Brexit discussion thread IV

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't know that that was ever a red line for the EU.

As we predicted in the last few weeks, the "de-dramatization" by the EU seems to consist of letting the UK spin accepting one of the EUs existing offers as a victory.

But this deal still needs to get through Parliament - the DUP are quite likely to reject it, and Labour will not want to allow May to claim a victory...

lawred2

Is it actually possible for NI to be in a single market for goods alone? I thought single market had to include services and FOM (and whatever else)

kuro68k

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, yes, the backstop could continue for a very long time, potentially indefinitely.

I'd be happy for us to hit the backstop and just get stuck there forever due to lack of political will to do anything else.

May be the next best thing to EEA membership or staying in the SM/CU.

EdgeCase

I remain totally unconvinced.
The British Government simply does not have the political mandate to negotiate something like this because of the DUP and the hardline Brexiters. Whatever about the PM or cabinet's point of view, they simply cannot deliver anything as they will be undermined at the last moment, just like they were on every previous negotiation.

The EU side has a clear point of view, the UK side is like a pub brawl and to make matters worse, Theresa May is an exceptionally weak PM. She really needs to channel a bit of Mrs Thatcher and actually put it up to those who keep undermining her position. She can't continue to attempt to sit on the fence and try to be everything to everyone at all times.

I think that you've a huge problem. The Tories are more afraid of losing power, particularly to Corbyn, than they are of a Brexit crash out, and they are utterly incapable of delivering anything else other than mess because they are both internally divided on the issue and they are being propped up by the DUP.

We all know that the DUP won't back any kind of compromise. There's no point in kidding ourselves. They're utterly hardline on this and dogmatic and probably seeing it as a way of putting Northern Ireland's constitutional status permanently into the union. They were never backers of the GFA and only really got dragged along with it by circumstances and Ian Paisley's odd softening in his old age. I don't honestly believe that party thinks pragmatically or has any particular concern about the Northern Ireland economy as long as they're achieving their political agenda which is entirely about national identity issues and hardline social conservative opposition to a number of religious fundamentalist issues i.e. total opposition to gay marriage and abortion. I would strongly suspect they would be willing to sacrifice the Northern Irish economy or risk the peace process for the sake of getting their agenda rammed through. I also don't think Arleen Foster's personal point of view is necessarily in line with the rest of the party. She's very much the pragmatic, sensible leader of a party that is ultra-hardline on a whole load of issues.

If the DUP really cared bout Northern Ireland as a whole, they would just pull the emergency cord and get off this train wreck of a British government and try and preserve the status quo, but instead they're quite happy to go along with a notion that they wield power.

Depressingly, I think we are headed for a crash out in March following on from a few months of UK political chaos. The political brawl in the UK just keeps rumbling on and getting ever closer to the cliff.

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

Is it actually possible for NI to be in a single market for goods alone?

The EU has stated from the start that they were pushing the idea that NI could have a special status which no-one else can get.

Zubeneschamali

EdgeCase wrote: »

The Tories are more afraid of losing power, particularly to Corbyn, than they are of a Brexit crash out, and they are utterly incapable of delivering anything else other than mess because they are both internally divided on the issue and they are being propped up by the DUP.

They have been, up to know, more afraid of losing power than telling the truth. But May and the serious players are well aware that a crash out in march would end the Tory party for a generation. They will certainly go for some sort of deal.

So we have to consider: will Mogg and the ERG rebel? How many will back him to get Mad Max brexit? Will Labour risk a crashout to try and bring the Govt down, or just let it through so that the Tories own it at the next election? Will the DUP jump ship?

seamus

For people like me, whose brain is melted by different phrases, I've tried to piece together what a UK CU + NI SM is supposed to mean;

UK customs union: Means that the UK is tied to the EU for all customs rules; goods travelling in and out of the jurisdiction. This means that for goods arriving the UK, things basically don't change. The UK applies excise/tarriffs to the goods, and then they're free to travel on into the EU.

Northern Ireland single market: Northern Ireland basically acts like it's in the EU. People, money, goods and services are free to move between NI and the EU.

What does the UK get from this? Import/Export of goods basically remains unaffected. And they get to piggyback on the EU's trade agreements for good import/export.

What does the EU get from this? Well, the Northern Ireland issue is "fixed" for one. Goods will be allowed to flow freely in and out of Northern Ireland, and border checks will only be necessary on people travelling between NI and the UK. It also means that the UK will not be allowed negotiate its own trade deals for goods, and will likely still be subject to EU rules and standards.

There would be a substantial boon for NI in this: a company could operate a "dual-footed" base in Belfast providing services into the EU and the UK. Chances are there'd be some level of rules requiring the revenue to be split, but that's just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet. A company in Dublin couldn't sell services into the UK without paying extra tarriffs on their business.

Of course, I could be wrong about the whole lot above; anyone who knows more please correct me!

trellheim

As I said a few pages back the fun here will be getting it over the line. As Enzo pointed out the choreography to the DUP and ERG is the important thing.

HOWEVER most if its out in the open now .

David Davis has written a spoiling letter to all MPs ( not a bad letter I found myself nodding at some of it ! ) . Google and you'll get it.

Here's RAAB last night in the HoC

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-10-09/debates/F7F959AD-FE66-4A20-A765-1E3F791C15ED/EUExitNegotiations

edit : Starmer holding his feet to the fire - worth a read.


Raab :

"The shadow Secretary of State asked whether we were signing up to an indefinite customs union for Northern Ireland; no, that is categorically not correct." ??

ok some clarity lower down

"The reality is that we have committed, on top of the technical solutions, to agree a legally binding backstop with the EU, but it ​will have to be temporary"

Hurrache

Arlene brings a handbag to her meeting with Guy Verhofstadt to remind herself as to her stance
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1049949886190419968

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

border checks will only be necessary on people travelling between NI and the UK.

The UK never had any intention of having new border checks on people entering anywhere.

They will try to control immigration a different way - by having landlords and employers demand "papers, please" from everyone, and refuse to rent to or employ anyone who can't prove they have a right to reside and work in the UK.

Of course existing police/security checks will remain, looking for terrorists etc.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

"The reality is that we have committed, on top of the technical solutions, to agree a legally binding backstop with the EU, but it ​will have to be temporary"

The EU will agree to this if what they mean by temporary is that it only lasts until it is replaced by some agreed better system.

They will not agree if it means it only lasts until some fixed date like Jan 1 2025, whether it is replaced or not, since that would just be a transitional period to a hard border.

cml387

Barry Gardiner (shadow trade) has described his party's six tests as "boll*cks".

Essentially they are designed so that nothing the PM brings back can satisfy the tests, therefore Labour voting against any deal is a certainty.

Remember the leadership could care less about Europe, it's about getting an election and ushering in Corbyn's socialist utopia.

Hurrache

cml387 wrote: »

Barry Gardiner (shadow trade) has described his party's six tests as "boll*cks".

Essentially they are designed so that nothing the PM brings back can satisfy the tests, therefore Labour voting against any deal is a certainty.

Remember the leadership could care less about Europe, it's about getting an election and ushering in Corbyn's socialist utopia.

Labour aren't guaranteed to have their members abide by the whip
https://twitter.com/Simon_Gardner/status/1049936045662527488

EdgeCase

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They have been, up to know, more afraid of losing power than telling the truth. But May and the serious players are well aware that a crash out in march would end the Tory party for a generation.

I don't agree that May and the front bench are serious about this at all. They seem to only care about the party in-fighting and ensuring their particular factions win. I also don't think that a crash-out Brexit would end the Tory party for a generation. They've effectively got a choice between two parties and there's absolutely no prospect of the Tories imploding. They're polling quite well at the moment and even in a crash-out scenario, they will just blame everyone else and their loyal followers will buy it.

It's not Ireland and I would strongly suspect that if there's a crash out and their economy goes bang, they will blame the EU, blame migration, blame anyone except their own policies.

Your are talking about what are probably the most irresponsible politicians the UK has seen in generations.

ArmaniJeanss

cml387 wrote: »

Barry Gardiner (shadow trade) has described his party's six tests as "boll*cks".

Essentially they are designed so that nothing the PM brings back can satisfy the tests, therefore Labour voting against any deal is a certainty.

Remember the leadership could care less about Europe, it's about getting an election and ushering in Corbyn's socialist utopia.

Yes, the 6 tests are bollocks.
Yet they are also perfectly reasonable in the context of 'easiest trade deal ever', 'they need us more than they we need them' and general utopia that was sold back in 2016.
Starmer played it well here, he got the 6 tests to be labour policy just before people in the uk started realising that utopia was a lie.

Zubeneschamali

EdgeCase wrote: »

They seem to only care about the party in-fighting and ensuring their particular factions win.

May doesn't just want to lead the Tory party, she wants to be PM. Deliberately triggering the worst calamity to hit the UK since WWII will guarantee that she loses the next election, which would mean she is finished forever as PM and leader.

Staying PM through the summer meant keeping the Brexiteers onside, hence Chequers and all that nonsense. Staying PM through Brexit itself will mean getting a deal, which means facing down the Brexiteers.

And the only time to get a deal is between now and at the latest November. So May will have to face down the Brexiteers in the next month or lose everything.

Nody

seamus wrote: »

For people like me, whose brain is melted by different phrases, I've tried to piece together what a UK CU + NI SM is supposed to mean;

UK customs union: Means that the UK is tied to the EU for all customs rules; goods travelling in and out of the jurisdiction. This means that for goods arriving the UK, things basically don't change. The UK applies excise/tarriffs to the goods, and then they're free to travel on into the EU.

Disagree, being part of the CU does not mean free flow of goods because the CU is only about tariffs etc.; the controls on goods standardization would still need to be there which is what's the difference between CU and SM (average testing is about 20%; in certain cases such as New Zeeland lamb it can go all the way down to 1% over time but the tests are always there). For example Turkey is in a CU with EU but there is definitive controls at the border. Same applies for Norway etc. Hence there is not going to be frictionless trading going on; only tariff free trading.

Northern Ireland single market: Northern Ireland basically acts like it's in the EU. People, money, goods and services are free to move between NI and the EU.

Agree; and allow potentially a free flow into UK if there are no border controls in the UK/NI harbour.

What does the UK get from this? Import/Export of goods basically remains unaffected. And they get to piggyback on the EU's trade agreements for good import/export.

Controls will still go up as noted above. The EU trade deals are written as specifically being from an EU member; expect countries to throw a wrench into things due to this to try to get something extra (see the US article about public procurement which cover EU countries for example were UK has to reapply). Several other treaties such as Airlines etc. would also fall under this category of issues.

What does the EU get from this? Well, the Northern Ireland issue is "fixed" for one. Goods will be allowed to flow freely in and out of Northern Ireland, and border checks will only be necessary on people travelling between NI and the UK. It also means that the UK will not be allowed negotiate its own trade deals for goods, and will likely still be subject to EU rules and standards.

This one would be dependent on what type of CU UK ends up in; as noted Turkey has a CU but it's relatively limited and I could see UK getting certain exceptions (let's say Oranges for example) which they don't produce though the downside of such is controls on anything for such products would be a pain (for example marmelade with oranges would need source of origin proof etc.). The biggest benefit for EU however is that the export to UK is relatively untouched and UK is tied to EU for a while stopping them becoming the 53rd US state basically with limited rules and applied regulation on production next door.

kuro68k

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

May doesn't just want to lead the Tory party, she wants to be PM. Deliberately triggering the worst calamity to hit the UK since WWII will guarantee that she loses the next election, which would mean she is finished forever as PM and leader.

Staying PM through the summer meant keeping the Brexiteers onside, hence Chequers and all that nonsense. Staying PM through Brexit itself will mean getting a deal, which means facing down the Brexiteers.

And the only time to get a deal is between now and at the latest November. So May will have to face down the Brexiteers in the next month or lose everything.

She is hoping she can get a deal, any deal, and then step down during the transition period before the **** hits the fan. Leave triumphant having "delivered" brexit, and let someone else try to clean up the mess.

briany

seamus wrote: »

For people like me, whose brain is melted by different phrases, I've tried to piece together what a UK CU + NI SM is supposed to mean;

UK customs union: Means that the UK is tied to the EU for all customs rules; goods travelling in and out of the jurisdiction. This means that for goods arriving the UK, things basically don't change. The UK applies excise/tarriffs to the goods, and then they're free to travel on into the EU.

Northern Ireland single market: Northern Ireland basically acts like it's in the EU. People, money, goods and services are free to move between NI and the EU.

What does the UK get from this? Import/Export of goods basically remains unaffected. And they get to piggyback on the EU's trade agreements for good import/export.

What does the EU get from this? Well, the Northern Ireland issue is "fixed" for one. Goods will be allowed to flow freely in and out of Northern Ireland, and border checks will only be necessary on people travelling between NI and the UK. It also means that the UK will not be allowed negotiate its own trade deals for goods, and will likely still be subject to EU rules and standards.

There would be a substantial boon for NI in this: a company could operate a "dual-footed" base in Belfast providing services into the EU and the UK. Chances are there'd be some level of rules requiring the revenue to be split, but that's just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet. A company in Dublin couldn't sell services into the UK without paying extra tarriffs on their business.

Of course, I could be wrong about the whole lot above; anyone who knows more please correct me!

You could *maybe* sell the DUP on intra-UK checks if they're purely commercial. The moment you start scrutinising people going from NI to the UK and vice-versa is the moment the DUP go apesh*t. They won't hear any argument about the sea being a natural border anyway. Once you even suggest messing with their ability to freely travel within their country, they'll stop cooperating.

And, really, because the GFA is about giving parity of esteem to both communities, you can't really put a border anywhere, if you want to honour that agreement to its full extent. The GFA and Brexit are seemingly incompatible.

Hurrache

Ulster says no (it never gets tired). Wilson appears to imply that after Foster's meeting with Verhofstadt today they see no way forward with a deal.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1049979372332048384

Zubeneschamali

kuro68k wrote: »

She is hoping she can get a deal, any deal, and then step down

Politicians don't "step down" on a high note - they hold on to power until they die or suffer a disaster.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As we predicted in the last few weeks, the "de-dramatization" by the EU seems to consist of letting the UK spin accepting one of the EUs existing offers as a victory.

But this deal still needs to get through Parliament - the DUP are quite likely to reject it, and Labour will not want to allow May to claim a victory...

Even before Parliament, it still needs to get through the executive.

What we have here, from reports, is a text agreed between Ollie Robbins for the UK and Michel Barnier for the EU. Neither of these actually has the power to enter into a binding agreement. The idea is that they both go back to their principals - HMG on one side and the Council of Ministers on the other - and say "This is the exact text which my opposite number is, even as we speak, submitting to his principal. If you can commit to it, he is highly confident that his principal will also commit to it, and then we'll have a deal. But if you ask for any changes, I have to go back to him, and then (a) he may in turn ask for more changes, or (b) he may simply decline to submit a changed text to his principals, if he knows they won't accept it. So you have a chance now to do a deal on these exact terms. Do you want to?"

If and only if HMG and the Commission commit to the deal, then it goes to the UK Parliament and the European Parliament (and the Member States) for ratification.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

The moment you start scrutinising people going from NI to the UK and vice-versa is the moment the DUP go apesh*t.

No-one is threatening to do that. It is an internal border so the EU don't care, and the UK don't even plan to scrutinize people crossing from outside the UK, never mind inside.

J Mysterio

Ultimately it will be a numbers game to pass the eventual deal in UK parliament.

- 10 DUP MP's
+/- How many conservatives MPs?
+/- How many Labour MPs?

May will need plenty of Labour MPs and as many Tories as she can get. What is needed for a majority? 326 (assuming no abstentions)?

Johnson and Rees Mogg seem to be changing their tune and quieting down for the moment.

swampgas

Realistically, if the UK weren't such an incredible mess, we would have had an agreed text like this months (years?) ago.

Most of the factors that have delayed this basic first step of the process are still present - the government's dependence on the DUP, the resistance of ERG, the press propoganda, Labours fence-sitting, TM's lack of charisma and leadership.

We're nowhere near home and dry. But there is a tiny glimmer of hope perhaps.

Lemming

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK never had any intention of having new border checks on people entering anywhere.

They will try to control immigration a different way - by having landlords and employers demand "papers, please" from everyone, and refuse to rent to or employ anyone who can't prove they have a right to reside and work in the UK.

That's worked out so well to date, and hasn't shown up a myriad of unintended consequences that the current crop of charlatans were incapable of 'foreseeing'. Outsourcing immigration control to private individuals under threat of jail time should they make a mistake will (and already has) simply result in path-of-least-resistance decision making; i.e. "no".

Enzokk

Hurrache wrote: »

Ulster says no (it never gets tired). Wilson appears to imply that after Foster's meeting with Verhofstadt today they see no way forward with a deal.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1049979372332048384

But the UK will not be able to agree any of their own trade deals because they will be in a customs union with the EU, so I see no objection to that point. I see an objection to the fact that the UK cannot agree any of their own trade deals and not just from the DUP. Then you still have to get the fact that NI will have different regulations from the UK as they will be in the single market and the UK won't be so there will be that red line that will need to shattered.

At PMQ's it seems that Jeremy Corbyn has done well in taking on May about austerity and her claims that it will end. I did not watch it but it seems he asked her repeatedly about ending austerity and she did not do it specifically. What she did do was state that spending is at record levels, higher than in 2010 but they will still practice fiscal responsibility with the budget.

Seems obvious that her speech last week was a ruse and austerity has not ended. The number of police they had in service before austerity will not be returned to this or next year so it has not ended. Maybe they will stop slashing budgets, although even this is debatable as some cuts that were announced by Osborne will only be felt in the next few years, but it is not an end to austerity. It is more like they have almost scraped to the bottom of the barrel but there is a little water still left, they will not be taking the last bit of water but they will not be filling it up either.

This is why the Conservatives cannot allow a election in the near future. They will be hit hard by voters and they will most likely lose their majority. Add in the chaos of Brexit and even with a leader like Corbyn who most voters like even less than May they will not be in power after an election.

Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs – Politics live

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

They will be hit hard by voters and they will most likely lose their majority.

They already had an election, were hit hard by voters and lost their majority.

Hurrache

She really just changed the term from 'austerity' to it now being 'fiscal responsibility'.

Charles Babbage

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ultimately it will be a numbers game to pass the eventual deal in UK parliament.

- 10 DUP MP's
+/- How many conservatives MPs?
+/- How many Labour MPs?

May will need plenty of Labour MPs and as many Tories as she can get. What is needed for a majority? 326 (assuming no abstentions)?

Johnson and Rees Mogg seem to be changing their tune and quieting down for the moment.

There is also the SNP. Do they oppose a special deal for NI because they don't get it also or do they support the concept of a special deal as it provides a precendent for differences in the UK?