anyway.

I think it's delusional to think that (1) there is the appetite in Europe to destroy the fundamental core of the EU (2) there is any hope of getting the EU-26 to agree to remove the most fundamental tenant of the EU (3) there is even a remote chance that 1 & 2 happen, the EU doesn't immediately break-up and a referendum to do this amendment to the TFEU passes in Ireland.

I'm neither advocating or predicting trade checks between Ireland and the 26. I'm just saying it would be niaive to base our strategy on the belief they cannot happen.

I would say exactly the opposite. What's the point in the EU fighting the UK over the EU's inflexibility with regard to the TFEU and fundamental principles of the EU, but then doing the exact thing that they were saying they wouldn't do?

And I don't know what is your definition of being "explored" but I can tell you I've heard it discussed.

I work as a lawyer in an industry that would be directly impacted by Brexit (not necessarily negatively, but certainly we would have to re-think a lot of the ways we do cross-border work); my main day-to-day isn't actually dealing with these issues - although the nature of Brexit will have a significant impact if there is no deal done, but the firm I work with has lobbyists and we get updates frequently on what's happening behind-the-scenes and I've genuinely never heard this as an option even once.

I'm not saying someone didn't moot it, but I couldn't see it being honestly considered by anyone in the EU-27. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was considered a brilliant idea by the UK though!

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think it's delusional to think that (1) there is the appetite in Europe to destroy the fundamental core of the EU (2) there is any hope of getting the EU-26 to agree to remove the most fundamental tenant of the EU (3) there is even a remote chance that 1 & 2 happen, the EU doesn't immediately break-up and a referendum to do this amendment to the TFEU passes in Ireland.

There could be if the wrong sort of catastrophic event were to occur. However, the Conservative party trying desperately to plug the holes in a ship it willingly sailed into hostile waters isn't nearly reason enough.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would say exactly the opposite. What's the point in the EU fighting the UK over the EU's inflexibility with regard to the TFEU and fundamental principles of the EU, but then doing the exact thing that they were saying they wouldn't do?

I fully agree. Ireland needs to be fully in the single market and customs union. Appeasing Tory Eurosceptics is just going to encourage them to demand ever higher concessions.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Some people in this discussion are very fond of their cake.

I'm not seeing those people. Can you name them?

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think it's delusional to think that (1) there is the appetite in Europe to destroy the fundamental core of the EU (2) there is any hope of getting the EU-26 to agree to remove the most fundamental tenant of the EU (3) there is even a remote chance that 1 & 2 happen, the EU doesn't immediately break-up and a referendum to do this amendment to the TFEU passes in Ireland.

There could be if the wrong sort of catastrophic event were to occur. However, the Conservative party trying desperately to plug the holes in a ship it willingly sailed into hostile waters isn't nearly reason enough.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would say exactly the opposite. What's the point in the EU fighting the UK over the EU's inflexibility with regard to the TFEU and fundamental principles of the EU, but then doing the exact thing that they were saying they wouldn't do?

I fully agree. Ireland needs to be fully in the single market and customs union. Appeasing Tory Eurosceptics is just going to encourage them to demand ever higher concessions.

I am 100% in favour of staying in the Single Market and I would take a hard border over that any day of the week. What is worrying some in the EU is free movement in Ireland being treated as a sacred cow that must be preserved at all costs.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

I am 100% in favour of staying in the Single Market and I would take a hard border over that any day of the week. What is worrying some in the EU is free movement in Ireland being treated as a sacred cow that must be preserved at all costs.

I don't think it's free movement in Ireland so much as avoiding a hard border which would be disastrous for the north. Free movement is a central tenet of the EU. The British voted to leave and understandably want that to come to an end but they should have considered the border before voting to Leave.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think it's free movement in Ireland so much as avoiding a hard border which would be disastrous for the north. Free movement is a central tenet of the EU. The British voted to leave and understandably want that to come to an end but they should have considered the border before voting to Leave.

+1

Ireland would obviously love to keep free movement on this island, but if that meant no free movement within the rest of the EU then it's not going to happen. Ireland's pressure is on the UK to make a deal with the EU and rightfully so.

We will figure out a way in the event of the hardest Brexit to negotiate a trade deal that works for Ireland, but it'll be in the context of the broader EU; it'll be a miserable few isolated years for the UK and in particular Northern Ireland.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I am 100% in favour of staying in the Single Market and I would take a hard border over that any day of the week. What is worrying some in the EU is free movement in Ireland being treated as a sacred cow that must be preserved at all costs.

The open border must be preserved and this is far more important, and far more beneficial to the Republic, Northern Ireland and Great Britain that Brexiter fantasies about the benefit of imaginary trade deals with China, North Korea and countries yet to be discovered under the sea. If you're looking for a sacred cow, you've got one right there.

The galling thing is that these illusory gains are to accrue largely to Britain, but a signficant part of the very real cost of them will fall on Ireland, North and South. You can hardly expect us to be pleased about that, and us wanting not to bear that cost is not a case of us wanting to have our cake and eat it. We're not the ones who are looking for any benefit here; we're just trying to avoid being damaged.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The British voted to leave and understandably want that to come to an end but they should have considered the border before voting to Leave.

Border? What border? Britain is an Island unto herself, surrounded by water and protected by a fleet of nuclear submarines.


Oh, you mean that weird Irish bit on the weather map? Nuffink to do with me, mate, I'm English. Vote OUT. :P

ambro25

Skedaddle wrote: »

Ambro25 : appreciate the optimism but that’s not very realistic either. There are parts of the business that won’t be easily be able to adapt and may have to be closed down. Moving entire businesses to alternative markets in many cases isn’t possible. Altering supply chains is hugely disruptive and in many cases it’s not opening up new ways of thinking, rather it’s forcing companies to chose suppliers they may not have considered in the past for good reason.

You missed my point, I fear. Or perhaps it's a case of optimism on my part, clashing with pessimism on your part. But well. At any rate, I certainly never suggested it'd be easy.

I'm no particularly optimist by nature, nor pessimist (although pretty cynical at times): I'm just a pragmatic realist

Skedaddle wrote: »

All of these things are very easy from the other side of a keyboard or theorising about them in politics.

Not sure if that was throwaway comment or directed at me, but as I alluded to in my earlier post, I do know how difficult 'these things' are IRL, and perhaps more than many in here: I'm actually changing employer (leaving behind a directorship and de facto no.2 position in a mid-tier provincial UK law firm, and a fairly comfortable and steady middle class lifestyle) and moving country, terminating our UK life of 23 years (minus 4 years in RoI/Dub') and effectively rebooting from scratch in Luxembourg. Wife, teenage daughter, dog in tow.

Right now.

That's 100% down to the handling (ho-hum) of the referendum by the UK government to date, in view of the anticipated effects of Brexit (of whichever flavour) on my sector.

Had the government decided to heed the consultative referendum outcome for influencing policies whilst maintaining its membership, rather than abandon itself to an orgy of political infighting masked by antiquated nationalist rethoric, I'd still be exactly where I was, and still only debating politically on here and elsewhere, rather than actually upending our life.

And that move is precisely because of all the consequences you mention, anticipated on the UK business which I'd been working at for 10 years (and on all the competitors in our sector in the UK).

The political debate in here and in the broader media is what it is, so is the political play between the Tories, and between the UK and the EU.

But at the reality coalface, at which you and I and millions more are, it's wholly redundant: the real-life personal choice that matters, is whether you're either reactively taking the consequences of [the referendum result, its mismanagement to date by the UK political class, the yo-yoing of markets and currencies double- and triple-guessing next week's tidbit of positioning, <...> on your personal situation], or proactively planning/doing something to mitigate worst possible outcomes, i.e. insulating yourself from Brexit damage, collateral or otherwise, as best you can.

Opportunities arise of that proactive approach, they aren't going to arise out of the reactive approach.

That's all pretty much truisms of course, but generally applicable from the corporate level down to the individual level.

I'd been trying to prep our business for Brexit since June 2016, but never garnered sufficient internal support to swing a new EU27 office (best Brexit-planning/-mitigating option for us) versus the alternative of a new UK office (we didn't have the resources to do both, it was an either/or): the Manchester office was opened in May 2017 instead -against my recommendation and vote-, has been spectacularly lossy since, and looks to be binned by May 2018 with the loss of a job and the personal investments of other parties (I wasn't going to sink a penny in it, in view of the business case & plan).

When the business chose to develop into a highly-congested domestic market rather than preserve our global service capacity with an EU27 office (for reasons best known to them, and far from objective), then seeing how May & Co were still stepping on their collective appendages about Brexit in Summer 2017, early September 2017 is when I decided to change the rules of the game to suit 'me'.

Brexit-mitigating opportunities were there for the business I was working for, but the business wasn't interested in taking them.

Different opportunities were there for me once I decided to bin the business I was working for, and I was interested in taking <the best> amongst them.

The take-away point is per Sun Tzu: when you're losing the game to your opponent, change the rules

No optimism (or pessimism) required, just cold detached rationalism, then methodical planning.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I am 100% in favour of staying in the Single Market and I would take a hard border over that any day of the week. What is worrying some in the EU is free movement in Ireland being treated as a sacred cow that must be preserved at all costs.

The open border must be preserved and this is far more important, and far more beneficial to the Republic, Northern Ireland and Great Britain that Brexiter fantasies about the benefit of imaginary trade deals with China, North Korea and countries yet to be discovered under the sea. If you're looking for a sacred cow, you've got one right there.

The galling thing is that these illusory gains are to accrue largely to Britain, but a signficant part of the very real cost of them will fall on Ireland, North and South. You can hardly expect us to be pleased about that, and us wanting not to bear that cost is not a case of us wanting to have our cake and eat it. We're not the ones who are looking for any benefit here; we're just trying to avoid being damaged.

I agree that the Brexit stuff is illusory nonsense but your comments illustrate the quandry facing Ireland. I suspect more people in Ireland want an open border with NI than appreciate the importance of SM membership. If faced with that choice, I'm not convinced a majority would vote to prioritise the SM. Would you?

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

We can chose between being a single market in Irealnd or being in a single market in Europe. We can't have both so which do you want?

Europe, obviously, this isn't even a question.

But according to the UK, there is another option, and in Phase 1 they said they would maintain whatever compliance is needed to make it happen. I am inclined to believe that they won't, that there will be a hard Brexit, in which case we will have a hard border on this island, but they could be lying to the DUP, not to us.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

I suspect more people in Ireland want an open border with NI than appreciate the importance of SM membership. If faced with that choice, I'm not convinced a majority would vote to prioritise the SM. Would you?

There isn't going to be a vote on this question, because no-one is even asking that question except you because the answer is screamingly obvious. We are in the EU, the UK is leaving, we are not leaving. The end.

FreudianSlippers

First Up wrote: »

I agree that the Brexit stuff is illusory nonsense but your comments illustrate the quandry facing Ireland. I suspect more people in Ireland want an open border with NI than appreciate the importance of SM membership. If faced with that choice, I'm not convinced a majority would vote to prioritise the SM. Would you?

I think you fail to appreciate that Irish people will not be given that choice. It's a non-starter for the EU.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

I am 100% in favour of staying in the Single Market and I would take a hard border over that any day of the week. What is worrying some in the EU is free movement in Ireland being treated as a sacred cow that must be preserved at all costs.

The 4 free movements are at the very foundation of the EU they are the sacred cows of the EU, why would the EU not give UK what it wanted in relation to persons but will or according to what you are hearing is considering killing the free movement in goods as against a member against its will.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I agree that the Brexit stuff is illusory nonsense but your comments illustrate the quandry facing Ireland. I suspect more people in Ireland want an open border with NI than appreciate the importance of SM membership. If faced with that choice, I'm not convinced a majority would vote to prioritise the SM. Would you?

Yes, absolutely, and the polls bear me out. When asked specifically whether Ireland should leave the EU, given that the UK is leaving, 83% say "no" and 16% say "yes".

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

I agree that the Brexit stuff is illusory nonsense but your comments illustrate the quandry facing Ireland. I suspect more people in Ireland want an open border with NI than appreciate the importance of SM membership. If faced with that choice, I'm not convinced a majority would vote to prioritise the SM. Would you?

I have no idea where you are getting this from. Irish people seem to be keenly aware of the benefits the single market has brought to the country. It is the British who voted to close the border so it is them who have to resolve this. If it is a hard border, it's not really worth sending away all-important foreign investment and jobs just to keep it open just to avoid customs checks for the minority of the population who cross it regularly.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I agree that the Brexit stuff is illusory nonsense but your comments illustrate the quandry facing Ireland. I suspect more people in Ireland want an open border with NI than appreciate the importance of SM membership. If faced with that choice, I'm not convinced a majority would vote to prioritise the SM. Would you?

I have no idea where you are getting this from. Irish people seem to be keenly aware of the benefits the single market has brought to the country. It is the British who voted to close the border so it is them who have to resolve this. If it is a hard border, it's not really worth sending away all-important foreign investment and jobs just to keep it open just to avoid customs checks for the minority of the population who cross it regularly.

I'm not for a moment suggesting we do anything that jeapordises our membership of the Single Market and I'm puzzled how anyone could interpret anything I've said in that way. But any fudge on the border leaves us open to suspicion that not everything coming from Ireland is legit and EU compliant. That opens other risks - including in extreme circumstances checks on goods from Ireland arriving in other EU countries.

You might think I'm scaremongering but all we've seen on the border so far is fudge. Happily the EU (largely at our behest) is holding the UK's feet to the flame on it so we'll see if their dysfunctional and farcical Brexit can achieve a workable solution.

Charles Babbage

First Up wrote: »

Then we are also in cake and eat it territory. We can chose between being a single market in Irealnd or being in a single market in Europe. We can't have both so which do you want?

Of course we can have both. NI can remain in the SM, which is what the majority of people there want.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

But any fudge on the border leaves us open to suspicion that not everything coming from Ireland is legit and EU compliant. That opens other risks - including in extreme circumstances checks on goods from Ireland arriving in other EU countries.

No, it does not open that risk, as has been explained to you, unless there is a treaty change which Ireland would have to approve, and the other 26 too, creating a new second-class tier of EU membership just for us.

This is actually less likely than Ireland simply leaving the EU, which is a bit less likely than Ireland relocating to the South Pacific.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

I'm not for a moment suggesting we do anything that jeapordises our membership of the Single Market and I'm puzzled how anyone could interpret anything I've said in that way. But any fudge on the border leaves us open to suspicion that not everything coming from Ireland is legit and EU compliant. That opens other risks - including in extreme circumstances checks on goods from Ireland arriving in other EU countries.

You might think I'm scaremongering but all we've seen on the border so far is fudge. Happily the EU (largely at our behest) is holding the UK's feet to the flame on it so we'll see if their dysfunctional and farcical Brexit can achieve a workable solution.

You are showing a complete lack of understanding how the EU works. By putting a customs border between ROI and EU Ireland is outside the SM it’s that simple. It can not happen if it does and I don’t mean to be melodramatic it will be the end of the EU as one of the four founding principles will be undermined and not by 1 member but the other 26.

Really Interested

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it does not open that risk, as has been explained to you, unless there is a treaty change which Ireland would have to approve, and the other 26 too, creating a new second-class tier of EU membership just for us.

This is actually less likely than Ireland simply leaving the EU, which is a bit less likely than Ireland relocating to the South Pacific.

You are wrong it is clear that due to Brexit Ireland will indeed be relocating to the South Pacific. Lol.