Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

But getting back to the original point, it is hard to see how our veto helps us. If the EU require those things and the UK agrees and proceeds with talks, great. But it is unlikely that our veto is going to be used at any stage to our advantage.

Well I don't think our veto will be necessary, so in that regard I agree with you. I see no situation where our requirements and those of the EU will diverge to that extent. As I said, the WA provisions will be a precondition to any talks.

PeadarCo

Bit cynical wrote:

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The border would be a customs border. In order to avoid a hard border NI at least must stay in the EU Single Market and customs Union. Unless a free trade agreement results in that it's a hard border. This is something on this thread that has been said countless times by many posters.


However if that FTA was UK wide it would defeat the purpose of Brexit as the UK would be signed up to all the various rules but have no say in any changes.

murphaph

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The problem for Ireland will be the EU dragging things out. And here our veto can't help us.

A customs border is actually more invasive than an immigration border. With an immigration border you just show a passport/visa/whatever and proceed. With a customs border you have people opening bags and car boots and whatnot to check for contraband or undeclared goods.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The problem for Ireland will be the EU dragging things out. And here our veto can't help us.

Goods are actually a very small aspect of what the backstop is about. It's services and the all-Ireland economy that will be most affected by the disruption. Every single van and lorry driver is a service. ECMT permits being a case in point.

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. .

Edward Heath had a plan to require identity cards and visas from Irish people in Britain if Dublin didn't play ball with London over Bloody Sunday.

I wouldn't at the moment be sure of anything. Johnson's government appears a lot more unstable and rogue than Heath's.

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The problem for Ireland will be the EU dragging things out. And here our veto can't help us.

The problem won't be the EU dragging things out. You're timeline is completely wrong . If the UK leave with no deal we will heading rapidly to a hard border and economic hardship. No FTA discussions will be opened under these circumstances as we will just veto them.

The common travel area was useless when you had soldiers with guns on the border demanding ID , when you've waited 30 minutes to talk to said soldiers. When said soldiers ask you to open your boot so customs officials can check it out

Bit cynical

murphaph wrote: »

A customs border is actually more invasive than an immigration border. With an immigration border you just show a passport/visa/whatever and proceed. With a customs border you have people opening bags and car boots and whatnot to check for contraband or undeclared goods.

It is not ideal I agree. But a customs border between two countries with an FTA would be a lot better than a customs border between to countries with no trade deal whatsoever. An FTA + the CTA would allow ordinary people to shop across the border with little or no interference from either side.

brickster69

"Whatever happened Geoffrey Cox anyhow? At one time he was front and centre of it all."


Probably doing a report to explain to the people exactly why the worlds first legally binding Treaty which does not allow either party to unilaterally leave it is a non starter.

Bit cynical

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The problem won't be the EU dragging things out. You're timeline is completely wrong . If the UK leave with no deal we will heading rapidly to a hard border and economic hardship. No FTA discussions will be opened under these circumstances as we will just veto them.

The common travel area was useless when you had soldiers with guns on the border demanding ID , when you've waited 30 minutes to talk to said soldiers. When said soldiers ask you to open your boot so customs officials can check it out

Note that I am not advocating a no deal exit, and while it continues without mitigation, I agree there is a danger of the scenario you describe returning with the military assisting customs officers.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Even as a "Leaver" who thinks that Leo has "overplayed his hand"?

Well I've always had the impression that Owen was a reluctant leaver worried about the future direction of the EU.

I think that there's a genuine concern in that letter that Leo may have indeed overplayed his hand. Time will tell but I don't think it is necessarily an immoderate position.

What has he done to lead to the accusations that he overplayed his hand?

Remember that the then PM of the sovereign UK along with her cabinet agreed to the backstop.

But what alternative is there? So Leo drops the backstop and what happens? UK has the benefits of EU membership but none of the responsibilities. Trade deal with the US and we effectively either faced with massive extra costs at our ports or we are removed from free trade with continental EU.

On the basis that the UK are threatening to withhold payment of agreed monies, they have reneged on a deal on the backstop do you think it wise that Leo just accepts their assurances that at some point in the future they might get around to getting a solution?

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is not ideal I agree. But a customs border between two countries with an FTA would be a lot better than a customs border between to countries with no trade deal whatsoever. An FTA + the CTA would allow ordinary people to shop across the border with little or no interference from either side.

Such a FTA would be in essence have very little difference to the backstop such would be the level of regulatory alignment required by the EU

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is not ideal I agree. But a customs border between two countries with an FTA would be a lot better than a customs border between to countries with no trade deal whatsoever. An FTA + the CTA would allow ordinary people to shop across the border with little or no interference from either side.

It actually would make no practical difference at the border. You still require paperwork to be checked and queues would develop rapidly. Just look at any border post between the EU and EEA or EFTA countries.

Bit cynical

Nody wrote: »

But a FTA does not remove the need for a border; Canada has a FTA agreement and there are still border checks for their incoming goods. FTA is simply one aspect of the overall deal required for there to be no border but it's not a stand alone solution to it (even though Brexiteers love to claim that if EU only agrees to negotiate the FTA it will solve itself).

But Canada and the US have no freedom of movement between the two countries so everyone is stopped anyway.

A comprehensive FTA + the existing CTA + coordination to ensure trusted traders are unimpeded would go a long way to easing border problems. Local individuals could still shop across the border without hindrance.

But I could see the EU dragging the process out.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

But Canada and the US have no freedom of movement between the two countries so everyone is stopped anyway.

A comprehensive FTA + the existing CTA + coordination to ensure trusted traders are unimpeded would go a long way to easing border problems. Local individuals could still shop across the border without hindrance.

But I could see the EU dragging the process out.

You are ignoring (a) the volume of traffic crossing the border, (b) the ECMT permit system, (c) no border operates on a 'trusted trader' system, (d) the existence of border controls on the Swiss border despite Switzerland being in Schengen and (e) the history of smuggling across the NI border.

Oh, and as I said before, the proliferation of cross border services that are inextricable from goods.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

You are ignoring (a) the volume of traffic crossing the border, (b) the ECMT permit system, (c) no border operates on a 'trusted trader' system, (d) the existence of border controls on the Swiss border despite Switzerland being in Schengen and (e) the history of smuggling across the NI border.

If you are arguing that it will not be ideal then I agree with you. But you must also agree that the problems for us you describe are worse in a no deal scenario without an FTA being later agreed.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

If you are arguing that it will not be ideal then I agree with you. But you must also agree that the problems for us you describe are worse in a no deal scenario without an FTA being later agreed.

They actually are pretty much the same. There will still be customs checks in the event of a FTA, the ECMT system is external to the EU and would cause major problems for hauliers, a trusted trader scheme is non-existent anywhere, smuggling would still be an issue and integrated services would require the FTA to effectively join the UK to the SM.

Edit: Every iteration of 'trusted trader' schemes that have been suggested, depend on infrastructure such as NPR systems, barriers and other controls that identify and clear loads traversing the border. Nobody who espouses these schemes has ever (to my knowledge) expanded on what happens when the vehicle doesn't match the data. I.e. how you deal with non-trusted traders or even identify them and control them without infrastructure.

fash

brickster69 wrote: »

"Whatever happened Geoffrey Cox anyhow? At one time he was front and centre of it all."


Probably doing a report to explain to the people exactly why the worlds first legally binding Treaty which does not allow either party to unilaterally leave it is a non starter.

Brexiter lies.
The UK has dozens of legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism - including the GFA.

fash

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

NI is not a viable state on their own, hell they had no government for 2 years now.

... Plus it's not foreseen in the GFA- either UK or Ireland - not independent.

lawred2

EUR trading at 0.92329 GBP now

20silkcut

Bit cynical wrote: »

Note that I am not advocating a no deal exit, and while it continues without mitigation, I agree there is a danger of the scenario you describe returning with the military assisting customs officers.

Due to the result of a non binding advisory referendum.

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in fairness, there's also the view that Johnson is promoting talk of this kind precisely to goad Parliament into acting to stop his drive for the cliff-edge. The thinking here is that he wants it stopped; he just doesn't want to wear the responsiblity for stopping it.

It's his "stop me before I kill again!" strategy.

I dont think he wants it stopped to be honest, there is far far far too much money at stake. Figures you and i cant even comprehend to be made off the back of a no deal.

Its a millionaires playground to become a billionaire.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe johnson has an ounce of good in him or cares what people think of his legacy. He moves from one day to the next, leaving the waste behind him.

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

Brexiter lies.
The UK has dozens of legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism - including the GFA.

This also explains why the WA can't be torn up and renegotiated. Treaties and agreements are concluded between 'countries', not between individual governments. A change of government is meaningless in the context of a treaty.

WomanSkirtFan8

lobbylad wrote: »

Also, all the talk seems to be that NI will either:

Stay in the UK
Depart the UK and join the ROI

Why is there no option for NI to exist as an independent nation but remain within the EU (or rejoin if it has to leave first)?

That may even be a useful step on the route to NI/ROI reunification (I'm ignoring the financial capability of NI to exist as an independent nation)

Possibly because of the fact that they have a potential get out clause re. The GFA.

Lemming

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Whatever happened Geoffrey Cox anyhow? At one time he was front and centre of it all.

Sadly still knocking about; heard his odious sh1te on BBC4 radio about two weeks ago on a politics debate.

Strazdas

listermint wrote: »

I dont think he wants it stopped to be honest, there is far far far too much money at stake. Figures you and i cant even comprehend to be made off the back of a no deal.

Its a millionaires playground to become a billionaire.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe johnson has an ounce of good in him or cares what people think of his legacy. He moves from one day to the next, leaving the waste behind him.

The latest theory doing the rounds among British commentators is that Johnson and Cummings genuinely want No Deal to happen and that the EU will be forced to do a load of side deals with the UK once No Deal is in effect (November 1st onward).

They seem to think it will give the UK some sort of leverage with the EU, if we are to believe the theory.

seraphimvc

If you are talking boris - i forward all my friends/family to watch the john oliver's recent video on him (go youtube search for it). Not a fan of john oliver in generally but he nailed that video hard about boris's personality/behaviours. Or look for his recent response when he was questioned 'what about 5c?' (about his 'paragraph 5(b) of article 24'). The guy is literally delusional and has no idea whats going on.

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

The latest theory doing the rounds among British commentators is that Johnson and Cummings genuinely want No Deal to happen and that the EU will be forced to do a load of side deals with the UK once No Deal is in effect (November 1st onward).

They seem to think it will give the UK some sort of leverage with the EU, if we are to believe the theory.

I honestly believe they are gearing up for an election and working hard to steal the Brexit Party's clothes. As long as they look as hard line as they possibly can (not talking to the EU, talk of proroguing parliament, no deal, etc.) and then being 'forced' into an election by a 'remainer' parliament so as to appear as the saviours of brexit and win a majority based on Tory voters and the leave constituency. Corbyn will also be sidelined by leave voters for fence-sitting.

After they win (assuming they do), they can do what they want.

The only wrinkle is that they will have to ask for an extension to hold the election. But that would pass Macron's test at least.

brickster69

fash wrote: »

Brexiter lies.
The UK has dozens of legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism - including the GFA.

The GFA is not legally binding because it say's that neither party can take the other to court if they break it.

The only legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism are those that cede territories from one to another. No modern day treaty between nations does not have a right for one party to be able to leave.

BonnieSituation

brickster69 wrote: »

The GFA is not legally binding because it say's that neither party can take the other to court if they break it.

The only legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism are those that cede territories from one to another. No modern day treaty between nations does not have a right for one party to be able to leave.

Do you ever read your guff?

brickster69

Strazdas wrote: »

This also explains why the WA can't be torn up and renegotiated. Treaties and agreements are concluded between 'countries', not between individual governments. A change of government is meaningless in the context of a treaty.

Except that it has not been ratified. So in effect it is just a draft agreement.