Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

I know people have said that the UK will surely realise the error of their ways within six months and come crawling back in humiliation to the EU, but remember that not too long ago we were pretty sure that they would accept any deal that was given to them. We now think they will come crawling back because that is the only hope we are left with.

The UK Government did accept the deal that was offered and they accepted the backstop even though May has repeatedly said she will not allow regulatory alignment to differ between NI and the rest of the UK. This is precisely what the backstop entails that if the FTA is not reached after the transition then there will be an all UK customs union and NI will still adhere to single market regulations. History doesn't seem to be on your side with the point you are trying to make.

spacecoyote

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not always inadvertently. Here is Jacob's suggestion last May speaking in the context of pressurising the EU during negotiations:

"If Britain trades on WTO terms, we could potentially slap tariffs of up to 70 per cent on Irish beef. That could bankrupt Ireland, who export £800million of beef to us every year."

I'm a bit confused on JRMs logic here. Wouldn't their tariff be applied at EU level under WTO, so if they're applying a 70% tariff, wouldn't it be on EU beef, not Irish beef. And if they're then putting a 70% tariff on EU exports of beef, wouldn't the EU just put the same tariff on UK beef exports, essentially bankrupting the UK beef farmers as I'm assuming they export a hefty amount to Europe?

Sorry I know JRM is a complete sh1tetalker, but I'm curious as to how the WTO thing applies, re Ireland versus EU

Borderhopper

downcow wrote: »

I appreciate that response. That’s very fair.

Good to have you back Downcow. Could you answer my question please? What would you have nationalists in Northern Ireland do?

Tell me how

spacecoyote wrote: »

I'm a bit confused on JRMs logic here. Wouldn't their tariff be applied at EU level under WTO, so if they're applying a 70% tariff, wouldn't it be on EU beef, not Irish beef. And if they're then putting a 70% tariff on EU exports of beef, wouldn't the EU just put the same tariff on UK beef exports, essentially bankrupting the UK beef farmers as I'm assuming they export a hefty amount to Europe?

Sorry I know JRM is a complete sh1tetalker, but I'm curious as to how the WTO thing applies, re Ireland versus EU

Not only that, but if the put a 70% tariff on our (EU beef) they would have to put that same tariff on all suppliers of beef in to the UK.

trellheim

Hmm .... last December there was an agreement that was immediately repudiated by the UK side with the lead negotiator for the UK (David Davis) saying he did not realise what it meant, and it took nearly a full year to get back to that point. Now there is an agreed text that cannot get through the HOC.

If you will recall, the UK Gov agreed to this to move the talks on from the first phase as the pesky EU refused to budge to the good stuff "trade" until NI had been sorted out. They had hoped (and still hope) that the EU will cave on this as we get closer to the deadline.

Does anyone have any examples of the EU caving . I'm looking at Switzerland as "didn't cave" (swiss HAD to cave on FOM )

spacecoyote

Tell me how wrote: »

Not only that, but if the put a 70% tariff on our (EU beef) they would have to put that same tariff on all suppliers of beef in to the UK.

Ok thanks, makes sense. So you can't be seen to give preferential rates to any trading partner. So they couldn't have a 70% EU tariff & a 10% Japanese tariff, everyone has to be treated equally

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK Government did accept the deal that was offered and they accepted the backstop even though May has repeatedly said she will not allow regulatory alignment to differ between NI and the rest of the UK. This is precisely what the backstop entails that if the FTA is not reached after the transition then there will be an all UK customs union and NI will still adhere to single market regulations. History doesn't seem to be on your side with the point you are trying to make.

I think the main problem with this is that you are talking about the backstop in the present tense as if it was an agreement to which the UK could be held. It is not and let us be realistic, it is unlikely to be in the future.

FreudianSlippers

spacecoyote wrote: »

I'm a bit confused on JRMs logic here. Wouldn't their tariff be applied at EU level under WTO, so if they're applying a 70% tariff, wouldn't it be on EU beef, not Irish beef. And if they're then putting a 70% tariff on EU exports of beef, wouldn't the EU just put the same tariff on UK beef exports, essentially bankrupting the UK beef farmers as I'm assuming they export a hefty amount to Europe?

Sorry I know JRM is a complete sh1tetalker, but I'm curious as to how the WTO thing applies, re Ireland versus EU

Tell me how wrote: »

Not only that, but if the put a 70% tariff on our (EU beef) they would have to put that same tariff on all suppliers of beef in to the UK.

Exactly, it'd be on all beef imported from WTO members. The UK also couldn't discriminate intra-EU because they can't enter individual trade deals with a specific Member State.

Importantly the WTO doesn't allow for discriminatory tariffs in any event.

RobMc59

josip wrote: »

Rob, are you sure it's tonnes? It seems a bit much for one driver to transport, even if he's Dutch?

Apologies-should have said kilos!

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the main problem with this is that you are talking about the backstop in the present tense as if it was an agreement to which the UK could be held. It is not and let us be realistic, it is unlikely to be in the future.

So why the jockeying to have it removed if it is an agreement that they cannot be held to? Surely you do the Gove tactic of agreeing to it and then just ignoring it. I mean it is just a legal document that will be signed between 2 parties, much like the GFA.

Edit: Anyone else seeing posts that disappear after a few minutes?

First Up

spacecoyote wrote:

Ok thanks, makes sense. So you can't be seen to give preferential rates to any trading partner. So they couldn't have a 70% EU tariff & a 10% Japanese tariff, everyone has to be treated equally

They are free to negotiate trade terms with the EU, Japan, US and everyone else and those deals could include different tariffs in each case.

However JRM was talking about WTO terms and in that case the same tariffs would have to be applied to all WTO members. So they could not (for example) slap hefty tariffs on Irish and other EU beef but allow Argentinian beef in tariff free.

Its quite possible that JRM doesn't understand that because he doesn't seem to understand a lot of things.

CelticRambler

Hurrache wrote: »

The Markets segment on Sky News are saying that sterling reached its high because of the reports in the Sun that the DUP have privately backed the deal. However if that backing is on the foundation that the backstop will be limited, it means nothing.

I came across the same explanation in a different place earlier today too. I couldn't figure out what the reason for such optimism was. Seemingly, the suggestion that the HoC would apply a time-limit to the backstop (duck 1) would be enough to persuade the DUP to back May's deal (duck 2) which would encourage the ERG (duck 3) and the rebellious Remainer Tories (duck 4) to come on board, and that that would be sufficient for the EU to grant an extension to Art.50 (duck 5) to allow for the WA to be rewritten and approved by the EU27 (duck 6).

That's an awful lot of ducks that someone is expecting to keep in a row. You'd almost believe the City of London's bankers and traders were drinking the Westminster Koolaid. :pac:

judeboy101

trellheim wrote: »

If you will recall, the UK Gov agreed to this to move the talks on from the first phase as the pesky EU refused to budge to the good stuff "trade" until NI had been sorted out. They had hoped (and still hope) that the EU will cave on this as we get closer to the deadline.

Does anyone have any examples of the EU caving . I'm looking at Switzerland as "didn't cave" (swiss HAD to cave on FOM )

Actually the EU did cave. As an EU citizen I cannot fly to switzerland in the morning and get a job. Firstly if the region I get the job in has higher than average unemployment, the job must go to a swiss first. Secondly I must prove that I have integrated into swiss society. That's not from, that's quotas by stealth.

Tell me how

Enzokk wrote: »

So why the jockeying to have it removed if it is an agreement that they cannot be held to? Surely you do the Gove tactic of agreeing to it and then just ignoring it. I mean it is just a legal document that will be signed between 2 parties, much like the GFA.

Edit: Anyone else seeing posts that disappear after a few minutes?

Could be due to moderation.
Can be frustrating (if they are your posts), but to be fair, it is why this thread has continued for the vast majority of the time to be an enjoyable informative place in to its 6th edition.

Enzokk

Tell me how wrote: »

Could be due to moderation.
Can be frustrating (if they are your posts), but to be fair, it is why this thread has continued for the vast majority of the time to be an enjoyable informative place in to its 6th edition.

Maybe, although the two posts I read had nothing in them to be removed (IMO). No worries, was just wondering if it was a boards problem or as you say a moderating.

CelticRambler

judeboy101 wrote: »

Actually the EU did cave. As an EU citizen I cannot fly to switzerland in the morning and get a job.

Yup, you can (Swiss govt site, my highlighting):

Short-term employment up to three months (EU-25/EFTA citizens)

Citizens from EU-25/EFTA states do not require authorisation for short-term employment up to three months or 90 days per calendar year.

For employment lasting beyond three months, you need a statement of engagement from the employer or a certificate of employment (e.g. an employment contract) and have to apply for a residence permit.

So pretty much the same as if you wanted to move to any other EU country, except that in that case, your residency is automatically permitted by virtue of the fact that you've been working for more than three months.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

Edit: Anyone else seeing posts that disappear after a few minutes?

I mistakenly replied to the same post twice and deleted the second one. Could be that.

FrancieBrady

It is great to finally hear Leo spelling out what a border might mean. I said exactly the same thing he is now saying away at the start of this thread.
All it takes is for one customs post or person to be attacked and protection will have to be provided and so we start the road back to fortified installations on the border and then we can so easily slip back to the bad days.

And no amount of condemnation or hand wringing about right and wrong will help, it will be too late.

The right thing is to avoid at all costs, the creation of those conditions. I can tell you, there are a lot of very worried people here.
And some would have you believe that it is all about unionist discomfort.

murphaph

downcow wrote: »

Fixed that for you! But I mightn’t be around long because what’s good for the goose dare not be said about the gander I fear

“Let’s be honest while we can be flexible what was needed with these southern irish fools was complete clarity because this entire debate from them is nothing more than opinionated whataboutry and evasive smoke and mirrors when confronted with cold facts. Brexit would have passed with no issue had the Dumba'ss Sinn Fein Party not been able to become the spanner in the works and been able to mess things up. Theyre of the same league as the the rest of the southern Irish .

The sad truth is the Irish are utter idiots of the moat dangerous kind because theyre too incompetent and stuck in their blinkered views of the world to actually be rational and this isnt counting the likes of mary-Lou or Michelle who likely have ulterior motives. Theres no negotiating or flexibility with those types you have to strongarm them legally so they cant weasel out of their commitments without consequence.”

There's no way you voted remain.

downcow

Borderhopper wrote: »

Good to have you back Downcow. Could you answer my question please? What would you have nationalists in Northern Ireland do?

I was never away anywhere but thanks for your concern.
This might shock you but I have spent most of my life working in peace building. I suppose it’s my interest to learn from other opinions that brings me on here.
Your question is a good one. It is a connondrim for both unionists and nationalists to know what to do.
From where i am looking they should help us get rid of the backstop. They should encourage the Eu to have more confidence in its self and be prepared to negotiate a future for Eu and UK without the need for things like the backstop. They are a big block 10 times plus bigger than the UK so shouldn’t need a backstop to negotiate a good deal.
The other thing I would suggest nationalists would do, thankfully I have just witnessed them in some numbers doing this evening ie joining me in showing there disgust for anyone use the conflict and troops on the border as s cheap bargaining chip. Fair play the the nationalist of Newry who were on the news tonight.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I was never away anywhere but thanks for your concern.
This might shock you but I have spent most of my life working in peace building. I suppose it’s my interest to learn from other opinions that brings me on here.
Your question is a good one. It is a connondrim for both unionists and nationalists to know what to do.
From where i am looking they should help us get rid of the backstop. They should encourage the Eu to have more confidence in its self and be prepared to negotiate a future for Eu and UK without the need for things like the backstop. They are a big block 10 times plus bigger than the UK so shouldn’t need a backstop to negotiate a good deal.
The other thing I would suggest nationalists would do, thankfully I have just witnessed them in some numbers doing this evening ie joining me in showing there disgust for anyone use the conflict and troops on the border as s cheap bargaining chip. Fair play the the nationalist of Newry who were on the news tonight.

What is your problem with the backstop? You have been assured by Westminster that it doesn't alter your position in the UK

downcow

murphaph wrote: »

There's no way you voted remain.

You are right there. And I didn’t vote leave either. In fact I was enjoying supporting our wee country in France at the euros when you were voting

Tell me how

downcow wrote: »

I was never away anywhere but thanks for your concern.
This might shock you but I have spent most of my life working in peace building. I suppose it’s my interest to learn from other opinions that brings me on here.
Your question is a good one. It is a connondrim for both unionists and nationalists to know what to do.
From where i am looking they should help us get rid of the backstop. They should encourage the Eu to have more confidence in its self and be prepared to negotiate a future for Eu and UK without the need for things like the backstop. They are a big block 10 times plus bigger than the UK so shouldn’t need a backstop to negotiate a good deal.
The other thing I would suggest nationalists would do, thankfully I have just witnessed them in some numbers doing this evening ie joining me in showing there disgust for anyone use the conflict and troops on the border as s cheap bargaining chip. Fair play the the nationalist of Newry who were on the news tonight.

Do you not know that the backstop is an insurance that the promises which Brexiteers made that issues relating to a border in Ireland can be solved with technology and other means and so it is for the Brexiteers within the UK to come up with these solutions. If they do, as they said they would, the backstop will never be required.

Every time they ask for the backstop to be removed, they are admitting that they lied about solutions to circumvent it's need.

The more they lie, the more proof that this was a false premise ahead of the referendum and so places on doubt the validity of the result.

road_high

Strazdas wrote: »

I could see this becoming a news story in Germany. This is a sitting MP of the ruling party speaking on live TV - and being very deliberate and calculated in his insults towards German people.

The way the English have behaved and disrespected Europeans (Germans and French in particular) is shocking- all the bile, prejudice and hatred pouring out. They’re like an autistuc child that every one makes excuses for. Pathetic carry on

ilovesmybrick

You know I've kind of given up on anything but a hard Brexit. I was flying from Dublin back home to Austria in 2016 and a stag party from the UK were cheering the vote result in Dublin airport on their way to Spain. And I thought this madness can't go on, eventually common sense would prevail.

Three years after the vote was announced its gotten worse. Nobody seems to have opened a civics book or even gone on to Wikipedia and enter 'EU'. Apparently the EU are intransigent, yet they quickly put out what they needed. They opened up their discussions as much as is possible, and they clearly explained their issues, problems and offers.

The UK has spent three years fighting a minority in the tories that has no idea about what they want or desire but 'NO'. No one knows what they want, and neither do they, bar unicorns.

I'm pretty pro EU, but I'm critical of a lot of how it works. As is a large proportion of the country I now live in. However, you can be critical of a governmental institution while also realising that its the best available and working to fix that within. This is not a hard concept and the cornerstone of democracy.

This entire process is frustrating and upsetting. It's not the EU or Ireland against the UK, its the UK fighting themselves and causing untold repercussions on their society.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One day, perhaps after an election, another referendum, or a new Bronze Age in the former UK, there will be a deal between England and the EU. And it will include the backstop, as agreed in December 2017.

No good for us in that case.

Disagree. When the UK are brought to their knees by 6 months of utter devastation of No Deal trade, they will be so happy to get an FTA that the backstop will be a tiny detail. And they will never question it again.

Infini

Bit cynical wrote: »

I disagree that it would solve nothing but we've got to be realistic about what can be achieved. A free trade deal where there are no tariffs on goods means an easier patrolled border. A border where there is no trade deal whatsoever requires intensive border infrastructure and monitoring.

In fairness if the UK ends up crashing out a Hard Border would be an unfortunate reality because the UK not the EU by basically negating every trade arrangement it has at once turns it into the EU's external border. As mentioned earlier the whole border thing was less of someone not putting it up but rather not heing the person who gets the flak for putting it up first (which is solely the UK's fault here). What happens after that is up in the air simply because of the UK's refusal to tell everyone else what it ACTUALLY WANTS. I'd expect it to be less fortifications and such though most likely it'll be temporary stuff for a few months because a hard border is only something that can come in the long term of things.

Bit cynical wrote: »

We already have the CTA and reciprocal working arrangements between the two jurisdictions, so a trade deal even along the lines of Canada would solve many problems.

This is less desirable, however, than what was envisaged under the backstop, but it looks like the backstop is dead forever. It has only served to delay and complicate proceedings to Ireland's disadvantage.

I'd say the backstop is only delayed rather than dead because either it will end up being part of any future agreement OR the UK will be forced by circumstances to agree to a proper FTA or customs union after a few months of Brexit chaos eviscerating its economy. I don't know how the CTA is going to work out in the long term its basically something that will be exposed in the medium term and circumstances could bring its end if things get ugly or something unforeseen happens in the chaos.

Bit cynical wrote: »

I know people have said that the UK will surely realise the error of their ways within six months and come crawling back in humiliation to the EU, but remember that not too long ago we were pretty sure that they would accept any deal that was given to them. We now think they will come crawling back because that is the only hope we are left with.

It's less about confidence about them accepting any deal as such but rather pragmatism in this case. The UK simply cant fly off and relocate to the far east or Australia its part of Europe. it WILL have to do a deal at some point but this could be on worse terms than it even has in the WA because they'll have inflicted damage on everyone for their stupid and needless behavior over the last 2 years. The devil is in the detail and while we have predictions and attempts to get a good idea of the damage we dont have an actual instance of such reckess stupidity to go on so we ultimately dont know HOW bad the damage will ultimately be only its gonna be an utter train wreck of a disaster.

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

I'm pretty pro EU, but I'm critical of a lot of how it works. As is a large proportion of the country I now live in. However, you can be critical of a governmental institution while also realising that its the best available and working to fix that within. This is not a hard concept and the cornerstone of democracy.

Same myself. There's thing's that I wont like or be critical about the EU but the whole point is to hammer away at them till they cop on and fix something if there's a problem not pull a "screw you guys I'm going home" routine because one cant get their own way. The whole reason the EU came about was because of the need to pool resources to protect all involved its less costly and offers more protection. The problem with the UK is they cant see that and its going to bite them in the áss when its too late.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is your problem with the backstop? You have been assured by Westminster that it doesn't alter your position in the UK

The backstop can lock us in forever to a situation where we have entirely different arrangements to the rest of the UK (and please don’t again bring up the current devolved matters which are chosen by the people -some crazy discriminatory stuff I know). It leaves us under the control of the Eu while rest of UK leaves. I is completely undemocratic. And it is not needed.

ilovesmybrick

downcow wrote:

The backstop can lock us in forever to a situation where we have entirely different arrangements to the rest of the UK (and please don’t again bring up the current devolved matters which are chosen by the people -some crazy discriminatory stuff I know). It leaves us under the control of the Eu while rest of UK leaves. I is completely undemocratic. And it is not needed.

Okay, maybe I'm only speaking for myself as someone that remembers the end of the troubles and the checkpoints, and is from the Republic, but this is not a ploy to force the North to rejoin the South as you have been making out or insinuating the past while. This is the result of a poorly considered decision by Cameron.

You already have many different arrangements than the UK. That has been a fact for a very long time. The South has done incredibly well from membership of the EU, as has the North.

Northern Ireland has no devolved government at the moment. You're only representatives are the hardline DUP members in Westminster, and for around two years now what has the UK done to right this democratic deficit? You say you're left under the control of the EU if there's a divergence. What control do you have now?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

The backstop can lock us in forever to a situation where we have entirely different arrangements to the rest of the UK (and please don’t again bring up the current devolved matters which are chosen by the people -some crazy discriminatory stuff I know). It leaves us under the control of the Eu while rest of UK leaves. I is completely undemocratic. And it is not needed.

It may not be needed by you and the DUP but the fact is, it is needed by Ireland and the EU.