|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Eutychus--
**Ah.** Makes sense. Thx for the explanation.
And I'm guessing that maybe there's resentment of the UK on the continent for not being invaded?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The original impetus for the EU was "never again" to have a war in Europe. The signatory countries to the Treaty of Rome were all badly scarred either psychologically and/or physically by WW2 in a way that the UK - an island, never occupied - was not.
Tell the people of Coventry, for example, that the UK hadn't been scarred by WW2.
quote:
They don't realise this isn't 1945 any more.
If they thought it was 1945 then they'd be fully behind EU membership, even pushing for greater European integration. The first moves towards what became the EU was the 1948 convention, leading to the formation of the European Movement the following year, under the chairmanship of none other than Winston Churchill. With the express purpose of moving towards European unity to prevent another war. Though, having taken that lead the appetite for European union cooled in the UK quite quickly for whatever reasons, otherwise I'd have expected us to have been a signatory to the Treaty of Rome rather than joining in later.
So your final statement needs to shift by about a decade. "They don't realise this isn't 1955 anymore", or maybe 1935. Sometime I wonder if 1845 might be closer to the period they think the UK is in.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Those governing us (or purporting to) appear to be operating on the same principle as the French politician Ledru-Rollin: 'I am their leader; I must follow them.'
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Tell the people of Coventry, for example, that the UK hadn't been scarred by WW2.
There were still plenty of visible bomb sites in London when I was growing up. I didn't say "hadn't been scarred", I said "were scarred in a way that the UK - an island, never occupied - was not".
The moment this came home to me was seeing a wartime photo of a Wehrmacht soldier outside my (still relatively unchanged) local department store. It's like the feeling when as a child you watched the invasion of the daleks only for real.
quote:
So your final statement needs to shift by about a decade. "They don't realise this isn't 1955 anymore"
Agreed; I actually considered putting the 1950s.
[ 16. November 2017, 08:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.
Yes, the EU has formed relatively quickly. And, any nation (or, in this case treaty organisation) will have tensions and disagreements between regions. Witness what's happening in Catalonia which has only been part of Spain for a 300 years or so, or similarly Scotland as part of the UK. The US didn't take a very long time before disagreements between northern and southern states broke out into civil war. At least Brexit is only one part of the whole shooting itself in the foot rather than an outbreak of war.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.
Yes, the EU has formed relatively quickly. And, any nation (or, in this case treaty organisation) will have tensions and disagreements between regions. Witness what's happening in Catalonia which has only been part of Spain for a 300 years or so, or similarly Scotland as part of the UK. The US didn't take a very long time before disagreements between northern and southern states broke out into civil war. At least Brexit is only one part of the whole shooting itself in the foot rather than an outbreak of war.
So far. It really doesn't look good with the resurgence of extreme nationalism and racism.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I am convinced that the sense of entitlement that goes with the "we won" assumption explains a lot of why the UK government thinks the EU-27 will eventually cave in. They don't realise this isn't 1945 any more.
Leaving aside the underlying psychology, it's possible that the UK government thinks it can have its own way with Brexit because that's been the past experience when trying to advance British objectives within the EU. (Don't want to join the Euro? Sure you can keep the pound!)
There's a very different dynamic at play now. Rather than accommodating the desires of one of its most important members, the EU is now being asked to do special favors for a (future) non-member country that has demonstrated that anything less than 100% capitulation is unacceptable.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Leaving aside the underlying psychology, it's possible that the UK government thinks it can have its own way with Brexit because that's been the past experience when trying to advance British objectives within the EU. (Don't want to join the Euro? Sure you can keep the pound!)
I think there is a different dynamic, but not necessarily exactly the one you suggest. The EU is a rules based organisation - the horse trading goes on before the rules are set - once they are, they are then open to an acceptable variety of interpretation (Euro opt out - on which the UK was not alone).
The EU27 already got together and decided what their stance for initial negotiating would be, and instructed Barnier accordingly.
The only way of losing is to not play - i.e not be in the room when the rules are decided (which from what Gummer says is something he realised early on).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
David Davis has been telling the EU not to put politics above prosperity; it is never a smart choice.
He should know.
[ 17. November 2017, 06:31: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Yes, thanks DD for summing up the case against Brexit so succinctly.
I wonder about Davis. He takes principled stands on some issues (civil liberties and the use of torture), but seems to be pragmatic about other stuff. I don't see leaving the EU as something he would die on the barricades for. He was a minister for Europe under Major and as a whip he was responsible for keeping the Maastricht rebels in line.
Close involvement with the Brexit negotiations might well be enough to change the mind of someone who doesn't like detail work and was never that committed in the first place...
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I wonder about Davis. He takes principled stands on some issues (civil liberties and the use of torture), but seems to be pragmatic about other stuff.
The longer the negotiations go on, the more this seems like his good luck in stumbling across a set of principled positions.
One snippet from the last few days - part of his announcement seemed to imply that the vote on the final deal could take place after Brexit had occurred ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The prospect of a "transition period" for an indefinite duration after Brexit day during which nothing much changes is an intriguing one.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The prospect of a "transition period" for an indefinite duration after Brexit day during which nothing much changes is an intriguing one.
Anyone with any sense can see through this. During a "transition period", the British will restrict EU immigration and no court will be able to stop it.
I'm now wondering if part of the Davis plan is to force the EU to accept a transition whereby the UK gets all the good stuff (especially ongoing free trade with the EU) and none of the "bad" stuff (especially forced acceptance of EU regulations and courts). And then when the EU27 realise all that they'd lose by fighting the UK over it, they'll back down - so that this period continues forever.
Which sounds pretty ridiculous now I've written it down. Why would the EU27 allow a state outwith of the EU and the EEA to continue as if it was within but without any of the obligations?
The only other thing I'm wondering is that maybe Davis is hoping that he can split apart the consensus of the EU states, possibly by targeting countries that seem to be slightly less like hawks (apologies for that designation, I'm not sure how else to describe it) - and that this might mean that the council can't move forward with any "punishment" of the UK.
That might even work. But it would be an enormous cost to the EU. Possibly could destroy it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well yes, it sounded to me like "having your cake and eating it", indefinitely prolonged. I don't think the EU-27 is going to fall for that.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well yes, it sounded to me like "having your cake and eating it", indefinitely prolonged. I don't think the EU-27 is going to fall for that.
Only one country has to. It would potentially be incredibly embarrassing - but imagine if Davis managed to come to an agreement with Romania that they could continue sending people to work in the fields without visas or other problems. Perhaps the UK could even offer structural payments or sweeteners in return.
Romania (in this imaginary scenario) then kiboshes an attempt by the EU27 to put up borders.
AFAIU the EU needs unanimity, so presumably they'd need all states to sign up both to the start and the end of an indefinite transition period.
Classical British divide-and-conquer. I don't know why this didn't come to my mind before as a tactic.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The news here today is full of the Covney/Boris meeting/debacle over the border issues. Boris made stupid jokes immediately after dropping the bombshell that the border issue will not be discussed in any form until after the first talks phase. Covney aimed his scud missile and announced that if the border issue is not given clarity and proper discussion in the first talks phase Ireland will exercise its veto. Wiped the stupid grin right off Boris' face.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Quite a lot of journalists have been writing about this, that the UK side expected the EU side to crumble, either because they could not live without UK trade, or because the EU would just start to implode, partly from right wing populism, and then would be eager to do a deal with UK. None of this seems to be happening, of course. Maybe there is even the vainglorious idea that without the UK, the EU is an empty husk. Those whom the gods wish to destroy ...
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Covney aimed his scud missile and announced that if the border issue is not given clarity and proper discussion in the first talks phase Ireland will exercise its veto. Wiped the stupid grin right off Boris' face.
Run this by me a bit more slowly.
So you're saying that Ireland vetoes what? Any interim transition deal??
Surely that'd precipitate exactly what he doesn't want: an immediate hard border with NI.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The news here today is full of the Covney/Boris meeting/debacle over the border issues. Boris made stupid jokes immediately after dropping the bombshell that the border issue will not be discussed in any form until after the first talks phase. Covney aimed his scud missile and announced that if the border issue is not given clarity and proper discussion in the first talks phase Ireland will exercise its veto. Wiped the stupid grin right off Boris' face.
Doesn't that just point to the lunacy of the whole thing though? You *can't* sort out the border before sorting out trade. It was ridiculous to sign up to (from Britain's pov) or to set out (from the EU's) a consecutive approach.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But Boris is contradicting the agreed timetable, isn't he? I thought it was agreed that the triple agenda - the money, Ireland, EU citizens - take priority. How can the UK then start to say that they are abrogating this?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Covney aimed his scud missile and announced that if the border issue is not given clarity and proper discussion in the first talks phase Ireland will exercise its veto. Wiped the stupid grin right off Boris' face.
Run this by me a bit more slowly.
So you're saying that Ireland vetoes what? Any interim transition deal??
Surely that'd precipitate exactly what he doesn't want: an immediate hard border with NI.
Quite, and which EU economy is going to be hit hardest by that? (Leaving to one side the potential implications for the peace process) Is he wanting to be re-elected?
There are many countries in the EU who could exercise a veto. Indeed, Ireland might be one of those that would most *want* to. I'd genuinely put them near the bottom of countries that actually would though. Because that would be self defeating stupidity of near British government levels.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But Boris is contradicting the agreed timetable, isn't he? I thought it was agreed that the triple agenda - the money, Ireland, EU citizens - take priority. How can the UK then start to say that they are abrogating this?
I don't think anyone is suggesting it wasn't signed up to. It's just that it's only now sinking in to some heads in HMG that it shouldn't have been. In fairness, the mood music out of Brussels in recent months does at least seem to have shifted from blunt slapping down to more "we understand why the British would want it not to be consecutive."
not in any way suggesting that they're going to change things, but at least now acknowledging the point.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
On this, the Guardian reports the following:
quote:
Ireland has issued a stark warning that it will block progress of the Brexit negotiations in December unless the UK gives a formal written guarantee there will be no hard border with Northern Ireland.
In sharp remarks before a breakfast meeting with Theresa May, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said Brexit-backing politicians had not “thought all this through” in the years they had been pushing for the UK to leave the EU.
Outside the Gothenburg social summit in Sweden, Varadkar suggested he would block any progress to negotiations about the future relationship with the EU unless the UK was prepared to take a hard border, in any form, off the table between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Now I'm confused. Is it in the gift of the UK to say that there will be "no hard border" between NI and the Republic in a no-deal scenario?
One would think that the pressure for a border might be at least as strongly from the EU side.
Where has the EU got a completely soft border with third states?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, aren't they all in a trap? Brexit means separation from, and hard borders with, EU countries; but Ireland doesn't want that. In fact, a soft border is dangerous for the EU, isn't it, because of the dangers of smuggling and illegal immigration?
This came up over import of US goods, which would not satisfy EU regulations. They come into N. Ireland, quite legally, and then move south? In other words, you have to have Border Inspection Posts on the border, what a mess.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this, the Guardian reports the following:
quote:
Ireland has issued a stark warning that it will block progress of the Brexit negotiations in December unless the UK gives a formal written guarantee there will be no hard border with Northern Ireland.
In sharp remarks before a breakfast meeting with Theresa May, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said Brexit-backing politicians had not “thought all this through” in the years they had been pushing for the UK to leave the EU.
Outside the Gothenburg social summit in Sweden, Varadkar suggested he would block any progress to negotiations about the future relationship with the EU unless the UK was prepared to take a hard border, in any form, off the table between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Now I'm confused. Is it in the gift of the UK to say that there will be "no hard border" between NI and the Republic in a no-deal scenario?
One would think that the pressure for a border might be at least as strongly from the EU side.
Where has the EU got a completely soft border with third states?
This is sort of the point. Ireland's threatening to exercise a veto if the UK doesn't guarantee something not in its gift. We're truly through the looking glass here.
Is Mr Varadkar trying to bring the new British fashion of political amateur hour to Dublin?
At best he's posturing, if he actually understands what he's saying and Britain has a hard Brexit because of the Irish approach* then when the Irish economy tanks he can expect to be crucified by his own voters.
I can understand *why* Ireland would want the things they're asking for. And indeed anyone sane in the UK would too. But, ironically given he's accusing the British of not having thought things through (which they haven't), I'm not seeing much evidence of the Irish government having done so either if this is genuinely a line in the sand for them.
*by which of course I mean that while Britain has brought all this on itself it would presumably be useful for the Irish government if the damage done to the Irish economy as a result didn't have the Irish government's fingerprints on it anywhere. Which, if this happened, it would.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The prospect of a "transition period" for an indefinite duration after Brexit day during which nothing much changes is an intriguing one.
I'm not sure where I've read it, but probably at least 6 months ago there was a report somewhere on WTO rules in regard to transition periods which quite clearly stated that they could not be indefinite, I think a maximum of 10 years was mentioned. Though quite who would take who in front of the WTO in the event of the transition period dragging on is unclear.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That Guardian article also says that May is prepared to offer a further £20 billion on the divorce bill. So does this amount to £40 billion?
I suppose it's a no/yes technique. At first, I rebuff you, but then show some willingness to make luurve.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The Eu has been consistent since the passing of the Brexit referendum : the UK must come up with a workable solution to the NI border question that does not damage the GFA or the peace process. It was one way in which the EU could point out the stupidity of Brexit and the fact that for the UK government it hadn't even crossed their pretty little minds. Ireland can exercise it's veto in the first phase of talks, effectively forcing the UK to come to the table with their plans. The problems is, I don;t actually believe the UK has any plan for the NI border other than pushing it far enough into the future as to allow them to shack up with the DUP long enough to keep them in power. The UK have been warned again, and again, and again over this issue and only now is the press beginning to see it. Pity the government can't.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this, the Guardian reports the following:
quote:
Ireland has issued a stark warning that it will block progress of the Brexit negotiations in December unless the UK gives a formal written guarantee there will be no hard border with Northern Ireland.
In sharp remarks before a breakfast meeting with Theresa May, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said Brexit-backing politicians had not “thought all this through” in the years they had been pushing for the UK to leave the EU.
Outside the Gothenburg social summit in Sweden, Varadkar suggested he would block any progress to negotiations about the future relationship with the EU unless the UK was prepared to take a hard border, in any form, off the table between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Now I'm confused. Is it in the gift of the UK to say that there will be "no hard border" between NI and the Republic in a no-deal scenario?
One would think that the pressure for a border might be at least as strongly from the EU side.
Where has the EU got a completely soft border with third states?
This is sort of the point. Ireland's threatening to exercise a veto if the UK doesn't guarantee something not in its gift.
As I read it the threat is that Ireland will veto the deal even before it's worked through if the UK doesn't commit to seeking an arrangement where there is no hard border. Though, of course, the UK may seek something that doesn't then happen. But, the intention from the UK side is something that is in the power of the UK government. It will restrict the relationship with the EU that they will be able to ask for, but the UK at this stage can make such a commitment to allow Ireland to stay on board with the negotiations.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
This is sort of the point. Ireland's threatening to exercise a veto if the UK doesn't guarantee something not in its gift. We're truly through the looking glass here.
Not really - see all the possibilities above, the requirement for a soft border does circumscribe the set of possibilities that are acceptable to Ireland (Soft Brexit of some kind, Soft Brexit for NI alone, Remain).
Now you could argue that the EU would still have to agree to any of these - which would be correct, but at the moment the sort of exit the UK is heading for won't even make a soft border a possibility (discount Davis' diarrhoea about IoT and electronic border checks).
[And further to fletcher's point, the UK cabinet currently includes the author of this: https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111220142628-thepriceofpeace2000MichaelGove.pdf ]
[ 17. November 2017, 12:36: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The Eu has been consistent since the passing of the Brexit referendum : the UK must come up with a workable solution to the NI border question that does not damage the GFA or the peace process. It was one way in which the EU could point out the stupidity of Brexit and the fact that for the UK government it hadn't even crossed their pretty little minds.
Ultimately, it's a recognition of the fact that the EU is approaching the situation as one of damage-limitation. There is no scenario where the EU as a whole, or parts thereof, "win" as a result of Brexit (of course, IMO, the same is true of the UK where every option except voting Remain in June last year was a "lose"). For most of the EU the damage from a hard Brexit isn't all that great - some lost income, so a readjustment of the budget, a small loss in market but also a gain in loss of competition from UK business and also a gain in investment from UK business relocating to the rest of the EU. Most of the EU will be able to handle the problems caused by Brexit fairly well. But, for Ireland the damage from Brexit could be very significant - trade with the UK, NI in particular, is a substantial portion of their economy, the GFA depends on EU membership and jurisdiction of ECJ. It is only right and proper that in entering negotiations the EU put the interests of the most affected nation in the EU front and centre.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Alan
quote:
But, for Ireland the damage from Brexit could be very significant - trade with the UK, NI in particular, is a substantial portion of their economy, the GFA depends on EU membership and jurisdiction of ECJ.
There doesn't seem to be much worry about the economic effects here. They mention it from time to time, but most of the fiscal folks seem to suggest that as long as the pound stays low enough it's all a matter of cheques and balances and Ireland's exports opening up bigger markets, albeit a little further away, can be established long before the pound makes any kind of significant recovery. The main quandary here seems to be over the GFA and it's associated cross-border agreements and joint funded projects, and I completely understand that. Ireland doesn't want the 'troubles' on its doorstep again - this is a very significant and real concern and the one aspect where everyone truly loses but so far only Ireland and the EU appear to have any sense of urgency about it.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Not really - see all the possibilities above, the requirement for a soft border does circumscribe the set of possibilities that are acceptable to Ireland (Soft Brexit of some kind, Soft Brexit for NI alone, Remain).
Now you could argue that the EU would still have to agree to any of these - which would be correct, but at the moment the sort of exit the UK is heading for won't even make a soft border a possibility (discount Davis' diarrhoea about IoT and electronic border checks).
My head hurts.
Surely given that NI is (a) not going to be remaining in the CM and (b) the Republic is not going to be exiting the CM - then the only alternative without a hard border appears to be for one part of the EU (Republic) to have an extremely close and unhindered economic relationship with a non-EU country, ie NI and by extension the UK.
Which (d) is basically what the UK wants and (e) what at least some of the EU27 don't want.
If the Republic torpedoes a deal, then the thing is back to no-deal, which means a hard border.
The only way it doesn't would then be if the EU allowed a third country to have a free-trade arrangement, with no written deal, with it.
Which, if I'm right, means that the UK just needs to hold its nerve to get what it wants - ie a free trade non-agreement with the EU.
The Irish Republic can splutter, but they need to persuade the EU to come up with something not the UK because at present the UK would appear to be on route to getting what it wants, and the only possibility of a hard border would be if the EU puts it there.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I didn't explain that well.
Try this:
What the UK wants: a economic reality like between NI and the Republic at present without being in the EU.
What the Republic wants: a continuation of NI-Republic economic situation as at present
What the UK wants: some restrictions on borders but overall basically unrestricted access to the EU as at present
What the EU wants: the UK to continue paying into the coffers and to keep up with EU Regulations
What the UK wants: to pay as little as possible to the EU and to be free from the jurisdiction of the European courts
If imports come into the UK which are not meeting EU regulations, then they ought not be imported to the EU. This is unlikely to be a problem in the opposite direction - the UK probably would accept anything produced to EU standards from the EU.
Therefore the UK would be quite happy to accept a no-deal which meant that the border was open in Ireland. And it is the EU which would want to make restrictions in the other direction.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Therefore the UK would be quite happy to accept a no-deal which meant that the border was open in Ireland. And it is the EU which would want to make restrictions in the other direction.
That's not a 'no deal' though. 'no deal' is a hard border - just as the EU would have with any other country that showed up on its boundaries with which it had no agreements.
The possibility I was alluding to was one where the border between the NI and Republic was soft, but the hard border was at the Irish Sea. Of course, this won't be in favour with the DUP, or the headbangers like Gove (that link I posted is somewhat illuminating). It will also require a lot of good will on each side - so kind of moot while the Brexiters rule the roost in the Tory party.
On which topic, this link by Simon Wren-Lewis is apposite:
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/the-brexit-revolution-and-its-source-of.html
Exploring the question of why a referendum won by a slim margin should leave the most radical fringes in charge; he points out that the possibility of a leadership election means that the parliamentary Tory Party has to constantly pander to their base (100 thousand members, mostly men, largely middle class and with an average age of 67).
quote:
These members are far more anti-European than the party’s MPs or its current Prime Minister. The threat the Brexiters have, which Remain MPs fear and which has governed so many of the Prime Minister’s actions, is that they will force a leadership election. In any election a Brexiter is almost certain to be on the ballot that goes to party members, and given that electorate (and the influence the Tory press have on them) a Brexiter will almost certainly win. They will then go for a clean break from the EU, or what is commonly known as No Deal.
What else could explain a Prime Minister putting forward legislation involving a fixed date to leave that might make her own life more difficult, just because it was suggested (one might guess) by the editor of a right wing tabloid at his birthday party? Why else does she tolerate almost open insubordination by her foreign secretary that would in any other situation have led to him losing his job. Why is she so concerned about keeping her Brexiter ministers happy and as a result ignores the rest of her MPs and by now the majority of the country? She has focused all her energy on preventing a rebellion from her right and as a result has completely neglected the discussions with the EU.
[ 17. November 2017, 19:46: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
The Referendum was a vote by those who have never left the 1970s to drag the rest of us back there with them.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That's not a 'no deal' though. 'no deal' is a hard border - just as the EU would have with any other country that showed up on its boundaries with which it had no agreements.
Well this is the point I was trying to question.
If (a) the Irish Republic, (b) the UK and (c) possibly other EU governments which can have their arms twisted see continued trade as important, is it possible to imagine a "no deal" scenario whereby there is an impasse between the Republic and the UK and the EU is unable to agree sanctions to prevent it.
We are led to believe that "no-deal" = a hard Irish border. But if nobody on the ground wants it, then how can the EU actively stop it?
To me it look like more to do with British-Irish politics and the value of Irish trade across the border versus the possible costs of punishment by the EU - if the Irish state (plus other wavering states) refuse to go along with a French-German proposal to punish Ireland for (for the sake of argument) refusing to enforce the EU customs regulations at the Irish border, can the EU do anything?
I'm not saying this is a desirable scenario. But I'm wondering how many "sticks" the EU actually have if states within it refuse to co-operate.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
So what you're suggesting is that Britain might not only leave the EU, but also further enhance its isolationist credentials by flouting international law too? ....and then they wonder why the rest of Europe looks on in disbelief while Britain slowly erodes its democracy.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
@fletcher christian - did countries to the east flout international law when they opened borders to the EU to allow refugees to get to Germany?
I'm fairly sure that this would be in violation of EU law, and would come under the European Court. But I'm not sure what happens if one party refuses to accept the jurisdiction of that court.
But then I don't really understand international trade law.
And anyway - I'm not saying this is a desirable or good thing. I'm simply wondering aloud whether a no-deal necessarily means a hard border.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
This report from the House of Lords is interesting with respect to the possibility of a bilateral agreement between the Republic and the UK; covered in particular in paras 241-265
Para 246 in interesting:
quote:
These suggestions clearly demonstrate that any bilateral agreement between the UK and Ireland is likely to impinge upon areas of EU competence, and will thus depend upon on the attitude of the other 26 Member States. Ruth
Taillon warned that, although the UK could give certain guarantees to Irish and other EU citizens in the UK, the Irish Government would not have the same flexibility. Patricia King agreed that “the interests of the other 26 …
will not be the same as Ireland’s … The issue is how Ireland will be placed in the order of importance in these negotiations.” Pamela Arthurs referred to conversations in Brussels, “where it was made fairly clear to us that it is not within the gift of Ireland or the UK to decide what the border will look like—the other 26 member states will decide”
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Fair enough, but you're also arguing from a purely economic standpoint. Many (certainly the majority here in Ireland) would feel there is a lot more at stake and that there are more important things than the cold face of economic reality. Lasting peace and stability and the preservation of democracy are fragile and moveable feasts when it comes to Northern Ireland and for these reasons getting the border issue right is of primary importance to Ireland and the rest of the EU (except of course Britain....currently). One aspect that are never mentioned in this are the cross border projects. Some of these are of course cold economics to do with trade, but a very large percentage are also social issues like mental health care, sharing health care provision (our hospitals in Ireland are full of people getting health care because the provision in NI is so poor), working out how governments and communities can work together in a shared future, tackling issues of crime and issues of sectarianism, looking at provision for families divided by the border (spread on each side of it), local community encounter and engagement, interface planning, schools projects, church encounter projects, arts funding projects and educational projects.....to name but a very tiny fraction of the full body of work. All of these things are funded largely by the EU and the Irish government to help in preserving peace and building a better future for NI and for it's people. All of this is currently under threat because there has absolutely no planning whatsoever done to discuss how any of these things might continue without EU funding and with a border in place, if there is going to be one....but we don't know that either because Britain won't talk about that yet.
Let us not forget that it is not the job of the EU to manage Britain's borders on its behalf. It has however proffered what I believe to be the only workable solution; to have the border at the Irish Sea. This would enable all of the above projects including trade to continue without threatening the peace and stability and the democracy of a part of the UK. For a country that keeps telling everyone it wants to take back control it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone around it that it is utterly incapable of being in control of itself.
[ 20. November 2017, 09:04: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Let us not forget that it is not the job of the EU to manage Britain's borders on its behalf. It has however proffered what I believe to be the only workable solution; to have the border at the Irish Sea.
Yes, the problem is that the UK government has so-far ruled out this option - and I presume (wrt the link above) that the far right of the Tory party which currently sets the tone, would see such a thing as a symbolic capitulation to 'the terrorists'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Chris:
quote:
Yes, the problem is that the UK government has so-far ruled out this option - and I presume (wrt the link above) that the far right of the Tory party which currently sets the tone, would see such a thing as a symbolic capitulation to 'the terrorists'.
Yes, it is certainly not without its problems and would likely be a political gift to one of the more unsavoury sides of NI politics. If they had seriously considered this at the time when it was first mooted then they may have been able to organise themselves enough to counter any negative backlash in terms of NI, but the current situation of refusing to discuss anything in regards to the NI border will undoubtedly have even worse implications. Britain does not currently seem capable of seeing that. Once Britain does finally leave the EU how is actually going to pay the millions required to enforce peace and stability in NI if we see a return to the chaos of the 1970's? The current stratagem of 'do nothing, say nothing' is a much greater gift to the terrorists than the alternative that has already been proffered.
Edited to add:
There lis a side to all of this that probably isn;t all that clear to most people in the UK. When the Tories made their deal with the DUP a spectre from NI's inglorious past rose from a rotten grave: namely, Carson. That has a very large part of the community in NI shifting rather nervously at the moment. Things are not good and a lack of clarity as the days and months pass will openly serve to make things worse.
[ 20. November 2017, 09:40: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Yeah, it's a mess. I still can't help thinking it is deliberate.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, it's a mess. I still can't help thinking it is deliberate.
To wit there is absolutely no political capital to be made by coming up with a solution.
An Irish Sea border cuts across the fantasies of the Hard Brexit/Legatum right - of a free wheeling buccaneering Britain.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Came across this article summarising things from the Irish side:
The Brexit Veto: How and why Ireland raised the stakes
The Irish are making it clear that the only two options available are Britain staying in the Single Market, or NI staying in and the border moving to the Irish sea. I particularly enjoyed this:
"The Good Friday Agreement in any event completely guarantees the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the UK. The notion that this is a kind of stalking horse for a creeping United Ireland-ism is nonsense. It requires leadership from the British, and a certain amount of common sense by the DUP."
What are the chances of either of those things happening, do you think?
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Let us not forget that it is not the job of the EU to manage Britain's borders on its behalf. It has however proffered what I believe to be the only workable solution; to have the border at the Irish Sea.
Yes, the problem is that the UK government has so-far ruled out this option - and I presume (wrt the link above) that the far right of the Tory party which currently sets the tone, would see such a thing as a symbolic capitulation to 'the terrorists'.
Which seems to ignore the capitulation to Unionist terrorists by giving them influence in the UK government. When you've already capitulated to one set of terrorists, what is so difficult about making a symbolic capitulation to another?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I can't get my head around the DUP position. It seems to make even less sense than the Tory position.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
In a tangent that possibly deserves its own thread, it seems that at quite a critical moment for the EU, Angela Merkel is out circulation.
quote:
The ensuing uncertainty has consequences beyond Germany. Mrs Merkel - who did not attend a summit of EU leaders in Sweden last week - will remain preoccupied with domestic affairs for some time yet. This was, she said last night, a time for deep reflection.
I don't think Angela Merkel's absence from the scene is insignificant. I'm not really sure why SPD refused to re-enter the coalition after the election - but I guess a fuller discussion of the situation in Germany would be for a separate thread.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which seems to ignore the capitulation to Unionist terrorists by giving them influence in the UK government. When you've already capitulated to one set of terrorists, what is so difficult about making a symbolic capitulation to another?
Well, as I said upthread - read the Gove document on the Good Friday Agreement - that gives you an insight into how some parties of the Tory party view the situation in NI.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
