Thommo wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

Thommo wrote:

OlivierK wrote:You seem to be saying that it's so obvious that a hard border is an outcome to be avoided that both sides would avoid trade solutions that required one...

Don't worry, I'm not.

Then why can't the UK just agree that there won't be one (appeasing the EU) and that there won't be a customs border in the Irish Sea (appeasing the DUP), and move on to trade negotiations?

(It's a rhetorical question: I know they don't want to do this because they want their have their cake and eat it, which brings me to...)

That isn't the reason. The reason for the lack of agreement is because the EU (rightly) don't think saying "we won't have a hard border" is actually an answer to "how will the border work?".

Yes, it's an answer. No physical land border and no customs checks between NI and Great Britain is an answer to how the border will work. The problem isn't that it's not an answer, it's that the UK will not formally agree that that's their position, but want to remain "flexible" to other options, without sitting down with the EU and formally agreeing that the unacceptable solution of a hard border is off the table. If there has been such a formal agreement and I've missed it, perhaps you could post a link for me.

Edited to add: Perhaps it would be easier to put it this way: May continues to state that walking away with no trade deal is a possible outcome. Perhaps you could explain how that outcome, explicitly raised as possible by May, is compatible with the idea that the EU and UK have agreed from the start on no hard border.

Frankly, not agreeing an open border is a huge tactical error on the UK's part. It would basically tie the EU's hands on offering a customs-free trade deal: if they didn't, the UK could point out that they'd insisted on agreeing the Irish border question up front, and accuse them of backing away from a foundational principle of agreement. But the Tories can't negotiate for shit: that much is clear.

I said that the reason isn't that "the UK can just agree that there won't be [a hard border] and that there won't be a customs border in the Irish Sea". So that request for a formal agreement to that effect doesn't make the least sense. For such agreement to exist, what I said would have to be false (or that such agreement was reached AND all other conditions were met - in which case the existence of such an agreement is still not entailed by what I was saying), since the agreements have only been laid down (and they are draft rather than formal) when the actual reasons and requirements have been fulfilled.

The UK government has said, over and over and over (one example: https://www.irishnews.com/news/brexit/2 ... d-1274658/ ) that there won't be a hard border. That they don't want a hard border. They have committed to the DUP to not putting a border in the Irish Sea (e.g. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politic ... -1.3305786 ). If this was all it took to get an agreement, then there would have been one.

Regardless of which it has been announced that phase 2 (which includes trade negotiations) is going ahead anyway, so there is no lack of *anything* that is preventing that going ahead (at this point - the reasons it didn't go ahead sooner exist, but they weren't the lack of willingness to agree to no hard border).

ETA: This is a good example of what actually held things back:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rn-ireland

As you can see (as of Aug 2017) it was apparent that assurances of no hard border were not good enough - workable details of how that would be implemented were demanded.

OlivierK wrote:Perhaps you could explain how that outcome, explicitly raised as possible by May, is compatible with the idea that the EU and UK have agreed from the start on no hard border.

Again, the answer is the same. Because agreeing that Britain does not want a hard border was never the prerequisite for moving on to trade talks. The reason you gave was incorrect.

OlivierK wrote:
I actually agree with Scot on this - poor Brexit outcomes are on the UK, as Brexit was a unilateral decision by the UK.

Poor Brexit outcomes for the UK are on the UK. Poor Brexit outcomes for anyone else, such as Ireland, fall to all the parties involved. And my comments were about Ireland, not exclusively about the terms for the UK.

The EU has to work towards securing a good outcome for Ireland, because Ireland is an EU member and the EU cannot put in place any sort of deal that would compromise an EU member state. The EU can't back the UK into a situation where "no deal" looks attractive, because that would screw over Ireland and that would be on the EU's head as much as anyone else.

If the EU puts forwards a deal which a) doesn't shaft Ireland and b) doesn't shaft the UK, which the UK then decides to reject out of hand, then sure, all the responsibility rests with the UK.

Of course what looks attractive to me (being staunchly remain) is not necessarily going to look attractive to those doing the UK negotiations.

OlivierK wrote:The EU's stated preference is for continued EU membership for the UK, which would avoid the impacts of Brexit. Any move away from that outcome is entirely at the UK's behest, and if poor outcomes ensue, it's entirely fair to lay the blame at the UK's feet.

Poor outcomes for the UK get laid at the UK's feet. We've already got poor outcomes by activating article 50, as we've walked away from our existing membership arrangement with the EU and even if we decided to come back to the EU, we won't ever get terms that nice again under the status quo. The blame for that lies entirely with the UK Government and those who voted for Brexit.

The outcomes of agreed Brexit negotiations fall to all the parties involved, unless the UK Government decides to be utterly stupid and flounce away with "no deal" which will damage multiple parties and be entirely on the UK's head.

Sendraks wrote:Poor Brexit outcomes for the UK are on the UK. Poor Brexit outcomes for anyone else, such as Ireland, fall to all the parties involved. And my comments were about Ireland, not exclusively about the terms for the UK.

The EU has to work towards securing a good outcome for Ireland, because Ireland is an EU member and the EU cannot put in place any sort of deal that would compromise an EU member state. The EU can't back the UK into a situation where "no deal" looks attractive, because that would screw over Ireland and that would be on the EU's head as much as anyone else.

If the EU puts forwards a deal which a) doesn't shaft Ireland and b) doesn't shaft the UK, which the UK then decides to reject out of hand, then sure, all the responsibility rests with the UK.

Of course what looks attractive to me (being staunchly remain) is not necessarily going to look attractive to those doing the UK negotiations.

I agree with that, good summary.

Sendraks wrote:Poor outcomes for the UK get laid at the UK's feet. We've already got poor outcomes by activating article 50, as we've walked away from our existing membership arrangement with the EU and even if we decided to come back to the EU, we won't ever get terms that nice again under the status quo. The blame for that lies entirely with the UK Government and those who voted for Brexit.

Assuming it's blame that needs to be handed out (and I've not seen the evidence of that just yet, but think it's the more likely outcome) sure. The same would (hypothetically) be true of praise as well.

Thommo wrote:The UK government has said, over and over and over (one example: https://www.irishnews.com/news/brexit/2 ... d-1274658/ ) that there won't be a hard border. That they don't want a hard border. They have committed to the DUP to not putting a border in the Irish Sea (e.g. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politic ... -1.3305786 ). If this was all it took to get an agreement, then there would have been one.

Indeed, it's not all it takes to get an agreement. What it takes to get an agreement is the willingness to sit down and formally commit to the positions above. That is the missing ingredient, and the EU is right to be frustrated that the UK will not formally commit to positions that it's taken repeatedly in public.

It's my contention that the UK's unwillingness to formalise the positions that you've linked to above, and their rhetoric that they're prepared to crash out of trade talks without a deal, are not unrelated, as a "no deal" Brexit would require walking back at least one of the two positions you've quoted.

You seem to put a lot of store in what's been said "over and over and over". I, and apparently the EU, seem to see more value in what's been formally agreed. When you're dealing with a mob like the UK Tories, whose history on Brexit has consisted of volcanic internal disagreement, and outward lies and fantasies, then I think requiring the formalisation of things that have been said "over and over and over" is reasonable, and the UK's unwillingness to do so vindicates the EU's caution of taking such oft-stated positions on trust, especially when the leader of the UK has said that a trade outcome that would require the disposal of one of those commitments (a "no deal" Brexit) is explicitly on the table.

Sendraks wrote:

OlivierK wrote:
I actually agree with Scot on this - poor Brexit outcomes are on the UK, as Brexit was a unilateral decision by the UK.

Poor Brexit outcomes for the UK are on the UK. Poor Brexit outcomes for anyone else, such as Ireland, fall to all the parties involved. And my comments were about Ireland, not exclusively about the terms for the UK.

The EU has to work towards securing a good outcome for Ireland, because Ireland is an EU member and the EU cannot put in place any sort of deal that would compromise an EU member state. The EU can't back the UK into a situation where "no deal" looks attractive, because that would screw over Ireland and that would be on the EU's head as much as anyone else.

If the EU puts forwards a deal which a) doesn't shaft Ireland and b) doesn't shaft the UK, which the UK then decides to reject out of hand, then sure, all the responsibility rests with the UK.

Of course what looks attractive to me (being staunchly remain) is not necessarily going to look attractive to those doing the UK negotiations.

OlivierK wrote:The EU's stated preference is for continued EU membership for the UK, which would avoid the impacts of Brexit. Any move away from that outcome is entirely at the UK's behest, and if poor outcomes ensue, it's entirely fair to lay the blame at the UK's feet.

Poor outcomes for the UK get laid at the UK's feet. We've already got poor outcomes by activating article 50, as we've walked away from our existing membership arrangement with the EU and even if we decided to come back to the EU, we won't ever get terms that nice again under the status quo. The blame for that lies entirely with the UK Government and those who voted for Brexit.

The outcomes of agreed Brexit negotiations fall to all the parties involved, unless the UK Government decides to be utterly stupid and flounce away with "no deal" which will damage multiple parties and be entirely on the UK's head.

That's a fair summary. Of course the EU is responsible for poor outcomes that are a result of the stances the EU takes in Brexit negotiations. I don't think that there's anything thus far that could be attributed to that, but as my disagreement with Thommo shows, that's not a universally accepted position.

OlivierK wrote:

Thommo wrote:The UK government has said, over and over and over (one example: https://www.irishnews.com/news/brexit/2 ... d-1274658/ ) that there won't be a hard border. That they don't want a hard border. They have committed to the DUP to not putting a border in the Irish Sea (e.g. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politic ... -1.3305786 ). If this was all it took to get an agreement, then there would have been one.

Indeed, it's not all it takes to get an agreement. What it takes to get an agreement is the willingness to sit down and formally commit to the positions above.

No it isn't. And that's why when Britain offered to do that in August last year the EU said no.

What you're saying is simply incorrect. The EU does not want a simple commitment to no hard border, this was not (and why you asked about the present, after phase 2 going ahead has been agreed is less clear) what was lacking.

There are plenty of other articles from August last year:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 36079.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40941393
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... ith-the-eu

What happened was these proposals were rejected by the EU, not because they did not promise no hard border, but because the EU thought the mechanism by which that would happen was unrealistic (either in terms of what they themselves would concede or doubts over technical capacity and the consequences of the system if it could be implemented).

Ultimately these issues haven't actually been fully resolved and the EU have moved on anyway, which could be interpreted as either time running out, or as tacit acknowledgement of the point I was making - that the mechanism by which you enforce the border is inextricably linked with the needs to enforce the border, which are created by tariff and non tariff barriers and will be greater or lesser in extent depending on what is agreed on trade and divergence.

OlivierK wrote:I don't think that there's anything thus far that could be attributed to that, but as my disagreement with Thommo shows, that's not a universally accepted position.

To clarify, I don't think I'm saying that a delay in the timetable is an outcome. Sendraks is specifically talking about outcomes, I think.

Not for the first time, we seem to be somewhat talking past each other. I was referring to my opinion that the EU have not been responsible for poor outcomes not being universally shared, as evidenced by your contention that their insistence on border clarity before beginning trade talks has been detrimental to the negotiation process in general, something that I hoped would be clear from the sentence which you removed when quoting my post.

OlivierK wrote:Not for the first time, we seem to be somewhat talking past each other. I was referring to my opinion that the EU have not been responsible for poor outcomes not being universally shared, as evidenced by your contention that their insistence on border clarity before beginning trade talks has been detrimental to the negotiation process in general, something that I hoped would be clear from the sentence which you removed when quoting my post.

Yes, and I'm clarifying that whilst you may (or may not - no assumption implied) regard the negotiation process being slowed as a negative outcome, I don't. I think it's "a negative" in some loose sense, but Sendraks was talking about apportioning blame for outcomes and if a good outcome is reached (which I think is perhaps slightly less likely due to the approach taken) then I still won't be placing blame.

But you're right, I too think, not for the first time, we are talking past each other somewhat. I'm not sure what mitigates that aside from agreeing to differ and trying to avoid saying what we think the other thinks or would think and sticking to our own opinions instead.

Or indeed, by me sticking to what I should be have been doing all morning, and going to work in my garden

Have fun!

Doubt it - I've been chopping back an overgrown area, and now have to go remove (admittedly small) tree stumps in 30C temperatures (which is why I'm still sat at the laptop!)

Anyway, the price of discussing Brexit as the day warmed must now be paid...

Tree stumps are a pain in the arse. It's not so bad if the roots aren't too deep. Fingers crossed.

Maybe it'll be decent exercise, if not fun.

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Only after the border question is settled.

Only after a whole raft of issues are settled.

Scot Dutchy wrote:How long is the transition going to take?

It has been repeatedly reported as being approximately two years.

Scot Dutchy wrote: Not long enough to negotiate any decent deal.

How long does it take to negotiate "any" decent deal?

Junkers said Ireland first. Transition is until 2020. Here is information about how long the US does over trade deals. The EU takes much longer.

With Brexit in mind, just how long do trade deals take to agree?

Back in April, President Barack Obama warned it could take the United Kingdom up to 10 years to negotiate trade deals with the US and that it would be at the “back of the queue” if it left the European Union.

Now that Britain has voted Brexit, the UK government needs to renegotiate deals with the EU – and the bloc’s trading partners, including the United States. That’s over 50 countries.

Trade deals have a reputation for being slow, drawn-out affairs – Canada took seven years to strike its agreement with the EU.

Not much time two years. The EU-UK trade deal is not even mentioned.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Junkers said Ireland first. Transition is until 2020.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42906950

It's what is expected to happen straight after the UK officially leaves the European Union on 29 March, 2019. The plan is for a time-limited period (of approximately two years) before the eventual permanent arrangements for UK-EU relations - which have yet to be agreed - kick in.

So transition will be until March 2021. Two years.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Here is information about how long the US does over trade deals. The EU takes much longer.

With Brexit in mind, just how long do trade deals take to agree?

Yes, I read that article as well. Very helpful stuff. Clearly it will take the UK more than 2 years to sort out trade deals with the EU. However, it is less clear how long it will take to establish trade deals with other nations. The US average is 18 months. Which suggests that two years might be enough for some deals and not enough for others.

It is the useful ones that will take time. Also does the UK have enough qualified negotiators? The Chinese joke if I remember was that UK would need 5000 negotiators and 10 years to make any agreement with China.

Transition is until 2020. A concession Davis made yesterday.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is the useful ones that will take time.

I can't argue with that. The big emerging economies the UK is concerned about, like China, aren't going to come easy. If China say it will take 10 years, I imagine they'd know.

And I think the position re: the lack of trained negotiators in the UK is well known. Potentially lucrative employment.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Transition is until 2020. A concession Davis made yesterday.

It is until 31st December 2020. So 18months. Just shy of two years.

It is very tight especially as a solution must be found on the Irish border. The "Back Stop" has been accepted just now but for the DUP is totally unacceptable.

They dont have up till 31 December though. The EU needs time to agree and discuss any agreement. So more like July 2020.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is very tight especially as a solution must be found on the Irish border. The "Back Stop" has been accepted just now but for the DUP is totally unacceptable.

They dont have up till 31 December though. The EU needs time to agree and discuss any agreement. So more like July 2020.

The transition agreement states that the transition period ends on 31 December 2020. Why would the transition period be reduced to July 2020?

Also - I thought all the agreements on the terms of Brexit (which would include the Irish border) had to be reached by March 2019, which is when Brexit is due to start. If there is a delay in Brexit, then the duration of transition may be subject to further discussion. Although, a short transition might benefit both the EU and the City of London, so there may be pressure not to change anything.

http://www.cityam.com/261054/brexit-benefit-city-providing-transitional-periods-kept