Brexit discussion thread IV

blinding

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Perhaps the EU could carry out an Airlift using excess agricultural produce.

The Eu would be better advised to sort out the Immigration crisis in the Mediterranean . It hasn’t made much of a fist of it so far ! Its only when the Italians closed their Borders that we have seen some results...for Italy anyway .

blinding

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have rolled over and my money is on them doing it again. Next time, on the DUP with a sea border to solve the border issue and to get some kind of deal.

The Mainland Brits would be doing Cartwheels of Ecstasy if the could some how lose the 6 Counties as a side affect of brevet ...Wouldn’t You ?

That would be some Party especially in the Exchequer Ministry !

Spook_ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have tried to apply pressure and it has only achieved greater EU resolve. That road is a dead end.

After a Brexit there would be no point in trying to use their muscle and it would only attract further crippling action from the EU.

After Brexit would "further crippling action" not put the EU at odds with the WTO?

FrancieBrady

Spook_ie wrote: »

After Brexit would "further crippling action" not put the EU at odds with the WTO?

And Britain.

Why would they be bothered after Brexit happens. We wouldn't be able to do anything for them, so it would just be spite.

Imreoir2

Valmont wrote: »

Does anyone really think a no-deal Brexit would result in food shortages?

Yes, UK retailers, much like their manafacturing industry, is dependant on just in time supply chains. Retailers do not have much more than one days worth of stock on hand at any given time. If there is the kind of chaos at the border that is widely predicted, then it would be almost impossible to avoid shortages of imported foodstuffs.

The government suggestion that retailers would be expected to stockpile before Brexit in a no-deal scenario to avoid shortages was heavily criticised because UK retailers do not have the capasity to stockpile more than a few days worth of stock.

McGiver

Valmont wrote: »

Does anyone really think a no-deal Brexit would result in food shortages?

Yes, because of JiT.

McGiver

What's your take on Iain Dale on LBC?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/remainer-picks-fight-but-cant-support-argument/

To me he seems like a direct antimony of a James O'Brien. He tries talking smart but is really talking nonsense and talking lies as well.

"We're trading with number of countries on WTO terms, WTO is fine" - yeah sure, with the exception that it isn't fine, elsewhere on LBC an expert talks about WTO being an issue https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/experts-explanation-trading-wto-rules-means/

The same goes for aviation, no-deal Brexit would be an issue and there's no precedence how to approach this situation.

Then he says that s er sensible people won't allow no-deal Brexit. Now, not sure who means, I can't see anyone sensible on the UK side. Or did he mean the ERG and their sensible statement "We won't see benefits of brexit for 50 years"?

VinLieger

CelticRambler wrote: »

No.


Certainly not "famine-like" shortages. Some products would undoubtedly be in shorter supply, especially those that rely on foreign labour (e.g. crops harvested by foreign workers in the UK who've chosen to go somewhere else) or that are exported to the EU for processing.



But as JRM keeps telling us, Britain is not going to erect any borders, so the whole world will be waiting to dump their surplus production in the UK. Ireland will - or at least should be - first in the queue.

So they are taking back their borders by throwing them open and unchecked to anyone who will supply them with food?

Econ__

McGiver wrote: »

What's your take on Iain Dale on LBC?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/remainer-picks-fight-but-cant-support-argument/

To me he seems like a direct antimony of a James O'Brien. He tries talking smart but is really talking nonsense and talking lies as well.

"We're trading with number of countries on WTO terms, WTO is fine" - yeah sure, with the exception that it isn't fine, elsewhere on LBC an expert talks about WTO being an issue https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/experts-explanation-trading-wto-rules-means/

The same goes for aviation, no-deal Brexit would be an issue and there's no precedence how to approach this situation.

Then he says that s er sensible people won't allow no-deal Brexit. Now, not sure who means, I can't see anyone sensible on the UK side. Or did he mean the ERG and their sensible statement "We won't see benefits of brexit for 50 years"?

Overall he's an honest and reasonably smart guy. But he psychologically won't allow himself to admit he was wrong about Brexit despite avalanches of evidence pointing to the contrary, concisely explained to him on a daily basis. 'Computer just keeps saying no'.

McGiver

Econ__ wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

What's your take on Iain Dale on LBC?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/remainer-picks-fight-but-cant-support-argument/

To me he seems like a direct antimony of a James O'Brien. He tries talking smart but is really talking nonsense and talking lies as well.

"We're trading with number of countries on WTO terms, WTO is fine" - yeah sure, with the exception that it isn't fine, elsewhere on LBC an expert talks about WTO being an issue https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/experts-explanation-trading-wto-rules-means/

The same goes for aviation, no-deal Brexit would be an issue and there's no precedence how to approach this situation.

Then he says that s er sensible people won't allow no-deal Brexit. Now, not sure who means, I can't see anyone sensible on the UK side. Or did he mean the ERG and their sensible statement "We won't see benefits of brexit for 50 years"?

Overall he's an honest and reasonably smart guy. But he psychologically won't allow himself to admit he was wrong about Brexit despite avalanches of evidence pointing to the contrary, concisely explained to him on a daily basis. 'Computer just keeps saying no'.

That was kind of my feeling about him. Some sort of an intellectual self-censorship?

Rain Ascending

Valmont wrote: »

Does anyone really think a no-deal Brexit would result in food shortages?

Good question.

For a discussion of a lot of the issues involved, see this interesting summary from Ian Dunt.

For what it's worth, my belief is that there won't be food shortages. The UK government will do whatever it takes to avoid that situation, even if it causes havoc with many of their other objectives around trade:

• WTO-driven tariff hikes pushing some of the poorest into dire straits? Unilaterally eliminate or significantly reduce import tariffs below the WTO default rates. BUT, the UK then loses one of its main points of leverage in free trade negotiations worldwide. Remember, tariffs are not all that high in most areas for WTO members -- food is the biggest exception to that general observation.
• Throughput of food shipments too slow through Border Inspection Posts (BIPs)? Reduce food standards or frequency of testing. BUT the former results, again, in loss of leverage in trade negotiations and the latter runs the risk of something unsavory slipping into the food supply chain.
• Roll-on roll-off in Dover grinding to a halt? Invoke emergency powers to prioritize food and other essential supplies, freeing up limited throughput on this vital crossing. BUT other JIT industries grind to a halt even faster.
• Etc., etc.

If all else fails and food shortages are in the offing, the current UK government will fall and the best option for a new administration will be to reopen and quickly conclude negotiations with the EU on new, less favorable terms.


Caveat: It is worth pointing out that unintended side effects and complex inter-dependancies of these multiple systems means that a no-deal Brexit will throw up many further nasty surprises that none of us can anticipate here. A good example was given on another forum recently: in JIT operations generally, if you run into trouble with conventional surface-transport-based logistics, you throw money at the problem by flying in the missing parts or the expertise you need to resolve the problem. However in the case of a no-deal Brexit, air transport is also likely to be hugely disrupted...

lawred2

Econ__ wrote: »

Overall he's an honest and reasonably smart guy. But he psychologically won't allow himself to admit he was wrong about Brexit despite avalanches of evidence pointing to the contrary, concisely explained to him on a daily basis. 'Computer just keeps saying no'.

That's not really a characteristic of an honest and reasonable person...

trellheim

Predates has nothing to do with it. New laws supercede old ones.

The CTA and SM were legally consistent; Brexit isn't consistent with either. If uncontrolled immigration from the EU was the main motivation for Brexit, a CTA with an EU member makes no sense.

You are being quite dismissive without actually checking here. Brexit not being consistent was always a given. IRL and UK citizens have the right since before the EEC/EU to move freely between each other and that right was never superseded by any EU directive; legally we are not required to report to any immigration . Neither nation is in Schengen . If you think I am wrong check and see what EU law overrides our own Immigration act 2004

Leroy42

Valmont wrote: »

Does anyone really think a no-deal Brexit would result in food shortages?

Food shortages, yes. Food rationing and no food on the shelves at all. Probably not. However, there are a few things to consider.

Even a modest impact on the supply can chain-react to much bigger problems. We have two clear instances of it recently. The KFC logistics issue which caused nearly two weeks of shortages and closed their entire store network for a few days, and then at the weekend the scenes at Stansted and Luton airports caused by flight cancellations. These both show the chaos that can ensue from a situation where most people would cause only slight issues.

To avoid it the government would have to prepare. Whilst they are saying they are I have little faith that they fully understand what is involved. They have shown a complete lack of preparedness and understanding of the issues throughout the Brexit process so it is not a major leap to think they won't get this right either.

The other, and in my mind the far bigger issue as I don't think people will starve or anything, is all the other things that will be effected that aren't being discussed. Food and medicine are in the news, but what about all the other issues?

And the final thing, the real worry is that Brexit has descended into such a state that the UK are even having to consider this. This was never in the campaign. So even if they manage to avoid major food shortages, it is terrible that the UK has put itself in such a position that it might very well be a possibility.

We are very far from £350m pw and the worlds greatest trade deals.

Nody

flutered wrote: »

the border is 300 miles long, what amount of hours and personell will it take to secure it

The Finnish border to Russia is 1340km long and runs through large tracks of forests, lakes etc. and they can control theirs just fine with a similar total population as Ireland; are you claiming Ireland with less than a quarter of length can't handle the same?

To the person asking how long it would take to close the border; since you're going for the 200 or so relevant border crossings (i.e. once that connect to a road going further into Ireland rather than simply going back up north again) quite quickly since you can drive trucks there and can do multiple sites in parallel.

Igotadose

In sort-of Brexit related news, one of the UK papers published a report that quotes the NHS saying that super-gonorrhea in the UK is more likely a risk due to Brexit. So... be careful out there. Protect yourselves.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-could-lead-to-spread-of-infectious-diseases-such-as-supergonorrhoea-health-chief-warns-a3898186.html

VinLieger

Igotadose wrote: »

In sort-of Brexit related news, one of the UK papers published a report that quotes the NHS saying that super-gonorrhea in the UK is more likely a risk due to Brexit. So... be careful out there. Protect yourselves.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/brexit-could-lead-to-spread-of-infectious-diseases-such-as-supergonorrhoea-health-chief-warns-a3898186.html

Ironic account name for this

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

flutered wrote: »

the border is 300 miles long, what amount of hours and personell will it take to secure it

The Finnish border to Russia is 1340km long and runs through large tracks of forests, lakes etc. and they can control theirs just fine with a similar total population as Ireland; are you claiming Ireland with less than a quarter of length can't handle the same?

To the person asking how long it would take to close the border; since you're going for the 200 or so relevant border crossings (i.e. once that connect to a road going further into Ireland rather than simply going back up north again) quite quickly since you can drive trucks there and can do multiple sites in parallel.

Is the Finnish border populated? That is the big issue here I would say. Towns that cross the border. Can you not bring milk to your neighbour? What if your house crosses the border.

Having said that we mainly need to stop the big stuff. The small stuff would be nice to stop but hardly going to collapse the Eu because a few bits will get over.

First Up

trellheim wrote: »

You are being quite dismissive without actually checking here. Brexit not being consistent was always a given. IRL and UK citizens have the right since before the EEC/EU to move freely between each other and that right was never superseded by any EU directive; legally we are not required to report to any immigration . Neither nation is in Schengen . If you think I am wrong check and see what EU law overrides our own Immigration act 2004

You miss the point. The CTA wasn't superseded because it didn't need to be. After Brexit the UK intends to impose controls on those entering the country from the EU. That will be the material change. For example at present when you arrive at a British or Irish airport you join either the EU or non EU immigration line. There is a cursory check to confirm you have an EU passport. No questions, no visas.

After Brexit there will be no EU line at UK airports. There may be a separate line for UK and Irish passports but there will be a check.

The Irish border is a whole other matter. An uncontrolled border for people entering the UK across the border is incompatible with the Brexit doctrine. So is uncontrolled transit through ferry ports from Ireland.

Something has to give.

Millenium Falcon

McGiver wrote: »

That was kind of my feeling about him. Some sort of an intellectual self-censorship?

That seems to be occurring on a national level over there even amongst many remainers.

There seems to be a sense of "let's just be stoic and get on with it" despite there being plenty of alternative versions of Brexit.
All because no-one seems to want either to admit it's a farce or have a row with the extremists.

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

You are being quite dismissive without actually checking here. Brexit not being consistent was always a given. IRL and UK citizens have the right since before the EEC/EU to move freely between each other and that right was never superseded by any EU directive; legally we are not required to report to any immigration . Neither nation is in Schengen . If you think I am wrong check and see what EU law overrides our own Immigration act 2004

There's more to it than that, though. The CTA doesn't just mean that Irish and UK citizens can enter one another's countries freely; it also means that nationals of third countries can move relatively easily between Ireland and the UK.

For the CTA to work requires Ireland and the UK to have similar migration policies with respect to the rest of the world; otherwise, UK controls could easily be evaded by someone coming to Ireland and then entering the UK, and vice versa.

At the moment we do have similar migration regimes (and not by coincidence); both countries naturally afford free movement to EU nationals, and they impose similar visa requirements, entry restictions, etc on nationals of non-EU countries. There are some discrepancies, but not many.

But if concern about "uncontrolled EU migration" is a key driver of the Brexit decision, then the Common Travel Area does present a challenge. Ireland, obviously, is not going to impose any entry restrictions on EU nationals, and it will be easy for EU national to enter the UK via Ireland. So the UK is going to have to find some other way to prevent the immigration of EU nationals that doesn't involve policing them as they enter from Ireland.

In country-checks are the usual way that other countries handle this - there's a system of identity cards, you need to establish your migrtation status in order to get your identity card, and you need to produce your identity card when engaging in common transactions like renting or buying accommodation, registering for GP or hospital service, enrolling your kids at school, taking up employment, claiming social benefits, etc. But of course the UK doesn't have a national identity card system, and there would be strong political resistance to setting one up. They tried in-country checks without identity cards recently; it was an unqualified disaster. (Can you say "Windrush"?)

So, yeah, there's an issue here that I think the UK hasn't fully addressed yet. (What a suprise!)

trellheim

At the moment we do have similar migration regimes (and not by coincidence); both countries naturally afford free movement to EU nationals, and they impose similar visa requirements, entry restictions, etc on nationals of non-EU countries. There are some discrepancies, but not many.

But if concern about "uncontrolled EU migration" is a key driver of the Brexit decision, then the Common Travel Area does present a challenge. Ireland, obviously, is not going to impose any entry restrictions on EU nationals, and it will be easy for EU national to enter the UK via Ireland. So the UK is going to have to find some other way to prevent the immigration of EU nationals that doesn't involve policing them as they enter from Ireland.

And that is indeed the logical next step ; but it is not Irelands problem to set up said system in the United Kingdom . if - say- someone from Somalia walks across from Dundalk to Newry that person still has to register with UK Border Force or whoever ; change that to someone from France in this case.

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

And that is indeed the logical next step ; but it is not Irelands problem to set up said system in the United Kingdom . if - say- someone from Somalia walks across from Dundalk to Newry that person still has to register with UK Border Force or whoever ; change that to someone from France in this case.

Sure, it's not our problem. But nevertheless we may be adversely affected by it. A simple obligation to register with the UK Border Force is pretty meaningless if it its not enforced. If, for an enforcement mechansm, the UK comes to the conclusion that it has to choose between (a) rolling out a national compulsory identity card scheme, or (b) ending the CTA and imposing migration checks on travellers between the RoI and the UK, which do you think they'll choose?

trellheim

Oh no - I get it - I do - but right now, if they withdraw with no deal, we are left with the CTA - and they have the problem above to deal with .

My point was that the immediate border issue was for goods and services

Call me Al

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure, it's not our problem. But nevertheless we may be adversely affected by it. A simple obligation to register with the UK Border Force is pretty meaningless if it its not enforced. If, for an enforcement mechansm, the UK comes to the conclusion that it has to choose between (a) rolling out a national compulsory identity card scheme, or (b) ending the CTA and imposing migration checks on travellers between the RoI and the UK, which do you think they'll choose?

I agree wholeheartedly..
But you've omitted option 3... a special NI zone where EU citizens can move freely, whilst monitoring and controlling movement between NI and GB.
Which do you think Westminster will choose if they can get away with it?

LeinsterDub

A Cabinet deal to publish reports every week throughout the summer has now been scrapped, according to Tim Shipman in the Sunday Times. Instead the 70 or so documents will all be put out on on the same day in August – a tactic that seems designed to ensure they get little media coverage.

https://infacts.org/cabinet-to-bury-no-deal-plans-so-people-dont-panic/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

The British government are attempting to bury the no deal plans as they are so bad they think it could collapse the government. Of course they haven't though perhaps we should reevaluate our position on this madness

Imreoir2

Call me Al wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly..
But you've omitted option 3... a special NI zone where EU citizens can move freely, whilst monitoring and controlling movement between NI and GB.
Which do you think Westminster will choose if they can get away with it?

There is a fourth option, ignoring the problem. You would be amazed at how disinterested a state can be in issues when the solutions are more problematic than the problem itself.

First Up

trellheim wrote: »

Oh no - I get it - I do - but right now, if they withdraw with no deal, we are left with the CTA - and they have the problem above to deal with .

I don't think we'll be "left" with the CTA as it now operates. There will probably be free movement and work for Irish citizens but the UK cannot control the movement of other EU citizens if there is an open door through Ireland.

breatheme

trellheim wrote: »

Predates has nothing to do with it. New laws supercede old ones.

The CTA and SM were legally consistent; Brexit isn't consistent with either. If uncontrolled immigration from the EU was the main motivation for Brexit, a CTA with an EU member makes no sense.

You are being quite dismissive without actually checking here.    Brexit not being consistent was always a given.    IRL and UK citizens have the right since before the EEC/EU to move freely between each other and that right was never superseded by any EU directive; legally we are not required to report to any immigration .   Neither nation is in Schengen .  If you think I am wrong check and see what EU law overrides our own Immigration act 2004

The CTA is not actually part of the immigration act.

Leroy42

So the CTA is not actually an formal agreement? Based on the last few years in the UK, would anyone be surprised if the UK look at getting rid of it?

It is the logical next step to Brexit I would have thought?