Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

CelticRambler wrote: »

The EU never "simply accepts" deviations from its third-party agreements. Having learnt from their dealings with the Swiss, you can be damn sure that any deal signed with the UK will include an "all or nothing" clause, so if it becomes obvious that the UK are not implementing the GB-NI border checks in a sincere and meaningful fashion, then the whole trade deal will be suspended.

Here again we're watching one party negotiating on the basis of decades of experience in carefully crafting workable, mutually acceptable, enforceable agreements; and on the other, a party that still wants to conduct its affairs in the anything-goes spirit of its colonial past. Where's that empire now ...?

See, I am not so sure about that. The EU do not want a No Deal, and that won't change going forward. So agree a deal (from UK POV) and then start to slowly ease on the controls and restrictions and will the EU really pull out of a Deal because the UK are letting a few extra cows across the border?

They didn't when the UK let Chinese stuff in without tariffs (although they are under investigation). But my bet is that the UK are betting that they can renegoiate on a real time basis, simply let things fall away but incrementally so that there is never a 'what the hell' moment.

I agree that is pretty cynical, but that is the level I believe the UK are operating at.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

See, I am not so sure about that. The EU do not want a No Deal, and that won't change going forward. So agree a deal (from UK POV) and then start to slowly ease on the controls and restrictions and will the EU really pull out of a Deal because the UK are letting a few extra cows across the border?

Yes, the EU want a deal, but not at any price. Barnier has been utterly consistent in his position: level playing field, or take your ball home with you; we'll be here if/when you decide that playing with yourself isn't as satisfying as being in a meaningful relationship.

Other than the peculiar circumstances affecting Ireland, no other EU member is going to suffer enormously by no deal having been signed by Dec 31st - the Brits will still need and want to buy our meat, cheese, wine, cars, medicines and holidays; we can live without their financial services.

serfboard

Leroy42 wrote: »

See, I am not so sure about that. The EU do not want a No Deal, and that won't change going forward. So agree a deal (from UK POV) and then start to slowly ease on the controls and restrictions and will the EU really pull out of a Deal because the UK are letting a few extra cows across the border?

They didn't when the UK let Chinese stuff in without tariffs (although they are under investigation). But my bet is that the UK are betting that they can renegoiate on a real time basis, simply let things fall away but incrementally so that there is never a 'what the hell' moment.

I agree that is pretty cynical, but that is the level I believe the UK are operating at.

You could be right - it does sound like the kind of thing that "gaming strategy" person Cummings believes in.

However, I think it is based on how the EU behaved in the past, when the UK was a member. The game has changed now.

johnnyskeleton

CelticRambler wrote: »

That kind of "defence" only is only necessary and only works against the kind of threats faced by nations still living in the 20th, 19th or 18th centuries. Fortunately, the EU doesn't have that kind of mentality.

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0318/1123836-russian-military-aircraft-bombers-ireland/

Most recently Tupolev TU–95, the so called "Bear" strategic bomber aircraft, triggered UK Royal Air Force fighter jets to scramble in order to confront the Russian aircraft.

In the past, incidents of this nature have prompted calls for Ireland to acquire the capability to intercept incursions by foreign military aircraft. Commenting on this recently, retired Major General Ralph James of the Irish Air Corps indicated that Ireland would need to invest in at least 15 fighter aircraft, as well as support crews and infrastructure, to counter such threats. However, this would cost the Irish exchequer a great deal of money. In fact, the purchase of such aircraft is only part of the overall cost, as the purchase and maintenance of an up-to-date air defence system to accompany this is also prohibitively costly.

Ireland cannot control it's own airspace. We ignore that as an issue because the RAF do the necessary based on what would seem to be an implicit understanding between the two countries. The RAF scrambles to intercept Russian planes over Irish airspace, because it is in their interest to do so, not for our benefit.

However, if relations between the UK and EU deteriorate, we will not be able to have British planes over our airspace nor can we rely on them to patrol ours. Which means either paying huge sums of money to pay for a fairly unnecessary fighter wing, or we request that France patrol our airspace in lieu of the British.

jmc wrote:

Ireland is a neutral country. My understanding is that the British ask to use our airspace to protect themselves. The only reason the seas have to be monitored is because the UK/US/NATO don't like Russian submarines getting too close to them.

It may well be that they want to protect themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that we are unable to defend our own airspace.

That situation could further deteriorate, as above, if the UK continues on its path to becoming a rogue state or geopolitical adversary of the EU

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

See, I am not so sure about that. The EU do not want a No Deal, and that won't change going forward. So agree a deal (from UK POV) and then start to slowly ease on the controls and restrictions and will the EU really pull out of a Deal because the UK are letting a few extra cows across the border?

They didn't when the UK let Chinese stuff in without tariffs (although they are under investigation). But my bet is that the UK are betting that they can renegoiate on a real time basis, simply let things fall away but incrementally so that there is never a 'what the hell' moment.

I agree that is pretty cynical, but that is the level I believe the UK are operating at.

That is exactly what the UK wants- and why the UK wants multiple individual agreements- so that they can salami slice the agreements and play a "what we have we hold" approach of taking concessions from EU. It's also the rain the EU wants a single agreement.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

See, I am not so sure about that. The EU do not want a No Deal, and that won't change going forward. So agree a deal (from UK POV) and then start to slowly ease on the controls and restrictions and will the EU really pull out of a Deal because the UK are letting a few extra cows across the border?

A few cows? No. But if the UK were to try to substantivly breach the agreement, the EU would most certainly call them on it. They did exactly that when the Swiss tried to substantivly breach their agreements with the EU.
How the EU treats its own members in such situations is not applicable, the UK is no longer a member and can no longer expect to be treated in that way.

How the UK has been acting has burnt any trust and good will they may have had. They will be called out sooner and harder by the EU for any breaches as a result. Just look at how seriously the EU is taking the full implementation of the WA as a precondition for any trade deal.

briany

I'm still a bit unclear on this: if it's no-deal, then will there be a border in Ireland in 2021?

Nate--IRL--

briany wrote: »

I'm still a bit unclear on this: if it's no-deal, then will there be a border in Ireland in 2021?

As far as I understand it the Withdrawal agreement is already in effect. So the border in the sea is already dealt with and doesn't hinge on the future negotiations.

Nate

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

I'm still a bit unclear on this: if it's no-deal, then will there be a border in Ireland in 2021?

The Withdrawl Agreement (WA) is a seperate binding agreement that will continue in force regardless of what happens on the new trade deal. If no new trade deal is agreed, then the provisions of the WA, including the Irish Protocal (Front Stop) continue to be in effect.

In a no-deal scenario, the default under the WA is that the border would be in the Irish sea, not on land between Ireland/NI.

Peregrinus

briany wrote: »

I'm still a bit unclear on this: if it's no-deal, then will there be a border in Ireland in 2021?

No. Unless the UK violates the Withdrawal Agreement, a treaty it has already signed and ratified, and by which it is legally bound. The UK is unlikely to do this, because if they did it would pretty much put the kibosh on their chances of being able to make any other treaties with other countries, which is something the UK very much wants to do.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Unless the UK violates the Withdrawal Agreement, a treaty it has already signed and ratified, and by which it is legally bound. The UK is unlikely to do this, because if they did it would pretty much put the kibosh on their chances of being able to make any other treaties with other countries, which is something the UK very much wants to do.

I'll admit to being no expert on the specifics of the border component of the WA but what if the preparations needed to maintain a frictionless border on the Ireland are not completed.

The British government have consistently ruled out getting the extension so I'm not sure what happens if they fail to prepare in time.

Here, the BBC is claiming that the Irish sea border is not going to be ready according to the Institute for Government, a thinktank.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-52798411

serfboard

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

what if the preparations needed to maintain a frictionless border on the Ireland are not completed.

Indeed. What are the sanctions?

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'll admit to being no expert on the specifics of the border component of the WA but what if the preparations needed to maintain a frictionless border on the Ireland are not completed.

There is a dispute resolution mechanism in the WA itself. The EU will invoke it. The UK is unlikely to repudiate it. Apart from the reputational damage to the UK of doing such a thing, as the economically more powerful party the EU in a better position to put pressure on the UK to respect the treaty that the UK is to put pressure on the EU to ignore its breaches of the treaty.

Besides, when push comes to shove, Johnson has form for chickening out of blatant illegality. He sent the extension request, remember. But he has the knack of chickening out while claiming a famous victory, and his witless fanboys lap it up.

ancapailldorcha

serfboard wrote: »

Indeed. What are the sanctions?

I was thinking in the context of avoiding a hard border as opposed to sanctioning the UK.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a dispute resolution mechanism in the WA itself. The EU will invoke it. The UK is unlikely to repudiate it. Apart from the reputational damage to the UK of doing such a thing, as the economically more powerful party the EU in a better position to put pressure on the UK to respect the treaty that the UK is to put pressure on the EU to ignore its breaches of the treaty.

Besides, when push comes to shove, Johnson has form for chickening out of blatant illegality. He sent the extension request, remember. But he has the knack of chickening out while claiming a famous victory, and his witless fanboys lap it up.

He does but I can't imagine that it would have been easy to set up the border infrastructure pre-Covid never mind with everyone in lockdown. I'm sure some work can be done but losing over two months can't be auspicious.

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

See, I am not so sure about that. The EU do not want a No Deal, and that won't change going forward. So agree a deal (from UK POV) and then start to slowly ease on the controls and restrictions and will the EU really pull out of a Deal because the UK are letting a few extra cows across the border?

They didn't when the UK let Chinese stuff in without tariffs (although they are under investigation). But my bet is that the UK are betting that they can renegoiate on a real time basis, simply let things fall away but incrementally so that there is never a 'what the hell' moment.

I agree that is pretty cynical, but that is the level I believe the UK are operating at.

When the UK were letting Chinese goods in they were a member. They're out of the club now so the EU's priority is to its members and itself.

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

When the UK were letting Chinese goods in they were a member. They're out of the club now so the EU's priority is to its members and itself.

Were they not find €2 billion over that? I think it is still going on.

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ireland cannot control it's own airspace. We ignore that as an issue because the RAF do the necessary based on what would seem to be an implicit understanding between the two countries. The RAF scrambles to intercept Russian planes over Irish airspace, because it is in their interest to do so, not for our benefit.

However, if relations between the UK and EU deteriorate, we will not be able to have British planes over our airspace nor can we rely on them to patrol ours. Which means either paying huge sums of money to pay for a fairly unnecessary fighter wing, or we request that France patrol our airspace in lieu of the British.

When, since Ireland joined the EEC/EU, has there been any real threat of an attack by enemy aircraft on any part of the bloc?

Defending our airspace is an obsolete notion, especially when those with an interest in destroying our way of life are perfectly well able to do it through cyber attacks on infrastructure, hacking databases, interfering in political campaigns (and government) and inflating a property market with funny money.

Brexit Britain is being guided on a course towards the Middle Ages, to become a well-defended stronghold off the coast of continental Europe, and that's fine if that's what the people want. But that way of life was pretty brutal for all concerned ... and it didn't protect them from the Black Death.

upupup

Pete Wishart from SNP mocked the British Government today.

He said: “It’s going to be misery heaped on misery as Covid and Brexit appear like the twin horsemen of the economic apocalypse trampling over any prospect of a recovery.

“And whose fault is it going to be? Obviously them, nothing to do with us guv’, it’s all these nasty, invidious Europeans, how dare they hold this Government to the commitments they’ve already given in good faith? These fiendish Europeans asking us to deliver on what we’ve already agreed to.”

He added: “When you see them sitting down to negotiate, it’s like watching the Scotland B team taking on Brazil of the 1970s, it’s almost cruel to observe.

“Them (the EU negotiators) with their screeds of documents and facts, and team GB with their ill-fitting clown shoes.”
https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/we-cannot-keep-brexit-negotiations-going-forever-insists-uk-minister-1004229.html

Imreoir2

upupup wrote: »

Pete Wishart from SNP mocked the British Government today.

He said: “It’s going to be misery heaped on misery as Covid and Brexit appear like the twin horsemen of the economic apocalypse trampling over any prospect of a recovery.

“And whose fault is it going to be? Obviously them, nothing to do with us guv’, it’s all these nasty, invidious Europeans, how dare they hold this Government to the commitments they’ve already given in good faith? These fiendish Europeans asking us to deliver on what we’ve already agreed to.”

He added: “When you see them sitting down to negotiate, it’s like watching the Scotland B team taking on Brazil of the 1970s, it’s almost cruel to observe.

“Them (the EU negotiators) with their screeds of documents and facts, and team GB with their ill-fitting clown shoes.”
https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/we-cannot-keep-brexit-negotiations-going-forever-insists-uk-minister-1004229.html

He went easy on them if anything.

CelticRambler

upupup wrote: »

Pete Wishart from SNP mocked the British Government today.

Well, this is the other challenge to Leroy's suggestion that the Brexiters' ultimate objective is the breakup of the EU: there's a waiting list of states waiting to join our Union, while theirs is perilously close to losing two of their four constituent nations.

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

Were they not find €2 billion over that? I think it is still going on.

I don't remember the end result, especially seeing as a lot hit the fan when that started, but as I said, they were members' breaking club rules, now they're a randomer walking up asking to come in and trash the place because they used to be a regular.

Leroy42

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't remember the end result, especially seeing as a lot hit the fan when that started, but as I said, they were members' breaking club rules, now they're a randomer walking up asking to come in and trash the place because they used to be a regular.

The other side to that is that being a member they could actually have sanctions/fines imposed.

Being a 3rd party, and given the calling for even their financial commitments to be used as a bargaining chip, not sure how much the EU could do to force the UK to comply.

Apart from actually shutting down access, but it would want to be pretty serious to get to that point and will involve plenty of wrangling and many years before that option is exercised.

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't remember the end result, especially seeing as a lot hit the fan when that started, but as I said, they were members' breaking club rules, now they're a randomer walking up asking to come in and trash the place because they used to be a regular.

More like a drunk who has soiled themselves and refuses to leave the premises.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apart from actually shutting down access, but it would want to be pretty serious to get to that point and will involve plenty of wrangling and many years before that option is exercised.

When Switzerland exercised its sovereign right to restrict free movement of EU citizens into Switzerland, the EU exercised its options pretty damn quickly, with serious consequences for those people in Switzerland depending on EU benevolence. It didn't take much longer for the Swiss to review their position and reinstate freedom of movement to the EU's satisfaction.

An article I read some time ago pointed out that Britain and the British have lived for more than forty years in the benign trans-national socio-economic anomaly that is the EU, to the point that they've come to think of our warm and fuzzy lifestyle - built on the principles of the Four Freedoms - to be the way of the wider world. It's not, and when they're out of the EU, they'll see the EU is the callous, protectionist bloc that they've complained about for so long ... only they'll then be on the wrong side of that protection.

If ever the EU wants to slam the gates on some or all trade with the UK as a not-so-gentle reminder that rules are to be followed as agreed, it won't take years of wrangling: it'll be a unilateral decision and enacted overnight if necessary.

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

The other side to that is that being a member they could actually have sanctions/fines imposed.

Being a 3rd party, and given the calling for even their financial commitments to be used as a bargaining chip, not sure how much the EU could do to force the UK to comply.

Apart from actually shutting down access, but it would want to be pretty serious to get to that point and will involve plenty of wrangling and many years before that option is exercised.

Well yeah!

The EU has no interest in risking the single market to appease the UK. Why would they?

What happened to Switzerland is what you should pay attention to here. The Eu were pretty quick to alert them to the infringements of their obligations. And this is Switzerland ffs, the ultimate byword in neutrality.

reslfj

CelticRambler wrote: »

...

If ever the EU wants to slam the gates on some or all trade with the UK as a not-so-gentle reminder that rules are to be followed as agreed, it won't take years of wrangling: it'll be a unilateral decision and enacted overnight if necessary.

I'm sure the EU27 will not keep any GB-NI conflict across the Irish Sea. The problems will be taken and magnified in Dover, on the Eurostar train, on some shipping lines and maybe a few airports too.

The EU has a very good working relationship with its small member in Dublin and will most likely protects it well (as long as the Irish behaves rationally)

The UK will have so many large and visible problems after a 'No FTA' that adding a conflict with the EU will be too far over any line.


Lars

BonnieSituation

reslfj wrote: »

I'm sure the EU27 will not keep any GB-NI conflict across the Irish Sea. The problems will be taken and magnified in Dover, on the Eurostar train, on some shipping lines and maybe a few airports too.

The EU has a very good working relationship with its small member in Dublin and will most likely protects it well (as long as the Irish behaves rationally)

The UK will have so many large and visible problems after a 'No FTA' that adding a conflict with the EU will be too far over any line.


Lars

AS we have to say repeatedly on this thread, we are the EU!

reslfj

BonnieSituation wrote: »

AS we have to say repeatedly on this thread, we are the EU!

Sorry!

EU was my shorthand for the European Commission, EU-Trade/Phil Hogan/Sabine Weyand backed by the EU Council (which is us - all 27)

Lars


The point is - the real border trouble will mostly happen between England and EU26 members.

BonnieSituation

reslfj wrote: »

Sorry!

EU was my shorthand for the European Commission, EU-Trade/Phil Hogan/Sabine Weyand backed by the EU Council (which is us - all 27)

Lars


The point is - the real border trouble will mostly happen between England and EU26 members.

Oh I know. It was just nice to get to say it to you.

It's like catching Peregrinus and CelticRambler out. You take the opportunities when they come. :P

Pablo Escobar

Leroy42 wrote: »

The other side to that is that being a member they could actually have sanctions/fines imposed.

Being a 3rd party, and given the calling for even their financial commitments to be used as a bargaining chip, not sure how much the EU could do to force the UK to comply.

Apart from actually shutting down access, but it would want to be pretty serious to get to that point and will involve plenty of wrangling and many years before that option is exercised.

For example, with equivalence on financial services (which is not part of negotiations btw), the EU decides whether to grant it to Third Parties. They can withdraw it at short notice. This is another huge part of the UK economy. So, yeah, they can and will shut access down pretty quickly.