Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Hurrache

eagle eye wrote: »

If/When the UK leave what happens then. Germany and France have a long history of not getting on with each other. The UK was the other big brother in Europe so if they fall out now there is nobody to tell them they need to make up and get along.

Seriously? France and Germany may go to war because the UK won't be there to say [Liverpudlian accent] "calm down, calm down, calm down', not withstanding the fact that the EU is primarily a means of peace keeping.

Leroy42

eagle eye wrote: »

If/When the UK leave what happens then. Germany and France have a long history of not getting on with each other. The UK was the other big brother in Europe so if they fall out now there is nobody to tell them they need to make up and get along.

Surely recent history is the most telling?

First Up

jmayo wrote:

Spoken like someone that wasn't screwed over by it's delayed delivery. Would you give the same comment to a haulage company that was relying heavily on the delivery of a ship ?

You quoted it as a reason why increased shipping links from Ireland won't work. If you think there is some logic to that argument please provide it.

Everyone knows that chaos at UK ports will disrupt the landbridge and it will take a while to be sorted.

briany

Akrasia wrote: »

The remain side should be selling the EU on it's benefits, not agreeing with the brexiteers on it's flaws

It'll be hard to sell Brexiteers on benefits that they take totally for granted. Benefits they think they either don't really need, don't really think about as anything special, or think can be re-achieved in some way when outside the EU.

The chorus to Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell springs to mind.

VinLieger

eagle eye wrote: »

They want out, the backstop means they are not out.


It means that the EU remain in control for as long as the backstop lasts.

The Backstop only comes into effect if they cannot implement a way of not having a border in NI per the GFA.


So if you are saying the backstop holds them in you are admitting they are lying about being able to implement no border.

jmayo

Is it only now dawning on some Irish people that to some Brits, well English in particular, that Ireland is inconsequential ?

They had forgotten about Northern Ireland since it had stopped causing deaths to their squadies and mayhem on the streets of their major cities.

Of course the DUP entrance into the spotlight was a shock to many and the ultimate was finding out about the pesky Irish border ruining their plans of splitting from the johnny foreigners on the continent.

prawnsambo

jmayo wrote: »

I find screwfix cheaper on some things than some Irish retailers, but they are usually beaten by foreign imports.

Yeah, but it's actually startling how the price differential has swung the other way and how greatly.

jmayo wrote: »

Thanks for that info.
They will be operating between Dublin and Zeebrugge/Rotterdam.

Yep, that's the new routing for the North Sea/Mediterranean corridor. Landbridge is gone from it. Although depending on how the UK manage port traffic, some stuff could use the landbridge on a TIR basis.

jmayo wrote: »

The current links to France are not adequate to cover all the current British land bridge traffic.
Now the above MC Celine and MV Delphine could take a big chunk of traffic direct from Netherlands/Belgium but how many trips a week can two ships do?

I looked up the current sailing times, and effectively you'd get about three a week each. That would work out at about 3,600 trucks a week. Not sure how that compares to the current Ro-Ro traffic, but in the case of a hard brexit, we would see an end to NI traffic using Dublin port.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW I asked about Open Skies re UK and EU, what is the current situation on hard Brexit ?

The EU have undertaken to honour current agreements up to nine months after B-Day (I think) but only for UK-EU and vice versa flights. No EU-EU flights by British carriers.

ArthurDayne

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The former Greek finance minister was on Newsnight last night.

The guy with the name beginning with V that I can't spell.

He's a guy I'd rearly agree with but he made a great point that Brexit has been a lost opportunity for EU reform.

The way the British have handled the result has allowed the EU to avoid to he hard questions about why the result was Leave.

I was hoping after the referendum that the EU would look at itself and see what it was doing wrong, unfortunately the way it has worked out has meant that the EU can avoid the hard questions about the direction the European project is taking.

It's all well and good to be pro European now when it's in our favor but the landscape was very different 10 years ago when they were sticking it to us over the banking crisis.

There was a Spanish government minister also on the show and she was advocating greater European political cohesion.

That made me sad.

I get what Varoufakis is saying but, ultimately, the EU did try to address some UK grievances prior to the referendum. The UK was offered a reform deal in February 2016 -- which was subsequently derided by arch-Brexiteers who always wanted nothing short of the full nuclear option. One of the biggest concessions was the agreement to write into the Treaties, and therefore into the primary fundamental basis of EU law itself, that the UK was exempt from references to "ever closer Union" along with recognition that the UK was not committed to further political integration. Cameron also won concessions on EU migrant benefits, Eurozone recovery measures (i.e. guarantees that non-Eurozone countries would not take part in bailouts of Eurozone countries etc) and other areas. He didn't get all that he wanted, but that is the nature of international diplomacy -- you will concede along the way.

I hear this a lot about "EU needs to reform" etc etc, but far too often this seems to be an argument which obfuscates the need for reform at the domestic level. There is always room for reform, and there always will be when it comes to something as complex as the EU, but people need to stop looking for bogeymen in Brussels and start asking themselves what it is about their own country that needs to be fixed. You say that the EU "stuck it to us" over the banking crisis. Well, that's because we had piss poor regulation, our financial institutions acted like the music would never end, and our regulatory inadequacies ultimately led to Ireland threatening the very integrity of the Euro. Sure, better pan-Eurozone financial regulation at the EU level (which is now in place) would probably have alleviated the disaster to an extent. . .and yes . . .the ordinary Irish people got utterly shafted by economic intricacies which were beyond their understanding or control.

But at least we looked inwards at ourselves, and didn't hurl ourselves down the rabbit hole of seeking out foreigners to blame, or jump to the cowardly safety net of pinning it all on "Brussels bureaucrats". We may have cursed the Troika, but we didn't run away from blaming the bankers in our own land and abroad -- rather than Polish guys on a building site or some pen-pusher in the European Commission. Ireland has beefed up its regulatory framework immensely over the past 10 years, while the Central Bank of Ireland has become much more proactive in dealing with financial entities here. This doesn't make us immune, this doesn't mean that regulatory inadequacy will suddenly end, this doesn't mean that all is well and will be forever, but Ireland's improved fortunes stand testament to what even a small country can achieve when it looks inwards and applies a little national humility . . . rather than constantly looking across the seas for foreigners to blame out of a misplaced sense of national pride.

jmayo

First Up wrote: »

You quoted it as a reason why increased shipping links from Ireland won't work. If you think there is some logic to that argument please provide it.

Everyone knows that chaos at UK ports will disrupt the landbridge and it will take a while to be sorted.

It was meant to be an example how sometimes you can't just pull a ferry out of yer ar** at a moments notice. :rolleyes:
I know increased shipping links can work, but at a cost, over time.
We all know how cr** some of our planning can be if state involved anywhere, so also expect delays.

prawnsambo wrote: »

The EU have undertaken to honour current agreements up to nine months after B-Day (I think) but only for UK-EU and vice versa flights. No EU-EU flights by British carriers.

Does that then necessitate Ryan Air buying out it's UK shareholders ?

Akrasia

briany wrote: »

It'll be hard to sell Brexiteers on benefits that they take totally for granted. Benefits they think they either don't really need, don't really think about as anything special, or think can be re-achieved in some way when outside the EU.

The chorus to Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell springs to mind.

I suppose it's a bit like anti vaccination people thinking they don't need a TB vaccine because hardly anyone has TB anymore

prawnsambo

jmayo wrote: »

Is it only now dawning on some Irish people that to some Brits, well English in particular, that Ireland is inconsequential ?

They had forgotten about Northern Ireland since it had stopped causing deaths to their squadies and mayhem on the streets of their major cities.

Of course the DUP entrance into the spotlight was a shock to many and the ultimate was finding out about the pesky Irish border ruining their plans of splitting from the johnny foreigners on the continent.

It's funny that you say that, because during the referendum campaign, many people brought up the border as an issue. Enda Kenny, David Cameron and even Boris Johnson acknowledged there would be issues, although the latter waved them away in his usual manner.

Interestingly, Nigel Farage was questioned about it by NI businessman on a trip to NI and replied that brexit was "a political decision and nothing to do with trade". Pretty much his exact words.

So it was raised and of course immediately dismissed as various degrees of "project fear". And then Theresa May herself spoke quite accurately about the issues two days before the vote. Which James O'Brien delighted in playing over and over again yesterday on his show.

Akrasia

prawnsambo wrote: »

The EU have undertaken to honour current agreements up to nine months after B-Day (I think) but only for UK-EU and vice versa flights. No EU-EU flights by British carriers.

That proposals was contingent on the UK reciprocating the arrangement, which should be a no brainer, but given the recent events, can we even bank on that?

Would the UK have time to pass the necessary legislation to enable such an agreement in time to prevent air traffic from grinding to a halt?

prawnsambo

jmayo wrote: »

Does that then necessitate Ryan Air buying out it's UK shareholders ?

Yes it does. Which I believe Michael O'Leary himself admitted in an interview about a year ago. I assume that's been done by this stage.

seamus

eagle eye wrote: »

If/When the UK leave what happens then. Germany and France have a long history of not getting on with each other. The UK was the other big brother in Europe so if they fall out now there is nobody to tell them they need to make up and get along.

This Fawlty Towers-esque representation of the UK, France and Germany constantly sniping at eachother, doesn't really exist anywhere except in the minds of little englanders.

If anything, Italy is the black sheep of the big economies, France and Germany align very strongly in most respects.

robinph

jmayo wrote: »

Does that then necessitate Ryan Air buying out it's UK shareholders ?

There is also the issue of can they operate UK-UK routes seeing as they are an EU airline, and what about BA who are now a non UK airline as well.

Then there would be EasyJet who run both a UK airline and a Swiss one, although I guess the Swiss operated routes won't be effected.

sink

Igotadose wrote: »

When confronted, Braverman named 2 experts. Here's a link to a paper proposing 'frictionless borders' from one of them, Lars Karlsson: https://www.larskarlsson.com/?p=5298

Here's the paper Karlsson wrote: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf

He does have border 'chops' so this isn't some rabid Leaver, but someone that's dealt with Sweden/Norway border issues as a career.

Here's the basic gist of how it this report envision the border to work

A company in Northern Ireland needs to move goods to a client in the UK. The company is pre-registered in the AEO database (AEO status or application for AEO Trusted Trader), a simplified export/import declaration is sent, including a unique consignment reference number. The transporting company is pre-registered in the AEO database and the driver of the truck is pre-registered in the Trusted Commercial Travellers database. The simplified export/import declaration is automatically processed and risk assessed. At the border the mobile phone of the driver is recognized/identified and a release-note is sent to the driver's mobile phone with a permit to pass the border that opens the gate automatically when the vehicle is identified, potentially by an automatic number plate registration system. A post-import supplementary declaration is submitted in the import country within the given time period. Potential controls can be carried out by mobile inspection units from EU or UK with right of access to facilities and data, as required.

On top of that for people it envisions.

• Free movement lanes at major border crossings for eligible people covered under CTA;
• Use of ANPR at manned and unmanned border crossings;
• Requirement for people not eligible under CTA to present at a manned border crossing;

I don't know what the brexiters are dreaming about, but to anyone who reads the report will understand that it requires major infrastructure at the border and lots of personnel. The more crossings that are open the more expensive it will be and as there are in the region of 300 border crossings, it will be the most expensive border in the world costing billions. It's obvious there will be a push to close a significant number of them to reduce costs. Restricting the movement locals and disrupting border communities, agitating a delicate peace.

Macy0161

eagle eye wrote: »

It means that the EU remain in control for as long as the backstop lasts.

It was a UK decision to include all of the UK, rather than it being specific to the Northern Ireland, which was the original decision. It was the first cave to the DUP, and sparked the whole "no border in the Irish sea" stuff iirc.

prawnsambo

sink wrote: »

I don't know what the brexiters are dreaming about, but to anyone who reads the report will understand that it requires major infrastructure at the border and lots of personnel. The more crossings that are open the more expensive it will be and as there are in the region of 300 border crossings, it will be the most expensive border in the world costing billions. It's obvious there will be a push to close a significant number of them to reduce costs. Restricting the movement locals and disrupting border communities, agitating a delicate peace.

It also completely forgets the ECMT permit system. Which currently only provides 60 permits for NI haulage vehicles. Outside the EU and you MUST have those permits. Freedom of movement is gone.

jmayo

Hurrache wrote: »

Seriously? France and Germany may go to war because the UK won't be there to say [Liverpudlian accent] "calm down, calm down, calm down', not withstanding the fact that the EU is primarily a means of peace keeping.

Someone better phone the Poles to start mobilising.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes it does. Which I believe Michael O'Leary himself admitted in an interview about a year ago. I assume that's been done by this stage.

Yes that was on Newsnight, where they also played clip of Willie Walsh pronouncing everything would be grand.

robinph wrote: »

There is also the issue of can they operate UK-UK routes seeing as they are an EU airline, and what about BA who are now a non UK airline as well.

Then there would be EasyJet who run both a UK airline and a Swiss one, although I guess the Swiss operated routes won't be effected.

IAG is registered in Madrid but headoffice is London.
It is also on Madrid and London stock exchange AFAIK.

Isn't the point about ownership and what percentage is EU owned/UK owned?
Of course it could mean either BA or Iberia is not allowed fly.
And then there are Aer Lingus and Vueling?

Interesting to note big shareholders are Qatar Airways and US's Capital Research and Management and Europacific Growth Fund.

The UK has managed to sign a deal with Switzerland along with Morocco, Albania, Israel so Easyjet should be okish.

robinph

jmayo wrote: »

IAG is registered in Madrid but headoffice is London.
It is also on Madrid and London stock exchange AFAIK.

Isn't the point about ownership and what percentage is EU owned/UK owned?
Of course it could mean either BA or Iberia is not allowed fly.
And then there are Aer Lingus and Vueling?

Interesting to note big shareholders are Qatar Airways and US's Capital Research and Management and Europacific Growth Fund.

The UK has managed to sign a deal with Switzerland along with Morocco, Albania, Israel so Easyjet should be okish.

Story I just spotted from Nov 18 suggested that IAG might have bigger issues because after hard brexit they would no longer be able to fly in the UK or the EU as it's only the current UK shareholders that make them majority EU owned rather than rest of world and they have been getting the Spanish government involved to make sure they can still meet EU rules

jm08

Calina wrote: »

Actually Juncker is charming. I have seen him in real life, posing for pictures with tourists who recognise him. Verhofstadt spent a long time as PM in Belgium and was demonstrably better at his job there than May is currently at hers.

The UK population in general pays limited heed to the European Parliament. I suspect the only MEP most of them have heard of is Nigel Farage. So I doubt they knew who Verhofstadt was at the time. He is not the president of the EP btw. In any case he was not the president of the EP at the time and he still isn't.

UK coverage and discussion of Juncker tends to be by default negative. IIRC the UK government didn't want him. Since a lot of UK media coverage of politics tends to be confrontational and tribal, and not a careful reflection of how things are, I am not surprised.

Juncker is just the symbol of the UK's problems with the EU. People talk about the need to reform the EU, but that reform took place with the Lisbon Treaty and they don't like it. Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament had little say and all the control was in the hands of the Council of Ministers who appointed the Head of the Commission who was answerable to them. With the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament became as powerful as the Council of Minister and they demonstrated their power by selecting Juncker to be President of the Commission (he has the support of the European Parliament). The Council of Ministers were none too happy about this loss of control and resisted it a bit, lead by UK and Germany. Even though Juncker was in Merkel's own party in the EP, she didn't support his appointment initially. However, she realised the game was up and voted for Juncker. Cameron and Orban didn't. Their problem is that they don't like the power that the European Parliament have and in fact the reforms they actually want are to reduce the power of the European Parliament. The Polish and Hungarian guys hate it as they vote to censor them when they step out of line. The AfD Party in Germany have part of their policy an abolition of the European Parliament.

eagle eye

VinLieger wrote:

So if you are saying the backstop holds them in you are admitting they are lying about being able to implement no border.

Do you think I'm on their side or something?
I'm on the Republic if Ireland's side. I want the UK and EU to do whatever it takes to make sure the troubles don't start again in NI. I want them both to do whever it takes to ensure we don't end up in hard financial times again.
I might have a bit more compassion, not much, than the zero shown by almost all in this thread towards the UK because they have always(up to now) had our back during the common market era.
The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.

ancapailldorcha

eagle eye wrote: »

The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.

I think this is a bit ridiculous. I don't think anyone is anti-UK. It's perfectly understandable that Irish people would be incensed at the UK's leaving with such feckless disregard for the peace process in NI. Maintaining this takes priority whatever the consequences for the British.

LuckyLloyd

Lemming wrote: »

I don't think anyone has linked this yet; from yesterday (only spotted it today) on the BBC website: US firms seek changes to UK standards on beef and drugs. Whislt the whole article smacks of "and so it begins", these bits in particular (bold emphasis is mine) stood out for me as a case of 'with friends like these ... '

On farming:


Glyphosate .... also commonly known as 'Roundup' weed killer; do a google on it as I don't want to drag this discussion off-topic. Keywords: Monsanto, knowingly, cancer, US court ruling.


On tech:


The question of data storage is very important when it comes to cloud-storage, along with your rights to control your data, which jurisdiction it is governed by and your data privacy rights.
And less cash for UK customs at the benefit of US businesses; I sincerely doubt the US will reciprocate on that. On the face of it that looks like a benefit for the small people ordering stuff from the US, but not really as there'll be an inevitable squeeze on government funding somewhere, which usually translates to higher taxes and reduced services.


On health:


Effectively wanting to export the worst excesses of the US healthcare industry.

These are the kinds of motivations and drivers that are really behind Brexit. Destabalising the UK and creating a severe economic shock in such a big market creates massive opportunities to make deals with a desperate nation. Suddenly all sorts of protections and standards (including labour and fundamental human rights) are in play. It also poisons political conversation, incites extremism and - as a potential bonus - opens the possibility of destabilsing the EU with it.

This is why the EU absolutely must not blink. The UK may be doomed and ultimately break up over the next five years but the EU cannot be infected by this nonsense. Letting them go over the cliff edge in a chaotic fashion can be the event that is used to quell manipulation of the electorate in future debates to come.

MPFGLB

BBC Politics Live with Irish commentator O'Rourke blaming Irish for backstop and all the problems with Brexit deal and NI border

An Ciarraioch

Surprising that no-one has yet posted Dearbhail McDonald's piece in today's Guardian - perfectly encapsulates her feelings on the backstop and GFA:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/ireland-hard-border-brexit-backstop-good-friday-agreement

Chips Lovell

eagle eye wrote: »

I want the UK and EU to do whatever it takes to make sure the troubles don't start again in NI. I want them both to do whever it takes to ensure we don't end up in hard financial times again.

The issue here is that we can't force the UK into anything. They're a sovereign state. If they want to leave the EU, they can. If they want to reject the withdrawal agreement, they can. Ultimately, there's only so much we in the EU can do. Getting a workable solution requires co-operation from both parties though.

Leroy42

eagle eye wrote: »

Do you think I'm on their side or something?
I'm on the Republic if Ireland's side. I want the UK and EU to do whatever it takes to make sure the troubles don't start again in NI. I want them both to do whever it takes to ensure we don't end up in hard financial times again.
I might have a bit more compassion, not much, than the zero shown by almost all in this thread towards the UK because they have always(up to now) had our back during the common market era.
The only difference between me and the majority in this thread is that most of you are anti-UK and pro-Eu and seem to be willing to suffer the consequences to stick it to the UK. That makes no sense to me.

Because, IMO, you are failing to see the bigger picture.

Whether the UK leaves with a deal or not doesn't change what is ultimately the purpose of Brexit, to turn the UK into a direct competitor to the EU.

They have stated numerous times that they see future growth coming from outside the EU and thus they want to target that growth. Any growth they get over the EU obviously means that we miss out.

So if we give them too good a deal, then why would US FDI bother coming here if they can go to the UK with less regulations and still deal with the EU as they do now?

So short-term we will all feel like we have dodged a bullet but the UK will now have the only gun.

Joe_ Public

MPFGLB wrote: »

BBC Politics Live with Irish commentator O'Rourke blaming Irish for backstop and all the problems with Brexit deal and NI border

Was he? Was only half listening but didn’t pick that up, just IDS with some raimeis that they were going to get a deal from kenny until the upstart varadkar came in and scuppered it.

A Dub in Glasgo

eagle eye wrote: »

They want out, the backstop means they are not out.

They also say they want an open and frictionless UK border in Ireland, how do they do that if they also want out?