I like this part of Boris’s letter to Donald Tusk:
This government will not put in place infrastructure, checks or controls at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We would be happy to accept a legally binding commitment to this effect and hope that the EU would do likewise.
The jurisdiction with fewer regulations has nothing to lose from such an arrangement, of course. The EU bureaucrats, however, want to be in control, and a source of cheap goods from a free-er jurisdiction must make them uncomfortable (as well as being highly profitable for Northern Ireland). Leaving the EU to build their own border infrastructure is the default position for the UK anyway: the UK cannot lose. This is a test of the EU’s commitment to free trade, as opposed to “free trade” as controlled by them.
The letter is only about the backstop. Theresa May’s agreement minus the backstop still has many problems. It remains to be seen whether Boris and Parliament will settle for it.
Which is why I am hopeful that the EU will continue to baulk at the removal of the poison pill, since I am pretty sure that the Parliament of Knaves would happily pass the document of capitulation if the backstop were removed.
As it is, I think that both Ireland and the EU are suffering from the curse of believing their own PR (or at least enjoying the smell of their own farts), which again is fine by me.
I am beginning to wonder what they expect to happen post-BRExit? Because when Ireland begins to suffer from the problems of Leo the Lion’s own making, what will happen then?
The UK may feel the need to assist given the long mutuality between the UK and Ireland, but the price of that assistance would surely have to be Leo’s departure (ideally in the form of an Irish political coup d’etat).
With the new EU presidency commencing on 1st November, we’re getting people who have no real stake in BRExit one way or the other and dealing with the consequences should be easier, since what came before can be blamed on Jean-Claude Drunker, Tusk, Barnier et al.
We need the same for Ireland. Leo needs to go to allow for a clearing of the air such that constructive takes can take place.
My sentiments exactly.
So far so good: https://order-order.com/2019/08/20/read-full-eu-commissions-response-boris/
I read an account in yesterday’s telegraph concerning the hard border between Poland and Ukraine put in at the insistence of the EU. It clearly benefits nobody, and is a pain to many.
I posit that the Eire position is nothing to do with pro-EU loyalty, anti-British feeling, or a misrepresentation of the Good Friday agreement. It has a lot to do with avoiding such a border and since they lack the power, or maybe the confidence, to tell the EU to bugger off they are fighting now with us, effectively, on their side, rather than leaving it until we have left and they are alone.
Sorry Pat. Not convinced.
Leo the Lion Varadkar is doing a pretty good demonstration of the usual treachery we have come to expect from the EU types. Can’t say I see any evidence that he is fight “with us” in any sense.
Seems pretty “against us” to be honest, which is why he has to go post-BRExit if there is to be any resolution on the border between the UK and Ireland. Fuck what the EU thinks.
@ Pat 1:42
I saw the headline and read part of the opening paragraph of the Telegraph article (paywalled), so I don’t know if what I mention below was covered. The hard border between Poland and Ukraine is indeed there at the EU’s insistence, but there are no practical similarities between the situation there and that pertaining to Ireland. I’ve used this particular crossing, and the first time I was there I was startled to see scores of Ukrainians (mainly women) in the car park on the Polish side walking from car to car selling single packets of cigarettes. Because of the substantial price differential, Ukrainians are only allowed to bring one pack of twenty cigarettes across the border. Apparently, these women wait in line to cross on foot with their solitary pack, which they then sell on the Polish side for half the normal Polish price. Once sold they then cross back and repeat the process, presumably several times per day.
The UK limits (I think one carton/200 cigarettes per person) how many cigarettes for ‘personal consumption’ may be brought in from Poland, due to their being roughly a third of the UK price; similarly, but to a more draconian extent, Poland does not wish to encourage a black market in Ukrainian cigarettes.
There’s obviously a lot more to the Polish/Ukrainian border than this one tiny example, but it’s a good illustration of the disparities in costs and standards of living between the two countries, and something that doesn’t apply between RoI and NI.
@KrakowJosh: Fair point, but I think it is slightly different. Since Irish goods would have to travel through the UK to get into the bulk of the EU market, there is a reasonable concern that goods from the UK (or god forbid – America / China) could enter the EU market without being subject to the EU tariff barrier.
Might even be (gasp) CHLORINE WASHED US CHICKEN!!!
The EU is attempting to defend the indefensible, by using misleading parallel arguments to try and disguise the truth that they are really just trying to keep other parties from undermining their protection racket.
“they [EU] are really just trying to keep other parties from undermining their protection racket.”
Which gets straight to the kind of issue that the UK will face moments after separation from the EU. Should the UK declare unilateral free trade with the rest of the world? Or only with selected countries? Which countries? Would that unilateral free trade mean only zero tariffs on imports, or would it also mean no exclusions of imports which might be chlorine washed, GMO, or assembled by slave labor?
In amateur dramatics, people used to tell each other ‘It is going to be all right on the night’. Let’s hope so. But the absence of discussion & agreement within the UK about these kinds of rapidly approaching issues is really quite staggering. Undoubtedly, Mr. Soros is shorting the Pound (again) as we talk.
Yes, we should. Because as free marketeers we know that the benefits of free trade go to the consumer. Who would be buying all of that cheaper sourced food and foreign goods? Not consumers (directly) for the most part, but companies who would remain liable for goods which are faulty or not up to standard (particularly food).
If people don’t want chlorine washed chicken then they won’t buy it. But maybe they like the price and when marinaded and cooked they can’t tell the difference? That is what those bitching about “US Chlorine washed chicken” really fear.
So, some UK producers and farmers might go bust. That is the price we pay for allowing the plebs to become richer by paying less for food, goods and services.
I think that justifies unilateral free trade on it’s own merits.
There is a case both for and against unilateral free trade. Certainly, in the short term, the only kind of free trade the post-separation UK could get would be unilateral, since bilateral “free” trade agreements generally take years to negotiate.
The issue is that the people of the UK should be discussing & reaching agreement among themselves NOW on what they want to do on the Day After Brexit. Otherwise, the UK will find itself mired in internal disputes and be unable to move forward and take advantage of its separated status.