UKH

like I think most people on here I voted to remain. But it’s become more and more clear that the nation and parliament is divided and entrenched more or less 50:50. Whoever wins the nation will be bitterly divided for decades to come. Could Brexit with a customs union be an acceptable compromise? For me the worst consequences of Brexit, particularly with no deal would be crippling our manufacturing industries which are so integrated with Europe, this would be minimised by a customs union whilst giving the Brexiteers what they seem to want most re freedom of movement. Also no need for a backstop. The biggest restriction on this outcome in parliament may be that it’s Corbyn’s policy

Isn't that asking for one of the four indivisible freedoms though? 

You’d still need the backstop or border infrastructure in NI/RoI border. The border controls are there to check that imports have paid relevant tariffs *and* meet regulatory requirements.

No. A customs union would make tariffs irrelevant. Also the EU have suggested a customs union as an alternative to the backstop 

It would make tariffs irrelevant but it’s not all / only about tariffs. Regulatory compliance would still be an issue. Eg does food which is being imported comply with EU  food standards etc

if you have a reference, it would be great. The backstop requires NI to follow EU rules on things like good standards as well as the UK being in the CU. 

Yes of course that’s a given, having a customs union would preclude free trade with rest of the world and hence unregulated US imports. At the moment we don’t open all the shipping containers from China to check if the CE marks are valid. That comes down to trading standards etc in each country 

Is that not what a customs union is?  you accept that goods allowed to enter one territory are of equivalent standards (by having common standards)

Yes. that's why the brexiteers don't like it

A customs union is only about tariffs.

I work for a number of multinational manufacturing companies. Avoiding tariffs would remove the main obstacle to the integrated supply chains they rely on. There are other existing procedures for ensuring components and sub assemblies etc comply with European standards

You’re mixing 3 different things here: tariffs, regulatory compliance, and checking / enforcement.

Having a customs union would mean we could not have an agreement with the US on tariffs, but we could reach trading agreements with them on other things. E.g. we would be able to agree that we’d allow imports of chlorinated chicken for example. If we did that, the EU we need some way of checking that chlorinated chicken wasn’t being imported from NI to EU. That’s either border infrastructure or regulatory alignment.

We don’t check all containers coming in from China but we do check some, and that’s the point. 

The issue on the NI/RoI border is more about food, live animals and plants (phytosanitary checks) which is harder.

Also the fact that the EU are very unlikely to agree to the UK having a say in Trade Deals which is what Corbyn wants.

But very small beer compared to the UK’s car, aerospace and similar industries in terms of jobs and earnings 

It would be an acceptable compromise but won’t happen because there are fanatics at the wheel.

There’s nobody at the wheel

If you put it in a vice, you can cram five tins of Golden Virginia into one tin

And its precisely the attitude you've shown there that has made them dig their heels in and refuse to compromise.

As I've said many times, the response of many remainers to the referendum has been a textbook example of how to lose friends and alienate people. If you wanted Brexiteers to compromise then you should have spent the last 2.5 years showing a bit of humility, acknowledging some of the failings of the EU and recognise that maybe leavers aren't the bunch of ignorant, racist bigots that so many like to portray them as.

Instead we've seen nothing of the sort which is precisely why so many leavers don't trust the motives of remainers one bit and regard any compromise as a backdoor attempt to keep us in the EU.

You may be surprised, but if I listed all the reasons I want to leave then the compromise which would least affect them is to remain in a customs union.

Perhaps if remainers has gone on a charm offensive instead and shown some humility in defeat they might have encouraged a bit of magnanimity in victory from the side who did after all win the referendum, but the remain camp has so alienated leavers that there is no trust left. Yes, there may be fanatics at the leave wheel, but there are also fanatics at the remain wheel and they are just as responsible if we leave without a deal.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

No remainers aren’t to blame. Brexiteers are.

They should take responsibility and try to make it work instead of always scapegoating someone else and sabotaging any deal.

if we leave without a deal it’ll be the fault of those MPs who don’t vote for Teresa May’s deal (whether they are remain or leave) and the fault of those who voted for Brexit.

But not the fault of the remainers.

But frankly I’m not as obsessed as you are at knowing who fault it is: the *only* thing I want is for the UK to sign a withdrawal agreement that protects at the very least E.U. citizens rights in the UK and vice versa. That is my only ask, that they don’t fuck up the lives of innocents.

But even such a minimal request this wretched parliament and government cannot (don’t want to ?) even deliver.

For the rest, if Britain want to shoot themselves in the foot economically, they can knock themselves out. 

That’s not the case, the mantra of most Brexiteers seems to be “just get us out, what part of out don’t you understand?” With no hint of compromise on any sort of relationship with Europe 

Poor old Leavers. I must have imagined "You lost, get over it" shouted in our faces since day one, with zero acknowledgement that this was the slenderest of slender results and not a mandate to drive us off a cliff at full tilt. The accusations of being traitors, enemies of the people, saboteurs to be "dealt with" and worse must have been a hallucination. 

Or maybe if we'd been offered one, actual, definable, guaranteed positive of leaving we'd feel a lot more humility in "defeat" (your language gives you away).

Is a customs union not tied with freedom of movement? I thought that was part of the issue? (I'm a big fan of freedom of movement, so I'd definitely like a customs union if we also get freedom of movement, but it seems at odds with what those who are not in charge want)

Yes but the NI issue isn’t to do with the size of the industry, it’s to do with the impact on the local communities and the possibility of a return to violence.

That's super and lovely for the UK , but what's the benefit for the EU - looks like you want the bits you like and give nothing in return.  Four pillars ring any bells?

  You're not even at this point yet - you haven't agreed the transition arrangements yet! 

Kevin, please read what I wrote again and as you do try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who voted leave and might reasonably have expected their choice to respected without any great fuss, just as every other referendum has been because that's what the government promised.

Then try and objectively think about how the response of the side who actually lost might seem, which from day 1 has been a non stop tyrade of insults, abuse and obstruction.

You might then begin to understand why many leavers feel deeply suspicious of the motives of some remainers, especially when some make no attempt to disguise their real intention of stopping Brexit.

Then you might begin to understand why many Brexiteers have adopted a “just get us out, what part of out don’t you understand?” attitude.

I'm not trying to pursuade you to change your mind on Brexit, I respect the choice you made, but if remainers want to actually persuade leavers to compromise then they couldn't have gone about it in a worse way.

The fact that when a leaver is willing to explain to an audience of almost exclusively remainers, as I did above, where they might have gone wrong and what they could do to pursuade me to compromise and all I get in response is the same tedious, self righteous tyrade of bullsh*t from Rom as he's been spouting since June 24th 2016 simply proves my point about how to lose friends and alienate people.

FFS, if brexiteer want brexit to actually happen, then they have to deliver it, go find a solution to the Irish border, go sign an exit deal with the EU. 

OWN IT AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY instead of blaming everybody else.

If Brexiteers want brexit to happen, all they have to do is to VOTE the WITHDRAWAL agreement. 

You blame remainers despite the fact that it shouldn’t be their job to deliver Brexit, yet they’ve kindly taken up the task. Meanwhile the Brexiteers in parliament do nothing but block it.

The problem you see is that you may not have liked my “self-righteous” tirades, but since 2016 everything you said turned out to be completely, utterly, wrong.

Let’s remind everybody that you were one of those who believe in La-la-land and who were telling us in 2016 that the Germans would come give us everything we wanted because of their trade surplus....

At some point when your judgment is proven to be so wrong, so much, for so long, you should question yourself instead of blaming the world.

Compromise on what ? We don’t even want you to “compromise” we just want you to get on with it, and leave the EU, vote the WA, instead of moan, cry, and blame everybody.

But it seems Brexiteers are incapable on delivering on their own wishes, when they actually know what they want.

If we were able to leave without any great fuss then I wouldn't have much of an issue, but in 2 years we've been unable to leave by the front door, have argued about climbing out of the window and now are on the roof, threatening to jump and break our legs.

Why would I think this is a good idea?

No, the single market is.

You don’t get it do you? A referendum win by a wafer thin majority of those who voted imposing their will on the diametrically opposed other half for the rest of their lives is a recipe for disaster. The Brexiteers would feel the same if they lost. That’s why I posted the customs union for discussion. The rant against this, particularly on behalf of the Brexiteers indicates that there is no hope

did you mean to say:

And its precisely the attitude you've shown there that has made them dig their heels in and refuse to compromise.

As I've said many times, the response of many Brexiters to the referendum has been a textbook example of how to lose friends and alienate people. If you wanted Remainers to compromise then you should have spent the last 2.5 years showing a bit of humility, acknowledging some of the difficulties with Brexit and recognise that maybe remainers aren't the privelidged elite that so many like to portray them as.

Instead we've seen nothing of the sort which is precisely why so many remainers don't trust the motives of Brexiters one bit and regard any compromise as a backdoor attempt to create a very hard Brexit.

You may be surprised, but many remainers see a need for reform in the EU..

Perhaps if Brexiters has gone on a charm offensive instead and shown some magnanimity in victory they might have encouraged a bit of humility in defeat from the side who did after all lose the referendum, but the Brexit camp has so alienated remainers that there is no trust left. Yes, there may be fanatastist at the leave wheel, but there are also fanatics at the remain wheel, and the PM's attempts at brinkmanship and failure to listen may be responsible for us leaving without a deal.

Well?

Yes but didn't the main fanatics behind the Leave campaign simply quit and walk away as soon as the going got real?

You've been sold a pup mate. That's it really.

Personal note - my daughter, well into her 2nd year doing French and German at Uni, has just been told that in the event of no deal her placements abroad - an essential part of her degree - can no longer be guaranteed. She's 21, she worked her socks off getting God knows how many A*s to get to uni, now what should be great days are marred because of the ignorant rabble rousing of one man supported by a bunch  of pygmies, (Fox), shysters (Johnson) and out and out weirdos (JRM and IDS.) Multiply this scenario by any number to get a handle on the real damage you have wrought. What has the EU ever done to you that can compare?

So why don't you just STF up unless you have something constructive to offer, and prepare to come back here in a few months to apologise when 100,000 workers lose their jobs at Airbus, when Nissan move to Europe, when the NHS is cut back because of plummeting Govt revenue, when the fresh produce shelves in supermarkets are empty because of gridlock at the ports ('oooh we didn't realise Dover was quite so busy!'), when patients are queuing  outside pharmacies for medication. 

But in the eyes of the hardened Brexiteer it will all be worth it to "take back control". 

What you mean handing total control back to our own elected government?  Has anyone noticed how our own government operate recently?  Not a pretty picture is it!

The problem is not that remainers did not compromise. The problem is that the remainers who matter (T. May, P. Hammond, A. Rudd, etc) compromised too much. And now the compromise position in the UK debate is a hard brexit where the UK leaves the single market because they cannot come to terms with freedom of movement.

A chunk of the City of London?

A customs union won't help them one bit. They need the single market.

Yes exactly. 

The vote was SO close that Brexit should happen, but only just.  If that supposed "will of the people" (as is so often quoted) is to be followed then we need the softest possible of Brexits.  Out of the union but remaining within the single market, remaining within the customs union, and continuing with free movement of people.

Anyone else's attempt at interpretation of what the "will of the people" is, is simply wrong.

Maybe what Mrs May is do now is go back to the EU and forget her all those red lines she and her party has made up.

She should simply say that the "will of the British people" as defined by the closeness of the referendum was to leave, but only just. Therefore Mr Europe, we'll be leaving but will be staying in the single market/customs union with the free movement of people that implies. No more Irish border/backstop problem.

Europe would be happy (would probably breathe a huge sigh of relief), Ireland would be happy, Scotland would be slightly less miserable and the will of the British people as defined by the referendum would be fully upheld.

Yes there would be some negatives, like paying into the EU coffers but not having so much of a say, and not being able to strike full & independent trade deals with some other countries but surely these are minor problems compared with the shambles we are currently facing? Plus has anyone else tried to do business with the rest of the world. Half of it is a completely corrupt free for all!

You never know, if Mrs May went back with this solution then maybe the EU would grant us some little concessions, like full rights over our fishing areas, or paying less into the EU than we'd have previously thought we needed to. I'm sure they'd be glad to if it solved and smoothed out the bigger issues, turbulence and disruption we are currently dealing with.

The EU has basically said all that is available to us. In fact it’s all completely compatible with the current Withdrawal Agreement.

I'm sorry Kevin but if that's what you think you have completely misunderstood my purpose in posting. I was indicating that I could be persuaded to join a customs union and explained what the impediment to that was.

You can either take the time to try and understand that or not but if you don't you will never persuade anyone.

I wonder if it has occurred to many who still post on Brexit why almost no leavers bother any more? Its certainly not because they have been persuaded to a different point of view. Quite the opposite, views have only become more deeply entrenched and the more hostile to leavers the threads become the more entrenched those attitudes become and the less likely you are to persuade anyone of anything.

You can either accept that or not, ultimately I don't care. I was sincerely trying to explain to you something that I thought would be helpful to you. You seem to dismiss be dismissing it out of hand. Don't be surprised if I can't be bothered to try again and don't be surprised therefore I remain unpersuaded.

I think you are a more reasonable man than most of the hardcore Europhiles on here but if even you can't see why the responses of Rom to my post (who seems to be having an apoplectic fit) are totally counterproductive and only serve to illustrate the point I'm making then its no wonder there is no meeting of minds.

Sorry but that's the last I have to say, I'll leave it now to Rom and others to fulminate until their guts explode.

There's a lot there I don't disagree with. Remain has been woeful since the referendum about understanding and dealing with some of the reasons why people voted they leave. If there is a ever a second referendum with remain on the ballot paper, remain has to articulate what it would do differently if the UK were to stay in the EU to continue to allay some of these concerns. If it didn't it would lose.

But given the narrow margin by which leave won, following the referendum there was little or no effort to talk about the concerns of those that voted remain and it was if 48.1% voters were airbrushed out of the discussion or shaping what 'leave' might look like.

Sorry, what are the benefits of leaving again? All the leavers who can't be bothered to post anymore forgot to mention when they were here.

Maybe a lot of leavers don't know how to type?

I'd have thought the benefits of a customs union were clear - no potential for disruption at the borders, leading to no disruption to many businesses, leading to much lower potential for businesses for move or simply fail; much reduced difficulties with NI/Eire border.  Weighed against this the ability to develop an independent trade policy in principle but, as is increasingly clear, in practice this won't happen to a useful extent.  If you aren't persuaded by these points, it's difficult to know what to say.

You are wrong. The perception you have of arrogant intransigent sneering remainers hardening leavers’ opinions is not reflected in reality. The problem is  in your head, pec.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was...

Ps these results should be a warning to politicians determined to push through a hard Brexit in order to try to prevent their party fracturing. If the aftermath of leaving is a noticeable decline in living standards, then the price the party that pushed Brexit through will have to pay will be ruinous. 

For me the worst thing is loss of freedom of movement but yes, it's the immediate damage to JIT manufacturing and our services sector that makes Britain unstable and dangerous, our near term future very bleak. Damage to the education and research sector I suspect will be a slower burn but with worse long term consequences. Customs union membership largely addresses the manufacturing part of that equation, single market membership the services part (and in combination these address Ireland) and with those of course we get (forced) to keep freedom of movement which helps research/education... works for me but it's not what's coming unless we ditch this nonsense all together.

jk

Not when you consider the history of the border and the simmering conflict which provides the backdrop to their potential disruption and their disproportionate importance to an economically isolated and depressed region of the UK.

jk

I think a customs union does indeed have mileage.  The racists (a fairly large component of Brexiteers though obviously not all of them) primarily want the movement of *people* controlled.  A customs union need not allow free-movement of people.

Curiously this would be the opposite of Switzerland, which has free movement of people (Schengen) but not goods.

There are the "no-dealers", but they are not a majority of anything.

No.

Customs are about goods, immigration is about people.  The two often get conflated (particularly now we have the "Border Force" dealing with all of it), but you can have one without the other (as Switzerland does, though the opposite way round from what is being proposed here).

As a remain voter, there have been times especially from shows like the last leg and in particular one edition of the Mash Report, when I have felt they have been too sickly patronising to the leave voter.  I even had to switch the Mash Report off because it was just being so fecking glib.

But then I have to contrast that with the constant stream of misinformed Facebook memes being shared from names like UK patriots, St George forever, etc and voxpop rants on TV which really only had the word 'wibble' missing from the end.  

Rants which blamed the EU for stuff that wasn't even to to with the EU and would have us leave without a deal because its all their fault etc.

Does the EU agree?

Nothing has mileage if one side or the other says it doesn't.

The problem with this is the issues that need to be addressed are largely domestic and they are not within the power of (non-government) remain campaigners to address, indeed many are caused by government policy. What you're suggesting is effectively that the remain campaign should do what Leave did in '16, promise the undeliverable (because they lack the authority, not because it's impossible) then fail to deliver. To be absolutely clear I think we do have to address the many issues that have come to a head in the brexit debacle, many austerity related but conflating these domestic and foreign policy issues further and not being honest about what is and isn't in our (as remain campaigners) power to fix should we win gets us only right back to here: everyone disappointing and angry with a crisis looming. It might change the nature of the crisis but it won't avert it.

jk

I would have though that the EU would have agreed to any sensible suggestion that didn't involve one of Mrs May's so called crazy and unrealistic 'red lines' that she keeps sticking to. Her red lines were not something we had the option to vote for in the referendum. The decision was a simply to either stay or to leave so heaven knows who in government has interpreted leave as 'we must leave in this way'?

The EU have made their position pretty clear from the outset regarding what is or isn't realistic, take it or leave it. It's our government that can't seem to get it's head around this and they keep on banging on and on about their supposed red lines, like a child asking it's parents for 'sweets now' again and again regardless of the fact that there isn't a sweet shop within 10 miles. Hence we keep on going round and round in circles and everyone suffers.

My charm offensive has mostly involved keeping quiet when in the presence of brexiters (which seems to be most of my relatives and former colleagues and anybody down the pub). Listening to a steady stream of ballochs and knowing not a thing I say can make a difference is very frustrating. Being a remainer is like sitting in the back seat of a car with a 10 year old driving asserting their right to drive based on a letter they sent to Santa Claus. It's very frustrating and VERY frightening. 

Sorry. That's what it feels like.

Yes, there’s without doubt both tribes enjoy their playing to the gallery (the remainer side’s definitely got the best jokes, though...) 

but outside of the echo chambers, the large number of people who don’t follow politics too closely, and look elsewhere for their entertainment and recreation (ie not people posting on this thread), have swung steadily and decisively to a position where most think that the wrong decision was made back in June 2016. That link allows you to track the changes in response over time and over the last year the swing away from Brexit is clear. 

Driving through a disruptive outcome when the public is no longer supportive of it looks like a remarkably high risk strategy to me. If it plays out badly, I think it’s reputationally catastrophic for the Tories; think winter of discontent on steroids, and it took Labour a generation to get over that.

Also don't forget that a lot of those voters who did vote Leave would have voted Leave to stay in the single market/customs union etc.

It was assured by some prominent Leave campaigners that we could have the best of both worlds i.e. that Europe needs us more than we need them so Europe would be banging down our doors to keep us within the free trade area, but would also allow us to go off and strike our own free deals with whoever we liked. Having our cake as it were!

Do you think? I haven't been following this strand of things, but this sounds like a relatively sensible compromise to me. Otherwise it's a no-brainer for the EU to make future trade deals easier to negotiate by being cheerfully willing to make concessions that disproportionately shaft industries that are concentrated in the UK.

Maybe I'm cynical but I suspect that the real issue with customs union is that a lot of the political and media muscle behind brexit has come from free-market obsessives at the far right of the conservative party and is part of a long game to implement slash-and-burn race-to-the-bottom neoliberalism, and that staying in a customs union stymies that by keeping us tied to a more centrist European model with some level of consumer and worker protection built in.

Well you're very restrained, I've told various people down my local they're talking absolute bollox when they bring up stuff like remainers being traitors etc. 

Ah yes the Remain traitors!  Those pesky traitors wanting what's best for jobs, the environment, the economy, security and our general well being.

Yes, given that the backstop basically is a form of customs union.  I very much doubt they would have an issue with making the backstop completely permanent.

There is but one traitor, and it's Cameron, who opened this whole mess up in the first place solely for personal career gain.

This is true.  Quite a lot of Leavers take the view that the EU should never have gone any further than the provisions of the EEC.  I have quite a lot of sympathy for this idea; I am strongly opposed to a federal superstate myself as I believe excessive multiple levels of Government are just pointless, costly bureaucracy for next to no benefit (for the same reason I favour Unitary Authorities over traditional county-borough structures[0]).  However I voted Remain because you simply can't go back in time, we are where we are.

If I could have voted Leave with a guarantee that we would take EEA/EFTA membership, like a sort of Norway or Switzerland-esque arrangement, I probably would have voted Leave[1].  However, I thought that as unlikely (and indeed it has panned out that way) so I voted Remain as a "best of the likely options" choice.

[0] My ideal Governmental structure for the UK would be a federal UK with London as a city state, then unitary authorities for purely local matters with boundaries set based on where people live, work and move around rather than based on historical boundaries - so basically only three levels.

[1] It's my view that the original referendum should have been two-step or AV, rather than just leave/remain it should have been leave/remain *then* if Leave is selected which type of option should be primarily pursued, should it be WTO rules, should it be EEA/EFTA or indeed possibly other options.  And if the selected option were to be unavailable there would be a "rematch" (or priority-based voting, so remove the impossible option and recalculate).

It may be catastrophic for the Tories (it should be). But that doesn't necessarily mean that Labour will benefit. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/01/30/brexit-ind...

I tend to opt for telling them they're selling our country out to Russia for some delusions of Empire, always seems to go down a treat.

There's no point trying to have a reasoned debate with people who don't want to hear it. They all seem to have trouble grasping why I voted for remain when I do a manual job, the shower of idiots they are (we get on pretty well over a lot of stuff but this has definitely caused some friction)

Hopefully it will be catastrophic for both parties, the Tories and for Labour.  Nothing more the country is crying out for right now than a parliament based on putting the UK and it's people first and working together for a common purpose rather than what we have which is two squabbling kids, putting their own desires for power and influence above the needs of the country.

Sadly it will probably stay this way as long as the majority of people either vote for Labour or Conservative, sometimes simply because they have always voted one way, often out of some sort of historic loyalty, perhaps based on some event that happened a long time ago, or down to a simple hatred or fear of the other side, or worse than that - tactical voting to stop the other side getting in. It's a real shame that people can't open their eyes and vote for whoever they believe right now are the best people for our country whichever party they represent. Parliament could become so much more diverse if that were the case.

Hopefully if nothing comes of Brexit, it would be great if we could get some form of political shake up to disrupt the status quo, perhaps meaning that parliament can become more representative, less self serving and enabling it to work together more effectively for the overall good of the country.

The EU have said that the only way to be part of EU Trade Deals is to be part of the EU.  Sort of makes sense really as that is a large part of what the EU is all about.
Corbyn seems to think that the EU will listen to him and agree to what he thinks is a good idea.  However, there doesn't seem to be any indicator that the EU will actually do what Corbyn suggests as it effectively means that UK will have the 'best of both worlds'.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46891257

this thread, and indeed brexit in general highlights the unhelpful human trait of needing to belong to one tribe or another and seeing complex issues in black and white. this is seen in all areas of life, from politics to religion to football, and forces people to become polarized and adopt an "us and them" attitude which entrenches problems.

I voted remain, but can easily see why some of the brexit arguments make sense. on balance though, I voted remain, and can see why other people thought the balance of arguments went the other way and voted leave. why is everyone now adopting a hardline stance of being either a die hard remainer or leaver, whilst the true position of any one person's views on all the multiple and complex issues will inevitably be much more nuanced than that?

In addition, all these people prophesying the potential outcomes of the various brexit scenarios may or may not be right. I would have thought that many of the consequences are dependent on such a wide array of known and unknown factors that being precise about any effect is very difficult. more than that however, how can we possibly predict how "the world" will respond to these changes. we do not exist in a vacuum and the true question is what will our country  look like 5 or 10 years  after brexit when reactions and counter reactions to the upheaval have taken effect? who can possible predict that, and so why are threats and the like bandied about with regards to what "will" happen?

I completely agree with you, and made a difficult decision myself based on the likely outcomes, which as with yourself was also Remain.  I have come across Leavers who also did the same.  And with regard to the outcome, I would find a soft Brexit or a Remain quite close to one another in terms of acceptability to me (some forms of soft Brexit better than Remain), but when I considered the options, all likely outcomes of Remain were acceptable, but only a subset of outcomes of Leave, so which to vote for was a sensible conclusion from that.

But people who think like that tend not to shout soundbites so aren't as visible.

Thinking on my general politics are more like that - I am probably best described as a slightly left of centre social democrat, and indeed the SNP is probably closest to my politics (shame I live in England) but have voted for all the main parties at various points for various different reasons.  I am definitely not a stereotypical member of any tribe[1].  Though maybe that's generational?  I did find that my generation (coming of age in the late 1990s, so Gen X/millennial hybrids) was one of the few that *didn't* segregate itself into mods and rockers, or chavs and greebos, or whatever the current lot have come up with.

[1] Well, sort of, Scouting is a bit of one I guess

Huh, interesting.

To me, based on that link, it still feels "legally difficult" rather than being a hard nope or a logical impossibility in the way that "single market membership without free movement" or "customs border in Ireland that isn't actually a border" are - it's not inherently unreasonable to ask that if we're going to legally agree to set our import duties based on what the EU agrees then we should have some input to what they can agree, and the EU might feel that that's preferable to no customs union. But I might be being overly optimistic.

I've been called a traitor and there's all the other bealachs about believing in Britain and not running the country down etc. Why are Putin and Trump so on-board with Brexit? So vocal in their support? Could anybody seriously accept Putin's championing of the "will of the British people" and the cause of democracy at face value. Knowing Putin likes Brexit should be a bucket of cold water in the face. But it's not is it?

Even if you have to remove control to...er...ensure that they get it back?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/31/ukip-leader-gerard-batten-...

I bet Madge was all "I'll get right on that, Gez, yeah" on the phone whilst doing a wanker sign to Phil, whilst he played GTA Sandringham.

Sorry I should have made it clear. I wasn't talking about domestic side of legislation and policy which does not relate to the EU. I was talking about EU legislation and how we scrutinise and and implement it. Do we get this right?  

I'm not convinced people know or even really care, a lot of the leave inclined voters I spoke to pre-referendum evidently had very little idea what the EU was, what it did, how it was structured, most had no idea we elected parliamentarians and wouldn't believe it when they were told. It's unfashionable to say we were (realistically, still are) ignorant but it is reality. I doubt the ignorance is much different on the remain side of the vote, the difference is the direction the anger largely about unrelated/peripheral issues is channelled. When you don't know what you don't know that's hard to fix and arguably not your fault either, we've been let down by our press and politicians long comfortable with an easy scapegoat to absolve them of their own failings. Looking at the privileged exceptional position we've held in Europe it's hard to conclude we've been pushed around, quite the opposite really, whether that has been in the longer term national interest rather than the unstable cumulative effect of a number of sticking plasters covering cracks in the Conservative party... that's debatable to be generous.

jk

It is theoretically possible (though unlikely) that all or most of the Leave voters wanted a hard Brexit. The "will of the people" two years ago is not necessarily the same now......it may indeed be, which if repeated in a second referendum, with more knowledge of the implications of Brexit, would probably lead to a much greater acceptance among Remainers. Fat chance of a second vote from our spineless politicians though.

Which version of  the customs union do you want to go for?

well I'm not aware of the details of different options but basically harmonisation on duties and tax on goods (other than VAT for which separate arrangements already exist) so as not to require payment of taxes, duties and tariffs on goods and services crossing the EU's border. I'm also not aware of the details of the Labour Party's customs union proposals. How would this impact your own business?

As far as I can see there are various options for customs union. Ranging from staying in to the so called Canadian free trade agreement. 

For my business the big issue will be tariffs under WTO rules. I may as well close shop and forget it if we go down that route. 

Not convinced that will happen. 

And as for the new UKCA marking. What a waste of space. Why not just completely harmonise with CE marking ? Fortunately for me Uk is about 3 % of my customer base so I will just not bother supplying into the UK when that comes into force. Not worth the cost of compliance. 

Its all a right mess. 

The problem for Brexiteers with joining/remaining in the EU customs union is that the EU set the imports tariffs for the customs union, make all trade deals and represent the union at the WTO. Taking back control looks different.

I make no apology for the source

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6660911/MP-Reports-Nissan-abandon-...

Nothing to do with brexit, nothing to see here. 

Quite. It’s amazing. Two years of arguments and people trying to ‘reverse’ the vote. Why haven’t the entrencehd remainers spent their energies getting a deal that moves the UK forward?

The backstop is an emergency position only to be used in the event that a solution to tariffs isn’t found. It’s my understanding that Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland have different laws and currency at the moment. That’s hardly ‘no exsisting border’ is it? It can’t be that hard to track goods, services and people movement without a physical border. 

Too many people with vested interests making it harder than it needs to be. The EU are right to insist on a backstop, but we should be concentrating on a solution that means we don’t need the backstop rather than eliminating the backstop. Shortsightedness. 

Making Ireland a ‘special case’ would solve the issues and allow Brexit to proceed. Would it fragment the UK? FFS Ireland is a fragmented island already according to those who want it to be. And it’s not for those who don’t want it to be. Crazy situation. 

When you talk about making Ireland a special case, do you mean Ireland or Northern Ireland? 

Yes. It’s all the same thing. Borders are not real physical things unless you build a wall. They’re invented by humans. 

No one wants a wall across Ireland and there doesn’t need to be one. If they have different currencies then there is already a  built in audit trail for transfer of goods and services.

The backstop is in case we can’t come to a solution. There’s too much focus on it. If we think about it properly it’ll never come into effect. 

Then, quite honestly, you're a moron. For the avoidance of doubt, and the education of idiots, Ireland and Northern Ireland are not the same country. One will be in the eu in April and one won't, ffs.

Regulatory alignment means nothing to you then?

When are Leavers going to tell us what they actually want so we can start respecting them. If they're so mature they ought to be capable of more than simply taking the bat home and insisting everybody's got to like cricket. 

Jolly good. Thanks for that. That’s a very helpful contribution to the discussion.

Let me guess. Entrenched remainer?

What’s your solution please?

You wan’t several million people to speak with one voice? Good luck. 

Yep. But it doesn’t have to be so hard. Unless you want it to be. 

People are making lots of money out of the uncertainty. Politicians are have lovely expensive dinners in Europe at our expense. The longer they drag it out the better for them.

Deals in business always go to the wire. It’s a well used tactic. All this back and forth is bluster. 

Yea

Remain.

But, more pertinently, what's your solution?

At least I can differentiate between countries with similar names.

Yes.

Well, you're not going to like it, but May could stand up in parliament and say "we're very sorry, we've tried, we've really tried, but we can't deliver brexit without causing the country serious harm and how could any responsible government take that course? So I'm rescinding article 50". 

So no positive solution then?

"The Dream is all amiss interpreted,

It was a vision Fair and Fortunate ..."

That’s not a solution. You’re not helping? 

We currently have two counties. Sharing a border that’s not currently patrolled and yet have different currencies and different laws. And yet people work in both countries and commute between the two with no issues.

This should technically be the same as the border at Paris when you get on the Eurostar. Why do you still have to go through border checks when leaving France (you’re still in France) and entering Britain (You’re still in France). Simply move the checks to all the Irish ports (Northern or Southern)

Too many people are looking for problems and to make it difficult. To suit their dogma. 

What about stuff that doesnt move beyond the Island of Ireland? where does this get checked? And to move the checks to the ports has already been suggested and has caused all sorts of uproar because this effectively puts the border (checkpoint) in the irish sea, which is apparently unacceptable to the tory party and their new friends, the ulster unionists.

Indeed, too many of the hardine brexiteers have decided what their version of the future MUST look like, and anything that varies from their idea is unacceptable. And there are many such groups, all with competing and conflicting ideals.

It is a solution. What's yours?

Exactly what we do now, it's called remain.

Forget about the hard line brexiteers. They’re no better than the remainers. 

The problem as set out above by pec is that you have two opposite camps who won’t compromise. It’s absolutely pathetic. 

While they’re arguing time is ticking and a solution is not being worked on. 

Errr, no. Remainers dont see the need to come up with proposals; as per a couple of posts upthread, their suggestion is that there is no need to evn leave the EU.

Yup. They have both set out their red lines, and particular variety of unicorn demanded, and nothing else will do. And sadly, they are supposed to be on the same side.

Yup again; as Gina Miller said on BBC QT, there are 6 major laws to pass in the next 8 weeks, and 400 minor, just to "take back control" and allow the nation to continue to function should a no deal scenario play out, and several agencies needed to replicate those EU agencies we currently use have yet to be even created. They have had 2.5 years to do something, and are still arguing about basic principles......

In November 2017 the eu published a document called Smart Boarder 2.0. It is a detailed document that explains how to avoid a hard boarder between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Enda Kenny started getting things into place to avoid a hard boarder, Leo Varadkar stopped all this. I sent a link to the document to a good friend of mine who is pro remain in a big way, although he has accepted the referendum result. To say that he was gobsmaked when he read this document was an understatement. Even he now admits there is a solution to the boarder conundrum. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017...

Err there are three camps. Remain don't want a compromise, hard Brexit don't want a compromise and soft Brexit does.

If one of them would articulate one sensible reason for leaving the world's biggest free trading association (Japan just joined!) that would be a start.

In a rare display of solidarity the idea was rejected by everyone, Ireland, the EU, the British government, the Opposition etc. It still required a tangible, controlled and manned border.

Yet it sounds like the only half way sensible option. What a ship of fools!

I would argue that there are only two camps; the remainers already have their solution - an open border. The only argument is between those factions who want a border but cant decide where (except the one in their own minds....). ie those who dont want to break the Belfast Accord but seem to see a virtual border in the Irish sea as being the catalyst to the "break up of the union".

If there was a simple solution that ticked all the boxes do you not think it would have been adopted????

Again, the problem is that different groups have decided on their own tick boxes, without reference to anyone elses. THus we have a situation where if you tick one box, it conflicts "unnacceptably" with someone elses. Whether any solution is good / workable / sensible doesn't come into it; its whether or not it meets a set of ideals, set without any real world reference (such as the Belfast Accord in the Irish border case).

The bit that I really can't understand is that, even if there's a 'solution' to 'the border conundrum', so that it becomes invisible and can be passed through smoothly and easily, there is still an invisible border and the main issue/problem with it remains: there will be tariffs. Which will be extremely detrimental to trade and business on either side of the border - with possibly devastating effects on the local (and wider) economy.

It is *a* solution. 

But itsi leavers that have to come up with actual solutions: it's your mess, you clean it up. 

Unfortunately we cant forget about them, as they are the ones making life difficult for everyone, and opposing everything that doesn't represent their particular and warped version of nirvana. There is no need for remainers to develop a solution; we already have our preferred option.

No, it is Corbyn OFFICIAL policy. His REAL policy is no-deal.

May I point out that the backstop would effectively keep the UK in a CU. Corbyn and his party are voting against this agreement that keeps the UK in a CU, which supposedly is what they want !

According to Lars Karlsson, the international customs expert who wrote the report was recently interviewed on R4 and confirmed that it would work if implemented properly. Perhaps the people who rejected don't want to leave the eu.

Whether it works or not is irrelevant, it isn't an open border so out of the running.

I’m not sure that represents any sort of policy. It’s a document with a single author. An opinion piece. 

It’s not a solution to Brexit is it? Exactly in what way is staying in Europe, a solution to how do we leave Europe? 

Digging your heels in and not playing is just going to end up in a no deal exit. But then maybe that’s what all the remainers want, so that they can walk around saying ‘Told you so!’. 

Politics is all about compromise. If no one is willing to compromise then no one actually gets anything close to what they want. Seems to me that there’s a whole generation used to getting their own way who don’t understand how to compromise. 

OK, in order to get any support from remainers, leavers need to find a way to extract the UK from the EU in such a way that

1) doesn't screw the economy

and

2) doesn't re-start conflict in NI.

I would suggest we stay in the single market until you can come up with a plan that meets points 1 & 2. 

now, what's *your* plan?

Looks like you’re slowly getting there. Points 1 and 2 are good. 

3rd point isn’t workable. 

My plan is to let the people who get paid to work out these things get on with it and support them to find a way, rather than constantly finding fault with everything in order to persue your own dogmatic position.  

The Irish government say they won't put up a hard border in the event of no deal.

The British government say they won't put up a hard border in the event of no deal.

The WTO say they don't require a hard border in the event of no deal.

Barnier, the EU's Brexit negotiator, says that in the event of no deal “we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would...

So the Backstop itself is irrelevant, no one wants or will insist on a hard border, and yet it's the backstop issue alone that is threatening to cause a no deal exit.

Absolute madness...completely in keeping with the entire farce.

They have. Many reasons, many of them sensible. 

However, entrenched remainers are more worried about arguing against any change than considering anything that’s put forward that doesn’t meet their fixed view  

It’s a fascinating insight into triabalism. 

My objections to brexit are not founded on dogma. Mainly my objections are to do with points 1 and 2 in my post above. Dogma from the europhobes is what has brought us to this place, and will drag us over the cliff.

Your plan is essentially to not worry your little head about it because you think your betters will sort it out. Newsflash: You don't have any betters, and (on current evidence) those in charge of brexit are either incompetent or malicious or both.

Like finding fault with the 3rd point?

I’m not finding fault with the 3rd point. Europe are unlikely to extend the deadline unless progress is being made. If progress is being made then sure delay, and maybe they’ll try. But as I wrote before, negotiations in business always go to the wire. That’s how they work. 

The issue is persuing point 3, without progress on points 1 and 2, won’t happen. And if remainers are trying to thwart every effort that’s only going to make things worse. 

Newsflash. What you see in Parliament and read in the news is all spin. 

Also, not sure what you thought the 3rd point was, as I only listed 2.

And 3) gives us and our children freedom of movement in Europe

And 4) does not make life difficult or diminish the rights of our EU spouses or the ease with which our children could marry EU citizens.

This '3rd point' appears to be a quintessential Brexitation: a fictitious invention that hasn't been defined, so no one can say what it is ... ? ?

Later edition. Looking at it again, I think what DancingOR means is that staying in the single market 'isn't workable'. Which is perversely negative if it is not demonstrably untrue.

Anyhow, must get to work and not get sucked into talking about this nonsense any longer. Already millions of man-hours of work have been lost by concerns over Brexit; it's a virus that's quite literally slowing the whole country down/ crippling us. I'm going to try and forget about it now for a few hours. (Difficult.)

Still looking forward to those sunlit uplands and all that delicious sovereignty? You've been mugged.

jk

In what way?

You think I support Brexit or Remain?

Not me. It’s all nonesense. You lot are ridiculous with all your entrenched arguing. It’s a great spectacle though. You can bicker amongst yourselves and winge and moan and believe you’re right and the other person is wrong. All it does is prove you’re not listening to each other  

Its time to move on. This country has been overdue a revolution for 15+ years now. I’m just hoping it will calm down and be peaceful. Social media will probably prove me wrong.

I sat in a pub on Friday night listening to some armchair experts fill up with beer telling each other how it’s all going to pan out and how they’re fed up with the EU and how May is doing a terrible job. 

The third point was to remain until everything is in place. I’ve explained what I meant further upthread. 

The EU may allow that option if the first two look like they’re progressing. Otherwise there’s no extension option. 

Dislike from me as you don't appear to have read the article you have posted.

It's not up the the WTO to insist on a border, they adjudicate when 3rd countries complain, and they will.

Nobody wants a hard border but that doesn't mean there's a solution, as the article you linked to explains, and that's why it is the sticking point.

Gotcha! You are John Yates and I claim my €5.

I never said we had to remain in the EU, but that we should remain in the single market, until such time as your betters find a way out which doesn't screw the economy or return NI to a low grade civil war.

That is about the only solution that will get the support of anyone who voted remain for the reasons I did.

My mistake. Having looked back through what you've said it's actually abundantly clear you simply are a wise and dispassionate observer.

Teasing aside I'm curious what you think it says about you that you claim to find the most serious issue we've faced as a nation in decades 'all nonsense'?

In what way have we been overdue a revolution for 15 years? What kind of revolution, what do you want and expect it to deliver? Also, how?

No way, really, in a pub! What do you think about that?

jk

But, as the article points out, the WTO don't require a hard border, nor will they enforce it.

Nobody wants a hard border.

Nobody insists on a hard border.

Nobody will build a hard border.

So where exactly do you see there being a solution required for a non-existent hard border problem. The whole hard border issue is essentially imaginary.

The most serious issue for decades?

Did you miss 2008?

That sowed the seeds for all this civil unrest. 

2008 had been brewing since at least 1996. 

The main issue isn’t nonsense but the way it’s debated and the way it’s portrayed in the media is nonsense. The whole debacle is being used by people who should know better to reinforce divisions in society.

A large part of this is caused by dragging it out over two years with very poor communication and direction from the government with no cohesion. 

So how do either side control trade, smuggling, immigration and so on?

I would imagine such issues would be policed as they are now, by targeting individuals and organisations that contravene regulations. In Bernier's own words...“we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border”.

I might have. What happened in 2008? Or 1996 for that matter.

It isn't the WTOs responsibility to require or enforce a hard border. Their role is to adjudicate when a 3rd country complains. They could rule that the UK and the EU must allow tarrif and regulation free imports from all WTO members.

The EU does not want a hard border but neither does is want an open border into their single market, for all sorts of reasons, including likely WTO rulings. That is why they are trying to resolve this issue. 

Why don't you just read the article you posted?

No.

So what, it hardly matters if it had been fermenting since 1946, it has very clearly come to a head in 2019.

It's a binary issue. If you believe brexit does harm it is your responsibility to oppose it, not to appease those with different ideas. Polarisation of opinion is inevitable until we go beyond the point of no return. In reality, given how remain voters have been disenfranchised throughout the process I suspect when reality bites and everyone is hurting bitter divisions will still remain, you cannot wish that away.

Oh FFS! Triggering A50 without a plan was obviously tactically stupid if the intention were to somehow make Britain's relationship with the EU better for Britain but it was from a quitter perspective also necessary because plainly no actual plan exists to deliver the contradictory benefits of our 'red white and blue brexit' plus that fragile mandate came with a very short shelf life!

Brexit isn't a failure because it's taking time or because it's under intense parliamentary scrutiny or because half the electorate just won't believe hard enough. It's a failure because those who sold it and those who bought it have almost diametrically opposed ideas as to what it should deliver. This was a deliberate choice, to sell a lie and deal with the consequences later. Nothing that has happened since we voted has been done to manage those expectations and bring those positions better into alignment.

jk

How do you see rulings that no-one enforces as in anyway constraining? 

I'd like the stamina of Alex Honnold, I also like sitting on my arse eating chips. We can't always have everything, and in the EUs case, if neither Ireland nor the UK are going to put up a hard border, then it simply won't happen.

Where exactly do you think that the EU has 'hard' borders now anyway? You know how everyone took the piss out of Trump over his wall across the 1,900 mile Mexican border, well, how long do you think the EU's current border is?

3,700 mile land border. 41,000 mile sea border.

....kinda puts stuff into perspective.

I have read it. The headline neatly summarises the content.

WTO says its rules would not force EU or UK to erect hard Irish border.

The UK and Ireland are both currently in the single market, there is no need to police these issues at the moment.... that's the whole point.

Err... there's no need to police smuggling, trade and immigration inside the EU? 

Where do you think all the smuggled goods, illegal drugs, firearms, illegal immigrants etc, etc, come from? and do you imagine such problems are only addressed at the EU's external borders?

WTO rulings on disputes are binding. What are you trying to say?

Which neither the EU, Ireland nor the UK have yet found. "“We looked at every border on this earth, every border EU has with a third country – there’s simply no way you can do away with checks and controls. The negotiators have not been able to explain them to us and that’s not their fault; it’s because they don’t exist.” Sabine Weyand, EU deputy chief negotaitor for Brexit.

You're being wilfully ignorant.

At the external borders of the single market there is a need check the movement of goods and people at installations like this

https://ec.europa.eu/budget/euprojects/construction-road-border-crossing-do...

these are not needed inside the single market because of free movement of people and goods.

Trying to conflate it with policing of crime withing the single market is just whataboutary.

Are you sure?

I devised a little test to check.....

In what circumstances did Mr Rockwell say the WTO would intervene, and how?

So why dont we try to explore the idea of no border in Ireland and a checkpoint in the irish sea, as already mooted (and rejected). Yes it keeps part of the UK in the customs union, and may thereby give NI an economic boost, which they badly need. Quite why the rabid ERG types think it would lead to the imminent break up of the union, only they know, and it would at least allow everyone to move forwards, stick the toe in the water of progress, and maybe lead to a more suitable solution than the ones we haven't been able to come up with yet.....

As a happy by product, we would also hear less from the DUP.......

Beyond the intellectual exercise, what would be the point? It cannot currently be delivered. Without the DUP on side (which they won't be when it comes to creating an internal UK customs border) Labour as the official opposition will inevitably take the opportunity to defeat the government so it won't happen.

jk

Countries don't, by and large, contravene customs regulations; individuals, organisations and companies do. Say a country brings a case to the WTO saying 'so and so is contravening regulations regarding goods crossing into the UK from Ireland, UK investigates and prosecutes using existing laws to deal with smuggling. Simple.

They can carry on saying that until they go blue. The fact remains that they've said they won't insist on a hard border. None of the parties involved have, so why keep brining it up? It is a none issue. 

It's like if me and the wife couldn't decide whether to buy a black or a white car. If we don't decide, we don't end up with a yellow car. Neither of us wants a yellow car, no-one is selling us a yellow car and no-one is forcing us to have a yellow car. A yellow car isn't on the table.

It isn't whataboutery, it's the simple fact that in every country, in or out of the EU, contraband goods are not solely policed at the borders.

What about freedom of movement?  Currently EU workers are free to travel to Eire or Ulster.  Post-Brexit, they will still be free to travel to Eire, and no-one will stop them travelling north...  I'm fine with this, but I'm not sure how it will go down with the 'take back control' zealots.

I think you missed your vocation as an international trade negotiator.

With that kind of approach - you can't argue with that.

I'm fine with it too and I can't see zealots of any stripe forcing a hard border into existence as long as everyone keeps saying no to a hard border. 

This is the central fact...EU, UK, Ireland and WTO have all said they don't want or require a hard border. As long as all these parties maintain that position, all talk of hard borders really is whataboutery.

He couldn't any worse than the Tory shower of shite have done so far!

Brexit doesn't really change that situation though does it? ROI isn't part of Shengen partly because it makes little sense where you have a natural sea border requiring ticketing/security checks anyway and partly because the UK's 'immigration' neuroses make it practically incompatible with the pre-existing and vital ROI-UK common travel area. As trusting partners the ROI and UK cooperate closely on who they each allow into their (and therefore also the other's) country. That agreement has weathered some pretty dark times, it will probably survive a brexit.

jk

Ok, then why doesn't the UK just sign up to the backstop.... by your logic there would be no consequence to doing so?

A bit behind the times. This point had been well covered. .

the snp would want they same for Scotland. The unionist partiessay it is unacceptable as it implies Ireland is unified.

so it is a non starter. 

Indeed it has; but Ireland is only unified in their tiny minds, and scotland can be told it is going to be tried out to see how it works; it would at least address this thorny problem. I also dont see why scotland cant have the same if it allows the whole thing to progress, which it wont do because we listen too much to the whining extremists, and until it does progress, we will be in this pathetic limbo, with ever increasing uncertainty, and an ever more divided nation.

Someone needs to take a leap of faith, and think the unthinkable. It worked for the GFA, why not for this?

If it was simple and easy it would have been done. 

We don't actually need to take a leap of faith, it's quite possible the electorate having seen the rocky landing no longer much fancies jumping.

Also worth noting: there are steps, EFTA for example or even May's myopic agreement. If we really must get down off the EU cliff we don't actually have to leap.

jk

Agree, but it isnt. So someone has to take a lead (yes, i know, a touching display of innocence and naivety on my part given the current shower in charge) and actually just think of problem solving, rather than problem creating.

Yup, quite possible, and i'm all for a ref 2. If remain win, then phew, carry on as normal, whilst addressing the areas of national / EU govt relationships that have so displeased people, if leave win, then go for it. At least most remainers will not be so reluctant.

Agree entirely with your second point. Infinitely preferable to the brinkmanship going on at the moment.

Most of the sensible ideas have been batted round to death. It probably just needs the Labour Party tocsay yes this is a sensible compromise. Tm would then have the votes she needs without ERG in the hof c, and then it’s all done and dusted. 

It is pretty straight forward as I see it

Signing has the possibility of holding the UK in the customs union indefinitely. Nothing to do with hard borders...for the umpteenth time, hard borders aren't on the table.

Personally, I'd prefer if they did sign but Brexiteers would never swallow it for obvious reasons.

Except Labour will take the opportunity to defeat the government and not share the blame for facilitating May's Brexit every time. Arithmetic and a quirk of 2017 electoral fate makes it anything but simple.

Jk

This just means that the EU expects the UK to help the EU implement the original plan for the backstop (the border in the Irish sea) in the event of a no-deal scenario. The EU considers the UK to be bound by the GFA to do this.

In reality the EU does have a bit of a problem here if the UK does not comply. The plan is probably to fudge some stuff at this border while being strict about every other border between UK and EU27. The resulting chaos in the UK will force the UK government to sign off on the backstop.

FWIW I am still confident parliament will agree to the current withdrawal agreement in March (maybe some more fudging in the declaration about the future relationship) ....

You're not making sense, and I've just checked the withdrawl agreement to be sure. If a hard border is not a possibility, then there is no possibility of the UK being held in a customs union.

The threat holding the UK in the customs union isn’t a hard border, the threat is no deal.

WRONG. It is most definitely on the table if there is no-deal. Legally, both the UK and the EU will be required to set up a border.

As an aside, let’s point out that the UK government AGREED to this backstop from the start. They are now reneging on their promise. Who is going to trust the UK for any deal with such a behaviour ?

Yes Rom, as you banged on about ad nauseam, on the 'Panic buying' thread. Where you wrote...

The EU would be very happy to have lorries of goods waved through tariff free and with no checks into the UK whilst it doesn't work the other way. It would confer their companies a tremendous commercial advantage, plus it would allow them flog all the stuff they would normally get rid off : rotten food, substandard goods etc etc in relative impunity.

However it is completely unlikely that the UK would accept such a situation. Not to mention that under WTO rules, if they wanted to do that, they’d have to do it for everybody else.

Oh, hang on a minute, what have the HMRC just announced???

http://www.cityam.com/272712/hmrc-says-eu-goods-waved-through-uk-ports-with...

What a complete surprise...to almost no-one, apart from you that is.

Keep up the good work Rom! 

THANKS for posting an article that evidences my argument ! You should have read it instead of barely reading the headline.

The article explicitly says that there will be checks.

Moreover, you forgot that borders have two sides, but I guess this must be beyond you.

You're incredible Rom truly unique.

Yes Rom, there will, but the headline summarises the article, it doesn't do the complete opposite, and the headline is...

HMRC says EU goods will be waved through UK ports without checks in event of no-deal Brexit

Yes Rom, spin it any way you want, deny everything you wrote in the 'panic buying' thread, attempt to disappear up your own fundament in a frenzy of pedantry. I said it wasn't in the UK's interest to impose additional checks on EU imports. You said, with much use of capitals, that I was 'wrong, wrong, wrong'.

That's a temporary emergency measure to keep people and businesses in Britain alive into the summer, not a solution to the mess we've made in Ireland.

jk

Nope, WRONG. Again

They didn’t say that, they said there would be simplified checks, only during a transition, only for those companies that register to the scheme.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47121225

No, I’ve said that you are WRONG to say there wouldn’t be checks or tariffs. it is’t In our interest, indeed. But we’ll have to, that’s part of the problem. Duh.

Exactly. Good to see that some people can still read.

Whatever Rom. Stay firmly ensconced in Rom land where you are forever in the right. 

You know Rom, I'm happy to be proven wrong. It means I've learnt something new.

Sadly the only thing you've ever taught me is that some people are just too fragile to accept that they might have been mistaken, even when it's there in front of them, in black and white

Yep, we were discussing the 'panic buying' thread which was explicitly about measures likely to be taken to avoid food shortages.

Rom, you've written ...

...in response to a verbatim quote from the article???

....do you need to have a little lie down?

I’m not always right, bit you have a knack for being always wrong. It’s quite amazing in fact to be so wrong, so much.

Thats the problem, you NEVER learn. You repeat the same idiocies again and again.

How would you know ? You don’t even read !

No, the government did not say they would do no checks, they have merely said there would be a simplified declaration procedure for a transitional period, for those who register.

And it tells you nothing about the border in Ireland.

Put your money where your mouth is, how much would you bet we won’t see any customs checks in case of no-deal  ?

No, in response to you. Learn to READ.

You know, all the capital letters and insults that you so commonly employ in your posts just leave me with the impression of a shouty, angry little man, stamping his feet up and down.

Edit: oops, nearly forgot the smiley face.

I agree . Therein lies the issue of a minority govt.

It doesn’t really matter, Stitchplate, it doesn’t make you less WRONG.

No, you weren’t, you were discussing the backstop.

...bet you were an only child.

Sorry to come late to this but I think you’re giving too much relevance to that article. WTO rules indeed don’t specify that you need to have a hard border. But they do specify that you have to treat all trading partners equally unless you have a preferential trading agreement. So if we left the Eu without an agreement, we could have no hard border in NI / RoI but we and the EU would be obliged to do this for *all* trading partners. Imagine for example that British lamb is exported to the EU with only very light checks but the EU continues to apply stringent checks to US lamb imports. The US will take it as a case to the WTO claiming the EU is treating us preferentially. 

Now WTO processes are famously long and relatively toothless but politically it’s not a good look to ignore one of their rulings.

it will also make it very difficult, not to say impossible, to negotiate our own free trade agreements because we will have de facto got rid of all our leverage. Why would the US open their government procurement contracts to UK suppliers if we have unilaterally got rid of all the barriers to the US selling us everything they want to sell us?

Wrong, AGAIN.

Let me explain this to you again: in case of no deal there WILL be checks on goods from the E.U., one way or another, or the UK will fall foul of WTO MFN rules.

Plus you’d have very quickly have a lot of smuggling. Just look at the border between Sweden and Norway as an example, despite having very high levels of trust, high alignement, and high tech border they still end up checking thousands of lorries, and still end up having to deal with smuggling.

The only way there wouldn’t be checks is if the UK decides to not apply any checks on imports from anywhere, which won’t happen. 

Bet I'm not.

Don't keep telling me Rom, tell Reuters, the BBC, The Times, they're all reporting the same thing. From The Independent, posted this evening...

UK ports will wave through goods from the EU without checks if there is a no-deal Brexit to avoid huge traffic jams, it has been announced.

Now you can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and shout LaLaLa all you like but it seems the national press, the international press and HMRC don't agree with you.

Now if you don't mind I'm off to bed with a nice mug of cocoa. I expect you'll be quite busy enough firing off angry missives demanding retractions from the entire world's media organisations.

No argument from me regarding UK negotiating leverage under WTO, I agree with you. My only input into this debate is over the likelihood or otherwise of the imposition of hard borders and increased UK border checks in general.

Temporarily, only in certain locations, only for those on the register, and only of you fill in all the necessary declarations and pay the tarifs.

Why don’t you get this ?

That is not what HMRC says. Not what the press says.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hm-revenue-and-customs-simplifies-import...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/moving-goods-to-and-from-the-eu-through-roll-on...

No, the problem is that you know only how to read the headlines and have a skin deep understanding of the issue.

again, put your money where your mouth is, how much would you bet that there isnt any checks in case of no-deals ?

It’s a certainty that there will be checks in case of no deal. They might not be prepared enough to do those checks in the immediate aftermath, but sooner than later, they will. 

There isn’t any country in the world not in a custom union with another country that doesn’t do checks at the border with that country, even those with high levels of trust, high tech and high cooperation.

There is a reason for that.

HaHa, you've roused me from my cocoa! I'm well aware that you think I'm an ignorant, idiotic, moron; you've told me enough times (often in capital letters), but I'm not thick enough to make a bet with someone who never admits they're wrong, posts no photo, posts no profile, never posts on anything at all climbing related and whose sole interests seem to be pontificating. 

Just imagine what would happen at the Irish border the day the UK gets F & M again! Having had 2 funeral pyres within smoke breathing distance in 2001 I could well imagine the chaos, as we had it then till Bliar at last called in the Army to do a bit of coordination.  Before the Army came we had a farm just down the road desperately arguing with government contractors not to light a burning pit they'd dug over a gas pipeline!  (Not just an ordinary gas main!)

Actually this would a pretty thick reaction if you were confident to be correct, you’d have absolutely nothing to lose if you were right. Worst case scenario if you are right is that I don’t honour the bet, which would cost you nothing.

But I don’t think you are thick, I think you just know very well that you are talking nonsense, and therefore are reluctant to put any skin in the game.

BTW, I am not “pontificating” I am just stating the obvious.

The two countries have different currency, different taxes and Norway's trade agreement excludes all food and drink. 99% of traffic drives straight through. Freight has an average wait of 15mins (less than the time a truck driver is supposed to have on break anyway. Freight also goes by train with zero interruption. 

Before the 1970s the Irish border was open. Both countries did and still do have different currencies and tax regimes.

Smuggling isn't so rife at all. It makes the news when someone is caught with a hundred kilos of beef in their car, whilst Norway is more expensive than sweden, its not by much, you'd have be buying in Germany or eastern Europe to make a decent margin.

The Irish border problems aren't caused by trade etc.  They are caused by people on both sides using it as a political weapon, stating causes and religion going back to the middle ages as justification. The eu has jumped on the same band wagon. Indirectly using the threat of future violence as a negotiating tool, hopefully there won't be any issues, but if there are problems they can send their new Franco German army to resolve it. 

Also I'm sure you'll know that it's only 100 since Norway gained independence from sweden. But, no there isn't any political posturing, terrorists, no parties wanting unification, no rattling of tins for the cause, no one funding raising in the USA.. . They have grown up, accepted their position and moved on. It's about time both sides in Ireland/NI did the same. They don't even have a functioning NI parliament.

WRONG.

"Customs controls were introduced on the frontier on 1 April 1923, shortly after the establishment of the Irish Free State.[10] These controls were maintained, with varying degrees of severity, until 1 January 1993"

It's not rife simply because they do checks !! Customs officers spend their time chasing bad guys.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-ireland-border-customs-norway-sweden...

Yes, maybe because they didn't have the likes of brexit lunatics wrecking all the progress that had been made. The border issue was well buried before Brexiteers and the DUP wrecked everything that was achieved.

Yes. But it wasn't a hard border. The check points arrived because of terrorism, not trade. 

No. Many of the crossings are not manned( it is a much longer border than NI). 99.9% of cars drive straight through the border even on the few roads where freight check points exists. Ever driven it?

No. It's more likely because they are not religious fanatics, who are harking back to the problems started in the 11 or 13rh century. . 

That's because they are not driven by old arguments going back centuries and religious motivations. They need to look forwards.

It's perfectly true that if the whole world behaved like Norway and Sweden in the 21st century we'd have bugger all terrorism, border disputes and war. 

However it seems to have escaped your notice that the world does not behave like Norway and Sweden.

Patrick Kielty has reason to know what he's talking about and tweeted to Boris about the virtues of magic thinking. You may think magic thinking is ridiculous, but magic thinking about their glorious causes motivates terrorists.

Magic thinking may be riddled with logical fallacies, but the magical thinking of the Good Friday Agreement produced peace.

Notice how Patrick Kielty doesn't mention Norway and Sweden and how irrelevant Norway & Sweden appear to be.

He tweeted: "Dear Boris Johnson, there is no better Brexit when it comes to the Good Friday Agreement and Northern Ireland. As you still seem bamboozled by all this Paddywackery, here's a few pointers for your next stab in the dark.

"1. Northern Ireland is made up of a majority of Unionists (as in the Conservative and Unionist Party) and, believe it or not, a rather large minority of Nationalists (as in Irish Nationalists).

"2. These Irish Nationalists don't see themselves as British but rather inconveniently as Irish (who knew?).

"3. For over 30 years we killed each other because of these differences which means Northern Ireland is nothing like Camden or Westminster.

"4. The Good Friday Agreement ended that violence by the following devious magic - Unionists were guaranteed that Northern Ireland would be part of the UK until the majority voted otherwise.

"The Irish border was removed and the island linked so Nationalists could pretend they were already living in a United Ireland (yes, Tony Blair did sleight of hand much better than you).

"5. Some of these Nationalists then accepted being part of the UK as their day to day lives were essentially Irish.

"6. This cunning plan was sold to us on the basis that we were all part of the EU therefore fixation on nationality was so last World War.

"7. Implementing the Good Friday Agreement was torturous (think Brexit with actual bombs, not metaphorical suicide vests) but we finally made peace. Yet 20 years later NI remains a divided society.

"8. Thanks to your glorious Brexit vision NI will become more divided as some form of economic border checks will become part of daily lives.

"9. If those checks take place between NI and Ireland, the Nationalists who were once happy being part of the UK will change their mind.

"10. If they take place in the Irish Sea some Unionists will be livid. However they'll still support being part of the UK."

Mr Kielty went on to outline 10 more pointers in which he said "Brexit lies" had opened a Pandora's box for Northern Ireland and meant a border poll was now inevitable and could easily be lost by unionists.

"By the time the penny drops that you can't preserve the Union you want without the one you don't, it will be too late," he continued. "You will be remembered not as the Churchillian visionary you delude yourself to be but the ignoramus who triggered the break-up of the UK. If there's any justice all this will come to pass when you're Prime Minister so you can finally swim in the constitutional sewage you've created.

"Meantime, if you're so concerned about keeping Northern Ireland totally aligned with the rest of the UK where's your support for our same sex marriage and women's right to choose?"

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/patrick-kielty-says-boris-johnso...

Minority governments can work, they're able to implement good policy, that for which there is evidence around which they can form cross party consensus or that for which there is broad public support. Brexit doesn't fall into either category.

jk

WRONG. There were customs posts.

Thats because they have an agreement that allows them to do checks away from the borders, but checks are done anyway.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561

“Then there are four giant scanners that x-ray the lorries picked out for inspection, checking for contraband.”

”For now, there is still plenty of paper to be processed, first with the customs agents, then at the customs office. At 3pm, a big crowd of drivers has built up. They take a ticket and wait to hand over their documents. A Swedish trucker grumbles to me that it can take an hour and a half, and he is unimpressed with the level of customer service.”

The problem is not religion, the problem is that a hard border will divide communities.

The solution. All sides set aside events that happened in some cases a very long time ago, they accept that they are two different countries and acting accordingly. 

Both sides want something they both can't have. It's time for them to move on. Plan for the future, rather than use the past to justify current actions.

They could do with sorting out their MPs first. If they keep voting in religious fundamentalist and retired terrorists, it's little wonder there are problems caused by their fire stoking rhetoric. 

In 7 weeks.

Your solution is for the world not to be the world it is.

That's possible but it is rarely easy and rarely quick. 

So in reality your solution is mostly bollocks that NI, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc etc should be like Norway and Sweden.

So you agree that the consequences of avoiding a hard border are a complex issue? (obviously, a hard border is the international default were a land border between 2 customs regimes exists).

That's the thing from the EU perspective, if we aren't going to manage this no hard border situation in a reasonable way, compatible with international trade law, there might as well be no deal.

That's Northern Ireland sorted then. If you've got ten minutes can you do Palestine next?

Even in his Norway/Sweden dream lalaland there is significant border frictions, customs checks, smuggling, etc etc.

There is a very sensible solution, designed around the wishes of the UK, is to the commercial advantage of the UK, agreed by he UK Government almost two years ago, called THE BACKSTOP. Unfortunately our MPs are irresponsible pricks and can't vote it in.

The religious fanatics are not in NI anymore, they are in Westminster in the form of the Corbynites and the ERG

Ok, so if we set aside what happened back in 2016 and instead we looked at the concrete deliverable options we face in 2019, that'd be sensible, right? No point living in the past especially when it does palpable harm.

jk

Our MP's Rom? Thought you said you were governed by Cypriots...

Didn't you call me an ignorant muppet last week for merely suggesting that you lived under UK jurisdiction ? Make your mind up.

I explained early today how you were wrong, I'll ask again, ever driven that border?