Brexit discussion thread IV

Kermit.de.frog

Boris going off on one again

Indestructable

Boris' article. Long but worth a read.

If the Brexit negotiations continue on this path they will end, I am afraid, in a spectacular political car crash. In the ensuing recriminations the road will be cordoned off. The investigative teams will roam around trying to work out how the British civil service – this purring Rolls Royce – could have come such a cropper. What distracted us? What caused us to swerve? How did Britain end up upside down in the ditch with all four wheels spinning lazily in the air?

To understand the origin of the disaster, you need to go back a few hundred paces to a fatal patch of oil on the road. It is called the Irish backstop. That was where the skid began. If we are to get out of this mess, and get the great British motor back on track, then we need to understand the Irish backstop, and how it is being used to coerce the UK into becoming a vassal state of Brussels.

It was on December 8 last year that the UK government agreed that if the EU was not satisfied – at any point in the future – about the arrangements for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, then as a matter of law Northern Ireland would have to be part of the EU customs union and large parts of its single market – accepting rules promulgated in Brussels in just the way that Ireland does. Some of us were told at the time (I remember it well) that this was only hypothetical, that it was just a form of words, that it would never be invoked. We were taken in.

In March the EU commission published a protocol spelling it out: that until Brussels agreed otherwise, Northern Ireland would have to remain effectively part of the EU. As it stands, this version of the Irish backstop is little short of an attempt to annex Northern Ireland. It would imply customs and regulatory controls between Britain and Northern Ireland, and therefore a border down the Irish sea.

By invoking the 1998 Belfast Agreement, the backstop would transform that bilateral and non-justiciable agreement between Britain and the Irish government into a justiciable agreement to be supervised and enforced by the EU. In that sense the protocol would amount to a change in Northern Ireland’s constitutional status without its people’s consent – a total breach of the peace settlement. For Ulster Unionists of any description, for the Tory party, for anyone who cares about the union between Britain and Northern Ireland, it is a monstrosity.

Having agreed the backstop in December, the UK government has then of course protested, and said – quite properly, but a little late – that it will not accept any such threat to the Union. But instead of contesting the absurd assertion that a frictionless border must mean keeping Northern Ireland effectively in the EU, we have responded by going one further. We are now saying that if Brussels cannot be satisfied on our plans for the Irish border, then we are volunteering that the whole of the UK must remain effectively in the customs union and large parts of the single market until Brussels says otherwise.

That is also the essence of the Chequers proposals. They mean that the UK will become a rules-taker not just in goods and agri-foods, but almost certainly in the environment and social policy and many other legislative areas. Far from banishing the role of the increasingly erratic European Court of Justice, the Chequers proposals mean the ECJ is in essence back in charge.

The whole thing is a constitutional abomination, and if Chequers were adopted it would mean that for the first time since 1066 our leaders were deliberately acquiescing in foreign rule. There is no other country – large or small – that would accept such an arrangement; and yet the UK is proud to have an ancient parliamentary democracy and the fifth biggest economy in the world.

If Chequers is utterly unacceptable in principle, the practical consequences are even worse: they mean that UK business and innovators are perpetually vulnerable to rules that may not be in their interest, and may be deliberately inimical to their interest, and yet over which we have no say. By leaving us effectively in the customs union, and with no ability to negotiate our regulatory framework, we are unable to do proper free trade deals.

Chequers prevents us from deviating or innovating in so many key policy areas that the advantages of Brexit are simply removed. Unlike EU membership, where we had the right to leave, the backstop is eternal. The proposals must be scrapped, and the answer is to go back to the site of the skid. As the European Research Group pointed out last week in their excellent paper, there are plenty of ways of allowing for gradual regulatory divergence between the UK and Ireland, but without physical checks at the NI border. Any extra checks can be done away from the border, with trusted trader and self-assessment schemes, and plain enforcement of the law at warehouses and points of sale.

The Prime Minister says that any such checks or controls – even light touch and away from the border – are against the Belfast agreement. There is no basis for this claim. There is nothing whatever in the text of the Belfast agreement providing for the removal of customs or regulatory controls, and certainly nothing to stop the development of sensible technical solutions that would keep goods and people flowing completely freely, and yet take Northern Ireland, and the rest of the UK, out of the EU.

The block on any such progress is the Irish backstop, which not only forbids infrastructure at the border (which is in any case unnecessary) but also any “related checks or controls” away from the border. That is absurd. Both versions of the backstop are disastrous. One threatens the Union; the other version – and its close cousin, Chequers – keep us effectively in the EU, as humiliated rules takers.

We need to challenge the assumptions of both these Irish backstops, or we are heading full throttle for the ditch with a total write-off of Brexit. We are straining at the gnat of the Irish border problem – in fact we haven’t even tried to chew the gnat – and we are swallowing the camel of EU membership in all but name.

ancapailldorcha

VonZan wrote: »

Boris is such an idealist. Technology doesn't solve the problems of the UK having unrestricted access to the Single Market bar some technological solutions which could work in lots of areas but it's impractical for food which is the biggest area both sides won't want to touch. Boris also forgets that Britain was the biggest opponent to more expansive trade deals in the EU with India and other nations.

Johnson isn't an idealist, he is a populist. Freed from having to actually accept any responsibility for how the negotiations pan out, he can now relax and take pot shots at Theresa May knowing that she'll be the one to suffer the consequences. I don't know if it's to sate his ego or if he believes that he is the better man. That it's likely the former is a chilling thought.

Leroy42

Basically, we never thought the NI problem would be such a problem, and even though HMG, of which Boris was a member of, agreed to the December agreement, now thinks this is terrible and in both cases the EU should drop all demands because the UK doesn't like the mess that they got themselves into.

Is that pretty much the gist of the article?

An Ciarraioch

Hmm, this Times article tomorrow veers into unicorn territory, IMO:

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1041439065479028736/photo/2

Dont be at yourself

To be fair, Boris is spot-on when it comes to the problems with May agreeing to the backstop in December and with the Chequers plan. The problem is, he doesn't really offer any alternative that would be acceptable the EU, not complety tank the UK economy, and still deliver on the key tenants of his Brexit vision.

LeinsterDub

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Hmm, this Times article tomorrow veers into unicorn territory, IMO:

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1041439065479028736/photo/2

Barcodes, please? I've 5 words for them 'unexpected item in bagging area'

Kermit.de.frog

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Hmm, this Times article tomorrow veers into unicorn territory, IMO:

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1041439065479028736/photo/2

That is still defacto a border in the Irish sea.

Just in wooly language.

trellheim

Back to technology waffle

Trasna1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That is still defacto a border in the Irish sea.

Just in wooly language.

Indeed or dedramatised. It just goes to show the power of spin. This proposal is a clear loss for the UK but is being spun as a win. Tbh it's probably the only way to get Brexit over the line.

What they are saying is that NI will be in the same customs area as IRL but that checks will be minimal.

How the proposal deals with items imported directly from third countries to Belfast will be interesting

An Ciarraioch

Trasna1 wrote: »

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That is still defacto a border in the Irish sea.

Just in wooly language.

Indeed or dedramatised. It just goes to show the power of spin. This proposal is a clear loss for the UK but is being spun as a win. Tbh it's probably the only way to get Brexit over the line.

What they are saying is that NI will be in the same customs area as IRL but that checks will be minimal.

How the proposal deals with items imported directly from third countries to Belfast will be interesting

Yes, the Guardian clearly suggesting that the checks would be between NI and GB:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/17/brussels-nearing-impasse-with-may-over-irish-border-proposal

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Yes, the Guardian clearly suggesting that the checks would be between NI and GB:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/17/brussels-nearing-impasse-with-may-over-irish-border-proposal

An interesting quote from the Guardian article above might shine a light on the UK position.

The diplomatic note, said to have been drafted following a meeting of EU ambassadors last Wednesday with Barnier’s deputy, Sabine Weyand, reports that the UK has not been “helpful” over the issue.
"The solution is specifically phrased for Northern Ireland so that it is not applicable for Scotland. A UK concern.”

So it is Scotland they are concerned about - not NI.

Silent Running

Sam Russell wrote: »

An interesting quote from the Guardian article above might shine a light on the UK position.


So it is Scotland they are concerned about - not NI.

They're desperately trying to hold the union together. Any concession on NI will be seized upon by the Scots. Losing NI would be careless, losing Scotland would be the end of the Kingdom.

FrancieBrady

Silent Running wrote: »

They're desperately trying to hold the union together. Any concession on NI will be seized upon by the Scots. Losing NI would be careless, losing Scotland would be the end of the Kingdom.

Losing northern Ireland would mean losing the 'UK'. It's not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Scotland after all.

Silent Running

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Losing northern Ireland would mean losing the 'UK'. It's not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Scotland after all.

Yes, but NI is seen by most Brits as Irish. Scotland is another matter altogether. I think most Brits would happily lose the money sinkhole that is NI. Scotland has oil.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Losing northern Ireland would mean losing the 'UK'. It's not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Scotland after all.

The kingdom formed in 1707 by the union of the England and Scotland, was often referred to as the "United Kingdom". Indeed, it is called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" both in the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the English Parliament and in the the Union with England Act 1707 passed by the Scottish Parliament.

So, if the bitter pill of losing the last bit of Ireland can be sweetened for the UK by rebadging themselves as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain", well, (a) there's precedent, and (b) it's no skin off our noses.

Trasna1

Part Kenny had the political editor of the FT on this morning to discuss Johnson's article. He was convinced that a deal was in the offing and that it would look l
Something like what the EU was proposing - essentially the entire UK would stay in the Customs union and NI in the single market.

Now, you'd expect a newspaper editor to be more politically tuned in than the average Joe, but I can't see how that would fly domestically in the UK.

RobertKK

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/historical-nonsense-underpins-uk-s-brexit-floundering-1.3630936?mode=amp

That is a rather brilliant article on the delusion of Brexiteers.

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

I can't see how that would fly domestically in the UK.

A swift drop into a 10 year depression that makes 2008 look like a holiday probably wouldn't be very popular domestically either.

Sam Russell

It is near impossible to put a hard border between NI and Ireland, but not nearly so difficult to reimpose the border that existed prior to 1707. The Scotland - England border is shorter and has much fewer crossing points, and of course is an ancient border.

Scotland voting independence and rejoining the EU would certainly be possible in the near future.

Hail the United Kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Northumbria, East Anglia, Kent and of course Wales.

EdgeCase

There's continuing bad economic news coming from the UK :

IMF warning that Brexit will have impacts on the UK economy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45546785

Deutsche to shift more assets to Frankfurt, ringfence UK operations after Brexit: source

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-deutsche-bank-brexit/deutsche-to-shift-more-assets-to-frankfurt-ringfence-uk-operations-after-brexit-source-idUSKCN1LW0O8

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-17/deutsche-bank-plans-to-operate-in-u-k-via-branch-after-brexit?srnd=premium-europe

An Ciarraioch

Tony Connelly essentially synthesises the info that both the Guardian and the London Times have based their articles on - substance of backstop unchanged, technology would be between NI and GB, but UK officials would have complete control over standards enforcement:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0917/994261-backstop-eu/

Leroy42

I don't quite understand what is going on in the UK. Today, TM is stating that it is either Chequers or No Deal.

But there is no Parliamentary support for Chequers (Labour ruled out voting for it last week) and the EU have stated that Chequers, as it currently stands, is not viable.

So I can understand her trying to force through something, but not when that something is not going to be an option in the first place. The best TM can hope for is that the EU agree to some of it, whilst changing other parts, thus it is wrong to say it is either Chequers or no deal.

Unless they will now count any deal as Chequers, regardless of the actual details of the deal itself.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Unless they will now count any deal as Chequers, regardless of the actual details of the deal itself.

Yes, the trick will be to accept what the EU have been offering all along but pretend it is a win for Britain somehow. Calling it Chequers may help.

FrancieBrady

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tony Connelly essentially synthesises the info that both the Guardian and the London Times have based their articles on - substance of backstop unchanged, technology would be between NI and GB, but UK officials would have complete control over standards enforcement:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0917/994261-backstop-eu/

but UK officials would have complete control over standards enforcement:

Is that not anathema to the EU?

An Ciarraioch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tony Connelly essentially synthesises the info that both the Guardian and the London Times have based their articles on - substance of backstop unchanged, technology would be between NI and GB, but UK officials would have complete control over standards enforcement:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0917/994261-backstop-eu/

but UK officials would have complete control over standards enforcement:

Is that not anathema to the EU?

So long as they adhered to the common rulebook, Brussels would be prepared to concede in that regard.

Trasna1

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So long as they adhered to the common rulebook, Brussels would be prepared to concede in that regard.

With ECJ oversight for that element.

But then you've customs officials effectively acting for a third party. I could see even low level corruption bringing down the whole system.

Leroy42

Trasna1 wrote: »

With ECJ oversight for that element.

But then you've customs officials effectively acting for a third party. I could see even low level corruption bringing down the whole system.

And who would have the final decision? The UK, and TM, have been adamant that the ECJ is a major issue for them.

Can't see how this would work given that the UK is currently being prosecuted for not controlling Chinese imports into the UK.

FrancieBrady

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So long as they adhered to the common rulebook, Brussels would be prepared to concede in that regard.

Should we not be very very wary about that in regard to the integrity of our own output/exports?
Anything could find it's way into Irish products if the British were in any way lax.

flatty

Doesn't really matter. It's just another can kick which keeps teresa in place. That's the main thing. She has the further great good fortune that the more Boris and Jacob stick their heads above the parapet in the media, the more they show themselves to be a venal buffoon, and a venal hypocritical snob respectively. The erg's are busy shooting at everything that moves, largely each other. Public opinion is moving on, and the beeb, in true beeb fashion, are starting to scent it, and flow ever so slightly with the tide (they'll be right at the back where its safest)