In short, this marks the end of the hard Brexit dream. Realpolitik prevails - as we knew it would 18 months ago. So all the bluster since has really just been sound and fury, signifying - effectively - nothing. Mog, Farage, Redwood et all will not be happy today which means that I will be. Independence Day indeed.
The idea that the EU has been actively frustrating talks and not the UK's laughable and desperate posturing is entirely risible.
Considering we have now reached an agreement that the EU has always been putting forward and that the UK voted for as per the referendum campaigning.
The idea that the EU didn’t use the border as a bargaining chip and a means of getting the U.K. to define a solution that ore defined the outcome of the trade deal is laughable and desperate posturing and entirely risible.
Citizens rights was never a point of disagreement, just another bargaining chip to frustrate progress.
Are you saying that the EU27 doesn't have the right to define it's borders when dealing with a third party.
Or perhaps you think it would be healthy to leave the issue open so the DUP and Sinn Fein have maximum leverage to disrupt the process.
The reality is that the alt-right now have nowhere to go and no leverage. What's not to like?
This might even be enough to bring Sinn Fein back to Stormont but that's speculation - posters such as @NornIrishAddick would be far better placed to assess the preconditions for Stormont to start working again.
I thought defining the customs border was supposed to be the definition of "progress". It hasn't been defined, it's up in the air, that's the whole point, what have they been talking about? Perhaps the EU was only pretending it expected the customs border to be finalised before a trade deal was agreed.
What did I say I didn't like, apart from the EU's strategic ploy of delaying tactics. Amazingly a deal is reached 5 minutes before the deadline set by the EU as predicted by JRM. The EU never reach a deal until 5 minutes before the deadline, and it's always the other side's fault, where are our conspiracy theorists?
As usual we have Remainers telling Brexiteers why they voted, what they haven't got and why they should take to the streets.
As @Fiiish is the expert on listing lies here are some from Remainers he should jot down in his exercise book: Brexit would mean all foreigners to be expelled Brexit would mean a hard Irish border and civil war Brexit would mean the EU was entitled to be paid whatever it asked for
When the lies are finally discredited by the outcome of negotiations, we are told by Remainers that Brexit voters have been sold down the river by the politicians.
When we eventually get a deal on trade that means not much has changed, and there will be aspects of the UK post Brexit having to seek agreement from the EU on regulatory issues affecting trade, I am expecting Brexit voters to be told they didn't get what they voted for. Remainers will still be telling Brexit voters they didn't get the the clusterfuck they voted for so they lost.
Why not wait until the negotiations are 5 minutes before the EU final, final deadline before you start pontificating and making yourself look needy to see a disastrous outcome.
'Everyone born in NI retains EU citizenship'? That doesn't seem fair. I want to retain my EU citizenship. As, I am sure the people of Scotland do!
The GFA gives every Northern Irish citizen Irish Citizenship and British Citizenship if they so wish (they can be citizens of either or both) so they were always going to have EU Citizenship.
"Irrespective of Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the United Kingdom, or part of a united Ireland, the right of "the people of Northern Ireland" to "identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" (as well as their right to hold either or both British and/or Irish citizenship) was recognised. By the words "people of Northern Ireland" the Agreement meant "all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence."
'Everyone born in NI retains EU citizenship'? That doesn't seem fair. I want to retain my EU citizenship. As, I am sure the people of Scotland do!
The GFA gives every Northern Irish citizen Irish Citizenship and British Citizenship if they so wish (they can be citizens of either or both) so they were always going to have EU Citizenship.
We've established that fact.
Just for fairness could the Brexit Agreement give British citizens a similar right? - so the right to be a British citizen, the right to be a de facto 'citizen' of the EU in terms of residency rights, or both. I have that now (as NI citizens have that now) - can I keep it please?
So exactly what does a no hard border mean and how will that work if the DUP won’t accept any special treatment for NI that isn’t consistent with the rest of the U.K. ?
The idea that the EU has been actively frustrating talks and not the UK's laughable and desperate posturing is entirely risible.
Considering we have now reached an agreement that the EU has always been putting forward and that the UK voted for as per the referendum campaigning.
The idea that the EU didn’t use the border as a bargaining chip and a means of getting the U.K. to define a solution that ore defined the outcome of the trade deal is laughable and desperate posturing and entirely risible.
Citizens rights was never a point of disagreement, just another bargaining chip to frustrate progress.
Are you saying that the EU27 doesn't have the right to define it's borders when dealing with a third party.
Or perhaps you think it would be healthy to leave the issue open so the DUP and Sinn Fein have maximum leverage to disrupt the process.
The reality is that the alt-right now have nowhere to go and no leverage. What's not to like?
This might even be enough to bring Sinn Fein back to Stormont but that's speculation - posters such as @NornIrishAddick would be far better placed to assess the preconditions for Stormont to start working again.
I thought defining the customs border was supposed to be the definition of "progress". It hasn't been defined, it's up in the air, that's the whole point, what have they been talking about? Perhaps the EU was only pretending it expected the customs border to be finalised before a trade deal was agreed.
What did I say I didn't like, apart from the EU's strategic ploy of delaying tactics. Amazingly a deal is reached 5 minutes before the deadline set by the EU as predicted by JRM. The EU never reach a deal until 5 minutes before the deadline, and it's always the other side's fault, where are our conspiracy theorists?
As usual we have Remainers telling Brexiteers why they voted, what they haven't got and why they should take to the streets.
As @Fiiish is the expert on listing lies here are some from Remainers he should jot down in his exercise book: Brexit would mean all foreigners to be expelled Brexit would mean a hard Irish border and civil war Brexit would mean the EU was entitled to be paid whatever it asked for
When the lies are finally discredited by the outcome of negotiations, we are told by Remainers that Brexit voters have been sold down the river by the politicians.
When we eventually get a deal on trade that means not much has changed, and there will be aspects of the UK post Brexit having to seek agreement from the EU on regulatory issues affecting trade, I am expecting Brexit voters to be told they didn't get what they voted for. Remainers will still be telling Brexit voters they didn't get the the clusterfuck they voted for so they lost.
Why not wait until the negotiations are 5 minutes before the EU final, final deadline before you start pontificating and making yourself look needy to see a disastrous outcome.
There's so much wrong and rewriting of history going on in this post I wouldn't know where to start tbh but you seem to have misunderstood the phrase, "sufficient progress" as a minimum.
The idea that the EU has been actively frustrating talks and not the UK's laughable and desperate posturing is entirely risible.
Considering we have now reached an agreement that the EU has always been putting forward and that the UK voted for as per the referendum campaigning.
The idea that the EU didn’t use the border as a bargaining chip and a means of getting the U.K. to define a solution that ore defined the outcome of the trade deal is laughable and desperate posturing and entirely risible.
Citizens rights was never a point of disagreement, just another bargaining chip to frustrate progress.
Are you saying that the EU27 doesn't have the right to define it's borders when dealing with a third party.
Or perhaps you think it would be healthy to leave the issue open so the DUP and Sinn Fein have maximum leverage to disrupt the process.
The reality is that the alt-right now have nowhere to go and no leverage. What's not to like?
This might even be enough to bring Sinn Fein back to Stormont but that's speculation - posters such as @NornIrishAddick would be far better placed to assess the preconditions for Stormont to start working again.
I thought defining the customs border was supposed to be the definition of "progress". It hasn't been defined, it's up in the air, that's the whole point, what have they been talking about? Perhaps the EU was only pretending it expected the customs border to be finalised before a trade deal was agreed.
What did I say I didn't like, apart from the EU's strategic ploy of delaying tactics. Amazingly a deal is reached 5 minutes before the deadline set by the EU as predicted by JRM. The EU never reach a deal until 5 minutes before the deadline, and it's always the other side's fault, where are our conspiracy theorists?
As usual we have Remainers telling Brexiteers why they voted, what they haven't got and why they should take to the streets.
As @Fiiish is the expert on listing lies here are some from Remainers he should jot down in his exercise book: Brexit would mean all foreigners to be expelled Brexit would mean a hard Irish border and civil war Brexit would mean the EU was entitled to be paid whatever it asked for
When the lies are finally discredited by the outcome of negotiations, we are told by Remainers that Brexit voters have been sold down the river by the politicians.
When we eventually get a deal on trade that means not much has changed, and there will be aspects of the UK post Brexit having to seek agreement from the EU on regulatory issues affecting trade, I am expecting Brexit voters to be told they didn't get what they voted for. Remainers will still be telling Brexit voters they didn't get the the clusterfuck they voted for so they lost.
Why not wait until the negotiations are 5 minutes before the EU final, final deadline before you start pontificating and making yourself look needy to see a disastrous outcome.
Do you still expect a FTA with the EU without full alignment of rules and regulations between the UK an the EU?
@Dippenhall whatever the details brexit is a disastrous outcome in any way shape or form in my view. What brexit means is continually open to interpretation by all, however I think we can assume we stay in the customs union and single market with the EU and have open borders given the announcement this morning. So brexit means that at least. I don't know if there are going to be any benefits from brexit, or ones that improve on the excellence of us being in the EU. Any ideas?
As Fiiish is the expert on listing lies here are some from Remainers he should jot down in his exercise book: Brexit would mean all foreigners to be expelled Brexit would mean a hard Irish border and civil war Brexit would mean the EU was entitled to be paid whatever it asked for
When the lies are finally discredited by the outcome of negotiations, we are told by Remainers that Brexit voters have been sold down the river by the politicians.
Dippenhall once again confusing the paranoid fiction he has concocted in his head with reality.
@Dippenhall whatever the details brexit is a disastrous outcome in any way shape or form in my view. What brexit means is continually open to interpretation by all, however I think we can assume we stay in the customs union and single market with the EU and have open borders given the announcement this morning. So brexit means that at least. I don't know if there are going to be any benefits from brexit, or ones that improve on the excellence of us being in the EU. Any ideas?
That Seth is the logical interpretation of this mornings information but how will remaining in the SM and CU be achieved without maintaining all of the four freedoms which are anathema to the likes of Mogg, Redwood, IDS et al.
This final solution (apologies) effectively means that Brexit really wasn’t Brexit or am I missing something ?
By the way if we adopted the 'sit back and wait for the politicians to hash it out' approach being advocated by Brexiters on here in all cases the Valley would have been paved over long ago.
The victories Remainers have secured and continue to secure are evidence that direct action has an effect.
17 million people didn't agree A large number couldn't be bothered to cast a vote for that excellence.
Hopefully a sensible soft brexit will emerge with a fta which might be an outcome that satisfies a sizeable chunk of the uk and indeed our Eu friends and neighbours.
A lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions are here. The most important part was always going to be the trade negotiations. Let's wait and see what we can negotiate here. One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
A lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions are here. The most important part was always going to be the trade negotiations. Let's wait and see what we can negotiate here. One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
This post was going well until your last sentence. Completely unnecessary and completely wrong.
A great article that gives the lie to the false and unsubstantiated theory that the EU is trying to punish Britain or frustrate talks. Written by an actual European, as opposed to a little Englander who continues to tell us what the EU is really doing (in his fantasy world).
A lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions are here. The most important part was always going to be the trade negotiations. Let's wait and see what we can negotiate here. One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
Do you think about what you write ?
Most remainers are pompous and arrogant but it’s not ok to say leavers are dumb and stupid !!!!
A lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions are here. The most important part was always going to be the trade negotiations. Let's wait and see what we can negotiate here. One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
Do you think about what you write ?
Most retainers are pompous and arrogant but it’s not ok to say leavers are dumb and stupid !!!!
Double standards ?
Yep - the country is f*cked as it's exclusively populated with arrogant, pompous, dumb and stupid people.
The only hope is that those who were don't know/didn't vote have a brain cell between them.
How can we possibly comply with these terms without the entire UK remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market?
Seems to me, reading that, that we simply end up outside the Single Market but following their rules and regs anyway to ensure there's no border. Personally we should be doing that for many practical reasons anyway but I fail to see what the point of the whole fecking exercise is in that case.
Not really the big, shouty taking back of control of our laws that was spun to Leave voters is it?
I think Owen Jones has been cutting and pasting from Charlton Life...that's really going to pee off someone on this thread...
"...As things stand, Britain is heading for long-term de facto membership of the single market and the customs union, even if we are technically in neither, in order to preserve the Northern Irish peace process. We will simply have to observe regulations that we have no power over and no say in making. Taking back control, indeed."
A great article that gives the lie to the false and unsubstantiated theory that the EU is trying to punish Britain or frustrate talks. Written by an actual European, as opposed to a little Englander who continues to tell us what the EU is really doing (in his fantasy world).
Yeah, that's what he says but his second para gives the game away.
Why is this a surprise to anyone? It was obvious that if we left the EU, we would be in a crap negotiating position and that the EU would want to make sure we had a hard time so as to discourage anyone else.
It's enraging hearing Farage condemn the deal after he went on and on about how desperate the EU would be to negotiate a deal with us.
By giving in to each and every EU demand, the May government is showing that it is finally learning to behave like the junior partner it is. Brussels and EU member states are far too polite and constructive to say so out loud, but for the next decade or so the default position for Britain in its dealings with the EU is simple: you suck it up.
A lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions are here. The most important part was always going to be the trade negotiations. Let's wait and see what we can negotiate here. One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
No, that's just me....
But only because it's such a flattering look.
For what it is worth, I agree with you that the real work is yet to be done; but what I must stress is that the EU rules make clear that, beyond the framework of any future trading relationship, the Article 50 negotiations are not really about a future Free Trade Agreement (in many ways, this is a good thing, because it allows the broad brush issues be negotiated in advance of departure, though the evidence of the last 6 months is that, in the current discussions, even these are progressing much less quickly than was envisaged).
There are some links between the areas of "sufficient progress" today and the future relationship, but they are not really that close. I very much doubt, for example, that the interpretation that the EU27 place on the wording is that anything that has been agreed is conditional on a future beneficial trade arrangement for the UK.
Under the existing rules, the trade negotiations, at least the detailed discussions, must wait until the UK has left. Most informed sources suggest that, notwithstanding the current regulatory alignment (a point reinforced with this week's drama) the scope of any preferred UK Free Trade Agreement with the EU means that we will be very lucky indeed to see one negotiated within the next 7-8 years (I have my doubts that many other FTAs will be concluded in advance of that with the EU, because the nature of the trading relationship that some others will want with the UK will be determined by the UK's relationship with its neighbour).
It is clear that the EU27 wants to see progress in the talks, because delay hurts everyone, but I would not read much more than that into today's events. The easy intro parts have been moved on enough for more issues to be considered - but the final nature of the UK's departure, even without the trade issues, needs to be determined, and there is precious little time to manage that.
A great article that gives the lie to the false and unsubstantiated theory that the EU is trying to punish Britain or frustrate talks. Written by an actual European, as opposed to a little Englander who continues to tell us what the EU is really doing (in his fantasy world).
Yeah, that's what he says but his second para gives the game away.
Why is this a surprise to anyone? It was obvious that if we left the EU, we would be in a crap negotiating position and that the EU would want to make sure we had a hard time so as to discourage anyone else.
It's enraging hearing Farage condemn the deal after he went on and on about how desperate the EU would be to negotiate a deal with us.
By giving in to each and every EU demand, the May government is showing that it is finally learning to behave like the junior partner it is. Brussels and EU member states are far too polite and constructive to say so out loud, but for the next decade or so the default position for Britain in its dealings with the EU is simple: you suck it up.
So the 27-member bloc that is many times larger than the UK in terms of economic power, is the largest and most diverse market in the world, has growing and substantial influence, and countries are lining up desperate for access to this market, is using its clout to strengthen this position against a country that is hostile, run by incompetent cretins pandering to extremist views, is declining in importance on the world stage and hardly any countries seem to be keen to strike a decent trade deal post Brexit?
I'm sorry, why do people keep pointing this out as if it was remotely surprising or unacceptable?
We are the minnow in the negotiations. And we are pissing away any goodwill and influence we have. Influence we have mostly thanks to our history of colonialism and imperial conquest as opposed to being particularly good diplomats or being an economic powerhouse.
The most telling (or infuriating, depending on your viewpoint) comments are contained in these four paragraphs -
The great surprise of the text of the joint report is that its language is actually much more favourable to Ireland that the text that was leaked on Monday as having been agreed. The language that caused the Democratic Unionist Party to threaten hellfire and damnation suggested that there would be continuing “regulatory alignment” between the two parts of Ireland. What we’ve actually ended up with is much firmer and clearer - and it explicitly invokes the customs union and the single market as the source of these regulations: “In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
The phrase “in the future” is crucial - it means that every single change in the EU’s rules will have to be mirrored north of the border. But this is now the wooden horse inside the walls of Troy because, to avoid the idea of Northern Ireland becoming a separate regulatory space, there will also have to be the same mirroring of the rules and regulations that continue to apply in Northern Ireland by the UK as a whole. The mathematics are simple: if A equals B and B equals C, then C equals A. A is Ireland’s position in the single market and customs union, B is Northern Ireland’s full alignment to that position and C is the UK’s commitment not to differ from Northern Ireland. The commitment to have no barriers to east-west trade means that London is effectively a prisoner of Belfast.
I suggested earlier this week that we were seeing things being turned upside down: instead of, as DUP leader Arlene Foster insisted, Northern Ireland leaving the EU on the same terms as the UK, the UK will have to leave the EU on the same terms as Northern Ireland. This, in effect, is what is now agreed. We always knew the Border is extremely porous, but what has now been smuggled across it is a minimum condition for the second phase of the Brexit talks: whatever trade arrangements eventually emerge, they cannot be ones in which Britain strays much beyond the existing customs and market arrangements. To adapt Henry Ford, Britain can have any Brexit it likes, so long as it is green.
Apart from all of its other consequences, this means the DUP’s great bluff has been called. It was insisting on two contradictory things: no special status for Northern Ireland and completely leaving the customs union and single market. This contradiction has come back to haunt the whole Brexit project -the DUP has been forced to concede that if the first condition is to be satisfied, the second in effect cannot. The deal secured by Ireland does not necessarily force the UK to stay in the customs union and single market. It just forces it to act as if it has stayed in - a distinction without a difference. Call it what you like - if it acts like a customs union, moves like a customs union and is fully aligned like a customs union, it is a customs union.
Last week’s column highlighted how, 90 years ago, Ireland’s economic relations with the UK were tied up with the future of the Border. Now, achieving a successful agreement on economic relations between the EU and the UK is entangled in the same thicket.
The Irish Government has repeatedly emphasised that the “border issue” in the Brexit talks is not about furthering Ireland’s economic interests.
Instead it is the top priority for Irish negotiators because of the vital national interest in preserving and developing a Northern Ireland that is happy, successful and reconciled with its constitutional position.
Border controls within the island would disrupt the current position of limited harmony. Unfortunately the UK government has so far shown less concern for the long-term interests of its citizens in the North, something that could best be protected by the UK remaining in the customs union.
In that context the agreement reached on Friday morning in Brussels was as good as could have been achieved at this stage of the negotiations.
Given that we still don’t know what the nature of the UK’s eventual trading relationships will be with the EU, the text had to provide for a range of different eventualities.
Structurally ambiguous It also had to be structurally ambiguous to cover the fact that the UK’s future course of action is undecided.
However, the statement by Arlene Foster that Northern Ireland would now leave the single market and the customs union (with the UK) is incompatible with the stated aim of ensuring no borders on the island or between the island of Ireland and Britain.
The text agreed between the EU and the UK leaves open the possibility that the UK as a whole may choose to adopt the same regulatory alignment with the EU.
This could facilitate the UK remaining in some form of customs union, though it might be given a different name to humour supporters of Brexit.
This could minimise the economic cost to the UK of leaving the EU and it is favoured by some British politicians, such as Ruth Davidson the Scottish Conservative leader.
However, other UK statements suggest that they only see the regulatory alignment applying to areas covered by the Good Friday Agreement. If this were defined to exclude trade, then a customs border would be inevitable.
The statement by British prime minister Theresa May that the agreement ensures no hard border may be based on her belief that the blame for such a border would lie with the EU rather than the UK if the UK leaves the customs union.
Mental reservation Such a mental reservation would ignore what words mean - leaving the customs union means leaving the customs union and reimposing border controls.
If the agreement means what the EU and Ireland are assuming, it has the down the down-side for those in the UK who want to leave the EU that such regulatory alignment could severely hamper the UK’s ability to do trade deals with other countries.
The US would definitely demand changes in regulations (chlorine chickens?) if they were to negotiate a bilateral trade deal. However, as the medium-term costs of developing independent trade deals becomes apparent, the attractions for the UK of piggy-backing on the EU’s network of trade agreements may increase.
If the UK leaves the customs union there will have to be a customs border somewhere - that is what leaving a customs union means. However, under these circumstances it might be possible to avoid a border on the island for food and agriculture by ensuring regulatory alignment. However, if regulatory alignment only applied to the North, there would have to be checks on trade between the North and Britain for food items.
If the UK leaves the customs union customs controls would have to be located at some point between Britain and the EU. Even with the most liberal trade agreement between the EU and the UK, these controls would be needed to deal with the issue of third country imports. Otherwise imports from countries such as China and Brazil transiting the UK could by-pass EU tariff barriers.
If the UK were to leave the customs union, one possible solution that has been canvassed would be to locate the customs border in the Irish Sea. From an economic point of view it would not make much difference to Ireland where it was located; the presence of customs controls, wherever located, would do major damage to the Irish economy.
Northern Ireland For Northern Ireland, not only would a border in the Irish Sea be politically unacceptable to unionists, it would also be economically damaging. This is because 75 per cent of their imports come from GB compared to less than 10 per cent from the Republic.
Imports to the North account for 45 per cent of all goods they consume or use as inputs in production. The Northern economy is integrated to an exceptional degree with the rest of the UK.
That means that any barriers to imports across the Irish Sea would impose major costs to the Northern economy, on top of any other hits they will take from Brexit.
And any serious disruption to the Northern economy could aggravate political instability, and damage the peace process the Irish Government is so anxious to preserve.
As a result, the ruling out of customs barriers in the Irish Sea is a desirable outcome, not only for the DUP and the people of Northern Ireland, but also for the Irish government in their search for peace and stability on this island.
If cooler heads prevail, “regulatory alignment” might yet prove a practical mechanism to maintain a post-Brexit customs union between all the UK and the EU, to everyone’s benefit.
Mutual recognition of separate national qualifications, from Abitur to A-levels to our Leaving Cert, shows how the principle of equivalence can become a practical instrument to work alongside distinctive approaches in different jurisdictions.
Comments
What did I say I didn't like, apart from the EU's strategic ploy of delaying tactics. Amazingly a deal is reached 5 minutes before the deadline set by the EU as predicted by JRM. The EU never reach a deal until 5 minutes before the deadline, and it's always the other side's fault, where are our conspiracy theorists?
As usual we have Remainers telling Brexiteers why they voted, what they haven't got and why they should take to the streets.
As @Fiiish is the expert on listing lies here are some from Remainers he should jot down in his exercise book:
Brexit would mean all foreigners to be expelled
Brexit would mean a hard Irish border and civil war
Brexit would mean the EU was entitled to be paid whatever it asked for
When the lies are finally discredited by the outcome of negotiations, we are told by Remainers that Brexit voters have been sold down the river by the politicians.
When we eventually get a deal on trade that means not much has changed, and there will be aspects of the UK post Brexit having to seek agreement from the EU on regulatory issues affecting trade, I am expecting Brexit voters to be told they didn't get what they voted for. Remainers will still be telling Brexit voters they didn't get the the clusterfuck they voted for so they lost.
Why not wait until the negotiations are 5 minutes before the EU final, final deadline before you start pontificating and making yourself look needy to see a disastrous outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
"Irrespective of Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the United Kingdom, or part of a united Ireland, the right of "the people of Northern Ireland" to "identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" (as well as their right to hold either or both British and/or Irish citizenship) was recognised. By the words "people of Northern Ireland" the Agreement meant "all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence."
Just for fairness could the Brexit Agreement give British citizens a similar right? - so the right to be a British citizen, the right to be a de facto 'citizen' of the EU in terms of residency rights, or both. I have that now (as NI citizens have that now) - can I keep it please?
I won't be holding my breath.
What brexit means is continually open to interpretation by all, however I think we can assume we stay in the customs union and single market with the EU and have open borders given the announcement this morning. So brexit means that at least.
I don't know if there are going to be any benefits from brexit, or ones that improve on the excellence of us being in the EU.
Any ideas?
This final solution (apologies) effectively means that Brexit really wasn’t Brexit or am I missing something ?
The victories Remainers have secured and continue to secure are evidence that direct action has an effect.
17 million people didn't agree
A large number couldn't be bothered to cast a vote for that excellence.
Hopefully a sensible soft brexit will emerge with a fta which might be an outcome that satisfies a sizeable chunk of the uk and indeed our Eu friends and neighbours.
Free trade deal agreed with Japan.
(*We, in the EU)
One thing continues, most Remainers continue be arrogant and pompous, and think anyone who is a Leaver is dumb and stupid.
Most remainers are pompous and arrogant but it’s not ok to say leavers are dumb and stupid !!!!
Double standards ?
The only hope is that those who were don't know/didn't vote have a brain cell between them.
"...As things stand, Britain is heading for long-term de facto membership of the single market and the customs union, even if we are technically in neither, in order to preserve the Northern Irish peace process. We will simply have to observe regulations that we have no power over and no say in making. Taking back control, indeed."
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/08/tories-pointless-brexit-theatrics-hard-part-final-deal
Why is this a surprise to anyone? It was obvious that if we left the EU, we would be in a crap negotiating position and that the EU would want to make sure we had a hard time so as to discourage anyone else.
It's enraging hearing Farage condemn the deal after he went on and on about how desperate the EU would be to negotiate a deal with us.
But only because it's such a flattering look.
For what it is worth, I agree with you that the real work is yet to be done; but what I must stress is that the EU rules make clear that, beyond the framework of any future trading relationship, the Article 50 negotiations are not really about a future Free Trade Agreement (in many ways, this is a good thing, because it allows the broad brush issues be negotiated in advance of departure, though the evidence of the last 6 months is that, in the current discussions, even these are progressing much less quickly than was envisaged).
There are some links between the areas of "sufficient progress" today and the future relationship, but they are not really that close. I very much doubt, for example, that the interpretation that the EU27 place on the wording is that anything that has been agreed is conditional on a future beneficial trade arrangement for the UK.
Under the existing rules, the trade negotiations, at least the detailed discussions, must wait until the UK has left. Most informed sources suggest that, notwithstanding the current regulatory alignment (a point reinforced with this week's drama) the scope of any preferred UK Free Trade Agreement with the EU means that we will be very lucky indeed to see one negotiated within the next 7-8 years (I have my doubts that many other FTAs will be concluded in advance of that with the EU, because the nature of the trading relationship that some others will want with the UK will be determined by the UK's relationship with its neighbour).
It is clear that the EU27 wants to see progress in the talks, because delay hurts everyone, but I would not read much more than that into today's events. The easy intro parts have been moved on enough for more issues to be considered - but the final nature of the UK's departure, even without the trade issues, needs to be determined, and there is precious little time to manage that.
So the 27-member bloc that is many times larger than the UK in terms of economic power, is the largest and most diverse market in the world, has growing and substantial influence, and countries are lining up desperate for access to this market, is using its clout to strengthen this position against a country that is hostile, run by incompetent cretins pandering to extremist views, is declining in importance on the world stage and hardly any countries seem to be keen to strike a decent trade deal post Brexit?
I'm sorry, why do people keep pointing this out as if it was remotely surprising or unacceptable?
We are the minnow in the negotiations. And we are pissing away any goodwill and influence we have. Influence we have mostly thanks to our history of colonialism and imperial conquest as opposed to being particularly good diplomats or being an economic powerhouse.
;0)
Indeed, Fintan O'Toole suggests that what has happened is that the agreed text of today is more in favour of Ireland's interests than was the rejected text of Monday: https://irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-has-just-saved-the-uk-from-the-madness-of-a-hard-brexit-1.3320096.
The most telling (or infuriating, depending on your viewpoint) comments are contained in these four paragraphs -
The great surprise of the text of the joint report is that its language is actually much more favourable to Ireland that the text that was leaked on Monday as having been agreed. The language that caused the Democratic Unionist Party to threaten hellfire and damnation suggested that there would be continuing “regulatory alignment” between the two parts of Ireland. What we’ve actually ended up with is much firmer and clearer - and it explicitly invokes the customs union and the single market as the source of these regulations: “In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
The phrase “in the future” is crucial - it means that every single change in the EU’s rules will have to be mirrored north of the border. But this is now the wooden horse inside the walls of Troy because, to avoid the idea of Northern Ireland becoming a separate regulatory space, there will also have to be the same mirroring of the rules and regulations that continue to apply in Northern Ireland by the UK as a whole. The mathematics are simple: if A equals B and B equals C, then C equals A. A is Ireland’s position in the single market and customs union, B is Northern Ireland’s full alignment to that position and C is the UK’s commitment not to differ from Northern Ireland. The commitment to have no barriers to east-west trade means that London is effectively a prisoner of Belfast.
I suggested earlier this week that we were seeing things being turned upside down: instead of, as DUP leader Arlene Foster insisted, Northern Ireland leaving the EU on the same terms as the UK, the UK will have to leave the EU on the same terms as Northern Ireland. This, in effect, is what is now agreed. We always knew the Border is extremely porous, but what has now been smuggled across it is a minimum condition for the second phase of the Brexit talks: whatever trade arrangements eventually emerge, they cannot be ones in which Britain strays much beyond the existing customs and market arrangements. To adapt Henry Ford, Britain can have any Brexit it likes, so long as it is green.
Apart from all of its other consequences, this means the DUP’s great bluff has been called. It was insisting on two contradictory things: no special status for Northern Ireland and completely leaving the customs union and single market. This contradiction has come back to haunt the whole Brexit project -the DUP has been forced to concede that if the first condition is to be satisfied, the second in effect cannot. The deal secured by Ireland does not necessarily force the UK to stay in the customs union and single market. It just forces it to act as if it has stayed in - a distinction without a difference. Call it what you like - if it acts like a customs union, moves like a customs union and is fully aligned like a customs union, it is a customs union.
Last week’s column highlighted how, 90 years ago, Ireland’s economic relations with the UK were tied up with the future of the Border. Now, achieving a successful agreement on economic relations between the EU and the UK is entangled in the same thicket.
The Irish Government has repeatedly emphasised that the “border issue” in the Brexit talks is not about furthering Ireland’s economic interests.
Instead it is the top priority for Irish negotiators because of the vital national interest in preserving and developing a Northern Ireland that is happy, successful and reconciled with its constitutional position.
Border controls within the island would disrupt the current position of limited harmony. Unfortunately the UK government has so far shown less concern for the long-term interests of its citizens in the North, something that could best be protected by the UK remaining in the customs union.
In that context the agreement reached on Friday morning in Brussels was as good as could have been achieved at this stage of the negotiations.
Given that we still don’t know what the nature of the UK’s eventual trading relationships will be with the EU, the text had to provide for a range of different eventualities.
Structurally ambiguous
It also had to be structurally ambiguous to cover the fact that the UK’s future course of action is undecided.
However, the statement by Arlene Foster that Northern Ireland would now leave the single market and the customs union (with the UK) is incompatible with the stated aim of ensuring no borders on the island or between the island of Ireland and Britain.
The text agreed between the EU and the UK leaves open the possibility that the UK as a whole may choose to adopt the same regulatory alignment with the EU.
This could facilitate the UK remaining in some form of customs union, though it might be given a different name to humour supporters of Brexit.
This could minimise the economic cost to the UK of leaving the EU and it is favoured by some British politicians, such as Ruth Davidson the Scottish Conservative leader.
However, other UK statements suggest that they only see the regulatory alignment applying to areas covered by the Good Friday Agreement. If this were defined to exclude trade, then a customs border would be inevitable.
The statement by British prime minister Theresa May that the agreement ensures no hard border may be based on her belief that the blame for such a border would lie with the EU rather than the UK if the UK leaves the customs union.
Mental reservation
Such a mental reservation would ignore what words mean - leaving the customs union means leaving the customs union and reimposing border controls.
If the agreement means what the EU and Ireland are assuming, it has the down the down-side for those in the UK who want to leave the EU that such regulatory alignment could severely hamper the UK’s ability to do trade deals with other countries.
The US would definitely demand changes in regulations (chlorine chickens?) if they were to negotiate a bilateral trade deal. However, as the medium-term costs of developing independent trade deals becomes apparent, the attractions for the UK of piggy-backing on the EU’s network of trade agreements may increase.
If the UK leaves the customs union there will have to be a customs border somewhere - that is what leaving a customs union means. However, under these circumstances it might be possible to avoid a border on the island for food and agriculture by ensuring regulatory alignment. However, if regulatory alignment only applied to the North, there would have to be checks on trade between the North and Britain for food items.
If the UK leaves the customs union customs controls would have to be located at some point between Britain and the EU. Even with the most liberal trade agreement between the EU and the UK, these controls would be needed to deal with the issue of third country imports. Otherwise imports from countries such as China and Brazil transiting the UK could by-pass EU tariff barriers.
If the UK were to leave the customs union, one possible solution that has been canvassed would be to locate the customs border in the Irish Sea. From an economic point of view it would not make much difference to Ireland where it was located; the presence of customs controls, wherever located, would do major damage to the Irish economy.
Northern Ireland
For Northern Ireland, not only would a border in the Irish Sea be politically unacceptable to unionists, it would also be economically damaging. This is because 75 per cent of their imports come from GB compared to less than 10 per cent from the Republic.
Imports to the North account for 45 per cent of all goods they consume or use as inputs in production. The Northern economy is integrated to an exceptional degree with the rest of the UK.
That means that any barriers to imports across the Irish Sea would impose major costs to the Northern economy, on top of any other hits they will take from Brexit.
And any serious disruption to the Northern economy could aggravate political instability, and damage the peace process the Irish Government is so anxious to preserve.
As a result, the ruling out of customs barriers in the Irish Sea is a desirable outcome, not only for the DUP and the people of Northern Ireland, but also for the Irish government in their search for peace and stability on this island.
If cooler heads prevail, “regulatory alignment” might yet prove a practical mechanism to maintain a post-Brexit customs union between all the UK and the EU, to everyone’s benefit.
Mutual recognition of separate national qualifications, from Abitur to A-levels to our Leaving Cert, shows how the principle of equivalence can become a practical instrument to work alongside distinctive approaches in different jurisdictions.