The Sun newsapaper reaction that Varadker should grow up and shut his gob is close to the only idea brexiters have. And brexiters on here are probably loving it. This wonderful place is not so much being polluted by plastic waste but very real morons.
I just don’t get this ... no point leaving if this is the case.
It came as Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, said that Labour had not ruled out staying in the single market or a customs union with the European Union after Brexit.
Where do we go from here? On this thread alone, it varies from Armageddon to Nirvana. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not believe this is over yet … in fact, far from it.
The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity.
One thing we all agree on, as do most Europeans, is that the EU needs an overhaul – it is no longer fit for purpose. The most recent announcements were made by Macron, not a person I particularly trust, but he talks a lot of sense about how the EU must change to progress – and Merkel feels the same way. But it is not going to be easy for the EU to metamorphose – decades of building the complex and myriad layers cannot be unpicked simply or quickly.
In order for all countries to be in accord, political union is a must – this implies monetary, banking and fiscal union – which I do not support. I do not see how the EU, with its current infrastructure and policies, can survive otherwise.
My vision of the EU has always been about trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach. It should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). I intensely dislike trade tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries.
There is a way to make the EU/UK relationship work and I am far from being the first to mention it. As Nick Clegg stated recently, the Brexit vote, in an ironic twist of fate, may help to provoke the very EU reforms that many of us have been seeking. In fact, this is exactly the reason why we could still stay close to the EU and … say it quietly … not leave.
If we can get to the stage where our membership is purely about trade, and the EU becomes a real Free Trade Area as I outlined above, I would certainly have a re-think. But to make that work means that we must no longer have a ‘single-track’ EU. To be fair, it has already been proved that not all countries can be treated the same nor can all countries work in the same way. So why not accept that not all countries within the EU have the same aim? Some may want fiscal union, others may not. Some will want the Euro, others will not. We do not all have to go for the exact same objectives. The idea, as a number of commentators have raised in the past, is a ‘multi-speed’ EU. Twenty plus years ago, the French PM propounded that the EU should be made up of three concentric circles, an inner core of the single currency, a middle tier of those in the EU but not the single currency, and an outer circle of non-members with close links to the EU. This is an idea that I like – many have suggested it since, but it has never obtained the requisite support. Maybe it will now?
In his book, Nick Clegg highlights that the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. Then, in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas - this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’.
So I am open to changing my mind despite what some have said. The key is that the EU must look and feel different in order for us to stay a part of it. And it needs to change anyway, so why can it not happen? I worry that the EU will prove to be too intractable to change but I also have an inward optimism that it will.
The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides.
Oh, and by the way, I am sure that this will also solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Schopenhauer stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The truth is that there is an answer … the question is, do we have the will to take it forward?
Good investigative journalism which I applaud. The only thing I dislike about supporting ‘exit’ is that there are so many assholes on ‘my’ side.
However, that doesn’t change my opinion.
You certainly should not feel obliged to change your opinion. You are on the winning side anyway, and to your credit you have even made some effort to suggest a possible practical solution to the Irish border situation.
Isn't this where we are? People can harbour, tend and nurture their opinions and grow and develop them, but now we are faced with practical realities that demand specific solutions and resolutions, and it is time for opinions to have a metamorphosis into practical reality.
It isn't happening and to my mind time ran out ages ago.
People can be of the opinion that abortion is wrong, and structure all kinds of reasoning around that, but there may come a time for decision and action when an unwanted pregnancy is confirmed, and then those opinions are put to the test and decisions must be taken and consequences faced.
It is significant that yet again, this very day, two big Tory political hitters (Fox and Davison) are snuffling around the issue and wanting more time, or to wait and see.
Where do we go from here? On this thread alone, it varies from Armageddon to Nirvana. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not believe this is over yet … in fact, far from it.
The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity.
One thing we all agree on, as do most Europeans, is that the EU needs an overhaul – it is no longer fit for purpose. The most recent announcements were made by Macron, not a person I particularly trust, but he talks a lot of sense about how the EU must change to progress – and Merkel feels the same way. But it is not going to be easy for the EU to metamorphose – decades of building the complex and myriad layers cannot be unpicked simply or quickly.
In order for all countries to be in accord, political union is a must – this implies monetary, banking and fiscal union – which I do not support. I do not see how the EU, with its current infrastructure and policies, can survive otherwise.
My vision of the EU has always been about trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach. It should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). I intensely dislike trade tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries.
There is a way to make the EU/UK relationship work and I am far from being the first to mention it. As Nick Clegg stated recently, the Brexit vote, in an ironic twist of fate, may help to provoke the very EU reforms that many of us have been seeking. In fact, this is exactly the reason why we could still stay close to the EU and … say it quietly … not leave.
If we can get to the stage where our membership is purely about trade, and the EU becomes a real Free Trade Area as I outlined above, I would certainly have a re-think. But to make that work means that we must no longer have a ‘single-track’ EU. To be fair, it has already been proved that not all countries can be treated the same nor can all countries work in the same way. So why not accept that not all countries within the EU have the same aim? Some may want fiscal union, others may not. Some will want the Euro, others will not. We do not all have to go for the exact same objectives. The idea, as a number of commentators have raised in the past, is a ‘multi-speed’ EU. Twenty plus years ago, the French PM propounded that the EU should be made up of three concentric circles, an inner core of the single currency, a middle tier of those in the EU but not the single currency, and an outer circle of non-members with close links to the EU. This is an idea that I like – many have suggested it since, but it has never obtained the requisite support. Maybe it will now?
In his book, Nick Clegg highlights that the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. Then, in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas - this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’.
So I am open to changing my mind despite what some have said. The key is that the EU must look and feel different in order for us to stay a part of it. And it needs to change anyway, so why can it not happen? I worry that the EU will prove to be too intractable to change but I also have an inward optimism that it will.
The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides.
Oh, and by the way, I am sure that this will also solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Schopenhauer stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The truth is that there is an answer … the question is, do we have the will to take it forward?
Thank you for your reply. I still fundamentally disagree with your assessments and solutions but for what it’s worth I think you have more clue than David Davis or any of the Brexit liars in government.
Good investigative journalism which I applaud. The only thing I dislike about supporting ‘exit’ is that there are so many assholes on ‘my’ side.
However, that doesn’t change my opinion.
At this point is there anything that would ?
Yes definitely and I outlined it in a previous post.
Yes you did. And there were also responses to your multi speed Europe idea.
I should remind you that I did not come up with the idea ... others came up with the idea way before I did, as referenced in my post.
However it is definitely a concept that I support and, I believe, the only rational way forward for the EU.
Would we then not be better staying in the EU, pushing for this multi-speed approach and finding like-minded allies to ensure it happens, rather than walking out and making it less likely to happen?
The vast majority of things that brexit says they want either already possible whilst in the EU, or better achievable by helping reform the EU from within.
I think I despise Kate Hoey more than I despise the 35 lunatic Brexit Tory MPs who are recklessly forcing the UK over a cliff despite the mounting evidence showing what a ridiculous idea Brexit is, and all Brexit ministers and Boris Johnson put together. How she is not deselected as a Labour MP baffles me!
Good investigative journalism which I applaud. The only thing I dislike about supporting ‘exit’ is that there are so many assholes on ‘my’ side.
However, that doesn’t change my opinion.
At this point is there anything that would ?
Yes definitely and I outlined it in a previous post.
Yes you did. And there were also responses to your multi speed Europe idea.
I should remind you that I did not come up with the idea ... others came up with the idea way before I did, as referenced in my post.
However it is definitely a concept that I support and, I believe, the only rational way forward for the EU.
Would we then not be better staying in the EU, pushing for this multi-speed approach and finding like-minded allies to ensure it happens, rather than walking out and making it less likely to happen?
The vast majority of things that brexit says they want either already possible whilst in the EU, or better achievable by helping reform the EU from within.
I read that Junker was opposed to the "Multi-Speed" plan, so that's a barrier for a start.
Good investigative journalism which I applaud. The only thing I dislike about supporting ‘exit’ is that there are so many assholes on ‘my’ side.
However, that doesn’t change my opinion.
At this point is there anything that would ?
Yes definitely and I outlined it in a previous post.
Yes you did. And there were also responses to your multi speed Europe idea.
I should remind you that I did not come up with the idea ... others came up with the idea way before I did, as referenced in my post.
However it is definitely a concept that I support and, I believe, the only rational way forward for the EU.
Would we then not be better staying in the EU, pushing for this multi-speed approach and finding like-minded allies to ensure it happens, rather than walking out and making it less likely to happen?
The vast majority of things that brexit says they want either already possible whilst in the EU, or better achievable by helping reform the EU from within.
I read that Junker was opposed to the "Multi-Speed" plan, so that's a barrier for a start.
If the member states decided that it was what they wanted, no EU Commission official could stop it (so JC Juncker is not really a barrier).
I’ll bang Seth’s drum here. I havn't heard one single credible suggestion over the border issue. On Peston the conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi is saying that a border decision can’t be decided until a trade deal is agreed because what type of border will ultimately depend on that trade deal. A logic of sorts until you accept the fact that our negotiating partners do not accept this. It is May and Davis saying that there needs to be flexibility. If indeed they do really want to move the negotiations on when the two parties meet in two weeks I suggest that this critical issue is a decent starting point.
There can be no practical solution to the border issue outside of a new trade agreement, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent remainer. Or to put it another way, do you think the final border arrangement between the UK and France can be decided now as well? The EU is encouraging the Irish to put pressure on the UK to effectively overturn the referendum result. It is incredibly irresponsible to raise the stakes in this way and to use the Irish as a pawn in the bigger game.
I’ll bang Seth’s drum here. I havn't heard one single credible suggestion over the border issue. On Peston the conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi is saying that a border decision can’t be decided until a trade deal is agreed because what type of border will ultimately depend on that trade deal. A logic of sorts until you accept the fact that our negotiating partners do not accept this. It is May and Davis saying that there needs to be flexibility. If indeed they do really want to move the negotiations on when the two parties meet in two weeks I suggest that this critical issue is a decent starting point.
There can be no practical solution to the border issue outside of a new trade agreement, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent remainer. Or to put it another way, do you think the final border arrangement between the UK and France can be decided now as well? The EU is encouraging the Irish to put pressure on the UK to effectively overturn the referendum result. It is incredibly irresponsible to raise the stakes in this way and to use the Irish as a pawn in the bigger game.
Re your last para. Had you listened to R4 Today Programme this morning you you would not have written the last 2 sentences, which is arrant hate filled nonsense. The Irish are driving this, not what you call "the EU".
Watching Kate Hoey on Daily Politics and it’s clear the woman doesn’t have a fucking clue just how sensitive and important the Irish border issue is. It’s either that or she has some other agenda but I favour the former. Based on her understanding I am seriously concerned that complete idiots like her can represent the people of this country. The Brexit liars are one thing but she is something else completely. She actually believes what she’s saying. Corbyn needs to get a grip of this woman and her constituency party need to get her deselected pdq.
I’ll bang Seth’s drum here. I havn't heard one single credible suggestion over the border issue. On Peston the conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi is saying that a border decision can’t be decided until a trade deal is agreed because what type of border will ultimately depend on that trade deal. A logic of sorts until you accept the fact that our negotiating partners do not accept this. It is May and Davis saying that there needs to be flexibility. If indeed they do really want to move the negotiations on when the two parties meet in two weeks I suggest that this critical issue is a decent starting point.
There can be no practical solution to the border issue outside of a new trade agreement, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent remainer. Or to put it another way, do you think the final border arrangement between the UK and France can be decided now as well? The EU is encouraging the Irish to put pressure on the UK to effectively overturn the referendum result. It is incredibly irresponsible to raise the stakes in this way and to use the Irish as a pawn in the bigger game.
By this logic, a government who are steering us straight towards a no deal scenario are by default precluding any chance of settling the border issue. Hands up if you're enjoying this joy ride over the cliff edge. The louder you scream, the faster the ride!
I’ll bang Seth’s drum here. I havn't heard one single credible suggestion over the border issue. On Peston the conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi is saying that a border decision can’t be decided until a trade deal is agreed because what type of border will ultimately depend on that trade deal. A logic of sorts until you accept the fact that our negotiating partners do not accept this. It is May and Davis saying that there needs to be flexibility. If indeed they do really want to move the negotiations on when the two parties meet in two weeks I suggest that this critical issue is a decent starting point.
There can be no practical solution to the border issue outside of a new trade agreement, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent remainer. Or to put it another way, do you think the final border arrangement between the UK and France can be decided now as well? The EU is encouraging the Irish to put pressure on the UK to effectively overturn the referendum result. It is incredibly irresponsible to raise the stakes in this way and to use the Irish as a pawn in the bigger game.
Who is asking for the 'final border arrangement'? The EU are just looking for some evidence that the UK has addressed the issue of the border and it has some concrete proposals that can be subjected to scrutiny.
I’ll bang Seth’s drum here. I havn't heard one single credible suggestion over the border issue. On Peston the conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi is saying that a border decision can’t be decided until a trade deal is agreed because what type of border will ultimately depend on that trade deal. A logic of sorts until you accept the fact that our negotiating partners do not accept this. It is May and Davis saying that there needs to be flexibility. If indeed they do really want to move the negotiations on when the two parties meet in two weeks I suggest that this critical issue is a decent starting point.
There can be no practical solution to the border issue outside of a new trade agreement, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent remainer. Or to put it another way, do you think the final border arrangement between the UK and France can be decided now as well? The EU is encouraging the Irish to put pressure on the UK to effectively overturn the referendum result. It is incredibly irresponsible to raise the stakes in this way and to use the Irish as a pawn in the bigger game.
You have extrapolated a lot of assumptions here, with no evidence to support you. The UK had the referendum so it is down to the UK to suggest any border arrangements for the four or so outcomes of the negotiations. A new trade arrangement that you refer to will be what?
The UK stays in the single market. The UK agrees a customs union. The UK goes for WTO arrangements. The UK strikes individual bespoke deals with each and every other country. The UK is like Norway and Switzerland.
Well I make that five possibilities, are there any more? It is not just possible, but beholden of the UK, given the international treaty of the Good Friday Agreement, to supply a border 'solution' for each possibility, because the possibilities are not infinite. The EU and the Republic of Ireland are playing this straight, it is the UK and the Brexit lobby that are refusing to confront the blindingly obvious.
The UK government don't want to give a border solution, or a guarantee on EU citizens rights because they appreciate we are in the weaker position for trade deals. Therefore they wish to offer favourable solutions to both those problems as part of trade deal negotiations in the hope of getting a better trade deal. You can say the same about the divorce payment too, they don't want to agree that as they'd rather use the size of any offer as part of the leverage on a trade deal.
I’ll bang Seth’s drum here. I havn't heard one single credible suggestion over the border issue. On Peston the conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi is saying that a border decision can’t be decided until a trade deal is agreed because what type of border will ultimately depend on that trade deal. A logic of sorts until you accept the fact that our negotiating partners do not accept this. It is May and Davis saying that there needs to be flexibility. If indeed they do really want to move the negotiations on when the two parties meet in two weeks I suggest that this critical issue is a decent starting point.
There can be no practical solution to the border issue outside of a new trade agreement, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent remainer. Or to put it another way, do you think the final border arrangement between the UK and France can be decided now as well? The EU is encouraging the Irish to put pressure on the UK to effectively overturn the referendum result. It is incredibly irresponsible to raise the stakes in this way and to use the Irish as a pawn in the bigger game.
Close to a Hoeyesque grasp of the realities. The border between France and the U.K. is not really an issue is it ? We’re taking back control of our borders aren’t we ? May has confirmed that there is no intention to remain in the customs union so there is by definition a hard border along with all the problems at the channel ports. Do the French really care ? I think not. They will get on with living with our stupidity. Does the Irish border matter to the people’s of both the north and south ? You bet it does. The ROI want guarantees that there will be no hard border and want detail of how that will work. The British Government have failed completely to give detail of how they think that will work. It’s completely reasonable for the Irish to demand that detail before they allow Brexit negotiations to move on. The border is very much part of the fragile peace process. Hoey and it seems you don’t grasp the fundamentals of the problem.
I’ll bang Seth’s drum here. I havn't heard one single credible suggestion over the border issue. On Peston the conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi is saying that a border decision can’t be decided until a trade deal is agreed because what type of border will ultimately depend on that trade deal. A logic of sorts until you accept the fact that our negotiating partners do not accept this. It is May and Davis saying that there needs to be flexibility. If indeed they do really want to move the negotiations on when the two parties meet in two weeks I suggest that this critical issue is a decent starting point.
There can be no practical solution to the border issue outside of a new trade agreement, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent remainer. Or to put it another way, do you think the final border arrangement between the UK and France can be decided now as well? The EU is encouraging the Irish to put pressure on the UK to effectively overturn the referendum result. It is incredibly irresponsible to raise the stakes in this way and to use the Irish as a pawn in the bigger game.
I'll turn your question on its head: there can be no frictionless border in Ireland outside the Single Market and the Customs Union, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent leaver, though not, apparently, to the UK Government. It is the UK Government that has set out mutually incompatible demands for its relationship with the EU and the border.
Trust me, the Irish Government are not being used as a pawn in this regard. It is simply that the Irish Government, supported by the rest of the EU27, wishes to see some practical detaiil of how the UK believes it is possible (apparently contrary to WTO rules) to have the current border set up whilst being outside both the Single Market and the Customs Union.
It is not just a question of commerce (though that is undoubtedly important), but they are also concerned about the continuation of the Good Friday Agreement.
No-one is asking for a complete solution to the border (I'm desperately keen to avoid using the word "final" in this context), but, dare I say it, "sufficient progress" towards a workable solution. For what it is worth, the border in Ireland and the UK border with France will, following Brexit, effectively have to be the same in almost every regard - though (IMHO) the UK will have left the EU long before any future trade agreement will be in place.
Where the Irish border differs is in relation to the Common Travel Area and the Good Friday Agreement. It is the EU side, supporting the Irish Government, that is seeking to highlight that the UK needs to recognise its responsibilities with regard to this border (and, yes, because the UK has committed to things like the GFA, to point out that the UK's departure from the EU needs to reflect this) if the UK wants to have a close economic and political relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
As I've mentioned before, it is the EU (including the Irish Government) that is seeking to meet the concerns of the majority of those living in Ireland, on both sides of the border. Neither the UK Government nor its senior partners in the DUP can claim to be doing so.
Seeking, as Owen Paterson does, to claim that there will be no need to change the current set up (even in trade terms only), should the UK live up to the "promise" of Theresa May's Lancaster House speech, is frankly delusional. Once the UK is outside the Single Market and Customs Union a host of non-tariff barriers will be erected overnight, even if a Free Trade Agreement is in place. Paterson's example of milk continuing to be transported cross border as now is just so utterly divorced from the reality of international trade as to be laughable.
The EU has an absolutely clear understanding of what is needed to preserve the current situation in Ireland, with not even the faintest whiff of unicorn to be found. It's quite simple, but it is also fixed, because there really is not room for manoeuvre within international trade rules.
The UK government don't want to give a border solution, or a guarantee on EU citizens rights because they appreciate we are in the weaker position for trade deals. Therefore they wish to offer favourable solutions to both those problems as part of trade deal negotiations in the hope of getting a better trade deal. You can say the same about the divorce payment too, they don't want to agree that as they'd rather use the size of any offer as part of the leverage on a trade deal.
That whole "nothing's decided until everything's decided" approach would only make sense if we hadn't already decided that membership of the single market and customs union are not he ruled out. Surely either everything's up for negotiation or it's not ?
Comments
And brexiters on here are probably loving it.
This wonderful place is not so much being polluted by plastic waste but very real morons.
Good investigative journalism which I applaud. The only thing I dislike about supporting ‘exit’ is that there are so many assholes on ‘my’ side.
However, that doesn’t change my opinion.
It came as Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, said that Labour had not ruled out staying in the single market or a customs union with the European Union after Brexit.
https://google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/26/eu-officials-not-always-honest-far-brexit-talks-have-progressed/amp/
uk.businessinsider.com/karan-bilimoria-attacks-liam-fox-for-brexit-export-comments-2017-11
Yep. Especially for you Chippy, another link to a critical business leader talking about Brexit ;-)
Isn't this where we are? People can harbour, tend and nurture their opinions and grow and develop them, but now we are faced with practical realities that demand specific solutions and resolutions, and it is time for opinions to have a metamorphosis into practical reality.
It isn't happening and to my mind time ran out ages ago.
People can be of the opinion that abortion is wrong, and structure all kinds of reasoning around that, but there may come a time for decision and action when an unwanted pregnancy is confirmed, and then those opinions are put to the test and decisions must be taken and consequences faced.
It is significant that yet again, this very day, two big Tory political hitters (Fox and Davison) are snuffling around the issue and wanting more time, or to wait and see.
However it is definitely a concept that I support and, I believe, the only rational way forward for the EU.
The vast majority of things that brexit says they want either already possible whilst in the EU, or better achievable by helping reform the EU from within.
A new trade arrangement that you refer to will be what?
The UK stays in the single market.
The UK agrees a customs union.
The UK goes for WTO arrangements.
The UK strikes individual bespoke deals with each and every other country.
The UK is like Norway and Switzerland.
Well I make that five possibilities, are there any more?
It is not just possible, but beholden of the UK, given the international treaty of the Good Friday Agreement, to supply a border 'solution' for each possibility, because the possibilities are not infinite.
The EU and the Republic of Ireland are playing this straight, it is the UK and the Brexit lobby that are refusing to confront the blindingly obvious.
Trust me, the Irish Government are not being used as a pawn in this regard. It is simply that the Irish Government, supported by the rest of the EU27, wishes to see some practical detaiil of how the UK believes it is possible (apparently contrary to WTO rules) to have the current border set up whilst being outside both the Single Market and the Customs Union.
It is not just a question of commerce (though that is undoubtedly important), but they are also concerned about the continuation of the Good Friday Agreement.
No-one is asking for a complete solution to the border (I'm desperately keen to avoid using the word "final" in this context), but, dare I say it, "sufficient progress" towards a workable solution. For what it is worth, the border in Ireland and the UK border with France will, following Brexit, effectively have to be the same in almost every regard - though (IMHO) the UK will have left the EU long before any future trade agreement will be in place.
Where the Irish border differs is in relation to the Common Travel Area and the Good Friday Agreement. It is the EU side, supporting the Irish Government, that is seeking to highlight that the UK needs to recognise its responsibilities with regard to this border (and, yes, because the UK has committed to things like the GFA, to point out that the UK's departure from the EU needs to reflect this) if the UK wants to have a close economic and political relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
As I've mentioned before, it is the EU (including the Irish Government) that is seeking to meet the concerns of the majority of those living in Ireland, on both sides of the border. Neither the UK Government nor its senior partners in the DUP can claim to be doing so.
Seeking, as Owen Paterson does, to claim that there will be no need to change the current set up (even in trade terms only), should the UK live up to the "promise" of Theresa May's Lancaster House speech, is frankly delusional. Once the UK is outside the Single Market and Customs Union a host of non-tariff barriers will be erected overnight, even if a Free Trade Agreement is in place. Paterson's example of milk continuing to be transported cross border as now is just so utterly divorced from the reality of international trade as to be laughable.
The EU has an absolutely clear understanding of what is needed to preserve the current situation in Ireland, with not even the faintest whiff of unicorn to be found. It's quite simple, but it is also fixed, because there really is not room for manoeuvre within international trade rules.