Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

eagle eye

Hasn't the UK signed a load of continuity trade deals with other countries already? I remember hearing stuff about Central American countries signing up recently.

jm08

eagle eye wrote: »

Hasn't the UK signed a load of continuity trade deals with other countries already? I remember hearing stuff about Central American countries signing up recently.

Not with the Mercusor group anyway because Argentina won't do a deal because of the Falklands.

Water John

Ornua owns Kerrygold not Dairygold. The Dairygold brand is owned by Kerry,
I think the retail brand Pilgrims Choice is owned by Ornua.
We export a quarter of a billion in cheddar cheese and a half billion beef. They are our two big export problems.

IWT a small amount of the cheese comes back in retail packs.

brickster69

CelticRambler wrote: »

Partially true. But the EU came up with a suggestion, coherent with both WTO rules and the GFA: that those checks were carried out at the Irish Sea border.

Some British MPs decided that that was incompatible with their vision of the Union and steered the UK government in a different direction, one which has subsequently left the UK spinning like a top while the EU waits for someone, anyone to propose a workable, effective and internationally acceptable alternative.

So if the UK / IRE proposed to carry out checks away from the border to the EU to preserve an open border the EU would consider that a solution ?

prawnsambo

Water John wrote: »

Ornua owns Kerrygold not Dairygold. The Dairygold brand is owned by Kerry,
I think the retail brand Pilgrims Choice is owned by Ornua.
We export a quarter of a billion in cheddar cheese and a half billion beef. They are our two big export problems.

Two big UK import problems as well. They have choices of course, but none of them are particularly good unless they want to sacrifice their own agri-food industry.

Water John

Yeah, checks down the Irish Sea.

ath262

Water John wrote: »

Yeah, checks down the Irish Sea.

a system is already in place for live animals from Britain to NI

brickster69

Water John wrote: »

Yeah, checks down the Irish Sea.

Breaks the GFA agreement though regarding NI sovereignty with the UK.

Flex

brickster69 wrote: »

Incorrect. the Lisbon Treaty clearly states that " any country can leave the EU " It was signed by all members including Ireland. It does not say any country apart from the UK can leave.

If the EU do not want to preserve an open border by checking goods away from the frontier and insist on goods being checked directly on the border then that is it's choice.

The only reason the EU cannot accept goods being checked away from the border is that the whole world will see that it has been used as a weapon to keep the UK in the CM and CU.

The fact the EU has made it clear that the backstop can be adjusted to apply only to Northern Ireland and not Great Britain demonstrates the "they want to trap us" narrative is not true. The EU is making an incredible exception allowing NI (which voted remain) to have that special status and NI would gain a tremendous competitive advantage to its economy from having it

Further, polls have shown that the majority of NI still want to remain in the EU and 65% of people there would welcome the backstop https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/024943_b89b42d32364461298ba5fe7867d82e1.pdf

Response Total
I would welcome this as it would benefit the NI economy 35%
I would welcome this as it resolves the difficult issue of the land border within Ireland 30%
I would oppose this as it would be bad for the NI economy 29%
I would oppose this as it creates a new border between NI and GB, threatening the union 6%

The "just leave the border wide open" approach and pretending its all the EUs doing is nonsense. Along with the nonsense of prefixing "backstop" with "undemocratic" and the other propaganda and brainwashing going on in the UK at the moment, this is really amazing behaviour (for all the wrong reasons). Im just waiting for the moment that a UK government minister comes out to announce how the chocolate ration is being increased to 20 grams a week

Seth Brundle

brickster69 wrote: »

Breaks the GFA agreement though regarding NI sovereignty with the UK.

Given that it is already happening, how would it change the existing NI sovereignty with the UK?

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

Breaks the GFA agreement though regarding NI sovereignty with the UK.

Wait till you see Johnson implement that if he gets a majority.

Water John

Johnson could leave on 31st, have his GE, then agree to checks in the Irish Sea.

20silkcut

eagle eye wrote: »

Hasn't the UK signed a load of continuity trade deals with other countries already? I remember hearing stuff about Central American countries signing up recently.

These are the countries that migrants are fleeing from in desperation up to the U.S border.
Yes 80% of the world is outside the EU and so is 100% of abject world poverty.

Sam Russell

brickster69 wrote: »

So if the UK / IRE proposed to carry out checks away from the border to the EU to preserve an open border the EU would consider that a solution ?

It is not just border checks. It is the effect that NI leaving the SM and CU has on the all Ireland economy. Currently, there is effectively no border.

Well, there are separate currency and VAT issues, but that has been the case for many decades, and everyone accepts that and lives with it, just as they do with the speed limit being in Km or Miles. After Brexit, the VAT rules change dramatically, gifting much opportunity for fraud and smuggling - just one issue. Then there are veterinary issues.

It is not just goods.

Quin_Dub

brickster69 wrote: »

Incorrect. the Lisbon Treaty clearly states that " any country can leave the EU " It was signed by all members including Ireland. It does not say any country apart from the UK can leave.

If the EU do not want to preserve an open border by checking goods away from the frontier and insist on goods being checked directly on the border then that is it's choice.

The only reason the EU cannot accept goods being checked away from the border is that the whole world will see that it has been used as a weapon to keep the UK in the CM and CU.

Here's an analogy for you.

The UK own a top floor apartment in an apartment block and having decided they no longer want it , they set it on fire. The landlord calls the fire service and they need to use copious amounts of water to put out the fire both to protect the apartment and to prevent the fire spreading to all the other apartments.

Now as a result of all the water used in putting out the fire , the apartments in the block suffer from varying degrees of water damage.

Who's fault is that?

The Landlord for calling the fire brigade or the guys who set their apartment on fire???

Lackadaisical

brickster69 wrote: »

Breaks the GFA agreement though regarding NI sovereignty with the UK.

Considering that there are restrictions on taking fresh fruit between certain states in the US, it's hardly shocking or unprecedented stuff to have control of that kind of thing between two islands.

There are tons of highway-based agricultural inspection stations in places like Florida and California, where the fruit industry is a big deal.

brickster69

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Here's an analogy for you.

The UK own a top floor apartment in an apartment block and having decided they no longer want it , they set it on fire. The landlord calls the fire service and they need to use copious amounts of water to put out the fire both to protect the apartment and to prevent the fire spreading to all the other apartments.

Now as a result of all the water used in putting out the fire , the apartments in the block suffer from varying degrees of water damage.

Who's fault is that?

The Landlord for calling the fire brigade or the guys who set their apartment on fire???

Here is another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ljJhZZo5s

Valhallapt

brickster69 wrote: »

Breaks the GFA agreement though regarding NI sovereignty with the UK.

Does the existing system for livestock between NI and GB break the GFA?

fash

brickster69 wrote: »

Breaks the GFA agreement though regarding NI sovereignty with the UK.

1. It is only a difference if the UK is the UK does not go for a soft Brexit - and don't forget everyone on the leave side guaranteed that only a madman would leave the single market etc. Why do you believe the Brexiters lied?

2. he UK doesn't care about the GFA or its obligations thereunder.
3. It is a smaller and less intrusive breach than doing something similar at a non-port (i.e. at the border) - and merely echoes existing differences between NI and GB in laws and SPS zones.
4. It is the Will Of The People - who voted for remain and the majority of whom want the backstop. Surely it is for the people of NI to decide what they want?

serfboard

prawnsambo wrote: »

They have choices of course, but none of them are particularly good unless they want to sacrifice their own agri-food industry.

Actually, they do.

To quote Patrick Minford, the Brexiteers favourite only economist:

Patrick Minford wrote:

By remaining in the EU, Brits have to pay above standard global prices for goods that come from agriculture and manufacturing.

But would we continue to put up with these high prices if we left the EU? I don’t think so.
...
Prices would fall by up to eight per cent

This will not only cost George Osborne and the British economy much less than the current Common Agricultural Policy, it will keep food prices low.

If we decided to leave, the UK would simply revert back to paying world prices for exports and imports.

Yes indeed. Pay World prices for food? Wipe out British agriculture. And just in case you thought it was only him expressing this POV, I heard Rees-Mogg saying that one of the benefits of Brexit would be cheaper food prices.

And if you think that that was an isolated offering from Mr Minford, he said to a Parliamentary committee, something to the effect that Brexit would result in the UK running down the manufacture and agriculture industries in the same way that they ran down the steel and coal industries, and he said it in a way that suggested that he was comfortable with that idea.

Here's an example of his thinking on these lines:

Patrick Minford wrote:

Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing ... But this shouldn’t scare us.

Indeed Patrick - it doesn't scare you. But I bet it terrifies the three million people employed in the manufacturing sector.

johnnyskeleton

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Trump can claim all he wants.. Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats that run the committees are the ones that have to sign off on the deal.

And they have clearly stated that they will not sign any deal that goes against the terms of the GFA.

Any deal that Trump signs will just sit there un-approved , just like his amazing new "NAFTA in all but name" deal.

All the while the UK sit there without any deals with anyone...

Boris and Nigel going on about how Trump wants to sign a "wonderful trade deal" is a bit like someone getting all excited when the barman in the nightclub promises you 2 for 1 Cocktails but you haven't worked out how to get past the bouncers on the door yet.

I think they should sign the deal on wholly favourable terms for America, then claim that 220 odd years after independence, they have finally made a vassal state out of the UK and look forward to their application as a US protectorate.

It would create a Brexit Error 404 in Westminster

brickster69

Valhallapt wrote: »

Does the existing system for livestock between NI and GB break the GFA?

Have you seen this. What do you think about it. Are your leaders lying to you, no one even knows if they are or not. Ireland does not even know if there is going to be a border or not on it's own Island.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ljJhZZo5s

Strazdas

Valhallapt wrote: »

Does the existing system for livestock between NI and GB break the GFA?

I don't believe it says anything about customs checks. It merely says that the legal status of NI cannot be changed without the permission of people in the province.

Given that the EU suggested a NI backstop, it doesn't seem like they regarded this as being in breach of the GFA (they must surely have examined the legal implications first).

Imreoir2

fash wrote: »

3. It is a smaller and less intrusive breach.

Sorry, but it's not a breach at all.
The basis of the argument that the backstop breaches the GFA is the "principle of consent". The arguement is that the people of NI must ratify any change in status between the UK and NI. This is not true, however, and the only change in status that requires the consent of the people under the GFA is NI becoming part of the Irish state rather than the British state.

jimmycrackcorm

McGiver wrote: »

I think 55-60% would make more sense. Nobody really does 2/3 i.e. 66%...

Even Switzerland doesn't do 2/3 majorities. They do super-majority in terms of 50+% cantons and 50%+ popular vote. If 14/26 cantons and 50%+1 public vote in favour, it wins. Quite silly system in Swizterland imho when it comes to constitutional changes, for ordinary laws it's fine. Note that Swiss EEA membership, rather serious constitutional matter, was rejected 50.3 vs 49.7%!

Under these terms Leave would have won the referendum as well - almost all electoral regions voted leave (9/12) and the vote was 51.9%.

The two thirds majority is dangerous in democratic terms. Imagine a border poll with a 60/40 in favour of reunification meaning No! Even the choice of 2/3rds is quite arbitrary.

The problem with the brexit referendum wasn't about the gap that leave won, it's to do with the interpretation of what leave meant.

megaten

brickster69 wrote: »

Have you seen this. What do you think about it. Are your leaders lying to you, no one even knows if they are or not. Ireland does not even know if there is going to be a border or not on it's own Island.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ljJhZZo5s

Bud you tell us a summery if its relevant to what your talking about. No one wants to watch your youtube video

fash

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Sorry, but it's not a breach at all.
The basis of the argument that the backstop breaches the GFA is the "principle of consent". The arguement is that the people of NI must ratify any change in status between the UK and NI. This is not true, however, and the only change in status that requires the consent of the people under the GFA is NI becoming part of the Irish state rather than the British state.

True - I should have written "even if, which is denied, it were a breach..." - as it is Brexiters who argue it is a breach

johnnyskeleton

brickster69 wrote: »

The only reason the EU cannot accept goods being checked away from the border is that the whole world will see that it has been used as a weapon to keep the UK in the CM and CU.

In what world does an agreement made between two parties, but then rejected by the parliament and subequent new cabinet of the second party amount to a plan by the first party to keep them within the customs unions?

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

Have you seen this. What do you think about it. Are your leaders lying to you, no one even knows if they are or not. Ireland does not even know if there is going to be a border or not on it's own Island.

Deal or No-deal, the UKs obligation under the GFA don't go away. The UK will still have to adopt the measures necessary to prevent border checks because of its international treaty obligations. The UK signed a binding treaty with Ireland, we have lived up to our commitments and our government fully expects the UK to do the same. It would be incredible if our Taoiseach said that he expects the UK to breach its obligations under the GFA and that we were preparing to implement a border as a result. The consequences if the UK breach the treaties they have signed will be dire. Why would any nation sign a treaty with the UK if they are seen to tear them up when they become inconvinient?

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

Have you seen this. What do you think about it. Are your leaders lying to you, no one even knows if they are or not. Ireland does not even know if there is going to be a border or not on it's own Island.

Why should we plan for a border that the UK has said will not happen? That is exactly what Varadkar is saying there on the discussions with the then PM. Now PM Johnson may back out of this, but seeing as he has not had the courage for a one on one meeting with Varadkar, well then that says a lot about the man.

Until Johnson comes out and states that the UK will be breaking the promises and assurances they have given, it should be taken as such that they will still keep to not putting up a border.