Brexit discussion thread IV

Leroy42

It kind of is a binary issue though. Do they value the GFA or the a full withdrawal from the SM and CU more. They cannot have both, yet the stated position is that they are fully committed to both.

They have agreed that failing to find a solution would result in a backstop solution, and have since stated that it wasn't really an agreement at all.

Its a difficult one for sure, but one only the UK can really work out. What they want, and what they really mean by negotiation, is that the EU finds a solution for them.

But be in no doubt, the UK created this mess. They either ignored or were ignorant of the issue that the GFA would cause in terms of Brexit during the campaign. So the EU are faced with the UK having created the mess and appearing to be totally incapable of coming up with a solution, but also totally rejecting the obvious solution that the EU were going to propose.

So the UK has found, it appears quite late in the day, that they commitments to NI mean that they can't just walk out of the EU without a thought. So whilst TM says that no PM could ever accept the backstop, that is exactly the binary decision she is faced with.

Either have the Brexit they seem to want with a backstop, or don't. The UK are still stuck wishing the GFA didn't exist. But it does.

breatheme

The Brexit I seem to want? If Ireland does need to put up a border then the UK should get no concessions on anything. No FTA, nil.

ETA:
What I want is for NI to remain in the SM/CU and an FTA that addresses NI's need to trade with the rest of the UK and that includes the products and services they are dependent on economically.

robinph

badtoro wrote: »

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.

I didn't think that GFA included a requirement for ROI to have a vote on the issue, just if the North said that they wanted in it was assumed that ROI would take them.

Leroy42

breatheme wrote: »

The Brexit I seem to want? If Ireland does need to put up a border then the UK should get no concessions on anything. No FTA, nil.

Sorry, that was a typo. It was meant to say the Brexit they (as in the UK) seem to want.

In terms of concessions, that is exactly the position the EU are working off. To get any deal, they must deal with the 3 issues namely; EU citizens rights, payment of monies due (divorce bill as the UK call) and the Irish border.

It appears they have moved on the 1st 2 of them, but are still stuck on the Irish border. The 'solution' that the UK have proposed, through the Chequers white paper, is for the EU to rip up their own principles and split goods and services.

But the EU are saying that is not an option, either backstop or nothing, as we previously agreed.

LeinsterDub

joeysoap wrote: »

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)

This is a European program which will disappear March 29th.

blanch152

Leroy42 wrote: »

It kind of is a binary issue though. Do they value the GFA or the a full withdrawal from the SM and CU more. They cannot have both, yet the stated position is that they are fully committed to both.

They have agreed that failing to find a solution would result in a backstop solution, and have since stated that it wasn't really an agreement at all.

Its a difficult one for sure, but one only the UK can really work out. What they want, and what they really mean by negotiation, is that the EU finds a solution for them.

But be in no doubt, the UK created this mess. They either ignored or were ignorant of the issue that the GFA would cause in terms of Brexit during the campaign. So the EU are faced with the UK having created the mess and appearing to be totally incapable of coming up with a solution, but also totally rejecting the obvious solution that the EU were going to propose.

So the UK has found, it appears quite late in the day, that they commitments to NI mean that they can't just walk out of the EU without a thought. So whilst TM says that no PM could ever accept the backstop, that is exactly the binary decision she is faced with.

Either have the Brexit they seem to want with a backstop, or don't. The UK are still stuck wishing the GFA didn't exist. But it does.

Binary issues are the hardest to solve in diplomatic disputes. Most often, there are only two options: a creative solution that protects both sides position until another day or a third way.

breatheme

We'll see what happens with the NHS post Brexit though. In 10 years the UK will look very different than it looks today.

brickster69

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

True, so the South American countries are able to export a quality product fit for purpose. If  a no deal Brexit raises the cost price 40% that means retailers would have to sell Beef 60% more than now at least. 
So other avenues would have to be sourced to replace the 400,000 tonnes. No way will the EU reduce tarrifs, no way will retailers pay 40% more when they can buy a substitute delivered for half the price.

CelticRambler

breatheme wrote: »

The same the US keeps stuff like that out? IDK. My point was, the border is not a binary issue. It is nuanced.

It's not nuanced at all: the US keeps "stuff like that out" with concrete, guns, barbed wire, guns, dogs, guns, fortified guard-posts, guns, roving patrols and guns. Oh, and stop-and-search inspections, trusted trader programmes and id-cards. How does that fit with Theresa May's promise - and the previously quoted UK legislation - to have an invisible border?

(Personal anecdote: last weekend I took a wrong turn off a Swiss motorway, trying to re-enter France and ended up in the trucker's customs waiting area. It was chock-a-block with stationary trucks, all waiting for the douaniers to come back to work in the morning - a guaranteed 12-hour wait. And that's a country that has a "free movement" agreement with the EU)

breatheme

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's not nuanced at all: the US keeps "stuff like that out" with concrete, guns, barbed wire, guns, dogs, guns, fortified guard-posts, guns, roving patrols and guns. Oh, and stop-and-search inspections, trusted trader programmes and id-cards. How does that fit with Theresa May's promise - and the previously quoted UK legislation - to have an invisible border?

Again, the Canadian border doesn't look like that.

(Personal anecdote: last weekend I took a wrong turn off a Swiss motorway, trying to re-enter France and ended up in the trucker's customs waiting area. It was chock-a-block with stationary trucks, all waiting for the douaniers to come back to work in the morning - a guaranteed 12-hour wait. And that's a country that has a "free movement" agreement with the EU)

Freedom of Movement is not the same thing as Customs Union. The only way to avoid that is with NI remaining in the SM/CU.

CelticRambler

badtoro wrote: »

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?

This kind of thinking drives me up the wall! I would hope that if/when we see a referendum on a UI, voters in the Republic will have the intelligence to see that the whole point of the exercise is not to replace Westminster's foreign aid package for a former colony with a basket case economy that they've mismanaged for nearly a century, but to apply Ireland's experience of 21st Century governance to the Six Counties.
And while I know the British-in-Britain are in love with their NHS, and the NIrish look critically at the Republic's health service, once they leave island to live somewhere like France, they soon realise what an utter shambles it is. Knowing people who have worked in both the Irish and British health services, the only difference between the two is the "free at the point of delivery" ; everything else - trolleys in corridors, lab-result scandals, overworked staff, dead babies, etc, etc, is the same.

Correction: there's another difference. Ireland's health minister is not telling the population to start stockpiling medicines. Oh, and no-one in Ireland needs to worry about whether or not their EHIC will be valid when they go on holiday to Spain or Germany or Latvia next Easter.

CelticRambler

breatheme wrote: »

Again, the Canadian border doesn't look like that.

What does it look like then?

breatheme wrote: »

Freedom of Movement is not the same thing as Customs Union. The only way to avoid that is with NI remaining in the SM/CU.

Yep. Border in the Irish sea. Problem solved. Let's move on to the transition.

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

What we're seeing here is one of the most egregious examples in modern times of "power before principle". Both parties are pandering to one side of their electorate while knowing full well the economic and societal maelstrom they're heading into. Neither May nor Corbyn can have it in their hearts that Brexit will look anything like a success. It's obvious through their constant avoidance of direct questions and repetition of some hollow rhetoric that they have no positive answers for anything. Obvious and sickening. Between May, Corbyn and Tim Farron, the younger generations of the UK have no official representative. At best, they have MPs from both parties who agree with them, but are allowing themselves to be cowed by Brexiteers.

It's easy for myself to say, of course, having never tasted the dizzying heights of political power, but I wouldn't want it in this scenario. It must be absolutely
amazing to be Prime Minister of the UK if you're willing to have your name attached to the biggest shambles since the second World War.

The problem with Labour is that because the UK is a two party system, they can pander to the Brexiteer wing of the party all they like because even if the remainer wing hates it, where are they going to go? They wont flip to the Tories because they are even more to blame for Brexit than Labour is.

Might be part of the explanation for why Labour have been so lackluster in their opposition.

Hasn't a border in the Irish sea been ruled out in July because of some amendment something or other in Westminster?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Hasn't a border in the Irish sea been ruled out in July because of some amendment something or other in Westminster?

No, the reverse: the July amendment (is it that one cited above?) commited the UK government to not installing any physical infrastructure between NI and the Republic. So the backstop arrangement, with an Irish Sea border, remains a viable option.

breatheme

CelticRambler wrote: »

What does it look like then?

Or this.

Yep. Border in the Irish sea. Problem solved. Let's move on to the transition.

Completely agreed.

LeinsterDub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hasn't a border in the Irish sea been ruled out in July because of some amendment something or other in Westminster?

Westminster is not able to bind itself. It can vote in an Irish Sea border as easily as it voted it out.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Maybe you are right in that the UK will fall apart within 10 years. There is a possibility of that. But it also means that we are waiting for that to happen, we have failed in our negotiating position. We have not made realistic demands.

I think our demands are entirely realistic. The importance of ensuring that the progress made on this island to end a decades long conflict is not undermined cannot be overstated.

It is not our fault if the UK political climate makes it unpalatable for the UK government to live up to commitments it has made in the Good Friday Agreement. That their government is unable to stand up to a bunch of Europhobe extremists does not make it our fault if they cannot agree a deal that prevents the erection of a hard border on this island.

If the horrendous damage to their own economy, that they will suffer as a result of a no-deal Brexit, is not sufficient to dislodge them from carrying out a brexit that forces a hard border on this island then nothing else the Irish government could have done would have changed this.

All you can be suggesting here is that the possibility of a no-deal outcome should induce the Irish government to acquiesce and allow a deal, that would require a hard border and the consequent undermining of the peace process to be signed, in the interest of avoiding some economic damage in the short term. Such a move, in my opinion, would be short sighted.

Silent Running

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yep. Border in the Irish sea. Problem solved. Let's move on to the transition.

To fill out that sentence a bit... Border in the Irish sea, DUP enraged, pull any support for Tories, collapse government, general election.

Then what? Corbyn? Tories win again? Probably the former. But he's no better than May. It's hard to see an easy path anywhere. This is the perfect storm that Cameron set in motion with his high stakes gamble, and May's disgraceful handling of affairs since the result of a non binding vote.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

They might be but it's been rough recently for people who thought their side was going to win. Then there's the endless problems an Irish border would cause for people. I can't believe that they're not being even remotely pragmatic.

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, the reverse: the July amendment (is it that one cited above?) commited the UK government to not installing any physical infrastructure between NI and the Republic. So the backstop arrangement, with an Irish Sea border, remains a viable option.

The DUP don't want it and TM the PM has said they can't have part of the UK governed by another entity.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, the reverse: the July amendment (is it that one cited above?) commited the UK government to not installing any physical infrastructure between NI and the Republic. So the backstop arrangement, with an Irish Sea border, remains a viable option.

In this recent article,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/irish-border-question-must-be-solved-by-uk-not-eu-says-sweden
at the bottom, it says

The border issue has become a greater challenge since July this year when an amendment by Labour Brexit supporter Kate Hoey to the trade bill was nodded through by Theresa May.

Although it got little publicity amid the chaos of the knife-edge vote in July, it commits May to an autumn law making a border in the Irish Sea illegal, thus killing off the EU’s backstop proposal for special customs arrangements for Northern Ireland.

What's an autumn law?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Westminster is not able to bind itself. It can vote in an Irish Sea border as easily as it voted it out.

Fair enough. But it does make it harder from a negotiating standpoint.

breatheme

Deleted User wrote: »

In this recent article,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/irish-border-question-must-be-solved-by-uk-not-eu-says-sweden
at the bottom, it says

The border issue has become a greater challenge since July this year when an amendment by Labour Brexit supporter Kate Hoey to the trade bill was nodded through by Theresa May.

Although it got little publicity amid the chaos of the knife-edge vote in July, it commits May to an autumn law making a border in the Irish Sea illegal, thus killing off the EU’s backstop proposal for special customs arrangements for Northern Ireland.

What's an autumn law?



Fair enough. But it does make it harder from a negotiating standpoint.

Ugh. Kate Hoey. Can't stand her. She should be Tory.

ETA:

Kate Hoey wrote:

We joined the EU together, you joined when we joined, and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if we leave and when we are very successful that you don’t start thinking about leaving as well.

She's one of those people whose solution to the Irish border is for Ireland to leave the EU as well.

Imreoir2

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.

I'm sure the DUP thinks it could win a border poll if it was held tomorrow, or even next year under PM Corbyn, and they are most likely right. That would put the issue to bed for at least seven years, time enough for whatever Brexit throws up to bed in as the new normal and for the heat to go out of the debate.

The DUP are not worried about the short term, their calculation is that the soonest a UI is likely is in the medium term, say twenty years away. With demographics moving as they are, they fear any move that makes a United Ireland more realistic in the medium term. The slow erosion of the connection with the UK if NI is seperated economically from the "mainland" is exactly what they fear will make a UI more likely in the medium term.

What should scare them is that the time frame for a UI might be fast tracked if Brexit is bad enough for NI. Sure they could win a border poll now, but after five years of a very damaging Brexit? All bets are off.

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

True, so the South American countries are able to export a quality product fit for purpose. If a no deal Brexit raises the cost price 40% that means retailers would have to sell Beef 60% more than now at least.
So other avenues would have to be sourced to replace the 400,000 tonnes. No way will the EU reduce tarrifs, no way will retailers pay 40% more when they can buy a substitute delivered for half the price.

But it's not going to be half the price surely? 30% cheaper is what you said earlier and I kinda agreed with that with the proviso that shipping costs would be fairly high.

In any case, unlike the UK, we've been preparing for this eventuality for over a year now and from what I gather, new markets are being opened up for our beef including China and Qatar. Still exporting to the UK and the numbers are still rising but there are at least some new options becoming available.

CelticRambler

prawnsambo wrote: »

The DUP don't want it and TM the PM has said they can't have part of the UK governed by another entity.

Neither the DUP nor TM (or the ERG, for that matter) has yet put forward a single coherent idea for how the UK in its current form can co-exist with its international obligations

Silent Running wrote: »

To fill out that sentence a bit... Border in the Irish sea, DUP enraged, pull any support for Tories, collapse government, general election.

Then what?

"Then what" is none of our business as far as the make-up of Westminster is concerned. There will be another election in the UK in no more than four years' time, and another one after that, and another and another, just as there has been in the past.


But turning back Ireland's clock to the 1970s, for an indefinite period, is our business; the EU has stated that it's the EU's business too, as it will create an external frontier with a country that has declared its intention to deviate from the EU's standards and regulations.

Imreoir2

prawnsambo wrote: »

TM the PM has said they can't have part of the UK governed by another entity.

This has to be the biggest misnomer of the lot. Making an agreement with other countries is not the same as allowing those other countries to govern you. Choosing to govern your territory in such a way that an agreement you have made can be implemented does not mean that you no longer govern your own territory.

The backstop being applied to NI does not mean that NI is governed by the EU.

NI is part of the UK, the UK is sovereign over NI and can govern it how it likes. It can choose to govern it in a way that make a hard border with Ireland a necessity, or it can make an agreement with other sovereign nations to govern it in such a way that would allow for cross border cooperation, and for customs/regulatory checks to be carried out between one part of the UK and another, just as phytosanitary checks are carried out between one part of the UK and another today. Regardless of how the UK chooses to govern NI, it is still governed by the UK.

brickster69

prawnsambo wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

True, so the South American countries are able to export a quality product fit for purpose. If  a no deal Brexit raises the cost price 40% that means retailers would have to sell Beef 60% more than now at least.
So other avenues would have to be sourced to replace the 400,000 tonnes. No way will the EU reduce tarrifs, no way will retailers pay 40% more when they can buy a substitute delivered for half the price.

But it's not going to be half the price surely? 30% cheaper is what you said earlier and I kinda agreed with that with the proviso that shipping costs would be fairly high.

In any case, unlike the UK, we've been preparing for this eventuality for over a year now and from what I gather, new markets are being opened up for our beef including China and Qatar. Still exporting to the UK and the numbers are still rising but there are at least some new options becoming available.

Shipping is not that bad. Works out @ .40p / Kilo inc inspection fees and forwarding.
If EU Beef is £10 now tarrif free that would raise to £14/ KG @ 40%
SA Beef is now 30% cheaper inc tarrifs so £7/ KG + .40p/ KG transport = £7.40

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

Shipping is not that bad. Works out @ .40p / Kilo inc inspection fees and forwarding.
If EU Beef is £10 now tarrif free that would raise to £14/ KG @ 40%
SA Beef is now 30% cheaper inc tarrifs so £7/ KG + .40p/ KG transport = £7.40

Your prices seem off. We're talking about wholesale prices to the multiples, not retail prices. Current beef prices to farmers here are about €4/Kg max. Assuming the beef packers/exporters are taking a good margin, even at 100% markup, you're at €8/Kg. Secondly, any tariffs charged on beef are per kilo mainly. Current WTO base tariff is €3/Kg + 10% value. So it's not a straight percentage on value.

So the actual difference to the buyer may be less than 20%. Throw in the long delay in getting the product to the marketplace and it starts becoming a bit less attractive.

Spook_ie

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

Did the EU commit to an open border, surely that came along as part and parcel of being in the EU