I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
"However, to say that would be to admit defeat which the government won’t want to do, for reasons that aren’t all bad. To make a major concession there while the EU gave nothing would be to invite continued intransigence from Brussels on the false expectation that Britain will fold on issues that really are red lines."
This isn't an argument the British government is having with the EU, it's an argument the British government is having with itself. It wants two contradictory things. So on the one hand a concession to itself would invite would be a defeat that would invite itself to be intransigent in the future, but on the other it would be a huge, triumphant victory for Britain. Who'd have thought the plucky Brits could defeat a former great power on whose empire the sun never set?
The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
Quite - i'm a bit confused why SO keeps going on about the importance of knowing what the UK Government wants, when, as it is repeatedly pointed out, it doesn't matter what the UK Government wants, only what the EU will give. The basis of any agreement depends on a window existing within which the two can be accommodated. That's why it's called a negotiation. And if the UK stated exactly what it wanted, that could never form the basis for a resolution to the NI border issue as it would inevitably be whittled down before the end of the negotiation.
If you don't know what you want you are in no position to negotiate.
At the risk of repeating myself due to genuine failure to understand, as I stated before the Government knows what it wants.
Tariff free trade No payments to the EU Control of Immigration No jurisdiction from the ECJ Guaranteed of rights for UK citizens living in Europe Freedom to negotiate third party trade agreements
I doubt there is a single member of the UK Government or Parliament who doesn't "want" that (possibly not all want tariff free trade).
Of course what they want and what they realistically hope to get aren't the same thing. But there's no point in entering a negotiation if you announce in advance what you hope to get. Especially if you have nothing to offer the other side (short of some of your wants being mutually beneficial).
And it doesn't change the fact that if the EU aren't even prepared to explore what is possible through negotiation then there is no way that the status of the NI border can be settled in advance.
The government does not have a settled view on key issues like regulatory equivalence/divergence. It is in no position to negotiate until it does. Regulation will be a key factor in how the Irish border will eventually be policed, of course.
The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.
The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.
The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
Whether the UK position on regulatory equivalence should be settled in advance of negotiation it doesn't change the fact that the negotiation needs to happen before the Irish border question can be settled. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the EU to say that they won't negotiate on trade until they are clear about the UK position on fundamental questions underpinning that negotiation. That might actually force the UK Government to be a bit more committal and make progress.
But they aren't. They are setting up the NI border issue as a road block, when the real road block should be agreement on core negotiating principles. With the result that many within the Govt/Tory party are just saying, let's not bother and go straight to no deal since that's what's going to happen (they say).
You were born English, as was I - the first prize in the lottery of life - and we are both patriots.
Of course, if you wished to renounce it and move abroad and take up a new citizenship, I'm sure you could do so. What I object to is imposition of foreign citizenship upon me without my consent, and the consequent judicial suzerainty upon these islands, which is what, I fear, the EU parliament via the ECJ wishes to continue to do post-Brexit, and then be asked to cry crocodile tears when that ceases to be the case 25 years later.
Absolutely extraordinary. Why is the EU foreign to you but the UK is not? The implication of your logic is that the answer is the latter is dominated by England and the former is not.
Nail, head etc.
Nope. But it helps people to think that is the reason.
No doubt it helps you to think that it isn't the reason (insofar as your fellow 50m English have an homogeneous view on this); that's the marvellous thing about subjective opinions.
The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.
The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.
The Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
Whether the UK position on regulatory equivalence should be settled in advance of negotiation it doesn't change the fact that the negotiation needs to happen before the Irish border question can be settled. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the EU to say that they won't negotiate on trade until they are clear about the UK position on fundamental questions underpinning that negotiation. That might actually force the UK Government to be a bit more committal and make progress.
But they aren't. With the result that many within the Govt/Tory party are just saying, let's not bother and go straight to no deal since that's what's going to happen (they say).
Yes, I agree. In practice, I suspect the key issues right now for the EU27 are payments and citizens' rights. If those are sorted, we'll move to Stage Two. The Irish border can be fudged for a while longer.
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
You were born English, as was I - the first prize in the lottery of life - and we are both patriots.
Of course, if you wished to renounce it and move abroad and take up a new citizenship, I'm sure you could do so. What I object to is imposition of foreign citizenship upon me without my consent, and the consequent judicial suzerainty upon these islands, which is what, I fear, the EU parliament via the ECJ wishes to continue to do post-Brexit, and then be asked to cry crocodile tears when that ceases to be the case 25 years later.
Absolutely extraordinary. Why is the EU foreign to you but the UK is not? The implication of your logic is that the answer is the latter is dominated by England and the former is not.
Nail, head etc.
Nope. But it helps people to think that is the reason.
No doubt it helps you to think that it isn't the reason (insofar as your fellow 50m English have an homogeneous view on this); that's the marvellous thing about subjective opinions.
We can certainly argue over the amount to which it is the real or perceived reason - or whether it was implied by CasinoRoyale's post on inferred from it unreasonably or not. Another circle that won't be squared.
David's first paragraph sounds overly defensive. Why does an article about the Irish border need to start with a reassurance that Brexit really, really, really will happen?
Because far too many don't recognise that truth and are more interested in dreaming up impractical and ineffective efforts to stop it than they are in dealing with the consequences of it.
It's rather like trying to work out how to get back into the plane rather than how to open the parachute.
You're in complete denial. Brexit is not a law of physics. It is the weakest link in this chain and it can and will break first.
You think I'm in denial? You're still trying to win the referendum!
The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.
The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.
The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
We do know what we want on regulatory equivalence. We want it to be accepted that the FSA remains an equivalent body so that all businesses regulated by it are free to trade through the EU as they are now. We know what we want on trade. We want free trade with no tariffs and the minimum of paperwork. If we achieve all those things the Irish border becomes less of an issue. If we don't, because the EU won't agree, then it becomes more of an issue but the idea that the Irish border can be sorted in isolation from the overall relationship is just plain stupid.
I hope I wasn't the only one who played an impromptu game of 'which Irish counties do I not recognise the name of'? (For the record: Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath, Longford, Westmeath, Offaly, Laois, Carlow, Wicklow, Wexford, Waterford - is that good or bad?)
It's more embarrassing a game when you play it with your own country, and you're like 'Tyne and Wear is an actual county now?'
From Robert Peston's blog. Astonishing and at the same time unsurprising that the Cabinet has not even discussed what it wants from the Brexit negotiations, let alone come to a view:
In the words of a senior member of the cabinet, it is a scandal that there has never been a cabinet discussion about what kind of access we want to the EU’s market once we leave, what kind of regulatory and supervisory regime should then be in place to ensure a level playing field for EU and UK businesses, and - don’t gasp - how much we might actually pay to the EU as the so-called divorce bill.
In the absence of a settled government position on these most basic of our Brexit demands, it is little short of a miracle that the leaked draft of a possible EU council statement actually holds out the possibility of the EU itself beginning to mull the form of possible trade and transition deals with us.
David's first paragraph sounds overly defensive. Why does an article about the Irish border need to start with a reassurance that Brexit really, really, really will happen?
Because the die is cast. A50 has been invoked, and the EU has taken us at our word.
The Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
Whether the UK position on regulatory equivalence should be settled in advance of negotiation it doesn't change the fact that the negotiation needs to happen before the Irish border question can be settled. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the EU to say that they won't negotiate on trade until they are clear about the UK position on fundamental questions underpinning that negotiation. That might actually force the UK Government to be a bit more committal and make progress.
But they aren't. With the result that many within the Govt/Tory party are just saying, let's not bother and go straight to no deal since that's what's going to happen (they say).
Yes, I agree. In practice, I suspect the key issues right now for the EU27 are payments and citizens' rights. If those are sorted, we'll move to Stage Two. The Irish border can be fudged for a while longer.
I think we've reached agreement!
Depends on the reasons why it was put in the agreement in the first place, I guess, and assuming it wasn't deliberately put there to create an insurmountable obstacle that would destabilise the UK Govt and lead to reversal of the Brexit decision!
If it was done on the insistence of the Republic then I would suggest that they've long since realised that they've probably made a mistake on that and could do with a way to climb down from it. I imagine that the thinking was that a trade deal was unlikely to be concluded before date of departure, so they wanted some special circumstances in place regardless. But it is now looking like that isn't realistic and it's all dependent on a trade deal. But the proposed transition period gives them breathing space.
That's actually kind of brilliant. The comments immediately criticise reference to the North as leaver territory - outside the big city heartlands which were Remain, I confess I don't know if in general it is more leavey.
Yes, I agree. In practice, I suspect the key issues right now for the EU27 are payments and citizens' rights. If those are sorted, we'll move to Stage Two. The Irish border can be fudged for a while longer.
Brexit unavoidably stirs up a hornet's nest over the Irish border. I think it will have to go back to a de facto revisit of the Good Friday Agreement with cross-border and cross-community working parties. It will be a bit easier if we have a transition period.
David's first paragraph sounds overly defensive. Why does an article about the Irish border need to start with a reassurance that Brexit really, really, really will happen?
Because the die is cast. A50 has been invoked, and the EU has taken us at our word.
"That’s far from certain as the two sides continue to talk at cross purposes, becoming irritated with each other in the process as neither understands why the other won’t be reasonable. It’s a microcosm of why the difference in philosophical understanding of what the EU is propelled Britain to leave in the first place."
Precisely, David. This is what I've been saying for months.
I see the point, but there is another angle to it. My parents, WWC in their seventies, were definitely drawn to the Brexit line. If I hadn't put the case for staying in to them they might well have voted out. My children on the other hand simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to leave the EU. This is quite literal. I couldn't explain to them what the arguments on either side of the debate were. Had I wanted to persuade them to vote leave I would have not had any idea of how to even start persuading them.
I am beginning to doubt whether the collective efforts of the supporters of Brexit are even up to the task of actually getting us out. But let's assume they manage it. Support for Brexit only just made it to a majority last year. Real life usually disappoints expectations. And as the older voters drop off the register support for the EU will grow. We'll be back in soon enough.
This is a very telling point. Brexit will be increasingly blamed for a whole series of woes, including some for which it is not really responible (see Monarch), just as the EU has for many years. The long term result of the Brexiteers' efforts will be UK fully in the EU - Euro , Schengen and all.
Of course, quite a few leave voters will have shuffled off this mortal coil by then, so maybe they'll not live to see it.
Perhaps, but in general, countries go their separate ways, once they leave bigger political entities.
You were born English, as was I - the first prize in the lottery of life - and we are both patriots.
Of course, if you wished to renounce it and move abroad and take up a new citizenship, I'm sure you could do so. What I object to is imposition of foreign citizenship upon me without my consent, and the consequent judicial suzerainty upon these islands, which is what, I fear, the EU parliament via the ECJ wishes to continue to do post-Brexit, and then be asked to cry crocodile tears when that ceases to be the case 25 years later.
Absolutely extraordinary. Why is the EU foreign to you but the UK is not? The implication of your logic is that the answer is the latter is dominated by England and the former is not.
Is it even worth my time attempting to respond to this question, William?
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
It is a very narrow sort of nationalism that cannot separate the English Conservative party from Britishness. It excludes the traditions of the other home nations in large part, but also the long history of English radicalism (of which Corbynism is the current manifestation) and significant numbers of BME Britons.
Most importantly it excludes the 48% of Britons that voted Remain, implicitly making out that they are not patriotic. Such a narrow Red, White and Blue Brexit is never going to unify the country.
If you don't know what you want you are in no position to negotiate.
Yes, there's a difference between saying "I want X but I might settle for N% of X" (a normal negotiating stance) and "I may want X, but then again I might want Y, though ideally I'd prefer Z, which I know you can't give me", which just irritates the hell out of who you're talking to.
The issue of self-determination which we've been discussing over several threads is quite elusive, and I don't think that many of us are totally consistent. Take Crimea. Virtually everyone agrees that (1) it was unambiguously assigned to Ukraine by Kruschev and (2) people in Crimea most prefer to be part of Russia, although a minority vehemently disagree. Do support the right of Crimeans to separate from Ukraine (even if we don't think their referendum was kosher, would we support a carefully-conducted one?)? What about bit of the rest of Ukraine that might agree? What about bits of Northern Ireland that might like to transfer south?
Part of the problem is that people elsewhere in a country (Spain, the UK, Ukraine) feel intense attachment to the whole integrated country - a bit on the lines that Casino has passionately expressed. They are very upset at bits of the country - Scotland, parts of Ulster, maybe Cornwall - drifting off. Do they get a say, or is it purely a matter for people living in the bit that might decide to split? On the whole, governments feel that lots of little countries splitting off are a nuisance, so places like Catalonia find they don't get much foreign support.
The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.
The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.
The Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
Whether the UK position on regulatory equivalence should be settled in advance of negotiation it doesn't change the fact that the negotiation needs to happen before the Irish border question can be settled. So it would be perfectly reasonable for the EU to say that they won't negotiate on trade until they are clear about the UK position on fundamental questions underpinning that negotiation. That might actually force the UK Government to be a bit more committal and make progress.
But they aren't. With the result that many within the Govt/Tory party are just saying, let's not bother and go straight to no deal since that's what's going to happen (they say).
Yes, I agree. In practice, I suspect the key issues right now for the EU27 are payments and citizens' rights. If those are sorted, we'll move to Stage Two. The Irish border can be fudged for a while longer.
Both sides seem to edging towards agreement on those two issues.
As I said yesterday, time to give Northern Ireland to Eire, it is the only solution, and solves a lot of other non Brexit problems too.
Most of its inhabitants don't want to be part of Eire.
Correct. But the grievances which created Ireland were, basically, grievances against Little England. Those grievances are now shared, 100 years later, by the rest of the union - including the unionists in NI. Brexit is Little England taking the piss, as Little England does when it thinks it can get away with it.
The solution is really very simple. Little England departs from the union and goes its own way, and has a hard border with the rest of the Reunited Kingdom.
If you don't know what you want you are in no position to negotiate.
Yes, there's a difference between saying "I want X but I might settle for N% of X" (a normal negotiating stance) and "I may want X, but then again I might want Y, though ideally I'd prefer Z, which I know you can't give me", which just irritates the hell out of who you're talking to.
The issue of self-determination which we've been discussing over several threads is quite elusive, and I don't think that many of us are totally consistent. Take Crimea. Virtually everyone agrees that (1) it was unambiguously assigned to Ukraine by Kruschev and (2) people in Crimea most prefer to be part of Russia, although a minority vehemently disagree. Do support the right of Crimeans to separate from Ukraine (even if we don't think their referendum was kosher, would we support a carefully-conducted one?)? What about bit of the rest of Ukraine that might agree? What about bits of Northern Ireland that might like to transfer south?
Part of the problem is that people elsewhere in a country (Spain, the UK, Ukraine) feel intense attachment to the whole integrated country - a bit on the lines that Casino has passionately expressed. They are very upset at bits of the country - Scotland, parts of Ulster, maybe Cornwall - drifting off. Do they get a say, or is it purely a matter for people living in the bit that might decide to split? On the whole, governments feel that lots of little countries splitting off are a nuisance, so places like Catalonia find they don't get much foreign support.
I read somewhere once that there is also particular resentment in Spain about Catalonia because some of the arguments are based around Madrid spending "rich Catalonia's" money. When part of the reason why Catalonia is rich is because Madrid consciously based a lot of Spain's industrial strength within that region.
At least within the UK, whatever people outside the respective countries think of Scottish/Welsh/NI independence, nobody thinks that they are running off with all the country's resources, especially resources that they think were partly gifted to them. Even oil is seen as a bit of a double edged sword. As we know some Scottish nationalists argue vociferously differently on that point, but those on the other side of the argument generally I think reject their claims out of genuine sincerity of belief.
As I said yesterday, time to give Northern Ireland to Eire, it is the only solution, and solves a lot of other non Brexit problems too.
Most of its inhabitants don't want to be part of Eire.
If we wish to expel any part of the UK that is a net recipient of public spending, then presumably Sheffield would have to go too.
It isn’t about net spending.
Show me how many terrorists Sheffield has produced and the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Sheffielders.
You and I know both know are fewer than Northern Ireland.
Plus we don’t promote blind sectarianism either.
I don't know how many terrorists Sheffield has produced over the years. But, your logic suggests we should be expelling those districts that produce Islamist terrorists from the UK, like Luton, Bradford, Tower Hamlets.
As I said yesterday, time to give Northern Ireland to Eire, it is the only solution, and solves a lot of other non Brexit problems too.
Most of its inhabitants don't want to be part of Eire.
Correct. But the grievances which created Ireland were, basically, grievances against Little England. Those grievances are now shared, 100 years later, by the rest of the union - including the unionists in NI. Brexit is Little England taking the piss, as Little England does when it thinks it can get away with it.
The solution is really very simple. Little England departs from the union and goes its own way, and has a hard border with the rest of the Reunited Kingdom.
Move the ReUK parliament to Belfast.
Ireland rejoins the union.
Except Wales also voted Leave.
I challenge you to go to Cardiff and call the Welsh, Little Englanders, especially on a Six Nations weekend.
As I said yesterday, time to give Northern Ireland to Eire, it is the only solution, and solves a lot of other non Brexit problems too.
Most of its inhabitants don't want to be part of Eire.
Correct. But the grievances which created Ireland were, basically, grievances against Little England. Those grievances are now shared, 100 years later, by the rest of the union - including the unionists in NI. Brexit is Little England taking the piss, as Little England does when it thinks it can get away with it.
The solution is really very simple. Little England departs from the union and goes its own way, and has a hard border with the rest of the Reunited Kingdom.
From Robert Peston's blog. Astonishing and at the same time unsurprising that the Cabinet has not even discussed what it wants from the Brexit negotiations, let alone come to a view:
In the words of a senior member of the cabinet, it is a scandal that there has never been a cabinet discussion about what kind of access we want to the EU’s market once we leave, what kind of regulatory and supervisory regime should then be in place to ensure a level playing field for EU and UK businesses, and - don’t gasp - how much we might actually pay to the EU as the so-called divorce bill.
In the absence of a settled government position on these most basic of our Brexit demands, it is little short of a miracle that the leaked draft of a possible EU council statement actually holds out the possibility of the EU itself beginning to mull the form of possible trade and transition deals with us.
As I said yesterday, time to give Northern Ireland to Eire, it is the only solution, and solves a lot of other non Brexit problems too.
Most of its inhabitants don't want to be part of Eire.
Correct. But the grievances which created Ireland were, basically, grievances against Little England. Those grievances are now shared, 100 years later, by the rest of the union - including the unionists in NI. Brexit is Little England taking the piss, as Little England does when it thinks it can get away with it.
The solution is really very simple. Little England departs from the union and goes its own way, and has a hard border with the rest of the Reunited Kingdom.
The Norway-Sweden border is reasonably hard, as noted below. A more encouraging precedent for David's thesis might be the Swiss/French border. There, many border posts are unmanned, and there is just a notice saying that if you have something to declare you should proceed to the next manned border post, with instructions on how to get there. The French (though not, I believe, the Swiss) having border patrol cars which roam around and stop the occasional lorry or car for inspection as they drive away from the border, but basically nobody is bothering much.
The problem is that this relaxed arrangement has quietly evolved and nobody really cares, if only because bringing non-EU goods into Switzerland to smuggle into the EU is not very practical. If anyone did care, they could challenge it successfully under the WTO, and if it was a high-profile agreement not to enforce that border then that's what would probably happen, if only someone like Putin doing it out of mischief.
The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
We do know what we want on regulatory equivalence. We want it to be accepted that the FSA remains an equivalent body so that all businesses regulated by it are free to trade through the EU as they are now. We know what we want on trade. We want free trade with no tariffs and the minimum of paperwork. If we achieve all those things the Irish border becomes less of an issue. If we don't, because the EU won't agree, then it becomes more of an issue but the idea that the Irish border can be sorted in isolation from the overall relationship is just plain stupid.
We have yet to decide whether to prioritise FTAs with the RoW (chlorinated chicken) or with the EU (no chlorinated chicken).
For all that the "we need to remain" line keeps being wheeled out, its not leaving the EU that's the problem, merely the idiotic choice of red lines deployed by the cretin Tory "Negotiators". It was and remains perfectly feasible to leave the EU and not create civil war on Ireland and not bring about the abrupt end of free trade. Its only the intransigence and false reality of Tory hardline nutters that drive those.
The problem is political and its internal Tory politics at that. They want/think/hope that we can restore ourselves to being the engineer to the world, that the world outside the EU is desperate to buy whatever will be left we make after we let BAe shut down, if only the EU sod off we'll be exporting fighter jets and steel and trains and coal on day 1
But as we crawl towards the cliff edge the only response that fuckhead Fox is getting from the rest of the world is "sod off". And that even if India or Australia wanted a free trade deal it would require the same kind of free movement provisions that so horrify them about the EU. Surely a reappraisal is needed by the government - the nutcase division who May has told to get on with the job have failed are failing will continue to fail. As we cannot afford to fail we need to sack the lot of them, announce that after detailed exploration and discussion with the rest of the world the moon on a stick is not an option, so we must forge a compromise deal.
What would be in this deal? We leave the EU. That was the vote, that was the question on the paper. Which didn't ask about the customs union or the EEA. When people bleat about migration or the ECJ the government waves the referendum paper at them and asks where those things were mentioned.
The United Kingdom. The biggest member of a newly re-energised European Free Trade Association, a significant counter-balance to the federalist drive of the EU, still openly trading via membership of the CU and EEA. We regain control of borders, imposing a job in 3 months or you're deported conditions on EU migrants. We breathe life back into farming and fishing by leaving the idiotic CAP and CFP, we invest in longer-term self provision in clean energy and food via a Grow British Eat British policy - but don't starve or run out of power in the meantime.
It could work. Unfortunately we have ZombieMay and the Fuckheads in power. We're doomed.
The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
We do know what we want on regulatory equivalence. We want it to be accepted that the FSA remains an equivalent body so that all businesses regulated by it are free to trade through the EU as they are now. We know what we want on trade. We want free trade with no tariffs and the minimum of paperwork. If we achieve all those things the Irish border becomes less of an issue. If we don't, because the EU won't agree, then it becomes more of an issue but the idea that the Irish border can be sorted in isolation from the overall relationship is just plain stupid.
We have yet to decide whether to prioritise FTAs with the RoW (chlorinated chicken) or with the EU (no chlorinated chicken).
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
We do know what we want on regulatory equivalence. We want it to be accepted that the FSA remains an equivalent body so that all businesses regulated by it are free to trade through the EU as they are now. We know what we want on trade. We want free trade with no tariffs and the minimum of paperwork. If we achieve all those things the Irish border becomes less of an issue. If we don't, because the EU won't agree, then it becomes more of an issue but the idea that the Irish border can be sorted in isolation from the overall relationship is just plain stupid.
We have yet to decide whether to prioritise FTAs with the RoW (chlorinated chicken) or with the EU (no chlorinated chicken).
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
The EU would want to ensure the chlorinated chicken did not get into the EU. The easiest way to do that is to ensure it does not get into the UK. If we don't like that, it will change the kind of arrangement with the EU we have. And that, of course, will affect how the Irish border is policed. But it all depends on us deciding what we want in the first place!
We have yet to decide whether to prioritise FTAs with the RoW (chlorinated chicken) or with the EU (no chlorinated chicken).
Or even to cast off the whole system of trade negotiations altogether and adopt a kind of international freemen-on-the-land approach.
Not going to happen, the British hate freedom.
The British want to own their house, drive their cars where they want and have healthcare on tap. Everything else is negotiable. Admirable in some ways.
Also a generational issue where young people don't have the first two and don't need the third. But that's another discussion.
The Swiss/French border (and presumably all other Swiss borders with EU member states) is underpinned by a Swiss relationship with the EU that our government seems to have rejected for the UK. Clearly, there are solutions to the Irish border question - but as others have observed, they are predicated on what the UK's final relationship with the EU will be. Until the government decides precisely what it wants, there can be no progress on this.
Which makes the EU insistence on this being dealt with as a preliminary issue pretty irrational doesn't it?
No more irrational than us wanting to talk trade without actually knowing precisely what it is we're after.
Until the UK had decided where it stands on regulatory equivalence, discussing the practicalities of how the Irish border will work is pretty pointless.
We do know what we want on regulatory equivalence. We want it to be accepted that the FSA remains an equivalent body so that all businesses regulated by it are free to trade through the EU as they are now. We know what we want on trade. We want free trade with no tariffs and the minimum of paperwork. If we achieve all those things the Irish border becomes less of an issue. If we don't, because the EU won't agree, then it becomes more of an issue but the idea that the Irish border can be sorted in isolation from the overall relationship is just plain stupid.
We have yet to decide whether to prioritise FTAs with the RoW (chlorinated chicken) or with the EU (no chlorinated chicken).
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
If we allow US products produced to lower standars, then we have to accept rules of origin checks on EU/UK borders as part of customs. So back to Ireland (though Dover would have the same issues).
Staying in the Customs Union is the way to keep the wheels turning while we fry the other Brexit fish. We can return to the isdue in a decade or so if it is not working, after all nothing is ever permanent.
Apart from the above, we are simply not in a position to apply customs in 18 months time.
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
1/100
The people with the money (you know, those few who actually pay for the NHS et al) to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
1/100
The people with the money (you know, those few who actually pay for the NHS et al) to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
1/100
When people like John Redwood and IDS demand that the Treasury find the money for Brexit, where should they look for it?
The British want to own their house, drive their cars where they want and have healthcare on tap. Everything else is negotiable. Admirable in some ways.
Also a generational issue where young people don't have the first two and don't need the third. But that's another discussion.
Well, specifically what's happening is that once they own their own house and drive their own car they want to stop anyone else building a house, because it would be out of character with the area and cause traffic congestion when they tried to drive their cars. Which is where the generational issue comes from.
If they valued freedom then this wouldn't matter because even if they got personally annoyed at somebody building a house, they wouldn't want encourage the government to stop them. But they don't.
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
The EU is uneasy about US farming practices because they allow a higher level of infection due to higher intensity stocking, supposedly cancelled by the chlorine wash (it misunderstands the issue to say that it's the chlorine itself that worries the EU: the issue is whether it really always does the job). There is probably some welfare concern underlying the ban (because intensive cages are horrible), but officially it's about consumer protection.
Once chickens produced at what the EU regards as lower standard are in the UK market, the UK will become a funnel for US meat entering the EU, unless they introduce a ban on UK exports to them (which would seriously hurt British agriculture) or we introduce a complex new bureaucratic system to prove that item X containing chicken doesn't contain any American chicken. Both alternatives are horrid for British farmers, which is why the NFU opposes them.
This is an example of a general problem. Whenever we sign a FTA with different standards from the EU ones, we by default block off the EU market, unless we can prove that the goods don't come from a different-standard source. Most industry hates varying standards - ideally they'd like the same standards globally so they could meet them and not worry further.
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
The EU is uneasy about US farming practices because they allow a higher level of infection due to higher intensity stocking, supposedly cancelled by the chlorine wash (it misunderstands the issue to say that it's the chlorine itself that worries the EU: the issue is whether it really always does the job). There is probably some welfare concern underlying the ban (because intensive cages are horrible), but officially it's about consumer protection.
Once chickens produced at what the EU regards as lower standard are in the UK market, the UK will become a funnel for US meat entering the EU, unless they introduce a ban on UK exports to them (which would seriously hurt British agriculture) or we introduce a complex new bureaucratic system to prove that item X containing chicken doesn't contain any American chicken. Both alternatives are horrid for British farmers, which is why the NFU opposes them.
This is an example of a general problem. Whenever we sign a FTA with different standards from the EU ones, we by default block off the EU market, unless we can prove that the goods don't come from a different-standard source. Most industry hates varying standards - ideally they'd like the same standards globally so they could meet them and not worry further.
Hence the big problem with the Irish border. Staying in the Customs Union would solve it at a stroke. But it would make Dr Fox an irrelevance.
Interesting article. The critical thing to understand is that the Irish border isn't a normal one. If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.
The Irish border is the concept that defines Northern Ireland. It's not really an edge. It doesn't matter much which river it follows or what village is on which side of the line. Northern Ireland exists to create a space for a particular group of people in Ireland. A separation is needed to produce the uniqueness of that space. It's almost arbitrary where that separation lies.
The Irish border therefore isn't the potentially bothersome consequence of maintaining territories. It is a concept that one group in north Ireland actively wants and promotes because it defines their identity, and which another group wants to remove because it gets in the way of their identity.
The Good Friday Agreement didn't aim to remove the border. It tried to make it ambiguous, so the first group can still imagine it being there while the second can pretend it no longer exists. Brexit makes the ambiguous explicit.
But Northern Ireland could exist as a state in its own right just as we had West Germany and East Germany until 1990.- indeed prior to 1870 present day Germany was a multitude of states.I am sure that any attempt to hand over Northern Ireland to Eire would result in UDI.
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
The EU is uneasy about US farming practices because they allow a higher level of infection due to higher intensity stocking, supposedly cancelled by the chlorine wash (it misunderstands the issue to say that it's the chlorine itself that worries the EU: the issue is whether it really always does the job). There is probably some welfare concern underlying the ban (because intensive cages are horrible), but officially it's about consumer protection.
Once chickens produced at what the EU regards as lower standard are in the UK market, the UK will become a funnel for US meat entering the EU, unless they introduce a ban on UK exports to them (which would seriously hurt British agriculture) or we introduce a complex new bureaucratic system to prove that item X containing chicken doesn't contain any American chicken. Both alternatives are horrid for British farmers, which is why the NFU opposes them.
This is an example of a general problem. Whenever we sign a FTA with different standards from the EU ones, we by default block off the EU market, unless we can prove that the goods don't come from a different-standard source. Most industry hates varying standards - ideally they'd like the same standards globally so they could meet them and not worry further.
Hence the big problem with the Irish border. Staying in the Customs Union would solve it at a stroke. But it would make Dr Fox an irrelevance.
While I share a name and profession with Dr Fox the Minister, I share little else.
It doesn't inspire me with confidence that his Board of Trade is only one person:
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
The EU is uneasy about US farming practices because they allow a higher level of infection due to higher intensity stocking, supposedly cancelled by the chlorine wash (it misunderstands the issue to say that it's the chlorine itself that worries the EU: the issue is whether it really always does the job). There is probably some welfare concern underlying the ban (because intensive cages are horrible), but officially it's about consumer protection.
Once chickens produced at what the EU regards as lower standard are in the UK market, the UK will become a funnel for US meat entering the EU, unless they introduce a ban on UK exports to them (which would seriously hurt British agriculture) or we introduce a complex new bureaucratic system to prove that item X containing chicken doesn't contain any American chicken. Both alternatives are horrid for British farmers, which is why the NFU opposes them.
This is an example of a general problem. Whenever we sign a FTA with different standards from the EU ones, we by default block off the EU market, unless we can prove that the goods don't come from a different-standard source. Most industry hates varying standards - ideally they'd like the same standards globally so they could meet them and not worry further.
Hence the big problem with the Irish border. Staying in the Customs Union would solve it at a stroke. But it would make Dr Fox an irrelevance.
More precisely staying in the Customs Union removes the remaining practical justification for Brexit. It should be clear by now that leaving the EU will result in an inferior arrangement with the EU, but people still deny that it will also result in a somewhat inferior arrangement with everyone else. They hold to the idea that "having our own trade deals" will somehow substitute for the loss of the EU relationship. They don't realise that if you shadow the EU arrangements and the results are a shadow of those arrangements, you want the shadows to be as close to the originals as possible.
Interesting article. The critical thing to understand is that the Irish border isn't a normal one. If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.
The Irish border is the concept that defines Northern Ireland. It's not really an edge. It doesn't matter much which river it follows or what village is on which side of the line. Northern Ireland exists to create a space for a particular group of people in Ireland. A separation is needed to produce the uniqueness of that space. It's almost arbitrary where that separation lies.
The Irish border therefore isn't the potentially bothersome consequence of maintaining territories. It is a concept that one group in north Ireland actively wants and promotes because it defines their identity, and which another group wants to remove because it gets in the way of their identity.
The Good Friday Agreement didn't aim to remove the border. It tried to make it ambiguous, so the first group can still imagine it being there while the second can pretend it no longer exists. Brexit makes the ambiguous explicit.
But Northern Ireland could exist as a state in its own right just as we had West Germany and East Germany until 1990.- indeed prior to 1870 present day Germany was a multitude of states.I am sure that any attempt to hand over Northern Ireland to Eire would result in UDI.
Opinion polls in NI show the one thing everyone agrees on is that Northern Ireland can't be a state on its own.
It's a tricky issue but I think the way to do this is to agree it is a tricky issue, hand it over to a cross-border, cross-community working group Good Friday style to negotiate over the two year transition period and then put A50 to bed. Agreeing not to find an immediate solution is necessary to get through Article 50, but I think saying, it's too difficult to ever discuss it, will not fly. The times when a Unionist Stormont could decide what's what are gone. I'm open to other arguments however.
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
The EU is uneasy about US farming practices because they allow a higher level of infection due to higher intensity stocking, supposedly cancelled by the chlorine wash (it misunderstands the issue to say that it's the chlorine itself that worries the EU: the issue is whether it really always does the job). There is probably some welfare concern underlying the ban (because intensive cages are horrible), but officially it's about consumer protection.
Once chickens produced at what the EU regards as lower standard are in the UK market, the UK will become a funnel for US meat entering the EU, unless they introduce a ban on UK exports to them (which would seriously hurt British agriculture) or we introduce a complex new bureaucratic system to prove that item X containing chicken doesn't contain any American chicken. Both alternatives are horrid for British farmers, which is why the NFU opposes them.
This is an example of a general problem. Whenever we sign a FTA with different standards from the EU ones, we by default block off the EU market, unless we can prove that the goods don't come from a different-standard source. Most industry hates varying standards - ideally they'd like the same standards globally so they could meet them and not worry further.
I seem to remember Mrs May burbling on at one point about how no one in this country, including her own MPs, would be interested in dropping or lowering standards that we have become use to via EU over the years.
Poppy cock of course, as we will no doubt find out.
Interesting article. The critical thing to understand is that the Irish border isn't a normal one. If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.
The Irish border is the concept that defines Northern Ireland. It's not really an edge. It doesn't matter much which river it follows or what village is on which side of the line. Northern Ireland exists to create a space for a particular group of people in Ireland. A separation is needed to produce the uniqueness of that space. It's almost arbitrary where that separation lies.
The Irish border therefore isn't the potentially bothersome consequence of maintaining territories. It is a concept that one group in north Ireland actively wants and promotes because it defines their identity, and which another group wants to remove because it gets in the way of their identity.
The Good Friday Agreement didn't aim to remove the border. It tried to make it ambiguous, so the first group can still imagine it being there while the second can pretend it no longer exists. Brexit makes the ambiguous explicit.
But Northern Ireland could exist as a state in its own right just as we had West Germany and East Germany until 1990.- indeed prior to 1870 present day Germany was a multitude of states.I am sure that any attempt to hand over Northern Ireland to Eire would result in UDI.
Opinion polls in NI show the one thing everyone agrees on is that Northern Ireland can't be a state on its own.
It's a tricky issue but I think the way to do this is to agree it is a tricky issue, hand it over to a cross-border, cross-community working group Good Friday style to negotiate over the two year transition period and then put A50 to bed. Agreeing not to find an immediate solution is necessary to get through Article 50, but I think saying, it's too difficult to ever discuss it, will not fly. The times when a Unionist Stormont could decide what's what are gone. I'm open to other arguments however.
I do recall hardline Unionists like Ian Paisley referring to the UDI option back in the mid-1970s when the troubles were at their peak.
David's first paragraph sounds overly defensive. Why does an article about the Irish border need to start with a reassurance that Brexit really, really, really will happen?
Because far too many don't recognise that truth and are more interested in dreaming up impractical and ineffective efforts to stop it than they are in dealing with the consequences of it.
It's rather like trying to work out how to get back into the plane rather than how to open the parachute.
You're in complete denial. Brexit is not a law of physics. It is the weakest link in this chain and it can and will break first.
You think I'm in denial? You're still trying to win the referendum!
It's just occurred to me that, as before the General Election, we have 'the Herdson post' to look forward to. The moment when Brexit will officially be declared dead.
I am British to my core; I bleed red, white and blue. These islands, our people, our way of life, and what we stand for, under our flag, mean everything to me. Everything.
When I read this I hear it in Alan Partridge's voice.
Casino to threaten to leave the country if Corbyn gets in:
Interesting article. The critical thing to understand is that the Irish border isn't a normal one. If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.
The Irish border is the concept that defines Northern Ireland. It's not really an edge. It doesn't matter much which river it follows or what village is on which side of the line. Northern Ireland exists to create a space for a particular group of people in Ireland. A separation is needed to produce the uniqueness of that space. It's almost arbitrary where that separation lies.
The Irish border therefore isn't the potentially bothersome consequence of maintaining territories. It is a concept that one group in north Ireland actively wants and promotes because it defines their identity, and which another group wants to remove because it gets in the way of their identity.
The Good Friday Agreement didn't aim to remove the border. It tried to make it ambiguous, so the first group can still imagine it being there while the second can pretend it no longer exists. Brexit makes the ambiguous explicit.
But Northern Ireland could exist as a state in its own right just as we had West Germany and East Germany until 1990.- indeed prior to 1870 present day Germany was a multitude of states.I am sure that any attempt to hand over Northern Ireland to Eire would result in UDI.
Opinion polls in NI show the one thing everyone agrees on is that Northern Ireland can't be a state on its own.
It's a tricky issue but I think the way to do this is to agree it is a tricky issue, hand it over to a cross-border, cross-community working group Good Friday style to negotiate over the two year transition period and then put A50 to bed. Agreeing not to find an immediate solution is necessary to get through Article 50, but I think saying, it's too difficult to ever discuss it, will not fly. The times when a Unionist Stormont could decide what's what are gone. I'm open to other arguments however.
I do recall hardline Unionists like Ian Paisley referring to the UDI option back in the mid-1970s when the troubles were at their peak.
This is an extract from a Times report on something similar:
Interesting article. The critical thing to understand is that the Irish border isn't a normal one. If you stand on the banks of the Rhine you can point to the other side and say, that's France, this is Germany. Over there they are French, on this side they are German. The border is the edge between territories.
The Irish border is the concept that defines Northern Ireland. It's not really an edge. It doesn't matter much which river it follows or what village is on which side of the line. Northern Ireland exists to create a space for a particular group of people in Ireland. A separation is needed to produce the uniqueness of that space. It's almost arbitrary where that separation lies.
The Irish border therefore isn't the potentially bothersome consequence of maintaining territories. It is a concept that one group in north Ireland actively wants and promotes because it defines their identity, and which another group wants to remove because it gets in the way of their identity.
The Good Friday Agreement didn't aim to remove the border. It tried to make it ambiguous, so the first group can still imagine it being there while the second can pretend it no longer exists. Brexit makes the ambiguous explicit.
But Northern Ireland could exist as a state in its own right just as we had West Germany and East Germany until 1990.- indeed prior to 1870 present day Germany was a multitude of states.I am sure that any attempt to hand over Northern Ireland to Eire would result in UDI.
Opinion polls in NI show the one thing everyone agrees on is that Northern Ireland can't be a state on its own.
It's a tricky issue but I think the way to do this is to agree it is a tricky issue, hand it over to a cross-border, cross-community working group Good Friday style to negotiate over the two year transition period and then put A50 to bed. Agreeing not to find an immediate solution is necessary to get through Article 50, but I think saying, it's too difficult to ever discuss it, will not fly. The times when a Unionist Stormont could decide what's what are gone. I'm open to other arguments however.
I do recall hardline Unionists like Ian Paisley referring to the UDI option back in the mid-1970s when the troubles were at their peak.
This is an extract from a Times report on something similar:
Just as a matter of clarification, why would it matter to the EU if the UK allowed Chlorinated chicken to be imported from America? It can't be a consumer protection concern for them so I can only see possibly using the argument that allowing lower standards for American imported goods would disadvantage EU competitors in the UK market, but there must be thousands of products where that happens at the moment. Nobody thinks that clothing goods produced in Asia for import to the UK are produced to the same welfare standards as EU produced products, do they? Or do they just pretend they are?
The EU is uneasy about US farming practices because they allow a higher level of infection due to higher intensity stocking, supposedly cancelled by the chlorine wash (it misunderstands the issue to say that it's the chlorine itself that worries the EU: the issue is whether it really always does the job). There is probably some welfare concern underlying the ban (because intensive cages are horrible), but officially it's about consumer protection.
Once chickens produced at what the EU regards as lower standard are in the UK market, the UK will become a funnel for US meat entering the EU, unless they introduce a ban on UK exports to them (which would seriously hurt British agriculture) or we introduce a complex new bureaucratic system to prove that item X containing chicken doesn't contain any American chicken. Both alternatives are horrid for British farmers, which is why the NFU opposes them.
This is an example of a general problem. Whenever we sign a FTA with different standards from the EU ones, we by default block off the EU market, unless we can prove that the goods don't come from a different-standard source. Most industry hates varying standards - ideally they'd like the same standards globally so they could meet them and not worry further.
Hence the big problem with the Irish border. Staying in the Customs Union would solve it at a stroke. But it would make Dr Fox an irrelevance.
While I share a name and profession with Dr Fox the Minister, I share little else.
It doesn't inspire me with confidence that his Board of Trade is only one person:
I'd envisage this no deal analysis, if it exists, would show NI would take a big hit along with Scotland & London. Very inflammatory DEXU FOI response:
" In response to a subsequent Freedom of Information request, the department yesterday said it would neither confirm nor deny it had undertaken such analysis because to do so could undermine the Brussels talks and provoke a “reactionary” response from stakeholders north of the Border, which could damage Britain’s economy. "
I'd envisage this no deal analysis, if it exists, would show NI would take a big hit along with Scotland & London. Very inflammatory DEXU FOI response:
" In response to a subsequent Freedom of Information request, the department yesterday said it would neither confirm nor deny it had undertaken such analysis because to do so could undermine the Brussels talks and provoke a “reactionary” response from stakeholders north of the Border, which could damage Britain’s economy. "
Richard CorbettVerified account @RCorbettMEP 6h6 hours ago More Anonymous Cabinet minister said “If we stop #Brexit we destroy the party, if we go ahead with it we destroy the country” What do you prefer?
I'd envisage this no deal analysis, if it exists, would show NI would take a big hit along with Scotland & London. Very inflammatory DEXU FOI response:
" In response to a subsequent Freedom of Information request, the department yesterday said it would neither confirm nor deny it had undertaken such analysis because to do so could undermine the Brussels talks and provoke a “reactionary” response from stakeholders north of the Border, which could damage Britain’s economy. "
I'd envisage this no deal analysis, if it exists, would show NI would take a big hit along with Scotland & London. Very inflammatory DEXU FOI response:
" In response to a subsequent Freedom of Information request, the department yesterday said it would neither confirm nor deny it had undertaken such analysis because to do so could undermine the Brussels talks and provoke a “reactionary” response from stakeholders north of the Border, which could damage Britain’s economy. "
Richard CorbettVerified account @RCorbettMEP 6h6 hours ago More Anonymous Cabinet minister said “If we stop #Brexit we destroy the party, if we go ahead with it we destroy the country” What do you prefer?
It'll certainly destroy May, as Europe has done to every recent Tory PM.
Comments
1/100
This isn't an argument the British government is having with the EU, it's an argument the British government is having with itself. It wants two contradictory things. So on the one hand a concession to itself would invite would be a defeat that would invite itself to be intransigent in the future, but on the other it would be a huge, triumphant victory for Britain. Who'd have thought the plucky Brits could defeat a former great power on whose empire the sun never set?
But they aren't. They are setting up the NI border issue as a road block, when the real road block should be agreement on core negotiating principles. With the result that many within the Govt/Tory party are just saying, let's not bother and go straight to no deal since that's what's going to happen (they say).
100/1
It's more embarrassing a game when you play it with your own country, and you're like 'Tyne and Wear is an actual county now?'
If we wish to expel any part of the UK that is a net recipient of public spending, then presumably Sheffield would have to go too.
In the words of a senior member of the cabinet, it is a scandal that there has never been a cabinet discussion about what kind of access we want to the EU’s market once we leave, what kind of regulatory and supervisory regime should then be in place to ensure a level playing field for EU and UK businesses, and - don’t gasp - how much we might actually pay to the EU as the so-called divorce bill.
In the absence of a settled government position on these most basic of our Brexit demands, it is little short of a miracle that the leaked draft of a possible EU council statement actually holds out the possibility of the EU itself beginning to mull the form of possible trade and transition deals with us.
Depends on the reasons why it was put in the agreement in the first place, I guess, and assuming it wasn't deliberately put there to create an insurmountable obstacle that would destabilise the UK Govt and lead to reversal of the Brexit decision!
If it was done on the insistence of the Republic then I would suggest that they've long since realised that they've probably made a mistake on that and could do with a way to climb down from it. I imagine that the thinking was that a trade deal was unlikely to be concluded before date of departure, so they wanted some special circumstances in place regardless. But it is now looking like that isn't realistic and it's all dependent on a trade deal. But the proposed transition period gives them breathing space.
Most importantly it excludes the 48% of Britons that voted Remain, implicitly making out that they are not patriotic. Such a narrow Red, White and Blue Brexit is never going to unify the country.
The issue of self-determination which we've been discussing over several threads is quite elusive, and I don't think that many of us are totally consistent. Take Crimea. Virtually everyone agrees that (1) it was unambiguously assigned to Ukraine by Kruschev and (2) people in Crimea most prefer to be part of Russia, although a minority vehemently disagree. Do support the right of Crimeans to separate from Ukraine (even if we don't think their referendum was kosher, would we support a carefully-conducted one?)? What about bit of the rest of Ukraine that might agree? What about bits of Northern Ireland that might like to transfer south?
Part of the problem is that people elsewhere in a country (Spain, the UK, Ukraine) feel intense attachment to the whole integrated country - a bit on the lines that Casino has passionately expressed. They are very upset at bits of the country - Scotland, parts of Ulster, maybe Cornwall - drifting off. Do they get a say, or is it purely a matter for people living in the bit that might decide to split? On the whole, governments feel that lots of little countries splitting off are a nuisance, so places like Catalonia find they don't get much foreign support.
Show me how many terrorists Sheffield has produced and the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Sheffielders.
You and I know both know are fewer than Northern Ireland.
Plus we don’t promote blind sectarianism either.
The solution is really very simple. Little England departs from the union and goes its own way, and has a hard border with the rest of the Reunited Kingdom.
Move the ReUK parliament to Belfast.
Ireland rejoins the union.
At least within the UK, whatever people outside the respective countries think of Scottish/Welsh/NI independence, nobody thinks that they are running off with all the country's resources, especially resources that they think were partly gifted to them. Even oil is seen as a bit of a double edged sword. As we know some Scottish nationalists argue vociferously differently on that point, but those on the other side of the argument generally I think reject their claims out of genuine sincerity of belief.
I challenge you to go to Cardiff and call the Welsh, Little Englanders, especially on a Six Nations weekend.
The problem is political and its internal Tory politics at that. They want/think/hope that we can restore ourselves to being the engineer to the world, that the world outside the EU is desperate to buy whatever will be left we make after we let BAe shut down, if only the EU sod off we'll be exporting fighter jets and steel and trains and coal on day 1
But as we crawl towards the cliff edge the only response that fuckhead Fox is getting from the rest of the world is "sod off". And that even if India or Australia wanted a free trade deal it would require the same kind of free movement provisions that so horrify them about the EU. Surely a reappraisal is needed by the government - the nutcase division who May has told to get on with the job have failed are failing will continue to fail. As we cannot afford to fail we need to sack the lot of them, announce that after detailed exploration and discussion with the rest of the world the moon on a stick is not an option, so we must forge a compromise deal.
What would be in this deal? We leave the EU. That was the vote, that was the question on the paper. Which didn't ask about the customs union or the EEA. When people bleat about migration or the ECJ the government waves the referendum paper at them and asks where those things were mentioned.
The United Kingdom. The biggest member of a newly re-energised European Free Trade Association, a significant counter-balance to the federalist drive of the EU, still openly trading via membership of the CU and EEA. We regain control of borders, imposing a job in 3 months or you're deported conditions on EU migrants. We breathe life back into farming and fishing by leaving the idiotic CAP and CFP, we invest in longer-term self provision in clean energy and food via a Grow British Eat British policy - but don't starve or run out of power in the meantime.
It could work. Unfortunately we have ZombieMay and the Fuckheads in power. We're doomed.
Also a generational issue where young people don't have the first two and don't need the third. But that's another discussion.
Staying in the Customs Union is the way to keep the wheels turning while we fry the other Brexit fish. We can return to the isdue in a decade or so if it is not working, after all nothing is ever permanent.
Apart from the above, we are simply not in a position to apply customs in 18 months time.
1/100
If they valued freedom then this wouldn't matter because even if they got personally annoyed at somebody building a house, they wouldn't want encourage the government to stop them. But they don't.
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000/1
Anyway, the friend and ally of Rome who then invaded Gaul and came into conflict with Caesar was Ariovistus.
951 years ago today....
Once chickens produced at what the EU regards as lower standard are in the UK market, the UK will become a funnel for US meat entering the EU, unless they introduce a ban on UK exports to them (which would seriously hurt British agriculture) or we introduce a complex new bureaucratic system to prove that item X containing chicken doesn't contain any American chicken. Both alternatives are horrid for British farmers, which is why the NFU opposes them.
This is an example of a general problem. Whenever we sign a FTA with different standards from the EU ones, we by default block off the EU market, unless we can prove that the goods don't come from a different-standard source. Most industry hates varying standards - ideally they'd like the same standards globally so they could meet them and not worry further.
It doesn't inspire me with confidence that his Board of Trade is only one person:
https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/918443885239701504
But that is not so silly as meeting the Americans to discuss trade without taking anyone who knows about the subject:
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/918388447068545024
This does not bode well, and cutting him out of the loop via an EU Customs Union very sensible, as well as a necessity for pragmatic reasons.
They're in the process of setting up the Board which was just announced. It will include more than one person when it is fully set up.
It's a tricky issue but I think the way to do this is to agree it is a tricky issue, hand it over to a cross-border, cross-community working group Good Friday style to negotiate over the two year transition period and then put A50 to bed. Agreeing not to find an immediate solution is necessary to get through Article 50, but I think saying, it's too difficult to ever discuss it, will not fly. The times when a Unionist Stormont could decide what's what are gone. I'm open to other arguments however.
Poppy cock of course, as we will no doubt find out.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/55211-wilsons-fears-northern-ireland-udi.html
Mind you, Harold Wilson also thought by this stage that the security service was trying to kill him.
Good afternoon, everybody.
" In response to a subsequent Freedom of Information request, the department yesterday said it would neither confirm nor deny it had undertaken such analysis because to do so could undermine the Brussels talks and provoke a “reactionary” response from stakeholders north of the Border, which could damage Britain’s economy. "
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15596498.No_deal_Brexit____to_trigger_a_new_vote_on_Union_____says_Scotland___s_leading_EU_expert/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIctkOfBVgY
The British ruling class is eating itself; the political leadership of the country is falling apart.
https://coles-books.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/w/h/whoopi.jpg
More
Anonymous Cabinet minister said
“If we stop #Brexit we destroy the party, if we go ahead with it we destroy the country”
What do you prefer?
(Yes, I know you didn't mean it that way!)
https://twitter.com/LeBwff/status/919181029117657088
'Ruth Davidson: Tory party needs to man up'
https://tinyurl.com/yc8ms95r