Brexit discussion thread IV

LuckyLloyd

The DUP have no ability to think in terms of the long term. They come from a long political history that said "No" at every turn, and always looked to maximize its present advantage with no consideration for how doing so may lead to a greater reverse along the road ahead. The current situation is one they dream of. They hold the balance of power in Westminster; they are being directly ruled from London; they have extracted commitments for greater funding due to this position. They see a Hard Border as a far lessor evil than a sea border, and it would be an outcome that ensconces their Unionism in the short term and harks back to the past - a situation they wanted to perpetuate (they opposed the GFA don't forget).

While all of this is strategically flawed in the long term, their position tightly aligns with their political objectives and promises to their base. It is not illogical therefore, though it is arguably naive. But the DUP have never had vision or a sense of the future. Hard line Unionism harks to the past and aims to maintain the present in as much as it is possible to do so. You can rationally point out how Brexit has drawn a UI closer than it ever has been or threatens the very Union the DUP swear allegiance to but it is a waste of words and logic. They have no interest in hearing it.

J Mysterio

Your point aligns with what Newton Emerson was arguing in his most recent IT article

trellheim

If you look at the current Raab-Barnier impasse - heres todays presser http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-5403_en.htm

We have zero movement on the border. The thing to avoid at all costs is what the UK wants - a kick to touch on this issue. Barnier reminds Raab of this at the end of the above.

OTOH why does Brexit mean loss of IPR ? What are geographical indicators ?

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.)

But the EU now object to what is in the joint statement:

[...] In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Although this would suite Ireland as it would allow for a soft border, the EU now object to this on the basis that this allows the UK access to the single market without the other obligations associated with it.

The EU are now saying that this alignment only applies to the North and that rest of the UK would have separate rules. But this interpretation is not valid because later in same the document:

In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

So the EU's interpretation does not involve no hard border but rather shifting the hard border to the Irish sea which goes against the very document agreed by the EU. In order for the UK to stand by the agreement they and the EU made, they must reject the EU's current interpretation.

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.

I would say that rather than adopting inconsistant objectives, they are rejecting contradictory objectives put to them by the EU that are in breach of the agreement with the EU.

But let us put aside the December joint statement for a moment and consider what is in the interests of Ireland.

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.

I think this is a good summary of the options.

1. [No withdrawal agreement, hard border, no customs union] (the risk we now run)
2. [Withdrawal agreement, hard border, no customs union] (the outcome we will certainly get if we yield)

Option 1 however has the risk that the UK won't be as unstable as we might like to imagine. At the moment we are reeling with the UK's decision. It is very hard for us to comprehend why a country might want to leave the European Project. On this forum we have jumped on every development as if it is some kind of salvation. Immediately after the the referendum we jumped on the small number of people who had regrets for their voting decision as evidence of mass regret even though it is relatively easy for media companies to find and identify these people on social media. We clung to Gina Miller's strategy of forcing a parliamentary vote even though failure in that strategy would only solidify the Leave position. We clung to the December joint statement even though ambiguity in language allowed us to take an interpretation that suited us.

And yet all along there has been no overall change in the UK's position of leaving the CU let alone the EU. There has been movement in the UK's position but never in leaving the formal customs union.

Our thinking is clouded with denial of the UK's decision and is preventing us from acting in our own interest.

Looking at the second option: withdrawal agreement, hard border, no customs union. I think the thing you are missing here is that there are degrees of hardness. It need not be a 1970s hard border. It can be sufficiently frictionless that cross border arrangements can continue. We rule this out by insisting on the first option.

Plus, we endure much greater economic hardship with the first option and no guarantee that the UK will collapse and come crawling back. It is like we are threatening the UK with a hand-grenade that we are holding. No wonder the EU is supporting us in this. EU Commissioner Phil Hogan said that he had never seen such support. The bomb, after all, will go off in Ireland, not Brussels (or Frankfurt).

An Ciarraioch

On another European note, even RTE drops the odd clanger on occasion in relation to EU reports - the headline over their article on the proposal to end clock changes is "Juncker to recommend end of daylight savings time", but they then quote him as stating that permanent summer time was the clear preference!

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2018/0831/990719-daylight-saving-time/

prawnsambo

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Iirc they committed to doing nothing that would change the status of the border. So hypothetically they might re-introduce customs checks across Europe but would not do so on the Irish border.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU are now saying that this alignment only applies to the North and that rest of the UK would have separate rules. But this interpretation is not valid because later in same the document:

In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

So the EU's interpretation does not involve no hard border but rather shifting the hard border to the Irish sea which goes against the very document agreed by the EU. In order for the UK to stand by the agreement they and the EU made, they must reject the EU's current interpretation.

I'm not sure that there's an inherent contradiction there that you think there is. 'Unfettered' access is something that can be acheived internally for UK-NI trade much more easily than in an EU-third country trade arrangement.


It's certainly not as specific as the wording in section 10 of the EU withdrawal act 2018.

J Mysterio

trellheim wrote: »

If you look at the current Raab-Barnier impasse - heres todays presser http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-5403_en.htm

We have zero movement on the border. The thing to avoid at all costs is what the UK wants - a kick to touch on this issue. Barnier reminds Raab of this at the end of the above.

OTOH why does Brexit mean loss of IPR ? What are geographical indicators ?

Geoghrapical indicators are like Champagne (from Champagne region of France) and Parma Ham.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

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.

I think this is where the thinking generally goes wrong. In assessing what is realistic, "fault" has no place; you have to accept that these are impersonal political forces at play whether or not you like them and make your decisions accordingly.


We will know whether our demands are realistic or not. We will find out.

brickster69

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

Yes i know, i was taking the price as an example. It does not matter what the actual price is really because the tariffs will be placed on both sides the same anyway. However you look at it SA Beef will be considerably cheap than EU Beef.
I was baseing the 40% tarrif for both parties, so need to make €3/Kg + 10% value to both as well. Either way the % difference is the same.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure that there's an inherent contradiction there that you think there is. 'Unfettered' access is something that can be acheived internally for UK-NI trade much more easily than in an EU-third country trade arrangement.


It's certainly not as specific as the wording in section 10 of the EU withdrawal act 2018.

Possibly, but I think "same unfettered" as opposed to just "unfettered" makes it more specific.

brickster69

Looking at it that way tariffs would equal even more % rise than 40% more like 65%
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/wto-tariffs-would-have-a-crippling-effect-on-beef/

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

Looking at it that way tariffs would equal even more % rise than 40% more like 65%
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/wto-tariffs-would-have-a-crippling-effect-on-beef/

Yes. But they also have a levelling effect on price differentials.

oscarBravo

robinph wrote: »

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.

It would require a constitutional amendment here, which in turn would require a referendum.

Infini

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.

The one thing you have to remember is you can't simply look at just one thing like the NHS you have to look at EVERYTHING AT A MACRO LEVEL in a no deal scenario and a possible border poll. The NHS benefit's on it's own might look good but they're not worth much when your food prices start surging because your currency has lost value, your job's have dried up and your seeing much less investment in your area because your government has less money to go round not to mention right's and other benefits lost because of the failure to understand all this.

A no deal scenario is the perfect shítstorm of incompetent politicians, idiotic ideology and impotent governance. It means 40 year's of agreements null and void because of a failure of the UK to compromise and accept it's in a position of weakness not strength and that this whole exercise is a total waste of time, resources and of absolutely no benefit to people in the long term. Should a no-deal situation happen it would mean economic and social disruption on a level not really seen in these parts.

The EU doesn't have to compromise with the UK, they wont and don't need to. What they would rather avoid is as much pain as possible and preferablely it would be better if the UK just called this off but barring that they'll be as reasonably flexible as possible. What they have refused to do is compromise their 4 freedoms and on the backstop because of the historical conflict that this has had associated with it. Not only that but the EU has been pretty consistent on what it brought to the table since day one, the Brexitards and the rest of the British haven't even had a coherent position in 2 year's and now risk crashing purely because they're too incompetent.

The truth is the UK has been wrong on this since day one. The Vote was decided by a narrow margin not a decisive one, based on lies, deceit and total lack of understanding of the whole thing. The vote was also advisory not mandatory, May never needed to railroad herself into such an incoherent position or call a disastrous GE which ended with having one of the worst headbanger groups in a position of power that essentially ignore's the will of their own province in favour of their own ideological needs. This same group is also so hard headed that they don't seem to realize the uncompromising position they're holding May in risk's triggering a UI by accident, they very thing that they vehemently want avoid and a possible breakup of the UK as well.

As much as anyone would like an agreement of course, considering the total Hypocracy of the UK and their various levels of BS since this all started part of me would PREFER a no deal purely because at least you can plan somewhat better knowhing there's a no deal than when there's no idea of what's going to happen. Not only that but it would force those in the UK who pushed this stupid policy to reap what they sow and basically let Scotland and NI decide wether they want to still be a part of this mess or not.

Havockk

Infini wrote: »

The one thing you have to remember is you can't simply look at just one thing like the NHS you have to look at EVERYTHING AT A MACRO LEVEL in a no deal scenario and a possible border poll. The NHS benefit's on it's own might look good but they're not worth much when your food prices start surging because your currency has lost value, your job's have dried up and your seeing much less investment in your area because your government has less money to go round not to mention right's and other benefits lost because of the failure to understand all this.

A no deal scenario is the perfect shítstorm of incompetent politicians, idiotic ideology and impotent governance. It means 40 year's of agreements null and void because of a failure of the UK to compromise and accept it's in a position of weakness not strength and that this whole exercise is a total waste of time, resources and of absolutely no benefit to people in the long term. Should a no-deal situation happen it would mean economic and social disruption on a level not really seen in these parts.

The EU doesn't have to compromise with the UK, they wont and don't need to. What they would rather avoid is as much pain as possible and preferablely it would be better if the UK just called this off but barring that they'll be as reasonably flexible as possible. What they have refused to do is compromise their 4 freedoms and on the backstop because of the historical conflict that this has had associated with it. Not only that but the EU has been pretty consistent on what it brought to the table since day one, the Brexitards and the rest of the British haven't even had a coherent position in 2 year's and now risk crashing purely because they're too incompetent.

The truth is the UK has been wrong on this since day one. The Vote was decided by a narrow margin not a decisive one, based on lies, deceit and total lack of understanding of the whole thing. The vote was also advisory not mandatory, May never needed to railroad herself into such an incoherent position or call a disastrous GE which ended with having one of the worst headbanger groups in a position of power that essentially ignore's the will of their own province in favour of their own ideological needs. This same group is also so hard headed that they don't seem to realize the uncompromising position they're holding May in risk's triggering a UI by accident, they very thing that they vehemently want avoid and a possible breakup of the UK as well.

As much as anyone would like an agreement of course, considering the total Hypocracy of the UK and their various levels of BS since this all started part of me would PREFER a no deal purely because at least you can plan somewhat better knowhing there's a no deal than when there's no idea of what's going to happen. Not only that but it would force those in the UK who pushed this stupid policy to reap what they sow and basically let Scotland and NI decide wether they want to still be a part of this mess or not.

A very important point to remember is that successive UK governments, and I include Blair's Labour but mainly led by the Tories have diluted the NHS to what is currently in a very precarious state. It's also clear that the Tories would prefer a private HC system.

Igotadose

Nice piece by Tony Connelly summarizing where Brexit negotiations stand: answer: still stuck, nothing's changed though the EU is more and more resolved to stand behind Ireland, the backstop and no border.

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0901/990836-brexit/

Last line: "The endgame is perilously hard to predict."

Also enjoying reading the slagging David Davis is getting in the UK independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-talks-michel-barnier-dominic-raab-uk-eu-deal-border-immigration-a8516816.html

"Where Davis often sounded as if he had shipped up to Brussels for an expansive chat about whether the art of the Italian renaissance was more accomplished than that of the Ming dynasty in China, Raab sounded like someone who wanted to nail down the meaning of “notwithstanding” in paragraph 18.4. "

prawnsambo

I would hardly be a fan, but Margaret Thatcher pretty much nailed it back in 1975

Infini

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would hardly be a fan, but Margaret Thatcher pretty much nailed it back in 1975

*Irony Intensifies*

Just goes to show you even she knew where this was going. Pity those in charge of the UK cant get this through their heads.

ancapailldorcha

Infini wrote: »

*Irony Intensifies*

Just goes to show you even she knew where this was going. Pity those in charge of the UK cant get this through their heads.

I suspect most people know this but nobody wants to be seen as contravening the divine edict issued on the 23 June 2016. The only people I think, simply speaking who want to see Brexit are those who voted more to reject the establishment than to leave, the Europhobes and those with a venal interest in leaving.

Ultimately, I think party leaders tend to be extremely wary of potential missiles that might be hurled at them. The 2017 was an extremely close affair. We already have shrill, crass insults like "Enemies of the people" being hurled around as if they're meaningless. Party leaders ultimately want to win the next election so avoiding being portrayed as some sort of traitor for acting in the national interest by an ever-increasingly infantile and hostile media has a rational to it.

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ultimately, I think party leaders tend to be extremely wary of potential missiles that might be hurled at them. The 2017 was an extremely close affair. We already have shrill, crass insults like "Enemies of the people" being hurled around as if they're meaningless. Party leaders ultimately want to win the next election so avoiding being portrayed as some sort of traitor for acting in the national interest by an ever-increasingly infantile and hostile media has a rational to it.

In fairness, it's also probably true that if a eurosceptic party were to gain power and call an referendum but fail to win a majority Leave, the same people currently saying it is only an advisory referedum would be demanding that the result be respected and would be outraged if the UK went on to leave despite the result.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

In fairness, it's also probably true that if a eurosceptic party were to gain power and call an referendum but fail to win a majority Leave, the same people currently saying it is only an advisory referedum would be demanding that the result be respected and would be outraged if the UK went on to leave despite the result.

That's assuming that having a referendum on such a complex subject without adequate preparation and safeguards in place against the discourse being led by outright lies, was a good idea in the first place.

People like to make comparisons with business decisions when talking about economic matters in a governmental context, yet no business would ever entertain such a drastic action without feasibility studies out the wazoo.

Charles Babbage

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the EU now object to what is in the joint statement:

[...] In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Although this would suite Ireland as it would allow for a soft border, the EU now object to this on the basis that this allows the UK access to the single market without the other obligations associated with it.

No it would not, any hardening of border damages the all-island economy.

Looking at the second option: withdrawal agreement, hard border, no customs union. I think the thing you are missing here is that there are degrees of hardness. It need not be a 1970s hard border. It can be sufficiently frictionless that cross border arrangements can continue. We rule this out by insisting on the first option.

It will be a 1970s border unless the regulatory convergence of the single market is retained.Any degree of hardness both damages the economy and overturns the GFA because there is no agreement, or even attempt to find agreement, in relation to this.

Plus, we endure much greater economic hardship with the first option and no guarantee that the UK will collapse and come crawling back. It is like we are threatening the UK with a hand-grenade that we are holding. No wonder the EU is supporting us in this. EU Commissioner Phil Hogan said that he had never seen such support. The bomb, after all, will go off in Ireland, not Brussels (or Frankfurt).

There may be bombs of the real sort , mostly in the UK and some in the bigger island.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would hardly be a fan, but Margaret Thatcher pretty much nailed it back in 1975

I wonder how many Brexiteers are aware the UK was a member of EFTA in 1973? They're not trying to take the UK back to 1972, it's more like the 1950s they want to return to.

Igotadose

Strazdas wrote: »

I wonder how many Brexiteers are aware the UK was a member of EFTA in 1973? They're not trying to take the UK back to 1972, it's more like the 1950s they want to return to.

Today was bad karma day for me. Gave a ride to an older guy who was an anti-vaxing Brexiteer. Kept going on about how the UK's doing the right thing because it'll prevent a "United States of Germany." "Would you like China running the US? Well, we don't want Germany running the UK."

Felt like I was banging my head against the wall. Nearly dropped him off halfway to his destination, but that felt like dropping to his level.

Not the first Brexiteer re-living glorious WWII. At least this guy acknowledge that the UK loses WWII if it wasn't for the US and the USSR, not old blighty on its own.

But, yeesh, living breathing red-top headlines at its best. Good luck UK.

Strazdas

Igotadose wrote: »

Today was bad karma day for me. Gave a ride to an older guy who was an anti-vaxing Brexiteer. Kept going on about how the UK's doing the right thing because it'll prevent a "United States of Germany." "Would you like China running the US? Well, we don't want Germany running the UK."

Felt like I was banging my head against the wall. Nearly dropped him off halfway to his destination, but that felt like dropping to his level.

Not the first Brexiteer re-living glorious WWII. At least this guy acknowledge that the UK loses WWII if it wasn't for the US and the USSR, not old blighty on its own.

But, yeesh, living breathing red-top headlines at its best. Good luck UK.

It does show how EU membership is lost on these guys. Mutual cooperation equals surrender in their book. They don't want to be an equal partner, they want to be top dog. The only EU they would be happy with would be one run by Britain.

Bit cynical

Charles Babbage wrote: »

No it would not, any hardening of border damages the all-island economy.

You are aware that the EU with Ireland's support agreed to the text I just quoted?

Igotadose

Strazdas wrote: »

It does show how EU membership is lost on these guys. Mutual cooperation equals surrender in their book. They don't want to be an equal partner, they want to be top dog. The only EU they would be happy with would be one run by Britain.

Oh, this fella was o.k. with the EEC. It's the 'Germany will run us' nonsense he kept harping on, with bits of 'we had those trade arrangements in the past, we'll have them again.'

And this was in Ireland, fella was a diplomatic service retiree (or so he claimed.)

Larbre34

Strazdas wrote: »

It does show how EU membership is lost on these guys. Mutual cooperation equals surrender in their book. They don't want to be an equal partner, they want to be top dog. The only EU they would be happy with would be one run by Britain.

Top dog is it exactly.

Its astonishing that the style of Europe they fought hard to defend and build out the ashes is now anathema to so many now that they are one voice among 28 equal voices.

brickster69

Bit cynical wrote: »

Charles Babbage wrote: »

No it would not, any hardening of border damages the all-island economy.

You are aware that the EU with Ireland's support agreed to the text I just quoted?

You won't get an answer to that for sure.