Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

The open border, in short, isn't a consequence of the GFA; it's (part of) the context within which the GFA was negotiated, and which made the GFA possible.

Correct; the point I was trying (badly) to make is that the GFA and EU are closely connected and inter-dependent. As a result of both, the two parts of Ireland enjoy some of the benefits of Schengen style international cooperation.

Folkstonian

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’ve never quite understood the focus on this concept of ‘British exceptionalism’. Is it remarkable or distasteful that British PMs have gone to Europe looking for the best possible deal for Britain? Is that his or her primary duty?

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

One set of rules for the others, and another for us.. that is surely the very definition of an exceptionalist attitude?

Britain actually does pretty well, for all the grumbling, at implementing and informing European legislation.

Never have I heard the French or Germans attacked for their exceptionalism in the same manner as the British are however.

It just seems like Britain is unfortunately an easy target for that kind of unfounded thing, and maybe that has fed into the mutual suspicion on both sides that got us into this absolute mess

Ah now!

The poor Brits!

Would you maybe like to deconstruct and refute my actual point instead?

It doesn’t bother me tbh, but it’s certainly not done any favours to those who would prefer a more grown up and constructive relationship between Britain and continental Europeans

Folkstonian

prawnsambo wrote: »

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’ve never quite understood the focus on this concept of ‘British exceptionalism’. Is it remarkable or distasteful that British PMs have gone to Europe looking for the best possible deal for Britain? Is that his or her primary duty?

There is never any talk of French or German exceptionalism despite the fact they are statistically proven to be among the very worst countries at implementing EU law that they don’t particularly like.

One set of rules for the others, and another for us.. that is surely the very definition of an exceptionalist attitude?

Britain actually does pretty well, for all the grumbling, at implementing and informing European legislation.

Never have I heard the French or Germans attacked for their exceptionalism in the same manner as the British are however.

It just seems like Britain is unfortunately an easy target for that kind of unfounded thing, and maybe that has fed into the mutual suspicion on both sides that got us into this absolute mess

Rule breaking and exceptionalism are not the same thing.

How so?

I’d say that wilful failure to implement European law because it will cause inconvenience or disruption in your own country - all the while expecting everyone else to enact said laws - is actually a very good example of an exceptionalist attitude.

I’d also argue that in all instances of British exceptionalism, Britain has never actually been wholly exceptional at all in its demands, whether that be opposition to the euro, or schengen, or certain elements of the European constitution etc, often being supported by smaller states who have been close allies to the British

Peregrinus

I don't think there can be any objection to British politicians going to Europe and seeking the best deal for the UK. As you point out, all national politicians do that.

What grates, though, is an assumption that the UK is entitled not only to seek the best terms for the UK but to get them, and to get them by way of exception to the rules that apply to other member states (rather than by making common cause with other countries to shape the rules that will apply to them all). And that if this doesn't happen, they are being "bullied".

To some extent, this may be a difference of political cultures. The UK has an adversarial political culture which is not at all consensus-seeking, whereas the dominant political culture on the Continent is focussed on consensus-building. Thus the way most countries seek to get the best deal the the EU is by building common approaches with other countries whose interests are aligned. They think of this a getting the best deal within the EU. In the UK, the discourse (and the mindset) is much more likely to frame the matter as one of getting the best deal from the EU. And that choice of preposition betrays a huge amount about the UK's relationship with the EU.

Hurrache

I had no idea where this thread was going for a while
https://twitter.com/kieranGallaghr/status/1053198212415324162

Seth Brundle

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think there can be any objection to British politicians going to Europe and seeking the best deal for the UK. As you point out, all national politicians do that.

Just to confirm: the best deal for the UK is to cancel Article 50
Any other deal is vastly inferior for the UK!

Seth Brundle

Hurrache wrote: »

I had no idea where this thread was going for a while
https://twitter.com/kieranGallaghr/status/1053198212415324162

https://twitter.com/StevesyVargas/status/1053211399026081792?s=09

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just to confirm: the best deal for the UK is to cancel Article 50
Any other deal is vastly inferior for the UK!

Yes. The fact that there can be no objection to British politicians asking to cancel A50 doesn't, sadly, mean that they will ask to cancel A50.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. The fact that there can be no objection to British politicians asking to cancel A50 doesn't, sadly, mean that they will ask to cancel A50.

There can be objections. They just would be rooted in facts, logic or even civil discourse.

Winters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvDAW5SjdaE

This is a fascinating opinion/history piece from Fintan O'Toole. Whether you like his articles or not its a very engaging watch or listen. Would recommend it.

Leroy42

Cancel/extension of A50 is really the only sensible option at this stage.

Whether or not Brexit is a good idea long term for the UK, it is clear that the current situation is not what they expected or planned for. The proper thing to do is to halt everything, regather their thoughts and start again with more realistic proposals.

For example, take the next 3 or 4 years to develop the IT systems to negate the need for a backstop. Spend a few years putting in the place the infrastructure around the ports/airports for the extra checks.

But the UK cannot countenance the loss of face that would be in their eyes. They would rather blindly go on than pause for the betterment of everyone, including the EU.

They are in a weak position because of the time pressures and their lack of planning. Fox and Davies were correct in that a trade deal could have been easy, but only had they actually got a plan together and done the leg work.

The fact that even an extension of the transition period is seen by some to be tantamount to treason tells you where these people are in their thinking.

An extension to A50 also suits the EU and Ireland.

prawnsambo

Folkstonian wrote: »

How so?

I’d say that wilful failure to implement European law because it will cause inconvenience or disruption in your own country - all the while expecting everyone else to enact said laws - is actually a very good example of an exceptionalist attitude.

I’d also argue that in all instances of British exceptionalism, Britain has never actually been wholly exceptional at all in its demands, whether that be opposition to the euro, or schengen, or certain elements of the European constitution etc, often being supported by smaller states who have been close allies to the British

You're taking liberties there. The statistics that you linked to give no indication of intent. Now if you pointed to the particular breaches and then also were able to prove that particular nations were vociferously opposed to them and would fight them to the point of leaving the EU in a tantrum, then you might have a point.

As for the rest, Peregrinus pretty accurately explained what I meant. Exceptionalism is far more than an inability or unwillingness to implement rules or laws.

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

Unless the backstop is time limited someone is going to be breaking this treaty that's for certain now.
Rees Mogg questioned Verhofstadt on this.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4w7W-rduZ8

Are you saying that the GFA will be broken regardless? If there is no time limit then surely things should continue as is and I see no threat to the GFA. If there is a change in circumstances then that is the biggest threat to one side breaking the treaty.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Cancel/extension of A50 is really the only sensible option at this stage.

It may be the only sensible option for the UK. It's not at all clear that it would be a sensible option for the EU.

I take your point that the UK needs more time to prepare. But it's very hard to prepare when you don't know what you're preparing for. The underlying problem is not the the UK is unprepared; it's that it has no idea what it wants. And if, after a referendum campaign with a publicly funded debate and two publicly funded campaigns, and another two-and-a-half years to devise, negotiation and plan for Brexit, they still have no clue what they want, why would we think that giving them more time will make any difference? What has changed, that they will be able to have a rational national conversation, and form some kind of consensus?

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, the border was already open before the GFA was negotiated and signed. The open border is a consequenc of the Customs Union and the Single Market, and it has been in place since the early 90s. Security controls on the border were dismantled as a result of the ceasefires and general de-escalation of violence. And of course there have been no migration contols on the border since shortly after the Second World War.

The open border, in short, isn't a consequence of the GFA; it's (part of) the context within which the GFA was negotiated, and which made the GFA possible.

Will Britain need to have border checks on the Irish border after brexit?

Every brexiteer and unionist politician is allowed to state un challenged that they will not re-instate a border. But surely they have to if they want brexit? Why aren’t they been called out on this?
If they don’t want freedom of movement then there has to be some curtailment to FOM on their part. If they don’t have a border they won’t have a country.

I don’t have the largest brain in the world is there something I’m missing??

Gregory Campbell on Sean o rourke there now was able to state un challenged that they won’t be introducing any borders. Throwing responsibility for a border on IRL/EU.

Why is this allowed to persist?
What is the truth??

Hermy

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the UK cannot countenance the loss of face that would be in their eyes.

And yet bizarrely they are avidly continuing with the titanic loss of face that the whole Brexit fiasco has become.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be the only sensible option for the UK. It's not at all clear that it would be a sensible option for the EU.

I take your point that the UK needs more time to prepare. But it's very hard to prepare when you don't know what you're preparing for. The underlying problem is not the the UK is unprepared; it's that it has no idea what it wants. And if, after a referendum campaign with a publicly funded debate and two publicly funded campaigns, and another two-and-a-half years to devise, negotiation and plan for Brexit, they still have no clue what they want, why would we think that giving them more time will make any difference? What has changed, that they will be able to have a rational national conversation, and form some kind of consensus?

I agree with all the points you make, but what is the negative to the EU to an extension? In reality, the EU don't want the UK to leave, but they seem to have come to the realisation that the UK can't really stay either as they will be unhappy no matter what.

So the aim is, and has to be, to limit the damage to the EU. The is inextricably linked how prepared the UK are. So giving the UK the time and space to try to work out their own position, which I totally agree is the core of this mess, will benefit everyone.

The UK will still leave, just in 10 years time (which IMO should have always been the plan as it was always going to be difficult and complicated and they simply but undue pressure on themselves).

If TM had set out from the start that Brexit planning would start immediately, that they would side negotiate with the EU for a number of years to clear off all the low hanging fruit and spend the time to prepare themselves in terms of infrastructure, training vets etc and that the whole thing would be done in 10 years then yes of course you would have people complaining and the money etc, but it would have made perfect sense.

Of course she did the exact opposite. But their is still time to fix it. She needs to front up and explain to everyone, rather than giving speeches about how upset she is about instaggram pictures, pointing out that divorces take time. Their are assets and liabilities to deal with, obligations and responsbilities and then the added complication of the children.

I would hope that most people in the UK would understand this and accept that whilst it will take time their is a clear path that works for all parties.

The current situation is a total shambles and is working for no one.

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

Will Britain need to have border checks on the Irish border after brexit?

Basically, yes. But they won't rush to be the first to implement them. Neither will we. So there'll be a bit of stand-off for a period.

20silkcut wrote: »

Every brexiteer and unionist politician is allowed to state un challenged that they will not re-instate a border. But surely they have to if they want brexit? Why aren’t they been called out on this?

They often are. But they blithely repeat nonsense because, in this day and age, with soundbite-driven media and short attention spans, that's a suprisingingly effective tactic.

20silkcut wrote: »

If they don’t want freedom of movement then there has to be some curtailment to FOM on their part. If they don’t have a border they won’t have a country.

I don’t have the largest brain in the world is there something I’m missing??

It's not really about freedom of movement. The Irish border hasn't been a migration border for decades, and there are no plans for it to become one. Post-brexit, EU nationals will still find it quite easy to enter the UK. There'll be minimal migration controls at borders (and none at all in Ireland). Ending free movement isn't about keeping them out; they will be welcome as visitors. It's about stopping them from settling in the UK - setting up homes, taking jobs, etc. And this will enforced, not at borders, but by in-country measures.

No, what the Irish border will require is not controls on people, but controls on goods. The UK is going to have its own customs regime, and its own regulatory standards for goods, and the place to enforce these is at the border, when stuff is imported.

The UK can't unilaterally decide to leave the Irish border unpoliced. The UK need border controls for a number of reasons:

- Brexit is all about "taking back control of our borders". Sooner or later, even the more slow-witted brexit supporters are going to notice that unilaterally deciding to leave your border uncontrolled is pretty much the polar opposite of that.

- The UK wants to negotiate exciting trade deals with China, North Korea and countries yet to be discovered under the sea. But if these countries can already import stuff into the UK free of any tariffs and without complying with any regulatory standards if they only take the trouble to route them via Ireland, they have no incentive to give reciprocal advantages or make deals to avoid tariffs and standards that they don't have to comply with anyway.

- WTO "most favoured nation" rules say that, as between countries that you have no trade deal with (and, on Brexit day, for the UK that's every country in the world) you can't treat one more favourably than another. So if the UK has a policy of allowing goods to be imported from Ireland without being subject to measures to collect tariffs or enforce regulatory standards, other countries are going to point out that they should be entitled to the benefit of that policy also.

And so on. The UK runs into all kinds of technical and political problems if it simply unilaterally leaves its land border unpoliced. Every country in the world either polices its borders or enters into mutual, reciprocal arrangements for reducing or eliminating border controls, and there are good reasons why this is so. Brexiters thinking that they can just magic away problems that no other country has ever been able to deal with are just engaging in more of the wishful thinking on which the project is largely built.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree with all the points you make, but what is the negative to the EU to an extension? . . .

It prolongs the agony. Brexit has absorbed a huge amount of EU effort, energy, time and talent at a time when there are bigger problems that need to be addressed. The Brexiter assumption that the EU must want them to stay because the UK is, afterall, the most important nation in the entire history of the universe from the earliest of times to the present day, is a mistake. The EU regrets Brexit, but we have long accepted it as a reality, and we now just want to ensure it happens with minimal damage (to the Union; we don't care about damage to the UK). If there was a realistic prospect that extending the A50 notice period would result in a less damaging Brexit then, yes, that would attractive to the EU, and they'd make a judgement about the costs of an extension versus the benefits that it might yield. But right now it looks - to me, at any right - like some fairly certain costs versus some pretty speculative benefits.

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

Basically, yes. But they won't rush to be the first to implement them. Neither will we. So there'll be a bit of stand-off for a period.


They often are. But they blithely repeat nonsense because, in this day and age, with soundbite-driven media and short attention spans, that's a suprisingingly effective tactic.


It's not really about freedom of movement. The Irish border hasn't been a migration border for decades, and there are no plans for it to become one. Post-brexit, EU nationals will still find it quite easy to enter the UK. There'll be minimal migration controls at borders (and none at all in Ireland). Ending free movement isn't about keeping them out; they will be welcome as visitors. It's about stopping them from settling in the UK - setting up homes, taking jobs, etc. And this will enforced, not at borders, but by in-country measures.

No, what the Irish border will require is not controls on people, but controls on goods. The UK is going to have its own customs regime, and its own regulatory standards for goods, and the place to enforce these is at the border, when stuff is imported.

The UK can't unilaterally decide to leave the Irish border unpoliced. The UK need border controls for a number of reasons:

- Brexit is all about "taking back control of our borders". Sooner or later, even the more slow-witted brexit supporters are going to notice that unilaterally deciding to leave your border uncontrolled is pretty much the polar opposite of that.

- The UK wants to negotiate exciting trade deals with China, North Korea and countries yet to be discovered under the sea. But if these countries can already import stuff into the UK free of any tariffs and without complying with any regulatory standards if they only take the trouble to route them via Ireland, they have no incentive to give reciprocal advantages or make deals to avoid tariffs and standards that they don't have to comply with anyway.

- WTO "most favoured nation" rules say that, as between countries that you have no trade deal with (and, on Brexit day, for the UK that's every country in the world) you can't treat one more favourably than another. So if the UK has a policy of allowing goods to be imported from Ireland without being subject to measures to collect tariffs or enforce regulatory standards, other countries are going to point out that they should be entitled to the benefit of that policy also.

And so on. The UK runs into all kinds of technical and political problems if it simply unilaterally leaves its land border unpoliced. Every country in the world either polices its borders or enters into mutual, reciprocal arrangements for reducing or eliminating border controls, and there are good reasons why this is so. Brexiters thinking that they can just magic away problems that no other country has ever been able to deal with are just engaging in more of the wishful thinking on which the project is largely built.

Thanks for the clarification on freedom of movement. In fairness when you look at the example of the undocumented Irish in the US many EU citizens with strong ties in the UK will probably just continue on illegally.

Leroy42

So basically, the EU will have a FTA on all goods with the UK from the 1st day since there will be no borders controls at the NI border and no controls at the Irish sea?

Doesn't that take away many of the cards that the UK have in any FTA negotiations?

BonnieSituation

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah was thinking the same. A rather pathetic article. Unashamed 'look what I've learned about these lads'. Another one wearing ignorance as a badge of honour.

They only bother to 'learn' about Northern Ireland when there's a chance it might affect them..

I don't think that that's what's going on there. It looks like it's dumbed down for the audience more than in general. Rory Carroll is well aware of the DUP.

trellheim

many EU citizens with strong ties in the UK will probably just continue on illegally.

By UK Law Irish nationals are not considered aliens and the reciprocal applies here - British Citizens are not considered aliens ( e.g SI 24/1999) and both sides can live and work happily in either's country .

MrMusician18

First Up wrote: »

The GFA included the open (i.e non existent) border which facilitates trade flows between businesses. This helped build the specialisations and economies of scale that continental EU countries enjoy and which have been key to economic growth in the US.

Scale matters and the logic behind the Single Market recognises that. We have enjoyed a mini version of that in the border region. It allowed Ireland to see some of the benefits of Schengen without being in Schengen.

The border was open for commercial trade prior to the GFA as part of the single market.

The GFA took away the need for security.

The all island agriculture zone was established in response to foot and mouth in the UK if I recall correctly

First Up

MrMusician18 wrote:

The all island agriculture zone was established in response to foot and mouth in the UK if I recall correctly

It has been an all island industrial and services zone too and that probably has more economic impact (employment and value added) than agriculture.

BonnieSituation

Folkstonian wrote: »

Would you maybe like to deconstruct and refute my actual point instead?

It doesn’t bother me tbh, but it’s certainly not done any favours to those who would prefer a more grown up and constructive relationship between Britain and continental Europeans

Absolutely not. Just because you have an opinion that completely flies in the face of reality and experience of British exceptionalism doesn't mean you deserve the effort.

So again, aw boohoo, poor Brits!

Hurrache

I was enjoying the roller coaster ride until now, things just got real serious

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/18/sky-warns-disney-and-discovery-of-no-deal-brexit-blackout

Sky has delivered an ultimatum to broadcasters including Disney and Discovery to sort out their post-Brexit licensing plans by the end of 2018 or face being taken off its pay-TV service.

Sky has sent the deadline letter because it needs to know the licensing plans of its channel partners to make sure it abides by European broadcasting regulations in the event of a no-deal Brexit in March...
...
However, if the government fails to strike a deal to keep EU-wide broadcast rights post-Brexit, companies will have to look to relocate significant parts of their businesses and TV licensing arrangements to other EU countries to continue to transmit across the rest of Europe.

This means many channels on Sky’s UK service will need to hold two licences to continue to legally broadcast in both the UK and Ireland. In a no-deal scenario those partners that do not get licences to broadcast in Europe will be unable to be legally aired in Ireland by Sky UK.

MrMusician18

First Up wrote: »

It has been an all island industrial and services zone too and that probably has more economic impact (employment and value added) than agriculture.

Is that not the single market?
I'm open to correction here but I don't think there is a single commercial provision that can be directly tied to the GFA

Yes it has facilitated cooperation by providing stability, but market integration was achieved without it through common EU membership

trellheim

If there is a hard border I keep wondering if we will go into Schengen as there will be no reason to stay out otherwise. I suspect we will not though.

MrMusician18

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Absolutely not. Just because you have an opinion that completely flies in the face of reality and experience of British exceptionalism doesn't mean you deserve the effort.

So again, aw boohoo, poor Brits!

You don't think the major European Powers don't suffer from excepionalism? That fact alone would make them exceptional!

It is a feature of almost all post empire states to suffer from excepionalism:
The non exhaustive list includes:
France
Germany
Russia
USA
China
Japan
And of course the UK.