Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

mm_surf wrote: »

I would be shocked controls for beef and milk/dairy weren’t put in place (in the event of a no-deal brexit)
Irish food carries a premium, and those would be at risk in the event of a porous border. Was done for the foot&mouth risk. I can easily see farmers getting a bit militant about it!

M.

As a previous poster mentioned earlier, I think controls such as were in place during Foot n Mouth will be brought in pretty quick with a steady move towards increasing the controls over time.

Hurrache

More from Hunt. In a sane world it would read as someone trying to sabotage themselves from getting the job. But in terms of Brexit he's playing to those who have the opportunity to give it to him.
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1143567753456050181?s=19

Strazdas

Hurrache wrote: »

More from Hunt. In a sane world it would read as someone trying to sabotage themselves from getting the job. But in terms of Brexit he's playing to those who have the opportunity to give it to him.
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1143567753456050181?s=19

Interesting response from Prof. Brigid Laffan :

https://twitter.com/BrigidLaffan/status/1143584017612181505

I doubt Hunt is even aware DUP only involvement breaches the GFA

Hurrache

Wasn't aware myself, but it's not my job. What is blazingly obvious is that he's excluding the NI, Welsh and Scottish governments from the negotiations.

A Shropshire Lad

Its ironic that the Unionists are the ones who are going to break up the Union

First Up

MrMusician18 wrote:

The UK came within days of brexiting last March and there was no evidence of any plan on the ground to collect tariffs or export controls at any Irish port.

The construction of additional customs facilities at Irish ports was widely reported, as was the plan for a lorry park near Dublin Airport for trucks queuing for the Port Tunnel.

MrMusician18 wrote:

I cannot see any situation where the Irish government imposes controls at our own ports unless the EU position of solidarity with Ireland is completely abandoned.

Controls at Irish ports would only be for traffic that has not pre-cleared - in effect trucks of NI and British origin. Everything pre-cleared sails through.

A ton of work has been done on this by central Govt, Revenue, Depts of Ag Enterpise and Finance, hauliers, shipping companies, port authorities and several others - all in close consultation with Frontex and other EU agencies. These people know what they are doing and they have handled much trickier EU borders before.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The UK came within days of brexiting last March and there was no evidence of any plan on the ground to collect tariffs or export controls at any Irish port. This lack of action on the ground obviously points out the Irish strategy. They do not believe the UK will leave without a deal or that if it does leave without a deal that that position is unsustainable in the short term or that if it somehow manages to maintain a no deal environment the EU is willing to allow Ireland time to erect the infrastructure necessary to stay in the single market and align itself with the treaties again. The latter means custom posts on the border, because if it came to it the border economy is far less important than seamless exporting for the MNCs that are based here.

I cannot see any situation where the Irish government imposes controls at our own ports unless the EU position of solidarity with Ireland is completely abandoned.

This is where the possible "hard Brexit, (without UK border controls)" puts Ireland on the spot.
If the UK leaves their side of the border open (to honour the GFA).

The EU will expect those controls to be imposed, if Ireland refuses to put them at the border, then they will be put in the French coastal ports.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is where the possible "hard Brexit, (without UK border controls)" puts Ireland on the spot.
If the UK leaves their side of the border open (to honour the GFA).

The EU will expect those controls to be imposed, if Ireland refuses to put them at the border, then they will be put in the French coastal ports.

There will be a border.

You know it, I know it we all know it.

Any you know well our government can't say it right at the moment because there is road to run till October.

Spanish Eyes

listermint wrote: »

There will be a border.

You know it, I know it we all know it.

Any you know well our government can't say it right at the moment because there is road to run till October.

But there might not be a No Deal Brexit either. Be optimistic.

I know from contacts that you are correct about a border if all else fails. There is a lot going on in the background, but best to keep it low key at the moment. Best move IMO. Don't let the Brexiteers have the last laugh at us being unprepared or anything. LOL.

Leroy42

There is absolutely nothing that Leo, Ireland or indeed the EU can say or do to influence the UK to move towards a deal. They have tried being direct, indirect, understanding, tough. Extending deadlines, keeping quiet, speaking up.

We had the sight of Obama being told to stay out of the UK business prior to the ref, but its totally acceptable for Farage and Johnson to be in direct contact with Bannon?

Whatever we say will be twisted and turned to 'prove' their point. If we say we are preparing for a border, the likes of IDS, JRM etc will be straight out to state that this shows that the EU never wanted Brexit to succeed and there is no chance of a FTA as they hate the UK. We say we don't want a border and IDS etc come out saying this 'proves' no border is required and the EU is trying to trap them.

Either way, the UK are not listening to themselves, never mind anyone else.

Spanish Eyes

I have no doubt that Coveney is doing a good job at the moment. He is in contact with the EU most days, if not every day now I'd say. We just do not hear about it.

It's better that way. Less speculation.

trellheim

Boris Johnson paints buses for relaxation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHfgF0l1Jc&feature=youtu.be. Skip to six minutes in . If you want to put your head in your hands take a ticket and get in line.

Professor Moriarty

trellheim wrote: »

Boris Johnson paints buses for relaxation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHfgF0l1Jc&feature=youtu.be. Skip to six minutes in . If you want to put your head in your hands take a ticket and get in line.

Do the buses have adverts for 350 million a week, I wonder. I must say he came across as very convincing when he talked about his hobby. Not.

volchitsa

trellheim wrote: »

Boris Johnson paints buses for relaxation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHfgF0l1Jc&feature=youtu.be. Skip to six minutes in . If you want to put your head in your hands take a ticket and get in line.

He's trolling the British public. Has to be. The Boris Bus scheme was a disaster, if only he'd stuck to painting model buses it would have been far better.

Leroy42

volchitsa wrote: »

He's trolling the British public. Has to be. The Boris Bus scheme was a disaster, if only he'd stuck to painting model buses it would have been far better.

Yeah, I have that feeling as well. The very fact that he seemingly has little idea of what is actually involved would suggest he was simply making something up.

The more I see/hear from Johnson the more I see the same playbook that worked so well with Trump and obviously has Bannon helping.

Even the argument and picture issue could have easily been dealt with but it actually serves Johnson better to play the victim and also use up valuable interview time instead of deep questioning about his lack of a plan.

And it works because he knows Hunt doesn't have a plan either and so even his opponent doesn't want to get into a debate.

A Shropshire Lad

And he enjoys painting the little passengers

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

trellheim

Yes indeed. This is the stream of consciousness crap you come out with when you firmly believe you are smarter than your interviewer and audience.

volchitsa

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah, I have that feeling as well. The very fact that he seemingly has little idea of what is actually involved would suggest he was simply making something up.

The more I see/hear from Johnson the more I see the same playbook that worked so well with Trump and obviously has Bannon helping.

Even the argument and picture issue could have easily been dealt with but it actually serves Johnson better to play the victim and also use up valuable interview time instead of deep questioning about his lack of a plan.

And it works because he knows Hunt doesn't have a plan either and so even his opponent doesn't want to get into a debate.

Watching the YouTube link, he was clearly making it up, he started out completely nonplussed and was searching for what he could say. As you say, he didn't even know what materials he makes these buses out of.

But TBH if you watch the start of the interview where he's asked what his first steps will be if he becomes PM, he's just as obviously spoofing there too, waving his hands around and waffling vaguely about getting "the best bits" of the agreement through parliament. Which best bits? Nah, don't bother even asking.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Enzokk wrote: »

The EU will make mincemeat of any candidate who comes in with unrealistic objectives.

The EU negotiators set out their stall, based on the documentation and processes already in place, and and have tried to be true to Brexit as best they could (such as the WA).

The UK entered discussions with a “we have the upper hand” and a divide and conquer” attitude; old school thinking on their part.

The UK thought that No Deal was/is their trump card; and that the EU would blink as the end line came into view. The idea that EU/single-market/cohesion was the red line for the EU, never seemed to occur to the UK (blinded by their own unicorn thinking and non-commitment to the EU).

In an age when it’s never been easier to access the truth (actual documentation), it seems that people may never have been so lazy to access information. The gullibility to fall for the lies from a Trump/Farage/Johnson is nothing new though.

Sam Russell

munstermagic11 wrote: »

The EU negotiators set out their stall, based on the documentation and processes already in place, and and have tried to be true to Brexit as best they could (such as the WA).

The UK entered discussions with a “we have the upper hand” and a divide and conquer” attitude; old school thinking on their part.

The UK thought that No Deal was/is their trump card; and that the EU would blink as the end line came into view. The idea that EU/single-market/cohesion was the red line for the EU, never seemed to occur to the UK (blinded by their own unicorn thinking and non-commitment to the EU).

In an age when it’s never been easier to access the truth (actual documentation), it seems that people may never have been so lazy to access information. The gullibility to fall for the lies from a Trump/Farage/Johnson is nothing new though.

In 1914, the British thought they would win WW I, they didn't and required USA help to be on the winning side.

In 1939, they thought that fighting Germany was an existential threat (which it was) and threw all they had at it, and with the help of the USA and the Empire and the Russians, the prevailed, under the impression that it was their vistory (as Britain had stood alone).

After WW II, they had to pay the piper and handed the USA huge sums of money (devalued the GB£ from GNB£1=US$4 to GB£=US$2.8 - with debts denominated in US$), plus loads of trade and scientific secrets, and basically agreed to USA hegemony in the western world.

Basically, the Labour party won the election after the war and set up the NHS and nationalised many industries - coal, railways, etc.

In the fifties there was a fight similar to Brexit between Nationalise - de-nationalise going on in Labour while the Tories won the elections and waged a few wars - some supporting the USA (Korea) and some without permission (Suez), and refused to join in the Vietnam caper.

They had to join the EEC (later the EU) because the economy was tanking having lost their empire. The economy continued to tank, until the SM happened, but they always were on semi-detached members. Under Thatcher, there was always attempts to get better terms - for specious reasons.

So now we have Brexit, with no plan - not even a sketch of a plan on the back of an envelope.

And still the clock ticks. Tick tock.

As an aside, no single party Gov in the UK has had a majority of the popular vote since 1932, it has a second chamber that is unelected, and an unelected head of state, and a sovereign parliament that is only answerable to the voters once in five years (even though it might not have a majority of that vote), and can do as it likes outside of that - winner takes all.

And the Brexiteers think the EU is undemocratic. Bonkers.

listermint

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But there might not be a No Deal Brexit either. Be optimistic.

I know from contacts that you are correct about a border if all else fails. There is a lot going on in the background, but best to keep it low key at the moment. Best move IMO. Don't let the Brexiteers have the last laugh at us being unprepared or anything. LOL.

Hence I said road to run till October.

The stupid part is their are those out there that expect our government to lay out all their plans. such a thing would have huge impact on negotiations.

So they are right to keep stum.

L1011

Plausible Paisley will be suspended again and for longer after the revelations on Spotlight that his dragged out admission didn't cover everything. Brings the numbers even tighter

Water John

Johnson attempting to grab back the momentum, with his promise of leaving on 31st Oct. This may play out badly as if he wins and moves to this end, will result in a GE. Tories won't look that far forward in choosing PM.

trellheim

Don't dump videos here please.

Enzokk

Emma Barnett has been killing it recently in her interviews. She is well prepared and researched when talking Brexit. In the clip below she grills Andrew Mitchell about Johnson's letter to Hunt on the 31st October deadline.

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1143636621725589504

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

Hence I said road to run till October.

The stupid part is their are those out there that expect our government to lay out all their plans. such a thing would have huge impact on negotiations.

So they are right to keep stum.

I disagree. I think Varadkar has missed a trick here.

His line has always been "we won't be erecting border controls [because we expect the UK to honour its no-hard-border guarantee in all circumstances, and therefore it won't be necessary]". But the bit in brackets is easily eclipsed by people who are motivated to eclipse it, or it is easily read down to "...because we expect the UK not to erect border controls". And this gives rise to two problems.

First, it lends apparent support to the Brexiter line that "UK won't erect border controls! Ireland won't erect border controls! So where's the problem? No need for a backstop! Whole thing is a sinister EU plot to frustrate Brexit/punish the UK/annex NI!" The truth of the matter is otherwise - mutually agreed arrangements are necessary to avoid a hard border and the corollary of that is, if there are no mutually agreed arrangments, there will be a hard border. It doesn't help the case for the backstop to try to sugar-coat this.

Secondly Varadkar makes a rod for his own back. If and when it becomes necessary to start operating controls on cross-border traffic, Varadkar will be accused of failing to deliver on his own commitment not to erect controls, and/or it will be said that this shows that Ireland is not truly independent, must obey the diktats of the faceless unelected bureaucrats of Brussels, yadda, yadda, yadda. And all this will help to alleviate the pressure on the people who will actually be to blame for this, which is the UK government.

Varadkar's line should have been "we will do everything we can to avoid a hard border, but we don't see that it can be avoided if the UK won't enter into agreed arrangements which are effective to avoid the need for border controls."

As for the details of the controls that might be erected, I don't see how releasing these would have an adverse impact on negotaitions. That looks too much like the "keeping our cards close to our chest" sh!te that the UK government trotted out in 2016 and 2017 to conceal the fact that it had no clue what its position would be in the Brexit negotiations. I think it would be fair enough (and quite truthful) to say "we'll have to be flexible in our response to a developing, probably chaotic and hopefully quite short-term state of affairs on the border, so we can't tell you in detail how this will unfold and what controls will be put in place until it actually unfolds. But, yeah, in a crash-out no-deal Brexit the border will harden, and we will have to put in place appropriate and effective controls on cross-border trade to protect our place in the Customs Union and the Single Market".

If Varadkar had managed expectations better on this over the past year or so, once it became clear that the UK might actually shoot itself in the face rather than honour its guarantees, I think he'd be a slightly more comfortable position now that he is looking down the barrel of the gun.

CelticRambler

Peregrinus wrote: »

Varadkar's line should have been "we will do everything we can to avoid a hard border, but we don't see that it can be avoided if the UK won't enter into agreed arrangements which are effective to avoid the need for border controls."

If you'd asked me to summarise his statements on this over the last couple of years, that's pretty much the same text I would have used. So either I've applied my own Brexity double-speak filter to make him say what I want to hear, or he's consistently used language that makes it clear that that's what he means, even if he avoids using more precise and/or provocative words.

Whatever about the implications for his own future position in Ireland, I doubt any choice of phrase or declaration of intent would change things for the better in respect of the attitude on the English side of the Irish Sea.

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

If you'd asked me to summarise his statements on this over the last couple of years, that's pretty much the same text I would have used. So either I've applied my own Brexity double-speak filter to make him say what I want to hear, or he's consistently used language that makes it clear that that's what he means, even if he avoids using more precise and/or provocative words.

Whatever about the implications for his own future position in Ireland, I doubt any choice of phrase or declaration of intent would change things for the better in respect of the attitude on the English side of the Irish Sea.

I agree with that. I don't think it's a question of actually winning over Brexiters, so much as of not giving them ammunition for their mendacious campaign. "Ireland has said it will not introduce border controls" is a constant them of the Brexiter campaign to belittle the backstop and the need for it, and I think Varadkar should have been explicit from the outset that Ireland would[/ii] introduce border controls if the UK's actions made it necessary. Certainly he should have been doing that throughout this year, when "no-deal" is being advanced as a serious policy option by people who should know better.

VinLieger

trellheim wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/1143628255607566340

Been making me laugh like a drain

This is fantastic, got a good idea of what him and the GF were arguing about now too

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Varadkar's line should have been "we will do everything we can to avoid a hard border, but we don't see that it can be avoided if the UK won't enter into agreed arrangements which are effective to avoid the need for border controls."

I don't disagree with your post, but if every politician on both sides and in the EU has said they will protect the GFA, why should Leo be the first to openly talk about putting up borders? This would be openly questioning the UK and whether they would be living up to their obligations, as they have said they would. We cannot assume the worst in public of our closest neighbour.

This is a waiting game, you prepare for the worst but in no way do you publicly let this be known.