Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

The EU is insisting on it because Ireland wants it and I have seen absolutely no indication that Ireland would have any interest at all in changing their viewpoint. The EU hasn't exactly gone off on their own here - their entire Irish strategy is being driven by what Ireland want. The UK are essentially trying to bully their way out of the backstop and you don't give in to that kind of behaviour no matter what.

Laois_Man wrote: »

What should Ireland modify its demands to?

Well, of course it is totally hypothetical, but I believe that Ireland all along would have had a different approach. Priority would have been to get a deal which maximised trade and minimised the impact of border acknowleging that some form of border is unfortunate but inevitable when a country leaves the Single Market and Customs Union. Generally a much higher weight would have been placed on getting a deal (even an imperfect one) than we have seen from the EU.

Because we are in the EU things are completely different, and because Ireland is a small country we have to be circumspect with our goals and try to make them coincide with those of the EU as a whole or risk humiliation. We therefore only get glimpses of a separate Irish position from politicians such as when they say that we would be amenable to an extension of A50 or that the EU can be flexible in their negotiations.

The situation we find ourselves in is one in which the deal agreed by May is better than we might have expected from Ireland's perspective, but it won't be accepted by the UK Parliament. Who is at fault? Doesn't matter.

Infini

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes it is irrelevant if there's no WA as the backstop only exists as part of the WA.

Alternatively if theres no agreement and the UK crash out and break the GFA and make an utter bollocks of it then ultimately down the line one of the terms of any new agreement could potentially be that a border poll be held to decide NIs future onve and for all. Would at least remove the issue if reunification is successful not to mention it removes the land border from our island altogether.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Coveney and Varadkar have been on record saying that they they were not planning foir a hard border in the event of no deal.

Why do you think they are saying that?

Because the UK will cease to exist if there is a no deal Brexit.


OK, it would cease to exist if they were able to make a no deal Brexit stick. What would really happen is that Sterling would collapse and supply chains would break down before Brexit day even happened. If they got to Brexit day without a u turn, Dover would collapse and food and medical imports slow to a trickle. Government collapse in a month.


Long before the NI border becomes a problem, there'd be troops on the streets in London and the new PM would be starting talks with the EU.


Item 1: about that backstop. So a hard border will not be needed.

murphaph

Laois_Man wrote: »

What should Ireland modify its demands to?

It's crazy talk isn't it? What on earth should we modify our demands. We have the unwavering support of our EU partners (which shouldn't be forgotten when one of them needs a hand) and the UK is not a trustworthy partner so you absolutely need the written guarantees in place.

A no deal Brexit hits the UK far harder than Ireland in real terms. They would be back negotiating in no time under a new government if they went down that road. They won't do it.

Water John

Pere, yes the UK Govn't have to introduce the Bill to Parliament but if the house had instructed them to do it, would they refuse to do it? This would lead to a Constitutional crisis and make their contempt of last week seem very small.

Bit cynical

Infini wrote: »

Alternatively if theres no agreement and the UK crash out and break the GFA and make an utter bollocks of it then ultimately down the line one of the terms of any new agreement could potentially be that a border poll be held to decide NIs future onve and for all. Would at least remove the issue if reunification is successful not to mention it removes the land border from our island altogether.

So we could consider failure of these talks to be a sort of success!

I don't think so. In any case, I don't think the UK will be technically in breach of the GFA if there's no deal, and certainly Ireland won't be tearing up the agreement.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

In any case, I don't think the UK will be technically in breach of the GFA if there's no deal, and certainly Ireland won't be tearing up the agreement.

The UK will have much bigger problems than NI if there is no deal.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK will have much bigger problems than NI if there is no deal.

So will we.

Laois_Man

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, of course it is totally hypothetical, but I believe that Ireland all along would have had a different approach. Priority would have been to get a deal which maximised trade and minimised the impact of border acknowleging that some form of border is unfortunate but inevitable when a country leaves the Single Market and Customs Union. Generally a much higher weight would have been placed on getting a deal (even an imperfect one) than we have seen from the EU.

You seem to place a higher value upon trade than you do upon the avoiding the re-emergence of a N. Ireland paramilitary conflict - possible even occurring more in the Republic than it generally did the last time.

Don't just take my word for it. PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton thinks paramilitaries kicking off again is highly probable in the event of a hard border. I have no doubt there are factions who are literally praying for the chace to get going again and recruit new membership!

Bit cynical

Laois_Man wrote: »

You seem to place a higher value upon trade than you do upon the avoiding the re-emergence of a N. Ireland paramilitary conflict - possible even occurring more in the Republic than it generally did the last time.

Don't just take my word for it. PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton thinks paramilitaries kicking off again is highly probable in the event of a hard border. I have no doubt there are factions who are literally praying for the chace to get going again and recruit new membership!

Not my position. My position is that we get all those things you describe if there's no deal. Plus an economic hit for Ireland. Plus, if posters here are to be believed, major instability in the UK generally, all of which makes the scenario you describe more likely yet purport to be against.

VinLieger

Bit cynical wrote: »

So will we.

But nothing like what they will have, you keep trying to make this our or the EUs problem when the issues we will face are going to pale in comparison to what a no deal brexit will do to thr UK.

LuckyLloyd

@Bit Cynical: is it fair to say you would personally like to see Brexit succeed?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

But nothing like what they will have, you keep trying to make this our or the EUs problem when the issues we will face are going to pale in comparison to what a no deal brexit will do to thr UK.

Plus the very encouraging fact that we will recover, precisely because we are in the EU and we will also have ended our dependence on the UK market when we emerge.

Laois_Man

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not my position. My position is that we get all those things you describe if there's no deal. Plus an economic hit for Ireland. Plus, if posters here are to be believed, major instability in the UK generally, all of which makes the scenario you describe more likely yet purport to be against.

What other deal do you think is possible without infringing upon Teresa May's own red lines?

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not my position. My position is that we get all those things you describe if there's no deal. Plus an economic hit for Ireland. Plus, if posters here are to be believed, major instability in the UK generally, all of which makes the scenario you describe more likely yet purport to be against.

But no deal either ends in one of two things:
Either the brexiters were right all along and the UK becomes extraordinarily wealthy - in which case, being neighbours with an exceptionally wealthy country is great for Ireland; or
It doesn't and the UK suffers and eventually comes looking for an EU deal. In which case, they will accept the backstop (at least for NI)- the only reason they currently do so is because of the DUP and that it suits the ERG and remainers to describe the draft WA as the worst abomination in history.

Infini

Laois_Man wrote: »

Don't just take my word for it. PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton thinks paramilitaries kicking off again is highly probable in the event of a hard border. I have no doubt there are factions who are literally praying for the chace to get going again and recruit new membership!

No doubt its a possibility but the root cause of it all was both supression of half the population by a sectarian government and the lack of representation that led to the troubles. The difference this time is while there could be a hard border the ones who brought this about are the DUP and the failed politics of westminster and they DO have an option out of this in reunification. What's needed is to make clear to the moderate unionists or those of a unionist background that they'll be looked after and theres oppertunies to be had in this.

DOCARCH

I really am not sure what the issue is with the backstop? What's so bad about it?

The only reason I can see there being an issue with the backstop is that UK is simply not confident it will be able to agree a trade deal with the EU, in any sort of reasonable timeframe!

Bit cynical

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

@Bit Cynical: is it fair to say you would personally like to see Brexit succeed?

In what sense "succeed"? Do you mean wanting brexit itself to happen as opposed to withdrawal of A50, or do you mean that the UK does reasonably well out of it down the line?

joe40

Quick question about the support ireland is getting from the EU in general. The general narrative is that this is all for ireland's benefit and if we were to change our mind, the backstop would cease to be an issue. (Perhaps time limited).
Is this really credible? Surely the EU do not want a land border with a country totally outside uk. A very porous border with a recent history fairly extreme violence.
I do believe the EU have our interests in mind but ultimately this must benefit all 27 to a large extent and to have such a united and consistent voice from EU

Infini

DOCARCH wrote: »

I really am not sure what the issue is with the backstop? What's so bad about it?

The only reason I can see there being an issue with the backstop is that UK is simply not confident it will be able to agree a trade deal with the EU, in any sort of reasonable timeframe!

Simply put they want things their way and theyre having a fit theyre not getting it. They're finding out that by leaving the EU Ireland has the high ground not them (que star wars ep3 meme) because we have the rest of the EU backing us up. They can't be trusted either because they've shown they'd just break agreements down the road if theyre not legally underwritten and its all their fault.

cml387

DOCARCH wrote: »

I really am not sure what the issue is with the backstop? What's so bad about it?

The only reason I can see there being an issue with the backstop is that UK is simply not confident it will be able to agree a trade deal with the EU, in any sort of reasonable timeframe!

The objection is, from the Brexiteers point of view, that the EU want to stop the UK from getting a genuine free trade deal (say @Canada +), and essentially stay within the customs union forever, crippling any opportunity the UK has from getting external deals and moving to the sunlit uplands of a European Singapore.
That the EU don't want Britain to have a successful departure as a warning to others.
In this worldview the EU will constantly deny that the conditions for the end of the backstop exist.

LuckyLloyd

Bit cynical wrote: »

In what sense "succeed"? Do you mean wanting brexit itself to happen as opposed to withdrawal of A50, or do you mean that the UK does reasonably well out of it down the line?

You could answer both I suppose. They are almost different questions. I know Republicans who want it to happen and be unsuccessful for example, as they think this is the outcome that moves a UI closer.

fash

cml387 wrote: »

The objection is, from the Brexiteers point of view, that the EU want to stop the UK from getting a genuine free trade deal (say @Canada +), and essentially stay within the customs union forever, crippling any opportunity the UK has from getting external deals and moving to the sunlit uplands of a European Singapore.

They can do that any time they are willing to confine the backstop to NI- a place they never cared about until the DUP came along. Don't forget brexit meant brexit- it never meant UKexit.

That the EU don't want Britain to have a successful departure as a warning to others.
In this worldview the EU will constantly deny that the conditions for the end of the backstop exist.

Except it is decided by neutral external parties.

cml387

fash wrote: »

They can do that any time they are willing to confine the backstop to NI- a place they never cared about until the DUP came along. Don't forget brexit meant brexit- it never meant UKexit.




Except it is decided by neutral external parties.

Well that creates the hard border in the Irish Sea, and worse, means the Scots demanding the same thing.

And they won't accept outside influence on what they see as their internal affairs. That's not "taking back control".

UsedToWait

Bit cynical wrote: »

Coveney and Varadkar have been on record saying that they they were not planning foir a hard border in the event of no deal. They are planning for other issues like trade disruptions between Ireland and the UK as a whole but not for a hard border even though this is what no deal would entail.

Why do you think they are saying that? Do you dispute that they are saying it?

It's simple diplomacy.

Laois_Man

DOCARCH wrote: »

I really am not sure what the issue is with the backstop? What's so bad about it?

The only reason I can see there being an issue with the backstop is that UK is simply not confident it will be able to agree a trade deal with the EU, in any sort of reasonable timeframe!

You've answered your own question

From the UKs point of view, the EU has no incentive to agree a trade deal when they have the UK tied to a backstop and a consequence that the UK are tied to EU rules and the Customs Union without having any say in anything

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, of course it is totally hypothetical, but I believe that Ireland all along would have had a different approach. Priority would have been to get a deal which maximised trade and minimised the impact of border acknowleging that some form of border is unfortunate but inevitable when a country leaves the Single Market and Customs Union. Generally a much higher weight would have been placed on getting a deal (even an imperfect one) than we have seen from the EU.

Because we are in the EU things are completely different, and because Ireland is a small country we have to be circumspect with our goals and try to make them coincide with those of the EU as a whole or risk humiliation.

I'm sorry but you have this completely backwards. Ireland is absolutely, 100% driving the EU position on Northern Ireland and the border. I have no idea what it is you have seen or heard that makes you think Ireland, left to their own devices, would be approaching this any differently.

We are in an infinitely stronger position than we would be without the EU's backing but the content of the position would not change.

Imreoir2

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm sorry but you have this completely backwards. Ireland is absolutely, 100% driving the EU position on Northern Ireland and the border. I have no idea what it is you have seen or heard that makes you think Ireland, left to their own devices, would be approaching this any differently.

We are in an infinitely stronger position than we would be without the EU's backing but the content of the position would not change.

The EU can't catch a break, can it? For well over a year it was confident predictions that the EU would eventually betray Ireland over the backstop, now that it seems this won't happen after all, it's the big bad EU forcing the backstop on poor little Ireland.

It seems there are always people who will go out of their way to see bad in the EU's actions.

fash

cml387 wrote: »

Well that creates the hard border in the Irish Sea

where it belongs/is easier to implement /partly exists in relation to agriculture.

cml387 wrote: »

and worse, means the Scots demanding the same thing.

Why is that worse? For whom?

cml387 wrote: »

and they won't accept outside influence on what
they see as their internal affairs. That's not "taking back control".

Sure they will- they barely know NI exists- why would they care?

Sam Russell

fash wrote: »

Sure they will- they barely know NI exists- why would they care?

They know it exists alright - it cost them £12 billion a year to subsidise which is more than the EU cost them. The EU gave them lots of benefits (which they cannot see yet) but NI only gave them trouble and strife.

They know NI exists and perhaps wish it didn't.