Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Akrasia

Russman wrote: »

I'd agree with you, but if there's a no deal, we won't be able to accept or reject anything, its totally out of our control.
At this stage, while aware of the sensitivities around the border, it might be time to stop pandering to these sensitivities and begin to lay it out for anyone in denial that there will be a border if there's a no deal situation. It won't be Leo's fault, or the EU's fault, the blame is squarely with the UK.

It's mostly out of our control anyway. It's also out of the EU's control. It's all playing out in Westminster. I think it could even be out of May's control if Dominic Grieve's amendments pass on Tuesday.

I am fairly confident that a no deal scenario will be impossible before we get close to the 29th of March deadline. It will either be A50 extension or A50 withdrawal (there is no time for May to get her deal passed by that date anymore, and certainly not time for any new deal to get agreement in the EU.)

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

Why do we have government members saying something like “We are not going to be putting up border infrastructure” then, and pretending there is no chance of it happening?

Because it only happens if there is No Deal, and No Deal is a bluff by the Brits, they can't really do it.


OK, they could do it for maybe 2 months before they run out of food and medicine. Then they'll be back for talks, and item 1 will be... opening the border again.

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because it only happens if there is No Deal, and No Deal is a bluff by the Brits, they can't really do it.


OK, they could do it for maybe 2 months before they run out of food and medicine. Then they'll be back for talks, and item 1 will be... opening the border again.

So your view is that our government is deliberately lying when they say no hard border will be required in case of a no-deal Brexit, because they are betting on the fact they this scenario will never materialise?

Very risky bet if that’s what they are doing!

Sierra Oscar

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This isn't news. FG have done the right thing up till now, saying they won't impose a border and keeping quiet about any preparations in that regard.

The EU Commission publicly declaring unequivocally that Ireland must impose a hard border or face exclusion from the Customs Union in the event of a no-deal is huge news. It's effectively the EU Commission putting a gun to the Irish Government's head and demanding that we make concessions on the backstop.

EU now looks set to ask Ireland to accept concessions

Akrasia

Bob24 wrote: »

Why do we have government members saying something like “We are not going to be putting up border infrastructure” then, and pretending there is no chance of it happening?

Nowadays you have people firing at Theresa May for potentially going back on her promise not to reinstate a border. If you are correct, it means our governement is jumping on the same boat as her in terms making very important promises it knows doesn’t have full control over, which could come back to bite us.

They say things like they have no plans to put up border infrastructure, but this is politician speak for 'it's not something we want to do but will do it if we are forced to'

Hurrache

Bob24 wrote: »

So your view is that our government is deliberately lying when they say no hard border will be required in case of a no-deal Brexit, because they are betting on the fact they this scenario will never materialise?

Very risky bet if that’s what they are doing!

It's all semantics. It'll be a border with the EU which will be required as the UK pulled out. Not because Ireland decided to put one there.

seamus

Bob24 wrote: »

So your view is that our government is deliberately lying when they say no hard border will be required in case of a no-deal Brexit, because they are betting on the fact they this scenario will never materialise?

Our government are not saying that no border will be required though.

The closest thing I could find was a statement by the Minister for Agriculture that he was not "countenancing" the erection of a hard border when it comes to his Brexit preparations.

In other words that he is so sure it will not come to that, that he is not factoring it into preparations.

It's subtle, but nobody is claiming that a hard border is not necessary. They're saying that they believe it won't come to that.

However, we do actually know that they are putting contingency plans in place, but they're just not talking about it. The party line is to show confidence in our neighbours, rather than admit that we're actively preparing for them to make a balls of this.

Akrasia

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The EU Commission publicly declaring unequivocally that Ireland must impose a hard border or face exclusion from the Customs Union in the event of a no-deal is huge news. It's effectively the EU Commission putting a gun to the Irish Government's head and demanding that we make concessions on the backstop.

EU now looks set to ask Ireland to accept concessions

It really isn't. It's the EU commission countering the absolute Bullsh1t from the brexiteers saying that there is no need for a border following a no deal scenario.

They kept quiet about it for years because they were working towards a deal. Now they're not working towards a deal anymore, they're working towards avoiding a no deal crash out.

Leroy42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The EU Commission publicly declaring unequivocally that Ireland must impose a hard border or face exclusion from the Customs Union in the event of a no-deal is huge news. It's effectively the EU Commission putting a gun to the Irish Government's head and demanding that we make concessions on the backstop.

EU now looks set to ask Ireland to accept concessions

Sorry, but did you read the earlier posts on this very subject?

That article says no such thing. even without Brexit, if Ireland, or any country, refused to operate the agreed regulatory regimes they would be outside the CU. This is not news, this is what makes the EU what it is.

Bob24

Hurrache wrote: »

It's all semantics. It'll be a border with the EU which will be required as the UK pulled out. Not because Ireland decided to put one there.

They are not talking about the reason for the border or the technicalities though. They are simply and unambiguously saying there will be no border no matter what.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

So your view is that our government is deliberately lying when they say no hard border will be required in case of a no-deal Brexit, because they are betting on the fact they this scenario will never materialise?

They also have no plans to allow UK flying Unicorns to land at Dublin airport.

Since No Deal and flying unicorns are both impossible in reality, we should not get too excited about reports from Brexitland about them.

robinph

It really does need some bigger power to slap the UK about the face a bit and tell them to stop being so stupid and to point out a few simple facts to them.

Unfortunately, the EU can't do that because that would just confirm the brexiteers conspiracy theory that the EU is out to get them and trying to stop them leaving, and the only other country the UK might listen to is currently sat in the corner with a dunces hat on behind a pile of lego bricks and shouting at twitter about how everyone is out to get them.

FreudianSlippers

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The EU Commission publicly declaring unequivocally that Ireland must impose a hard border or face exclusion from the Customs Union in the event of a no-deal is huge news. It's effectively the EU Commission putting a gun to the Irish Government's head and demanding that we make concessions on the backstop.

EU now looks set to ask Ireland to accept concessions

In addition to what others have said over the last few pages; I also don't understand this sudden pearl-clutching from the Indo either. Not only has it always been obvious that there would be a hard border in the event of no-deal Brexit, but it's also obvious that both the UK and Ireland will need to implement a hard border - Ireland doesn't need to give "concessions" for this, it's just a reality.

Zubeneschamali

robinph wrote: »

It really does need some bigger power to slap the UK about the face a bit and tell them to stop being so stupid and to point out a few simple facts to them.

I think we can look forward to the UK hitting themselves in the face continuously for the next 10 years or so, unless they see sense and withdraw A50. The WA is a piece of cake (sry) compared to negotiating a Free Trade deal and they need to negotiate about 70 of them.

EdgeCase

I think, had the US not been off in its own la la land with Donald Trump, the Brexit story would have been very different.

Hillary Clinton would have leaned very hard on the UK for a whole variety of reasons: undermining US interests in the EU, unravelling the NI Peace Process, giving Putin what he wants and so on.

With Trump in the Whitehouse the Brexiteers and others are being encouraged to attempt to dismantle the EU and international multilateralism in general.

I'd suspect the tide may turn fairly rapidly in the US over the coming months as it really looks like Trump is starting to unravel.

Bob24

seamus wrote: »

Our government are not saying that no border will be required though.

The closest thing I could find was a statement by the Minister for Agriculture that he was not "countenancing" the erection of a hard border when it comes to his Brexit preparations.

In other words that he is so sure it will not come to that, that he is not factoring it into preparations.

It's subtle, but nobody is claiming that a hard border is not necessary. They're saying that they believe it won't come to that.

However, we do actually know that they are putting contingency plans in place, but they're just not talking about it. The party line is to show confidence in our neighbours, rather than admit that we're actively preparing for them to make a balls of this.

Coveney said pretty clearly that instating a border is not part of our no-deal plans: “The Irish government will not support the re-emergence of border infrastructure on this island. We're not planning for it in no-deal Brexit planning”.

FreudianSlippers

Bob24 wrote: »

Coveney said pretty clearly that instating a border is not part of our no-deal plans: “The Irish government will not support the re-emergence of border infrastructure on this island. We're not planning for it in no-deal Brexit planning”.

Ireland is more likely to be capable of running a technological border for UK goods entering the EU (given these goods will also be entering other EU Member States) but there is no way the UK could run the border in a no-deal scenario without a hard border. That wouldn't be the Irish government implementing it technically.

LuckyLloyd

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The EU Commission publicly declaring unequivocally that Ireland must impose a hard border or face exclusion from the Customs Union in the event of a no-deal is huge news. It's effectively the EU Commission putting a gun to the Irish Government's head and demanding that we make concessions on the backstop.

EU now looks set to ask Ireland to accept concessions

Please read the articles you are referencing sir, and maybe ideally don't ever reference a rag like the Indo but that is only a suggestion.

They aren't demanding any concessions. They are simply stating the obvious. This is a choreographed political move, and I would be shocked if it wasn't organised with the Irish cabinet (Coveney met Barnier a couple of days ago). There is no change of position here, nothing new.

It's merely time for Ireland to start lifting the lid on border preparations. That time would always come. Two months out is a perfectly reasonable time to start doing what must be done.

Hurrache

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

negotiating a Free Trade deal and they need to negotiate about 70 of them.

A large portion of the UK and its government doesn't seem to realise the work required if and when a withdrawal agreement is signed off on.

robinph

...and then just got off the phone with a client who's from a core EU country, has made his business in selling products freely through the EU, lives in another EU state, has staff from other EU countries, makes extensive use of the fact that the UK is in the EU to sell stuff to other EU countries that isn't available there as easily due to slight variations in the regulations.

Yet he still carries on as if the break up of the EU is a good thing every time he calls up to get more stuff from me that is only available to him due to the EU! The idiot gene isn't unique to the British.

bob mcbob

Folkstonian wrote: »

An utterly fascinating development. Their joint announcement today signalling astutely more military and political cooperation between France and geemany was delicately timed to send a message

Was it to say to on the fence voters in the case of a second referendum, don’t bother trying to stay inside the EU if you hope to keep our military, social and political integration projects at arms length?

That there is more substance to the ‘scare stories’ about sovereignty and a European Armed Forces than many remain campaigners (looking your way right now Mr Clegg) would ever care to admit.

I really don’t know. But I don’t think it will help convince anyone in England that a second vote to stay means a return to the status quo.

Out of interest, I know the majority here are obviously very pro-EU, but how do you feel about the talk from Verhofstadt, Macron and Merkel today about a unified European military able to defend the continents from Putin’s armoured divisions?

Is it a good thing, a concern, or a step too far, or at least too soon?

I think it a pragmatic response to the current situation -
- Are there concerns about where Trump is going with regards to allies - yes
- Is Putin becoming more aggressive - yes

With the current system, if all countries spend 2% of GDP on defence then Luxembourg can field 4 tanks and a quarter of a fighter. Belgium 20 tanks and 1 and a half fighters. Instead if this money is put into central European fund then you can build a serious defence capability.

Of all the European countries, it is only really France who performs military actions outside of Europe.

Professor Moriarty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Please read the articles you are referencing sir, and maybe ideally don't ever reference a rag like the Indo but that is only a suggestion.

They aren't demanding any concessions. They are simply stating the obvious. This is a choreographed political move, and I would be shocked if it wasn't organised with the Irish cabinet (Coveney met Barnier a couple of days ago). There is no change of position here, nothing new.

It's merely time for Ireland to start lifting the lid on border preparations. That time would also come. Two months out is a perfectly reasonable time frame.

I dunno about choreography. I saw an interview with Coveney last night on Sky and he was asked some hard questions about Schinas's comment on the border. He was literally lost for words and seemed shocked.

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They also have no plans to allow UK flying Unicorns to land at Dublin airport.

Since No Deal and flying unicorns are both impossible in reality, we should not get too excited about reports from Brexitland about them.

Two things:
1) we agree about unicorns, but not about the no-deal scenario: it might not be the most likely but it is far from impossible
2) to you does that justify the government voluntarily lying to he public with regards to what would happen in that scenario?

Leroy42

I agree with Bob24 in that Ireland has very much be signaling that there will not be a border no matter what. Whether they actually said that when you dissect the statements is not the point. They have allowed the message, and I am prepared to accept that it was done for diplomatic reasons, that nothing will change in respect of NI and Ireland will almost be unaffected by Brexit, in whatever guise.

Much like the problem TM has in selling her deal after telling everyone for 2 years that No Deal is better than a Bad Del, Leo is now going to face a backlash from many people who simply accepted the overall view of the government that nothing would change.

For most on here, it is not a surprise, but you would be surprised at how many in Ireland have not given this any real consideration. Much like many in the UK. It will be a shock when the border starts going up and many people will rightly ask why Leo didn't stop it and if Leo promised no border then it must be the EU making us to do.

Should they have handled it differently, well I don't know. One thing that is certain in this whole Brexit mess is that is hard to fully plan for the outcome of any particular action. Had they talked about the hard border earlier, would many in Ireland have been calling for Ireland to give concessions earlier.

But at this point I do think that Leo should come out with a full statement to the Dail and the Irish people detailing out exactly was is coming under a crash out scenario.

poppers

What deal have the EU and Spain done with GB to sort out the Gibraltar border??

Akrasia

Bob24 wrote: »

Coveney said pretty clearly that instating a border is not part of our no-deal plans: “The Irish government will not support the re-emergence of border infrastructure on this island. We're not planning for it in no-deal Brexit planning”.

If you ask a general if they have plans for an invasion of their closest rival, they'll always say no. Doesn't mean they don't have a contingency plan just in case something unthinkable happens. It's their job.

Not part of no deal plans, as i said, is politician speak for
"It's not something we want to happen, but we will do it if we have no other choice"

It's like asking a government minister if they want to be Taoiseach. They'll always answer, "I fully support the current Taoiseach, I have no plans for what happens later" when you and I both know that they'd stick the knife in the minute they think they have a chance of winning.

Not having plans to do something is not the same as saying something won't happen.

(and they definitely do have plans for border infrastructure, they're just keeping them quiet to avoid stoking tensions on the border)

Bob24

Leroy42 wrote: »

Much like the problem TM has in selling her deal after telling everyone for 2 years that No Deal is better than a Bad Del, Leo is now going to face a backlash from many people who simply accepted the overall view of the government that nothing would change.

100% behind this. The reality is that with the message the government is currently sending about no accepting a border no matter what, if the no-deal scenario materialises we will have a serious institutional crisis and complete government paralysis at a critical time for the country. Similar problems May is currently having with the previous statements she made.

FreudianSlippers

Is there any source that anyone can find to the actual statement made by Margaritis Schinas or is it just as reported by the media? I'd be interested to see the context.

Dyr

prawnsambo wrote: »

Didn't expect him to blink first. But then I suppose, he's in the brexit at any cost camp and the nightmare scenario of the HoC voting to revoke the A50 notice is what's behind this.

The thing is the ERG have set the agenda quite successfully, They high-balled their position and now anything that's not a hard Brexit is viewed with relief by most people.

josip

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The EU Commission publicly declaring unequivocally that Ireland must impose a hard border or face exclusion from the Customs Union in the event of a no-deal is huge news. It's effectively the EU Commission putting a gun to the Irish Government's head and demanding that we make concessions on the backstop.

EU now looks set to ask Ireland to accept concessions

I think it's important to repeat what the other's have already corrected.

Did you read the link you posted before posting?
Had you read any of the previous 1-2 pages before posting?

This is what has gotten the UK where it is now.
Gullible public taking at face value the headlines and soundbites that gutter media publish.