Brexit discussion thread IV

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

At some point, NI will start to openly question where their future actually lies.

That point was 100 years ago,

jm08

Michael Martin's comments about an Economic Zone came from his presentation to the Magill Summer School last night in a session ''Squaring the Brexit Circle: If the UK is outside the customs union and single market, how can we avoid returning to borders of the past?'' Presentations from Simon Coveney (who is very optimistic), Sinn Fein and DUP as well as Martin. Well worth a listen to.

https://donegalcoco.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/365537

You can select which speaker you want to listen to on the side.

seamus

I wonder could an SEZ work without a regional administration.

Imagine an border arrangement where goods are customs-checked on the way into NI from anywhere but not on the way out.

This would involve in effect a border all the way around NI, using a joint UK/EU customs administration.

In effect the UK would operate the EU border in the Irish sea, and the EU would operate UK customs checks in Ireland.

Once cleared into NI, goods are then free to move to the EU or the UK without further checks.

This should alleviate (somewhat) the symbolic issue of NI being cut off from either country in favour of the other (it's now cut off from both), and should satisfy the GFA (somewhat) by not having a hard border between North and South, but rather a "filter" on goods travelling North.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

This is the problem though. The Secretary for State is a fully political figure who is a minister within the British Government. They are not an independent body that takes over when Stormont (regularly) goes "out of service due to artistic differences". So, for example right now, could the EU actually trust a Tory minister not to just ignore EU law, or to try to snap the agreements for some narrow political agenda?

Or, could anyone trust that you wouldn't end up with some hardline Brexiteer in the office?

Let's just take a hypothetical example: you go a few years down the line and Northern Ireland is in the EEA, the DUP and SF have a fight over something totally unrelated, Stormont collapses and say Gove is Northern Ireland Secretary?

Would the EU/EEA be particularly comfortable with that?

You have that problem already; Eurosceptic parties can win elections, and Eurosceptic ministers can take office, in any EU member state.

The EU (and EEA) treaties don't rely on political support in participating countries, and they don't become inoperative when the "wrong" party is in government. They are legal obligations and they are enforced against states that are in breach.

It's not unknown for states to be in default in implementing EU legislation (or indeed in observing other EU requirments). This isn't usually a case of refusal to implement by a eurosceptic minister, but that doesn't matter. The same processes and remedies are available no matter what the cause of the default.

If the UK enters into an Association Agreement with the EU which provides for SEZ status in NI, the UK will be bound to comply with the Agreement and there will be processes and sanctions for not doing so,and they will look strikingly like the default provisions in the existing EU treaties. There will also be an exit clause, should the UK ever decide that it no longer wishes to be Associated with the EU. If a Eurosceptic govenment that objects to the Association is ever elected, they'll have the option of withdrawing (though presumably it would be politically difficult for a Westminster government to end SEZ status for NI unless that was the wish of NI). The notion that they would continue the Association but refuse to operate it is not very plausible, and if they did take that stance then the default provisions of the Agreement would be invoked.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the Secretary of State for NI would look for the UK parliament to pass EU laws in the UK for the use in only NI?

And what would happen, for example, if standards diverge? Extreme example that farmers are now allowed to use GMO feed. Farmers in the UK would produce cheaper meats for example. What does the farmer in NI do to compete? And why should a farmer, a UK citizen, not be allowed to choose to be under UK law rather than EU law?

And I think the UK see all this and that is why they are so set against it. They can foresee the problems down the line. At some point, NI will start to openly question where their future actually lies.

Farmers in NI - indeed, all people in NI - are already obliged to comply with NI law, and it's irrelevant that English ir Scottish law may be different. In the future, NI law and English/Scottish law might differ in ways that they do not at present, but so what? This is the case whether or not there is a special economic zone, or special EU status. The whole point of devolution is that laws may diverge in different parts of the UK. And if its advantageous to NI to have special EU status, then obviously NI laws will diverge to the extent necessary to support and facilitate special status. That's not burdensome to NI; it's beneficial. If they day ever comes where they find it burdensome, they can just give up their special status.

Econ__

The UK are 80% there on the backstop.

They've conceded that there will be a NI-only regulatory protocol with respect to the relevant parts of the Single Market. (See the last slide from the twitter link below - these are official UK govt slides to sell the Chequers plan)

twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1021424484597760000



What they want is a separate all-UK backstop for the Customs Union to go along with it. The EU are hesitant for legal reasons and want the customs backstop to be NI specific too.

I think there will be a NI-only customs backstop but there will be some temporary Customs backstop for the rest of the UK and/or extension to transition (which everybody agrees the UK needs) which will help the UK to fudge/obfuscate the signing off of the NI-only backstop.

Hurrache

Corbyn and labour, as if we didn't know already, fighting for a seat to drive the Brexit train

Jeremy Corbyn to highlight economic 'benefit' of Brexit as he demands UK stop relying on 'cheap labour from abroad'
Labour leader will say plummeting pound can help manufacturers 'build things here again that for too long have been built abroad', in speech that will prompt comparisons with Donald Trump's 'America first' approach.......
.......
Jeremy Corbyn will today claim there has already been an economic "benefit" of Brexit, as he launches a campaign to boost British manufacturing.

The Labour leader will suggest the crash in the pound that followed the 2016 referendum made sterling more competitive and should have helped UK exporters, had the government had a plan to let them capitalise on it.

It will come in a "build it in Britain" speech, in which Mr Corbyn will also attack the use of "cheap labour from abroad" and demand government contracts are kept in Britain instead of being given to "companies outside the UK".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/url-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-economic-labour-party-cheap-labour-migrants-eu-a8460696.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1532390977

And the recent Llyods of London chairman with a good summary of where they're at

trellheim

There needs to be serious debate and discussion about how this could be done e.g. by creating some kind of new structure for Northern Ireland that is still complaint with the GFA and that gives both sides their national identity. It would literally have to be some kind of new democratic body. Ideally, it should have been Stormont, but... they're out of office in a sulk more than they're in.

I suspect pressure from all three sides ( EU, UK, IRE ) will be put at some point soon to get the institutions up and working. I'm not getting into that debate, there's more than enough people and threads on it, but I do think NI needs a much louder voice than it is currently getting.

Looking for GFA alternatives wont fly

EdgeCase

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have that problem already; Eurosceptic parties can win elections, and Eurosceptic ministers can take office, in any EU member state.
.

That's quite different to a situation where you've a part of the EEA run by a state that might actually take positions that are openly hostile to the EU. I still don't really see how it would be compatible, unless the UK agrees a hell of a lot more than it seems to be prepared to right now.

The 'red lines' on the ECJ and it is increasingly looking like the UK could go outside the ECHR and Council of Europe standards and enter some kind of orbit as a satellite state of the US, adopting much lower standards.

A Eurosceptic government within the EU is still actually within the EU.

This could end up as weird as having a bit of the US in the EU.

The stumbling block all the time is that the NI Assembly is basically incompetent and dysfunctional. I hate saying that but, it is constantly throwing the toys out of the pram and resorting to direct rule. If it were competent, you could comfortably devolve power to it and assume that it would be capable of agreeing things in its own right too.

I'm actually shocked that the NI Assembly can't get it together. It's very disappointing to see they're just incapable of coming up with a solution to that and moving forward. I know it's largely the DUP high on power in Westminster, but it's a doing a terrible disservice to the people on all sides of the debate in Northern Ireland.

EdgeCase

Hurrache wrote: »

Corbyn and labour, as if we didn't know already, fighting for a seat to drive the Brexit train


And the recent Llyods of London chairman with a good summary of where they're at

It's also ludicrous when you consider that the UK's a services based economy and the EU is actively working on ensuring full services market access. It will *never* have that level of services market access to any other country through bilateral agreements.

At the very core of the EU's ideology is a single market that is fully open to all members on a completely equal basis. There's no 'trade off' in that. It's what the EU is. Any deal the UK does in the broader global context will be about countries' interests and balancing those. There's no overarching bigger picture objective to create something bigger and better than the simple sum of its parts. Trade deals are just that - narrowly focused, self-interested arrangements where mutual benefits can be found. The EU has always been much, much more than that.

Within the EU, the UK was in a prime position to become the cornerstone of the services sector, with a *domestic* market of 508 million and the world's largest GDP and with plenty of room for growth as the new members to the east, inevitably, become more prosperous. It's also a relationship based on sane, rules-based, collaborative approaches to solving trade issues with an agenda of ensuring fair play and open access. There are plenty of other member states (ourselves included) who will now fill that gap, without having to deal with UK competition.

bilston

EdgeCase wrote: »

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.

The Peace Process started under John Major when he was occasionally reliant on the UUP.

Leroy42

Good article by Fintan O'Toole (IMO) regarding the need for an extension of A50.

He accepts that it might amount to nothing at all, but the willingness to give it is a no cost gesture and could help deliver a better outcome.

Fintan O’Toole: Ireland should offer UK precious gift of time

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-should-offer-uk-precious-gift-of-time-1.3573927

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Good article by Fintan O'Toole (IMO) regarding the need for an extension of A50.

He accepts that it might amount to nothing at all, but the willingness to give it is a no cost gesture and could help deliver a better outcome.



https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-should-offer-uk-precious-gift-of-time-1.3573927

It's not our gift to offer.

breatheme

I am ok with giving the UK more time... but I really don't want them to participate in the next European Parliament elections.

EdgeCase

bilston wrote: »

The Peace Process started under John Major when he was occasionally reliant on the UUP.

The key word there is *started*. It could well have ended up much like the Sunningdale Agreement and other attempts in the past had it not been for the New Labour landslide and a very independent and utterly pragmatic approach taken by Mo Mowlam, Blair and co.

We are back to the old days again, unfortunately.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's not our gift too offer.

O'Toole is aware of that:

Ireland should lobby all the other member states to join us in a declaration to the effect that a British request for a six-month extension of Brexit from March 2019 to September 2019 would be accepted without preconditions.

ancapailldorcha

breatheme wrote: »

I am ok with giving the UK more time... but I really don't want them to participate in the next European Parliament elections.

That would have to be part of any transition agreement. Nobody wants UKIP getting another term with their snouts in the trough.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

O'Toole is aware of that:

Ireland should lobby all the other member states to join us in a declaration to the effect that a British request for a six-month extension of Brexit from March 2019 to September 2019 would be accepted without preconditions.

Well that's the trouble with click bate headlines behind a paywall. The click bate headline makes you look stupid and then if someone goes to read the article they can't see you where only being click batey and assume you where actually being stupid.

EdgeCase

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That would have to be part of any transition agreement. Nobody wants UKIP getting another term with their snouts in the trough.

From the UK's point of view, having UKIP in the parliament ranting and raving will do the country no favours and achieve absolutely nothing in terms of EP legislation anyway. It would just be an embarrassing side show.

ancapailldorcha

EdgeCase wrote: »

From the UK's point of view, having UKIP in the parliament ranting and raving will do the country no favours and achieve absolutely nothing in terms of EP legislation anyway. It would just be an embarrassing side show.

I'd say both sides will insist on the UKIP gravy train being shutdown. Unless Brexit is abandoned of course.

breatheme

The silver lining about Brexit is never having to hear Farage in the parliament again.

judeboy101

breatheme wrote: »

I am ok with giving the UK more time... but I really don't want them to participate in the next European Parliament elections.

No extension unless all Ireland backstop agreed that allows for zero border and this backstop must be passed by parliament and signed in the blood of Elizabeth, Charles, William and George and witnessed in the presence of Mandela's ghost and Kanye west.

Nody

Remember all those British retired expats in Spain etc. who voted for Brexit? Yea; this one might hit home why Brexit might not be the best idea for them.

It will be “illegal” to pay pensions to many retired British expats if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal, MPs have been told.

The Association of British Insurers said pensioners who receive their payments into bank accounts in their adopted countries would be left without cash.

El Weirdo

Nody wrote: »

Remember all those British retired expats in Spain etc. who voted for Brexit? Yea; this one might hit home why Brexit might not be the best idea for them.

I assume that would also apply to many Irish people who moved back home after spending their working lives in the UK?

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

Remember all those British retired expats in Spain etc. who voted for Brexit? Yea; this one might hit home why Brexit might not be the best idea for them.

Good for the Spanish at least. The older Brits might have to head back home with any luck.

In other news, Jeremy Corbyn seems to be sufficiently emboldened to unleash his inner Brexiteer:

Jeremy Corbyn will today claim there has already been an economic "benefit" of Brexit, as he launches a campaign to boost British manufacturing.

The Labour leader will suggest the crash in the pound that followed the 2016 referendum made sterling more competitive and should have helped UK exporters, had the government had a plan to let them capitalise on it.

It will come in a "build it in Britain" speech, in which Mr Corbyn will also attack the use of "cheap labour from abroad" and demand government contracts are kept in Britain instead of being given to "companies outside the UK".

The leader of the opposition who supposedly supported remain but put no effort whatsoever into helping the Labour remain campaign now seems to have fully abandoned his duty to hold Theresa May to account in favour of more Trumpesque "UK first" rhetoric.

James O'Brien has argued that Trump and Corbyn supporters are exactly the same.

Nody

El Weirdo wrote: »

I assume that would also apply to many Irish people who moved back home after spending their working lives in the UK?

Yup...

And he highlighted the threat that a staggering 38m contracts would be “left in legal limbo”, because it would also be illegal to pay claims in EU countries

“If a claim comes in two years down the line, in a country like Germany, their lawyers will be advising them you can’t pay the claim,” Mr Evans told the committee.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Good article by Fintan O'Toole (IMO) regarding the need for an extension of A50.

He accepts that it might amount to nothing at all, but the willingness to give it is a no cost gesture and could help deliver a better outcome.



https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-should-offer-uk-precious-gift-of-time-1.3573927

There are practical difficulties around the EU Parliament elections in May. Does the UK elect MEPs? There is no clear answer to how to deal with that whole issue. That's one of the reasons May was forced to trigger Art 50 when she did.

Leroy42

Imreoir2 wrote: »

There are practical difficulties around the EU Parliament elections in May. Does the UK elect MEPs? There is no clear answer to how to deal with that whole issue. That's one of the reasons May was forced to trigger Art 50 when she did.

I don't believe that. May wasn't forced to do anything of the sort. All the evidence would suggest that matters such as EU elections played no part in any decisions that the UK have made.

If its a choice between a crash out and finding a work around to elections, really its not a problem.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't believe that. May wasn't forced to do anything of the sort. All the evidence would suggest that matters such as EU elections played no part in any decisions that the UK have made.

If its a choice between a crash out and finding a work around to elections, really its not a problem.

Finding a work around involves either legally dubious options, or EU Treaty Change, neither of which the EU will be interested in to keep the sideshow on the road for a few extra months for no apparent benefit.

Leroy42

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Finding a work around involves either legally dubious options, or EU Treaty Change, neither of which the EU will be interested in to keep the sideshow on the road for a few extra months for no apparent benefit.

Pales into insignificance against the chaos of a no deal brexit.