Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Is a hard Brexit likely? And if so, would it be hugely negative on our economy... especially house prices etc.

We simply don't know what Johnson's 'real' thinking is. Is he bluffing with all his No Deal bluster and even trying to fool the Brexiteers just so he can become PM? It's anyone's guess.

Call me Al

Russman wrote: »

Absolutely agree with this. A GE in the UK where, in all likelihood the DUP won't hold the balance of power, solves all this. Even if the Brexit Party were in power they'd get rid of the north in a heartbeat to deliver Brexit.

All this because Cameron gambled and then May doubled down with her snap GE. Madness.

And if we have conceded a time limited backstop thats the starting point from there on out.
And if we are conceding a time limit then we are looking at 18-24 months of a limit. They won't accept anything more.
And then where are we...... in a worse position than when we started.
Ireland needs a UK GE..

Call me Al

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. I'm done being the Devil's advocate for removing the backstop.

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

Strazdas

Call me Al wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

The counter argument is that if Ireland concedes on the backstop, it will indeed lead to a hard border. What would the Brexiteers' incentive be to solve the border issue if they were now outside the EU and Single Market? It would surely not be a priority.

FrancieBrady

Call me Al wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

Having read the media, watched the docs and listened to what is being said, I don't think there is any mood whatsoever in the EU to give in to the UK at this stage. And I did fear that they might at the start.

I fervently hope we stay with that club.

Capt'n Midnight

BluePlanet wrote: »

If i were a Tory Brexiteer, i would be putting my money right now, on Ireland caving.

The last time there was a hard border 3,000 people died.

No Irish political party is going near that one.




On the other hand ,to give you an idea of how ineffective a hard border is , there were 27,000 UK troops back when the British army was much bigger. it's a third of current army. And still 40% of the vehicle fuel sold in the north was sourced from the black market.


Ireland's trade with the EU is worth 30 times the trade with the north so we'd have to make sure the UK isn't dumping stuff that doesn't meet EU standards across the border. Because we won't be leaving the EU.

Professor Moriarty

Call me Al wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

Yes. It's really important to look at it from both sides of the argument. It's worth arguing against what seems to be right if only to prove to yourself that it's right. And you're correct, there is that danger. We need to be constantly checking our position on the backstop.

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are different types of freight crossing the border.

4. Agriculture products of any origin.
.....
Item 4 needs to be controlled - just as it was for F&M. This will destroy NI farmers.

Agriculture products currently passes the border both ways NI->RoI and RoI->NI and some products even cross the border twice as this article shows.

https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/from-grass-to-glass-the-journey-of-milk

Lars

Professor Moriarty

reslfj wrote: »

Agriculture products currently passes the border both ways NI->RoI and RoI->NI and some products even cross the border twice as this article shows.

https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/from-grass-to-glass-the-journey-of-milk

Lars

Apparently, there's a cottage pie which crosses the border seven times as it's being made.

A Dub in Glasgo

Call me Al wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid argument to make and needs to be voiced too. I fear that we may ultimately cut off our nose to spite our face.

You see it that way, I see as a way to protect the GFA

fash

J Mysterio wrote: »

I think you are the only one you are convincing.

Even if we made a silly decision like that, there will be another issue found.

Ultimately, parliament is supposed to make the decision on what happens, and Parliament can't agree. Parliament can't even agree on an approach.

Labour is split with people leaving for anti semitism/ Corbyn leadership/ Brexit approach.

Tories are split with people drifting to ERG elements or the Brexit party. They are in a face off of incompetent potential leaders who haven't made any sense in 3 years and have no plan.

UK is an absolute disaster right now, and there is no point offering them anything. The WA as hashed out over a few years - with the UK - is a very agreeable offer with unnecessary concessions in it for the UK. They are on their second extension.

They should take the deal. If they dont like that, they can crash out or revoke a50.

The EU might grant a further extension for a GE or a second referendum. That is it.

Exactly. In the short term, "Surrendering" (and make no mistake that is how it would be understood and marketed) will only embolden the brexiters while also undermining any remainer /reasonable / Ireland sympathetic person who says that a backstop is important. "See we were right, the EU is weak and will blink when they see our steely resolve" etc.
In the meantime, unless you have a "lengthy time limited backstop" - how about 1 year for every year Ireland was under English/British rule or perhaps one year for every Irish person killed by the British - there really is no medium term incentive to do anything and leaving nothing happen simply pulls NI out of the backstop.

Frank Bullitt

Has anyone else read this at all?

https://brexitcentral.com/the-irish-government-has-revealed-the-bad-faith-with-which-the-eu-has-treated-the-border-issue/

The Irish Government has revealed the bad faith with which the EU has treated the border issue

Missing the point doesn't seem to even cut it.

fash

sink wrote: »

You seem to betting a lot on not much. You're voluntarily placing your head on the guillotine on the assumption that they won't drop it when you give them the rope in 10 years. You believe they won't drop because they either wont care enough to let go, or will have bigger problems to think about. Remember all they have to do is let go (i.e. nothing) for it to fall on our heads and they can walk away with their trade deal. We have to rely on them actively pursuing a replacement to the back stop when they have shown little interest to date.

...And where we have shown that we always blink.

reslfj

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes. It's really important to look at it from both sides of the argument. ...

Ireland has the support of all other EU27 members as long as it acts 100% rational and in the cynical interest of all the island of Ireland.

Such support can fast evaporate if strange emotions, short term interests, fact denial or pure stupidity surface in the Irish mainstream debate.

The backstop is a very large EU concession and an offer to the UK to solve the problem that the GFA is implicitly build upon EU rules and using the EU's single market to keep the land border open.

Without a the backstop or - if it can be found - another equally good solution the UK can not leave the EU at all without breaking the international GFA treaty, which has the US and EU as very 'non forgiving sponsors' (ref. e.g. Nancy Pelosi).

In short, in the end it's the EU that decides (all 27 members).

A 'No Deal' is like a shaking UK declaring an absolutely unwinnable trade war with all of the EU and all its FTA partners. Good luck with that.

The EU27 PMs may well realise, that there is little or no hope for a deal and it will end with a 'No Deal' anyway.
And then just one PM needs to say in October: 'Let us get it over with now rather than later'.

On the other hand in the case of a 'No Deal' Brexit the main battle/trouble/economical destruction - you name it - will not be on the island of Ireland, but between England and continental Europe, where it may well be very bloody indeed.

I think NI and Ireland should hope for a max crises at Dover, so the UK will come back to Brussels very soon.

Lars

Sam Russell

reslfj wrote: »

Agriculture products currently passes the border both ways NI->RoI and RoI->NI and some products even cross the border twice as this article shows.

https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/from-grass-to-glass-the-journey-of-milk

Lars

Well, if there was a crash out, the milk lorry that collects milk from both sides of the border would have to pass all NI farms that is normally collected because that milk is no longer EU milk and so cannot be used. That means the NI farmers will either have to drink it themselves, or make cottage cheese with it.

The same goes for animals - they need vet certs to cross the border, so with trace-ability being so strong, then Daisy has to stay north.

Anything going north is a problem for the UK and NI, not us. So expect quite a few lorry loads of bullocks travelling north, to travel back to Dublin and onto the shelves of UK supermarkets.

Brings a new meaning to 'Bullocks for Brexit!'

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Strazdas wrote: »

We simply don't know what Johnson's 'real' thinking is. Is he bluffing with all his No Deal bluster and even trying to fool the Brexiteers just so he can become PM? It's anyone's guess.

What is most likely in your or anyone's opinion?

trellheim

Its worse than that. That milk tanker can't cross the border at all to shorten the journey it can only go to ROI farms from ROI creameries and dairies and it has to stay inside the Republic.

trellheim

The current UK/US trying to get a trade deal tells you all you need to know about keeping the backstop they are ramping it up goodo

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

...
Anything going north is a problem for the UK and NI, not us. [/I]!'

Ref: the linked article

I think the 211 Irish farmers in Donegal, RoI will feel it's a bit of a problem, when their milk is no longer collected. The dairy in Omagh likely can't afford the tariffs on the processed milk - or worse cheese - going back into Ireland.

Integrated economies can't live with different standards, rules and even less with delaying controls and high tariffs.

These farmers and the dairy, I am sure, are only a small part of the businesses along both sides of a very long land border, that will suffer badly.

Lars

prawnsambo

reslfj wrote:

I think NI and Ireland should hope for a max crises at Dover, so the UK will come back to Brussels very soon.

Lars

I think that's the most likely outcome of a hard brexit. The time of the year couldn't be worse for the UK either. A border in the Irish Sea would be the very first item on the agenda.

Strazdas

Pheonix10 wrote: »

What is most likely in your or anyone's opinion?

I'm not sure at all. Johnson is talking the talk and the Brexiteers are convinced the UK is leaving on October 31. But it could just be a big bluff on his part and the only thing he is interested in is being PM, not Brexit.

FrancieBrady

Has Andrew Neil gone full on defend Boris on the Beeb, Fairly impassioned defence there.

Call me Al

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You see it that way, I see as a way to protect the GFA

I don't agree with his point of view. However I do think it is worthy of rational discussion.

Professor Moriarty

John Major is a must watch on Hardtalk BBC just now. Very well informed and erudite. Deconstructed each and every aspect of the Brexiteer argument.

ILoveYourVibes

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not sure at all. Johnson is talking the talk and the Brexiteers are convinced the UK is leaving on October 31. But it could just be a big bluff on his part and the only thing he is interested in is being PM, not Brexit.

You would think they would be rational enough to realize this.

The thing is the more this drags on the more extreme and insistent brexiters are likely to become.


They will want a hard no deal brexit.

Peregrinus

BluePlanet wrote: »

I haven't really heard of rationalisations as to WHY checks should be done away from the border?

Is it just to keep the early promise of no border infastructure?
I don't see that promise being all that important.

It's not at all important that checks be done away from the border.

"No hard border" requires no border infrastructure, and no related checks and controls. Checks that relate to the border harden the border, regardless of where, physically, they are actually implemented. So if there have to be checks, that's a problem.

Sitll, if there have to be checks, they do have to be implemented somewhere, and once we get to the point of having to have checks a decision has to be made about where. And factors that go into that decision will include: Where will checks be least intrusive? Where will checks be most effective? Where will checks be cheap or convenient to operate? Etc. But the answer to the question of where they will be operated doesn't really change the fundamental truth that they harden the border, and so represent a failure to deliver on the no-hard-border guarantee.

However there's a strain of Brexiter thinking that, for many months now, has tried to argue that the no-hard-border guarantee only means that there will be no infrastructure at the border and no related checks and controls at the border, and if nothing happens actually at the border then the no-hard-border guarantee has been honoured. This is of course nonsense, and is flatly contradicted by what is said in the Joint Report, but Brexiters are highly motivated to "read down" the no-hard-border guarantee to minimal levels so they can pretend it has been honoured when, in reality, the border has signficantly hardened, as must be the case if there is a hard brexit or a no-deal brexit, and the backstop is not operated.

Dytalus

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not at all important that checks be done away from the border.

"No hard border" requires no border infrastructure, and no related checks and controls. Checks that relate to the border harden the border, regardless of where, physically, they are actually implemented. So if there have to be checks, that's a problem.

Sitll, if there have to be checks, they do have to be implemented somewhere, and once we get to the point of having to have checks a decision has to be made about where. And factors that go into that decision will include: Where will checks be least intrusive? Where will checks be most effective? Where will checks be cheap or convenient to operate? Etc. But the answer to the question of where they will be operated doesn't really change the fundamental truth that they harden the border, and so represent a failure to deliver on the no-hard-border guarantee.

However there's a strain of Brexiter thinking that, for many months now, has tried to argue that the no-hard-border guarantee only means that there will be no infrastructure at the border and no related checks and controls at the border, and if nothing happens actually at the border then the no-hard-border guarantee has been honoured. This is of course nonsense, and is flatly contradicted by what is said in the Joint Report, but Brexiters are highly motivated to "read down" the no-hard-border guarantee to minimal levels so they can pretend it has been honoured when, in reality, the border has signficantly hardened, as must be the case if there is a hard brexit or a no-deal brexit, and the backstop is not operated.

There is, I suppose, an argument to be made that the main fear on the British side is more civil war in Northern Ireland. The difficulties of farmers and small businesses (who will be hit hard by the checks, either at the border or not) probably don't come up all that often in talks between Tory colleagues.

I could easily imagine that they see no infrastructure at the border as being enough to uphold the GFA and stop those nutty Irish from getting agitated again. And if that can be prevented, well who cares about the rest of it? (A great many people, but again...Johnson probably doesn't know of or care for their plight). It's the bare minimum they can do that allows them to pat themselves on the back and say "well done, old chap" while ignoring the decay of Northern Ireland's welfare.

johnnyskeleton

Dytalus wrote: »

There is, I suppose, an argument to be made that the main fear on the British side is more civil war in Northern Ireland. The difficulties of farmers and small businesses (who will be hit hard by the checks, either at the border or not) probably don't come up all that often in talks between Tory colleagues.

If they did fear it, or st least think it, that wouldnt be so bad. Typically they seem to either dismiss it as not a real possibility or jingoistically proclaim that they will reinstall the British Army if there is any violence. Not sure Ive evee heard a Tory pay anything more than lipservice to the peace project.

If they did, they woild indeed say that Northern Ireland is a special case, where both Irish and British governments have a significant stake in its governance, and where little things like red postboxes, national flags take on a new significance and free travel for people goods and services is absolutely essential to peace.

In a sense, the physical infrastructure is item one on a list of maybe ten things that need to be resolved, and the talks seem to have gotten hung up on it. Just as important is that a plumber in Newry doesnt think twice about going to Dundalk for an emergency callout etc. The border in peoples minds is fsr worse than the physical checks IMO.

J Mysterio

Stumbled upon a good blog I thought I would share. By Chris Grey 'Professor of Organization Studies' at Royal Holloway and previously prof at Warwick and Cambridge:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-darroch-leak-and-what-it-betokens.html?m=1

Zubeneschamali

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The thing is the more this drags on the more extreme and insistent brexiters are likely to become.

They will want a hard no deal brexit.

While that would be a hard blow for us and especially for the UK (for as long as there still is a UK), it might be the only thing which will lance the boil and show the UK public what a complete tissue of lies the whole Brexit project is.