|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On February 06 2019 03:37 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 03:01 pmh wrote:
England is in a much more difficult position then the eu here.
The eu could just leave the borders open after a hard brexit,after all whats the worst that can happen?
Products that don't meet eu standards and regulations could be dealt with once they end up in the stores in Ireland. Track it back and prosecute every party involved. And exporting those goods to Ireland to then distribute further in the eu? its possible but its a bit far fetched as it is quiet a detour and could still be dealt with once in the stores. And the people coming from England,well that most likely wont be illegal immigrants. England is the end destination for most of them. So eu could just leave the border open after a hard brexit and it would not be that big of a deal.
England on the other hand is in a different position in this scenario,they fear the immigrants and they will want to put up a border I think. The UK doesnt care about the border and is happy to leave it open, its the EU who keep pushing the border unless we agree to at least Northern Ireland matching EU rules
The UK *has* to care about the border though. Neither the EU nor the UK want a border there. It's not the EU who keep pushing the border, it's international law as specified by the WTO treaty. And it's not even about the border, it's about customs, which, on a land border, can only reasonably be checked *at the border*. So unless the UK comes up with a "technical border" solution rather than bandying the word about with about as much meaning as "magic", it *will* violate WTO agreements (until a trade deal is reached between the EU and the UK and the whole thing disappears).
The problem has been stipulated about 20 times above from a EU point of view, but the UK has the exact same problem, as summarized quite neatly here (by quite a pro-Brexit person if I picked up correctly on all the sub-text):
Suppose the UK and EU trade on WTO terms after Brexit. Suppose American apples arriving in the UK at an English port have to go through controls, but Irish apples crossing the border into Northern Ireland (also the UK) do not. Then the US could complain that its apples were discriminated against. They weren’t given equal treatment with Irish apples when they entered the UK.
The US might seek a legal ruling in WTO dispute settlement. Months or years later, the ruling might conclude that the UK had discriminated. So either checks at the English ports would have to be dropped, or checks at the Irish border would have to be set up.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/07/18/does-the-wto-require-countries-to-control-their-borders/
So both the EU *and* the UK could run into the same problem for treating the Irish border differently from borders with other nations. At least at the level of trade goods.
And yes, they could *only* check goods entering the country, but wasn't one of the key points of Brexit to prevent free movement of people?! So shouldn't you be checking passports at the Irish border? Even if it's not to prevent Irish from crossing the border, but only to stop "undesirables" (whoever you decide those might be) from entering the UK... you'd need to stop them somewhere, right? And if they are allowed into the EU they can hop on a plane to Ireland without encountering another passport check anywhere. And then drive to Belfast and hop on a ferry to Liverpool (or a plane to London).
So now you have to check trade goods *and* people crossing the border, so you have real proper border posts like the one between Spain and Andorra (or France and Andorra). And all of that stems directly from Brexit. So logically the EU is a bit tired of this and said "figure that shit out now, or accept that you will abide by all the rules necessary to keep the border completely open until you figure it out", aka backstop.
|
The UK saying they will leave the border open is due to them having no solution to the problem. It's very easy to prance around with such stance when you've got zero trade deals or commitments to honor. They WILL have to care about the border sooner or later.
|
I feel the more important aspect of this is that Ireland will care about the border with the EU and how the change with impact them.
|
On February 06 2019 03:37 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 03:01 pmh wrote:
England is in a much more difficult position then the eu here.
The eu could just leave the borders open after a hard brexit,after all whats the worst that can happen?
Products that don't meet eu standards and regulations could be dealt with once they end up in the stores in Ireland. Track it back and prosecute every party involved. And exporting those goods to Ireland to then distribute further in the eu? its possible but its a bit far fetched as it is quiet a detour and could still be dealt with once in the stores. And the people coming from England,well that most likely wont be illegal immigrants. England is the end destination for most of them. So eu could just leave the border open after a hard brexit and it would not be that big of a deal.
England on the other hand is in a different position in this scenario,they fear the immigrants and they will want to put up a border I think. The UK doesnt care about the border and is happy to leave it open, its the EU who keep pushing the border unless we agree to at least Northern Ireland matching EU rules
Everybody claims that they don't want to close the Irish border but the British Government is the only one here who is taking actions to make sure that it has to be closed. EU has taken no action whatsoever to close the Irish border, it's all on the brexiteers who want a hard brexit at all costs. Remember, just a few weeks ago, commons voted down the best chance to keep the Irish border open.
The Irish border cannot be both open and UK out of the customs union, unless there is a border somewhere, whether it is between the Irish border or everwhere but Northern Ireland in which only Northen Ireland is part of the custom union. What is your proposed solution Zaros? It better not be "a technological solution" a solution that doesn't exist.
|
I've already explained this whole thing to Zaros like a week ago. There never was an answer and I assume he just quietly acknowledges that he has none. No explaining will help in his case
|
On February 07 2019 01:48 Toadesstern wrote:
I've already explained this whole thing to Zaros like a week ago. There never was an answer and I assume he just quietly acknowledges that he has none. No explaining will help in his case
The real problem isn't Zaros specifically here.
That's a constant throughout every brexiter i've met. You can explain as reasonable as you want, literally ELI5 as Acrofales did (btw, great post), it's like bombarding them with neutrinos. There's barely any interaction between logic and facts and most brexiters.
It's frustrating to the point where i get angry at brexiters because of their idiocy. There's nothing not to understand with what Acrofales stated, and these are facts. Hell, these are facts acknowledged by prominent brexiters, and even they argue as if these problems wouldn't exist and still call for some magic border solution that the EU should invent in the next 50odd days.
|
I would say that Zaros is a good example of the typical incomprehension towards issues held by Brexiteers that i was on about earlier. Add in a dash of EU blaming and you get what Zaros wrote about the irish border. Somehow, a situation that has only occured because of brexit, and can only exist because of leaving the custioms union specifically, magically turns into EU's fault. No logical thought process involved. It's just EU's fault somehow.
|
On February 07 2019 06:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I would say that Zaros is a good example of the typical incomprehension towards issues held by Brexiteers that i was on about earlier. Add in a dash of EU blaming and you get what Zaros wrote about the irish border. Somehow, a situation that has only occured because of brexit, and can only exist because of leaving the custioms union specifically, magically turns into EU's fault. No logical thought process involved. It's just EU's fault somehow.
Remember when i earlier stated this here?
It's frustrating to the point where i get angry at brexiters because of their idiocy. There's nothing not to understand with what Acrofales stated, and these are facts. Hell, these are facts acknowledged by prominent brexiters, and even they argue as if these problems wouldn't exist and still call for some magic border solution that the EU should invent in the next 50odd days.
Yeah. Just read in the guardian what Corbyn would want of May to get Labour behind her deal.
A “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union”, including a say in future trade deals.
Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by “shared institutions”.
“Dynamic alignment on rights and protections”, so that UK standards do not fall behind those of the EU.
Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programmes.
Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant.
I mean.. There's not a single politician who has the slightest idea as to how shit's gonna work. Tories don't give a shit, no deal best deal yada yada, and now Corbyn demanding a customs union with the ability to get your own trade deals.
I mean, how daft are british politicians? This "idea" was debunked two years ago already, as was made clear by the WTO itself.
A customs union includes external tariffs, something that would all but in name prevent external trade deals.
Have a fucking look at Turkey and how well that one worked out.
I start to wonder if you have to actually beat sense into these people, i can't fathom, how someone can be this stupid and still make basically delusional or in this case fucking two mutually exclusive demands.
And no, the UK will not be handled differently than Turkey, the UK will not get a say in EU trade deals but has to implement whatever is decided by member states - just like the way Turkey has to.
This leaves Turkey with lopsided trading arrangements with the rest of the world. Countries that have a trade agreement with the EU, such as Canada, have preferential access to the Turkish market if their goods enter the EU, but Turkey does not have reciprocal access.
I'm so fed up with this bullshit and these absolutely moronic people "leading" this country. And with people who eat up that bullshit and assume that because "it's the umpaire" and "we beat germany twice", somehow that solves the fact that nobody gives a shit about the UK screeching delusional demands. It's sad to see really.
|
I read the part about trade deals not as Corbyn wanting the UK to be able to make trade deals independently, rather wanting the UK to have some input into the EU's future trade deals. To me, Corbyn is suggesting functionally staying in the EU, or something very close to that.
|
On February 07 2019 16:37 Melliflue wrote:
I read the part about trade deals not as Corbyn wanting the UK to be able to make trade deals independently, rather wanting the UK to have some input into the EU's future trade deals. To me, Corbyn is suggesting functionally staying in the EU, or something very close to that.
Close to staying in the EU depends a bit about how the single market bit is worked out but yeah, that's definitely what he's saying about trade deals. Even if that's not how the current custom union arrangements work I believe that is a consession the EU would be willing to make. It's not unreasonable to give the UK different treatment thanks to ties and history than say Turkey.
|
I read it as Corbyn making genuinely impossible demands in order to make the tories look bad when they can't agree to it.
Its the same tactic everyone is using.
The only person who has made any attempt at actually solving Brexit is Theresa May and she did it in such a slow, stupid way that it can't happen.
|
On February 07 2019 17:13 Jockmcplop wrote:
I read it as Corbyn making genuinely impossible demands in order to make the tories look bad when they can't agree to it.
What demands are impossible?
|
I think m4ini explained that well enough above.
Put it this way: Corbyn's demands are vague enough that if he wanted to, he could keep shifting the goalposts slightly and make it completely unreasonable for the tories to accept them.
Sure, there's a way of interpreting them that makes them possible, but so far there has been zero indication that Corbyn wants to work with the tories to push through any kind of Brexit, let alone the Brexit that the tories will accept.
|
I usually agree with most of what m4ini says but I think he got this one wrong. 'A say in future trade deals' strongly implies the ones struck by the EU, especially since that's not how it currently is.
Even if that's not a given, I don't believe it would be impossible to negotiate, even if Turkey would mutter loudly. That is not one of EU's big red lines. The whole thing reads as the first sensible thing comming from the UK ever since this process started(if May's deal is deemed unacceptable). And of course a deal and future relationship that would take thousands of pages to write is vague when condensed into five lines, especially since the negotiations haven't yet begun..Sure everything needs to be expanded upon but it's a very balanced starting point if you're dead set on leaving the EU while still keeping up the appearance that you give a shit about peace on Ireland.
|
On February 07 2019 17:57 Longshank wrote:
I usually agree with most of what m4ini says but I think he got this one wrong. 'A say in future trade deals' strongly implies the ones struck by the EU, especially since that's not how it currently is.
Even if that's not a given, I don't believe it would be impossible to negotiate, even if Turkey would mutter loudly. That is not one of EU's big red lines. The whole thing reads as the first sensible thing comming from the UK ever since this process started(if May's deal is deemed unacceptable). And of course a deal and future relationship that would take thousands of pages to write is vague when condensed into five lines, especially since the negotiations haven't yet begun..Sure everything needs to be expanded upon but it's a very balanced starting point if you're dead set on leaving the EU while still keeping up the appearance that you give a shit about peace on Ireland.
Fair enough.
My opinion may be coloured by how completely disillusioned I have become with our politicians. I used to be a Corbyn supporter before Brexit but he has pissed me off with his delaying and political games - just as much as the tories have. I still think he has my interests at heart but really he has done nothing to help since the referendum.
|
On February 07 2019 17:11 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 16:37 Melliflue wrote:
I read the part about trade deals not as Corbyn wanting the UK to be able to make trade deals independently, rather wanting the UK to have some input into the EU's future trade deals. To me, Corbyn is suggesting functionally staying in the EU, or something very close to that. Close to staying in the EU depends a bit about how the single market bit is worked out but yeah, that's definitely what he's saying about trade deals. Even if that's not how the current custom union arrangements work I believe that is a consession the EU would be willing to make. It's not unreasonable to give the UK different treatment thanks to ties and history than say Turkey.
We differ in opinions in this point very much, and i don't think the EU sees it the way you do.
Put it this way: why would the EU give a non-member state the influence to modify, veto, or "have input" in future trade deals - that will impact member states?
Not sure if you remember, the UK majorly and violently fucked europes steel industry by vetoing tariffs on chinese steel dumping. I've said this multiple times, i know. Yes, they now blame the EU for dead towns like Port Talbot, but fact of the matter is, you can't give a non-member state power over trade deals that are closed with the EU.
As you pointed out, Turkey would be pretty pissed off. You can't just give one country the middle finger, and let another one pick the cherries. Keep in mind that everything that's happening is uncharted waters, and the EU will not set precedents for others to abuse. With "having a say" in trade deals, you'd give the UK literally power over actual member states.
Nah, that's not going to happen.
That is not one of EU's big red lines.
That's debatable. Not in terms, probably, but they always made clear that the coherence of the EU will not be touched. Giving a non-member a seat at the table would be exactly that.
And of course a deal and future relationship that would take thousands of pages to write is vague when condensed into five lines, especially since the negotiations haven't yet begun..
Yeah. That maybe would've been an option two years ago. There's no two years anymore. There's barely two months. Maybe five if we opt for an extension. That's not much time to basically rewrite EUs guidelines and set hundreds of new precedents (btw all because the UK doesn't like the compromise that took two years to accomplish).
I'd like to point out that all my criticism is with a timeframe in mind. This isn't realistic. The EU will not push some crap Corbyn "came up with" through without vigorously checking everything seventytwelve times to make sure that later down the line they don't get screwed. There's no time to create said "thousands of pages thick document", nor is there time to proofread it. Nor is there time to get it approved by all members.
Any idea here has to come with a realism component. These ships are sailed, keep in mind that Labour (well, Corbyn anyway) at best only wants three months extension - and Tories don't want any.
It's these delusions that brought the UK to where they are now, one foot over the edge. A bit of Realpolitik would help.
edit:
Lidington:
I would be asking what on earth they mean when they say they want to be in a customs union with the EU but also for Britain to have a say in EU trade policy with other countries. That’s not something that’s allowed under the European treaties. This seems to be wishful thinking.
Well, duh. Like 95% of the entire Brexit debate for the last two years.
|
So, stupid question:
Wouldn't all of those 5 points also be satisfied by simply staying in the EU?
-The UK is currently a customs union (which further extends through all of the EU), and they do have a say in trade deals, because they are a member of the EU.
-They are closely aligned with the single market because they are part of it. Also "Shared institutions" because duh.
-"Dynamic alignment" is the only one that is not true, because the alignment is not dynamic, but simply exact. But the UK standards do currently not fall behind the EU ones, because they are the same.
- Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programs exist, because part of the EU.
- Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant also exist, because part of the EU.
So basically, if you read them this way, all of these demands could be fulfilled by not brexiting. Which probably means that they are indeed quite vague.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On February 07 2019 20:20 Simberto wrote:
So, stupid question:
Wouldn't all of those 5 points also be satisfied by simply staying in the EU?
-The UK is currently a customs union (which further extends through all of the EU), and they do have a say in trade deals, because they are a member of the EU.
-They are closely aligned with the single market because they are part of it. Also "Shared institutions" because duh.
-"Dynamic alignment" is the only one that is not true, because the alignment is not dynamic, but simply exact. But the UK standards do currently not fall behind the EU ones, because they are the same.
- Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programs exist, because part of the EU.
- Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant also exist, because part of the EU.
So basically, if you read them this way, all of these demands could be fulfilled by not brexiting. Which probably means that they are indeed quite vague.
a brexit in name only
|
I mean, not brexiting would also solve all the problems that a brexit is producing.
|
On February 07 2019 20:33 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 20:20 Simberto wrote:
So, stupid question:
Wouldn't all of those 5 points also be satisfied by simply staying in the EU?
-The UK is currently a customs union (which further extends through all of the EU), and they do have a say in trade deals, because they are a member of the EU.
-They are closely aligned with the single market because they are part of it. Also "Shared institutions" because duh.
-"Dynamic alignment" is the only one that is not true, because the alignment is not dynamic, but simply exact. But the UK standards do currently not fall behind the EU ones, because they are the same.
- Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programs exist, because part of the EU.
- Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant also exist, because part of the EU.
So basically, if you read them this way, all of these demands could be fulfilled by not brexiting. Which probably means that they are indeed quite vague. a brexit in name only
I'm sure some proud Brits would be delighted to see the UK listed as a separate entity in things like international treaties or just news headlines. "EU&UK" would make it look like the two are equal, independent partners.
Silly Brexiters, that's not going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
