Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

J Mysterio

Hurrache wrote: »

Coveney getting a lot of phrase both sides of the sea over on his Radio 4 interview this morning, with Humphry's getting a lot of criticism, including by BBC employees.

His interview starts around 2:10:00 in this link, and his correction of Humphry on the already signed backstop at 2:14:00
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qks

Thanks for this. Coveney spoke extremely well. He's been doing a terrific job on Brexit and I commend him.

An Claidheamh

eigrod wrote: »

Oh sweet jesus

@KateHoeyMP If a backstop is such a good idea to sort the border issue why do we not go for a backstop around the entire British Isles then Irish Republic can be part of it too @IrexitFreedom

A senior Labour MP - this is not a parody account. This world is ****ed up.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if she was fond of a drink.

judeboy101

eigrod wrote: »

Oh sweet jesus

@KateHoeyMP If a backstop is such a good idea to sort the border issue why do we not go for a backstop around the entire British Isles then Irish Republic can be part of it too @IrexitFreedom

A senior Labour MP - this is not a parody account. This world is ****ed up.

She's an anomaly, a protestant unionist northern Irish socialist.

Call me Al

eigrod wrote: »

Oh sweet jesus

@KateHoeyMP If a backstop is such a good idea to sort the border issue why do we not go for a backstop around the entire British Isles then Irish Republic can be part of it too @IrexitFreedom

A senior Labour MP - this is not a parody account. This world is ****ed up.

She's obviously been talking to the poster Firblog from here.... They've shared talking points.

blanch152

pH wrote: »

But equally the Irish Brit-bashers are enjoying seeing UK getting bashed around and humiliated. A no-deal scenario is proportionally worse for Ireland than it is for the UK, a 10 year recession and 4 day weeks might seem like a small price to pay to give the UK one in the eye, but certainly both the UK and Ireland will suffer hugely without a deal.

You are wrong on that point, the UK suffer worse than Ireland in all modelling of Brexit, whether a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit.

There is one thing that worries me though. In the rush to be greener than green on the issue of the backstop and the border, have our politicians (and I include them all) paused to think whether a negotiated soft or hard border is a better option for the people they represent than a no-deal Brexit?

Seth Brundle

blanch152 wrote: »

There is one thing that worries me though. In the rush to be greener than green on the issue of the backstop and the border, have our politicians (and I include them all) paused to think whether a negotiated soft or hard border is a better option for the people they represent than a no-deal Brexit?

Not sure what you're implying but it isn't really up to our politicians - the decision is in the hands of the UK politicians

Bob24

An Claidheamh wrote: »

This is what Britain brought on us, not the other way round.

Actually we are the ones who want to be part of 2 soon to be mutually exclusive international agreements: the EU and the CTA.

The UK never said they want to end the CTA, they said they want to leave the EU.

I think this is one thing which is being overlooked. After a no-deal scenario the UK could well say they don’t want a border in Ireland and that they are not planing to place any guards on their side. And it is the Republic (instructed by the EU) which would first have to place its own guards and reinstate the border to protect what has become and external border of the EU.

No the question is: would any EU official or Irish politician assume the responsibility for being the one ordering to reinstate a border on this island?

catrionanic

blanch152 wrote: »

You are wrong on that point, the UK suffer worse than Ireland in all modelling of Brexit, whether a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit.

There is one thing that worries me though. In the rush to be greener than green on the issue of the backstop and the border, have our politicians (and I include them all) paused to think whether a negotiated soft or hard border is a better option for the people they represent than a no-deal Brexit?

But there is no soft border in a no-deal brexit. The border is hard as nails.

From an Irish perspective, if we are going to be stuck with a hard border regardless, it makes sense to have the British in a state of such total collapse that they are highly likely to return to the negotiating table. And when they do, the first item on the EU's list will be the Irish border.

Hurrache

After that BBC R4 this morning interview with Coveney in which Humphry asked about who will build the wall in the case of a hard border, remainers are now running with the theme, with special guest twitterer Trump stepping in for the day.
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1052533516968370176

joe40

Bob24 wrote: »

An Claidheamh wrote: »

This is what Britain brought on us, not the other way round.

Actually we are the ones who want to be part of 2 soon to be mutually exclusive international agreements: the EU and the CTA.

The UK never said they want to end the CTA, they said they want to leave the EU.

I think this is one thing which is being overlooked. After a no-deal scenario the UK could well say they don’t want a border in Ireland and that they are not planing to place any guards on their side. And it is the Republic (instructed by the EU) which would first have to place its own guards and reinstate the border to protect what has become and external border of the EU.

No the question is: would any EU official or Irish politician assume the responsibility for being the one ordering to reinstate a border on this island?

In a no deal scenario WTO rules would apply which means Britain would have to treat all trading partners. They could not just decide to allow free movement from the republic I.e the EU unilaterally. Thats my understanding anyway others may be
more knowledgeable.

keane2097

As someone tweet in reply:

"If the UK does not control the flow of goods over a border, it would be obliged to suspend import restrictions at all its ports under the WTO MFN principle."

briany

blanch152 wrote: »

You are wrong on that point, the UK suffer worse than Ireland in all modelling of Brexit, whether a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit.

There is one thing that worries me though. In the rush to be greener than green on the issue of the backstop and the border, have our politicians (and I include them all) paused to think whether a negotiated soft or hard border is a better option for the people they represent than a no-deal Brexit?

Is it even possible to negotiate a soft border with the UK's current red lines? If they don't want to participate in the CU or SM then that puts them more outside the EU than Switzerland or even Turkey. Where does that leave the UK? Let's look at this helpful diagram.



It would appear to put the UK on equal standing to the EU with the countries sitting out by themselves in the Council of Europe circle. What are their borders like with the EU? Can people come and go as they please via official crossings?

Bob24

joe40 wrote: »

In a no deal scenario WTO rules would apply which means Britain would have to treat all trading partners. They could not just decide to allow free movement from the republic I.e the EU unilaterally. Thats my understanding anyway others may be
more knowledgeable.

What exactly would prevent the UK from allowing free entry into their own country from a third party country if their choice?

Mind you I’m not saying they would necessarily allow free entry, but my point is that the country with an immediate legal commitment to instate a border would be the republic as no border would become incompatible with ont EU membership. Meaning they could easily leave the responsability of reinstating the border to the Rebublic.

And I guess my other point is that if things go bad with the talks is not a defendable position for us to want to be part of 2 exclusive agreements and expect other members of these agreements to make compromises which are unacceptable to them to accommodate us. So at some point we might have to chose and we can’t blame anyone else for whatever choice we make.

Leroy42

No one can make the UK build or maintain a border. But if they have no border then there is no reason for any country to signup to a trade deal as they would already have free access to the UK market.

And the UK would get nothing in return.

So the trade deal that Trump talks about would no longer be required as they can import anything for free.

Winters

briany wrote: »

Is it even possible to negotiate a soft border with the UK's current red lines? If they don't want to participate in the CU or SM then that puts them more outside the EU than Switzerland or even Turkey. Where does that leave the UK? Let's look at this helpful diagram.



It would appear to put the UK on equal standing to the EU with the countries sitting out by themselves in the Council of Europe circle. What are their borders like with the EU? Can people come and go as they please via official crossings?

Like Jean-Claude Juncker did with Trump, can he not just hold up that diagram and ask Theresa May to put a pin where she wants the UK to go.

Leroy42

Winters wrote: »

Like Jean-Claude Juncker did with Trump, can he not just hold up that diagram and ask Theresa May to put a pin where she wants the UK to go.

He could do that. But the problem is she isn't trusted by her own party to handle the pin and therefore any pin she sticks in will only be advisory and will have to wait to see what the parliament say.

She can then simply say that nothing was agreed.

Bob24

keane2097 wrote: »

As someone tweet in reply:

"If the UK does not control the flow of goods over a border, it would be obliged to suspend import restrictions at all its ports under the WTO MFN principle."

Any reference for a legal opinion confirming this or explanation of why that would be?

My understanding is that there is no formal WTO rule forcing members to control their borders is a certain way. There is a requirement for non-discrimination of goods depending on which WTO country they originate from, which could involve border checks. But this is not black and white and for that rule to have any practical impact on the UK a third party WTO member would have a to lodge a complaint at the WTO against the UK and prove that some of their goods are actually being discriminated against, which would likely take years to be processed and have an uncertain conclusion.

What would the Rebublic do in the meantime as on day one EU officials would be on the phone with our Governement to tell us immediate border check is required as part of our EU membership? Once we start complying with the EU request the UK could then observe that we are in breach of the CTA; making it clear that it is the Rebublic which decided to stop being compliant and killed the CTA.

Leroy42

I think the UK can do that, ie leave the NI border completely open. But that would be on the basis that they would checks on every other entry point and would be using the fact that to pass through the NI border goods would have to have first landed in Ireland and Ireland would have checked them. So in effect they would meet the EU standards.

That certainly seems to be the line that many of the Brexiteers are taking.

However, the fly in the ointment is a FTA deal, or any other type, with the EU. There is no way that the EU is going to agree to a deal with the UK when the UK are effectively giving them the two fingers. So whilst it might appear that the UK have found an easy out, long term it will need to be addressed.

Philip Hammond is saying today, for example, that the 36bn settlement is likely to be payable regardless of deal/no deal as legally they have an obligation.

They have already agreed to EU citizens rights and now the settlement is pretty much a given. Are the UK really going to put the entire economy in jeopardy for the sake of NI which they have to subsidise by 9bn a year? Just as many Brexiteers feel that MEP will not want to see their economies hit, will MP's want to return to their constituencies and explain why the country is now in a recession just to keep NI within the union for goods when they don't seem to care about it when it comes to Abortion, gay rights etc etc.

joe40

Bob24 wrote: »

keane2097 wrote: »

As someone tweet in reply:

"If the UK does not control the flow of goods over a border, it would be obliged to suspend import restrictions at all its ports under the WTO MFN principle."

Any reference for a legal opinion confirming this or explanation of why that would be?

My understanding is that there is no formal WTO rule forcing members to control their borders is a certain way. There is a requirement for non-discrimination of goods depending on which WTO country they originate from, which could involve border checks. But this is not black and white and for that rule to have any practical impact on the UK a third party WTO member would have a to lodge a complaint at the WTO against the UK and prove that some of their goods are actually being discriminated against, which would likely take years to be processed and have an uncertain conclusion.

What would the Rebublic do in the meantime as on day one EU officials would be on the phone with our Governement to tell us immediate border check is required as part of our EU membership? Once we start complying the UK could them observe that we are in breach of the CTA and decide to suspend it; making it clear that it is the Rebublic which decided to stop being compliant and brought it to an end.

So the British vote for Brexit to take back control of their borders. Then leave the only land border wide open to free movement from the EU. It would be beyond ridiculous.

hotmail.com

If there's no agreement on the backstop this week, I believe it's an embarrassment for the Irish government.

An Ciarraioch

hotmail.com wrote: »

If there's no agreement on the backstop this week, I believe it's an embarrassment for the Irish government.

They can hardly control events in Westminster.

briany

joe40 wrote: »

So the British vote for Brexit to take back control of their borders. Then leave the only land border wide open to free movement from the EU. It would be beyond ridiculous.

Let's see how long the border remained open when smugglers started taking the absolute p*ss.

lawred2

hotmail.com wrote: »

If there's no agreement on the backstop this week, I believe it's an embarrassment for the Irish government.

Ok then ..

Why would that be?

Calina

hotmail.com wrote: »

If there's no agreement on the backstop this week, I believe it's an embarrassment for the Irish government.

Nope. It is all UK red faces here. They don't have a glimmer of a solution to remove the need for a backstop.

We would not be so vociferous if there was even the slightest chance it won't be needed.

Bob24

joe40 wrote: »

So the British vote for Brexit take back control of their borders. Then leave the only land border wide open to free movement from the EU. It would be beyond ridiculous.

They voted to leave the EU, not to end the CTA.

But more importantly and as I alluded to: as soon as Ireland reinstates border checks the CTA is dead, so the UK knows that not doing anything on their side of the border would just be a short lived transition period. It would force the Republic to chose between EU and CTA membership as we would have to make a choice between complying with the EU’s pressing request to immediately instate border checks and complying with our CTA commitments to not have border checks.

Whoever is in charge of Ireland at that time would be in a very uncomfortable situation: either having to announce that they have decided to reinstate a border on this island or that they have decided not to comply with our EU commitments. And if no decision is coming and the deadlock triggers a crisis, new options could even be put on the table (if we hesitate and don’t comply immediately, will the EU have the guts and political will to force the Irish government to partition the island again?)

MrMusician18

hotmail.com wrote: »

If there's no agreement on the backstop this week, I believe it's an embarrassment for the Irish government.

You'll have to explain why, I'm afraid I can't see it.

On an unrelated note, I'm noticing a few posters here that are posting with a disguised edge and somewhat feigning ignorance. It's interesting.

hotmail.com

lawred2 wrote:

Why would that be?

lawred2 wrote:

Ok then ..

We were told last December that this issue was confirmed and certified. We now know that that wasn't the case at all. The government here has let this issue drift and drift.

Leroy42

Bob24 wrote: »

But more importantly and as I alluded to: as soon as Ireland reinstates border checks the CTA is dead

The CTA predates the EU. Why would a hard border negate the CTA?

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

We were told last December that this issue was confirmed and certified. We now know that that wasn't the case at all. The government here has let this issue drift and drift.

As Coveney has said, they have a signed agreement.

That the UK are whelching on that is not the Irelands fault. It is clear that no matter what they agreed at any point the UK believe that everything is still on the table

A Dub in Glasgo

hotmail.com wrote: »

We were told last December that this issue was confirmed and certified. We now know that that wasn't the case at all. The government here has let this issue drift and drift.

All that does is demonstrate how untrustworthy the UK government are