Brexit discussion thread IV

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem is that if we drop it as a demand, we also end up with worse situation.

Your concern is that, by insisting that a Withdrawal Agrement must rule out a hard border, we (Ireland) risk not getting a Withdrawal Agreement, which would be bad for us.

Yes, this is basically my position. I take issue with your paragraph below however.

But, if we don't insist that a a Withdrawal Agrement must rule out a hard border, we will end up with a Withdrawal Agreement leading to a hard border, which would be worse for us (because the UK would have what it wants, and therefore would be under no pressure to do something about the hard border).

Where I disagree with you is that I don't believe the UK actually wants a hard border for its own sake. It wants to leave the customs union as is its right but Ireland's continuing membership of the customs union means that some sort of border arrangement becomes necessary. This is true of any country leaving the CU with a land border (most of them). If you say a hard border is unacceptable then you are also saying that membership of the customs union is not voluntary.

However, given that the UK is leaving the customs union, it is in the UK's interest, just like it is in Ireland's interest, to minimise the impact of the border as much as possible. Norway is outside the customs union but has a fairly free border between itself and the EU. We laughed when the UK suggested electronic monitoring of the border but Norway and Sweden are trialling such a solution. Better, I think you will agree, than the sort of hard border that will occur with no deal.

But we have ruled out that possibility. For us it is no border or no deal. The important point is that we should realise we have taken a risk here by excluding any middle ground.

This is rational on our part if we think there's, say, only a 10% chance of no deal. Otherwise we are being used by the EU to make it tough on the UK, in the guise of helping us, with the risk disproportionately falling on ourselves.

I would like to hear from people here. What agreement is possible that

a) allows the UK to leave the CU as is their right,
b) does not force a border within their own country and
c) does not create some sort of border with countries remaining in the EU?

The EU's stance makes sense if the important thing is to stick it to the UK for having the audacity to leave the UK. Nothing wrong with that if that is one's opinion. But we have to take responsibility if it backfires on us. It won't backfire on the EU generally except in fairly minor ways. It won't backfire on Barnier or his team. It will backfire on us. We will have made a mistake.

Peregrinus

The fact that the UK has a right to leave the Customs Union does not mean that they should leave it or that they have to leave it; still less that we must co-operate with or facilitate this. Their leaving the customs union inflicts significant harm on Ireland and that, more than the vindication of the UK’s rights, is what concerns us.

The UK has in fact adopted inconsistent objectives here; they want to leave the Customs Union, and they want to have no hard border in Ireland. (As an aside, much Brexiter rhetoric treats “no hard border” as a demand made by the EU, but it’s not; it’s an objective first stated by the UK. The language of the Joint Report about what ”no hard border” requires is a straight lift from the UK’s position paper on the subject, and from May’s Florence speech.)

Right. Given that the UK has adopted inconsistent objectives, it’s inevitable that they are going to have to compromise or abandon one of them. It’s their choice as to which to compromise, but obviously we have a strong interest in this, and we’ll do what we can to influence their choice. We’d like them to compromise “no customs union” rather than “no hard border”. And this is not a wildly ambitious objective on our part; border issues aside, from the UK’s own point of view there are powerful economic arguments against leaving the customs union, and it’s an issue that has particular traction with UK business and industry, a constituency to which the Tory party is normally very responsive.

So, to the extent that we can, we seek to arrange matters so that the incentives for the UK to compromise “no customs union” rather than “no hard border” are maximised. It would be bizarre, frankly, if any Irish government took any other stance on this.

Yes, there is a risk that the upshot could be no withdrawal agreement, which would result in (a) a hard border, and (b) the UK leaving the customs union. And this is the polar opposite of the outcome we want. But if the EU drops its “no hard border” position, that is almost certainly the outcome we will get. And abandoning a position because it risks a bad outcome in favour of a position which more or less guarantees the same bad outcome is perverse.

And, as I have argued before, that wouldn’t actually be the same bad outcome; it would be a worse one. As between:

[No withdrawal agreement, hard border, no customs union] (the risk we now run)

and

[Withdrawal agreement, hard border, no customs union] (the outcome we will certainly get if we yield)

the latter is worse, for two reasons. First of all, it’s not so much a risk as a certainty. Secondly, it’s a satisfactory and stable position for the UK, so there is minimal chance of subsequently improving on it.

So the rational course for us is to stick to our guns. Even the worst likely outcome from this is better than the likely outcome if we yield on this point.

brickster69

prawnsambo wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes 30% cheaper including shipping and tariffs @ 40%. This would be based on tariffs between EU to UK post Brexit.

Tariffs based on what schedule? If there's no deal, then it's base WTO tariffs. But I suspect you're close enough with the price differential. The quality and sanitary issues would have to be got over because afaik, foot and mouth is endemic in South American cattle.

Tariffs would be based on EU to non EU members ie. 40%. Quite sure the UK have said they would introduce the exact same tariffs as the EU set, across the board.
The EU will never allow a FTA with the South American trading block due to French and Irish farmers rightful concerns. It would never be voted in.
A number of cash and carry outlets have recently started selling South African Beef and Iceland and Lidl have been offering Venezuelan Gaucho steaks also, but just one off promotions mind you. I really have no idea on the standards of these countries, but i suppose that will be the responsibility of the importers due diligence to ensure products are safe for consumers.

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

Tariffs would be based on EU to non EU members ie. 40%. Quite sure the UK have said they would introduce the exact same tariffs as the EU set, across the board.
The EU will never allow a FTA with the South American trading block due to French and Irish farmers rightful concerns. It would never be voted in.
A number of cash and carry outlets have recently started selling South African Beef and Iceland and Lidl have been offering Venezuelan Gaucho steaks also, but just one off promotions mind you. I really have no idea on the standards of these countries, but i suppose that will be the responsibility of the importers due diligence to ensure products are safe for consumers.

There is already trade in beef from the Mercosur countries into the EU. It requires EU phytosanitary inspections, so it's not incumbent on the importer (hardly impartial anyway) to guarantee safety. There were talks on expanding the trade, but it's still very small at 99,000 tonnes a year.

As a comparison, the UK imports 400,000 tonnes of beef a year from the EU.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would like to hear from people here. What agreement is possible that

a) allows the UK to leave the CU as is their right,
b) does not force a border within their own country and
c) does not create some sort of border with countries remaining in the EU?

The EU's stance makes sense if the important thing is to stick it to the UK for having the audacity to leave the UK. Nothing wrong with that if that is one's opinion. But we have to take responsibility if it backfires on us. It won't backfire on the EU generally except in fairly minor ways. It won't backfire on Barnier or his team. It will backfire on us. We will have made a mistake.

You're starting from the wrong direction with those questions. The UK and Ireland signed the GFA and added it to their respective statute books. It even required a referendum here to amend our constitution. The EU was a third party to that agreement by committing to the open border and to funding of north-south initiatives. Which commitments the UK and ROI also made.

Roll on twenty years (ish) and the UK again enshrined the open border in their EU Withdrawal Act which only became law a bare two months ago. It's somewhat disingenuous to turn around and say that this is our problem when the UK have twice committed to it in Acts of Parliament.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

It will backfire on us.

No, it won't, it can't.

The worst that can happen to us is a border. How does it benefit us to allow a deal to happen that includes a border? That's already the worst case!

We already know from the noises the Brexiteers are making that they don't care about no border, but if there is no deal they are history, and we can deal with the Comrade Corbyn. Item one in the talks: no border.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it won't, it can't.

The worst that can happen to us is a border. How does it benefit us to allow a deal to happen that includes a border? That's already the worst case!

We already know from the noises the Brexiteers are making that they don't care about no border, but if there is no deal they are history, and we can deal with the Comrade Corbyn. Item one in the talks: no border.

I suspect a Prime Minister Corbyn wouldn't have too much trouble with a border poll either. How the DUP are so sanguine about this is beyond me.

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

As I've said, no problem with wanting no border. We just need to make sure it is a realistic demand, otherwise we end up with a worse situation.

Their is entire a soft border or there isn't. It's binary. If it was unrealistic they shouldn't of committed to maintain it.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I suspect a Prime Minister Corbyn wouldn't have too much trouble with a border poll either. How the DUP are so sanguine about this is beyond me.

The DUP are probably confident that they would win a border poll.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

The DUP are probably confident that they would win a border poll.

I don't know why. In the past we had `Castle Catholics` a term to describe those who would vote against a UI due primarily economic reasons. Well recent polls have indicated a strong rise in the `Producing Protestants` farmers in the main who would join a UI for economic reasons in the event of a hard Brexit.

It has been shown in admittedly highly hypothetical polls to swing the balance .

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I don't know why. In the past we had `Castle Catholics` a term to describe those who would vote against a UI due primarily economic reasons. Well recent polls have indicated a strong rise in the `Producing Protestants` farmers in the main who would join a UI for economic reasons in the event of a hard Brexit.

It has been shown in admittedly highly hypothetical polls to swing the balance .

Not really. Opinion polls on border-poll-type questions show a long term trend of growth in sentiment favouring a UI, and decline in sentiment favouring maintenance of the union with GB, but SFAIK the former has not yet overtaken the latter, despite the "Brexit boost" it has recently enjoyed. And I think in a real border poll the Brexit boost would be partly clawed back by a renewed focus on the Westminster subsidy. And I suspect the DUP think the same.

robindch

Teresa's on a tour of Africa drumming up business for "Global Britain" and has another go at this dancing thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTJinDcXJOo

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not really. Opinion polls on border-poll-type questions show a long term trend of growth in sentiment favouring a UI, and decline in sentiment favouring maintenance of the union with GB, but SFAIK the former has not yet overtaken the latter, despite the "Brexit boost" it has recently enjoyed. And I think in a real border poll the Brexit boost would be partly clawed back by a renewed focus on the Westminster subsidy. And I suspect the DUP think the same.

https://www.buzz.ie/news/poll-n-irish-rather-united-ireland-stay-uk-hard-brexit-279038
As I've said most polls in the North need to be taken with a pinch of salt. This one needs to be taken with an even bigger pinch. However the point is that if you where to do a simple head count of green or orange all you need is a few percent of the orange to turn green.

catrionanic

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.buzz.ie/news/poll-n-irish-rather-united-ireland-stay-uk-hard-brexit-279038
As I've said most polls in the North need to be taken with a pinch of salt. This one needs to be taken with an even bigger pinch. However the point is that if you where to do a simple head count of green or orange all you need is a few percent of the orange to turn green.

Do not underestimate how many Catholics would vote to remain in the UK though. I am a northern Catholic and many of my friends, and even my own parents and my brother, would vote to remain in the UK if a border poll arose. The NHS is too much of a good thing, and every one is well aware of how much Westminster subsidises people in the north.

I know there are huge economic arguments for reunification, and that it has been the lack of interest from Britain that has played a huge part in turning NI into the economic backwater that it is over the last 100 years, but you don't hear much talk of that in the north. It's all about how much money they give us, how expensive healthcare is in the south, and how high the cost of living is down here too.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.buzz.ie/news/poll-n-irish-rather-united-ireland-stay-uk-hard-brexit-279038
As I've said most polls in the North need to be taken with a pinch of salt. This one needs to be taken with an even bigger pinch. However the point is that if you where to do a simple head count of green or orange all you need is a few percent of the orange to turn green.

Actually, I'd argue you need a bit more. We have vivid evidence from the UK right now that a 52/48 result in a poll doesn't settle a question conclusively. Neither side wins a border poll unless they have a significant margin - I'd say 10% or more, as a rule of thumb. As a result, in the present circumstance I'd say that neither side wants a border poll. Certainly SF are not campaigning for one and, if they don't, who will?

Or, at any rate, neither side wants a border poll as a way of settling the national question. But what people certainly do do - and this is entirely legitimate - is point to changing sentiment on the border poll question as an illustration of the damage Brexit is doing to the (NI/GB) union, with a view to campaigning against Brexit, or at least for a softer Brexit.

Ironically, though, to the extent that that campaign succeeds, the result will be to relieve pressure on the Unionist position.

Which means that, rationally, the DUP should be strongly opposed to Brexit, or at least should want the softest possible Brexit, while SF should be steaming ahead for the hardest possible crash-out Brexit. Which is pretty much the opposite of the positions they actually hold.

But, then, who ever claimed that Irish politics was rational?

LeinsterDub

catrionanic wrote: »

Do not underestimate how many Catholics would vote to remain in the UK though. I am a northern Catholic and many of my friends, and even my own parents and my brother, would vote to remain in the UK if a border poll arose. The NHS is too much of a good thing, and every one is well aware of how much Westminster subsidises people in the north.

I know there are huge economic arguments for reunification, and that it has been the lack of interest from Britain that has played a huge part in turning NI into the economic backwater that it is over the last 100 years, but you don't hear much talk of that in the north. It's all about how much money they give us, how expensive healthcare is in the south, and how high the cost of living is down here too.

I'm taking in the event of a hard border and harder brexit. The economic reasons to remain in the UK will evaporated. If the predictions are to believed.

And if we crash out of the EU without a deal then GDP in the North East will be hit by 16%.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/last-truth-brexit-devastate-north-14260552.amp

The North East of England is a virtual economic beckon compared to the North

breatheme

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Their is entire a soft border or there isn't. It's binary. If it was unrealistic they shouldn't of committed to maintain it.

That's not entirely true, there are many ways to implement a border so I don't think it's entirely a binary issue.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would like to hear from people here. What agreement is possible that

a) allows the UK to leave the CU as is their right,
b) does not force a border within their own country and
c) does not create some sort of border with countries remaining in the EU?

Special status for NI, as proposed. Because there is already a border between NI and GB.



Modifying the on-going operation of the existing Britain-nonBritain interface will be considerably easier than (re-)establishing a border on the island of Ireland, one that we know from history - and comparison with other existing models (Norway-Sweden, Switzerland-EU, Canada-US) - will certainly be hugely disruptive to the daily life of thousands of island-of-Ireland citizens and be impossible to police effectively.

LeinsterDub

breatheme wrote: »

That's not entirely true, there are many ways to implement a border so I don't think it's entirely a binary issue.

Sorry to be blunt but such as?

Greater minds than ours have been working on a workable implementation of the border for nearly two years now. Still nothing.

Peregrinus

It's not a binary because there are several aspects to borderness.

For example, for many years the Irish border functioned as a customs border but not as a migration border. After we both entered the customs union (in 1973) it ceased to function as a customs border but still operated as a revenue and regulatory border - and, increasing, as a security border. The regulatory and security aspects of the border disappeared in the 1990s, but it still operates as a revenue border - as in, if you bring, e.g., cigarettes or alcohol or fuel across the border in quantities that are not for your own consumption, you need to account for excise duty on them. The don't enforce this through physical infrastructure at the border or through border checks but the obligation is there and they do attempt to enforce it, so there is still a vestigial border - as in there's a line that, if you cross it, regulatory/tax obligations arise.

So, yeah, "no hard border" does invite the question, how hard is a hard border? That question is answered in the Joint Report - if its hard enough to involve physical infrastructure, or inspection in lieu of physical infrastructure, then it's a hard border.

breatheme

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Sorry to be blunt but such as?

Greater minds than ours have been working on a workable implementation of the border for nearly two years now. Still nothing.

You have for example the US: its Mexican and Canadian borders are patrolled differently. The Canada border is more patrolled now, but people used to be able to cross it without a passport.

On the US-Canadian border, not all areas are patrolled. There are sensors in many areas of the border where it is not feasible to employ staff.

the U.S. Customs and Border Protection routinely sets up checkpoints as far as 100 miles into U.S. territory. Something similar could be explored.

The border was even less controlled before 9/11. It still complied with customs and that hasn't changed, so you could even look into how the border operated before 9/11 as a solution (as the security risk is lower, and the majority of people in Ireland and NI are entitled to live in the other's territory).

You can read more here.

I did not mean to say I have the solution, I'm saying there are many different ways the border could be implemented and that it's not a binary issue at all. We don't need to go back to the militarised border of the troubles, but if push came to a shove, we should try to have a minimal border ensuring customs compliance and ease of travel.

It may sound like I'm playing devil's advocate, I just meant to clarify my issue with the statement that the border is a binary problem. It is very nuanced. But my preferred solution is of course, no border, period.

LeinsterDub

breatheme wrote: »

You have for example the US: its Mexican and Canadian borders are patrolled differently. The Canada border is more patrolled now, but people used to be able to cross it without a passport.

On the US-Canadian border, not all areas are patrolled. There are sensors in many areas of the border where it is not feasible to employ staff.

the U.S. Customs and Border Protection routinely sets up checkpoints as far as 100 miles into U.S. territory. Something similar could be explored.

The border was even less controlled before 9/11. It still complied with customs and that hasn't changed, so you could even look into how the border operated before 9/11 as a solution (as the security risk is lower, and the majority of people in Ireland and NI are entitled to live in the other's territory).

You can read more here.

I did not mean to say I have the solution, I'm saying there are many different ways the border could be implemented and that it's not a binary issue at all. We don't need to go back to the militarised border of the troubles, but if push came to a shove, we should try to have a minimal border ensuring customs compliance and ease of travel.

It may sound like I'm playing devil's advocate, I just meant to clarify my issue with the statement that the border is a binary problem. It is very nuanced. But my preferred solution is of course, no border, period.

When I said binary I meant it's either soft border or its not . A soft border is basically the status quo . As Peregrinus says "if its hard enough to involve physical infrastructure, or inspection in lieu of physical infrastructure, then it's a hard border." that definition leaves very little wiggle room

CelticRambler

breatheme wrote: »

You have for example the US: its Mexican and Canadian borders are patrolled differently. The Canada border is more patrolled now, but people used to be able to cross it without a passport.

Good choice of example! In response to Trump's "build a wall" strategy, Mexicans have figured out that it's cheaper and more practical to fly to Canada and cross into the US from that side of the country. :cool:

Your comment is typical of the Brexiteer magical thinking: taking as a model a long wilderness frontier with fewer crossing points than NI-RoI, and those that there are undeniably "hard" with gates, guns and guard-dogs. Not to mention the nonsensical idea of having a "buffer zone" that includes almost half of the Republic's territory. :eek: How on earth are you supposed to keep (e.g.) Argentinian beef out of Ireland's/the EU's supply chain with that kind of non-control?

Leroy42

I would ask the question of anyone that thinks we should work out a compromise with the UK on the border, that surely we can see that the UK are not going to be held to any compromise?

They have freely walked out of the EU, seem happy to walk out on the GFA, TM brought the DUP into the UK government against the spirit of the GFA, and have consistently stated throughout the process that they want to be in charge of their laws and will not be answerable to the EU so how can we hold them to any agreement even if we do get one?

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

I would ask the question of anyone that thinks we should work out a compromise with the UK on the border, that surely we can see that the UK are not going to be held to any compromise?

They have freely walked out of the EU, seem happy to walk out on the GFA, TM brought the DUP into the UK government against the spirit of the GFA, and have consistently stated throughout the process that they want to be in charge of their laws and will not be answerable to the EU so how can we hold them to any agreement even if we do get one?

Never mind walking back a section of their own legislation that's barely two months old:

10. Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements

(1) In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—

(a) act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and

(b) have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

(2) Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which—

(a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or

(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.

Couldn't be any clearer really.

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

I would ask the question of anyone that thinks we should work out a compromise with the UK on the border, that surely we can see that the UK are not going to be held to any compromise?

They have freely walked out of the EU, seem happy to walk out on the GFA, TM brought the DUP into the UK government against the spirit of the GFA, and have consistently stated throughout the process that they want to be in charge of their laws and will not be answerable to the EU so how can we hold them to any agreement even if we do get one?

Don't forget their agreements in March and December they are walking away from.

jm08

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm taking in the event of a hard border and harder brexit. The economic reasons to remain in the UK will evaporated. If the predictions are to believed.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/last-truth-brexit-devastate-north-14260552.amp

The North East of England is a virtual economic beckon compared to the North

Talking to some nationalists from NI recently, the reason why they wouldn't support a UI is because the loyalists would go off the rails. Their comments were that for instance with the bonfires, they don't care if they burn their own houses down. They were very worried about Brexit though and the impact of a border, saying that most people around them worked in south of the border (Dublin construction) as there is nothing happening in NI.

Were not very complimentary about the NHS though. While they were not Sinn Fein supporters, they think they are right about insisting on an Irish Language Act.

joeysoap

catrionanic wrote: »

Do not underestimate how many Catholics would vote to remain in the UK though. I am a northern Catholic and many of my friends, and even my own parents and my brother, would vote to remain in the UK if a border poll arose. The NHS is too much of a good thing, and every one is well aware of how much Westminster subsidises people in the north.

I have lots of northern friends, but thinking of one in particular.

He has heart problems and had been informed by the NHS that should he require an operation it will be in Dublin. Not alone that, he had been informed that he will have no waiting ie he will skip any waiting lists.

His drugs and doctor are completely free. One of his complaints is that on a visit to his doctor he can’t ‘interduce’ a second symptom ie if he attends with a sore hand he won’t be seen for a sore foot. Seperate appointment needed, probably a wait of a week.

He is not 66 but has free travel (all Ireland). His wife qualified for the old age pension at 63 ( something to do about when you were born) and also has free travel (all Ireland).Her pension is ‘only’ £90 a week.

He drives by Irish standards a very big car, would cost an arm and a leg here.

He has very moderate political leanings, would never vote SF. And has told me in a border poll he would have to weigh up what was on involved.

He does pay rates though. ( waste is included)

badtoro

I see a lot of mention of UI and how people in NI would vote. Something else to consider is how people in ROI would vote. Personally I'm not convinced ROI would support UI at this time. My own misgivings are headed of course by the headbangers up there, a "border" suits me very well in their case, I'd rather keep the marching, bonfires, and other craziness confined to the NE part of the island while it's still such a vitriolic thing. Like a lot of others I grew up and live in an area a considerable distance from the border, so the Troubles really were just something on the news - aside from extraordinarily rare hide outs/arrests. The next objection is the financial one, replacing Londons billions with our own to gain? The opportunity may be here to consider a vote, but when the pro's and con's of UI are headlining daily I suspect it'll give a lot of people pause for thought given our own many, many problems, health, Garda issues, homelessness, general inability to run a country and so forth.

breatheme

CelticRambler wrote: »

Good choice of example! In response to Trump's "build a wall" strategy, Mexicans have figured out that it's cheaper and more practical to fly to Canada and cross into the US from that side of the country. :cool:

Your comment is typical of the Brexiteer magical thinking: taking as a model a long wilderness frontier with fewer crossing points than NI-RoI, and those that there are undeniably "hard" with gates, guns and guard-dogs. Not to mention the nonsensical idea of having a "buffer zone" that includes almost half of the Republic's territory. :eek: How on earth are you supposed to keep (e.g.) Argentinian beef out of Ireland's/the EU's supply chain with that kind of non-control?

The same the US keeps stuff like that out? IDK. My point was, the border is not a binary issue. It is nuanced. Right now you have weird situations because of how assymetrical the CTA is. You can have someone from SA enter Ireland with no visa and go to NI which is in the UK without a visa still... even though they need one.

I'd rather have NI remain in the CU/SM.