Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And what is the objection to that?

That the EU would never accept such a proposal and therefore it is somewhat stupid to make it both a key aim of your negotiations and a fundamental promise to the people who elected you.

 

[Strawberry]

And what is the objection to that?

It undermines the integrity of the Single Market and Customs Union and would also put both the EU and the UK in breach of WTO rules.

 

[lomiller]

The UK has benefited a great deal from being in the EU, now that you decided to quit you don't get to demand to keep all the benefits...

Nor should the UK expect to be able to just walk away from the costs it created for the EU.

 

[lomiller]

EU is like an ex-husband giving the ex-wife the matrimonial home - which was hers all along and bought with her money - but demanding it be partitioned, with one section cut off from the rest but demanding the same amount in domestic rates for the entire property.

So Ireland “belonged to the UK all along”, huh? I’m pretty sure the Irish have a different view on that.

The EU is demanding that there be a border between itself and a foreign country. Save for cases of comprehensive customs and trade agreement that’s how independent countries work. If you didn’t want that you shouldn’t have insisted on being independent before such an agreement could be put in place.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That the EU would never accept such a proposal and therefore it is somewhat stupid to make it both a key aim of your negotiations and a fundamental promise to the people who elected you.

I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.

ETA: let m rephrase. Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.

If the border is open, goods can flow freely either way across it, and therefore regulatory standards can only be enforced on either side of the border if they're enforced identically on both; otherwise, goods that violate the regulations on one side only of the border only can cross to that side from the other freely. The EU holds the enforcement of regulatory standards to be crucial - this is well known to all parties in the discussion - and therefore it's clear that the EU will not accept an unregulated border with the UK unless all EU regulatory standards apply to the UK.

Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

The EU negotiators clearly appreciate that this is the EU reasoning, and have never advanced a coherent counter-argument to it. The problem is that a large segment of the UK population, who are not competent to understand the relevant issues, are demanding that the EU abandon its principles and do exactly what the UK wants, a stance that has never been and will never be realistic.

Dave

 

[3point14]

So Ireland “belonged to the UK all along”, huh? I’m pretty sure the Irish have a different view on that.

To the point where much blood was spilled and you can probably even now write a dissertation on it.

You'd think people would know that...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.

ETA: let m rephrase. Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

it undermines the single market, the principles of the EU and the whole point of being in the EU.

I believe he UK negotiators know this but through some mix of 1) having to go along with it even though they know it will never work because that what they promised and 2) Pig headed hubris that leads them to think the EU might give way if they just hold firm they simply continue to try to avoid the unpleasant facts.

Or to put it another way the EU may be willing to cut off it's nose to spite its face to avoid losing it's arms and legs but the UK is simply doing it for fun.

 

[Mid]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=885&pictureid=11948[/qimg]

Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales Although at least they included it on the map this time

 

[Lothian]

I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.

ETA: let m rephrase. Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

Another example. Mr Trump currently is putting America first and whacking on high tariffs on some EU goods. The EU has responded with its own tariff increases. Clearly the EU will not be happy if goods with a high EU Tariff can come to the UK on a lower tariff and then travel into the EU via the open Irish border. That is why the EU is insisting that an open border needs either identical tariffs or a yet to be developed system of recognising when goods cross the border without involving any physical checks.

Similarly Trump will not be happy if to get round his protectionist policies EU cos can send goods to.the UK over an unchecked border and on to the USA on a preferential rate. Basically the open border has to be tied to a single customs area. You can't have one without the other. The UK will not be able to strike any new trade deals until it closes the Irish border or until technology develops.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales Although at least they included it on the map this time

Wales isn't a country though.

 

[lomiller]

ETA: let m rephrase. Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

It’s not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically it’s a requirement on the UK side as well and at least some of the UK negotiators probably understand this. This is why the deal they came back with was inevitable.

The problem appears to be that Brexit supporters themselves don’t understand why it’s needed on the UK side let alone why the EU demand it. They want the UK to have control over its own borders, but they also don’t want any border controls enforced. This is clearly nonsensical and contradictory but instead of looking at the situation reasonably they seem to be just pointing fingers and saying “we could have both if the EU would let us”

 

[Lothian]

Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales Although at least they included it on the map this time

They should have put an English House on the map of Wales. It would soon turn into a fire.

 

[quadraginta]

Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales Although at least they included it on the map this time

Wales isn't a country though.

Wales is permitted to warm its hands at England's fire.

(Well, they were when it was burning Welsh coal.)

 

[BobTheCoward]

It’s not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically it’s a requirement on the UK side as well and at least some of the UK negotiators probably understand this. This is why the deal they came back with was inevitable.

The problem appears to be that Brexit supporters themselves don’t understand why it’s needed on the UK side let alone why the EU demand it. They want the UK to have control over its own borders, but they also don’t want any border controls enforced. This is clearly nonsensical and contradictory but instead of looking at the situation reasonably they seem to be just pointing fingers and saying “we could have both if the EU would let us”

If there was different predicted probability of risk, that would be a perfect opportunity for the UK to insure the EU. But if they both acknowledge the alternative is bad, you really can't do that.

 

[fagin]

If there was different predicted probability of risk, that would be a perfect opportunity for the UK to insure the EU. But if they both acknowledge the alternative is bad, you really can't do that.

Wut?

 

[dudalb]

Wales isn't a country though.

Try Telling the Welsh that.........

 

[dudalb]

Wales is permitted to warm its hands at England's fire.

(Well, they were when it was burning Welsh coal.)

"Men Of Harlech, Stand Ye Steady"...

 

[Lothian]

Wales isn't a country though.

Try Telling the Welsh that.........

Walles isnwt y cwllwntwy thwogll

 

[Vixen]

It’s not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically it’s a requirement on the UK side as well and at least some of the UK negotiators probably understand this. This is why the deal they came back with was inevitable.

The problem appears to be that Brexit supporters themselves don’t understand why it’s needed on the UK side let alone why the EU demand it. They want the UK to have control over its own borders, but they also don’t want any border controls enforced. This is clearly nonsensical and contradictory but instead of looking at the situation reasonably they seem to be just pointing fingers and saying “we could have both if the EU would let us”

I get that when one leaves the Golf Club, you should no longer expect to enjoy its benefits.

However, in the unique case of the UK, there is a Good Friday Agreement in place in respect of Northern Ireland and its borders. The EU know that the unionists don't want to interfere with this sensitive issue, and of course the intention is not to let goods and terrorists (the Manchester bomber came to England via Dublin and crossed the border that way) evade the customs and border checks.


It's not reasonable to tie the UK to the EU for an indefinite spell because of this unique political issue.

As with the Golf Club, a former member could still be allowed to park in the Golf Club forecourt as long as he is not taking the p!ss.