Brexit discussion thread IV

kowtow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The election talk may be the fact May knows having the DUP there is not tenable for an agreement.

An election is quickest way to get rid of them and follow through on December's agreement.

The logic would be that Corbyn has done as well as he will ever do.. in other words the threat of Corbyn will be enough to force Tory voters into the polling booths (including the older generation who she threw away last time with dementia tax).

Meanwhile there is a whole host of Blair voters who wouldn't touch Corbyn for personal interest reasons.

And Corbyn would be under much more scrutiny with the scene set by his apparent Brexit fence-sitting & the (somewhat contrived, I think) anti-antisemitism row.

The big unknown for the Tories is the car-crash which Brexit has turned out to be and the possible reluctance of people to vote for a party that hasn't been able to gather around a single sensible plan. Presumably they'd have to sort out some sort of position as well as bring the ERG et.al. into line in time for the polling booths.

Tricky one, but not impossible for the Tories to pull off a bigger majority.

Leroy42

Why would they go for a GE? There seems little chance that the Tories would win, never mind win a majority.

So what possible advantage is there in going that route since they don't have to?

Even if they dump May, which I don't see happening, there is no reason they have to go to the country.

ArmaniJeanss

Inquitus wrote: »

That would be his preference, but I think the Unions / Membership will want remain on the ballot, so that should become the default labour position after the conference.

Actually the biggest union Unite doesn't want Remain on the ballot (or at least one of their more known spokespeople doesn't).
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-options-choice-exclude-remain-eu-len-mccluskey-labour-a8551086.html

kowtow

So who would be willing to bet as follows?

Corbyn is weak; Parliamentary arithmetic is a dangerous deadlock; time for May to pivot around to the Canada plus (minus?) deal proposed by the ERG citing the EU willingness to countenance technology in the Irish Sea as a reason why they should accept the principle of technology North / South....

Enough certainty to go for an election?

Or wishful thinking by Brexiteers?

Leroy42

Just to correct something. The Canada Plus has been on the table from the very beginning. It isn't something the ERG have come up with, it is a path they have accepted as the least worst option from their POV.

Davies, who is now pushing this, claimed that he would negotiate directly with Berlin. If Canada plus was such a great option they why didn't he deliver it when he was actually in charge?

And Canada Plus does not deal with the NI border

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just to correct something. The Canada Plus has been on the table from the very beginning. It isn't something the ERG have come up with, it is a path they have accepted as the least worst option from their POV.

Davies, who is now pushing this, claimed that he would negotiate directly with Berlin. If Canada plus was such a great option they why didn't he deliver it when he was actually in charge?

And Canada Plus does not deal with the NI border

Agreed, I hadn't meant to suggest that the plan was originated by the ERG - simply put forward by them most recently in the domestic sphere.

I suppose the key point is the Irish border. My own feeling is that some sort of technical solution (maybe in large part in the Irish sea) is the non-political solution to this if only people weren't making such a drama of it. People are free to move anyway (CTA) and nobody wants to put a border there. Without getting into too much detailed argument, if there was a political will for it, I am sure there is also a way.

The ERG seem to be taking the line that if technology is acceptable in the Irish sea why can't it be acceptable North to South - that's certainly a plausible line for the English voter, what the EU do with it if it ever became the final offer is up to them. The alternative, presumably, would be hard Brexit and Ireland putting up an EU border in short order which isn't very appetizing either.

judeboy101

kowtow wrote: »

Agreed, I hadn't meant to suggest that the plan was originated by the ERG - simply put forward by them most recently in the domestic sphere.

I suppose the key point is the Irish border. My own feeling is that some sort of technical solution (maybe in large part in the Irish sea) is the non-political solution to this if only people weren't making such a drama of it. People are free to move anyway (CTA) and nobody wants to put a border there. Without getting into too much detailed argument, if there was a political will for it, I am sure there is also a way.

The ERG seem to be taking the line that if technology is acceptable in the Irish sea why can't it be acceptable North to South - that's certainly a plausible line for the English voter, what the EU do with it if it ever became the final offer is up to them. The alternative, presumably, would be hard Brexit and Ireland putting up an EU border in short order which isn't very appetizing either.

People don't cycle across the Irish sea to work or school or to play gaa. Sounds flippant but there will have to be checks of even a minimal level. And checks require checkers and unless you close down loads of crossings, it means loads of checkers. Loads of checkers require places to be based, which requires infrastructure. Infrastructure is a symbol of a border and the first one that gets blown up will see the squaddies back.

kowtow

judeboy101 wrote: »

People don't cycle across the Irish sea to work or school or to play gaa. Sounds flippant but there will have to be checks of even a minimal level. And checks require checkers and unless you close down loads of crossings, it means loads of checkers. Loads of checkers require places to be based, which requires infrastructure. Infrastructure is a symbol of a border and the first one that gets blown up will see the squaddies back.

Who will want checks of people?

We can only suppose it would be the UK guarding against immigration. They seem relaxed about that (from ROI) and Since those people still need (presumably) to cross from NI they won't easily escape detection at the ports. Couldn't everyone else cross the land border as they do today?

Akrasia

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

seems they are just going around in circles, we've been here before

Its absolutely absurd that May can say that a 2nd referendum is undemocratic if she brings down the democratically elected government twice in 2 years hoping to get a more favourable vote for her party.

flatty

The first part of your statement is sufficient. Whoever heard the likes?

Akrasia

kowtow wrote: »

Who will want checks of people?

We can only suppose it would be the UK guarding against immigration. They seem relaxed about that (from ROI) and Since those people still need (presumably) to cross from NI they won't easily escape detection at the ports. Couldn't everyone else cross the land border as they do today?

You don't understand how complex importing and exporting between two customs regimes is.

Every single item needs to have paperwork and there have to be spot checks to ensure that hauliers or exporters aren't mis-declaring their cargo, and these spot checks need to include non freight traffic to ensure that people aren't smuggling in goods without declaring them.

When there are different customs regimes, there is huge potential profits for smugglers. Smuggling is always going to happen on some level, but having a purely 'frictionless border' without any spot checks or customs inspections would just be an invitation to criminals to flock to the border to make a quick and easy profit smuggling goods in and out of the EU.

Mr.Nice Guy

Perhaps the Tories have decided that another election is the best way to rid themselves of the DUP shackles. It allows them to come to a looser arrangement on a backstop than they would be allowed to do presently.

If the direction of travel is that Labour is going to push for a second referendum, then the Tories can position themselves as the party of Brexit and float the 'stabbed in the back' narrative that Jeremy and co. want to scupper what you voted for. Make it into a pure nationalistic referendum. Battling Blighty vs bullying Brussels.

Capt'n Midnight

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Actually the biggest union Unite doesn't want Remain on the ballot (or at least one of their more known spokespeople doesn't).
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-options-choice-exclude-remain-eu-len-mccluskey-labour-a8551086.html

BBC Clickbait Shadow NI Secretary Tony Lloyd rejects new referendum

It's not so much that he's against a referendum it's that he wants to go further.

The Shadow Secretary of State has dismissed the proposal for a fresh Brexit referendum saying he would prefer a general election.

...
He said if the UK leaves the EU without a deal it would be "a gift to those who want to return to violence".

If there's a GE can Labour get a better deal that will appease everyone in the remaining time ?
Or could they use the 5 years to haggle with EU and look for loopholes that allow them to support union jobs ?

Imreoir2

kowtow wrote: »

Who will want checks of people?

We can only suppose it would be the UK guarding against immigration. They seem relaxed about that (from ROI) and Since those people still need (presumably) to cross from NI they won't easily escape detection at the ports. Couldn't everyone else cross the land border as they do today?

If you drive a van accross the border, who is to say what you have in the back? If you don't register as a trusted trader or whatever, then it would be very easy to smuggle goods accross. Even if you put in some infastructure on the main roads to track vans and trucks, there are hundreds if not thousands of other routs to avoide those checks. If the checks are in ports, then the number of access points goes from hundreds to a handfull. Much easier to enforce and the infastructure is much easier to protect from disidant groups who would want to attack it.

kowtow

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If you drive a van accross the border, who is to say what you have in the back? If you don't register as a trusted trader or whatever, then it would be very easy to smuggle goods accross. Even if you put in some infastructure on the main roads to track vans and trucks, there are hundreds if not thousands of other routs to avoide those checks. If the checks are in ports, then the number of access points goes from hundreds to a handfull. Much easier to enforce and the infastructure is much easier to protect from disidant groups who would want to attack it.

I suspect they might end up being in ports as well as at other locations. Why not enable checks inside ROI and NI within 20km of the border and make a special addiitional zone for checks at the NI ports. That way it wouldn't look like an NI / .UK border but the convenience of existing port checks could be leveraged for the really threatening trade - which is presumably headed for the mainland from ROI (or vice versa) rather than NI itself?

I would have thought SME exceptions would cover a lot of commercial traffic?

I note that the commercial traffic figure is very high (14,000 daily)... given that figure must include every farm jeep travelling each way it has to be a fair assumption that the true commercial traffic which ought to be checked is a lot lower. Ireland has always had a very high number of pseudo commercial vehicles because of the motor tax regime.

judeboy101

kowtow wrote: »

I suspect they might end up being in ports as well as at other locations. Why not enable checks inside ROI and NI within 20km of the border and make a special addiitional zone for checks at the NI ports. That way it wouldn't look like an NI / .UK border but the convenience of existing port checks could be leveraged for the really threatening trade - which is presumably headed for the mainland from ROI (or vice versa) rather than NI itself?

I would have thought SME exceptions would cover a lot of commercial traffic?

I note that the commercial traffic figure is very high (14,000 daily)... given that figure must include every farm jeep travelling each way it has to be a fair assumption that the true commercial traffic which ought to be checked is a lot lower. Ireland has always had a very high number of pseudo commercial vehicles because of the motor tax regime.

Dundalk is 10k from the border, as are a lot of big regional towns. I can imagine customs officers randomly checking car boots as they leave the aldi on the Dublin rd

Imreoir2

kowtow wrote: »

I suspect they might end up being in ports as well as at other locations. Why not enable checks inside ROI and NI within 20km of the border and make a special addiitional zone for checks at the NI ports. That way it wouldn't look like an NI / .UK border but the convenience of existing port checks could be leveraged for the really threatening trade - which is presumably headed for the mainland from ROI (or vice versa) rather than NI itself?

I would have thought SME exceptions would cover a lot of commercial traffic?

I note that the commercial traffic figure is very high (14,000 daily)... given that figure must include every farm jeep travelling each way it has to be a fair assumption that the true commercial traffic which ought to be checked is a lot lower. Ireland has always had a very high number of pseudo commercial vehicles because of the motor tax regime.

The reality is that a frictionless border can't exist between two seperate customs areas. For the border to remain frictionless, NI must stay in the EU customs union and single market, it can't work any other way. The external controlls of the CU&SM will have to be at NI's ports, the UK has already committed to no new infastructure at the border. Putting infastructure 1km or 20km away from the border is not a credible solution to no new border infastructure.

Is any part of Donegall more than 20Km from the border? More than 2/3 of NI is within 20km of the border.

Sassygirl1999

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Is any part of Donegall more than 20Km from the border? More than 2/3 of NI is within 20km of the border.

i cant understand what you mean by this

i mean clearly much of Donegal is more than 20km from the border and 2/3 seems to over estimate the amount of NI that is 20km from the border

An Ciarraioch

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Is any part of Donegall more than 20Km from the border? More than 2/3 of NI is within 20km of the border.

i cant understand what you mean by this

i mean clearly much of Donegal is more than 20km from the border and 2/3 seems to over estimate the amount of NI that is 20km from the border

You'd be surprised - there was a map in the previous thread, when a British proposal suggested a customs border 10 miles in from the actual Border, and huge chunks of Tyrone, Derry, Fermanagh and Armagh were within the shaded area:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1UC0K0RfJGP9yDb8fA7rXlvP1ETVCw66R&ll=54.546579539920735%2C-6.844482400000061&z=8

LeinsterDub

The U.K. government aims to address one of the big challenges of Brexit by creating a so-called inland port where imported goods can be checked without causing logjams at the coast, two people with knowledge of the plan said.

This is like madness anyone from a customs background care to comment?

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-20/u-k-said-to-establish-a-post-brexit-port-70-miles-from-the-sea?__twitter_impression=true

kowtow

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This is like madness anyone from a customs background care to comment?

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-20/u-k-said-to-establish-a-post-brexit-port-70-miles-from-the-sea?__twitter_impression=true

Why in particular is it madness?

I suppose at least it's encouraging that the Brits are doing something to prepare for no deal.

Sassygirl1999

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

You'd be surprised - there was a map in the previous thread, when a British proposal suggested a customs border 10 miles in from the actual Border, and huge chunks of Tyrone, Derry, Fermanagh and Armagh were within the shaded area:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1UC0K0RfJGP9yDb8fA7rXlvP1ETVCw66R&ll=54.546579539920735%2C-6.844482400000061&z=8

that's 15.4 km

LeinsterDub

kowtow wrote: »

Why in particular is it madness?

I suppose at least it's encouraging that the Brits are doing something to prepare for no deal.

How do you ensure stuff doesn't go missing en route to this inland port? Seems like a smugglers dream.

murphaph

LeinsterDub wrote: »

How do you ensure stuff doesn't go missing en route to this inland port? Seems like a smugglers dream.

I suppose the road would need a fence. The only example I can think of is Basel airport, which is actually in France, but has separate customs channels do you can arrive into either France or Switzerland. If you arrive into CH you must exit the airport onto this road which only leads to CH and iirc has fences along it.

Kermit.de.frog

UK cabinet wants Canada style trade deal according to tomorrow's Telegraph.

That won't work with out a more stringent contingency for the north - which means a border down the Irish sea.

DUP won't like that.

An Ciarraioch

This is reportedly the compromise motion proposed for the Labour conference - all fairly concrete until that final sentence, which appears to be sufficiently woolly to cover Deal, No Deal or Remain:

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1043963266400223232/photo/1

boardise

Is the UK now kicking the Canada down the road ?

ancapailldorcha

Royal Historical Society historian Christopher Kissane has written this excellent article for the Irish Times simulatenously exploring and debunking the various comparisons that have been made between Brexit and various events in Britain's past. It's well worth reading and isn't too long.

Highlights:

The Brexiteers’ historical narrative begins by mangling the medieval. “The first Eurosceptic,” according to Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, was the ninth-century Anglo-Saxon King Alfred the Great, who defeated the Norse ‘great heathen army’ in 865. Rees-Mogg likens the European Union to the Vikings, opposing a financial settlement with Brussels by quoting Kipling’s warning: “If once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.”

The absurd anachronisms keep coming: the Guardian offers us Anglo-Danish “King Canute’s lessons for Brexit”, while MEP Daniel Hannan christens the Battle of Hastings “England’s Nakba” (the Arabic term for the Palestinian exodus of 1948), the beginning of centuries of “oppression” (of England, in case you’re confused).....

Tory MP Michael Fabricant reaches back even further, hoping that prime minister Theresa May becomes “the new Boudica”, perhaps forgetting that the Celtic leader poisoned herself after her failed uprising against Roman rule.

Seems that these Brexiteers have been using historical comparisons to fashion some sort of grand victimhood narrative for the UK which buckle under scrutiny though Christopher Kissane is a professional historian. I suppose Boris Johnson is as well. It's just another political tragedy in a time of tragedy that instead of actually governing, they retreat at the first time of trouble to their luxurious manors and mansions to write their newspaper columns whereas the rest of us have to actually live with this mess.

kowtow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

UK cabinet wants Canada style trade deal according to tomorrow's Telegraph.

That won't work with out a more stringent contingency for the north - which means a border down the Irish sea.

DUP won't like that.

Another paper due out tomorrow on technical solutions to the Irish border.

I think we're going to hear a lot about the refusal to work together on a technical solution being an example of EU bad faith. There is also some suggestion of a WTO exemption for small business based on the peace process / special circumstances of Northern Ireland.

In any case some sort of a pivot towards Canada seems the likely direction.

The Irish border issue is going to be more dramatized, rather than less I think.

Will be an interesting time for Leo & Co.

Water John

This the one from the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA)?
This the crowd with the second bank account, unknown donors.