Brexit discussion thread IV

Water John

The ROI will be obliged, as an EU member to protect its borders. It won't give a fiddlers about what is travelling North, just what is coming South.

judeboy101

bilston wrote: »

I was just thinking that if there is no deal and a hard border is required who is actually going to build it?

The British don't want it and the Irish don't want it, so irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations the infrastructute may never be put in place.

The healy-raes will get the contract, I guarantee it.

Water John

We don't sub out Customs and Excise duties, state employees.

A Dub in Glasgo

bilston wrote: »

I was just thinking that if there is no deal and a hard border is required who is actually going to build it?

The British don't want it and the Irish don't want it, so irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations the infrastructute may never be put in place.

Interesting considering the whole pretence of Brexit is 'taking control of our borders'. The only land border the UK has is with an EU country so they are leaving the EU to take back control of the border but not doing anything about it? The UK stance that they do not want a hard border is fanciful when that is exactly the logical outcome of their stance - PR spin

Econ__

There won't be a no deal Brexit.

At Chequers, the British decided to 'step up' no deal planning and the idea has gotten traction over the last week or so.

This is what the British want out there. The UK want the EU and Ireland to believe that they are prepared to let no deal happen in the hope that their stances soften.

David Davis let the cat out of the bag in his Daily Express piece. "The key is to persuade the EU that we're prepared to walk away"

But they're not prepared to walk away. All respected experts say that it would take several years to build the required infrastructure and hire/train the thousands of extra customs officials in order to facilitate WTO trade with the EU. This is a government that cannot translate the white paper into the various EU languages correctly and has tendencies to deport some of their own citizens in error.

The chances of Scottish independence and Irish reunification would rise exponentially in the aftermath of the chaos. How long could the UK sustain a no deal scenario? How long before they're back at the table (probably Corbyn at this stage - the Tories would disintegrate), battered and humiliated, prepared to sign up to whatever terms the EU will give them?

Everybody focuses on the 60-80 headbangers in the ERG but more than 550 MPs in the HoC would never allow a no deal scenario to manifest. Any government that ever tried to proceed to walk over the cliff against that opposition would be brought down with a motion of no confidence. Many members of the current government would never do it regardless. Philip Hammond, Greg Clarke, Karen Bradley etc. The majority of the full cabinet are remainers.

The idea that the UK can, or would try to push through a no deal policy is ludicrous. But they want you to believe otherwise. Don't be fooled.

Enzokk

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Interesting considering the whole pretence of Brexit is 'taking control of our borders'. The only land border the UK has is with an EU country so they are leaving the EU to take back control of the border but not doing anything about it? The UK stance that they do not want a hard border is fanciful when that is exactly the logical outcome of their stance - PR spin

Brexit in a nutshell, they want to take back control of their borders by not putting up borders. They also want to open trade to the world by leaving the biggest trade block in the world.

Water John

Econ, its interesting that the UK are preparing, (correctly) for a possible No Deal situation. But they then have the temerity to criticise the EU for doing the same thing and calling it scaremongering.

Anthracite

Which UK minister was saying today that if there was a chaotic Brexit, the UK public would blame the EU and that this would shape the UK public's attitude to the EU for decades?

The obvious answer from our (EU) point of view is...so what?

Water John

Hunt telling the Germans. That's their message to EU Govn'ts.

Infini

Econ__ wrote: »

There won't be a no deal Brexit.

At Chequers, the British decided to 'step up' no deal planning and the idea has gotten traction over the last week or so.

This is what the British want out there. The UK want the EU and Ireland to believe that they are prepared to let no deal happen in the hope that their stances soften.

David Davis let the cat out of the bag in his Daily Express piece. "The key is to persuade the EU that we're prepared to walk away"

But they're not prepared to walk away. All respected experts say that it would take several years to build the required infrastructure and hire/train the thousands of extra customs officials in order to facilitate WTO trade with the EU. This is a government that cannot translate the white paper into the various EU languages correctly and has tendencies to deport some of their own citizens in error.

The chances of Scottish independence and Irish reunification would rise exponentially in the aftermath of the chaos. How long could the UK sustain a no deal scenario? How long before they're back at the table (probably Corbyn at this stage - the Tories would disintegrate), battered and humiliated, prepared to sign up to whatever terms the EU will give them?

Everybody focuses on the 60-80 headbangers in the ERG but more than 550 MPs in the HoC would never allow a no deal scenario to manifest. Any government that ever tried to proceed to walk over the cliff against that opposition would be brought down with a motion of no confidence. Many members of the current government would never do it regardless. Philip Hammond, Greg Clarke, Karen Bradley etc. The majority of the full cabinet are remainers.

The idea that the UK can, or would try to push through a no deal policy is ludicrous. But they want you to believe otherwise. Don't be fooled.

This is all perfectly valid of course.

The one thing though is that the EU will have to call the UK's bluff as they are the one's who can't and wont crack considering they got all the advantage's and it's not in their long term interest to do so.

The thing is all the EU has to do in the inevitable event of negotiations dead ending is to leave the door open by saying they'd be willing to allow a withdrawal of A50 in the event that they would be willing to walk back from all this. Truth is the common's needs to face the writing on the wall and basically be told its either abort or crash. I seriously doubt they'll mess about when having the gun put to their heads over this. It would be unpopular for some in the UK but I think the dawning realization that they simply just can't walk away without suffering catastrophic damage and the way the Tories basically went into all this with no plan whatsoever will come back to bite them.

The best result would be a 2nd referendum resulting in a remain win, followed by an A50 withdrawal then spending the next few years having a serious soul searching as a nation and reforming their country. If there's one thing this whole episode has shown it's that the Tories are utterly dysfunctional as an organisation and that they REALLY need to look at themselves and stop blaming all their own problems solely on the EU. The EU aint perfect it needs fixing as well but walking away in this day and age aint a viable option anymore, noone lasts long alone.

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

Hunt telling the Germans. That's their message to EU Govn'ts.

We really haven't moved on from the UK talking points at all. I am sure it was at the start of the negotiations that the UK was asking for the EU to be flexible and creative to find solutions to Brexit. I guess new ministers will repeat the same work the old ones did before them.

Water John

Yes seems to be reverting to point zero. Warning they won't pay their dues unless a deal is settled. That's where Davis started, a long time ago.

ArthurDayne

bilston wrote: »

I was just thinking that if there is no deal and a hard border is required who is actually going to build it?

The British don't want it and the Irish don't want it, so irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations the infrastructute may never be put in place.

This is a question which I've heard mentioned quite a lot -- and in fairness to you it's a very legitimate question. But like so much else when it comes to Brexit, the problem is one of a cumulative nature rather than strictly immediate.

As it stands, the UK and Ireland are both in the EU and as such are, for the purposes of cross-border trade anyway, in regulatory alignment. Thus -- while Brexit has the potential to cause damaging uncertainty in the short term, ultimately the countries will still be operating by the same standards. This is the basis on which the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg have founded their belief that everything will be jolly good because life will just go on as normal or relatively close to normal.

What Mr Rees Mogg is ignoring of course is that this will not last. If the Brexiteers achieve their dream of regulatory diversion from the EU, then it is only a matter of time before the gaps between Ireland and the UK get exploited at the border -- whether legally or illegally. At that point -- the UK / Ireland or both will have to plug that particular gap with some sort of measure which prevents it from happening.

But then another gap gets exploited --- then is addressed with a measure -- then another gap gets exploited --- and that is addressed by another measure. Sooner or later, and it may take years, there are a myriad of measures in place to address all the attempts to exploit gaps and -- before you know it -- you now have what is for all intents and purposes a hard border. Neither side may have wanted it back in 2018, but the realities of a border crossing between an EU and non-EU country eventually catch up with even the best intentions.

Capt'n Midnight

And not forgetting the collapse of the IT industry when everyone's European Computer Driving License expires :-)

In any case, while people are concentrating on this non-news item, everybody forgot about the real news item which is that Rees Mogg has been making 19% annual (predicted, so far 14% for the first 9 months) profit off companies moving to Ireland due to Brexit via his fund.

https://www.youinvest.co.uk/market-research/FUND:BD6PG56?tab=7&SecurityToken=F00000ZD81]99]1]FXALL$$ALL_1392&Id=F00000ZD81&ClientFund=1&CurrencyId=GBP&ms-redirect-path=/1c6qh1t6k9default.aspx


...
Poor Amazon, losing the 'we pay tax in luxembourg' excuse for not paying any tax on their £1.5bn UK operation.

Imreoir2

Econ__ wrote: »

There won't be a no deal Brexit.

At Chequers, the British decided to 'step up' no deal planning and the idea has gotten traction over the last week or so.

This is what the British want out there. The UK want the EU and Ireland to believe that they are prepared to let no deal happen in the hope that their stances soften.

David Davis let the cat out of the bag in his Daily Express piece. "The key is to persuade the EU that we're prepared to walk away"

But they're not prepared to walk away. All respected experts say that it would take several years to build the required infrastructure and hire/train the thousands of extra customs officials in order to facilitate WTO trade with the EU. This is a government that cannot translate the white paper into the various EU languages correctly and has tendencies to deport some of their own citizens in error.

The chances of Scottish independence and Irish reunification would rise exponentially in the aftermath of the chaos. How long could the UK sustain a no deal scenario? How long before they're back at the table (probably Corbyn at this stage - the Tories would disintegrate), battered and humiliated, prepared to sign up to whatever terms the EU will give them?

Everybody focuses on the 60-80 headbangers in the ERG but more than 550 MPs in the HoC would never allow a no deal scenario to manifest. Any government that ever tried to proceed to walk over the cliff against that opposition would be brought down with a motion of no confidence. Many members of the current government would never do it regardless. Philip Hammond, Greg Clarke, Karen Bradley etc. The majority of the full cabinet are remainers.

The idea that the UK can, or would try to push through a no deal policy is ludicrous. But they want you to believe otherwise. Don't be fooled.

They don't have to push through anything, not pushing something through is all that is needed for no-deal Brexit to happen. It will happen not because the UK walks away, it will happen because they are too incompetent to get any deal over the line.

Peregrinus

bilston wrote: »

I was just thinking that if there is no deal and a hard border is required who is actually going to build it?

The British don't want it and the Irish don't want it, so irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations the infrastructute may never be put in place.

Just because you don't want something doesn't mean you don't have to have it. If the UK and the EU/Ireland don't enter into an agreement under which a hard border can be avoided, then they have to have a hard border. Border controls are the mechanism by which both sides protect the integrity, functionality and operability of their respective customs, trade, regulatory and migration regimes and comply with their obligations as WTO members. Not doing these things is extremely damaging.

McGiver

trellheim wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-future-uk-eu-relationshi
The UK government has issued an pictogram version of the white paper

slight link error

here's the actual https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728135/THE_FUTURE_UK-EU_RELATIONSHIP.pdf

Edit : everyone take a few mins to have a read its actually written with some clarity

A big lie on slide 5:

"Based on the EU’s stated position, there were only two outcomes on the table that were available to the UK. FTA or EEA"

No sorry HM Gov, the outcomes are based on your red lines of which there are many. Please refer to Mr Barnier's PowerPoint.

The rest is a cakeism as usual.

McGiver

Imreoir2 wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Greece owes 320 Billion Euro 
Italy owes 500 Billion Euro

It is impossible for them to repay. They are bankrupt and all the EU can do is give them more cash to survive or the whole thing collapses.

If that is your argument then the UK must also be bankrupt, they owe over 2 Trillion and their national debt per citizen is heigher than Greece.

And Japan owes $10,000 billion...

Wanderer78

McGiver wrote:

And Japan owes $10,000 billion...

Are national debts even meaningful at this stage? Does Japan owe a large chunk of its national debts to itself?

McGiver

Wanderer78 wrote: »

McGiver wrote:

And Japan owes $10,000 billion...

Are national debts even meaningful at this stage? Does Japan owe a large chunk of its national debts to itself?

Correct, almost all of it. The value of the public debt on its own is a meaningless figure.

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Are national debts even meaningful at this stage? Does Japan owe a large chunk of its national debts to itself?

If you count the Japanese government owing money to Japanese citizens, residents, institutions, etc as "Japan owing money to itself" then, yes. But this doesn't mean that the Japanese national debt is not meaningful. It just means that one of the traditional methods of escaping a debt burden - default - is even more politically unacceptable in Japan that it might be in some other countries, where public debt is mainly held by foreign investors.

And Japan's situation is not unusual. The bulk of the UK's national debt is also held domestically - only 27% is held by overseas investors.

PeadarCo

Wanderer78 wrote:

Are national debts even meaningful at this stage? Does Japan owe a large chunk of its national debts to itself?

National debts are meaningful but they like any amount of debt needs to be looked at in context who is the money owed to, what's the repayment capacity etc. The same for an individual a person could owe 100k but depending on the person and their own situation it could be perfectly sustainable or unaffordable.

Just because some Eurozone members have a high level of debt does not mean the Euro and EU will collapse. I also don't see why that makes brexit suddenly a good idea.

Rhineshark

Gonna be a little philosophical for a minute!

But one thing that I have noticed from the British press and how British people talk about Brexit is a complete dearth of understanding of any other country.

- The German carmakers will save us!
- The Spaniards won't want to lose our tourism!

Just as two early ones. Well, the German carmakers immediately went "'Ang on, if this deal messes with the SM there will be trouble!" (Albeit presumably in German). The Spanish are mostly being quiet, with other things to deal with until the UK wants to talk Gibraltar.

But it's kept going, especially regarding how ordinary people see the EU. The EU will fall apart any moment now. No, really, everyone hates it..any moment... Sweden?

I think it is stemming from both the anglosphere and island status. The threats that forced the early formation of what became the EU did not as obviously apply to the islands.

But the UK - and us - are isolated from the continent. Our national identities were formed under totally different pressures. I'm not convinced that "Ireland" understands Europe a great deal either although I think we're more pragmatic about it.

The differences are even between the UK and RoI more than is readily apparent.

Look what happened when "Mister Brexit" himself came over to spread the good news to the benighted heathens (translation; Farage came over to extol Irexit). Irexit was never going to work. But Farage had decided that British concerns explained as to the British would just work in Ireland. Basically the same place, same language, shared history, innit? It didn't. The same triggers that worked on Britain due to their own internal national identity (crisis?) did not work in Ireland. If he'd thought about it for five minutes, just maybe he would have reconsidered a member of the British politocracy going to Ireland to lecture about sovereignity and vassel states... But he didn't. Everyone thinks like British people, based on their culture and shared history.

Trying to break out of the anglosphere myself but it's difficult. I have my own formed opinions of "what Europe will do", which I think are more accurate than what the Tories and their supporters believe but I suspect I'm missing a lot of nuance as well. The Irish press media is small; much like any other English speaker, I do rely on English-language media. Which unfortunately appears to be one of the more corrupt out there with the UK and US contributions. My information is shaped by anglosphere publications which are already a second-hand interpretation of how Europeans think. I do see some of the same bull that I see on British forums on this one too (albeit less of it).

My point may be a little lost, but I suppose ultimately I wonder if the UK and to a smaller extent RoI are trapped in anglosphere island bubbles when it comes to understanding Europe fully. Maybe as a smaller country used to being on the pointy end of the stick we're less preoccupied with status? Maybe we understand a bit more intuitively what the jackboots marching past city hall was like? Or maybe not. I don't think I have enough understanding of how the continental peoples, and thus most of the EU think, but I'm becoming more aware of the gap.

Leroy42

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This is a question which I've heard mentioned quite a lot -- and in fairness to you it's a very legitimate question. But like so much else when it comes to Brexit, the problem is one of a cumulative nature rather than strictly immediate.

But that gives the likes of JRM cover. Just as they have used the non-crash straight after the vote as a way to dismiss experts and forecasts, they will point to the 'nothing' happening at the border as proof that all of it was simply posturing.

As it changes over time, it will hardly be noticed. The people using the border will notice, but not the wider UK public and thus JRM etc can continue on with this narrative that everyone was wrong and the border issue was simply a ruse to try to stop the UK from leaving.

At that is why I don't see the value in the doom laden posts. They might well be right about food/medicine shortages etc, but the people that are gunning for Brexit aren't listening and simply using it to buttress their belief that it is all some vast conspiracy to subvert the will of the people.

And when it doesn't happen overnight, as it won't, then they will simply laugh it off and say, "look, you got it all wrong".

We won't make up on 30th March to a closed off NI.

EdgeCase

I just heard Micheál Martin on RTE Radio 1 this morning calling for a 'special economic zone' in Northern Ireland (and I think the border counties were mentioned too) that would be both in the UK and the Single European Market at the same time.

Is this not something that the EU is likely to just absolutely reject? There were already calls by farming lobbies in France for example to ensure that the border was hard enough to ensure no non-EU standard agrifood products get into the EU market.

We could end up in an even more bizarre situation where we're neither part of the UK customs arrangement and bumped into some kind of semi-detached relationship with the EU single market, totally undermining FDI if we're not careful.

I don't really see the point in saying the Government's strategy has "failed" they're dealing with a totally irrational UK argument, the position of which changes from day to day / hour to hour.

PeadarCo

EdgeCase wrote:

I just heard Micheál Martin on RTE Radio 1 this morning calling for a 'special economic zone' in Northern Ireland (and I think the border counties were mentioned too) that would be both in the UK and the Single European Market at the same time.

A question how would that work?

What it would mean that both UK law and EU law would be in operation or NI would have its own unique blend? What happens when moving goods out of NI to ROI and the UK. You would have to make sure they would comply with the relevant jurisdiction they moving into, which means you could end up with a hard border in Ireland and a a hard border to the UK. That would be the worst of both worlds.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

I just heard Micheál Martin on RTE Radio 1 this morning calling for a 'special economic zone' in Northern Ireland (and I think the border counties were mentioned too) that would be both in the UK and the Single European Market at the same time.

Is this not something that the EU is likely to just absolutely reject? There were already calls by farming lobbies in France for example to ensure that the border was hard enough to ensure no non-EU standard agrifood products get into the EU market.

I don't really see the point in saying the Government's strategy has "failed" they're dealing with a totally irrational UK argument, the position of which changes from day to day / hour to hour.

It depends on what Martin meant. "Special economic zone" is a jargon term that immediately suggests Hong Kong, which is a special economic zone of the People's Republic of China. If that's the model that Martin is suggesting, it implies some kind of border controls between the NI and GB, just as there are border controls between Hong Kong and the rest of China. Potentially, the EU could be quite happy with that; the DUP, not so much.

Martin is correct, in the sense that having a foot in both camps, so to speak, could offer NI considerable advantages. And, given its marginal location and status both in the UK and in the EU, it could use any advantage available. But there would be a price to be paid in terms of greater economic/regulatory segregation from GB and, whether or not SEZ status made economic sense for NI, that would certainly create political problems in the NI context.

EdgeCase

The issue is the the DUP and now the UK Government in legislation has absolutely ruled out any kind of different treatment for Northern Ireland in terms of customs arrangements. So, it's now yet another 'red line' and a non-starter, unless they change their position - which is looking very, very unlikely.

The proposal to just have Northern Ireland simultaneously in both is yet more 'cherry picking' and 'cakeism' form the EU's point of view too.

I just see no way forward on this at all as there's zero flexibility and total dogma involved.

If you think back to the Northern Ireland Peace Process, pretty much the only reason that pragmatism suddenly reigned in Northern Ireland was because New Labour took a huge majority in the House of Commons, rendering the Unionists irrelevant to the British government. We now have the total opposite and the DUP are far more extreme in their views than the UUP of the 1990s.

EdgeCase

EdgeCase wrote: »

I just heard MicheMartin on RTE Radio 1 this morning calling for a 'special economic zone' in Northern Ireland (and I think the border counties were mentioned too) that would be both in the UK and the Single European Market at the same time.

Is this not something that the EU is likely to just absolutely reject? There were already calls by farming lobbies in France for example to ensure that the border was hard enough to ensure no non-EU standard agrifood products get into the EU market.

We could end up in an even more bizarre situation where we're neither part of the UK customs arrangement and bumped into some kind of semi-detached relationship with the EU single market, totally undermining FDI if we're not careful.

I don't really see the point in saying the Government's strategy has "failed" they're dealing with a totally irrational UK argument, the position of which changes from day to day / hour to hour.

I think if NI had to conform to EU standards (likely higher the UK standards as time passes) then that argument would be gone. I'm pretty sure the EU will allow a fudge that could be hugely beneficial to NI (even compared to pre-Brexit) but the DUP won't take it.

Peregrinus

PeadarCo wrote: »

A question how would that work?

What it would mean that both UK law and EU law would be in operation or NI would have its own unique blend? What happens when moving goods out of NI to ROI and the UK. You would have to make sure they would comply with the relevant jurisdiction they moving into, which means you could end up with a hard border in Ireland and a a hard border to the UK. That would be the worst of both worlds.

EU and UK law already apply in NI, so it would be a continuation of the status quo in that regard. It's GB where things would be changing, not NI. The object - presumably - of Martin's proposal is to keep the border open, so there would be no barriers to trade (in either direction) across the Irish border. Again, that's a continuation of the status quo.

As regards trade with GB, whether NI goods and services could be provided freely to GB would be a matter solely for UK law; there would be no reason that I can see for any restriction, unless the UK wished for some reason to set up barriers against goods/services from the EU, which I don't see as likely. So, again, there need be no change to the status quo there.

Where I think a change would be required is in the flow of goods and services from GB to NI. To the extent that the UK would use it's post-Brexit status to diverge from compliance with EU trade, regulatory, etc, regimes, goods coming from GB to NI would have to be controlled to ensure compliance with EU market requirements. The more that the UK diverged, the greater the burden of controls would have to be. And that is where the proposal is problematic.