Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

prawnsambo

charlie14 wrote: »

If this also actually does comes down to the level of cold hard economics I doubt you would feel the same.

I think you're confusing which side of the coin, the cold, hard economics are falling on in this case. The EU 27 are far more important than the UK 1.



Tony Connelly spells it out clealy here in this update


https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511066932191232

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511069390049280

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511071738920960

Water John

People were considering that anti Corbynites might vote with the Govn't. That's why I put up the rejection of that by Cooper and Grieve, there is no comfort for TM.

Raab and his ilk are really engaged in amateur and immature politics.

Leroy42

The view in Brussels is that in seeking the TCA the UK hadn't bargained for the conditions that would be attached, and Theresa May will find it difficult, if not impossible, to get that thru the cabinet tomorrow.

How is that even possible at this stage? How can the UK be so completely clueless that they don't even seem to understand the ramifications of their own proposals?

They just seem to be trying to make up new ways to say stuff.

charlie14

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you're confusing which side of the coin, the cold, hard economics are falling on in this case. The EU 27 are far more important than the UK 1.



Tony Connelly spells it out clealy here in this update


https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511064080080896

With the suggestion that the U.K. staying in the C.U. was the answer to the logjam then I wouldn`t be that certain that cold, hard economics may not yet have a role to play.
Hope I`m wrong, but only time will tell.

Leroy42

charlie14 wrote: »

With the suggestion that the U.K. staying in the C.U. was the answer to the logjam then I wouldn`t be that certain that cold, hard economics may not yet have a role to play.
Hope I`m wrong, but only time will tell.

But everyone can see that the UK have very little intention of staying within the CU anyway. The likes of Raab, Davies, Johnson etc all want to get even further out. The NI border is one of the key ways the the EU can limit the potential damage to itself.

Rhineshark

The third-party arbritrar is a bit nonsense. Who? And what happens if that element gets bought off by the UK? Or (say US as a "neutral" third power), goes nuts too. Or (say UN) collapses. Why would Ireland put itself in a position where our island is at the whim of a third party that we have to acquiesce to? Why would the EU do the same?

Putting trust in the EU is one thing. Putting it in a third party that could be pressured without any loss to itself from the border situation is asking for it.

flutered

Water John wrote: »

People were considering that anti Corbynites might vote with the Govn't. That's why I put up the rejection of that by Cooper and Grieve, there is no comfort for TM.

Raab and his ilk are really engaged in amateur and immature politics.

rabb is a hard brixateer, anything he can do to run down the clock he will, especially as he has a weak leader

Water John

Third Party, we could ask USA, Russia or China.

flutered

Water John wrote: »

People were considering that anti Corbynites might vote with the Govn't. That's why I put up the rejection of that by Cooper and Grieve, there is no comfort for TM.

Raab and his ilk are really engaged in amateur and immature politics.

deleated

prawnsambo

charlie14 wrote: »

With the suggestion that the U.K. staying in the C.U. was the answer to the logjam then I wouldn`t be that certain that cold, hard economics may not yet have a role to play.
Hope I`m wrong, but only time will tell.

I'm struggling to understand how that's somehow a bad thing for us? This was always on offer and would be very good for us. Would keep the landbridge open for a start.

ilovesmybrick

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is that even possible at this stage? How can the UK be so completely clueless that they don't even seem to understand the ramifications of their own proposals?

They just seem to be trying to make up new ways to say stuff.

Well in answer I'll quote this part of the tweets

The Task Force expected technical papers from the UK last week but they were not forthcoming.

How many times over the past 18 months have the UK been supposed to send crucial documentation to the EU and failed to do so? Not only have the UK been acting in bad faith, they've also repeatedly failed to do their homework or learn lessons from delays caused by such. They constantly complain that the EU is an overly bureaucratic, rules based institution. Well as a large, bureaucratic rules based institution, and based on the utter embarrassment of Davis's ill preparedness for any of the summit meetings, most people would at least try and fill out the damn forms on time. Especially when your economy is on the line.

charlie14

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you're confusing which side of the coin, the cold, hard economics are falling on in this case. The EU 27 are far more important than the UK 1.



Tony Connelly spells it out clealy here in this update


https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511066932191232

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511069390049280

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511071738920960

I usually find Tony Connelly`s posts very clear and concise, but is he not lumping the rules on the SM in with the rules on the CU.
I would have thought that by leaving the SM and just staying in the CU, if this was granted by the EU, then the UK would have to abide by just CU rules. Same as Turkey.

prawnsambo

Rhineshark wrote: »

The third-party arbritrar is a bit nonsense. Who? And what happens if that element gets bought off by the UK? Or (say US as a "neutral" third power), goes nuts too. Or (say UN) collapses. Why would Ireland put itself in a position where our island is at the whim of a third party that we have to acquiesce to? Why would the EU do the same?

Putting trust in the EU is one thing. Putting it in a third party that could be pressured without any loss to itself from the border situation is asking for it.

It could be an individual. Doesn't have to be an institution. Like George Mitchell for the peace process.

prawnsambo

charlie14 wrote: »

I usually find Tony Connelly`s posts very clear and concise, but is he not lumping the rules on the SM in with the rules on the CU.
I would have thought that by leaving the SM and just staying in the CU, if this was granted by the EU, then the UK would have to abide by just CU rules. Same as Turkey.

I agree. But this is supposed to supplant the backstop. And you can't do that without having some SM rules. At the very least, the ones that relate to NI trade with the UK and the EU.

charlie14

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand how that's somehow a bad thing for us? This was always on offer and would be very good for us. Would keep the landbridge open for a start.

It would if NI remains in the SM.
This new suggestion seems to only be the UK, NI included, staying in the CU only.

Spook_ie

Rhineshark wrote: »

The third-party arbritrar is a bit nonsense. Who? And what happens if that element gets bought off by the UK? Or (say US as a "neutral" third power), goes nuts too. Or (say UN) collapses. Why would Ireland put itself in a position where our island is at the whim of a third party that we have to acquiesce to? Why would the EU do the same?

Putting trust in the EU is one thing. Putting it in a third party that could be pressured without any loss to itself from the border situation is asking for it.

Now think UK, why would they put themselves in the same position of trusting the EU?

prawnsambo

charlie14 wrote: »

It would if NI remains in the SM.
This new suggestion seems to only be the UK, NI included, staying in the CU only.

See above. Replied to that separately.

charlie14

prawnsambo wrote: »

I agree. But this is supposed to supplant the backstop. And you can't do that without having some SM rules. At the very least, the ones that relate to NI trade with the UK and the EU.

That is what I find confusing in not just how this suggestion on the UK and NI staying in just the CU and not the SM would solve the problem and how the EU could possibly use the rules of the SM in tandem with those of the CU which his tweets seem to suggest as regards NI.

prawnsambo

charlie14 wrote: »

That is what I find confusing in not just how this suggestion on the UK and NI staying in just the CU and not the SM would solve the problem and how the EU could possibly use the rules of the SM in tandem with those of the CU which his tweets seem to suggest as regards NI.

You seem to be missing the point that this is coming from the UK side. And that they actually haven't delivered on the detail yet. So it's more than likely that it's just another kite-flying exercise that hasn't even got off the ground.

charlie14

Leroy42 wrote: »

But everyone can see that the UK have very little intention of staying within the CU anyway. The likes of Raab, Davies, Johnson etc all want to get even further out. The NI border is one of the key ways the the EU can limit the potential damage to itself.

Even if they look to go no further out in the interim just staying in the CU will not negate the need for a border somewhere as regards NI. Only NI staying in the SM will prevent that.

Water John

Correct, as it was with the last 2 years.

charlie14

prawnsambo wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that this is coming from the UK side. And that they actually haven't delivered on the detail yet. So it's more than likely that it's just another kite-flying exercise that hasn't even got off the ground.

It`s not that I`m missing the point of where it is coming from.
I`m just commenting that on this suggestion which some here see as a possible solution, I cannot see how it possibly could be other than NI staying in the SM as well as the CU or some change in the backstop requirements.

prawnsambo

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s not that I`m missing the point of where it is coming from.
I`m just commenting that on this suggestion which some here see as a possible solution, I cannot see how it possibly could be other than NI staying in the SM as well as the CU or some change in the backstop requirements.

That can happen if SM rules are applied specifically and only to goods and services that NI trades with the UK and EU. So not a full SM and only for specific goods/services. In fact that can even be narrowed down further to just cross border goods. It's quite possible and would have very little to differentiate NI from the rest of the UK.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511062423314432

Another day, another Tony Connelly thread. We really don't deserve him.

Dyr

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1059511062423314432

Another day, another Tony Connelly thread. We don't deserve him.

I'd imagine he's mostly being fed info by the Dept. of Foreign Affairs to counter whatever the British press are being spun.

McGiver

charlie14 wrote: »

I would have thought that by leaving the SM and just staying in the CU, if this was granted by the EU, then the UK would have to abide by just CU rules. Same as Turkey.

Not really, see Wikipedia on Turkey-EU Customs Union. I thought there is no regulation alignment at all, but there is.

In addition to providing for a common external tariff for the products covered, the Customs Union foresees that Turkey is to align to the acquis communautaire in several essential internal market areas, notably with regard to industrial standards.

You could argue the the UK already complies, which is definitely the case, but they may diverge in these key areas and I suppose that wouldn't be easy/possible.

serfboard

Bambi wrote: »

I'd imagine he's mostly being fed info by the Dept. of Foreign Affairs to counter whatever the British press are being spun.

Well given that he has lived in Brussels for a number of years now, I imagine that he also has plenty of contacts within the Commission - starting with, but not limited to, the Irish people who work there.

Beechwoodspark

No deal looking ever more likely

trellheim

Agree unless TM has a surprise to spring at cabinet tomorrow

charlie14

prawnsambo wrote: »

That can happen if SM rules are applied specifically and only to goods and services that NI trades with the UK and EU. So not a full SM and only for specific goods/services. In fact that can even be narrowed down further to just cross border goods. It's quite possible and would have very little to differentiate NI from the rest of the UK.

I`m not that sure it would be as simple as that, or that the EU would even agree to a partial SM for NI.


The SM rules guarantee the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. It also requires annual payment towards the EU budget as well as accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.


A lot of sticky points there for both the EU and the UK now and very possibly in the future for the EU to grant a partial SM to NI without some border controls.