How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)
Discussion
slow_poke said:
Are we back to the EU throwing Ireland under the bus again? Or have we never left that particular trope?.
Again with the emotive language. What is Ireland's interests as the UK leaves the EU?, strut around glorying in the opportunity to put one over the old enemy or practical measures to protect their economy? slow_poke said:
My prediction: The EU puts more importance on unity and preservation/promotion of peace than it does to Brexit. It's a couple of the founding reasons of the whole European project. They're not going to throw Ireland under the bus. Thinking otherwise is starting to look like wishful thinking. (Of course, time will tell and not so long to go now.)
I also think the EU wont blink, but not because they have any concern for Ireland or "peace". They know the backstop puts the UK where they want it and so they will not abandon it. Earthdweller said:
I really think that is the way it is going
Ireland, and particularly the border issue, is a means to an end used by the E.U.
Once Ireland and its border are no longer a pawn in the bigger picture the empathise will undoubtedly fall to protecting the project and the big players
Ireland sells very little to the other 26 states and is not a significant customer, unlike the UK
It costs the E.U. money, and to a certain extent is a pain in the ass to them like the UK
Varadkar can boast about his new friends and moving on from the old ones, but come April the 1st he might be the lonely kid in the playground
Any negative impact on Ireland I think will be seen as collateral damage by Brussels
In fact, it actually weakens Ireland’s position and makes them more controllable if/when they go begging for the €100m aid package they say they will need to cope with Brexit. I’d suggest their opt outs will be the bargaining chip
I may be mistaken but some people seem to think Ireland imposing a customs border with NI, as is required by Irish law, will impact Irelands trade with the UK. That’s not how borders work. Ireland would only be affected if the UK created a border. Now according to our brave brexiters the plan is to leave on WTO rules, but immediately be in breach of WTO MFN rules. In the hope other countries will not raise an issue, which is unlikely, and that WTO procedures are so slow we can build a technology border before we lose.Ireland, and particularly the border issue, is a means to an end used by the E.U.
Once Ireland and its border are no longer a pawn in the bigger picture the empathise will undoubtedly fall to protecting the project and the big players
Ireland sells very little to the other 26 states and is not a significant customer, unlike the UK
It costs the E.U. money, and to a certain extent is a pain in the ass to them like the UK
Varadkar can boast about his new friends and moving on from the old ones, but come April the 1st he might be the lonely kid in the playground
Any negative impact on Ireland I think will be seen as collateral damage by Brussels
In fact, it actually weakens Ireland’s position and makes them more controllable if/when they go begging for the €100m aid package they say they will need to cope with Brexit. I’d suggest their opt outs will be the bargaining chip
Those are the same brave brexiters who say we will sign lots of new FTA even although we are in breach of WTO rules.
The issue if, as required by Irish law, Ireland creates a border is for the 1.8m people who live in NI. But we know the true brexiter does not care about them.
Mrr T said:
I may be mistaken but some people seem to think Ireland imposing a customs border with NI, as is required by Irish law, will impact Irelands trade with the UK. That’s not how borders work. Ireland would only be affected if the UK created a border. Now according to our brave brexiters the plan is to leave on WTO rules, but immediately be in breach of WTO MFN rules. In the hope other countries will not raise an issue, which is unlikely, and that WTO procedures are so slow we can build a technology border before we lose.
Those are the same brave brexiters who say we will sign lots of new FTA even although we are in breach of WTO rules.
The issue if, as required by Irish law, Ireland creates a border is for the 1.8m people who live in NI. But we know the true brexiter does not care about them.
Someone’s had a bad morning at work!Those are the same brave brexiters who say we will sign lots of new FTA even although we are in breach of WTO rules.
The issue if, as required by Irish law, Ireland creates a border is for the 1.8m people who live in NI. But we know the true brexiter does not care about them.
Camoradi said:
A genuine question. If , in recognition of the GFA, we don't put up a customs border in order to comply with WTO rules, what are the penalties?
As I understand it, the WTO say we either side is allowed to not put in a customs border, citing exceptional circumstances relating to avoiding violence.
turbobloke said:
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
Today's headline: "Ireland now fears EU could ABANDON Dublin to save Brussels from no deal"
O'Really?
Oh come on, Turbs. You KNOW (to use their headline writers' style) that The Express is a HOPELESS (ditto) comic. If one were to remove all the stories in it about Brexit or that pander to pensioners' fears (the cold weather, statins, Alzheimer's treatments, one would be left with stories about UFOs and aliens (a regular in the online version) and advertising. O'Really?
The DE article was focusing on comments from an accountant who works for an Irish company. Your evidence-free attack should be aimed at him rather than the newspaper, which is merely reporting what was said:
Article said:
Mr Martin fears that Brussels may abandon Ireland at the eleventh-hour in order to minimise the risk of a no-deal Brexit.
Mr Martin being the company accountant for The Great Northern Distillery based near the border in Dundalk. The question remains (and I asked a question in my post if you wish to check) so the point is, is the reported event likely? (not where was the point published).Let's separate things out.
1. The DE has inferred a meaning from what a single Irishman has said by way of a rhetorical question.
2. There is a big question mark over whether the headline accurately reflects the tenor of the single Irishman's statement. I think it doesn't. Others may disagree.
3. The DE has equated the single Irishman's rhetorical question with the collective opinion of the entire Irish nation. You've also failed to spot that not-very-sleight of hand, regrettably.
4. You will therefore agree that on this occasion the messenger deserves the bullet right between the eyes, for it has ceased to be messenger, and has become the architect of its own little story.
5. All this is perfectly obvious to an average person (which I am sure you do not consider yourself to be), so there is really no need to deflect the point made against you with a tired and misused "you're just shooting the messenger" claim.
6. Unless you subscribe to the Sarah Palin view of the world, living close to a place doesn't give you a special insight into that place or its affairs (viz, Alaska residents and Russia).
7. If you could identify the "reported event" that you refer to which the one that we are supposed to guess the likelihood of, knock yourself out. You will rapidly find that a rhetorical question is not a reported event, and one posed by the man on the Dundalk Omnibus isn't really worth getting very excited about in any event.
amusingduck said:
Camoradi said:
A genuine question. If , in recognition of the GFA, we don't put up a customs border in order to comply with WTO rules, what are the penalties?
Why would we have to "put up" a customs border? We have different customs rules than the ROI already
SpeckledJim said:
Camoradi said:
A genuine question. If , in recognition of the GFA, we don't put up a customs border in order to comply with WTO rules, what are the penalties?
As I understand it, the WTO say we either side is allowed to not put in a customs border, citing exceptional circumstances relating to avoiding violence.SpeckledJim – That argument has only been used to increase border security never have none.
Mrr T said:
Earthdweller said:
I really think that is the way it is going
Ireland, and particularly the border issue, is a means to an end used by the E.U.
Once Ireland and its border are no longer a pawn in the bigger picture the empathise will undoubtedly fall to protecting the project and the big players
Ireland sells very little to the other 26 states and is not a significant customer, unlike the UK
It costs the E.U. money, and to a certain extent is a pain in the ass to them like the UK
Varadkar can boast about his new friends and moving on from the old ones, but come April the 1st he might be the lonely kid in the playground
Any negative impact on Ireland I think will be seen as collateral damage by Brussels
In fact, it actually weakens Ireland’s position and makes them more controllable if/when they go begging for the €100m aid package they say they will need to cope with Brexit. I’d suggest their opt outs will be the bargaining chip
I may be mistaken but some people seem to think Ireland imposing a customs border with NI, as is required by Irish law, will impact Irelands trade with the UK. That’s not how borders work. Ireland would only be affected if the UK created a border. Now according to our brave brexiters the plan is to leave on WTO rules, but immediately be in breach of WTO MFN rules. In the hope other countries will not raise an issue, which is unlikely, and that WTO procedures are so slow we can build a technology border before we lose.Ireland, and particularly the border issue, is a means to an end used by the E.U.
Once Ireland and its border are no longer a pawn in the bigger picture the empathise will undoubtedly fall to protecting the project and the big players
Ireland sells very little to the other 26 states and is not a significant customer, unlike the UK
It costs the E.U. money, and to a certain extent is a pain in the ass to them like the UK
Varadkar can boast about his new friends and moving on from the old ones, but come April the 1st he might be the lonely kid in the playground
Any negative impact on Ireland I think will be seen as collateral damage by Brussels
In fact, it actually weakens Ireland’s position and makes them more controllable if/when they go begging for the €100m aid package they say they will need to cope with Brexit. I’d suggest their opt outs will be the bargaining chip
Those are the same brave brexiters who say we will sign lots of new FTA even although we are in breach of WTO rules.
The issue if, as required by Irish law, Ireland creates a border is for the 1.8m people who live in NI. But we know the true brexiter does not care about them.
Troubleatmill said:
mx5nut said:
£800,000 of our money to come to the conclusion that a ferry company with no ferries was the best choice to give a ferry contract to. And Brexiters still defend it because they must not risk speaking out against the project
Let's stop wasting money on Brexit and give it to the NHS instead.
You don’t need the company to own the ferries. Let's stop wasting money on Brexit and give it to the NHS instead.
The most successful hotel company in the world has no hotels.
The most successful taxi company owns no taxis.
What needs to be understood is why did the company backers pull out their support?
Could it be that the business model was no longer viable once both Dover and Calais said we will not doing any more checks than we are already?
It seems the media has manipulated the discussion away from absolute horror at May's deal and the concessions it makes, to hoping that maybe her deal can be rescued.
It's astonishing to watch people happy to go on with the charade. Equally astonishing to watch the sudden deep concern for the wellbeing of Ireland from people who until recently barely registered that the place existed.
And the irony of ironies is that Corbyn and May are beginning to sing from the same song sheet. You can see the middle ground forming. This from the people who put down red lines and made sincere commitments to protect the UK. They're both desperate to plaster over the cracks in the hope it might give them a chance in the GE - and sod the consequences further down the line.
It's astonishing to watch people happy to go on with the charade. Equally astonishing to watch the sudden deep concern for the wellbeing of Ireland from people who until recently barely registered that the place existed.
And the irony of ironies is that Corbyn and May are beginning to sing from the same song sheet. You can see the middle ground forming. This from the people who put down red lines and made sincere commitments to protect the UK. They're both desperate to plaster over the cracks in the hope it might give them a chance in the GE - and sod the consequences further down the line.
JagLover said:
slow_poke said:
Are we back to the EU throwing Ireland under the bus again? Or have we never left that particular trope?.
Again with the emotive language. What is Ireland's interests as the UK leaves the EU?, strut around glorying in the opportunity to put one over the old enemy or practical measures to protect their economy? I daresay the Irish Govt's interest is to minimise and mitigate as much as possible adverse impacts of Brexit on their economy and society. Where have yo u seen any Irish officials strut and glorying? Citation needed, please.
As for the general Irish population, I daresay most of them are content leave the UK tearing itself apart needlessly and its Govt & Parliament hopelessly divided and inept without the Irish having to do anything except watch in awe.
Sway said:
Mrr T said:
Earthdweller said:
I really think that is the way it is going
Ireland, and particularly the border issue, is a means to an end used by the E.U.
Once Ireland and its border are no longer a pawn in the bigger picture the empathise will undoubtedly fall to protecting the project and the big players
Ireland sells very little to the other 26 states and is not a significant customer, unlike the UK
It costs the E.U. money, and to a certain extent is a pain in the ass to them like the UK
Varadkar can boast about his new friends and moving on from the old ones, but come April the 1st he might be the lonely kid in the playground
Any negative impact on Ireland I think will be seen as collateral damage by Brussels
In fact, it actually weakens Ireland’s position and makes them more controllable if/when they go begging for the €100m aid package they say they will need to cope with Brexit. I’d suggest their opt outs will be the bargaining chip
I may be mistaken but some people seem to think Ireland imposing a customs border with NI, as is required by Irish law, will impact Irelands trade with the UK. That’s not how borders work. Ireland would only be affected if the UK created a border. Now according to our brave brexiters the plan is to leave on WTO rules, but immediately be in breach of WTO MFN rules. In the hope other countries will not raise an issue, which is unlikely, and that WTO procedures are so slow we can build a technology border before we lose.Ireland, and particularly the border issue, is a means to an end used by the E.U.
Once Ireland and its border are no longer a pawn in the bigger picture the empathise will undoubtedly fall to protecting the project and the big players
Ireland sells very little to the other 26 states and is not a significant customer, unlike the UK
It costs the E.U. money, and to a certain extent is a pain in the ass to them like the UK
Varadkar can boast about his new friends and moving on from the old ones, but come April the 1st he might be the lonely kid in the playground
Any negative impact on Ireland I think will be seen as collateral damage by Brussels
In fact, it actually weakens Ireland’s position and makes them more controllable if/when they go begging for the €100m aid package they say they will need to cope with Brexit. I’d suggest their opt outs will be the bargaining chip
Those are the same brave brexiters who say we will sign lots of new FTA even although we are in breach of WTO rules.
The issue if, as required by Irish law, Ireland creates a border is for the 1.8m people who live in NI. But we know the true brexiter does not care about them.
Mrr T said:
Camoradi – The WTO does not set requirements for borders but it does require a member to treat all other members equally. Having no border controls for good with Ireland means the UK must have no border controls with the rest of the world. Otherwise other members can raise a dispute. WTO dispute procedures are slow and there is no real penalty for losing. However, its unlikely to help the UK negotiate new FTA’s.
SpeckledJim – That argument has only been used to increase border security never have none.
What? Not having a physical, 'hard' border is not even slightly like "having no border controls". This is the most dishonest argument I've seen. SpeckledJim – That argument has only been used to increase border security never have none.
Piha said:
Sway said:
Mrr T said:
Earthdweller said:
I really think that is the way it is going
Ireland, and particularly the border issue, is a means to an end used by the E.U.
Once Ireland and its border are no longer a pawn in the bigger picture the empathise will undoubtedly fall to protecting the project and the big players
Ireland sells very little to the other 26 states and is not a significant customer, unlike the UK
It costs the E.U. money, and to a certain extent is a pain in the ass to them like the UK
Varadkar can boast about his new friends and moving on from the old ones, but come April the 1st he might be the lonely kid in the playground
Any negative impact on Ireland I think will be seen as collateral damage by Brussels
In fact, it actually weakens Ireland’s position and makes them more controllable if/when they go begging for the €100m aid package they say they will need to cope with Brexit. I’d suggest their opt outs will be the bargaining chip
I may be mistaken but some people seem to think Ireland imposing a customs border with NI, as is required by Irish law, will impact Irelands trade with the UK. That’s not how borders work. Ireland would only be affected if the UK created a border. Now according to our brave brexiters the plan is to leave on WTO rules, but immediately be in breach of WTO MFN rules. In the hope other countries will not raise an issue, which is unlikely, and that WTO procedures are so slow we can build a technology border before we lose.Ireland, and particularly the border issue, is a means to an end used by the E.U.
Once Ireland and its border are no longer a pawn in the bigger picture the empathise will undoubtedly fall to protecting the project and the big players
Ireland sells very little to the other 26 states and is not a significant customer, unlike the UK
It costs the E.U. money, and to a certain extent is a pain in the ass to them like the UK
Varadkar can boast about his new friends and moving on from the old ones, but come April the 1st he might be the lonely kid in the playground
Any negative impact on Ireland I think will be seen as collateral damage by Brussels
In fact, it actually weakens Ireland’s position and makes them more controllable if/when they go begging for the €100m aid package they say they will need to cope with Brexit. I’d suggest their opt outs will be the bargaining chip
Those are the same brave brexiters who say we will sign lots of new FTA even although we are in breach of WTO rules.
The issue if, as required by Irish law, Ireland creates a border is for the 1.8m people who live in NI. But we know the true brexiter does not care about them.
Mrr T said:
Camoradi – The WTO does not set requirements for borders but it does require a member to treat all other members equally. Having no border controls for good with Ireland means the UK must have no border controls with the rest of the world. Otherwise other members can raise a dispute. WTO dispute procedures are slow and there is no real penalty for losing. However, its unlikely to help the UK negotiate new FTA’s.
SpeckledJim – That argument has only been used to increase border security never have none.
Border controls are one thing, we already have them. A hard border is quite another. Since no border is 100% enforced for anyone to argue that a soft border was tantamount to reducing tariffs would be a stretch. SpeckledJim – That argument has only been used to increase border security never have none.
The point about WTO rules being overridden by security considerations isn't just an argument, it's a fact. WTO specifically state that security considerations take precedence, it doesn't say anything about whether these considerations require more controls or fewer. If anything the WTO should be more amenable to fewer controls, the whole point of their existence is to reduce trade friction as far as possible.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff