Brexit discussion thread IV

Enzokk

This seems to be new,

German business leaders raise alarm over Brexit progress

A couple of quotes to highlight from article, so (as if we didn't know) there goes their saviors from the German car makers.

Prominent Brexit supporters have long voiced hope that German and European business leaders could put pressure on Brussels to offer the UK a favourable Brexit deal. That hope, however, has yet to materialise. “We need to be realistic, 60 per cent of German exports go to the EU. Only 7 per cent go to the UK, and that share is falling steadily — also as a result of Brexit. That means we know exactly where to put our emphasis. We want to strengthen the EU27, and limit any damage linked to Brexit,” said the BDI’s Mr Lang. 

Mr Mattes said: “Our view is that any Brexit deal must have one priority: to maintain and strengthen the cohesion of the remaining 27 member states. We must not give other countries any incentive to leave.”

The other quote is why the Chequers will not work.

“The UK says it wants to keep the free movement for goods but become independent with regard to the other freedoms. We believe that cannot work,” said Mr Lang. Separating goods from services and the flow of people and finance, he added, was simply not possible in the modern economy. 

“When we sell a piece of machinery today, we don’t just sell the product. We also sell services, data and maintenance,” he said. “You cannot pick one freedom but leave the other three on the sidelines. That simply does not work with modern industrial goods. We are not selling a piece of chocolate.”

Working class heroes

Would a border poll be a justifiable reason(in the eyes of the EU)to extend A50?

Inquitus

Working class heroes wrote: »

Would a border poll be a justifiable reason(in the eyes of the EU)to extend A50?

Not really, only a GE in the UK or a 2nd referendum would justify an extension I would have thought.

First Up

Working class heroes wrote: »

Would a border poll be a justifiable reason(in the eyes of the EU)to extend A50?

To what end?

Infini

First Up wrote: »

To what end?

UI removes the border issue if unification is sucessfull.

Capt'n Midnight

Inquitus wrote: »

Not really, only a GE in the UK or a 2nd referendum would justify an extension I would have thought.

And probably not even a GE. The last one didn't as it was seen as an internal UK affair.

With Labour not having a position apart from saying they respect the referendum result there's no basis for granting an extension. Countries like Switzerland and others with pending trade deals aren't disposed to let things drag on.

Imreoir2

Rjd2 wrote: »

Do you have a break down of this poll? Its commissioned by our Future Our Choice and Best For Britain who are campaigning to over turn Brexit who couldn't possibly be biased.:o

If you think its biased then the question is not who comissioned it, but rather who carried it out. Do you think the polling company is disreputable?

Imreoir2

Working class heroes wrote: »

Would a border poll be a justifiable reason(in the eyes of the EU)to extend A50?

No need to extend Art 50 for a border poll, Irish Unification means NI comes into the EU automatically regardless of wheather or not the UK has already crashed out.

Havockk

Working class heroes wrote: »

Would a border poll be a justifiable reason(in the eyes of the EU)to extend A50?

It is starting to seem that a border poll is all but inevitable now. If there are many more polls that show the startling results that the one earlier has shown, then under the terms of the GFA it must happen.

Trasna1

J Mysterio wrote: »

I accept your points and you may have something here, but if this is indeed the case, then Corbyn is even worse than I had postulated (ineffectual ditherer). In your scenario he is a sneaky liar who is purposefully misrepresenting his position in the hope of building something from the ashes.

But to do that, Britain has to burn to the grpund and so he is letting down what should be his core support, the average working class/ lower middle class/ industrial voter - it is they will suffer the most from Brexit. The Labour heartlands will be devastated.

The problem is, that by and large - those very same voters that form his core support and should be protecting also voted for Brexit.

Spanish Eyes

Havockk wrote: »

It is starting to seem that a border poll is all but inevitable now. If there are many more polls that show the startling results that the one earlier has shown, then under the terms of the GFA it must happen.

If it does happen (I personally think it is too reactionary and too soon), and IF the result is for a UI, well the Island of Ireland will once again be looking for cohesion funds.

Whilst in theory it sounds great, the reality is, that we will have responsibility for propping up NI to the amount that is already given to it by Westminster for many years to come.

Five to ten years from now might be about right, when the effects of Brexit are making life a misery for everyone on the Island.

FrancieBrady

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If it does happen (I personally think it is too reactionary and too soon), and IF the result is for a UI, well the Island of Ireland will once again be looking for cohesion funds.

Whilst in theory it sounds great, the reality is, that we will have responsibility for propping up NI to the amount that is already given to it by Westminster for many years to come.

Five to ten years from now might be about right, when the effects of Brexit are making life a misery for everyone on the Island.

That is wrong tbh.

We still don't know what the actual figure it takes to run northern Ireland. Part of the subvention includes contributions that would no longer be required to be made. And there are all sorts of things that may happen to mitigate the expense, (duplication of services etc, EU contribution and GB contributions) whatever that might finally be.

Probably requires a thread of it's own. Don't want to drag this one off topic.

First Up

Infini wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

To what end?

UI removes the border issue if unification is sucessfull.

The composition of the UK is an internal matter. Brussels won't touch it with a barge pole.

Spanish Eyes

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is wrong tbh.

We still don't know what the actual figure it takes to run northern Ireland. Part of the subvention includes contributions that would no longer be required to be made. And there are all sorts of things that may happen to mitigate the expense, (duplication of services etc, EU contribution and GB contributions) whatever that might finally be.

Probably requires a thread of it's own. Don't want to drag this one off topic.

Fair enough, was just thinking off the top of my head there, and sometimes your initial thoughts are what you instinctively believe!

I agree that a separate thread on this topic would be very useful, and am willing to be educated and enlightened on the matter.

It is a huge thing no matter what. And not all either North or South are in favour either.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We still don't know what the actual figure it takes to run northern Ireland. Part of the subvention includes contributions that would no longer be required to be made. And there are all sorts of things that may happen to mitigate the expense, (duplication of services etc, EU contribution and GB contributions) whatever that might finally be.

There's also the jobs created by decentralised civil service activities that keep the economy ticking over. Most of those would be gone in the event of a UI.

Water John

Well UI isn't simply about absorbing NI into ROI. It requires a new format of how we do politics on the island. Thus it needs a separate thread if its to be discussed. Certainly some form of Regional democracy would need to come to the fore.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Nope. Setting aside the fact that that sentence was added at the insistence of the DUP, what the UK does within its own jurisdiction is its own business. So if GB wants to give unfettered access to NI, they can. They're the ones saying that magical solutions will make for frictionless trade, so it's no big deal.


The UK can allow NI businesses to sell into GB without any controls, and NI can purchase from GB anything that complies with EU standards, i.e. the same as it has now.

I don't think so. Unfettered access of the sort they have now would mean companies in NI could import products from the UK that have already been imported from outside the EU. Then the open border with the South would allow them to be imported into the EU. Therefore regulatory alignment must extend to the UK.

Enzokk wrote: »

It's almost like this whole thing is a mess, right? The UK cannot somehow keep to its international agreements and leave the EU. The line you quote is also for the UK to sort out. It has nothing to do with the EU, other than there will be regulatory alignment between NI and Ireland. If the UK wants to keep to the line in the document they have to negotiate that with the EU. If this cannot be done then there will be no deal.

However the december agreement was supposed to be a framework for a future detailed agreement. It is not supposed to contain things that are not feasible. Otherwise, the parties should not have agreed to them. Taken as a whole, the document implies that whatever regulatory alignment there is going to be must apply to the UK as a whole.

Working class heroes

First Up wrote: »

To what end?

That I don’t know. I thought I might be missing something obvious.

Whenever I see publication of these polls I am always sceptical as to the timing. I just can’t help thinking a poll could be used to delay A50 and was just wondering how the UK might spin it to try and convince the EU.
I’m probably babbling now:)

Havockk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Fair enough, was just thinking off the top of my head there, and sometimes your initial thoughts are what you instinctively believe!

I agree that a separate thread on this topic would be very useful, and am willing to be educated and enlightened on the matter.

It is a huge thing no matter what. And not all either North or South are in favour either.

To be clear, I am in favour of a UI.

I do agree though, we cannot risk it yet. But 5 years is crazy talk. The current poling may not be exact but it shows a clear direction of travel, and given brexit is not a thing yet... well anything is on to be honest. I can honestly see a poll within 2 years.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the december agreement was supposed to be a framework for a future detailed agreement. It is not supposed to contain things that are not feasible. Otherwise, the parties should not have agreed to them. Taken as a whole, the document implies that whatever regulatory alignment there is going to be must apply to the UK as a whole.

Well you could read it that the agreement ties the UK to the EU and not the other way as well. If the UK must be aligned to EU regulations that means they will need to contribute to those EU institutions that work on those regulations without having a say. They will also have no say in trade agreements and would not be able to agree their own trade deals. They would be in the EU without being in the EU.

It will be up to the UK on how they will do this. The EU will however not allow the UK to have an open door to the EU while not being in it. In that case the EU will force us to put up a border. We know this, this is a risk of Brexit. But this is not up to us, if the UK pursues this option then there is nothing the EU can do. It really doesn't matter what our government does, whether they threaten the UK or give in to the UK, we are at the mercy of the UK. What we do have though is international agreements from the UK on Northern Ireland. This is what is complicating things right now, but this was known beforehand by both sides.

trellheim

Just grin through it folks . JRM etc met Barnier today ( DExEu committee today )

Leading Tory eurosceptic MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has called on prime minister Theresa May to repudiate the December agreement with the EU on the Northern Ireland Border backstop.

He said that the backstop issue was holding up the Brexit talks unnecessarily and that the British government should simply not put up a border.

“I think the backstop agreement has allowed these negotiations to drag on in a most unsatisfactory manner,” said Mr Rees-Mogg, “and the answer on the Irish border is simply not to put up a border because the Irish Government say they don’t want one, the EU say they don’t want one, the British government says it doesn’t want one, and that seems to me to be a very good answer.”

The backstop agreed between the EU and UK last December provides for regulatory alignment between the Republic and the North in order to avoid customs checks. It would come into effect in the absence of a wider Brexit deal providing for a frictionless Border.

Mr Rees-Mogg was speaking to journalists following a meeting in Brussels between EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier and the House of Commons Committee for Exiting the EU. Earlier the group had a separate, “constructive” meeting with Irish Ambassador to the EU Declan Kelleher and his Brexit deputy, Emer Deane

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/chequers-proposal-is-absolute-rubbish-jacob-rees-mogg-1.3617131

If anyone can find the transcript off the committee I'd appreciate it.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the december agreement was supposed to be a framework for a future detailed agreement. It is not supposed to contain things that are not feasible. Otherwise, the parties should not have agreed to them. Taken as a whole, the document implies that whatever regulatory alignment there is going to be must apply to the UK as a whole.

Once again, no. The document was intended to be a point of agreement on the EU's pre-conditions to allow the talks to proceed to Phase 2, which is the framework for future detailed agreement.


The parties could (and did) agree to them because "nothing is agreed until everything's agreed" and there was a reasonable expectation that the UK would (a) respect the agreement it had just signed; and (b) negotiate the Phase 2 framework in a cooperative manner.


Instead, Westminster promptly re-interpreted its pledges, and added more redness to the already unworkable, self-imposed red lines.



As has been said over and over, Brexit is an English decision, and it's for the English to come up with arrangements that can work. The EU is not rejecting the proposals, they're pointing out that they can't possibly work. It's not the EU's fault that Westminster produces an endless stream of stupidity.

flatty

CelticRambler wrote: »

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the december agreement was supposed to be a framework for a future detailed agreement. It is not supposed to contain things that are not feasible. Otherwise, the parties should not have agreed to them. Taken as a whole, the document implies that whatever regulatory alignment there is going to be must apply to the UK as a whole.

Once again, no. The document was intended to be a point of agreement on the EU's pre-conditions to allow the talks to proceed to Phase 2, which is the framework for future detailed agreement.


The parties could (and did) agree to them because "nothing is agreed until everything's agreed" and there was a reasonable expectation that the UK would (a) respect the agreement it had just signed; and (b) negotiate the Phase 2 framework in a cooperative manner.


Instead, Westminster promptly re-interpreted its pledges, and added more redness to the already unworkable, self-imposed red lines.



As has been said over and over, Brexit is an English decision, and it's for the English to come up with arrangements that can work. The EU is not rejecting the proposals, they're pointing out that they can't possibly work. It's not the EU's fault that Westminster produces an endless stream of stupidity.

And Welsh.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think so. Unfettered access of the sort they have now would mean companies in NI could import products from the UK that have already been imported from outside the EU. Then the open border with the South would allow them to be imported into the EU. Therefore regulatory alignment must extend to the UK.


However the december agreement was supposed to be a framework for a future detailed agreement. It is not supposed to contain things that are not feasible. Otherwise, the parties should not have agreed to them. Taken as a whole, the document implies that whatever regulatory alignment there is going to be must apply to the UK as a whole.

One solution for the NI situation would be for the (R of) the UK to allow unfettered exports for NI to (R of) the UK from NI firms (trusted traders), but restrict shipments of material that originated from Ireland (or r of the EU). Imports to NI (from R of UK)would be restricted to EU standard product, and would need to be inspected. This already happens for agriculture and phytosanitory requirements. Alternatively goods ship through Dublin Port, where EU import rules would apply.

A bit of directing traffic would eliminate the need for a border. NI could import anything from Ireland (and the EU) without problem, providing it was not transited to the UK. Milk, pork, and lambs would continue to frolic across the border as of now.

I think smugglers would be able to profit, but not sure who would be the loser.

[Edit - R of is short for Rest of - should have typed it in full]

Imreoir2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If it does happen (I personally think it is too reactionary and too soon), and IF the result is for a UI, well the Island of Ireland will once again be looking for cohesion funds.

Whilst in theory it sounds great, the reality is, that we will have responsibility for propping up NI to the amount that is already given to it by Westminster for many years to come.

Five to ten years from now might be about right, when the effects of Brexit are making life a misery for everyone on the Island.

We can't and wont be proping NI up as it is now, we can't keep NI in the condition it is in. We will be forced to reform the NI economey through FDI and incentivising the transition from public sector employment to the private sector.

The UK can prop up NI as a basketcase economey with public sector employment, we will have to put NI to work.

If there is a deal, 5 to 10 years is about right, in a no-deal scenario then we are looking at 3 to 5 years. Preperations for a unity poll will have to be fast tracked on this side of the border after a no-deal Brexit.

Sassygirl1999

Sam Russell wrote: »

One solution for the NI situation would be for the (R of) the UK to allow unfettered exports for NI to (R of) the UK from NI firms (trusted traders), but restrict shipments of material that originated from Ireland (or r of the EU). Imports to NI (from R of UK)would be restricted to EU standard product, and would need to be inspected. This already happens for agriculture and phytosanitory requirements. Alternatively goods ship through Dublin Port, where EU import rules would apply.

A bit of directing traffic would eliminate the need for a border. NI could import anything from Ireland (and the EU) without problem, providing it was not transited to the UK. Milk, pork, and lambs would continue to frolic across the border as of now.

I think smugglers would be able to profit, but not sure who would be the loser.

is (R of) the republic of Ireland ?

Anthracite

flatty wrote: »

And Welsh.

Different flavour of English.

flatty

I think sterling, having circled the drain for an impressively long time, has started its spiral down.
It is quite remarkable the harm that a few old bigots and idiots have been allowed to inflict on a nation, simply to enrich themselves, or to maintain their grip on "power".
It's such a perfect storm. Venal, thick or cunning and ruthless elite minority, with a radical and equally nasty opposition, all abjectly waved through by a national broadcaster still stealing off the impartial reputation of its forebears, now utterly supine in the face of any government weak and cowardly enough to threaten it with the license fee.

Sam Russell

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

is (R of) the republic of Ireland ?

Rest of - sorry should have typed it in full.

Rjd2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If you think its biased then the question is not who comissioned it, but rather who carried it out. Do you think the polling company is disreputable?

Not disreputable, but having looked at it and I may have missed something but in the poll 824 people voted to Remain while only 292 which doesn't seem representative when the split was 56-44 in the referendum.

I dunno probably missing something obvious (not the first time), but considering how biased those who commissioned it and the above stat it doesn't seem that particularly balanced.