Brexit negotiations
- Thread starter Scott-Copywriter
- Start date
- Original Poster
- #2,563
This.
The whole situation is quite baffling, really.
No one explicitly voted to leave the single market and customs union. And very few leave campaigners, if any, suggested that the single market or customs union were also off the table during the referendum campaign.
Yet here we are, absolutely determined to leave both, regardless of damage, regardless of Irish border problems, without even giving a second thought to options such as the EFTA that would allow us to leave the EU relatively unscathed, and give us the best of both worlds.
I hate to say it, but once again, I think the root cause of all of this is actually immigration.
All the talk is about independence and taking control of our laws, but I think if there was a way to stay in the single market and customs union, whilst having full control of our borders, the UK would be very, very keen on that offer. Even if it meant continued payments and EU jurisdiction.
Think about it. If the EU turned around today and said okay, you can leave the EU, join the EFTA, stay in the single market, and put a cap of your choice on immigration. Would we really say no? I'm not so sure.
I also believe that a big chunk of this is about domestic party politics. All of the parties seem terrified of getting on the wrong side of the anti-free movement brigade.
Remember that in the years prior to the referendum, opinion polls showed that immigration was one of the biggest concerns. Worries about EU laws and trade independence were way, way down the list. It was only during the referendum campaign that these concerns rushed to the top of the pack.
Here's a good example of the most important issues for voters from September 2014:
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en...p-three-issues-deciding-general-election-vote
Economy - 31%
Immigration and asylum - 30%
NHS - 29%
EU - 11%
How times seem to have changed.
Upvote
0
No one explicitly voted to leave?
This is the wording.
https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/eu-referendum/about
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Don't know about other people but that seems clear enough to me. Remain. Leave. Two choices.
This is the wording.
https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/eu-referendum/about
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Don't know about other people but that seems clear enough to me. Remain. Leave. Two choices.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,565
No one explicitly voted to leave the single market and customs union.
You can remain in both without being in the EU, or even just one if the situation suits.
The EFTA, of which Norway is a member, doesn't even allow ECJ jurisdiction (something our government seems to consider a red line). They have their own court:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA_Court
That was the problem with such a basic question. It provided a mandate to leave the EU, but no mandate on what to do after we've left. Now we have whole sections of the population and commons MPs fighting for their own post-Brexit ideas.
In my view we should have done a two-part referendum. After leave won, we should have been asked whether we want to remain in the single market and customs union, or cut all ties.
If we did that, we'd now have a much, much clearer mandate from the people, and there would be none of this squabbling. I'd even go as far as to say that Britain would be a lot more united than it is now.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,567
The single market and customs union are not something that's exclusive to the EU.
Turkey is even part of the customs union, with some exceptions. Then you have Monaco, Andorra, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein that either participate in the single market, customs union, or both, without being part of the EU.
We can leave the EU, and actually eliminate a lot of tangible aspects of EU membership (such as ECJ jurisdiction), while remaining in the single market and customs union. Switzerland, as a single market member, can even negotiate its own trade agreements.
People seem to suggest that this path involves "staying in the EU in all but name". It really doesn't.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,570
It isn't.
But they do have border controls and crossing checks. The major crossing points are manned at all times. Some aren't.
Unfortunately, our hands are tied due to the Irish border situation. We need a completely open border, but we can't leave it open outside of the customs union.
It seems the UK is already beginning to accept that Northern Ireland will have to stay in, but I'm not sure how that's going to fly with the DUP.
Sometimes, there are problems that don't have solutions. You can't add 2 + 2 and get 5, no matter how hard you try.
Upvote
0
On that agreed that if we leave the customs union there will have to be border/customs checks between ROI and NI.
But that doesn't necessarily mean barbed wire, dogs, searchlights and machine gun towers. This paper, from the EU parliament of all places, seems to offer a high tech and workable solution:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf
Upvote
0
It's worth noting that this isn't, as many leave campaigners like to say, uncharted territory. It comes with easily definable restrictions and requirements of legal adherence (to the myriad international organisations and trading groups). We KNOW what we're not going to be able to do; we KNOW where we'll be in April 2019 if we crash out. It's not uncharted at all because there are plenty of people who understand - even if you believe it's just a rough understanding - the avenues we'll have available to us. That's why almost every available economic assessment says Brexit is bad.
Leave campaigners at this point are describing a mysterious void where we could exist and *possibly* be better off. The problem is that void doesn't exist; we know its shape and its contents and it's the worst outcome of all.
Just out of curiosity, why are you willing to accept the not-well-advertised stance on this technicality by David Cameron, in the golden age of news and media availability, but will not accept that our joining the EU in the first place was much better advertised by Heath et al as being "more than just membership of a market"?
That still discusses "controls" in "some places" and the people of Ireland voted away their constitutional claim to the six counties on the basis that there would never be a physical border. This proposal will not satisfy that requirement politically or probably even legally.
Upvote
0
Here you go @MBE2017 , since you keep repeating the same falsehoods without ever taking on the explanations or evidence, let's try a different approach... 
No, they don't.
Yes they do.
No, they haven't.
Yes, they will, but not at the expense of the existence of the EU itself.
No, it won't.
Contrary to what the tabloids are telling you, the EU isn't "trying to make it hard", it's been publicly and crystal clear about its red lines since the beginning and, from their perspective (or ours if it were another member trying to leave rather than us) - all of them are completely reasonable, rational and in keeping with their laws, which we helped write.
Upvote
0
You do understand that the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union are all completely different things? Right? O__o
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-may-eu-leave-analysis-outcomes-a8203136.html
What gets almost funny is the way that Norman Lamont, or Norman the Lamentable, has come out criticising Georg Soros. Norman was the hopeless Chancellor whose incompetence George Soros took advantage of.
What gets almost funny is the way that Norman Lamont, or Norman the Lamentable, has come out criticising Georg Soros. Norman was the hopeless Chancellor whose incompetence George Soros took advantage of.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,576
The problem is the sensitivity of the situation.
To satisfy all parties of the Good Friday Agreement, it was stipulated that there should be no physical borders of any kind.
Combat-style towers and walls are not the issue. Even basic border crossing points are very contentious.
You could make it as frictionless as possible, but many country roads will still require offices, facilities, customs officers, cameras and random spot checks.
Unless certain parties in Ireland are willing to accept it, even the smart solutions are not going to fly.
We really do need to be careful with this. Time can often cause the perceived gravitas of situations to fade, but Brexit risks throwing a spanner in something that brought hundred of years of conflict to an end.
Remember that Operation Banner (the deployment of the British Army in Northern Ireland) only ended less than 11 years ago. The situation is still raw for a lot of people.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,577
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43023051
An interesting prospect. Everyone knows we have voted to leave and that it would be political suicide to stop it. However, there's no mandate to leave the single market and/or customs union.
And given the slender leave win, it's near-certain that the majority of the British public want a soft Brexit (unless 99% of leavers voted on the basis of hard Brexit, or a huge chunk of remainers prefer a hard Brexit despite voting to stay in the EU - neither of which are plausible).
If there is sufficient bipartisan support in the Commons to block a hard Brexit, I think it could happen. Particularly if there's such a mix of cross-party votes that allow none of the parties to be singled out for blame.
An interesting prospect. Everyone knows we have voted to leave and that it would be political suicide to stop it. However, there's no mandate to leave the single market and/or customs union.
And given the slender leave win, it's near-certain that the majority of the British public want a soft Brexit (unless 99% of leavers voted on the basis of hard Brexit, or a huge chunk of remainers prefer a hard Brexit despite voting to stay in the EU - neither of which are plausible).
If there is sufficient bipartisan support in the Commons to block a hard Brexit, I think it could happen. Particularly if there's such a mix of cross-party votes that allow none of the parties to be singled out for blame.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,579
Well it is. We can't ignore logic.
Did every leave voter base their decision on leaving the single market and customs union as well? Of course not. People vote for different reasons.
And with such a slender 51.89%/48.11% margin, it would have to be almost all of them to ensure that hard Brexit also has a majority.
It's what makes sense. An electorate majority supporting a hard Brexit does not.
Upvote
0
Logic is a way of going wrong and being able to prove how you got there.
Its not in itself proof the idea is correct.
You and I do not know what reasons people voted the way they did or what they were expecting unless we ask them.
Makes sense? Again logic - but whether correct is another matter.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,581
Why would I need proof when I said near certain?
Near certain means highly, highly likely. It doesn't mean definitely.
If you want me to say it's possible that a very unlikely outcome has occurred that defies common sense, then okay. It's possible. That's why I said near certain.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Not a single leave voter I know has said the reason was to get out of the Customs Union. They all had different reasons and some of them were quite wacky. Those wishing to stop immigration seemed to confuse refugees with agricultural workers. One thought it was the EU that were denying money for councils to fight enforcement of planning breaches!
I'm with Scott on this one.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Upvote
0
@Mr D , you seem to think you're playing Devil's Advocate here but all you're doing is dismissing rational reasoning as "well that's just your opinion!".
If you're seeking data on voter motivation then you're going to be sorely disappointed as the data doesn't exist. Per se...
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence though! The voting breakdown by demographic (available on YouGov) was endlessly fascinating and led to a dozen pages of discussion here; each demographic tends have a general set of concerns and will, generally speaking vote accordingly. That is helpful information.
Also, the British Social Attitudes survey gives some insight into the public consciousness on the topic (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-reason-european-union-survey-a7811651.html):
"It states that for the most part, only items associated with people’s sense of national identity and cultural outlook were significantly associated with vote choice." Votes weren't about single market or customs union membership, but about how nationalist voters were. Again, it won't represent the whole Leave-voting demographic, but all of this is evidence that contributes to the reasonable conclusion about the distribution of reasons for voting.
The most extreme right winger nationalists would rather see millions unemployed and the country bankrupted as long as they see us leave the EU. The most extreme europhiles would see us remain in the EU even if it hadn't given us such prosperity. The rest of the votes occupy a spectrum and, as I have said and Scott is also saying above, the government is attempting to enact something that we have a reasonable expectation that only a minority of the electorate want.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Here's a transcript of a French TV programme showing the type of concerns British citizens living in France have. These are people numbering a few million who are totally ignored by May, Johnson and Mogg.
https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/bretagne-so-british-1409119.html
Disclosure.... I know several of the people in the article.
https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/bretagne/bretagne-so-british-1409119.html
Disclosure.... I know several of the people in the article.
Upvote
0
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-not-to-let-ideology-put-its-citizens-at-risk
We have now driven past parody, busted through the fence of hypocrisy and are off-roading it in the land of the utterly absurd.
The path she and her government are taking, for reasons of pure ideology, is by far the most harmful course of action to the citizens of this country.
The collapse of the peace process in Ireland, voluntarily leaving research groups and defence agencies and the like, medical and care professionals leaving the NHS, losing the european arrest warrant, and then there's euratom... Brexit at this point is little more than deliberate ideological harm to our citizens and she has the nerve to try and frame the EU's rationally laid out legal position as ideology? It's no wonder our international reputation is shot.
The whole thing, to continue the metaphor, is like a slow motion car crash.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
And this looks like the right wing agenda all along
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ng-thinktanks-talks-to-ditch-eu-safety-checks
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ng-thinktanks-talks-to-ditch-eu-safety-checks
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,590
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43235794
I'm not sure why the EU is getting so much stick for this.
The lack of a border on the island of Ireland has always been possible because the UK and the ROI are in the customs union.
The EU, the ROI and all other members must place border checks of some kind around the border of the customs union to maintain its integrity. If the UK wants to leave, that will eventually include the border between Northern Ireland and the ROI.
That's just the way it is. If Scotland had left the UK, and both sides wanted to maintain independent customs areas, border checks of some kind would also be required.
As the UK is leaving, it's up to the UK to find an alternative solution that actually works and doesn't fall foul of the political sensitivities surrounding the border.
Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that there is a viable solution to be found, no matter how hard they try.
I'm not sure why the EU is getting so much stick for this.
The lack of a border on the island of Ireland has always been possible because the UK and the ROI are in the customs union.
The EU, the ROI and all other members must place border checks of some kind around the border of the customs union to maintain its integrity. If the UK wants to leave, that will eventually include the border between Northern Ireland and the ROI.
That's just the way it is. If Scotland had left the UK, and both sides wanted to maintain independent customs areas, border checks of some kind would also be required.
As the UK is leaving, it's up to the UK to find an alternative solution that actually works and doesn't fall foul of the political sensitivities surrounding the border.
Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that there is a viable solution to be found, no matter how hard they try.
Upvote
0
That's defeatist talk. A technological solution can be found if there is willingness on both sides. There are other 'soft' borders between EU and other countries, so it can be done.
Right now the EU are using Ireland to try to force us to stay in the customs union, or worse force a break up of the UK. I hope our govt has the balls to call their bluff.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
You can't find a technical (or any other) solution to a boarder that the people there do not want.
During the troubles, that 500 mile boarder was about as porous as a boarder could be. You sometimes just didn't know whether you were in the North or the South! You can't ask a farmer to fill in a carnet twice a day, every time his cows come in for milking!
There are literally thousands of crossing points!
_____________
On a wider point, we cannot have a hard Brexit, because Britain would starve. 70% of our food comes from or via the EU. Even a one-minute delay on every truck would halve the number of trucks entering the little harbour of Dover, from 5,000 to 2,500.
And I can't see a customs official being able to process a truck load of food (as is required by law) in 60 seconds!
So that just leaves a Brexit in name only - i.e. no Brexit at all!
During the troubles, that 500 mile boarder was about as porous as a boarder could be. You sometimes just didn't know whether you were in the North or the South! You can't ask a farmer to fill in a carnet twice a day, every time his cows come in for milking!
There are literally thousands of crossing points!
_____________
On a wider point, we cannot have a hard Brexit, because Britain would starve. 70% of our food comes from or via the EU. Even a one-minute delay on every truck would halve the number of trucks entering the little harbour of Dover, from 5,000 to 2,500.
And I can't see a customs official being able to process a truck load of food (as is required by law) in 60 seconds!
So that just leaves a Brexit in name only - i.e. no Brexit at all!
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
One of the potential outcomes of trade talks is the UK importing food from the US which does not meet EU standards. Or our current standards, but we will have to sacrifice something to achieve this great new Utopia that will be Brexit.
If we reduce our food standards to accommodate the US, the EU will want absolute certainty that our sub-standard imports do not then get moved into the EU. What technological solution can you envisage for that?
If we reduce our food standards to accommodate the US, the EU will want absolute certainty that our sub-standard imports do not then get moved into the EU. What technological solution can you envisage for that?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,594
Or realist talk.
The EU isn't doing anything of the sort. These are just the factual difficulties facing the situation.
The Irish border situation is extremely sensitive. More sensitive than almost any other. What would be acceptable for other borders is not necessarily so for the island of Ireland.
No customs borders exist on Earth with the kind of freedom required that would be acceptable to all parties.
Even Switzerland, with very close ties to the EU including membership of the Schengen Area, have 24 hour manned border crossing points, spot-checks and surveillance.
The Norway-Sweden border, famed for its technological advancement, has road border crossings, and crucially, number plate surveillance on every road. And Norway has had to harmonise a lot of its rules with the EU to be able to achieve that.
Would NI/ROI accept surveillance cameras like that across over the 200+ roads crossing the border, as well as crossing points on key routes? Almost certainly not.
Sorry, but the idea of an effective solution that involves placing nothing on the border, when the UK is keen to diverge from EU regulations, is pure fantasy. It really is. It would be very porous, cost millions in undeclared duties, and both the ROI and EU would be well within their rights to find that unacceptable.
I'm amazed even the UK government would be willing to accept it, but they are stuck between a rock and a hard place with little choice in the matter. If Scotland had declared independence, and they were pushing this idea, it would be the UK baulking at it.
Upvote
0
So an obvious solution like paying Eire to take NI off our hands is pretty much out.
And a border is unacceptable to some.
Sounds like we are leaving with no agreement then. One of the 28 governments required to agree the deal will vote it down.
OK we leave with no agreement - what border do we have on that day next year when we are no longer in the EU?
And a border is unacceptable to some.
Sounds like we are leaving with no agreement then. One of the 28 governments required to agree the deal will vote it down.
OK we leave with no agreement - what border do we have on that day next year when we are no longer in the EU?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,596
The only solution I could see is manned crossing points and customs officers on every road.
There would have to be an emergency effort to secure the customs border, otherwise every day that passes would be a free-for-all where no one has any idea what is passing between the UK and the EU which, at that point, would be subject to customs duties and quotas.
The UK would also most probably have to maintain full regulatory alignment until they've figured out what to do, as any divergence would increase the risk of goods passing through that do not meet UK standards, and vice-versa.
Perhaps, eventually, a solution would be found that scales back the "hardness" of the border. But in the interim, there would have to be officers on the ground checking everything going backwards and forwards.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,598
Probably.
The problem is that the more technological measures to minimise the requirement for customs officer checks, such as ANPR cameras, IT databases etc, can take years to plan, build and implement. And the system needs to be one that allows UK and ROI customs to work together.
This is one of the main reasons behind the two year transition period. Without it, there is no way on Earth that the UK would have enough time to implement effective customs controls - not just on the Irish border, but in all of the UK's ports and entry points.
They all need big upgrades. Dover is bad enough as it is without a x10 or x20 increase in the amount of customs checks due to the addition of EU goods and vehicles.
And according to someone who processes customs checks at Dover, that is exactly what will happen:
https://www.ft.com/content/7ff7c97c-b33c-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399
This is very bad even with an efficient solution, but truly catastrophic if the UK leaves without that solution firmly in place. As that article mentions, even just an extra two minute delay per vehicle due to customs processing would create a 17 mile queue. An eight minute delay would result in a queue nearly 70 miles long.
When people suggest that the UK's supermarket shelves could run out of food, they aren't joking.
Upvote
0
Some foods, yes.
Knock on effect for some other food maybe having a few more days delay.
Then the farmers who don't have sufficient UK market for their harvest and delays getting stuff to overseas markets....
I'm just thinking we'll see who is vegan and who simply prefers to eat non animal products.
Maybe I should put in a crop of lettuce to be harvested a week after Brexit. Purely for commercial sale.
Upvote
0
Wrong business idea.
You should be able to build a dozen mud huts on your allotment. They will be in high demand once the Brexit disaster unfolds, and you can then enjoy the rental income for life.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read