UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums

[A Horse Named Stranger]

34 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Given that the Commons passed Hoey's amendment without a vote, the likelihood is that there is overwhelming opposition there to creating a border in the Irish Sea (to be fair, all parties say that they're trying to avoid this).

Be that is it May. The PM has signed up to the backstop solution which is now unacceptable to PM May (I really felt the need to stress that it was PM May that agreed to it in the first place). For the EU avoiding a hard border on the Irish Island was and is a top priority. And if I am not mistaken (correct me on this) it's also part of the GFA (thus British law). 

To be fair, the British goverment still has time to come up with another workable (!) solution for the Irish border, which would make the backstop solution obsolete. The use of non-existent future technology won't be it, the UK being part of the customs union be it either, neither will be it be Ireland leaving the EU to join up with the UK. Given the UK track record in this negotiations, I think the ultimate outcome will be a hard border in Ireland. 

For once I think JRM is right on the money. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 7/19/2018 at 6:01 AM, Werthead said:

As a result of the above, costs will rise in the supermarket and in most retail outlets very quickly. Britain's only produces about half of the dairy products it consumes on a daily basis, so costs will rise to import the rest from the EU or will rise because British farmers will need to charge more because of the loss of their export markets in Europe and the loss of their seasonal staff (tariffs on dairy to and from the EU are over 70%, as well).

Good thing you still have the "dairy farm-with-a-country-attached" that you dropped in the 1970s, then. 

(As I believe I have mentioned before - New Zealand trade officials are very quick).

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Be that is it May. The PM has signed up to the backstop solution which is now unacceptable to PM May (I really felt the need to stress that it was PM May that agreed to it in the first place). For the EU avoiding a hard border on the Irish Island was and is a top priority. And if I am not mistaken (correct me on this) it's also part of the GFA (thus British law). 

To be fair, the British goverment still has time to come up with another workable (!) solution for the Irish border, which would make the backstop solution obsolete. The use of non-existent future technology won't be it, the UK being part of the customs union be it either, neither will be it be Ireland leaving the EU to join up with the UK. Given the UK track record in this negotiations, I think the ultimate outcome will be a hard border in Ireland. 

For once I think JRM is right on the money. 

Theresa May can promise anything she likes, but Parliament is supreme (in effect, meaning that the Commons is supreme).  I think it's implicit in the GFA that there should be no hard border on the island of Ireland, but it must therefore follow that it is implicit that there be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK (unless Northern Ireland should vote to join the Irish Republic).  If the government simply sought to impose a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, it would be open to any Northern Irish inhabitant to challenge that decision in the High Court, and, in the absence of primary legislation, that challenge would be upheld.

 

[ljkeane]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

For the EU avoiding a hard border on the Irish Island was and is a top priority. And if I am not mistaken (correct me on this) it's also part of the GFA (thus British law).

It's not really. The Good Friday Agreement mentions things like the UK and Ireland being partners in the EU but, so far as I'm aware, it doesn't really say anything specific about the nature of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. There's no particular reason it would, the border predates the existence of the EU and it's never been particularly 'hard'.

I'm fairly dubious even if there is a hard brexit anyone's going to build a border wall and start instituting passport checks as people travel back and forth. The issue is the EU is concerned about the potential flow of goods through the UK into the EU.

[Werthead]

3 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I'm fairly dubious even if there is a hard brexit anyone's going to build a border wall and start instituting passport checks as people travel back and forth. The issue is the EU is concerned about the potential flow of goods through the UK into the EU.

If you don't, then people could travel from say Eastern Europe to Dublin (no border check required), from Dublin to Belfast by train or coach (apparently no border check required), from Belfast to Liverpool or Scotland by ferry and then promptly disappear into the UK, which is unacceptable to the hard Brexiteers (and more moderate ones for whom free movement is a major issue).

[ljkeane]

Just now, Werthead said:

If you don't, then people could travel from say Eastern Europe to Dublin (no border check required), from Dublin to Belfast by train or coach (apparently no border check required), from Belfast to Liverpool or Scotland by ferry and then promptly disappear into the UK, which is unacceptable to the hard Brexiteers (and more moderate ones for whom free movement is a major issue).

So, the UK government is going spend billions building and manning a border fence with Ireland? They never even did that during the worst of the Troubles, when you could have legitimately argued people were dying because of the soft nature of the border. It's not going to happen.

 

[Werthead]

3 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

So, the UK government is going spend billions building and manning a border fence with Ireland? They never even did that during the worst of the Troubles, when you could have legitimately argued people were dying because of the soft nature of the border. It's not going to happen.

I'm not sure then how you can have a Brexit, the primary reason for which was shutting the open border, if you're simply going to keep the only physical open border you have wide open and let everyone and everything in without any kind of oversight.

[ljkeane]

Just now, Werthead said:

I'm not sure then how you can have a Brexit, the primary reason for which was shutting the open border, if you're simply going to keep the only physical open border you have wide open and let everyone and everything in without any kind of oversight.

Brexit's not about having a cohesive plan, it's about catering to people's irrational issues with the EU. People in the UK don't care about the border with Ireland.

I get that you're very, very anti Brexit, I'm pro remain myself, but try to keep some perspective. The UK isn't going to spend vast amounts of money we don't have on a border wall with the Republic of Ireland nobody even really wants.

 

[Maltaran]

3 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

 

I get that you're very, very anti Brexit, I'm pro remain myself, but try to keep some perspective. The UK isn't going to spend vast amounts of money we don't have on a border wall with the Republic of Ireland nobody even really wants.

 

Which means either we keep freedom of movement (unacceptable to the Brexiteers) or we have a hard border in the Irish Sea (unacceptable to the DUP)

[ljkeane]

Just now, Maltaran said:

Which means either we keep freedom of movement (unacceptable to the Brexiteers) or we have a hard border in the Irish Sea (unacceptable to the DUP)

I suspect what we’ll actually do is ignore the issue of any illegal immigrants travelling through Ireland and just occasionally deport a few of them to placate people who kick up a fuss.

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I suspect what we’ll actually do is ignore the issue of any illegal immigrants travelling through Ireland and just occasionally deport a few of them to placate people who kick up a fuss.

To be fair, this would allow the right to have their cake and eat it too: they can leave the EU, but also get to blame all the ills of the country on illegal immigrants coming in via Ireland. Bloody Irish! Why don't they do anything to stop it?

[Werthead]

I have some time for John Major (a real-world Conservative, and one of a dying breed), and his interview with Marr is level-headed and sensible. Also, kudos for both the extremely brief amount of time he spends on Jacob Rees-Mogg's opinion and his brief but well-exected withering putdown ("very statesmanlike").

18 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Brexit's not about having a cohesive plan, it's about catering to people's irrational issues with the EU. People in the UK don't care about the border with Ireland.

I get that you're very, very anti Brexit, I'm pro remain myself, but try to keep some perspective. The UK isn't going to spend vast amounts of money we don't have on a border wall with the Republic of Ireland nobody even really wants.

The UK government has spent a vast amount of money on bribing the DUP to prop them up in defiance of democratic principles and another vast amount of money on setting up a new benefits system designed to reduce fraud but has cost far more money than can ever be recouped even if it was 100% successful, so I'm really not too sure about that. Brexit is, after all, about committing an act of national self-harm (to a far vaster degree than the cost of fortifying the border) in pursuit of a very vague and undefined notion of "sovereignty".

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

I'm fairly dubious even if there is a hard brexit anyone's going to build a border wall and start instituting passport checks as people travel back and forth. The issue is the EU is concerned about the potential flow of goods through the UK into the EU.

It doesn't have to be wall, however if you are going to trade under WTO terms (as suggested by future PM JRM), then you need to have a physical border between the two markets (EU (Ireland) and the UK (Northern Ireland)) and checks. It's not an option, that's a legal fact under WTO rules. 

If there were no such thing between the UK and the EU (in absence of a bilateral agreement (aka free trade agreement), that would result in complete free flow of goods between the UK (and the EU) on the one hand, and any other WTO member state. So chlorinated chicken from the US, electronics and parts from China are ready to flood both the UK and the EU market. 

PM JRM might think it's a fantastic opportunity for global Britain, and his horse (the future health secretary) might agree with him, but I somehow I don't think it's gonna be that awesome.

[ljkeane]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It doesn't have to be wall, however if you are going to trade under WTO terms (as suggested by future PM JRM), then you need to have a physical border between the two markets (EU (Ireland) and the UK (Northern Ireland)) and checks. It's not an option, that's a legal fact under WTO rules. 

You don’t need to have a physical border, you need to have checks on customs control of the flow of goods. The WTO doesn’t say anything about the flow of people. 

Also, it’s still more of an issue for the EU than the U.K. because it has implications for the recognition of the EU as a free trade block. Which is an issue but it’s not really the UK’s problem.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

You don’t need to have a physical border, you need to have checks on customs control of the flow of goods. The WTO doesn’t say anything about the flow of people. 

 

Which usuallly translates to a physical border of some sorts. Or how or where else you propose checks take place?

[Werthead]

That's something that people need to remember as well. It's very easy to say "no deal, we'll trade under WTO rules." But WTO rules are themselves very specific and make binding requirements on nations they have to fulfil and the EU also has very specific and binding requirements on what third countries outside the block need to do. Both of these will require border infrastructure.

They also require nations to get in touch with the WTO and make it clear what's going to happen, which apparently we haven't (and it's unclear if the the 3-month gap between us announcing that - presumably in October - and us leaving the EU in March is remotely enough time to make such preparations).

[ljkeane]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Which usuallly translates to a physical border of some sorts. Or how or where else you propose checks take place?

Spot checks, a licensing system of some kind, I don’t know. You could have an open border if you wanted, it would just have to apply to all other wto trading partners.

 I suspect the solution would be something like the U.K. performs spot checks on all goods coming into the U.K. by road. Which would apply to ‘all trading partners’ but in reality obviously only applies to the Irish border.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

What? 

[mormont]

25 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Spot checks, a licensing system of some kind, I don’t know. 

I kind of think you don't, at this point. This post reads like someone thinking out loud, not talking about known facts. I will happily admit I know nothing about WTO rules and yeah, maybe it's possible to enforce them without a physical border? But I'd like a little more to go on in order to understand if that really is a possibility, or if you're just winging it here.

[ljkeane]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

I kind of think you don't, at this point. This post reads like someone thinking out loud, not talking about known facts. I will happily admit I know nothing about WTO rules and yeah, maybe it's possible to enforce them without a physical border? But I'd like a little more to go on in order to understand if that really is a possibility, or if you're just winging it here.

Of course I am. No, I'm not an expert on customs procedures and I'm dubious anyone else here is either.

Regardless, I don't think the issue of how exactly tariffs might be applied to the flow of goods over the Irish border and how they're going to be checked, while a bit of an issue for the UK and a fairly significant one for the EU, quite rises to the level of something that's going to kick off the Troubles again. Which is how it's presented in a somewhat alarmist manner by some remainers.