Brexit discussion thread IV

Hurrache

One thing that may slip under the radar for now, is that during the state of the nation speech today there was a suggestion that there should be a turn towards majority voting in terms of dealing with issues such as tax, rather than a country having a veto, which could potentially have big implications.

Sam Russell

Hurrache wrote: »

One thing that may slip under the radar for now, is that during the state of the nation speech today there was a suggestion that there should be a turn towards majority voting in terms of dealing with issues such as tax, rather than a country having a veto, which could potentially have big implications.

It is not under the radar but is a major issue which the Irish (and a few other states) will not allow to go to majority voting. That is the issue behind the Apple money - 13 billion euro is a lot of money, but behind it is the idea that Ireland will collect the money to be divvied out to all the other EU states under a scheme yet to be devised.

EdgeCase

It's worth noting that Ireland's got clarifications about tax positions based the guarantees extracted before the 2nd referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

TITLE II TAXATION
ARTICLE 2
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/treatyseries/uploads/documents/legaldivisiondocuments/treatyseries2014/No25-of-2014.pdf

Moves on taxation issues would require new treaties.

kowtow

I think my overall sense of this is that the Irish approach and the conduct of the negotiations so far will probably have done enough to ensure a chequers deal happens in the short term.... albeit with some regrettable damage to relations between the two countries. I don't think that the EU will succeed in pushing the UK too far past that, nor do I think they would neccesarily want to.. A lot may happen between now and then of course but I think I'd be betting on Brexit in Name only if I had to bet.

I suppose the more interesting aspect will be how British politics evolves in the longer term. Undoubtedly there is some risk of the conservative party splitting and leaving middle ground open for a more centrist / May / blairite presence, but I think such a force might be short lived as it had been in the past. It's difficult to imagine British politics congealing around the centre ground when so many other democracies are bifurcating.

Imreoir2

Hurrache wrote: »

One thing that may slip under the radar for now, is that during the state of the nation speech today there was a suggestion that there should be a turn towards majority voting in terms of dealing with issues such as tax, rather than a country having a veto, which could potentially have big implications.

Its true, many people in the EU, and other EU memeber state governments favour this kind of arangement. It would potentially have big implications for us if it got through. Its a good thing that the EU does not in reality work as the Brexiteers believe, the EU can't throw us under a bus on that issue, they can't instruct Dublin to accept it, they can't ignore us and go ahead anyway. They have to get agreement from our government, and most likely our electorate to make a change like that.

This is one of the good things about the EU, it works on consensus and broad mandate, not a small elite forcing through change regardless of what everyone else thinks.

This is also a weakness, and is one of the reasons why the EU was not able to effectivly respond to the migration crisis. t had not been given the competance it needed to effectivly respond because member states did not agree on an acceptable system to allow the EU to act in that area on behalf of members. People blame the EU, but the EU can only be as effective as its members allow it to be. We won't allow the EU to be effective in the area of taxation, even though allowing them to do so would probably benefit the Union as a whole. Other states block progress on migration because it is in their interest to do so. It is a messy compromise in lots of areas, but still far better than everyone retreating to their own borders.

Peregrinus

A Chequers deal will not be done in the short term, if by "short term" we mean between now and Brexit day next March.

What the EU and the UK need to agree as a matter of urgency is a Withdrawal Agreement. This needs to be agreed by November, so that it can be ratified by the UK Parliament on one side, and by the European Parliament and the 27 Member States on the other, before next March.

But the Chequers plans is not about the Withdrawal Agreement, or what will go into the Withdrawal Agreement. It's about the future relationship, and that's not going to be agreed until after Brexit day. (Until well after Brexit day, if we're honest.)

What's holding up the Withdrawal Agreement is not negotiations about the Chequers plan. They don't need to happen at this stage and, frankly, other considerations aside3 it would be madness for the EU to enter into negotiations about the Chequers plan when it's not clear that it's acceptable even in the UK. Why would the EU waste time negotiating over a set of proposals that seem quite likely to be unacceptable to the UK Parliament?

No, what's holdig up the Withdrawal Agreement is the Irish border, because that does have to be addressed in the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU has tabled a text providing for a backstop, based on the Joint Report of December 2017, and the UK has said that that text is unacceptable, but hasn't proposed any alternative text. That's the principal issue that has to be resolved in the next 6 to 8 weeks. At this stage it seems most unlikely that the UK will or can propose an alternative text, so the only way the issue will be resolved is by the UK caving and accepting the EU text, or something very like it. All that remains to be established is how HMG will justify that domestically, and what price or concession they will be able to extract from the EU in return for accepting the EU version of the backstop. (And these two questions are of course linked.) What they will not get is EU acceptance of the Chequers plan, or any alternative to the Chequers plan, because as far as the EU is concerned that addressed issues that are not to be addressed until after Brexit day.

Leroy42

David Davies has admitted that the Ni solution but forward today is pretty much the Max Fac option that was proposed last year, and subsequently ditched by the government. Davies said he hadn't already lost the argument, but simply TM had chosen a different path, and now he was proposing, again, the Max Fac.

Max Fac has been stated as costing close to €20bn per annum to business due to the extra admin etc.

So we are going backwards at this point.

Enzokk

Trasna1 wrote: »

If Germany wanted to lead on this issue, like it did with the Eurozone crisis, then the British strategy would be appropriate - the UK seemed to have banked on the threat to German industry as a necessary driver for this approach to be taken again. Time has moved on however and it appears the Germans now value cohesiveness of the Union over Great Powers settling issues themselves (for this issue and for the time being).

The UK hoped that they would be able to divide and conquer, they never actually looked at the bigger picture though. If they had they would have seen the wood from the trees. While the UK market is an important part of many EU companies based outside of the UK, it is not bigger than the other 27. Now it would seem financially prudent for a company to favour the bigger market over a smaller one as, well that is where the most money is. Also, if you cater for only a small part of your market then you run the risk of the bigger part of your market deciding your products are not suited to them any longer and they won't purchase it any longer.

It's not that the Germans decided that cohesion of the union is more important over them unilaterally deciding the course of action, it's just the way things are in the EU and their position would never have been any different no matter how many cars or cheese or wine the UK buys from EU companies. For the UK to not understand this at the time of the referendum or people to not understand this now means they don't really understand how and why the EU works.

Trasna1 wrote: »

Greece and Italy were essentially left to fend for themselves to deal with an external threat from migration. From the UKs perspective, it would not have been a crazy thought to think that Brexit would be driven by the nation states (like migration was) as opposed to the commission.

It was an astounding feat of Irish diplomacy for them to have helped steer the EU ship wrt the negotiation in the direction it did.

As noted by others the biggest hurdle for the UK at the moment and one of the reasons why the migrant crises wasn't handled better is also one of the biggest negatives of the EU. One nation doesn't decide the course or the future of the EU. You seem to have intimated this in your earlier post about Germany having the power to control the EU, but the migrant crises should have made you aware this is not true. The EU isn't controlled by one nation and Germany cannot just decide the way to go for the others, so even if the UK was able to divide and conquer and get another country to agree with them that Ireland should be thrown under the bus, if another country doesn't agree with this point of view the whole thing is bogged down in the EU. Then there would be no movement at all from the EU side and no deal would be guaranteed as there would be no deal for the UK to take.

Leroy42 wrote: »

David Davies has admitted that the Ni solution but forward today is pretty much the Max Fac option that was proposed last year, and subsequently ditched by the government. Davies said he hadn't already lost the argument, but simply TM had chosen a different path, and now he was proposing, again, the Max Fac.

Max Fac has been stated as costing close to €20bn per annum to business due to the extra admin etc.

So we are going backwards at this point.

It should be obvious where this will end up, either the UK stays in the EU in all but name (EEA type membership where they keep all the rules and regulations to keep the border open but get no say in these rules), or there will be a sea border between NI and the UK with NI essentially in the EU while the rest of the UK isn't or they break an international agreement they signed up to and there is a hard border. There is no middle ground, this was obvious before the vote but it was ignored by all. If David Cameron had more sense he would thought about this and would have stated that should NI vote to stay in the EU then whatever the result in the rest of the UK it would not pass. This would be because of the GFA. This may have seemed unfair to Scotland but they didn't have a war in their country as late as the 90's so tough luck.

Again, if a simpleton like me can understand this you would expect private school and university educated politicians to understand it as well. The fact that they didn't even think about this shows you what ideological thinking does to people.

That is why it will seem like we keep going in circles because the UK government haven't caught up to this fact yet, IMO.

Imreoir2

Enzokk wrote: »

If David Cameron had more sense he would thought about this and would have stated that should NI vote to stay in the EU then whatever the result in the rest of the UK it would not pass. This would be because of the GFA. This may have seemed unfair to Scotland but they didn't have a war in their country as late as the 90's so tough luck.

It probably would have been easier politically to insist that all constitutient nations of the UK would have to vote for Brexit for Brexit to go ahead. Thus both NI and Scotland would have blocked Brexit.

One wonders what kind of convulsions would have been caused in the Union had Scotland/NI kept England in the EU against their will.

brickster69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Go on then ?

The costs of NI depend on how you measure it.  NI would cost us less than the UK currently spends because some expenditures like those for nuclear weapons just disappear. Also the expected growth in foreign investment will help too, and a bit of the old EU funding wouldn't go amiss either.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/

three different possible values for the deficit; €11.3bn if you include all of the allocated expenditures, €5.7bn if you include none of the allocated values, and €7.6bn if you include public sector debt and “other” allocations, but exclude EU expenditures, Defence & international spending, and consumption of fixed capital.

But are you taking into account the average wage difference is £8,000 / Less in the North than South.
NI has 200,000 Public service workers, surely all of these wages will have to  brought in line to Ireland's. Also state pensions are 30% less in the North, surely NI pensioners will not get a lesser state pension than those in the South. The figures in the link do not take into account just today's figures.
As the article says itself besed on present costs says " [font=-apple-system, system-ui, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol"]There are a number of ways in which revenue could be raised locally. Equalizing the rate of VAT across the 32 counties at 23% could raise half a billion euro. More controversially, equalizing Corporation Tax rates at 19% could theoretically raise €4.3bn "[/font]

LeinsterDub

Theresa May has said she will reconsider paying the £39bn Brexit divorce bill if the UK is unable to reach a deal with the EU.

Speaking in Parliament, she said the UK was a law-abiding nation which would honour its international commitments.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45498218?ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=news_central&ns_source=twitter


We just need a roll back on FOM and we'll be back before December 2017

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

But are you taking into account the average wage difference is £8,000 / Less in the North than South.
NI has 200,000 Public service workers, surely all of these wages will have to  brought in line to Ireland's. Also state pensions are 30% less in the North, surely NI pensioners will not get a lesser state pension than those in the South. The figures in the link do not take into account just today's figures.
As the article says itself besed on present costs says " There are a number of ways in which revenue could be raised locally. Equalizing the rate of VAT across the 32 counties at 23% could raise half a billion euro. More controversially, equalizing Corporation Tax rates at 19% could theoretically raise €4.3bn "

The Irish state is not responsible for paying the pension of former employees of the British state, only pensions earned after Unification are the responsibility of a united Ireland. There will have to be a transition period during which the number of civil servants in NI are reduced and the pay of the remaining civil servants is brought into line with their counterparts south of the former border.

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The Irish state is not responsible for paying the pension of former employees of the British state, only pensions earned after Unification are the responsibility of a united Ireland. There will have to be a transition period during which the number of civil servants in NI are reduced and the pay of the remaining civil servants is brought into line with their counterparts south of the former border.

I think there are a number of factors that would need addressing during any transition period - legal matters, taxation systems like VAT and car taxes, social welfare schemes, health system, etc, etc. I would think NI would not inherit any of the UK National Debt since this is not mentioned in the GFA.

Of course, right to British and Irish passports/citizenship is a matter that needs to be addressed.

There is no reason for Civil Servants in NI to be reduced if there is work to be done for the enlarged Irish State. The reduction could take place in,say, Dublin and the work transferred to NI.

The whole question of reunification would need to be laid out quite clearly and fully debated before any vote takes place. The votes would take place on both parts of the island, and needs to be passed by both parts.

brickster69

Imreoir2 wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

But are you taking into account the average wage difference is £8,000 / Less in the North than South.
NI has 200,000 Public service workers, surely all of these wages will have to  brought in line to Ireland's. Also state pensions are 30% less in the North, surely NI pensioners will not get a lesser state pension than those in the South. The figures in the link do not take into account just today's figures.
As the article says itself besed on present costs says " There are a number of ways in which revenue could be raised locally. Equalizing the rate of VAT across the 32 counties at 23% could raise half a billion euro. More controversially, equalizing Corporation Tax rates at 19% could theoretically raise €4.3bn "

The Irish state is not responsible for paying the pension of former employees of the British state, only pensions earned after Unification are the responsibility of a united Ireland. There will have to be a transition period during which the number of civil servants in NI are reduced and the pay of the remaining civil servants is brought into line with their counterparts south of the former border.

I never said it was, i mentioned State pensioners.

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think there are a number of factors that would need addressing during any transition period - legal matters, taxation systems like VAT and car taxes, social welfare schemes, health system, etc, etc. I would think NI would not inherit any of the UK National Debt since this is not mentioned in the GFA.

Of course, right to British and Irish passports/citizenship is a matter that needs to be addressed.

There is no reason for Civil Servants in NI to be reduced if there is work to be done for the enlarged Irish State. The reduction could take place in,say, Dublin and the work transferred to NI.

The whole question of reunification would need to be laid out quite clearly and fully debated before any vote takes place. The votes would take place on both parts of the island, and needs to be passed by both parts.

I think it's likely that a United Ireland would find itself with a surplus of civil servants given the excessive reliance on the public sector in the North.

The Irish state can bear the cost of maintaining those jobs while the northern economy is reformed. In the medium to long term, we would want to reduce the reliance on the public sector in the north. We don't want to keep NI as it is, we need to reform the north and bring it into line with the south. Part of that is releasing the human resources tied up needlessly in the public sector.

This obviously will have to be done slowly. We don't want any shocks to the system as unity is bedding in. I would see it as more of a long term reform plan with slowed recruitment and incentives to move into the private sector, rather than arbitrarily dismissing thousands of public sector employees in a misguided atempt to balance the books after a year or two.

Spook_ie

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The Irish state is not responsible for paying the pension of former employees of the British state, only pensions earned after Unification are the responsibility of a united Ireland. There will have to be a transition period during which the number of civil servants in NI are reduced and the pay of the remaining civil servants is brought into line with their counterparts south of the former border.

UI but not if we have to pay for it?

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think it's likely that a United Ireland would find itself with a surplus of civil servants given the excessive reliance on the public sector in the North.

The Irish state can bear the cost of maintaining those jobs while the northern economy is reformed. In the medium to long term, we would want to reduce the reliance on the public sector in the north. We don't want to keep NI as it is, we need to reform the north and bring it into line with the south. Part of that is releasing the human resources tied up needlessly in the public sector.

This obviously will have to be done slowly. We don't want any shocks to the system as unity is bedding in. I would see it as more of a long term reform plan with slowed recruitment and incentives to move into the private sector, rather than arbitrarily dismissing thousands of public sector employees in a misguided attempt to balance the books after a year or two.

I could see some aspects of the Irish State being moved north and being handled by current NI CS. For example, administration of the Medical Card, PSC, and some elements of the Revenue - for example, Local Property Tax.

Spook_ie wrote: »

UI but not if we have to pay for it?

I think that is unfair.

There are plenty who do not want to pay for water, TV licence, Motor Tax, Insurance for their motor, etc. But there are plenty more who would welcome NI, both nationalists and unionists into a united Ireland, just as we have welcomed EU and non-EU migrants.

We have been much more welcoming than other EU states. I'm sure we can think of a few.

Imreoir2

Spook_ie wrote: »

UI but not if we have to pay for it?

We will have to pay for it, just not liabilities such as pensions incured by another state.

We did not pay the pensions of the Black and Tans either.

Spook_ie

Imreoir2 wrote: »

We will have to pay for it, just not liabilities such as pensions incured by another state.

We did not pay the pensions of the Black and Tans either.

No but it seems we did pay the pensions of the RIC

donaghs wrote: »

Everything I've read seems to say the Free State did take on the RIC pension burden, not enthusiastically, but as a condition worked out in the Treaty.

Possibly it was reasoned that they were they were the police for of Ireland, made up of Irishmen, and would be for some time after the Treaty. Whereas the British Army, Irish regiments included, were to evacuate the Free State permanently and quickly.

Wikipedia (not "Gospel" I know):
"Some former RIC men joined the Garda Síochána. These included men who had earlier assisted IRA operations in various ways. Some retired and the Irish Free State paid their pensions as provided for in the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty agreement. Others, still faced with threats of violent reprisals,[22] emigrated with their families to Great Britain or other parts of the Empire, most often to police forces in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia" and Palestine.

http://www.ucd.ie/pages/95/Brennan.html
"However, in spite of his vociferous objections the reality was that the terms were not ungenerous particularly in light of the fact that the British government had to be careful not to alienate the new government in Ireland by granting unreasonable terms as it had been agreed that 75% of the pensions ultimately would be paid by the Irish Free State. (The other 25% was the responsibility of the Northern Government)."

But did it include Auxilliaries and "Black and Tans"/temporary constables? Apparently not:
https://www.qub.ac.uk/home/Research/GRI/mitchell-institute/FileStore/Filetoupload,517191,en.pdf
"Some of the compensation introduced by the first government of the Irish Free State was obligatory under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
This was most notable in the case of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) who were pensioned after the disbandment of the force in 1922. This committed the government to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the [Government of Ireland] Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof.’ The Irish liability did not extend to the Black and Tans or Auxiliaries who were the responsibility of the British government."

All the RIC records though, including pensions, seem to be held in Kew in the UK.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/royal-irish-constabulary/

Spook_ie

Given the use of Article 7 against Hungary, will they be the next to invoke Article 50 if they feel the EU is bullying them?

Are the bookies running anything?

Sam Russell

Spook_ie wrote: »

Given the use of Article 7 against Hungary, will they be the next to invoke Article 50 if they feel the EU is bullying them?

Are the bookies running anything?

Unlikely if they are net beneficiaries from the EU.

Nody

Spook_ie wrote: »

Given the use of Article 7 against Hungary, will they be the next to invoke Article 50 if they feel the EU is bullying them?

Are the bookies running anything?

They are not leaving any time soon; the PM may make Trump look honest by comparison but he's well aware of how dependent his country is on EU for all the car factories etc. built there that ensures employment.

Larbre34

Spook_ie wrote: »

Given the use of Article 7 against Hungary, will they be the next to invoke Article 50 if they feel the EU is bullying them?

Are the bookies running anything?

I'd say regardless of that, they'll be looking at Carry On Brexit and choose to be more circumspect about looking at that course of action.

Whatever about a G7 country like Britain being able to recover eventually, Hungary with an economy only one tenth the size and surrounded by EU states, could not easily.

Enzokk

Spook_ie wrote: »

Given the use of Article 7 against Hungary, will they be the next to invoke Article 50 if they feel the EU is bullying them?

Are the bookies running anything?

On that votes, guess who voted in support of Hungary and you would never guess who came out in support of offering the UK a "fair" deal today as well.

Conservatives back far-right government of Viktor Orban in crunch vote in European Parliament

Conservative MEPs have given their support to the authoritarian government of Viktor Orban in a crunch vote in the European Parliament.

Almost all of the politicians representing Theresa May’s party voted against a motion to censure the Hungarian leader, which in the end was overwhelmingly passed.

It seems that the plan is to get allies in any way possible, no matter how despicable they may be. All other conservative and centre-right parties voted for motion, yet the Conservatives voted against it.

Theresa May as usual had her head in the sand, or below the water as she was unaware of the vote. She either doesn't know her party is backing a far right leader who is antisemitic, islamaphobic, against the judiciary and corrupt (allegedly) or she used this vote to get an ally.

Larbre34

Why does Theresa May think € 39 billion is an effective ransom for the EU?

Yes, it wouldn't be ideal and would require a reprioritisation of the medium term budget, but the EU would still be an €18 trillion economy as well as some nations absorbing a boost from repatriated UK investment (after the initial shock of no deal fades) and would move on within a few years. Meanwhile the UK would be toying with the dark ages and the collapse of manufacturing, the NHS and the welfare state.

Enzokk

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why does Theresa May think € 39 billion is an effective ransom for the EU?

Yes, it wouldn't be ideal and would require a reprioritisation of the medium term budget, but the EU would still be an €18 trillion economy as well as some nations absorbing a boost from repatriated UK investment (after the initial shock of no deal fades) and would move on within a few years. Meanwhile the UK would be toying with the dark ages and the collapse of manufacturing, the NHS and the welfare state.

Also, if she walks away from the divorce payment there is no way the EU will allow the UK to participate in those EU institutions they will need. So no EASA, EURATOM, EMA etc. so the threat seems empty. The more Barnier tells the UK the negotiations are about trust, the more they behave in ways that will make the EU trust them less and less.

PeadarCo

The Legend Of Kira wrote:

That said I do have my own criticisms about the Eu such as the Eu voting to punish Hungary this week, whether people like Viktor Orban or not is irrelevant the fact is he was democratically re elected by a democratic vote earlier this year, the people voted to give him a mandate for his tough stance on Illegal Immigration , if one truly believes in democracy then the result of the election & the way people voted should be respected not punished by the Eu.

The EU is perfectly entitled to punish Hungary. The EU have rules if Hungary isn't happy and doesn't want to follow them they can leave. The rules haven't been changed since Hungary voted. So they should have known when voting that it could result in this situation if Urban was elected.

Capt'n Midnight

Panrich wrote: »

Sanitary and
phytosanitary checks
 Maintenance of the all-island Common Biosecurity Zone.
 Mutual recognition of SPS standards on either side of the border

The Devil in the detail.

Mutual recognition ?

Any deviation from EU standards means the EU goes "Shields Up" and Hard Border.

Think GMO Soya, chlorinated chicken, antibiotics and hormones in meat.

No-deal Brexit: UK food exports could get stuck at borders - National Audit Office

Defra will also have to introduce a UK equivalent for each of 1,400 different versions of the current EU certificates, which currently refer to EU law, and agree these with 154 different countries in order to continue to export to them.

The NAO says Defra will simply not be able to reach agreements with all of these countries by March 2019,

Anthracite

Imreoir2 wrote: »

One wonders what kind of convulsions would have been caused in the Union had Scotland/NI kept England in the EU against their will.

Well it's quite possible that the English directly (via English voters in Scotland) and indirectly kept the Scots in the UK, so at least that would have been turnabout fair play.

Junkyard Tom

David Trimble on Newsnight claiming that the only threat to peace is that posed by the prospect of the North remaining in a CU/SM arrangement. A subtle threat?