BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

TheBigBean

That BoJo didn't want to go through the Swedish national anthem routine is hardly surprising.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

That BoJo didn't want to go through the Swedish national anthem routine is hardly surprising.

This is the - saying one thing in private, another in public - routine, right?

Because BoJo hasn't been doing that a lot recently?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Big Bean thinks people should volunteer their information like a self-service check out, and that the smugglers would still not be incentivised to smuggle. Judging on what the police have said, they would expect smuggling to increase to the point where it became intolerable and so some physical infrastructure would need to be put in place.

How much infrastructure do you think you need to prevent smuggling? Do you realise that goods are smuggled into North Korea from South Korea despite the land border being impassable? Do you think that GB being an island means nothing is smuggled into the UK? It is far more effective to make it harder to launder the goods than to prevent them arriving.

The UK has been reasonably clear on its tolerance on these issues. It would be helpful if the EU gave it some thought too as opposed to insisting that regulatory alignment is the only way anything can happen.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

That BoJo didn't want to go through the Swedish national anthem routine is hardly surprising.

This is the - saying one thing in private, another in public - routine, right?

Because BoJo hasn't been doing that a lot recently?

Yanis Varoufakis wrote:

The Swedish national anthem routine

On the assumption that good ideas encourage fruitful dialogue and can be the solvents of impasse, my team and I worked hard to put forward proposals based on serious econometric work and sound economic analysis. Once these had been tested on some of the highest authorities in their fields, from Wall Street and the City to top-notch academics, I would take them to Greece’s creditors in Brussels, Berlin and Frankfurt. Then I would sit back and observe a symphony of blank stares. It was as if I had not spoken, as if there was no document in front of them. It would be evident from their body language that they denied the very existence of the pieces of paper I had placed before them. Their responses, when they came, would be perfectly independent of anything I had said. I might as well have been singing the Swedish national anthem. It would have made no difference.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Big Bean thinks people should volunteer their information like a self-service check out, and that the smugglers would still not be incentivised to smuggle. Judging on what the police have said, they would expect smuggling to increase to the point where it became intolerable and so some physical infrastructure would need to be put in place.

How much infrastructure do you think you need to prevent smuggling? Do you realise that goods are smuggled into North Korea from South Korea despite the land border being impassable? Do you think that GB being an island means nothing is smuggled into the UK? It is far more effective to make it harder to launder the goods than to prevent them arriving.

The UK has been reasonably clear on its tolerance on these issues. It would be helpful if the EU gave it some thought too as opposed to insisting that regulatory alignment is the only way anything can happen.

It's about levels of degree - if there is already a lot of smuggling from NK to SK, can you imagine what it'd be like without any infrastructure?

It may even be a condition for future trade agreements with non-EU countries, to ensure EU nations are not smuggling their unapproved items into the UK to undercut whichever country.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's about levels of degree - if there is already a lot of smuggling from NK to SK, can you imagine what it'd be like without any infrastructure?

There'd be a lot more movement of people, but ignoring that the smuggling would be much the same. The limitations are the delivery networks and the risk of prosecution within North Korea, not the inability to get things in.

To bring this back to Ireland, it will always be possible to smuggle unprocessed milk from NI to ROI. The way to prevent this being a problem is to do random checks on large trucks of unprocessed milk (away from the border) and checks on the processing plants to ensure their sources are correctly documented.

Someone who milks a cow by hand and smuggles a bottle of unprocessed milk across the border, should not be a concern in the grand scheme of things.

robert88

Comparing the EU/UK situation with the SK/NK situation is quite ridiculous.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

if the UK wants to depart from EU regulations, somewhere there will be a border.

If they want NI to stick with UK regs, the border will be there with Ireland. If not, they can stick it in the Irish sea.

That's about the size of it. I can't see any other way around this other than the UK staying in the EU/single market & customs union.

morstar

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

if the UK wants to depart from EU regulations, somewhere there will be a border.

If they want NI to stick with UK regs, the border will be there with Ireland. If not, they can stick it in the Irish sea.

That's about the size of it. I can't see any other way around this other than the UK staying in the EU/single market & customs union.

What? You mean like they suggested we would all along? Ridiculous idea.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's about levels of degree - if there is already a lot of smuggling from NK to SK, can you imagine what it'd be like without any infrastructure?

There'd be a lot more movement of people, but ignoring that the smuggling would be much the same. The limitations are the delivery networks and the risk of prosecution within North Korea, not the inability to get things in.

To bring this back to Ireland, it will always be possible to smuggle unprocessed milk from NI to ROI. The way to prevent this being a problem is to do random checks on large trucks of unprocessed milk (away from the border) and checks on the processing plants to ensure their sources are correctly documented.

Someone who milks a cow by hand and smuggles a bottle of unprocessed milk across the border, should not be a concern in the grand scheme of things.

The bigger the divergence, the bigger the smuggling opportunity. I can't imagine having no checks on smuggling is tolerable in the long term. It's fanciful to suggest otherwise.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's about levels of degree - if there is already a lot of smuggling from NK to SK, can you imagine what it'd be like without any infrastructure?

There'd be a lot more movement of people, but ignoring that the smuggling would be much the same. The limitations are the delivery networks and the risk of prosecution within North Korea, not the inability to get things in.

To bring this back to Ireland, it will always be possible to smuggle unprocessed milk from NI to ROI. The way to prevent this being a problem is to do random checks on large trucks of unprocessed milk (away from the border) and checks on the processing plants to ensure their sources are correctly documented.

Someone who milks a cow by hand and smuggles a bottle of unprocessed milk across the border, should not be a concern in the grand scheme of things.

The bigger the divergence, the bigger the smuggling opportunity. I can't imagine having no checks on smuggling is tolerable in the long term. It's fanciful to suggest otherwise.

I'm beginning to understand this Swedish national anthem thing.

rick_chasey

I just thing you are really wrong about the practical impact of having no border outside of regulatory alignment.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

Yet this maintains the integrity of the SM. It's fairly clear that they are prioritising this over GFA obligations.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

Yet this maintains the integrity of the SM. It's fairly clear that they are prioritising this over GFA obligations.

Well without it the most important part of EU membership is rendered pointless.

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

But the EU can't agree to negotiate with him given the preconditions he has set (that the backstop must be abolished). How can they agree to that when there are no other feasible options on the table?

I am not arguing the EU is blameless - by saying the WA is not up for renegotiation - but the red lines Johnson has imposed seem to make it impossible to even begin.

robert88

Why did we ever let them have Letterkenny?

kingstongraham

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

But the EU can't agree to negotiate with him given the preconditions he has set (that the backstop must be abolished). How can they agree to that when there are no other feasible options on the table?

I am not arguing the EU is blameless - by saying the WA is not up for renegotiation - but the red lines Johnson has imposed seem to make it impossible to even begin.

Explain to me why an equivalent to the arrangements included in the backstop but that both sides can terminate is worse than no-deal.

bobmcstuff

KingstonGraham wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

But the EU can't agree to negotiate with him given the preconditions he has set (that the backstop must be abolished). How can they agree to that when there are no other feasible options on the table?

I am not arguing the EU is blameless - by saying the WA is not up for renegotiation - but the red lines Johnson has imposed seem to make it impossible to even begin.

Explain to me why an equivalent to the arrangements included in the backstop but that both sides can terminate is worse than no-deal.

It isn't, at least not as far as I am concerned.

But as has been pointed out previously, a backstop which can be terminated unilaterally is not a backstop is it? Maybe some kind of independent body to administer it perhaps, but I thought that had already been considered and discarded.

The only precondition Boris has made is that the current backstop must be abolished. How can the EU negotiate on that basis - if they agree to those preconditions, they're committing to removing the backstop with no idea what might or might not replace it. If the negotiations fail completely what happens then?

kingstongraham

bobmcstuff wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Explain to me why an equivalent to the arrangements included in the backstop but that both sides can terminate is worse than no-deal.

It isn't, at least not as far as I am concerned.

But as has been pointed out previously, a backstop which can be terminated unilaterally is not a backstop is it? Maybe some kind of independent body to administer it perhaps, but I thought that had already been considered and discarded.

The only precondition Boris has made is that the current backstop must be abolished. How can the EU negotiate on that basis - if they agree to those preconditions, they're committing to removing the backstop with no idea what might or might not replace it. If the negotiations fail completely what happens then?

As I understand it the previously agreed backstop can be terminated unilaterally, just not by the UK.

kingstongraham

I don't understand why the previous negotiators thought that entering a deal that we can't get out of was an acceptable consequence of people voting to leave a deal that we can get out of.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

But the EU can't agree to negotiate with him given the preconditions he has set (that the backstop must be abolished). How can they agree to that when there are no other feasible options on the table?

I am not arguing the EU is blameless - by saying the WA is not up for renegotiation - but the red lines Johnson has imposed seem to make it impossible to even begin.

Explain to me why an equivalent to the arrangements included in the backstop but that both sides can terminate is worse than no-deal.

Ireland would rather no deal was forced upon them by the UK than Ireland was seen to give in to the UK and a possible breach of the GFA/BA. Giving in would be political suicide. It's the same for the Tories and the Brexit Party.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

But the EU can't agree to negotiate with him given the preconditions he has set (that the backstop must be abolished). How can they agree to that when there are no other feasible options on the table?

I am not arguing the EU is blameless - by saying the WA is not up for renegotiation - but the red lines Johnson has imposed seem to make it impossible to even begin.

Explain to me why an equivalent to the arrangements included in the backstop but that both sides can terminate is worse than no-deal.

Ireland would rather no deal was forced upon them by the UK than Ireland was seen to give in to the UK and a possible breach of the GFA/BA. Giving in would be political suicide. It's the same for the Tories and the Brexit Party.

So if it had originally been framed as an agreed partnership then everyone might have been happy? The UK still would have had to abide by the GFA anyway, right?

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

I don't understand why the previous negotiators thought that entering a deal that we can't get out of was an acceptable consequence of people voting to leave a deal that we can get out of.

David Davis and Raab didn't. May was just desperate to get a deal done, and Robbins was being clever believing that the backstop put the UK in a favourable position, so the EU wouldn't want to go there. Technically robust, politically terrible - classic civil servant.

kingstongraham

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

if the UK wants to depart from EU regulations, somewhere there will be a border.

If they want NI to stick with UK regs, the border will be there with Ireland. If not, they can stick it in the Irish sea.

That's about the size of it. I can't see any other way around this other than the UK staying in the EU/single market & customs union.

But then it all comes back to this. There's no squaring the circle.

pblakeney

KingstonGraham wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

if the UK wants to depart from EU regulations, somewhere there will be a border.

If they want NI to stick with UK regs, the border will be there with Ireland. If not, they can stick it in the Irish sea.

That's about the size of it. I can't see any other way around this other than the UK staying in the EU/single market & customs union.

But then it all comes back to this. There's no squaring the circle.

Yeah, but, leave means leave.
Throws toys out of pram....

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't disagree with Stevo that the only way we can get to an alternative is by discussion with the EU.

But the precondition Boris has applied means that this is very difficult - he has said he won't come to the table unless the backstop is dropped already. I don't see how the EU can commit to that. Saying OK let's talk about alternatives to the backstop is one thing, but saying I won't talk to you unless you have agreed to my preconditions with no alternatives yet available is quite different.

Boris has done this in order to blame the EU when we drop out with no deal - It doesn't look like he actually has any desire to renegotiate.

Quite possibly, but given that the EU has flatly refused to negotiate, it does not leave him with many options. So I can understand why.

Let's not forget that no deal will result in a hard border in Ireland. Your move, EU...

But the EU can't agree to negotiate with him given the preconditions he has set (that the backstop must be abolished). How can they agree to that when there are no other feasible options on the table?

I am not arguing the EU is blameless - by saying the WA is not up for renegotiation - but the red lines Johnson has imposed seem to make it impossible to even begin.

Explain to me why an equivalent to the arrangements included in the backstop but that both sides can terminate is worse than no-deal.

Ireland would rather no deal was forced upon them by the UK than Ireland was seen to give in to the UK and a possible breach of the GFA/BA. Giving in would be political suicide. It's the same for the Tories and the Brexit Party.

So if it had originally been framed as an agreed partnership then everyone might have been happy? The UK still would have had to abide by the GFA anyway, right?

They certainly could have framed it better. Tony Connelly wrote a good article on it. The issue at hand is that both sides (EU and UK) were trying to use NI to gain advantage in future negotiations. Without any commitment, the UK could try to force the EU into a favourable position for the UK (in Dover for example) based on the need to protect the GFA/BA. Equally, with a backstop, the EU could try to force regulatory compliance onto the UK.

The whole thing is a shambles, but the phasing (no future relationship talk) is a complete disaster.

Ireland is far from blameless though, and having been dealt a bad hand decided to triple down on it, instead of talking to the EU26 about what would be acceptable.

Jez mon

TheBigBean wrote:

They certainly could have framed it better. Tony Connelly wrote a good article on it. The issue at hand is that both sides (EU and UK) were trying to use NI to gain advantage in future negotiations. Without any commitment, the UK could try to force the EU into a favourable position for the UK (in Dover for example) based on the need to protect the GFA/BA. Equally, with a backstop, the EU could try to force regulatory compliance onto the UK.

The whole thing is a shambles, but the phasing (no future relationship talk) is a complete disaster.

Ireland is far from blameless though, and having been dealt a bad hand decided to triple down on it, instead of talking to the EU26 about what would be acceptable.

Ok so what changes occur if we include future relationship talk at this stage, and what time frame do we give the future relationship talks.

Theoretically the back stop is (as I understand) an insurance policy against the future relationship talks not proving fruitful. I imagine, given the current political situation, even if we had negotiated a future relationship over the past 2 years, it still would have had difficulty passing through parliament. At which point we'd just end up with no deal again?

I feel like a lot of blame is put on the sequencing of the talks, when the reality is that whatever way round you carry out the negotiations, it's going to be challenging to come out with all the benefits of a customs union and single market, but have none of the regulations, and be able to do your own trade deals.

robert88

The simple fact is that the Irish solution worked because Ireland and the UK were both in the same economic bloc to which uniform political measures could be applied.

Leaving that state simply means that the Irish solution no longer works. Reaching that solution was a violent and very destructive process because neither side is prepared to compromise.

It's a microcosm of the very reason why the EU came into being and remains a necessary method of governing many disparate regions of a rather small and fractious part of the world.

In its wisdom the UK electorate has by a small majority, decided to damage, destroy even, both the Irish agreement and the unity of Europe, thus returning us all to a position that made conflict, misery and bloody-mindedness constant factors in our lives.

john80

The gfa allows people to identify as either british or irish and have the passport of their preference. The obvious benefit of this is that your average terrorist can associate with the nation of their choice without having to lose face and move home. In terms of smuggling and exise duty checks at companies away from the border is affective as if you are running a business and the fines out weigh the benefit then you are unlikely to partake in the game and if your competition are up to this then a couple of tip offs work a treat.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Why don't we try asking them as that's what matters - if only we could...

This is just rhetoric.

Not rhetoric - it is fact. The EU will not renegotiate.