Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

serfboard

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm looking to move to Ireland probably next year with Irish wife and granddaughter ,tentative employment enquiries have been encouraging.

Best of luck to you - you'll be joining many other Brexit refugees here!

RobMc59 wrote: »

That does depend on the CTA remaining in place.

It's about the only commitment from the current British government that is solid, IMO.

Zubeneschamali

(the Common Travel Area UK-Ireland)

serfboard wrote: »

It's about the only commitment from the current British government that is solid, IMO.

When their other hostages don't work, they will try and use the Common Travel area as leverage.

ltd440

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

(the Common Travel Area UK-Ireland)


When their other hostages don't work, they will try and use the Common Travel area as leverage.

What would that gain though?

Beside the fact that Ireland would be in a position to then block any further trade deals

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

(the Common Travel Area UK-Ireland)


When their other hostages don't work, they will try and use the Common Travel area as leverage.

While NI is part of GB that would be impossible to rescind without people going out on the streets, even if NI was jettisoned it still would cause riots.

An Ciarraioch

Especially when there are an estimated 200-300k British nationals resident in the Republic.

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Especially when there are an estimated 200-300k British nationals resident in the Republic.

It gets even more complicated. In 2018 there were approximately 380,000 people born in Ireland living in Britain. Since then, 95,000 people born in Britain applied for Irish passports.

Zubeneschamali

ltd440 wrote: »

What would that gain though?

There is nothing, zero, nada for them to gain from any aspect of Brexit.


Yet here we are.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

(the Common Travel Area UK-Ireland)


When their other hostages don't work, they will try and use the Common Travel area as leverage.

It will never happen, far too many cross threads between this particular nut & bolt!

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

(the Common Travel Area UK-Ireland)


When their other hostages don't work, they will try and use the Common Travel area as leverage.

The main danger to the CTA has generally come from the EU side. If there was ever pressure on Ireland to join Shcengen (something of course we would resist), then we would have to would have to terminate the CTA in order to comply since it is not compatible with Schengen. For this reason agreement was reached in the WA that EU legislation will not be introduced which is incompatible with the CTA.

In some ways the EU might actually like the UK to end the CTA on its side since then nothing would stop Ireland joining Schengen apart from domestic opposition here which is easily dealt with.

For this reason there's not much leverage for the UK in threatening the end of the CTA. Even when Johnson was threatening to walk away from the WA last year (before the UK parliament ended that option) he never suggested an end to the CTA even in the event of no deal.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It will never happen, far too many cross threads between this particular nut & bolt!

Sorry lads. But take off your shiney red and blue tinted glasses.

With the likes of Patel and Johnson in situ anything and everything is up for threat or grabs it doesn't matter a jot of the historical significance of it.

If you don't believe that then you haven't been following along the past 3 years.


It's on the table and it's never off the table until a full agreement is signed and sealed.

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

Sorry lads. But take off your shiney red and blue tinted glasses.

And put on the tinfoil hat.

listermint

Bit cynical wrote: »

And put on the tinfoil hat.

Tinfoil hat.

You must have missed the current foreign secretary threatening to starve Ireland into submission.

If anyone needs someone to draw lots of dots for them and then join them .. well , it's not me.

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

Tinfoil hat.

You must have missed the current foreign secretary threatening to starve Ireland into submission.

If anyone needs someone to draw lots of dots for them and then join them .. well , it's not me.

However that was not a threat. Although I don't agree with it and think it is exaggerated, it is not something the UK will do if there's no deal but rather a consequence of no deal, much like the way posters on here have talked about food riots in the UK if there's no deal - not something the EU will actively bring about but a consequence of no deal (also exaggerated).

Still not in the UK's interest to threaten removal of the CTA.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

The main danger to the CTA has generally come from the EU side. If there was ever pressure on Ireland to join Shcengen (something of course we would resist), then we would have to would have to terminate the CTA in order to comply since it is not compatible with Schengen. For this reason agreement was reached in the WA that EU legislation will not be introduced which is incompatible with the CTA.

In some ways the EU might actually like the UK to end the CTA on its side since then nothing would stop Ireland joining Schengen apart from domestic opposition here which is easily dealt with.

For this reason there's not much leverage for the UK in threatening the end of the CTA. Even when Johnson was threatening to walk away from the WA last year (before the UK parliament ended that option) he never suggested an end to the CTA even in the event of no deal.

Let it be said again:

We are the EU!

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Let it be said again:

We are the EU!

I don't think anything I have said suggests we're not in the EU.

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

The main danger to the CTA has generally come from the EU side. If there was ever pressure on Ireland to join Shcengen (something of course we would resist), then we would have to would have to terminate the CTA in order to comply since it is not compatible with Schengen. For this reason agreement was reached in the WA that EU legislation will not be introduced which is incompatible with the CTA.

In some ways the EU might actually like the UK to end the CTA on its side since then nothing would stop Ireland joining Schengen apart from domestic opposition here which is easily dealt with.

For this reason there's not much leverage for the UK in threatening the end of the CTA. Even when Johnson was threatening to walk away from the WA last year (before the UK parliament ended that option) he never suggested an end to the CTA even in the event of no deal.

This is one of your more idiotic notions.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a border on the island of Ireland.

The EU has invested a huge amount of political capital, and risked a no-deal Brexit by the UK, to support Ireland's wish to keep its border with Northern Ireland as open as it is now.

Pressuring Ireland to join Schengen would result in the hardening of that border to an extent that would be utterly unpalatable to the vast majority of people in Ireland and would be completely at odds with everything the EU has done to help Ireland to avoid any hardening of the border with Northern Ireland.

listermint

Bit cynical wrote: »

However that was not a threat. Although I don't agree with it and think it is exaggerated, it is not something the UK will do if there's no deal but rather a consequence of no deal, much like the way posters on here have talked about food riots in the UK if there's no deal - not something the EU will actively bring about but a consequence of no deal (also exaggerated).

Still not in the UK's interest to threaten removal of the CTA.

Once it comes out of a cabinet members mouth it was a threat. It wasn't blown out it was reported exactly as it was said.

You down playing it though is an obvious outcome.


It was said.

These people have no limits this has been demonstrated time and time again. The notion anything is off the table is laughable. The end.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

Pressuring Ireland to join Schengen would result in the hardening of that border to an extent that would be utterly unpalatable to the vast majority of people in Ireland and would be completely at odds with everything the EU has done to help Ireland to avoid any hardening of the border with Northern Ireland.

Ignoring your personal insult, if the UK ended the CTA, that would also be an end to any notions of no border on the island of Ireland and Ireland joining Schengen at that point would make little difference.

sondagefaux

Enzokk wrote: »

If you want to see the evolution of the stance from the UK on the lowering of food standards, it seems to be playing out right now. Theresa Villiers stated, when she was the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, that chlorinated chicken will be off the table in future trade talks. The Government then didn't put this in the Agriculture Bill going through parliament and she was sacked in the reshuffle.

The new secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, George Eustice, has been using politicians language when the asked on this by avoiding the question and not being as forceful than his predecessor.

Link here to his interview, from about 7 minutes 30 seconds.

https://youtu.be/t-3zdbrjRtg?t=453

It will be interesting to see where they eventually land on this but it is clear farmers in the UK will be worried. They are caught between a rock and a very hard place. If the government allows cheap food imports from the US because of lower standards to produce the food then farmers will be priced out of the domestic market. They could go lower themselves but then eventually if the UK is looking for a more integrated deal with the EU then they will be caught out. Or they could decide to lose the UK market due to price and try to go for the EU market, by keeping EU standards. But what about tariffs and will the government care? I wonder why fish seem more important than chicken, both are important to feed your population.

Farmers pile pressure on UK government over chlorinated chicken

Farmers in England are yet another group that the UK has now said 'f*ck you' to. Their farm payments are to be reduced by between 5% and 25% from next year.

This is what was promised in 2016:



This is what will be happening from next year, with all direct payments to be phased out by 2027:

Basic Payments will be reduced by 5-25% next year for farmers in England, the government has confirmed.

Farmers who receive up to £30,000 will see their payment reduced by 5%, with further reductions for payments falling in bands above that amount (see table below).

For example, for a claim worth £40,000, a 5% reduction would be applied to the first £30,000 and a 10% reduction would be applied to the next £10,000.

The reduction percentages will be increased over time until the final payments are made for the 2027 scheme year, said Defra on Tuesday 25 February.

Money saved by reductions in direct payments will be reinvested directly into the farming and land management sector, it added.

ELM scheme pilots
In 2021, this will include piloting the government’s forthcoming Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme, which will pay farmers who undertake environmental work.

Defra said the money would also be used to help “continue and improve our tree health offer ensuring that the nation’s trees are increasingly resilient and healthy”.

...

Defra said it plans to “delink” direct payments – maybe as early as 2022 – as they are being phased out, so recipients no longer have to farm to receive them.

It said it would also look to offer farmers a one-off optional lump sum to replace ongoing direct payments during the phase-out period.

Farmers may choose to use this lump sum to invest in their business to boost their productivity and profitability. Others may choose to use the money to diversify their activities, it said.

“Some farmers may decide to stop farming altogether and use the payment to contribute to their retirement or move to another sector,” added Defra.

“This should facilitate restructuring, creating opportunities for existing businesses to expand and new entrants to join the industry.”

Direct payment band Reduction percentage
Up to £30,000 5%
£30,000 – £50,000 10%
£50,000 – £150,000 20%
£150,000 or more 25%

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/payments-schemes/defra-confirms-reductions-in-support-for-farmers

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

Ignoring your personal insult, if the UK ended the CTA, that would also be an end to any notions of no border on the island of Ireland and Ireland joining Schengen at that point would make little difference.

It's not an insult: it's an observation.

If the UK ends the CTA, the EU wouldn't pressure Ireland to join Schengen.

The EU is designed to break down borders, not create them.

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

Once it comes out of a cabinet members mouth it was a threat. It wasn't blown out it was reported exactly as it was said.

You down playing it though is an obvious outcome.

It was said.

These people have no limits this has been demonstrated time and time again. The notion anything is off the table is laughable. The end.

They are fully within their rights to end the CTA but like I said it is not in their interests to do so and they haven't done so to date even when outright threatening to walk away when the prospect of no deal was only weeks away (though ultimately stopped by parliament).

But talking about the consequences as they see it of not concluding a deal, even if we don't agree with it is not the same as a threat. They are also free, as they have done, to talk about the effects (as they see it) on the German car industry of no deal but again not a threat.

sondagefaux

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's not an insult: it's an observation.

If the UK ends the CTA, the EU wouldn't pressure Ireland to join Schengen.

The EU is designed to break down borders, not create them.

Internal borders yes, not external ones.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Internal borders yes, not external ones.

And Schengen is the main instrument of removing internal borders while (in conjunction with Frontex) strengthening external ones.

Capt'n Midnight

sondagefaux wrote: »

Nothing in EU law ever prevented the British from allowing free movement of people from their former empire or any other country in the world.

Instead of supporting rules that make it more difficult for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens of every race and ethnicity to move to the UK, why not support a 'levelling up' of rights for citizens of other states?

I know of someone who wasn't allowed into the UK because they didn't own a house or enough land to prove they had a reason to return back to Africa.

Thing is once you have been rejected you'll always fail on the "were you ever rejected before" question.

GAME OVER

Capt'n Midnight

serfboard wrote: »

Ah don't worry. Once Cummings fires them all and replaces them with (racist) wierdos, it'll be Great (Britain)!

£60K isn't much in London.
Not that the hiree will have to do anything other than what they are told.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51609041

The Cabinet Office is recruiting a new civil servant to oversee HR policy for government ministers' special advisers.

The "high profile and stretching" £60,000-a-year role has been advertised after reports of tensions between the government and the civil service over recruitment and treatment of staff.

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

Ireland was a colony of the UK and never had any territories overseas. Most of the UK's (England's) multi ethnic mix is due to the former empire and the Commonwealth. Population of Scotland and NI is very similar in make up to that of the ROI.

The businessmen of Belfast considered getting into the slaving business. And they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for a meddling horologist.

‘May God wither the hand and consign the name to eternal infamy of the man that will sign this document’
- Thomas McCabe 1786

sondagefaux

Deleted User wrote: »

Internal borders yes, not external ones.

The Franco-Swiss border isn't an EU internal border, it's an external border of the EU.

Yet Switzerland is in Schengen and has mutual free movement of people with the EU.

The border between Ireland and Northern Ireland isn't an internal EU border, this border is an external border of the EU.

Yet the EU has expended a huge effort into ensuring that it can remain almost as open as any border between two EU member states.

The extension of the EU's Single Market to states outside the EU, eliminating most regulatory borders between the EU and its non-EU EEA partners, allowing for mutual freedom of movement between the EU and non-EU states, the extension of Schengen arrangements to non-EU states, and the Northern Ireland/Ireland Protocol proves that the EU has made very strong efforts to eliminate borders between EU and non-EU states and territories.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think anything I have said suggests we're not in the EU.

Everything you say seems to indicate a disconnect from EU decision-making processes and Ireland's place in making that decision.

As you stated correctly, we are in the EU.

But what I wrote was: WE ARE THE EU!

Peregrinus

No offence, but almost everything about this post from Bit cynical is wrong.

Bit cynical wrote: »

The main danger to the CTA has generally come from the EU side.

I don’t see that any threat to the CTA has ever come from the EU side. The rest of your post is devoted to speculation about what the EU might or might not do in a hypothetical future, but you don’t point all to anything the EU has ever done that represents a danger to the CTA.

Whereas Brexit clearly does represent a danger to the CTA, at least in principle. The UK wants to operate immigration rules for EU/EEA citizens (other than Irish citizens) which are very different from those which Ireland will operate. This means that the CTA will enable UK border controls to be easily avoided by EU/EEA citizens. That’s only sustainable for the UK if it’s able effectively to enforce its migration rules for EU/EEA citizens without using border controls. So far, the UK thinks it will be able to do that. But experience might show otherwise. That, it seems to me, is the biggest potential threat to the CTA.

Bit cynical wrote: »

If there was ever pressure on Ireland to join Shcengen (something of course we would resist), then we would have to would have to terminate the CTA in order to comply since it is not compatible with Schengen. For this reason agreement was reached in the WA that EU legislation will not be introduced which is incompatible with the CTA.

You forgot “for this reason there has never been any pressure on Ireland to join Schengen”. The EU likes the CTA; it always has done. The CTA does the kind of things that the EU think are good things to do. The reference in the WA was inserted simply to confirm that the current state of affairs will continue, precisely because the EU is happy with it. It’s mainly there so that the UK will understand that the EU will not, in any circumstances, assist them in operating migration controls between the UK and Ireland.

Bit cynical wrote: »

In some ways the EU might actually like the UK to end the CTA on its side since then nothing would stop Ireland joining Schengen apart from domestic opposition here which is easily dealt with.

Well, that presumes that the EU would prefer Ireland to be in Schengen rather than in the CTA, which I see no evidence of. But, if the UK did end the CTA, then Ireland might ask itself whether it should join Schengen. You seem to assume that there would be “domestic opposition”, but if the CTA is really, permanently off the table tI don’t see much reason for opposition to joining Schengen; if we can’t have the CTA we can at least have Schengen.

Bit cynical wrote: »

For this reason there's not much leverage for the UK in threatening the end of the CTA. Even when Johnson was threatening to walk away from the WA last year (before the UK parliament ended that option) he never suggested an end to the CTA even in the event of no deal.

No, he never did. Only certified fruit-loops in the Brexit movement have ever suggested such a thing. Still, as I pointed out above, if they have difficulty enforcing their new migration rules against EU/EEA citizens, the possibility may rear its head.

But it would be hugely politically difficult within the UK. Unlike the beneficiaries of EU free movement rules who are settled in the UK, the beneficiaries of the CTA have votes. And there are a very large number of them. Not to mention the absolute sh!tstorm that would break out in NI if the UK attempted to control entry and exit of people over the land border with the Republic. I think the UK would rather put up with a leaky migration system than take all that on.

I reckon the CTA is safe. And, to the extent that it isn’t safe, that’s entirely the result of choices made or to be made, and actions taken or to be taken, by the UK.

Zubeneschamali

I don't think the UK will threaten to abolish the CTA completely, I expect some threat to the status of the Irish in the UK - perhaps some sort of register for permission to work or reside.

I know this will be impractical and damaging for the UK, and I don't think they will actually do it, but they are complete bluffers and seem to think threats to injure themselves and us are a brilliant negotiating tactic.

This is all short term anyway, it is a matter of time before they cave and take whatever deal the EU is offering same as Johnson did with the WA.