SD on 10/7/2018 at 18:41
Quote Posted by Starker
I don't know if there ever were that many options. EFTA doesn't really want UK, for example. And Switzerland has negotiated bilateral agreements for decades to make it kind of sort of work. And EEA is politically unacceptable in the UK. And the Canada-style agreement (a free trade deal, basically) is politically risky in that it would create a "hard border" between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Let me clarify. What I'm saying is they're all, essentially, off the shelf options; arrangements that have been proven to work. But rather than working to one of these realistic templates, the UK has wasted three quarters of the negotiation time seeking a bespoke deal. The vision of the Brexit lobby was a complete and utter fantasy, in which we can leave the EU and have frictionless trade with the rest of Europe while being able to end freedom of movement. Ignorant politicians were given a mandate to do the impossible by ignorant voters who were swayed by decades of lies and misinformation about the European Union.
caffeinatedzombeh on 10/7/2018 at 21:00
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I don't see how they're going to have immigration controls
and basically no border control (around Northern Ireland). I really don't see any way to shimmy out of that contradiction. Those interests are straight-up competing.
It's kinda worked so far, whilst there has historically been more of a border than there is now (at times quite a bit more) that's generally been rather more concerned with bombs and guns crossing it than people.
Mostly immigration into the UK is enforced by landlords and employers having to check the right to live and work in the UK. How much the UK and Ireland have enforced each others immigration policies at point of entry has varied depending on how similar they were at the time, whilst both being members of the EU has increased that similarity it has little to do with the origins of the way it's dealt with.
Pyrian on 10/7/2018 at 22:12
Quote Posted by caffeinatedzombeh
It's kinda worked so far...
...Because a "soft" Ireland border and EU free movement rules are inherently compatible.
caffeinatedzombeh on 10/7/2018 at 22:31
Yes, but one of them has been there rather a lot longer than the other.
Pyrian on 11/7/2018 at 03:44
And now that "old" thing is likely to have to coexist with a UK/EU border control zone that has never existed before. It can remain "soft"... It can become "hard"... But it can't be both simultaneously. Seriously, am I just not explaining this right? You can have an border with no checks like Ireland/Northern Ireland seems to want, you can have a border with immigration controls like Brexit is principally concerned with, you could even have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK like nobody wants. But satisfying those conditions simultaneously? Not so easy.
caffeinatedzombeh on 11/7/2018 at 14:23
Ireland isn't in the EU's Schengen free movement zone.
People wise the new situation there is exactly the same as the current one it just applies to more people.
If Ireland were to change their minds about that then sure the EU would require them to put up serious border controls there. The two areas where there are real issues going forward are in standards recognition and import tariffs.
I don't personally see that there needs to actually be any issues over standards of things like food but the potential is there and it needs to be agreed upon and it'll be more about dispute resolution than anything else.
Very few people in the UK would want to see any reduction in quality and safety standards and I doubt anyone would expect we could drag the EU's standards up anywhere we might think they're lacking.
The only thing that really is a very real problem is the tax.
heywood on 12/7/2018 at 13:17
Philosophically, I see Pyrian's point. They want to have their cake and eat it too. But legally and treaty-wise, it shouldn't be an issue, and practically, it doesn't need to be an issue either.
As caffeinatedzombeh alluded to, the open borders area that covers most of the EU was created by the Schengen agreement, not an EU treaty. There are EU members who are not in the Schengen area and non-EU members which are in the Schengen area. Ireland and the UK are not currently in it, and they are not obliged to join because they were given the right to opt out by EU treaty. Ireland and the UK and the other British Isles have their own common travel area that pre-existed the EU. Brexit need not change any of that.
From a practical point of view, the UK already allows visa-free travel from the rest of the EU and a whole lot of other places even though it's not in the Schengen area, and Schengen area countries similarly allow visa free travel from the UK and a whole lot of other places. I know there is a proposal to change this so that visitors to the Schengen area would have to make an electronic visa application and pay a fee to visit, but I suspect that is an empty threat since it will affect a large number of other countries besides the UK and Ireland. And even if they go through with it, and the UK reciprocates, EU citizens will still be able to travel to the UK easily without having to go to Ireland first and cross the border.
One thing I assume that's definitely going to change if Brexit proceeds is removal of the right to work for EU citizens. That will reduce the rate of legal migration into the UK for work, which seems to be one of the chief aims of the Brexiters. But that seems to be independent of what you do with the Ireland border.
There are basically two ways that people illegally migrate. First, you can enter legally under a false pretense such as tourism or business and then just stay and work gigs or under the table. That will still happen no matter what happens with Brexit. The other way people get in is to sneak in. Sneaking into the UK is a lot easier than sneaking into Ireland because they can come across the channel, so closing the border with Ireland probably wouldn't do much to limit illegal migration.
The tax issue doesn't seem to be insurmountable either. One obvious solution is for the UK to remain in the EU Customs Union after Brexit. There are already a few small states which are part of the EUCU but not EU members, so there is precedent. Business interests would love that, but I assume this solution is unpalatable to the Brexit supporters because it wouldn't leave the UK enough freedom to pursue an independent trade policy. A second option is to leave the EUCU but establish a customs union agreement with the EU that largely preserves the status quo for now but allows the possibility of diverging trade policy in the future. In other words, a soft exit. The announcement last week made it sound like the latter option is the goal of the UK government, and the EU has customs union agreements with other states already so there is precedent for that too.
But even if there is no customs union, it's not the end of the world. It depends on how strict you want to be with customs enforcement with Ireland. A loose option is to leave the border as is and require the businesses who are importing and exporting across the border to self-report, and audit them as necessary, the same way as other taxes are collected. Obviously there's a greater opportunity for fraud and smuggling with no border controls, but until/unless that becomes a significant problem I don't see the justification for putting up checkpoints and conducting customs inspections.
I don't know how people are thinking about it over there, but from this side of the Atlantic it seems like the border issue is a case of the tail is wagging the dog. The NI/RoI border is only one of many places where goods enter and leave the UK. The value of goods crossing that border is a relative pittance, a very small percentage of the total imports and exports of the UK, and also a very small percentage of total imports and exports of Ireland. The vast majority of trade between Ireland and UK doesn't go across that border. If there isn't a customs union with the EU, there are going to be a lot more UK businesses impacted than those who transact across that border.
I think there almost has to be a customs union arrangement in order for Brexit to succeed, otherwise the economic impact will be too great. Of course it begs the question: if the goal is to not impact commerce, so business is going to be like it is today, do you need to Brexit? What have you gained besides getting rid of the right to work?
nickie on 15/1/2019 at 19:55
Does anyone know anything about what's going on with Brexit? I see May has just lost the MPs vote (massively) but I've not been paying attention to it all so don't know what that means. Might we be so lucky, lucky, lucky that we don't actually leave?
Edit. (
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46885828)
demagogue on 15/1/2019 at 20:07
This image summed up the present state of affairs to me.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2530[/ATTACH]
It's like they're trying to square a circle, like the fundamental thing they insist on doing is the thing they can't do.
Sorry it doesn't answer your question though. The whole thing is well outside my ken. I want to think no-deal is a brinkman's tactic to push for a second referendum, but that's a risky game to play. (I'm American so my opinion doesn't really count anyway. :sweat: )
Medlar on 15/1/2019 at 20:21
The problem of a second referendum of course; where does it end? The best of 3 or 5. Democracy demands good losers.