Brexit discussion thread IV

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nah - she can say what she likes at a speech to plamas the DUP.

She's a coward and a populist.

You'd think she was back in the 1970s where every single word of what she says couldn't be reported on and analysed five seconds after it comes out of her mouth.

She talks strong about the Union and history when standing in front of unionists, talks concession and reason when in front of the EU, and talks petty party politics when in standing in Westminster.

The woman has no backbone, no principles and no plan. She tells everyone to their face what they want to hear, in the hope that it works out in the end.

There's an absence of any leadership in the UK, so a no-deal Brexit is about 90% likely at this stage.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Backstop is still the difficulty?

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

I believe the lack of a backstop is the difficulty with the backstop.

I agree with the EU. The UK can come up with a suggestion of their own at this point. A hard Brexit is not a good thing for us but this time could be better spent preparing for it since the UK does not seem to want to negotiate.

Water John

The idea of splitting agri goods is nuts. Only those that have border checks remain aligned. So GMO etc cannot be guaranteed to the consumer by the EU as such goods could then come in via the UK.
UK can have their EU trade and eat their chlorinated chicken.
Barnier posing the questions which show how ridicolous the UK position is.

An Ciarraioch

After all the delays, nothing dramatic said so far.

An Ciarraioch

Key point - Barnier invites UK to discuss backstop next week.

Water John

UK invited to backstop talks, next week. That is the EU setting a deadline to get this sorted soon.

Taytoland

He might as well say the UK is invited to discuss a mission to Jupiter.

Water John

Tayto, you might explain you're cryptic quip?
Great listening to Barnier, is spite of the language difficulty. A professional in complete charge and top of his brief.

Seth Brundle

Water John wrote: »

Great listening to Barnier, is spite of the language difficulty. A professional in complete charge and top of his brief.

Cool, calm and collected. Firm but diplomatic.

Taytoland

Water John wrote: »

Tayto, you might explain you're cryptic quip?
Great listening to Barnier, is spite of the language difficulty. A professional in complete charge and top of his brief.

That a backstop is simply not up for negotiation as an Irish sea border is never going to be allowed to happen. And then he says preparations are being accelerated for a no deal, so he's talking out the both sides of his mouth. Don't know why he doesn't just say a no deal is coming.

Water John

It's the UK who are saying, there will be no diff between NI and UK nor between NI and ROI, but the UK is leaving.
He's inviting them to square the circle. So you believe the EU is to blame, not many except Brext Tories believe that.

Ellian

Taytoland wrote: »

That a backstop is simply not up for negotiation as an Irish sea border is never going to be allowed to happen. And then he says preparations are being accelerated for a no deal, so he's talking out the both sides of his mouth. Don't know why he doesn't just say a no deal is coming.

I would guess because that would play right into May's hands of getting to blame the whole thing on the recalcitrant, obstructionist EU. He invites her over to talks, politely but firmly reminds her that she already signed up for this, that internal UK political problems are not for the EU to resolve, reminds her also that the four freedoms have been an EU red line from Day One and invites her to offer her solutions.

swampgas

Taytoland wrote: »

That a backstop is simply not up for negotiation as an Irish sea border is never going to be allowed to happen. And then he says preparations are being accelerated for a no deal, so he's talking out the both sides of his mouth. Don't know why he doesn't just say a no deal is coming.

I don't see it that way - May is still talking in contradictions.

She could be honest and admit that the UK is abandoning the GFA and taking NI out of the Single Market and Customs Union, forcing a hard border with Ireland, in breach of the international treaty they signed and in breach of commitments made during phase 1. And accept that there will be no transition deal.

Or she could face down the DUP and the Brexiteers and go for a border in the Irish sea, keeping NI aligned with Ireland and avoiding a hard border. And start work on the transition deal.

If she can't face doing either, she should resign immediately. Her position is completely untenable.

seamus

Taytoland wrote: »

That a backstop is simply not up for negotiation as an Irish sea border is never going to be allowed to happen. And then he says preparations are being accelerated for a no deal, so he's talking out the both sides of his mouth. Don't know why he doesn't just say a no deal is coming.

The purpose is to leave the door open while also illustrating the urgency of walking through it. The EU is preparing for a "no deal" exit because it sees that as the current most likely outcome. If the UK wants a deal, it needs to come to the table with something. Anything.

briany

Water John wrote: »

It's the UK who are saying, there will be no diff between NI and UK nor between NI and ROI, but the UK is leaving.
He's inviting them to square the circle. So you believe the EU is to blame, not many except Brext Tories believe that.

So, does that mean the UK red line is "NO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT (except for from the Republic of Ireland)?

An Ciarraioch

Taytoland wrote: »

That a backstop is simply not up for negotiation as an Irish sea border is never going to be allowed to happen. And then he says preparations are being accelerated for a no deal, so he's talking out the both sides of his mouth. Don't know why he doesn't just say a no deal is coming.

You have to read between the lines here - in diplomatic language, "inviting" politicians to talks effectively means to summon them, while to set a timetable for next week essentially says that talks will end without a concrete result.

Taytoland

swampgas wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

That a backstop is simply not up for negotiation as an Irish sea border is never going to be allowed to happen. And then he says preparations are being accelerated for a no deal, so he's talking out the both sides of his mouth. Don't know why he doesn't just say a no deal is coming.

I don't see it that way - May is still talking in contradictions.

She could be honest and admit that the UK is abandoning the GFA and taking NI out of the Single Market and Customs Union, forcing a hard border with Ireland, in breach of the international treaty they signed and in breach of commitments made during phase 1. And accept that there will be no transition deal.

Or she could face down the DUP and the Brexiteers and go for a border in the Irish sea, keeping NI aligned with Ireland and avoiding a hard border.  And start work on the transition deal.

If she can't face doing either, she should resign immediately.  Her position is completely untenable.

You mention the GFA being ripped up with a "hard" border on a no deal but don't mention it with a Irish sea border cutting NI off from the internal market and constitutionally. Barnier might be able to take some in the Irish government for fools but it's never going to fly with the British government or Parliament. Only two ways this will get settled and that is if the UK as a whole gets a free trade agreement with the EU and aligns with the CU and SM or a no deal.

The no deal as I have said for well over 2 years is the likely route.

Imreoir2

Taytoland wrote: »

You mention the GFA being ripped up with a "hard" border on a no deal but don't mention it with a Irish sea border cutting NI off from the internal market and constitutionally. Barnier might be able to take some in the Irish government for fools but it's never going to fly with the British government or Parliament. Only two ways this will get settled and that is if the UK as a whole gets a free trade agreement with the EU and aligns with the CU and SM or a no deal.

The no deal as I have said for well over 2 years is the likely route.

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.

El Weirdo

Taytoland wrote: »

Barnier might be able to take some in the Irish government for fools but it's never going to fly with the British government or Parliament.

I know, right? How could anyone think that they were fools?

Leroy42

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.

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.