Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771326#Comment_120771326

We already have Right Hand Drive cars in the British Isles.

It is next to impossible for us (and the UK) to change to driving on the right. The cost would be horrendous - just think of the cost of moving all the road signs from one side of the road to the other - and that is for no benefit.

However, there is hope of the horizon.

As cars become more automated - the controls become easier to transcribe from right to left (and the other way), the centre console in many cars is just a screen, and cars are getting closer to driverless, the RHD vs LHD will become less of an issue. Converting from one to another might be a pre-delivery task.

I once owned a LHD car of a very common French make (it was very old), and looked at converting it, but the basic panels were completely different. It was just impossible. The RHD version was completely different in most regards of steering and brakes and centre console.

Electric cars will only have a handful of components that differ left to right - steering is the most obvious, but fly-by-wire would deal with that.

We can but dream of the freedom of freely importing LHD cars from the EU for use here as RHD.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771405#Comment_120771405

I know the switch over would be horrendous. That won't stop the tabloids from making up bullsht though. And it won't stop morons from believing it like many times before.

yagan

We've gone over the Schengen question before, it's not really relevant to the UK rejoining the EU as there's EU members who aren't part of it and non EU members who are.

If the CTA was withdrawn to the Irish Sea like it was during WWII and the decade after it would still have no baring on the residency rights of UK subjects in Ireland and Irish citizens in the UK as they are separate pieces of domestic legislation. The rights of denizens of Northern Ireland are covered by the Belfast Agreement.

reslfj

it's not really relevant to the UK rejoining the EU as there's EU members who aren't part of it and non EU members who are.

For the UK it will be very relevant. Non-Schengen EU members are all actively trying to join Schengen with the possible exception of Cyprus (N-S Cyprus divide).

EEA/CH being members of Schengen does not set a precedent for future UK negitiations. I think the wishes of the EU member Ireland will be key to this question - "if ?" and "when ?".

Not having a land border makes Schengen much less important for the other EU members.

Apart from the more technical and rational arguments the absolute disgust for "...but some animals are more equal than others" or 'English exceptionalism' among the EU27 - politicians and citizens - will make it very difficult for the UK to negotiate any special advantages.

Lars 😀

reslfj

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120771364#Comment_120771364

Pretty sure the EU will be given a fair and agreed transition period to get its economy in 'Euro order' (e.g. 8 or 10 years) and if the UK economy by then is not compliant, hefty fines will have to be paid.

The EU is already very unhappy with Hungary and Poland not following the the EU's laws and treaties.

Lars 😀

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774134#Comment_120774134

Hmm...I don't agree.

I think elements of whether the UK are actually in it for the long haul, and how volatile their political system is and how committed to the EU project they are are all valid. But fundamentally the EU is also a practical entity. I'm not aware of any punishments ever given out for not meeting the criteria to join the Euro and I simply do not believe it would ever be enforced in a practical sense. There is not a massive push to force Sweden into the Euro.

Given the UK threw a fit about the "ever closer union" language this probably doesn't help (and I both don't think they were wrong and don't think being exempted from that was a "nothing" gesture).

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120752677#Comment_120752677

Aldi Ireland is part of the UK op, but Lidl Ireland is independent of it and owned by the German op.

They are both exceptionally unlikely to leave

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774227#Comment_120774227

Sweden is not a new member state. The Euro is a must for new states wishing to join.

serfboard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774551#Comment_120774551

Or for old states looking to rejoin!

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774551#Comment_120774551

Only Denmark has an actual derogation from joining the euro. Sweden is due to join when it meets all necessary conditions which it has no real intention of ever doing.

yagan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120775133#Comment_120775133

Ironically Denmark is more tied to the Euro than is Sweden.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120775367#Comment_120775367

Indeed, EU treaties are full of such fudges.

It's not ideal, but it keeps the messy and complicated apparatus going.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120775377#Comment_120775377

Well, a lot of these fudges are there to keep existing members as existing members when there is a treaty change.

Normally, Ireland must have a referendum for any treaty change and that is accepted, even if we are alone in this.

Now, we agree to some changes but not all. The situation re NI is accepted as requiring a fudge, but that is agreed as being extremely important for Ireland and NI, hence the emphasis during the Brexit agreement.

New applicants do not get exceptions.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120775565#Comment_120775565

Sweden doesn't have an exemption to joining the Euro, its just not doing it. UK could easily do the same, but it becomes a matter of politics at that stage. They will never have to join the Euro if they don't want to.

https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/euro/countries-using-euro_en

Leroy42

But they would have to agree that they may join the Euro in the future.

That is more than enough to stop any remain campaign in its tracks.

That is before we start talking about Turkey joining, an EU army etc.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120775766#Comment_120775766

It's not the UK that would veto its own entry back into the EU, but most likely the EU itself. This discussion about what terms for re-entry would be acceptable to Britain is almost laughable. It would be much more about what could possibly persuade the EU to accept a deeply Europhobic country in thrall to right wing nationalism into its ranks (knowing that such a member would probably be very disruptive).

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120775790#Comment_120775790

The question of what terms would be acceptable doesn't even arise until the UK applies to accede to the EU which, we're all agreed, is not conceivable given the current state of UK politics.

Pretty much by definition, when it does arise, we are no longer dealing with "a deeply europhobic country in thrall to right-wing nationalism"; we're dealing with a country that has actually applied to accede following a referendum or (possibly) following a general election won by a party whose manifesto included a commitment to apply to accede to the UK. There may well still be a strongly europhobic element in the politics of the UK but, at that stage, the country won't be "in thrall" to it; it will have lost the referendum/the general election.

Still, there's a huge difference between:

• "This is just like the Brexit referendum, except that 'Accede' defeated 'Stay Out' by 52:48."

and

• "The UK has established a stable cross-party political consensus in favour of acceding to the EU, based on a realistic appreciation of the UK's place in the world and a commitment to the ideals that underpin the Union."

Obviously, EU would greatly prefer the latter state of affairs. If it were the former state of affairs, the UK's accession application would probably not be welcome. And, if and when the event arises, the real-world situation may be somewhere between these two extremes. The EU's attitude to the accession negotiations will depend on where they perceive the UK to be sitting on that spectrum.

The standard terms of entry are well-known - adopt the acquis, commit to the Euro, join Schengen, etc. Also well-known is the fact that these are negotiable — accession is effected by a treaty which can vary the standard terms of entry for the country in question. For example, Cyprus, which acceded in 2004, was not required to join Schengen, because of border issues it has arising out of the division of the island. So there would be some scope for the UK to negotiate its accession to the UK on terms that departed in some respects from the standard terms.

But in reality I think this scope would be quite limited. The EU and its member states would want reassurance that the coming experience of UK membership would not be like the last one. If the UK went in looking for a slew of exceptions and opt-outs, that would send completely the wrong signal, suggesting that the UK's transactional and rather begrudging attitude to the Union had not fundamentally changed. So if the UK wants its accession application to proceed quickly and end successfully, I think it would want to be quite selective about any special terms it sought, and have a good case for each exception or opt-out that doesn't start and end with "this would not be popular domestically".

I would guess that the exception the UK would be keenest to get is the retention of sterling. For a country like the UK there are genuine trade-offs involved in giving up their independent currency - trade-offs that didn't arise for Ireland. The UK might be reluctant to join the euro for reasons that aren't necessarily europhobic. By comparison with that, joining Schengen would I think be a no-brainer for a UK wishing to accede to the EU.

CelticRambler

 And, if and when the event arises, the real-world situation may be somewhere between these two extremes. 

Not discussed in the previous pages is the non-neglible possibility that by the time "the UK" applies to join the EU, the kingdom will have lost one of its constituent countries to independence. Perhaps the risk has receded while the SNP re-evaluates is life choices, but the fishers, farmers and young people of Scotland will continue to suffer the negative effects of Westminster's implemenation of Brexit in the coming decade with little say in the matter, regardless what colour rosette is pinned to the door of No.10.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120776033#Comment_120776033

That is a possibility, but it's not an issue that would greatly affect the EU's attitude to a UK application. UK-without-Scotland is, in principle, neither more nor less attractive to the EU as a candidate for membership than UK-with-Scotland.

Of course, it's quite possible that by the time the UK application comes to be considered Scotland will already be a member in its own right, and therefore could veto the UK's accession. But I don't think that's very realistic; Scotland (along with Ireland) would be one of the member states most disadvantaged by UK not being a member; I think they'd be keener than average to facilitate UK accession.

The real question is how the secession of Scotland would affect political opinion and attitudes in the rest of the UK; would it make a UK application for accession more or less likely? That's a what-if that we can speculate about but, to be honest, I don't think our speculations would be very strongly grounded in reality. It would depend, I think, on how the Scottish progress to independence played out.

rock22

Just to look at a couple of your points, Peregrinus

"The UK has established a stable cross-party political consensus in favour of acceding to the EU, based on a realistic appreciation of the UK's place in the world and a commitment to the ideals that underpin the Union."

Would that be enough. |The UK is the only country , as far as I know, where both major parties have campaigned at different times to secede and have held referenda to do so.  The danger of either party being taken over by Eurosceptic element, like UKIP or the Brexit party, would still exist. 

Presently , the UK , even the remainders, are a long way from 'a commitment to the ideals that underpin the Union.' At best they are regretting the cost , in freedom of movement and trade, that Brexit has meant to them.

"The standard terms of entry are well-known - adopt the acquis, commit to the Euro, join Schengen, etc. Also well-known is the fact that these are negotiable"

While I would agree that some negotiation happens in accession of a new member state, that does not mean that everything is up for negotiation. Ireland would be foolish in the extreme if it did not insist that Schengen was included. Why would Germany agree to the UK remaining outside the Euro. If it did, then there are strong voices within Germany who would immediately insist on returning to the Mark . Obviously Sweden would signal its intent never to join. The whole Euro project would fall apart if a new , economically large, state joined the EU with an opt out. 

"For a country like the EU there are genuine trade-offs involved in giving up their indpendent currency - trade-offs that didn't arise for Ireland. The UK might be reluctant to join the euro for reasons that aren't necessarily europhobic."

And that trade-off might mean that the UK can never be a full member of the EU.

Peregrinus

Sure. I'm not saying that the UK ever will be a member of the EU again. I'm saying that, if they make a (credible) application to accede, (A) their attitude will be very different from what it is today and, (B) while there will be scope to negotiate the terms of entry, that scope will be pretty limited.

It's true that "the danger of either party being taken over by Eurosceptic element, like UKIP or the Brexit party, would still exist", but something similar is true for every existing EU member state; none of them have institutional mechanisms to suppress euroscepticism. What the EU would like to see is a change in British political culture in a way that would make that kind of "reverse takeover" less likely to happen, and more easy to correct if it did, but a political culture that changes can always change again, so even that would be no guarantee.

I think you can only judge the political attitudes and values that a society has at any time, rather than the attitudes and values that it might come to possess in the future; a UK accession application will be judged on the basis of where the UK is at that time.

But note that accession is a long process, and there won't be much appetite to shorten it for the UK, since if nothing else the EU will want to see the that UK's values and attitudes with respect to the EU project are stable, and well bedded-in. Accession periods vary widely, but the average is maybe 9 or 10 years; there are various staging posts along the way. I can envisage an accession period for the UK which is (at least) that long, but during which participation in the Single Market comes at a relatively early stage. This would mean that progress towards remediating the economic harm of Brexit could begin earlier rather than later in the process — it doesn't have to wait until full membership — and the UK's acceptance of European values could be demonstrated by its re-embrace of free movement. Schengen participation could follow, and then finally accession and, depending on what is negotiated, a commitment to adopt the euro.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120775766#Comment_120775766

Yes, I don't think "we must commit to joining the Euro but its a vague promise with no timeline and we'll probably never follow through on it" is a great selling point, just saying that there will be no punitive "forcing" of the Euro on a re-acceded UK.

Peregrinus

It's unquestionably the case that if there is a debate about acceding to the EU the more hardcore Brexiters will simply lie about what acceding to the EU would entail.

You'd have to hope, though, that in the light of experience their lies will have less traction with the electorate, except perhaps with voters who would against the EU no matter what anyone on either side says to them.

People who advocate UK accession should should be more concerned about the truths than about the lies. And one of those truths is that (unless it successfully negotiates a variation to the standard treaty terms) the UK would be required to commit to adopting the euro when it satisfied the convergence criteria.

One of the convergence criteria is completing two years' membership of the exchange rate mechanism, and Sweden avoids satisfying the criteria by simply not joining the ERM. It's possible that the EU would want the UK's accession treaty to include a requirement to join the ERM, so that this course wouldn't be open to the UK. Any campaign in favour of accession would have to confront this issue.

rock22

Yes , I think the ERM would be an absolute essential step in accession. And joining the ERM could be place quite early in the process. Any political (as opposed to economic) difficulty here would suggest less than full commitment to the Euro. The accession process could be times to allow membership and adoption of the Euro at the same time.

And , as we know, Schengen membership can also be effected before full membership.

While I agree that no other country has a mechanism to exclude eurosceptic elements, the fact is both Labour and the Tories have used euroscepticism when it suited them and pushed through referenda to leave. That is different to other EU countries where the mainstream parties defend EU membership.

yagan

I will laugh if the day comes when a counter UKip movement trots out "they need us more than we need them" as a argument for rejoining. Either in or out theres always a whiff of condescension from Britain towards the EU.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120777083#Comment_120777083

UKin. Led by a wine swilling, beret wearer.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120777083#Comment_120777083

Nah. Depressingly, it'll probably be led by someone basing their argument on economics and a transactional relationship.

swampgas

By the time the UK (or England and Wales, if Scotland escapes in the meantime) manages to join the EU again (and I think it's less than 50:50 that it ever will), it could be 20 or 30 years from now. By then it's conceivable that it could end up being poor enough to be a net recipient of EU funding, with countries like Poland having become net contributors. In that length of time you could also expect the UK to have fallen down the rankings of European military powers by quite a few levels, if current trends continue, making it even less relevant, with less soft power, and less influence.

I don't see any appetite in the UK for political reform or improved governance, so the same toffs will go to Eton and Oxford, and into Government, and keep running the country into the ground as ever, while returning to their estates in the country at the weekend, blaming the EU for all their ills while they're at it :)

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120777083#Comment_120777083

Arguably, that day is now. There are already remain advocates in the Twittersphere who argue that rejoining will be quick and easy and will come with lots of opt-outs because the EU will be very keen to get the UK back in as the UK is such an attractive potential member.

Hotblack Desiato

There are idiots spouting nonsense on Twitter? 😮

Meanwhile... happened across this the other day.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/preparing-for-power/2023/06/labour-brexit-european-union-time-running-out

I don't think the article bears out the headline though - i.e. reassurances that Labour's Brexit position will in fact 'soften' - who would be in a position to give such assurances at this stage anyway?

But the case for a closer relationship with the EU, for many in Labour, is about diplomacy as much as the economy. Senior figures point to Ireland, which celebrated 50 years of EU membership this year and has close ties with Joe Biden’s US, as enjoying a newly elevated position in European politics. 

Back to British exceptionalism I see - as soon as they get back into the SM (not even membership) they expect to be influential? 🤣