Brexit discussion thread IV

Infini

charlie14 wrote: »

I was of the opinion at the time that should have happened in December to help concentrate their minds

Possibly but the difference between then and now is then they'd blow it off and string it out anyways and the effects would be minimal, now if they call it off it's close enough to be a credible threat to them but still have enough time for an out ONLY if they basically caputulate to the EU's demand's since they blew their chances when they had them.

Spanish Eyes

Just out of curiosity if, (as is looking likely), there is no deal and a crash out results, what happens to Brits abroad and EU citizens in the UK?

The WP with reciprocal arrangements about this is gone now. It is important for many people and I know some of them tonight who are quite fearful for their futures both abroad and in the UK.

But I suppose it will all be sorted, control will be regained and all that. Or something.

kowtow

Akrasia wrote: »

Day 1 without a deal, Britain are no longer in the EU, and no longer have a FTA with the EU. Britain will have to pay WTO customs for every item they trade between the UK and EU. The EU cannot allow the UK to trade customs free without a treaty or else every other country in the world will be able to sue the EU for breaching WTO terms.

Let's say the UK - for their side - implement some half arsed technology and self declaration for exports from Ireland into NI, with no physical infrastructure.

What happens next?

Water John

For the UK, if they don't apply WTO tarriffs at the border, thus leaving EU goods into the UK without tarriffs, then they must extend that right to all other countries. A sort free for all, going for the cheapest product with no attached standards. What JRM wants, but not realistic.

LeinsterDub

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just out of curiosity if, (as is looking likely), there is no deal and a crash out results, what happens to Brits abroad and EU citizens in the UK?

The WP with reciprocal arrangements about this is gone now. It is important for many people and I know some of them tonight who are quite fearful for their futures both abroad and in the UK.

But I suppose it will all be sorted, control will be regained and all that. Or something.

Everything is possible now.There doesn't appear to be any talking to these people. If I was in the UK now I'd not count on the CTA being in effect this time next year.

Imreoir2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just out of curiosity if, (as is looking likely), there is no deal and a crash out results, what happens to Brits abroad and EU citizens in the UK?

The WP with reciprocal arrangements about this is gone now. It is important for many people and I know some of them tonight who are quite fearful for their futures both abroad and in the UK.

But I suppose it will all be sorted, control will be regained and all that. Or something.

I think it's likely that the EU Parliment will push for unilateral continual recognition of UK citizens rights in the EU as was agreed in the withdrawl treaty, even if that treaty is not ratified. The UK will probably do likewise. I can't imagine any EU government wanting to round up and deport hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding members of society. Any one of them would be legally within their rights to do so, however.

Trasna1

kowtow wrote: »

I haven't speculated on whose "fault" any of it is, because that isn't going to make any practical difference to the outcome.

What nobody - in the UK or here - seems to dispute is that Ireland and particularly the border has been made the fulcrum in these EU / .UK negotiations. In part this is inevitable because of the border, but we've certainly done nothing publicly to tone things down or try and persuade them to take the battlefield elsewhere - for perfectly understandable reasons. In fact, we've often done the opposite and held our position in the hotseat out as evidence that the EU is united behind us, which to date it has been.

The questions is, if the UK in effect calls the EU's bluff - by default as looks increasingly likely - and ends up walking away from the table, how do things play out. Who is going to put a hard border up? Will it be the UK? Or - in the face of some real economic headwinds after a hard Brexit - are we going to be doing it ourselves?

It will be up to both countries to erect the hard border.

That is the space we are in now, you might even see boots on the ground in the next few weeks.

Infini

kowtow wrote: »

I haven't speculated on whose "fault" any of it is, because that isn't going to make any practical difference to the outcome.

What nobody - in the UK or here - seems to dispute is that Ireland and particularly the border has been made the fulcrum in these EU / .UK negotiations. In part this is inevitable because of the border, but we've certainly done nothing publicly to tone things down or try and persuade them to take the battlefield elsewhere - for perfectly understandable reasons. In fact, we've often done the opposite and held our position in the hotseat out as evidence that the EU is united behind us, which to date it has been.

The questions is, if the UK in effect calls the EU's bluff - by default as looks increasingly likely - and ends up walking away from the table, how do things play out. Who is going to put a hard border up? Will it be the UK? Or - in the face of some real economic headwinds after a hard Brexit - are we going to be doing it ourselves?

We'll that being said there's no need to put up any infrastructure as such though a blocking of all trucks and cargo from the North would at the least come into effect. The real thing will be when the UK start's crashing hard will the political climate change up the North enough to bring about a UI scenario. Money talks no matter what background your from (except the headbanger super minority) and a hard enough Brexit might shift the mood enough to trigger a border poll.

Losing EU right's and benefit's because of Westminster's folly and them dumping the problem on the local's doorstep could cause a significant enough shift for a proper Border Poll and NI has the unique position of having an OUT from this and rejoining the EU as part of the republic immediately in the event of reunification.

Nate--IRL--

kowtow wrote: »

Let's say the UK - for their side - implement some half arsed technology and self declaration for exports from Ireland into NI, with no physical infrastructure.

What happens next?

It doesn't matter - if Crash out Brexit happens, a Border goes up. It is only by agreement of the two sides that border can be avoided.

If there is no agreement, there is a border.

Nate

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-paris-gare-du-nord-eurostar-rebuilt-border-customs-checks-latest-a8444096.html

SNCF this week unveiled plans to refit Paris’s Gare du Nord, stating that the redevelopment would address “the challenges of reinforced border controls due to Brexit”.

Looks like the Treaty of Le Touquet is back on the agenda. So passport control could move to the UK.

Brexit is lots and lots of little things that all add up.

charlie14

Infini wrote: »

Possibly but the difference between then and now is then they'd blow it off and string it out anyways and the effects would be minimal, now if they call it off it's close enough to be a credible threat to them but still have enough time for an out ONLY if they basically caputulate to the EU's demand's since they blew their chances when they had them.

If they had been made deal with the border issue in December before they were allowed move on to the next phase of talks, they would have had nothing to string out.
We had the backing from our EU partners at the time to do that. Missed opportunity imo.

kowtow

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It doesn't matter - if Crash out Brexit happens, a Border goes up. It is only by agreement of the two sides that border can be avoided.

If there is no agreement, there is a border.

Nate

That makes perfect sense, what I am thinking of is the political implication here of the UK doing exactly what JRM has described in the past - i.e. nothing - and Ireland having to put a (hardened) border there.

Remember we are talking about a crash-out scenario now.

Imreoir2

Ireland, like every member state, is obliged to enforce the Eu's external controls on goods coming from non-EU countires. We apply them to every country in the world not in the EU, and will continue to do so once the UK leaves. The only question is where those controls will be carried out. If the UK does not agree a backstop, then the only option left is to apply them along the land border with NI.

Hopefully NI will opt to reunify with the republic rather than remain in the UK if this becomes necessary as a result of UK negligence.

Capt'n Midnight

Brexit is lots and lots of little things that all add up.

There is no one size fits all for Norn Iron farms. There's no winners. But some will loose more than others.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44848048

MPs were told how unfettered access to the GB market was "key" to sectors such as pigs and poultry and there were opportunities for greater expansion there.

But the politicians were also told how 30% of Northern Ireland milk crosses the border for processing and EU markets were important especially for sheep sales.

...

labour issues post Brexit were important for businesses like his, and he explained how it was becoming increasingly difficult for NI producers to get their vegetables into traditional markets in the Republic of Ireland.

...

He said that without sufficient future support, he feared a "massive shift in concentration" of farming to isolated pockets of NI, leaving 60% of the land mass abandoned.

Nate--IRL--

kowtow wrote: »

That makes perfect sense, what I am thinking of is the political implication here of the UK doing exactly what JRM has described in the past - i.e. nothing - and Ireland having to put a (hardened) border there.

Remember we are talking about a crash-out scenario now.

Politically it'd be short term point scoring. Economically it would see the UK sued into oblivion at the WTO. Or worse, Minfords wet dream with local industry decimated.

Nate

Clare in Exile

The utter madness continues, a border on this island now looks more likely. How on earth has the United Kingdom come to this folly? May has appeared increasingly inept and disingenuous throughout this process - surely her days are numbered.

My only hope is that the EU does indeed stand fully in support of Ireland, and faces down this utter shambles of a negotiating "tactic" from London.

Interesting few days ahead...

Spanish Eyes

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Ireland, like every member state, is obliged to enforce the Eu's external controls on goods coming from non-EU countires. We apply them to every country in the world not in the EU, and will continue to do so once the UK leaves. The only question is where those controls will be carried out. If the UK does not agree a backstop, then the only option left is to apply them along the land border with NI.

Hopefully NI will opt to reunify with the republic rather than remain in the UK if this becomes necessary as a result of UK negligence.

I'm guessing this is exactly what the Brexiteers want. Once they realised that NI was actually a part of the UK and they were paying for it.

Akrasia

kowtow wrote: »

That makes perfect sense, what I am thinking of is the political implication here of the UK doing exactly what JRM has described in the past - i.e. nothing - and Ireland having to put a (hardened) border there.

Remember we are talking about a crash-out scenario now.

Conceivably the UK could allow all imports into the UK tariff free, but the EU certainly won't reciprocate, so you'd have a situation where there is a flood of imports into the UK but a huge tailback on the NI side of the border as every truck is checked and WTO tariffs applied before entry.

This would absolutely destroy UK industry as a lot of logistical chains would be disrupted

Anthracite

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Politically it'd be short term point scoring. Economically it would see the UK sued into oblivion at the WTO. Or worse, Minfords wet dream with local industry decimated.

Nate

That would be fine, because today's unemployed assembly line workers are tomorrow's data scientists and financial engineers.

Infini

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I'm guessing this is exactly what the Brexiteers want. Once they realised that NI was actually a part of the UK and they were paying for it.

Thing is if there is a reunification the UK will be on the hook for any bills and liabilities for their time there. They aint getting out of those costs so easily.

LuckyLloyd

kowtow wrote: »

That's my point really. On day one there is no regulatory divergence, that's a matter of fact, it just happens that the starting point works in the UK's favour here.

Throw your mind forward to Brexit + 1 day.

Apart from the fact that the UK will have bigger fish to fry (if they can land them..) ... who is going to be rushing to beef up the border?

I've seen many people argue that WTO rules will require them to in due course, but interestingly I've not heard that argument so much in the UK (where it could presumably effectively have been used many times against JRM etc.) and even the WTO is a process.

Hard Brexit, Day after - how do people here see a border actually happening?

Ireland (with EU funding and support) will have our border arrangements in place ready to enact at midnight on day one. If the UK let stuff through on their side that’s their economic suicide to deal with.

Realpolitik kicks in now. The EU is above all a highly competent organisation. They’ll put their money where their mouth is in terms of preparing for all eventualities.

Spanish Eyes

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ireland (with EU funding and support) will have our border arrangements in place ready to enact at midnight on day one. If the UK let stuff through on their side that’s their economic suicide to deal with.

Realpolitik kicks in now. The EU is above all a highly competent organisation. They’ll put their money where their mouth is in terms of preparing for all eventualities.

But surely if they are outside regulatory compliance they won't care WHAT comes into their country.

I am aware that there are WTO rules etc. just to mention, but the point still stands.

So it is back to EU and us to protect our goods and services. As ReesMogg said. I dislike that man intensely, but maybe he was right.

I so want to be corrected on this really.

Rain Ascending

I note that the "no-deal" scenario is being described as if it is some form of steady state that lasts long enough to shift sentiment in Northern Ireland and/or result in actions at the WTO by aggrieved countries.

However, the situation in the UK is likely to very unstable. To ensure that basic services are not heavily impacted, the UK government is likely to have to take some drastic actions. Even with the best planning in the world, unintended consequences will arise.

For example, the government will probably have to take control of the big roll-on/roll-off ports like Dover to keep the food supply chain going. The knock-on effect of that will be to add to the already big delays for everything else. JIT manufacturing in the UK is likely to hit the wall very quickly with tens of thousands of staff on temporary layoff. The Dublin-Belfast road, even with full customs and border inspection posts, will be a lot smoother.

This is just one example -- there are plenty other rapid flashpoints, some with no easy mitigations: air transport, pharmaceutical supplies, the grounding of UK trucking companies' EU operations, are the best known.

There is no way that UK politics won't react in some manner. Depending on how things go, we are either looking at a general election or a Lab-Con government of national unity. With the UK's first-past-the-post electoral system, even a small swing in votes in a general election will result in major changes in the composition of the House of Commons, leading to a very different political leadership.

A quick return to the negotiation table with the EU is a very likely outcome. And this would happen much faster than any build-up of tension on the Irish border.

One other low-probability, but not impossible scenario is for a heavy anti-EU reaction to take over in the UK political system. But that would just result in even larger impacts and a heavier turning of the screw ... and we're are back at square one again.

Either way, in the event of a "no-deal" exit, expect there to be more chaos in Westminster than in Northern Ireland in the short term. The Irish government's best strategy is likely to be to hold firm and calm. Pretty much like now, actually.

mickoneill31

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But surely if they are outside regulatory compliance they won't care WHAT comes into their country.

I am aware that there are WTO rules etc. just to mention, but the point still stands.

So it is back to EU and us to protect our goods and services. As ReesMogg said. I dislike that man intensely, but maybe he was right.

I so want to be corrected on this really.

They have to care if they want their great deals with the US and China etc.
Why would those countries make a deal if they can just ship goods into the UK tariff free? The point of those deals is to remove tariffs.
Goods going in tariff free will also be competing against home produced goods. Their local industry wouldn't like that. Many countries can produce goods that the UK needs cheaper than the UK can.

And the UK has food standards. If they don't check goods coming in, how do they enforce those?

Leroy42

I assume that preparations for a ha4d border are underway already.

Surely the costs will need to be included in the upcoming budget?

I agree with those saying the EU needs to stop the talks. Throughout this process, the EU has continued to allow the UK total freedom on the basis that time would see them come around.

It has had the opposite effect as the hard liners became more entrenched and powerful. IMO they should have stopped the nonsense about the December agreement not really being an agreement straight away. But I understand why they didn't, hindsight is showing it to be the wrong approach.

So I agree, the EU needs to come out and say that since the UK are not adhering to Dec agreement, talks need to return to phase 1.

Zubeneschamali

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Unfortunatly the money will be going the other way, there is going to be a big hole in the EU budget

A grand excuse to print some more Euros.

Zubeneschamali

kowtow wrote: »

The questions is, if the UK in effect calls the EU's bluff - by default as looks increasingly likely - and ends up walking away from the table, how do things play out. Who is going to put a hard border up? Will it be the UK? Or - in the face of some real economic headwinds after a hard Brexit - are we going to be doing it ourselves?

There is another possible outcome - the only future relationship that complies with the ERGs amendments AND the Phase 1 outcome is that the UK stays in the Single Market.


Norway.


If they do crash out, we will have to police the Border, but a crashout Brexit won't last a year, so no point in a lot of hard border infrastructure.

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

This is all about the backstop, I've never been convinced that the UK signed up to it expecting it to be required when the time eventually came. They always expected a more constructive approach - the one characterized here as a fantasy / technology solution - as something which if the political will existed could be put in place for the special and limited circumstances represented by the NI border.

The solution proposed by UK does not exist in any form on any border in the whole world; nor does the components exist to pick from every existing border in the world to make it happen (as confirmed in EU's report on the subject who was the only party who actually researched the topic unlike UK who finds such things below them to actually verify a claim). Care to explain how that is only lacking "will" to make it happen if no country in the whole world has succeeded before doing it? It's a fantasy solution which might be possible in 20+ years time with additional new technology and systems that does not exist today. And looking at something like the Swedish/Norwegian border which has been developed and worked on by two friendly nations inc. common legislation for over 50 years it's still not even close to what UK proposed. Hence it's not lacking "will" that stops it; it's reality itself that stops the solution and it's also why UK's solution contains a lot of hand waving references to "technology" without being able to state what technology specifically or what border they reference as example.

As one commentator pointed out tonight, if - as appears more likely - a hard brexit is the outcome the last thing the British will be doing is putting a hard border in Ireland. Neither, one expects, will we in the South wish to be the architects of one.

They will put a hard border up in Ireland quite rapidly once they get the first report on how many billions they lost in revenue (VAT smuggling with no border will make people insane amount of money risk free), how many immigrants have come on over etc. and that's assuming the lawsuits from other WTO countries don't get them to do it first. They will put up a border; they are only to stupid to realize the issues of not doing so and like to make grand claims about how they are not going to do so showing their complete ignorance on the topic.

So sooner or later, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, we may end up with all the consequences of a hard Brexit for this Island, including a hard EU mandated border, which some will say is a direct consequence of the negotiating position taken by the EU.

Yes; blame the EU for UK's inability to not be allowed to cherry pick legislation. EU made it very clear on day 1 what was required; UK even signed a paper agreeing to it and now spends all it's time claiming they actually did not sign the paper after all. The hard border and all it's consequences lies fully at UK's door for the decision to leave EU in the first place and they made the whole process worse by utter incompetence in handling the Brexit negotiation and process.

McGiver

Infini wrote: »

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tony Connelly reiterates that the ERG amendments effectively mean no deal, by making the backstop illegal:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1018868913369690112

If this is allowed to pass the EU will essentially turn around and basically say unless this changes there will be no deal. Economy will take a serious dump shoetly afterwards.

Time to short sterling

ambro25

Anthracite wrote: »

That would be fine, because today's unemployed assembly line workers are tomorrow's data scientists and financial engineers.

Fair and good point...but how do they eat in the meantime?

That’s the crux of the matter: managed (agreement-based) versus unmanaged (crash out) exit.

The first allows the socio-economic transition you mention (well, on paper at least, since they haven’t quite managed to turn yesterday’s miners into much of anything).

The second results in caviar for Mogglidytes and soylent green for everyone else.