Brexit discussion thread IV

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

Agree with Taytoland, I've never really been able to understand how the Backstop does not impinge on the GFA anymore that a border.

My thinking was that the EU put in the backstop on the very idea that it would never actually be needed, and would never be acceptable. My feeling is that that is the UK's position.

The problem is, that the UK have failed to come up with any credible alternative (which I agree really is only staying in the CU and SM). It looked like TM was attempting to move that way with Chequers but she has completed rowed back on that at this stage.

I think the EU is aware of that and knows that continuing to push for no border in NI is pushing the UK in one of two ways, and looking like the hard brexit option. But that was always likely to be the outcome anyway, so this was a way to try to get the UK to stay.

It looks like it will fail.

How is the backstop against the GFA?
Both communities will still have their right to identify as they wish.

A change in the customs arrangements won't hinder that.

interlocked

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Sorry, but this is not true. Checks in Belfast port do not rip up the GFA. Nor do they interfere with the UK constitution. If they did then it would not be possible to carry out veterinary checks in Belfast port as is the case currently. It is the UK's position that they do not want to have two different customs arrangements in the UK, but there is nothing to say that they can not have two customs arrangements in the UK.

The UK has already agreed to a backstop to prevent a hard border, it is up to the UK to honor it's agreements.

Barnier just made that exact point about veterinary checks in Belfast

Dyr

Enzokk wrote: »

Delayed press conference always worries me, you never know what the delay is about.

Looking at the BBC coverage of Theresa May this morning the message is very much that they have moved their position and its now up to the EU to do the same. That doesn't make sense but that is the message.

The second message is very much still that there will be no border between Ireland and NI and there will be no border between NI and the rest of the UK. Once again that circle needs to be squared and the white paper will not do it. Add into that the ERG amendments and it is complicated even further. We will have to see what the message is from Barnier to the white paper, although I am getting nervous that the EU will go a little nuclear on the UK to get things going as at the moment nothing constructive is happening.

It's the Jacob Rees Mogg position, basically saying "we're not going to put a border up so we won't be breaking the GFA what you lot do is up to yourselves"

lawred2

Bambi wrote: »

It's the Jacob Rees Mogg position, basically saying "we're not going to put a border up so we won't be breaking the GFA what you lot do is up to yourselves"

grand

We'll see how long that lasts when everyone cottons on that Northern Ireland is an unsecured backdoor into the Great Britain

Dyr

lawred2 wrote: »

grand

We'll see how long that lasts when everyone cottons on that Northern Ireland is an unsecured backdoor into the Great Britain

The backdoor swings both ways though and we don't have a sea border between us an NI

It's a stupid position but it seems to be where they're going

Tropheus

Bambi wrote: »

It's the Jacob Rees Mogg position, basically saying "we're not going to put a border up so we won't be breaking the GFA what you lot do is up to yourselves"

Mogg frequently refers to WTO rules. If he understood the first rule of WTO, he should know that the UK would have to secure its borders. Throwing their borders open isn't an option.

Taytoland

Tropheus wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

It's the Jacob Rees Mogg position, basically saying "we're not going to put a border up so we won't be breaking the GFA what you lot do is up to yourselves"

Mogg frequently refers to WTO rules.  If he understood the first rule of WTO, he should know that the UK would have to secure its borders.  Throwing their borders open isn't an option.

That would be a new concept!

volchitsa

Tropheus wrote: »

Mogg frequently refers to WTO rules. If he understood the first rule of WTO, he should know that the UK would have to secure its borders. Throwing their borders open isn't an option.

Presumably if they did, then all UK/EU reciprocal border agreements would be up for grabs? I suspect if the immigration one at Calais fell apart, that would be very painful for the British, if that was the road they chose to go down.

ambro25

Tropheus wrote: »

Mogg frequently refers to WTO rules. If he understood the first rule of WTO, he should know that the UK would have to secure its borders. Throwing their borders open isn't an option.

For a disaster capitalist, it very much is the option.

Rule 1 of appraising any new political or economic experiment, since the year dot: find out, who profits most from the crime?

(a.k.a. follow the money)

Leroy42

Tropheus wrote: »

Mogg frequently refers to WTO rules. If he understood the first rule of WTO, he should know that the UK would have to secure its borders. Throwing their borders open isn't an option.

It totally is an option. There is no requirement within WTO to secure borders, or maintain them or charge tariffs or check anything.

It is in a country's interest to do all these things as otherwise they lose all control. What might trip them up is the selectivity of it. Why would goods travelling to Liverpool be checked but not into the North.

But the UK not saying the external border into the North will be open, only the border with ROI.

What the UK is banking on is that ROI will maintain its borders properly and as such the only goods able to travel into NI (and thus into the UK) will at the minimum meet the EU standards and thus be fine for them.

Dyr

Leroy42 wrote: »

What the UK is banking on is that ROI will maintain its borders properly and as such the only goods able to travel into NI (and thus into the UK) will at the minimum meet the EU standards and thus be fine for them.

Does the EU have a standard for Mark 10 mortars?

cml387

Leroy42 wrote: »

It totally is an option. There is no requirement within WTO to secure borders, or maintain them or charge tariffs or check anything.

It is in a country's interest to do all these things as otherwise they lose all control. What might trip them up is the selectivity of it. Why would goods travelling to Liverpool be checked but not into the North.

But the UK not saying the external border into the North will be open, only the border with ROI.

What the UK is banking on is that ROI will maintain its borders properly and as such the only goods able to travel into NI (and thus into the UK) will at the minimum meet the EU standards and thus be fine for them.

Yes, we'd have to install the checks, for revenue protection.
I'm old enough to remember the butter smugglers, because butter was cheaper in Northern Ireland. To protect our farmers we'd have to restrict agricultural imports.

Enzokk

I may have this wrong but the summary of the press conference seems to be that there are questions that the white paper needs to clear up. The white paper is not a negotiation position for these talks, but there are positive aspects to it that can be used.

The EU still stands by Ireland. The backstop needs to be agreed, it has to be legally sound. Theresa May agreed to this in a letter to Donald Tusk in March and the EU is taking that as her position and not her recent pronouncements. If there is no legal backstop then there is no way they can move onto the transition where trade talks can start.

Any deal will need to ensure that there is no negative effects to any EU members. There is only 13 weeks left to sort this out, and at the same time they are working on the joint political declaration that will form the basis of the future relationship.

Did I miss anything?

Silent Running

My understanding of WTO rules is that if you allow unrestricted/unchecked trade with one country, you must allow the same for all countries. The Chinese would lap up that cream.

Disclaimer: I could be completely wrong in my understanding.

LeinsterDub

Silent Running wrote: »

My understanding of WTO rules is that if you allow unrestricted/unchecked trade with one country, you must allow the same for all countries. The Chinese would lap up that cream.

Disclaimer: I could be completely wrong in my understanding.

Everyone should read this [url] https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/07/18/does-the-wto-require-countries-to-control-their-borders/[/url]

briany

Tropheus wrote: »

Mogg frequently refers to WTO rules. If he understood the first rule of WTO, he should know that the UK would have to secure its borders. Throwing their borders open isn't an option.

Seems like a glaring hole in the in the rhetoric of a man who's able to answer more or less anything put to him. Has someone not asked him this question?

lawred2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Everyone should read this https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/...mpression=true

did you mean this?

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/07/18/does-the-wto-require-countries-to-control-their-borders/

Leroy42

Silent Running wrote: »

My understanding of WTO rules is that if you allow unrestricted/unchecked trade with one country, you must allow the same for all countries. The Chinese would lap up that cream.

Disclaimer: I could be completely wrong in my understanding.

That is true, however, there is the argument that they could use special case pleading based on the GFA to exclude NI (this is a very divided opinion and would have to be tested). But even so, how likely is it that a Chinese (or whatever) company would send products through ROI ports, Travel to NI and then onto the mainland? The Costs would be will over any tariff and the time more than most checks.

As I mentioned, basically the UK are subcontracting the norder issue back to to ROI. JRM is quite right that they will not put up a border.

The issue is more an EU issue. UK is pretty confident that anything in from ROI will be fine (as it currently is) but ROI, and by extension the EU, can have no confidence that the UK will maintain its regime and thus will have to check everything coming from NI.

I agree everyone should have a read of this;

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/...their-borders/

Nody

Silent Running wrote: »

My understanding of WTO rules is that if you allow unrestricted/unchecked trade with one country, you must allow the same for all countries. The Chinese would lap up that cream.

Disclaimer: I could be completely wrong in my understanding.

You're thinking of the most favoured clause and you are correct as long as it is not done under some form of FTA (allowed for example EU is one FTA area) or national security reasons (allows you to discriminate which is US claim for the steel tolls for example) as a short version.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is true, however, there is the argument that they could use special case pleading based on the GFA to exclude NI (this is a very divided opinion and would have to be tested). But even so, how likely is it that a Chinese (or whatever) company would send products through ROI ports, Travel to NI and then onto the mainland? The Costs would be will over any tariff and the time more than most checks.

As I mentioned, basically the UK are subcontracting the norder issue back to to ROI. JRM is quite right that they will not put up a border.

The issue is more an EU issue. UK is pretty confident that anything in from ROI will be fine (as it currently is) but ROI, and by extension the EU, can have no confidence that the UK will maintain its regime and thus will have to check everything coming from NI.

I agree everyone should have a read of this;

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/...their-borders/

Except it's not because of VAT. The issue is not the goods coming in meeting UK standards (they will) but the fact it will be a zero risk VAT fraud of epic proportions. Driving in ONE truck of legally bought cigarettes without paying any fees for it is worth around half a million GBP purely on what you saved in VAT duties; sell them on with a few quid mark up (but still well below UK vatted) and that will go up well beyond a million quid profit. That is one single truck netting you half a million; now add in booze or anything else with point duties etc. and suddenly you're talking multibillion a month scale of VAT scams going on with zero controls on UK side to stop you flooding the UK main land markets as well as close to risk free as you can get. How long do you think the UK government will accept losing that amount of money by not having controls?

ancapailldorcha

Bambi wrote: »

Does the EU have a standard for Mark 10 mortars?

No more pithy comments please.

Silent Running

That was indeed an interesting read. It doesn't look like it's black and white though. Until it's tested, the situation seems to remain unclear.

Leroy42

Good point Nody. Would we not be charged VAT etc on the shipment coming in?

I know that still leads to a loss for the UK, but it might be that they are banking on it not be enough to bother (in any material way).

McGiver

And in the meantime the Tory delusion goes on. Apparently the White Paper, which doesn't even contain ERG amendments, is the "final offer".

Brexiteer Commons leader Andrea Leadsom also put some pressure on May, saying the EU must be told the Chequers blueprint, which has divided the Conservative Party, is the “final offer” rather than an opening gambit.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Good point Nody. Would we not be charged VAT etc on the shipment coming in?

I know that still leads to a loss for the UK, but it might be that they are banking on it not be enough to bother (in any material way).

But they can claim the VAT back when exporting it out of of Ireland; UK is then suppose to add the VAT on it but someone "forget" to tell Revenue about it and since there are no border controls...

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

But they can claim the VAT back when exporting it out of of Ireland; UK is then suppose to add the VAT on it but someone "forget" to tell Revenue about it and since there are no border controls...

But surely exporting would need paperwork, the ROI government can't simply accept it on faith can they?

So export licence to NI, and thus UK simply gets a copy of all requests and charges accordingly.

seamus

McGiver wrote: »

And in the meantime the Tory delusion goes on. Apparently the White Paper, which doesn't even contain ERG amendments, is the "final offer".

You can't make threats while holding the gun to your own head.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely exporting would need paperwork, the ROI government can't simply accept it on faith can they?

So export licence to NI, and thus UK simply gets a copy of all requests and charges accordingly.

Using Switzerland as an example there will be a customs office at the border they would go to with a truck parking lot which leads directly out to the border to the highway without a way to turn back. They file the paperwork, get it stamped etc. and of they go. What happens once it crosses the UK border is of no interest for Ireland; that's up to UK to control as all Ireland cares about is that the goods have been confirmed to leave Irish soil.

Water John

The Tory Party negotiated with itself and expects the EU to accept the results.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

The Tory Party negotiated with itself and expects the EU to accept the results.

The Tory Party negotiated with itself and lost.

McGiver

seamus wrote: »

You can't make threats while holding the gun to your own head.

I'll need to update the summary of the current state of Brexit negoatiations then.
"You can't negotiate with a fog that threatens to disperse itself"

I wonder, are these MPs really so thick and arrogant or is that just a drama for their own constituencies?

ancapailldorcha

I came across this today:



Emphasis on "Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave." I don't know how there isn't more anger about this sort of thing. Cummings knew he was promising unicorns and had no qualms about doing so, nor did Johnson and Gove who were senior government figures at the time.

Dyr

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No more pithy comments please.

Allow me to rephrase so you don't miss the point:

If the UK think that they'll have no need of border controls in NI once they rip up the GFA then they may find, in the medium term, that they were very, very wrong

Leroy42

UK flights ‘will not be able to land in Ireland’ without post-Brexit deal
Irish Aviation Authority confirms that UK carriers will lose rights in hard Brexit

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/uk-flights-will-not-be-able-to-land-in-ireland-without-post-brexit-deal-1.3571311

I assume that the opposite it true, that ROI and EU flights will not be able to land in the UK

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I assume that the opposite it true, that ROI and EU flights will not be able to land in the UK

Correct, without a deal it'll be volcano time in the UK.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1020294413405360129

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1020278953993531392

trellheim

Translation of Barnier's presser

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-4626_en.htm

Ladies and gentlemen,

These were some of the questions we discussed yesterday with Dominic Raab.

We will continue this discussion. And we will look constructively at the answers that we will get to our questions.

But our main focus must be the finalisation of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Let me recall that the Withdrawal Agreement is the prerequisite for an orderly withdrawal, for the transition period, and for creating the trust that we need to build a solid partnership for the future.

This requires in particular a legally operative backstop – an "all-weather insurance policy" – to address the issues of Ireland and Northern Ireland. All 27 Member States insist on this.

Why? Because we are committed to protecting Ireland and Northern Ireland against the consequences of Brexit and to preserve the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.

I said this on my last visit to Ireland and Northern Ireland a few weeks ago, where I engaged with stakeholders across both communities.

Let me simply recall the commitment taken by Prime Minister Theresa May to have a backstop in her letter to President Tusk in March. The respect of this commitment is essential.

And I made clear to Dominic Raab yesterday that we are not asking for a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. What we need is checks on goods because the UK wants to leave the Single Market, the Customs Union and our common commercial policy.

We cannot afford to lose time on this issue. And this is why we have invited the UK to work on the backstop next week.

We are open to any solutions as long as they are workable and can be transformed into a legally operative text in time for the Withdrawal Agreement.

*

Ladies and gentlemen,

Even if we want to reach a deal, it is also our responsibility to be prepared for all scenarios, including a "no deal".

As the European Council said, we have to step up preparation at all levels, for all scenarios.

And the Communication adopted by the Commission yesterday should be read in this context.

We are encouraging national administrations and companies to use the time we have, which is very short, to accelerate this preparation.

*

Imreoir2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1020294413405360129

A crowd of teenagers are a more effective opposition than Corbyn!

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

I assume that the opposite it true, that ROI and EU flights will not be able to land in the UK

Correct, without a deal it'll be volcano time in the UK.

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

Taytoland

She had to make a deal with the DUP for some form of sustainable government and the DUP have a huge mandate, so just what the kids are on about is anyone's guess. They get the votes.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

But it clearly says in the article that they will lose the rights, and unlike trade there is no WTO fallback.

Are you saying the IAA are wrong?

Planes from all over the world land in the UK because of EU regs. So that plane will be still able to land in Dublin or Paris. If the UK sign up to the EU regs then, yes they can still land, but we are talking about a no deal scenario.

And when you say may, what does that mean? They either will or they won't. Do you mean they may unless a deal is reached?

trellheim

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

oh boy a lot of reading to be done .... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_II_Agreement#Aftermath for a starter for 10

Imreoir2

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

They will also lose the legal framework for certifying aircraft. They are covered under EU agreements now, if they crash out, the certs they issue will not be worth the paper they are written on outside the UK.

EdgeCase

The most depressing aspect of this whole fiasco is the way UK political debate has been utterly debased and reduced to the level of factual analysis you would expect in a pub or a talk radio phone in.

Experts are vilified, documents are not read, widely available information on all sorts of processes, treaties and legislation that are all fully in the public domain are not being looked at by politicians or commentators. Journalists are going into interviews without any kind of knowledge and seem to be incapable of calling out utter nonsense when it is presented as fact in debate.

The quality of British public debate is simply being destroyed by Brexit.

If you compare it with the kind of discussions that went on here during the financial crisis, it's like chalk and cheese. There were public debates Ireland about the nuances of economics, markets, banking and finance regulation and the people talking about it, whatever side of the debates they were on, or if they were hosting debates were damn well briefed and read themselves into the topics.

Also the level of public knowledge on the subjects increased rapidly as it rolled on and people were pretty clued in about what was happening.

The contrast with the UK at the moment is frightening. I am seeing debates that are just pure rhetoric and hot air and people quite happily operating in factual vacuums when they are actually talking about intricate treaty law.

I really think this is one of the lowest periods I've ever seen in British politics and political debate. it's an absolute shame to see a country that often had very high standards of public and political discourse just turning into a society that now seems to pride itself on ignorance and obtuseness.

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

We have different opinions on what effect their votes may have had. We can play the game of what may possibly happen with people's opinion of Sinn Fein and how they could possibly have reacted. Either way it didn't matter as the Labour votes for the government was the crucial difference.

That leads me to your reply above. You would need to show me where I blamed Sinn Fein for the Labour rebels not voting with their party. I was comparing the reaction of supporters of both parties (I am assuming you are a Sinn Fein supporter) to each other. They are deflecting or at least trying to deflect the attention from their own parties and decisions so that people wouldn't focus too hard on their actions.

I blame Labour a million times more for this than Sinn Fein. The simple truth is that those amendments could have been overturned had they not voted against their party. This could also possible have led to a motion of confidence against the government. Not the Sinn Fein votes but the Labour rebels. But their is an interesting what if question regarding those seats that SF holds in Westminster, especially with the majority this small.

How very dare you. :P

I'm very far from an SF supporter. I just don't see how anyone with ay sense can think that them taking up their seats matters in the grand scheme of a HoC vote.

Anyway, leave it there. Time has moved on and we are now at todays omnishambles.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Fascinating the difference in the comments sections when Tusk or Juncker say something that the Mail/Express people don't like as opposed to when Leo says something.
They don't get stereotypically derogatory towards the entire population of Luxembourg, or suggest threatening their military power against Poland. I understand it's partly that Leo is the serving PM whereas the other two are exPMs with different roles now, but there does seem to be a healthy dashing of anti-Irish racism in there.

I suspect it's because they know precious little about Luxembourg and Polish people and culture. not that they know much about us mind.

judeboy101 wrote: »

A by election can be triggered by 4000 signatures in north Antrim due to paisley suspension. He has a large majority but it fluctuates from 18k to 28k, if the other parties agreed on a compromise uup candidate who was pro eu the might squeeze him out. They could make it a "vote on brexit" in the unionist heartland.

As safe as seat as you can imagine. No way will his Unionist support collapse. Whatever about your thoughts on him and the Daddy they were very very effective local operators even with their nationalist constituents.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Backstop is still the difficulty?

TM has just ruled out the backstop. There is no backstop.

There was only ever a backstop in the event of a NO DEAL. No deal then we get backstop. have a deal and then there is a solution with the lack of a need for a backstop.

Taytoland wrote: »

She had to make a deal with the DUP for some form of sustainable government and the DUP have a huge mandate, so just what the kids are on about is anyone's guess. They get the votes.

The DUP have a huge mandate? From where?

They have 10/18 MPs (Should be 9 because of South Belfast and SF and SDLP splitting the vote.)

36% vs SF's 29.4% is not a huge difference especially in FPTP.

briany

EdgeCase wrote: »

The most depressing aspect of this whole fiasco is the way UK political debate has been utterly debased and reduced to the level of factual analysis you would expect in a pub or a talk radio phone in.

Experts are vilified, documents are not read, widely available information on all sorts of processes, treaties and legislation that are all fully in the public domain are not being looked at by politicians or commentators. Journalists are going into interviews without any kind of knowledge and seem to be incapable of calling out utter nonsense when it is presented as fact in debate.

The quality of British public debate is simply being destroyed by Brexit.

If you compare it with the kind of discussions that went on here during the financial crisis, it's like chalk and cheese. There were public debates Ireland about the nuances of economics, markets, banking and finance regulation and the people talking about it, whatever side of the debates they were on, or if they were hosting debates were damn well briefed and read themselves into the topics.

Also the level of public knowledge on the subjects increased rapidly as it rolled on and people were pretty clued in about what was happening.

The contrast with the UK at the moment is frightening. I am seeing debates that are just pure rhetoric and hot air and people quite happily operating in factual vacuums when they are actually talking about intricate treaty law.

I really think this is one of the lowest periods I've ever seen in British politics and political debate. it's an absolute shame to see a country that often had very high standards of public and political discourse just turning into a society that now seems to pride itself on ignorance and obtuseness.

It's funny the effect that the Internet has had on political discourse. Yes, it wrested some control from the mainstream media, but some people used that freedom to draw battle lines and dig trenches rather than talk to the other side.

Infini

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

They're leaving the EU with no deal or no backup plan with open skies. Under that scenario planes will be grounded until an agreement is reached because theyre no longer part of existing arrangements. That's the problem with No deal, they'll be up shyte creek without a paddle.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

That is nonsense. Planes from all over the world land in the UK.
After Brexit, UK airlines may lose "fifth freedoms" which is the right to operate services between countries other than the UK.
That's all.

Nope. The UK's airports are all certified through EASA. They are trusted to be able to safely handle aircraft. Aircraft that depart from the UK post Brexit (assuming no deal) will be considered having departed an uncertified and thus potentially unsafe airport, so the landing (anywhere, not just the EU) will have to be treated as a potentially dangerous one and fire tenders put on standby etc. It effectively grounds aircraft in the UK.

EdgeCase

briany wrote: »

It's funny the effect that the Internet has had on political discourse. Yes, it wrested some control from the mainstream media, but some people used that freedom to draw battle lines and dig trenches rather than talk to the other side.

It's not just the internet. The level of knowledge being put forward by everyone from government ministers to major television journalists is just abysmally low. Rhetoric and even blatent lies go totally unchallenged.