Brexit Thread VII - Revenge of the Brexiteers

[Broken_Erika]

So, we've lost 3,000 border staff when we needed at least a net gain of 600 and, given that this government is supposedly moving full bore for a No Deal (which literally no one could have voted for since it wasn't on the ballot paper or ever discussed), they've suggested that we instead get 500 new officers, instead of the now 5000 we need?

They'll probably hire 500 new part-time minimum wage officers with no training while laying off another 1,500.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Can someone explain what the backstop is and what it means? I know it has something to do with Northern Ireland and the border but that's it.

 

[brennan]

The backstop involves allowing Northern Ireland to behave as though it is still in the EU as far as imports and exports are concerned so that there is no hard border between NI and Eire. This is necessary because of the historic sensitivity of any border checks between NI/Eire - everyone agrees that re-introducing border guards etc. is one helluva can o' worms.

This would effectively place the EU border between mainland UK and NI, which is anathema to the Unionists. It may also require specific trading agreements between the UK and EU that some Brexiteers feel may result in the UK being trapped in a customs union - so preventing to 'true Brexit' they desire.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And the EU position that was negotiated is that there will be a border between UK/NI?

 

[brennan]

The withdrawal agreement has been rejected, so I believe that the current legal position is that no deal means a hard border. Checking re this it seems the government has promised to simply ignore this fact and put no border checks in place between NI and Eire. Taking Back Control.

 

[Arakhor]

The backstop was originally just there that should a No-Deal result happen, no hard border would need to be implemented across Northern Ireland. The ERG protested most strongly to this, presumably because they felt that having a backstop arrangement implied that they couldn't be trusted not to tear up any border agreement and impose a border, imperilling the Downiing Street Agreement and thus peace in Northern Ireland. Naturally, that's exactly what they want to do now by insisting on having a No Deal arrangement, because screw Northern Ireland.

 

[innonimatu]

No Deal (which literally no one could have voted for since it wasn't on the ballot paper or ever discussed)

Nor was a "deal brexit" on the paper. The UK attempted to negotiate. Currently it has been the EU alleging that no further negotiations can take place. They are free to take that position, and the UK is free to walk out. It is not just one side's fault that no deal was done.
It is the torie's faulty that the UK is far from being as well prepared as it could be for this possibility, one that any outside observer could see as likely for years now.

Can someone explain what the backstop is and what it means? I know it has something to do with Northern Ireland and the border but that's it.

The EU decided early in the process to use Ireland as a bargaining chip to pressure the UK. The idea was to allege that the UK had to guarantee no border in Ireland and therefore* grant a series of concessions in regulatory matters to the EU, including submitting to present and future EU laws and courts. In practice it calls for the UK to abrogate its sovereignty to the EU. This was the "deal" the EU demanded from the UK. Either place NY under that "deal", a UK territory under EU law, or place itself (the whole UK) under that "deal".

Obviously no country places itself under the laws of another power lightly (to say the least). This was such an exorbitant demand that it was refused three times in parliament despite all the fear-mongering, and despite the fact that most MP are openly pro-EU.
It was made worse by the fact that this international treaty between the UK and the EU commit the UK to remain bound by it until the EU saw fit to release the UK (the "backstop": if no new deal was reached between the EU and the UK, the UK would remain a vassal of the EU, obedient to any future legislation it decided to produce, and to any court decisions it passed, on a wide range of subjects).


Without a deal, the nature of the border in Ireland is undefined. It may be a guarded border, or it may be a nearly nonexistent one. It depends entirely on how the UK, on its side, and Ireland, on the other side, decide to enforce it.

The UK's government can easily declare unilaterally that products and people can continue to cross the border freely, and do its custom checks on the ports that connect to Great Britain. Due to the lack of any infrastructure in the border this is its most logical position for the foreseeable future, a few years at the least. There are no downsides to the UK for doing just that: Ireland remains part of the UK fully and exclusively under UK law, its locals and products can be waved through any customs checks (with some fraud to be expected, but that's not a problem really), and the situation can be revised if necessary.
The sole reason the UK hasn't agreed to a "sea border" in a deal with the EU was that the EU demanded more than this: it demanded that EU law apply to Northern Ireland, and that this situation of legislation above the UK law and having a "sea border" be permanent.

As for the position of the Republic of Ireland, it is complicated. The RoI would wish that no border existed, and be happy to reach a deal with the UK to move customs checks to ports. But the EU has been (so far) understood to demand more, that the RoI enforce a "hard border" across the island. The whole excuse of the EU to demand that the UK accept a deal submitting itself to EU laws was the story that without such a "deal" a hard border would be inevitable... can they change tune in the event of the UK leaving without submitting?
Imho they can and will, with little embarrassment, made easier by the fact that the whole commission and the godfather of the bureaucrats in Brussels are being replaced. And journalists will have a collective bout of amnesia about what had been demanded prior to the UK's exit without a deal, and just cover the "wonderful new solution" of doing customs checks over the Irish Sea.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So, we've lost 3,000 border staff when we needed at least a net gain of 600 and, given that this government is supposedly moving full bore for a No Deal (which literally no one could have voted for since it wasn't on the ballot paper or ever discussed), they've suggested that we instead get 500 new officers, instead of the now 5000 we need?

I suggest that you look at hiring Poles ? Or maybe Indians ?
The UK is going to just wave through the EU imports, or only inspect a tiny fraction of the number of trucks, ships, trains because the UK economy is going to contract if the established supply chains are suddenly disrupted by traffic jams, delays and loses
It is the least worst option at this late in the planning of things. The UK hasnt figured out what it wants to do outside the EU with either free trade, subsidies to business, nationalization of business or protectionism

 

[mitsho]

It seems about time to me to mention once again, that all the interior politics the UK experiences at the moment happen the same in the other 27 countries. Just to show once again what a huge feat it is to hold the EU side together and that is at the same time the biggest defeat for the British politicians. We put so much spotlight on the UK (in this thread) that we often forget the other side. Which is basically my answer to innominatus post above.

 

[brennan]

Nor was a "deal brexit" on the paper.

The vagueness of Brexit was pointed out at the time, to the unedifying response 'Brexit means Brexit' - as you no doubt recall.

The EU decided early in the process to use Ireland as a bargaining chip to pressure the UK.

You mean of course that the EU very reasonably pointed out that Brexit could put the Northern Ireland peace process at risk.

But the EU has been (so far) understood to demand more, that the RoI enforce a "hard border" across the island.

This is demanded by WTO rules, not the EU.

 

[really]

And the EU position that was negotiated is that there will be a border between UK/NI?

That was the EUs initial suggestion but to avoid a border between GB/NI Teresa May asked for it to be extended to the whole of the UK.

The backstop would only have kicked in if after the second phase of negotiations failed to find a solution.

Edit: on the Ireland being a bargaining chip trope. That is imperialism again, Ireland as a pawn of the big countries.
Could you imagine for a moment that we really don't want a border on our island and that we really just want things to stay the same?

Edit 2: I keep meaning to highlight differences between NI and the rest of the UK as I notice them. I saw another random one at the weekend. A competition on food packet. The competition in GB required purchase of the product. Because that could be seen as gambling the same competition in NI didn't require purchase - just go onto a website to enter. Not in any way meaningful but just a random one I noticed at the weekend.

 

[Kyriakos]

It seems about time to me to mention once again, that all the interior politics the UK experiences at the moment happen the same in the other 27 countries. Just to show once again what a huge feat it is to hold the EU side together and that is at the same time the biggest defeat for the British politicians. We put so much spotlight on the UK (in this thread) that we often forget the other side. Which is basically my answer to innominatus post above.

You aren't even on that "other side". Switzerland isn't a member nor will it ever be one.

 

[mitsho]

Yes, that's true. Still, we're hugely impacted by the British indecisiveness.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

UK Border Agency staff prior to Conservative government: 23,652
<snip>
The Conservatives are not fit for office.

Well, the Remain supporting CBI seems to think we are ahead of the EU in preparations.
And Boris has only just got started….

"Crucially, while there is more to do, the CBI observes that the UK is ahead of the EU in planning for no deal."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49142762

Although Boris has, indeed, spoken to the likes of Merkel, Macron and Juncker, he has said he has no intention of visiting them at the moment. Not unless they agree to drop the backstop that is. The ball is in their court.

The lack of a phone call has been noted here.
Cowardice? Stupidness? Deliberate snub?
British imperialism that Ireland really doesn't matter and the decisions are really made by France and Germany?
May rang Merkel, Hollande and then Taoiseach Enda Kenny on her first evening.

Probably he would have rung Enda Kenny by now if he was still PM.
Actually, maybe not, because IMO we wouldn’t be in this mess if Mr Kenny had stayed in place and the call would not have been needed.

Why the hell should he talk to Varadkar who has allowed the NI border problems to be weaponised by the EU against Britain and in the process made a mountain out of a molehill?
If we end up with a hard border, it will very much be down to Vardkar.
Just on Friday Mr Varadkar was spouting about how a hard Brexit could lead to a united Ireland. This is probably true, but it is hardly a good time to be saying such a thing – and still expect Boris to immediately get on the phone to him.

If Vardkar’s aim is a united Ireland, then I am with him on that. Just not in this manner – not messing with our opportunity of leaving the EU.

 

[Hrothbern]

The UK hasnt figured out what it wants to do outside the EU with either free trade, subsidies to business, nationalization of business or protectionism

Very much so

As long as the UK has no clear idea about its future position and direction, it is impossible for an UK team or an EU team to negotiate anything meaningful on trade !

And without that common trade goal above bare WTO level, the only things left to discuss are the "bare bone" arrangements. The normal and BTW quite big lists of point specific bilateral agreements that developed countries usually have.
Because the UK and the EU are on the same continent, have much historical cooperation, have much trade, that list of bilaterals should be quite big. Most of that now not needed because of UK EU-membership.

Although it hurts me to say it:
I think the UK, as a whole, could learn a lot, could get much better informed on this issue, if it would crash out of the EU without a deal on Oct 31.

When I was a small kid... when my parents said that I should not touch the coal stove heater because it was hot and would hurt me... I just had to find out whether, or better how much that was true... and the flaking mica glass was intriguing.

The big difference ofc that that painful blister was healed within a week.
And just 6-12 months or so crashed out of the EU would probably be enough... finding out that the conditions the US put on a US-FTA deal are strangling... finding out that zero WTO tariffs protect rampant inflation for consumers, but are devastating for some domestic sectors of the economy... finding out that a lower Pound does not really help exports (because so much imports are needed for export products).
Basically finding out that you need a transformation plan made and implemented during a transition period within the EU market (that withdrawal deal period until Dec 2020) before you can truly Leave.

But there is no plan to Leave... there was never made a plan to Leave... even now the "so called plan to Leave with no-deal" is no transformation plan, but just a quick fix to avoid immediate disruptions to consumers, to voters.

The first thing that still needs to happen is that the UK has to figure out where it wants to be.
The UK as a whole... not some faction.
The UK now and in 1-5-10 years from now... not the hot air positions to gain voters for the next election.

 

[Arakhor]

Nor was a "deal brexit" on the paper.

Absolutely. There was nothing whatsoever on the paper about any type of Brexit.

Why the hell should he talk to Varadkar who has allowed the NI border problems to be weaponised by the EU against Britain and in the process made a mountain out of a molehill? If we end up with a hard border, it will very much be down to Varadkar.

I know that it's essential to have a figurehead to rail against when all goes to hell in a handbasket, but picking a chap who's been in office less time than Theresa May seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[Gorbles]

The EU decided early in the process to use Ireland as a bargaining chip to pressure the UK. The idea was to allege that the UK had to guarantee no border in Ireland and therefore* grant a series of concessions in regulatory matters to the EU, including submitting to present and future EU laws and courts. In practice it calls for the UK to abrogate its sovereignty to the EU. This was the "deal" the EU demanded from the UK. Either place NY under that "deal", a UK territory under EU law, or place itself (the whole UK) under that "deal".

Obviously no country places itself under the laws of another power lightly (to say the least). This was such an exorbitant demand that it was refused three times in parliament despite all the fear-mongering, and despite the fact that most MP are openly pro-EU.
It was made worse by the fact that this international treaty between the UK and the EU commit the UK to remain bound by it until the EU saw fit to release the UK (the "backstop": if no new deal was reached between the EU and the UK, the UK would remain a vassal of the EU, obedient to any future legislation it decided to produce, and to any court decisions it passed, on a wide range of subjects).


Without a deal, the nature of the border in Ireland is undefined. It may be a guarded border, or it may be a nearly nonexistent one. It depends entirely on how the UK, on its side, and Ireland, on the other side, decide to enforce it.

The UK's government can easily declare unilaterally that products and people can continue to cross the border freely, and do its custom checks on the ports that connect to Great Britain. Due to the lack of any infrastructure in the border this is its most logical position for the foreseeable future, a few years at the least. There are no downsides to the UK for doing just that: Ireland remains part of the UK fully and exclusively under UK law, its locals and products can be waved through any customs checks (with some fraud to be expected, but that's not a problem really), and the situation can be revised if necessary.
The sole reason the UK hasn't agreed to a "sea border" in a deal with the EU was that the EU demanded more than this: it demanded that EU law apply to Northern Ireland, and that this situation of legislation above the UK law and having a "sea border" be permanent.

As for the position of the Republic of Ireland, it is complicated. The RoI would wish that no border existed, and be happy to reach a deal with the UK to move customs checks to ports. But the EU has been (so far) understood to demand more, that the RoI enforce a "hard border" across the island. The whole excuse of the EU to demand that the UK accept a deal submitting itself to EU laws was the story that without such a "deal" a hard border would be inevitable... can they change tune in the event of the UK leaving without submitting?
Imho they can and will, with little embarrassment, made easier by the fact that the whole commission and the godfather of the bureaucrats in Brussels are being replaced. And journalists will have a collective bout of amnesia about what had been demanded prior to the UK's exit without a deal, and just cover the "wonderful new solution" of doing customs checks over the Irish Sea.

I find it incredibly funny that however many Brexit threads on, you're still trying to pin absolutely, 100% British screwups as somehow the fault of these apparent Italian gangsters in Brussels (unless mentioning "godfather" was just a very weird coincidence ).

The Tories took the deal with the DUP to ensure a majority, which had political consequences on the state of the Union. They made this problem worse, and completely ham-fisted any dealing with it by completing ignoring the issue of the backstop to the point of even claiming it wouldn't be an issue if the EU didn't press it.

But the EU had to press it, because the UK has no sovereignty over the Republic of Ireland which is, naturally, whom half of the backstop applies to. Ignoring the very complicated living history of NI and the RoI of course, families on both sides, the nature of a hard border being anathema to most, etc. Ignoring all of that for a second, the backstop is important and the UK (read as: Tories and / or MPs supporting Brexit in general of which other parties do have their share) trying to find some weird solution that benefits them the most (instead of, y'know, Ireland) is naturally going to be criticised by the EU as not being enough.

Also, please do remember that a sea border means that by nature of the actual sea itself it means the line has to sit in EU waters. RoI is a part of the EU. Outside of Schengen, enjoying the same freedom of movement the UK also benefited from (being outside of the Schengen also), you can't magically negotiate a border that involves EU trade law by dint of it being in EU waters, and then complain that the EU is being heavy-handed in dealing with that border. They're fully within rights to, all because the UK has historically and continually messed up the situation in Ireland, and that this now-called backstop is just another consequence of that. The UK wants to not have to deal with the messy land border in Ireland physically, but they are then also subject to EU trade law if they decide to plonk that in the Irish Sea!

Like, pin as much as you want on the EU. We here in the UK caused this, and are continuing to cause this. We are the reason why historically the backstop is even an issue (because, well, we occupied Northern Ireland, right), and currently are still the issue because of the deal the Tories willingly made with the DUP, giving them money that apparently we didn't have (let me reference May's amazing quote about there being no "magic money tree", not long before giving the DUP however much money that tree actually did have on it).

 

[brennan]

Well, the Remain supporting CBI seems to think we are ahead of the EU in preparations.

Amusing reading. The EU could: "Agree grace periods", "Allow continuing UK participation", "Provide a grace period", "Provide a grace period", "Introduce a measure to allow continued recognition of UK-based testing", "Enable the continued UK participation"... Essentially the CBI idea of preparing for Brexit is for the EU to pretend it didn't happen.

 

[Hrothbern]

Well, the Remain supporting CBI seems to think we are ahead of the EU in preparations.
And Boris has only just got started….

"Crucially, while there is more to do, the CBI observes that the UK is ahead of the EU in planning for no deal."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49142762

That article has as starter line that the UK and EU are both not well prepared and ends the article with: "Crucially, while there is more to do, the CBI observes that the UK is ahead of the EU in planning for no deal."

In between a lot of critisism on the situation, but nowhere evidence for those two statements above. => It is their opinion.

The article of Reuters on the CBI statements tells us a bit more than that BBC article:

LONDON (Reuters) - The European Union is less prepared for a no-deal Brexit than Britain, potentially leaving British firms at a disadvantage if there is no transition agreement and weakening London’s hand in future trade talks, a British employers group said.
The EU, with the exception of Ireland, lags behind Britain in its no-deal preparations “by some way”, the Confederation of British Industry said on Sunday.
“The combination of the EU and UK’s different approaches creates an imbalance, where EU goods and services exports will have easier access to the UK than UK goods and services exports will to the EU,” the CBI said in a report.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...are-for-no-deal-brexit-risk-cbi-idUSKCN1UN0TP

Again the CBI does not provide arguments, evidence, but the position of the opinion is now more clear:
The EU does not maximise its efforts to make UK exports easier to the EU if there is no transition until Dec 2020 from that Withdrawal deal.
Is that a surprise ?
The UK, officially represented by its chosen PM Theresa May choose to negotiate that Withdrawal deal....

Why would the EU seriously prepare for no-deal except bare necessities ? And those bare necessities do not include ALL UK exports to the EU.
It is the UK changing tack after three years.
And now, after those three years, only because there is now a Boris Johnson, the EU should suddenly start preparing no-deal to help UK exports ?
And will Boris Johnson still be there after Oct 31 ?
Will the UK make another tack ?


EDIT
Another way to look at that CBI opinion that the EU does not help UK exports in a no-deal... is to interpretate it as a veiled advice to Boris to stop the no-deal nonsense and make a deal with a transition period where the UK companies do not have that disadvantage they describe.

The CBI is after all trying to support its members, all those companies in the UK.
The CBI is probably also pretty well informed how their exporting companies are fearing that EU customer companies are already re-routing their UK suppliers to intra-EU suppliers.

 

[Arakhor]

Amusing reading. The EU could: "Agree grace periods", "Allow continuing UK participation", "Provide a grace period", "Provide a grace period", "Introduce a measure to allow continued recognition of UK-based testing", "Enable the continued UK participation"... Essentially the CBI idea of preparing for Brexit is for the EU to pretend it didn't happen.

Besides, they're experts. This country had enough of experts years ago.