I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
A wall! A big, beautiful wall! The biggest wall!
(This is fun. I should have tried being on the other side and just making mad stuff up that can't work, but pretending that, as it's a problem, it must have a solution).
A wall! A solid, well-built, impenetrable wall, made of lovely, expensive, imported, American steel.
And you know who's gonna pay for it? The Belgians!
And, you know what? If anyone says it's not a great idea, it's gonna get ten feet higher!
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
If there was an emmy award for responses you would win it.... Irish times... The irish version of the guardian.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What won't the EU have? HM government hasn't proposed a solution yo the border issue yet, so how could the EU "not have" it?
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What is the compromise position suggested by the UK?
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What is the compromise position suggested by the UK?
Chippy trump cafc would be to take a saw and cut out southern Ireland, and give it the golden boot out to the mid Atlantic... Job done. Save all the bollocks too, lets be honest apart from here no-one else cares... Never hear of it apart from the papers about a few dozen read.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What is the compromise position suggested by the UK?
Chippy trump cafc would be to take a saw and cut out southern Ireland, and give it the golden boot out to the mid Atlantic... Job done. Save all the bollocks too, lets be honest apart from here no-one else cares... Never hear of it apart from the papers about a few dozen read.
Since we’re being nasty I’m sure the Irish would like to tow the UK onto their Atlantic coast so Ireland could be closer to the rest of the sensible Europeans.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What is the compromise position suggested by the UK?
Chippy trump cafc would be to take a saw and cut out southern Ireland, and give it the golden boot out to the mid Atlantic... Job done. Save all the bollocks too, lets be honest apart from here no-one else cares... Never hear of it apart from the papers about a few dozen read.
Since we’re being nasty I’m sure the Irish would like to tow the UK onto their Atlantic coast so Ireland could be closer to the rest of the sensible Europeans.
I am sure they would but they would lose 75% of their agricultural exporrts... I would gladly settle for that
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
A wall! A big, beautiful wall! The biggest wall!
(This is fun. I should have tried being on the other side and just making mad stuff up that can't work, but pretending that, as it's a problem, it must have a solution).
A wall! A solid, well-built, impenetrable wall, made of lovely, expensive, imported, American steel.
And you know who's gonna pay for it? The Belgians!
And, you know what? If anyone says it's not a great idea, it's gonna get ten feet higher!
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
This is a point that is consistently overlooked in the media and most discussions, although you and I've raised it regularly on here.
It's all very well May pretending that we can do away with the need for any tariff checks at a border through (non existent) technology but ultimately the EU will need to protect it's citizens from non-compliant goods being imported into it. And so will the UK from the EU.
So unless the UK agrees to follow EU product safety, food safety, agricultural standards, animal welfare law, etc. there follows there must be some sort of checks on goods crossing from a non-single market member into the single market. As happens at ports all over the UK now with inspections of goods, foodstuffs, etc. imported from outside the EU.
Really interested in hearing what’s going on in the boardrooms of big business at the moment. Not generally a fan of the power and influence some businesses have over wider society, but it’s all very quiet out there.
Have the last round of negotiations quelled the immediate need for answers. We are fast approaching October and I’m surprised I’m not hearing more headlines related to business
Really interested in hearing what’s going on in the boardrooms of big business at the moment. Not generally a fan of the power and influence some businesses have over wider society, but it’s all very quiet out there.
Have the last round of negotiations quelled the immediate need for answers. We are fast approaching October and I’m surprised I’m not hearing more headlines related to business
Really interested in hearing what’s going on in the boardrooms of big business at the moment. Not generally a fan of the power and influence some businesses have over wider society, but it’s all very quiet out there.
Have the last round of negotiations quelled the immediate need for answers. We are fast approaching October and I’m surprised I’m not hearing more headlines related to business
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What is the compromise position suggested by the UK?
Chippy trump cafc would be to take a saw and cut out southern Ireland, and give it the golden boot out to the mid Atlantic... Job done. Save all the bollocks too, lets be honest apart from here no-one else cares... Never hear of it apart from the papers about a few dozen read.
The problem is that this is genuinely how many Brexit voters actually see the world.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What is the compromise position suggested by the UK?
Chippy trump cafc would be to take a saw and cut out southern Ireland, and give it the golden boot out to the mid Atlantic... Job done. Save all the bollocks too, lets be honest apart from here no-one else cares... Never hear of it apart from the papers about a few dozen read.
The problem is that this is genuinely how many Brexit voters actually see the world.
Many see the world this way but nowhere near a majority. Perhaps 15% hardliner (which is now a European norm) and another 15% taken in by the spin and apparent simplicity.
It's not that I and many others became anti- EU overnight but there is a constituency which have recognised that the UK is too split to stay in... and that fighting the 2016 referendum is a lost cause.
Fast forward 12 months and there will be a very high majority for staying in the CU which is also part of the Irish (and Kent ports) border solution. No recent polls but we are talking 70:30 in Q1 2018. Let us be clear that the CU is all about goods and supply chains.
Voters understand that concept very easily.
The single market argument is far more complex. For blue collar manufacturing a CU deal with a Canada style FTA solves everything give or take. However, 80% of the UK economy is services! But that is perhaps a tangent to the "Irish question"?
How the old UKIP vote, who have now colonized the Tory party, see the world does not have to be the UKs problem - not unless May's quest to stay in power allows for economically destructive policies?
She has been chasing this nonsense line because there were three million UKIP votes at stake. However we are rapidly approaching a new phase - a point where Fox might go under the bus?
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
What is the compromise position suggested by the UK?
Chippy trump cafc would be to take a saw and cut out southern Ireland, and give it the golden boot out to the mid Atlantic... Job done. Save all the bollocks too, lets be honest apart from here no-one else cares... Never hear of it apart from the papers about a few dozen read.
Since we’re being nasty I’m sure the Irish would like to tow the UK onto their Atlantic coast so Ireland could be closer to the rest of the sensible Europeans.
I am sure they would but they would lose 75% of their agricultural exporrts... I would gladly settle for that
I'm not so sure. For one thing, the UK is reliant on agricultural imports from Ireland - I'd be amazed if new supply chains, excluding Irish produce, could be implemented that quickly. Any immediate negative impact on Irish agricultural exports to the UK would serve only to increase retail prices for meat, milk products and Taytos....
However, Irish agribusiness is seeking to diversify away from its historical reliance on the UK market - most obviously in terms of cheese, where the overwhelming majority produced is Cheddar. Irish milk processing companies are currently beginning the process of changing over to other European hard cheese types. The best example of this can be seen with Dairygold's tie-up with Tine, who make Jarlsberg, and are seeking to build a new plant in the South East.
I "enjoy" (in the sense that I find their Irish Times articles informative and convincing) reading Cliff Taylor and Chris Johns' views of where things are heading with regard to trade, and each have produced articles that have been worth reading this week.
I freely admit that, when I read what they are writing, it largely chimes with what I believe to be the case, so there may be an element of echo chamber going on - but, until such a time as the pro-Brexit camp can provide detail of how they can make things work, not just pious hopes or wilfully ignoring the processes by which international trade is carried out (and the latest offering from Policy Exchange really doesn't help that cause), this is unlikely to change.
Of course, the impact of Brexit will not only be felt in terms of trade, but trade is at least more easily measured than other, more emotional or philosophical "collateral damage".
However, they are fatally undone, as are your quoted articles, because they come form a pro-EU position.
In other words, there is no will to make Brexit work despite the technical difficulties, only a constant emphasis on the problems.
It would be more helpful if you took another position, which would be to imagine you are pro-Brexit and come up with a solution to the border problem, assuming Brexit goes ahead, on the basis that every problem has a solution (and I do not mean staying in the EU)
Or would be that too much for you to imagine? Or do you have tou much stake in the status quo?
Why should I take a position that I believe to be wrong?
I accept that the referendum result was a vote to leave the EU.
But I do not have to accept that the current Government has even the slightest idea about how to make Brexit work. And, the real problems with Brexit have been created by the incompatible desires expressed by the UK Prime Minister.
I do not have to accept leaving the Single Market, or the Customs Union, I could quite happily accept membership of both EFTA and the EEA (because the UK has to be in both to be in the EEA), but I see little evidence that there is sufficient goodwill in the negotiating processes that would encourage other countries to support this option.
If the UK wants out of the Single Market and Customs Union, the only solution to the border (not just in Ireland, but also at the ports), is the introduction of infrastructure and checking of goods, for non-tariff as much as tariff reasons.
Frankly, the UK Government approach to the negotiations of the exit deal, and for all David Davis' bluster, it is only the exit deal and an outline of a preferred future relationship that can be agreed prior to the UK leaving the EU, has been both shambolic and duplicitous. Take, for example the agreement achieved in December, which the UK has consistently sought to repudiate ever since - just how can the UK Government hope to persuade the EU27 to accept their bona fides with regard to Max Fac or the mooted Customs Arrangement, if this is how it reacts to the text that it has formally agreed?
It is clear, however, that the UK Government did not foresee, prior to establishing its red lines, that the desire to exit the Customs Union and Single Market (and, indeed, the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP) will, by definition, undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
The beauty of the GFA is that it could be all things to all men (and even women, though it's the Republic that is better with that whole equality thing these days), it allowed for individuals to view themselves in a different way (within the context of a wider European identity). Whilst the EU is not written into the agreement, beyond peripherally, shared membership of its institutions is the essential element to its survival (a bit like the importance of oxygen when breathing), with both UK and Irish Governments effectively taking a step back and seeking to be neutral honest brokers. A Conservative Party reliant upon the DUP can no longer claim such a role, particularly when it seems reasonable to view the DUP Brexit position as almost a land grab, seeking to pivot Northern Ireland firmly into the UK now and forever camp, in advance of the feared demographic changes.
Frankly, in my opinion, the current Government could not have more successfully sought to undermine the best interests of the UK, and fuck up both the negotiations with the EU27 and the political settlement in Northern Ireland if they had tried.
Northern Ireland is, perhaps surprisingly, a leading producer of quarrying equipment, but also, and less surprisingly, a major producer of fuckwits. I have no doubt that a fairly large number will seek to take advantage of what is unfolding today.
I'm sitting in Belfast looking out at the pissing rain, desperately searching for some indications of sunlit uplands - trust me, there are none that I can see.
I think that a border solution could be found which is also all things to all men, but the EU will not have it. They have to protect the idea thst the EU is a one way street towards a united Europe and they also need our money. They are the ones threatening peace if anybody is because they will not compromise.
We have to look at any border relationship within the context of international trade. The WTO has established the basic rules of trade, which must be followed, in the absence of legally binding international trade agreements.
Whether on WTO terms, or as part of a closer negotiated trading relationship, the rights and duties of cross border trade post Brexit have to be clearly and unequivocally understood.
It is completely different from the situation existing with the Good Friday Agreement, where it is possible to interpret its provisions, depending on the individual's national identity.
The EU cannot simply try to pretend that the rules required for trade elsewhere should not apply to Ireland - and is still waiting for an agreed UK proposal for consideration.
I believe there will be a change to the border in Ireland, as there is already in Northern Ireland politics, but such change is the result of the UK referendum on membership of the EU. If the changes undermine peace in Ireland, it will not be because of EU intransigence.
Simply put, no matter what form of trade arrangement might arise between the UK and EU27, it will have to clearly meet WTO criteria.
The EU, like the UK, have to work within these WTO strictures, it is not in their gift to ignore them.
"...The committee warned the UK's ports would be clogged up if EU goods were subject to the same border checks as other imported produce.
Yet, it said, allowing produce through with few checks would raise safety concerns."
Them's the choices folks. Long queues at the ports, mirroring the EU's regulatory regime or opening the floodgates and not really giving a monkeys what's coming through Felixstowe every hour of the day and dealing with the consequences later.
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
Its a weird/unique set of circumstances when an institution that I have wanted abolished for most of my life, is the one riding to the rescue.
I don't think The Lords should be abolished, having a second house that isn't concerned with just the next round of elections to oversee the shortermism of The Commons is an important check and balance on our democracy. Obviously it is deeply flawed in it's current format and needs major reform.
I don't necessarily have an issue with life peerages, it is the ultimate anti-shortermism move to have a life long position thinking about the long term effects of government actions, but I'm sure there are other ways of achieving long term thinking without the long term privileged positions. My bigger issue with The Lords is that it is party political. Ideally political party affiliations would be banned completely. We've seen with Brexit how damaging putting party before country is. It is doubling damaging if the checks and balances put in place play the same damaging political games.
Sounds like the Lords are going to sort all this nonsense out anyways.
They are the ones who can start to design a solution for they are not under political threat nor directly accountable.
Put another way the Lib Dems stood at the election last year opposing Brexit and were stuck at 8% while May was trying to sweep up the UKIP vote and Labour wanted to respect the referendum but not lose votes in the regions.
Nobody can see Parliament voting for a joke Brexit but the question is who and how a solution will emerge. We are in May now and the story was that things need to be finalised by October to allow for full ratification.
Staying in the Customs Union and Single Market is the simplest solution to execute because we are already compliant.
Being allowed to cherry pick by dropping certain rules and regulations over time simply doesn't fly. Brexiteers can say that's unfair and a terribly poor show by the EU27 but it was never going to happen.
So the Lords will launch policy via amendments and we will see how the commons digest these proposals. Labour will most probably know what is acceptable to the EU but they are not the government.
Comments
Project Fear. Oh wait a minute....
(This is fun. I should have tried being on the other side and just making mad stuff up that can't work, but pretending that, as it's a problem, it must have a solution).
A wall! A solid, well-built, impenetrable wall, made of lovely, expensive, imported, American steel.
And you know who's gonna pay for it? The Belgians!
And, you know what? If anyone says it's not a great idea, it's gonna get ten feet higher!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/09/arron-banks-company-provided-12m-of-services-to-leaveeu
lets be honest apart from here no-one else cares... Never hear of it apart from the papers about a few dozen read.
It's all very well May pretending that we can do away with the need for any tariff checks at a border through (non existent) technology but ultimately the EU will need to protect it's citizens from non-compliant goods being imported into it. And so will the UK from the EU.
So unless the UK agrees to follow EU product safety, food safety, agricultural standards, animal welfare law, etc. there follows there must be some sort of checks on goods crossing from a non-single market member into the single market. As happens at ports all over the UK now with inspections of goods, foodstuffs, etc. imported from outside the EU.
Have the last round of negotiations quelled the immediate need for answers. We are fast approaching October and I’m surprised I’m not hearing more headlines related to business
It's not that I and many others became anti- EU overnight but there is a constituency which have recognised that the UK is too split to stay in... and that fighting the 2016 referendum is a lost cause.
Fast forward 12 months and there will be a very high majority for staying in the CU which is also part of the Irish (and Kent ports) border solution. No recent polls but we are talking 70:30 in Q1 2018. Let us be clear that the CU is all about goods and supply chains.
Voters understand that concept very easily.
The single market argument is far more complex. For blue collar manufacturing a CU deal with a Canada style FTA solves everything give or take. However, 80% of the UK economy is services! But that is perhaps a tangent to the "Irish question"?
How the old UKIP vote, who have now colonized the Tory party, see the world does not have to be the UKs problem - not unless May's quest to stay in power allows for economically destructive policies?
She has been chasing this nonsense line because there were three million UKIP votes at stake. However we are rapidly approaching a new phase - a point where Fox might go under the bus?
However, Irish agribusiness is seeking to diversify away from its historical reliance on the UK market - most obviously in terms of cheese, where the overwhelming majority produced is Cheddar. Irish milk processing companies are currently beginning the process of changing over to other European hard cheese types. The best example of this can be seen with Dairygold's tie-up with Tine, who make Jarlsberg, and are seeking to build a new plant in the South East.
Whether on WTO terms, or as part of a closer negotiated trading relationship, the rights and duties of cross border trade post Brexit have to be clearly and unequivocally understood.
It is completely different from the situation existing with the Good Friday Agreement, where it is possible to interpret its provisions, depending on the individual's national identity.
The EU cannot simply try to pretend that the rules required for trade elsewhere should not apply to Ireland - and is still waiting for an agreed UK proposal for consideration.
I believe there will be a change to the border in Ireland, as there is already in Northern Ireland politics, but such change is the result of the UK referendum on membership of the EU. If the changes undermine peace in Ireland, it will not be because of EU intransigence.
Simply put, no matter what form of trade arrangement might arise between the UK and EU27, it will have to clearly meet WTO criteria.
The EU, like the UK, have to work within these WTO strictures, it is not in their gift to ignore them.
bbc.co.uk/news/business-44060430
"...The committee warned the UK's ports would be clogged up if EU goods were subject to the same border checks as other imported produce.
Yet, it said, allowing produce through with few checks would raise safety concerns."
Them's the choices folks. Long queues at the ports, mirroring the EU's regulatory regime or opening the floodgates and not really giving a monkeys what's coming through Felixstowe every hour of the day and dealing with the consequences later.
'Taking back control' my arse...
I don't necessarily have an issue with life peerages, it is the ultimate anti-shortermism move to have a life long position thinking about the long term effects of government actions, but I'm sure there are other ways of achieving long term thinking without the long term privileged positions. My bigger issue with The Lords is that it is party political. Ideally political party affiliations would be banned completely. We've seen with Brexit how damaging putting party before country is. It is doubling damaging if the checks and balances put in place play the same damaging political games.
Put another way the Lib Dems stood at the election last year opposing Brexit and were stuck at 8% while May was trying to sweep up the UKIP vote and Labour wanted to respect the referendum but not lose votes in the regions.
Nobody can see Parliament voting for a joke Brexit but the question is who and how a solution will emerge. We are in May now and the story was that things need to be finalised by October to allow for full ratification.
Staying in the Customs Union and Single Market is the simplest solution to execute because we are already compliant.
Being allowed to cherry pick by dropping certain rules and regulations over time simply doesn't fly. Brexiteers can say that's unfair and a terribly poor show by the EU27 but it was never going to happen.
So the Lords will launch policy via amendments and we will see how the commons digest these proposals. Labour will most probably know what is acceptable to the EU but they are not the government.