Northern Ireland Brexit agreement ‘not working at the moment’, says Gove
Michael Gove has expressed frustration at the lack of progress in talks with Brussels aimed at resolving difficulties in Northern Ireland’s Brexit arrangements.
The Cabinet Office Minister will meet the European Commission’s vice president Maros Sefcovic in London on Thursday to discuss the problems faced in Northern Ireland as a result of the new trading arrangements.
Mr Gove acknowledged the protocol was “not working at the moment” with the result being “disruptions and difficulties faced by Northern Ireland citizens in their daily lives”
I am at something of a loss as to why you create a thread called "Brexit Benefits", and then give nothing but examples of perceived disadvantages, rather than any benefits. There have undoubtedly been problems, but the sky hasn't exactly fallen in, has it?
So, in the interests of debate as to possible benefits of Brexit, 2 simple questions:-
1. Do you think Boris has been a more effective PM since we left the EU? 2. Do you think that, if we were still in the EU, we would have been allowed to be so far ahead in vaccinations?
The EU did negotiate a far better price for the AZ, and Pfizer vaccines.
True. But they didn't get them Seems strange that there can be different pricing when this is supposedly "not for profit"
The authorisation process would have been identical.
But if we were still in the EU, we would have been forced to hand over our excess vaccine. Like every club, you have to look after your fellow members.
Of course anyone can call a thread anything they want. But calling it 1 thing and doing precisely the opposite is a bit strange
How do you think Brexit is going so far?
Better than I expected.
Not without any problems-but any sensible person would expect an amount of problems.
Northern Ireland is a major problem. But the upside for the UK is that this border problem will likely mean that any independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU. For 2 reasons:-
1. Most current EU countries have not existed in their current form as long as the UK. Spain will not want to encourage their own separatist movements, etc 2. If anyone thinks the N.I border is problematic, imagine the problems in relation to the England/Scotland border.
Important to remember that no news means good news. The doomsayer wing of Remainers are as far removed from reality as the Farage wing.
Perhaps thats because when people are content they feel little need to complain.
1,725 out of some 48,000,000 remainers. Assuming only 1 comment per person and thats stretching it thats 0.0000359% of those opposed to brexit felt it worthy of comment.
Oh and I have no supporters, I am neither a politico, a campaigner, a spokesperson, a celeb or a sporting personality.
I am at something of a loss as to why you create a thread called "Brexit Benefits", and then give nothing but examples of perceived disadvantages, rather than any benefits. There have undoubtedly been problems, but the sky hasn't exactly fallen in, has it?
So, in the interests of debate as to possible benefits of Brexit, 2 simple questions:-
1. Do you think Boris has been a more effective PM since we left the EU? 2. Do you think that, if we were still in the EU, we would have been allowed to be so far ahead in vaccinations?
The EU did negotiate a far better price for the AZ, and Pfizer vaccines.
True. But they didn't get them Seems strange that there can be different pricing when this is supposedly "not for profit"
The authorisation process would have been identical.
But if we were still in the EU, we would have been forced to hand over our excess vaccine. Like every club, you have to look after your fellow members.
Of course anyone can call a thread anything they want. But calling it 1 thing and doing precisely the opposite is a bit strange
How do you think Brexit is going so far?
Better than I expected.
Not without any problems-but any sensible person would expect an amount of problems.
Northern Ireland is a major problem. But the upside for the UK is that this border problem will likely mean that any independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU. For 2 reasons:-
1. Most current EU countries have not existed in their current form as long as the UK. Spain will not want to encourage their own separatist movements, etc 2. If anyone thinks the N.I border is problematic, imagine the problems in relation to the England/Scotland border.
Important to remember that no news means good news. The doomsayer wing of Remainers are as far removed from reality as the Farage wing.
Deluded Rejoiners crushed as doomed EU plot ‘off agenda' for next TEN years
We live in a democracy, where people voted for a specific thing to happen, namely leaving the EU.
Now I don't think that was wise. But it happened. Yes, we were members for some 47 years-could have been longer if the French had not blocked us from joining earlier. They thought we would insist on everyone doing things our way, and flounce off if everyone didn't agree. As if
Some people want to re-write history. Particularly people whose political careers have ended. From Lord Adonis, to Philip Hammond, and now the "de facto Prime Minister (under May) David Lidington". At least the 1st 2 want us to return to the past-the 3rd appears to be in a parallel universe.
The UK has a long and proud history of achieving via the difficult route. Remaining in the EU may have been easier. Being in the EEA was IMHO certainly a wiser choice than where we are now.
But we will move onwards and upwards despite that. We always do.
I suppose that if NI, and or Scotland left the UK, and prospered in the EU, it may bring the topic of rejoining back to the fore. Or if some of the current chaos became permanent.
Scotland may become independent. But join the EU anytime soon? Not likely. 2 massive hurdles:-
I have read a couple of articles on this, and the opinion seems to be that if they were accepted it could take about 8 years.
1. The 27 countries in the EU would decide whether or not to admit them. most of the 27 either have serious separatist movements within their own borders, or have only fairly recently become the country they now are. Anyone think Spain want to give a massive fillip to the Basque/Catalan movements? France to Basque/Corsican? Italy/Sicily, Germany/Bavaria? Not going to happen
There are other opinions being put forward, like Spain would agree just to stick it up the UK.
3. There is a 96 mile border between England & Scotland. Which would be next to impossible to police, not least because next to nobody lives close to the border. Think the EU want to allow England to have benefits of the EU by the back door? Not going to happen
The border didnt feature very much in the articles, and the Euro may be a more difficult problem. Although there doesnt seem to be a deadline for any new members to adopt the Euro.
I've said it before. And will say it again. The UK needs to look forward, as to how to best deal with the new map of Europe (economically). Looking backwards all the time is just not helping. By that I don't mean you. I mean the sad political losers wasting our time with their sad stories wishing doom and gloom on us all. It won't be "chaos". It will cost us an amount of money. But that is what people have voted for.
Looking forward, the breakup of The Union will be a problem. The deal that Boris did has exacerbated this. I think he was completely out of his depth in the negotiations. I am not even sure he understood what was going on. Why do we need a 2 year grace period extension, in order to contend with teething problems? Although Michael Gove has now admitted that they arent. I bet that the vast majority of our Brexit voting fishermen wish they hadnt. I am certain that Boris would be getting far more consideration from the EU, if he had slagged them off a bit less, and been a little more honest. It seems ridiculous that we are just over a month into an agreement that he signed off on, and so many problems have arisen that have seemed so much of a surprise to him. Some products are being held up through a shortage of vets to inspect them, shellfish are being stopped because we dont have enough purification tanks, it goes on and on, as businesses suffer. Where did advising businesses to set up subsidiaries in the EU, and lay off staff in the UK, feature in the referendum campaign?
I am at something of a loss as to why you create a thread called "Brexit Benefits", and then give nothing but examples of perceived disadvantages, rather than any benefits. There have undoubtedly been problems, but the sky hasn't exactly fallen in, has it?
So, in the interests of debate as to possible benefits of Brexit, 2 simple questions:-
1. Do you think Boris has been a more effective PM since we left the EU? 2. Do you think that, if we were still in the EU, we would have been allowed to be so far ahead in vaccinations?
The EU did negotiate a far better price for the AZ, and Pfizer vaccines.
True. But they didn't get them Seems strange that there can be different pricing when this is supposedly "not for profit"
The authorisation process would have been identical.
But if we were still in the EU, we would have been forced to hand over our excess vaccine. Like every club, you have to look after your fellow members.
Of course anyone can call a thread anything they want. But calling it 1 thing and doing precisely the opposite is a bit strange
How do you think Brexit is going so far?
Better than I expected.
Not without any problems-but any sensible person would expect an amount of problems.
Northern Ireland is a major problem. But the upside for the UK is that this border problem will likely mean that any independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU. For 2 reasons:-
1. Most current EU countries have not existed in their current form as long as the UK. Spain will not want to encourage their own separatist movements, etc 2. If anyone thinks the N.I border is problematic, imagine the problems in relation to the England/Scotland border.
Important to remember that no news means good news. The doomsayer wing of Remainers are as far removed from reality as the Farage wing.
Perhaps thats because when people are content they feel little need to complain.
1,725 out of some 48,000,000 remainers. Assuming only 1 comment per person and thats stretching it thats 0.0000359% of those opposed to brexit felt it worthy of comment.
Oh and I have no supporters, I am neither a politico, a campaigner, a spokesperson, a celeb or a sporting personality.
I am at something of a loss as to why you create a thread called "Brexit Benefits", and then give nothing but examples of perceived disadvantages, rather than any benefits. There have undoubtedly been problems, but the sky hasn't exactly fallen in, has it?
So, in the interests of debate as to possible benefits of Brexit, 2 simple questions:-
1. Do you think Boris has been a more effective PM since we left the EU? 2. Do you think that, if we were still in the EU, we would have been allowed to be so far ahead in vaccinations?
The EU did negotiate a far better price for the AZ, and Pfizer vaccines.
True. But they didn't get them Seems strange that there can be different pricing when this is supposedly "not for profit"
The authorisation process would have been identical.
But if we were still in the EU, we would have been forced to hand over our excess vaccine. Like every club, you have to look after your fellow members.
Of course anyone can call a thread anything they want. But calling it 1 thing and doing precisely the opposite is a bit strange
How do you think Brexit is going so far?
Better than I expected.
Not without any problems-but any sensible person would expect an amount of problems.
Northern Ireland is a major problem. But the upside for the UK is that this border problem will likely mean that any independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU. For 2 reasons:-
1. Most current EU countries have not existed in their current form as long as the UK. Spain will not want to encourage their own separatist movements, etc 2. If anyone thinks the N.I border is problematic, imagine the problems in relation to the England/Scotland border.
Important to remember that no news means good news. The doomsayer wing of Remainers are as far removed from reality as the Farage wing.
Perhaps thats because when people are content they feel little need to complain.
1,725 out of some 48,000,000 remainers. Assuming only 1 comment per person and thats stretching it thats 0.0000359% of those opposed to brexit felt it worthy of comment.
Oh and I have no supporters, I am neither a politico, a campaigner, a spokesperson, a celeb or a sporting personality.
I am at something of a loss as to why you create a thread called "Brexit Benefits", and then give nothing but examples of perceived disadvantages, rather than any benefits. There have undoubtedly been problems, but the sky hasn't exactly fallen in, has it?
So, in the interests of debate as to possible benefits of Brexit, 2 simple questions:-
1. Do you think Boris has been a more effective PM since we left the EU? 2. Do you think that, if we were still in the EU, we would have been allowed to be so far ahead in vaccinations?
The EU did negotiate a far better price for the AZ, and Pfizer vaccines.
True. But they didn't get them Seems strange that there can be different pricing when this is supposedly "not for profit"
The authorisation process would have been identical.
But if we were still in the EU, we would have been forced to hand over our excess vaccine. Like every club, you have to look after your fellow members.
Of course anyone can call a thread anything they want. But calling it 1 thing and doing precisely the opposite is a bit strange
How do you think Brexit is going so far?
Better than I expected.
Not without any problems-but any sensible person would expect an amount of problems.
Northern Ireland is a major problem. But the upside for the UK is that this border problem will likely mean that any independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU. For 2 reasons:-
1. Most current EU countries have not existed in their current form as long as the UK. Spain will not want to encourage their own separatist movements, etc 2. If anyone thinks the N.I border is problematic, imagine the problems in relation to the England/Scotland border.
Important to remember that no news means good news. The doomsayer wing of Remainers are as far removed from reality as the Farage wing.
Perhaps thats because when people are content they feel little need to complain.
1,725 out of some 48,000,000 remainers. Assuming only 1 comment per person and thats stretching it thats 0.0000359% of those opposed to brexit felt it worthy of comment.
Oh and I have no supporters, I am neither a politico, a campaigner, a spokesperson, a celeb or a sporting personality.
We'll board your boats if you don't back down: George Eustice warns EU that Britain will get tough if Brussels doesn't back down in row over shellfish exports
Environment Secretary George Eustice warned yesterday that the Government could drop its 'pragmatic and sensible' approach unless Brussels backs down in a row over shellfish exports.
Essexphil said: » show previous quotes Better than I expected.
Not without any problems-but any sensible person would expect an amount of problems.
Northern Ireland is a major problem. But the upside for the UK is that this border problem will likely mean that any independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU. For 2 reasons:-
1. Most current EU countries have not existed in their current form as long as the UK. Spain will not want to encourage their own separatist movements, etc 2. If anyone thinks the N.I border is problematic, imagine the problems in relation to the England/Scotland border.
Important to remember that no news means good news. The doomsayer wing of Remainers are as far removed from reality as the Farage wing.
The unbearable irony of Michael Gove citing ‘expert’ opinion on Scottish independence
“Independence would cost Scotland far more than Brexit, study finds.” Striking enough in itself, all the more so when you realise the quote is a tweet by Michael Gove.
The multiple layers of irony here are breathtaking, and we’ll get back to that in a moment.
However, the bigger point here relates to the nature of our political debate and specifically to the role of experts within it.
The Brexit debate should have taught all of us some valuable lessons. Early signs, however, are that we may have failed to learn them.
If only there were a prize for the most irony crammed into a single tweet. Note Mr Gove’s implicit acceptance that Brexit does indeed carry an economic cost. Then his reliance on precisely those “experts from organisations with acronyms” he had previously scorned (here the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics).
And bear in mind that those experts, and those models, were precisely those that showed Boris Johnson’s “fantastic” Brexit deal would reduce the UK’s trade with the EU by about a third.
So far, so bizarre. But it gets still more depressing. Responses to the LSE study from supporters of Scottish independence followed precisely the pattern we have come to recognise from our experience over the last five years. Personal attacks on the researchers, accompanied by claims that they were some how biased.
More substantively, there were three familiar claims. First, that forecasts are always wrong. Second, that, whatever economists might say, it would be in the mutual interest of both sides to continue to trade more or less as now.
Specifically, because of the UK’s supposed dependence on Scottish energy and water supplies, there will be no new trade barriers between England and Scotland, while clever ways can be found to avoid a border between Scotland and England.
And third, that the modelling ignored the many and varied ways in which Scotland, once independent, would be able to improve its economic position by doing things differently.
These arguments were questionable in 2016. They are all the more so now. It’s true we still don’t know what the long-term economic impact of Brexit will be. But so far, the forecasts have proved surprisingly accurate – the best estimates are that the uncertainty that followed the referendum has cost us 2 to 3 per cent of GDP, and the early signs are that the new trade barriers that were introduced on January 1 2021 are having precisely the impacts we expected.
And those trade barriers exist precisely because the UK did not "hold all the cards" and because the EU was prepared to defend its interests even if that necessitated some painful adjustments. Moreover, as recent headlines have made clear, the EU will insist on borders to protect the integrity of its single market, however disruptive these may prove to be.
And finally, for all the claims that regulatory independence might make up for any economic impact of new trade barriers, there is precious little sign of this being the case. This does not mean that Brexit – or Scottish independence – are necessarily bad ideas. But it does imply that the advantages are not to be found in short-term aggregate economic gains.
So does this all mean - as some commentators have predicted – that “experts” - economists and other social scientists - have nothing useful to contribute to the Scottish independence debate, because the same zombie arguments and deflections will simply reappear in a different form?
Not necessarily, but lessons will need to be learned. First, models and forecasts are not enough. We must find ways to communicate the results of our research that resonate not just with fellow researchers but with the public. It remains the case that "spreadsheets are people too", but we must accept that anecdotes and specific cases are often a more effective way of getting the message contained in the data across.
News reports of fishermen who can no longer sell their catch to continental Europe have done far more to explain the reality of trade barriers than academic papers.
Second, we need to call out exaggeration and scaremongering from all sides. The Brexiteers’ criticism of “Project Fear” had some truth to it: George Osborne’s misuse of the Treasury to produce obviously politicised “analysis” will no doubt be repeated in a future independence campaign, and economists should not be afraid to say so.
Third, we should make clear the limits of our knowledge. Leaving aside the disputed issue of whether Brexit made it easier, legally or politically, for the UK to go its own way on vaccine procurement, nobody on any side of the debate can claim they anticipated just how important it would prove to be.
Similar issues may arise in respect of Scotland. It would be absurd to claim that Scotland could not do things differently should it become independent, even if the notion that this might compensate for trade-related losses will need to be illustrated and not just asserted.
But the onus is not simply on academics to do better. A degree of honesty, as we’ve argued before, will allow everyone to understand and, if necessary, prepare for, the implications of whatever is decided.
Vote Leave and successive UK governments signally failed to accept that Brexit would mean, at the very best, difficult and painful trade offs, with real losers.
If the proponents of independence want not just to win a referendum, but to make a success of it, then they could start now, by recognising that independence will have real costs and downsides, and engaging with, rather than vilifying, those who point that out.
Similarly, on the unionist side, that means using research and analysis to inform and validate their political arguments, rather than trying to weaponise them or claim that the laws of economics mean that an independent Scotland cannot be successful and prosperous.
Not least, as for many people, as we have learned, these questions cannot simply be boiled down to economics.
Not necessarily, but lessons will need to be learned. First, models and forecasts are not enough. We must find ways to communicate the results of our research that resonate not just with fellow researchers but with the public. It remains the case that "spreadsheets are people too", but we must accept that anecdotes and specific cases are often a more effective way of getting the message contained in the data across.
News reports of fishermen who can no longer sell their catch to continental Europe have done far more to explain the reality of trade barriers than academic papers.
Second, we need to call out exaggeration and scaremongering from all sides. The Brexiteers’ criticism of “Project Fear” had some truth to it: George Osborne’s misuse of the Treasury to produce obviously politicised “analysis” will no doubt be repeated in a future independence campaign, and economists should not be afraid to say so.
Third, we should make clear the limits of our knowledge. Leaving aside the disputed issue of whether Brexit made it easier, legally or politically, for the UK to go its own way on vaccine procurement, nobody on any side of the debate can claim they anticipated just how important it would prove to be.
Similar issues may arise in respect of Scotland. It would be absurd to claim that Scotland could not do things differently should it become independent, even if the notion that this might compensate for trade-related losses will need to be illustrated and not just asserted.
But the onus is not simply on academics to do better. A degree of honesty, as we’ve argued before, will allow everyone to understand and, if necessary, prepare for, the implications of whatever is decided.
Vote Leave and successive UK governments signally failed to accept that Brexit would mean, at the very best, difficult and painful trade offs, with real losers.
If the proponents of independence want not just to win a referendum, but to make a success of it, then they could start now, by recognising that independence will have real costs and downsides, and engaging with, rather than vilifying, those who point that out.
Similarly, on the unionist side, that means using research and analysis to inform and validate their political arguments, rather than trying to weaponise them or claim that the laws of economics mean that an independent Scotland cannot be successful and prosperous.
Not least, as for many people, as we have learned, these questions cannot simply be boiled down to economics.
Most proponents of independence, like any fundamental change, want to win first, and only worry about any "success" afterwards. That is only natural. It is for defenders of the status quo to point out costs. If either the Tories or Labour had shown half the gumption of Gordon Brown, we would be in a different place.
As an example, the total failure to recognise the NI border problem was primarily the fault of the Remainer side, not the Leavers.
There are probably less than 12,000 commercial fishermen left. They do a dangerous job, for precious little reward. But they don't half moan.
In the early 1970s they asserted that the UK did not do enough in the "Cod Wars" with Iceland. Something that had little to do with being in or out of the EU, and decimated the industry. Then we had to be in the EU for collective protection. Then we had to be out of the EU to get "our" waters back, which by my reckoning meant only the UK could fish in the Seine. Now we should never have left.
It's not like they are never satisfied with their lot, is it? A bit like farmers, only without the grant money. But great at insisting every single thing is against them. If there was a bet on a toss of a coin, you'd bet they'd call "edge".
< Scotland may become independent. But join the EU anytime soon? Not likely. 2 massive hurdles:-
I have read a couple of articles on this, and the opinion seems to be that if they were accepted it could take about 8 years.
1. The 27 countries in the EU would decide whether or not to admit them. most of the 27 either have serious separatist movements within their own borders, or have only fairly recently become the country they now are. Anyone think Spain want to give a massive fillip to the Basque/Catalan movements? France to Basque/Corsican? Italy/Sicily, Germany/Bavaria? Not going to happen
There are other opinions being put forward, like Spain would agree just to stick it up the UK.
3. There is a 96 mile border between England & Scotland. Which would be next to impossible to police, not least because next to nobody lives close to the border. Think the EU want to allow England to have benefits of the EU by the back door? Not going to happen
The border didnt feature very much in the articles, and the Euro may be a more difficult problem. Although there doesnt seem to be a deadline for any new members to adopt the Euro.
I've said it before. And will say it again. The UK needs to look forward, as to how to best deal with the new map of Europe (economically). Looking backwards all the time is just not helping. By that I don't mean you. I mean the sad political losers wasting our time with their sad stories wishing doom and gloom on us all. It won't be "chaos". It will cost us an amount of money. But that is what people have voted for.
Looking forward, the breakup of The Union will be a problem. The deal that Boris did has exacerbated this. I think he was completely out of his depth in the negotiations. I am not even sure he understood what was going on. Why do we need a 2 year grace period extension, in order to contend with teething problems? Although Michael Gove has now admitted that they arent. I bet that the vast majority of our Brexit voting fishermen wish they hadnt. I am certain that Boris would be getting far more consideration from the EU, if he had slagged them off a bit less, and been a little more honest. It seems ridiculous that we are just over a month into an agreement that he signed off on, and so many problems have arisen that have seemed so much of a surprise to him. Some products are being held up through a shortage of vets to inspect them, shellfish are being stopped because we dont have enough purification tanks, it goes on and on, as businesses suffer. Where did advising businesses to set up subsidiaries in the EU, and lay off staff in the UK, feature in the referendum campaign?
So you arguments are:-
1. IF Scotland were to be accepted, it would take 8 years. 2 problems there-the word "if", and how to remain solvent during an 8-year period where all business would be waiting for change 2. You seem to believe that Spain would prefer to hurt England, than do what is best for the people doing the voting, ie the current leaders of Spain. Good luck with that. I am rather confident that self-interest will prevail
< Scotland may become independent. But join the EU anytime soon? Not likely. 2 massive hurdles:-
I have read a couple of articles on this, and the opinion seems to be that if they were accepted it could take about 8 years.
1. The 27 countries in the EU would decide whether or not to admit them. most of the 27 either have serious separatist movements within their own borders, or have only fairly recently become the country they now are. Anyone think Spain want to give a massive fillip to the Basque/Catalan movements? France to Basque/Corsican? Italy/Sicily, Germany/Bavaria? Not going to happen
There are other opinions being put forward, like Spain would agree just to stick it up the UK.
3. There is a 96 mile border between England & Scotland. Which would be next to impossible to police, not least because next to nobody lives close to the border. Think the EU want to allow England to have benefits of the EU by the back door? Not going to happen
The border didnt feature very much in the articles, and the Euro may be a more difficult problem. Although there doesnt seem to be a deadline for any new members to adopt the Euro.
I've said it before. And will say it again. The UK needs to look forward, as to how to best deal with the new map of Europe (economically). Looking backwards all the time is just not helping. By that I don't mean you. I mean the sad political losers wasting our time with their sad stories wishing doom and gloom on us all. It won't be "chaos". It will cost us an amount of money. But that is what people have voted for.
Looking forward, the breakup of The Union will be a problem. The deal that Boris did has exacerbated this. I think he was completely out of his depth in the negotiations. I am not even sure he understood what was going on. Why do we need a 2 year grace period extension, in order to contend with teething problems? Although Michael Gove has now admitted that they arent. I bet that the vast majority of our Brexit voting fishermen wish they hadnt. I am certain that Boris would be getting far more consideration from the EU, if he had slagged them off a bit less, and been a little more honest. It seems ridiculous that we are just over a month into an agreement that he signed off on, and so many problems have arisen that have seemed so much of a surprise to him. Some products are being held up through a shortage of vets to inspect them, shellfish are being stopped because we dont have enough purification tanks, it goes on and on, as businesses suffer. Where did advising businesses to set up subsidiaries in the EU, and lay off staff in the UK, feature in the referendum campaign?
So you arguments are:-
1. IF Scotland were to be accepted, it would take 8 years. 2 problems there-the word "if", and how to remain solvent during an 8-year period where all business would be waiting for change
The word if is important, as it obviously wouldnt guaranteed by any means. Ms Sturgeon was putting forward a phased approach. Most UK businesses are now very familiar with waiting for change
And once Scotland left the UK, the EU would agree an association agreement with it, one that would give substantial access to EU markets until talks were done.
3. You seem to believe that Spain would prefer to hurt England, than do what is best for the people doing the voting, ie the current leaders of Spain. Good luck with that. I am rather confident that self-interest will prevail
One of the articles I read gave that view. Others said Spain have changed their mind and no longer see a problem with it.
Spain says it will not impose veto if Scotland tries to join EU
Foreign minister says Madrid remains opposed to an independent Scotland, but would not block any EU application
@YesScot · 6 Jun 2019 📄 Spain’s top diplomat in Scotland wrote to the Herald to explain that Spain will not block an independent Scotland joining the EU.
Scotland is FREE to join EU, says Spain: Spanish INFURIATE UK with goading on Brexit deal BREXIT will lead to the breakup of the UK, according to Spanish foreign minister Josep Borrell, as Spain drops its historic opposition to Scotland rejoining the EU as an independent country.
Spain has faced its own independence claim from the region of Catalonia, which voted to separate in a referendum dubbed illegal by Madrid. The Spanish government has always opposed Scotland being allowed to join the EU, apparently worried that it would start a precedent for newly independent European states to join, encouraging Catalan separatists. Opponents of the Scottish National Party (SNP) used this opposition to dismiss the idea of Scotland joining the EU in the event of independence.
This represents a dramatic U-turn from a government minister, who said Spain would not stop an independent Scotland join the EU if it left the UK on a legal basis with Westminster's consent.
Brussels plot to humiliate Boris by using Scotland's EU entry as a 'victory' against UK THE EU will seek to score a "victory" over the UK and humiliate Boris Johnson by allowing Scotland to join the Brussels' bloc if Nicola Sturgeon secures independence.
WHAT WAS CLAIMED The Spanish government hasn’t said that it would veto an independent Scotland joining the European Union.
OUR VERDICT Correct, although it has said that Scotland would have to leave the EU and re-apply from the outside.
No other EU member state has said that it would veto an independent Scotland’s membership... The Spanish have not said that. Go home and Google this evening, the Spanish government have not said that they would veto.”
Joanna Cherry MP, 16 March 2017
“No because if you are thinking about Catalonia the situation is very very very different to the Scottish situation."
Who said anything about a veto? European politics is rather deeper than that.
No-one will use a veto, because that would be seized upon by the various other separatist movements throughout Europe.
No-it will be waffle-"we'd love to admit Scotland, but regrettably due to problems related to the border between England/Scotland, and/or the shared currency and/or the various shared institutions, and/or any other excuse we can dream up over the next 8 years..."
But no-one will admit that. Because they would look weak. And might lose power in their own country.
Love the idea that Catalonia is so different from Scotland.
Catalonia used to be part of an entirely separate kingdom, but were forced by a King to be part of a united kingdom in the 18th Century.
In recent years have been granted an amount of localised separate government, but have been denied a vote as to whether they can become independent.
Many of its citizens sick of being governed by a big city hundreds of miles away that is culturally very different.
Totally different
The independence movement in Catalonia, a region of Spain, means that Madrid doesn’t like encouraging nationalist movements in other countries. That’s why it’s often assumed that the Spanish government is committed to vetoing an independent Scotland’s EU membership.
But there’s a possible misunderstanding here. There’s a difference between staying in the EU and rejoining it.
Essentially, Spain says that Scotland would have to exit the EU in the event of an independence vote, and then apply to join as a new member. (That’s also what the central EU bodies say.)
“Were Scotland to become independent... the country would be treated as a third state and would have to get in line to join the EU.” That’s from Spanish newspaper El País, summarising the position taken by the country’s foreign minister this week.
Who said anything about a veto? European politics is rather deeper than that.
No-one will use a veto, because that would be seized upon by the various other separatist movements throughout Europe.
No-it will be waffle-"we'd love to admit Scotland, but regrettably due to problems related to the border between England/Scotland, and/or the shared currency and/or the various shared institutions, and/or any other excuse we can dream up over the next 8 years..."
But no-one will admit that. Because they would look weak. And might lose power in their own country.
None of the articles say anything about border issues.
There were a number of technological solutions put forward in respect of the Irish border problem, put forward by the UK side. They suggested them, even though they are currently unavailable. Maybe they will be in 8 to 10 years time.
Who said anything about a veto? European politics is rather deeper than that.
No-one will use a veto, because that would be seized upon by the various other separatist movements throughout Europe.
No-it will be waffle-"we'd love to admit Scotland, but regrettably due to problems related to the border between England/Scotland, and/or the shared currency and/or the various shared institutions, and/or any other excuse we can dream up over the next 8 years..."
But no-one will admit that. Because they would look weak. And might lose power in their own country.
If Scotland became independent after Brexit, possibly as an EU member, it raises the prospect of customs and market access issues with the rest of the UK.But Blackford told Sky News: "We're looking to protect our economic interests and we're looking to protect market access."Nobody in the UK is talking about a border in the island of Ireland - the UK Government has said all along it didn't wish to see a border in the island of Ireland."I don't think anybody would want to see a border in the United Kingdom."
In their first release, titled Independent Scotland’s Smart Borders, they said the issue of borders has gone from “a stick pro-Union forces will attempt to use to beat down the case for independence” during the first indyref to becoming “increasingly detoxified” because of Brexit and coronavirus.
The SIC report, written by Bill Austin, calls for an independent Scotland to adopt “smart borders” where revenue, immigration and safety functions can be checked not at “a line on a map” but at “the most appropriate, cost effective and convenient real or virtual space.”
The report says: “The very notion of a ‘hard border’ where everything and everyone is stopped and searched is a ridiculous and almost cartoonish fiction, not resembling reality in any other European nation.
“Indeed, it is not a concept recognised by the World Customs Organisation, an organisation the UK has been a member of since 1952."
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexiteers-failed-to-take-uk-out-of-eu-as-single-country-tory-mp-admits/ar-BB1dvfRf?ocid=msedgntp
Michael Gove has expressed frustration at the lack of progress in talks with Brussels aimed at resolving difficulties in Northern Ireland’s Brexit arrangements.
The Cabinet Office Minister will meet the European Commission’s vice president Maros Sefcovic in London on Thursday to discuss the problems faced in Northern Ireland as a result of the new trading arrangements.
Mr Gove acknowledged the protocol was “not working at the moment” with the result being “disruptions and difficulties faced by Northern Ireland citizens in their daily lives”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/northern-ireland-brexit-agreement-not-working-at-the-moment-says-gove/ar-BB1dv8Me?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/stop-meddling-eu-could-spark-scotland-crisis-with-pro-brussels-gestures-boris-warning/ar-BB1dvBD8?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brussels-set-to-reject-northern-ireland-grace-period-extension-in-bitter-brexit-row/ar-BB1dwltU?ocid=msedgntp
1,725 out of some 48,000,000 remainers. Assuming only 1 comment per person and thats stretching it thats 0.0000359% of those opposed to brexit felt it worthy of comment.
Oh and I have no supporters, I am neither a politico, a campaigner, a spokesperson, a celeb or a sporting personality.
You have a great day now.
The deal that Boris did has exacerbated this.
I think he was completely out of his depth in the negotiations.
I am not even sure he understood what was going on.
Why do we need a 2 year grace period extension, in order to contend with teething problems?
Although Michael Gove has now admitted that they arent.
I bet that the vast majority of our Brexit voting fishermen wish they hadnt.
I am certain that Boris would be getting far more consideration from the EU, if he had slagged them off a bit less, and been a little more honest.
It seems ridiculous that we are just over a month into an agreement that he signed off on, and so many problems have arisen that have seemed so much of a surprise to him.
Some products are being held up through a shortage of vets to inspect them, shellfish are being stopped because we dont have enough purification tanks, it goes on and on, as businesses suffer.
Where did advising businesses to set up subsidiaries in the EU, and lay off staff in the UK, feature in the referendum campaign?
Environment Secretary George Eustice warned yesterday that the Government could drop its 'pragmatic and sensible' approach unless Brussels backs down in a row over shellfish exports.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9238353/George-Eustice-warns-EU-Britain-tough-Brussels-doesnt-down.html
» show previous quotes
Better than I expected.
Not without any problems-but any sensible person would expect an amount of problems.
Northern Ireland is a major problem. But the upside for the UK is that this border problem will likely mean that any independent Scotland will not be admitted to the EU. For 2 reasons:-
1. Most current EU countries have not existed in their current form as long as the UK. Spain will not want to encourage their own separatist movements, etc
2. If anyone thinks the N.I border is problematic, imagine the problems in relation to the England/Scotland border.
Important to remember that no news means good news. The doomsayer wing of Remainers are as far removed from reality as the Farage wing.
The unbearable irony of Michael Gove citing ‘expert’ opinion on Scottish independence
“Independence would cost Scotland far more than Brexit, study finds.” Striking enough in itself, all the more so when you realise the quote is a tweet by Michael Gove.
The multiple layers of irony here are breathtaking, and we’ll get back to that in a moment.
However, the bigger point here relates to the nature of our political debate and specifically to the role of experts within it.
The Brexit debate should have taught all of us some valuable lessons. Early signs, however, are that we may have failed to learn them.
If only there were a prize for the most irony crammed into a single tweet. Note Mr Gove’s implicit acceptance that Brexit does indeed carry an economic cost. Then his reliance on precisely those “experts from organisations with acronyms” he had previously scorned (here the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics).
And bear in mind that those experts, and those models, were precisely those that showed Boris Johnson’s “fantastic” Brexit deal would reduce the UK’s trade with the EU by about a third.
So far, so bizarre. But it gets still more depressing. Responses to the LSE study from supporters of Scottish independence followed precisely the pattern we have come to recognise from our experience over the last five years. Personal attacks on the researchers, accompanied by claims that they were some how biased.
More substantively, there were three familiar claims. First, that forecasts are always wrong. Second, that, whatever economists might say, it would be in the mutual interest of both sides to continue to trade more or less as now.
Specifically, because of the UK’s supposed dependence on Scottish energy and water supplies, there will be no new trade barriers between England and Scotland, while clever ways can be found to avoid a border between Scotland and England.
And third, that the modelling ignored the many and varied ways in which Scotland, once independent, would be able to improve its economic position by doing things differently.
These arguments were questionable in 2016. They are all the more so now. It’s true we still don’t know what the long-term economic impact of Brexit will be. But so far, the forecasts have proved surprisingly accurate – the best estimates are that the uncertainty that followed the referendum has cost us 2 to 3 per cent of GDP, and the early signs are that the new trade barriers that were introduced on January 1 2021 are having precisely the impacts we expected.
And those trade barriers exist precisely because the UK did not "hold all the cards" and because the EU was prepared to defend its interests even if that necessitated some painful adjustments. Moreover, as recent headlines have made clear, the EU will insist on borders to protect the integrity of its single market, however disruptive these may prove to be.
And finally, for all the claims that regulatory independence might make up for any economic impact of new trade barriers, there is precious little sign of this being the case. This does not mean that Brexit – or Scottish independence – are necessarily bad ideas. But it does imply that the advantages are not to be found in short-term aggregate economic gains.
So does this all mean - as some commentators have predicted – that “experts” - economists and other social scientists - have nothing useful to contribute to the Scottish independence debate, because the same zombie arguments and deflections will simply reappear in a different form?
Not necessarily, but lessons will need to be learned. First, models and forecasts are not enough. We must find ways to communicate the results of our research that resonate not just with fellow researchers but with the public. It remains the case that "spreadsheets are people too", but we must accept that anecdotes and specific cases are often a more effective way of getting the message contained in the data across.
News reports of fishermen who can no longer sell their catch to continental Europe have done far more to explain the reality of trade barriers than academic papers.
Second, we need to call out exaggeration and scaremongering from all sides. The Brexiteers’ criticism of “Project Fear” had some truth to it: George Osborne’s misuse of the Treasury to produce obviously politicised “analysis” will no doubt be repeated in a future independence campaign, and economists should not be afraid to say so.
Third, we should make clear the limits of our knowledge. Leaving aside the disputed issue of whether Brexit made it easier, legally or politically, for the UK to go its own way on vaccine procurement, nobody on any side of the debate can claim they anticipated just how important it would prove to be.
Similar issues may arise in respect of Scotland. It would be absurd to claim that Scotland could not do things differently should it become independent, even if the notion that this might compensate for trade-related losses will need to be illustrated and not just asserted.
But the onus is not simply on academics to do better. A degree of honesty, as we’ve argued before, will allow everyone to understand and, if necessary, prepare for, the implications of whatever is decided.
Vote Leave and successive UK governments signally failed to accept that Brexit would mean, at the very best, difficult and painful trade offs, with real losers.
If the proponents of independence want not just to win a referendum, but to make a success of it, then they could start now, by recognising that independence will have real costs and downsides, and engaging with, rather than vilifying, those who point that out.
Similarly, on the unionist side, that means using research and analysis to inform and validate their political arguments, rather than trying to weaponise them or claim that the laws of economics mean that an independent Scotland cannot be successful and prosperous.
Not least, as for many people, as we have learned, these questions cannot simply be boiled down to economics.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/the-unbearable-irony-of-michael-gove-citing-expert-opinion-on-scottish-independence/ar-BB1dwSzM?ocid=msedgntp
As an example, the total failure to recognise the NI border problem was primarily the fault of the Remainer side, not the Leavers.
There are probably less than 12,000 commercial fishermen left. They do a dangerous job, for precious little reward. But they don't half moan.
In the early 1970s they asserted that the UK did not do enough in the "Cod Wars" with Iceland. Something that had little to do with being in or out of the EU, and decimated the industry. Then we had to be in the EU for collective protection. Then we had to be out of the EU to get "our" waters back, which by my reckoning meant only the UK could fish in the Seine. Now we should never have left.
It's not like they are never satisfied with their lot, is it? A bit like farmers, only without the grant money. But great at insisting every single thing is against them. If there was a bet on a toss of a coin, you'd bet they'd call "edge".
Scotland may become independent. But join the EU anytime soon? Not likely. 2 massive hurdles:-
I have read a couple of articles on this, and the opinion seems to be that if they were accepted it could take about 8 years.
1. The 27 countries in the EU would decide whether or not to admit them. most of the 27 either have serious separatist movements within their own borders, or have only fairly recently become the country they now are. Anyone think Spain want to give a massive fillip to the Basque/Catalan movements? France to Basque/Corsican? Italy/Sicily, Germany/Bavaria? Not going to happen
There are other opinions being put forward, like Spain would agree just to stick it up the UK.
3. There is a 96 mile border between England & Scotland. Which would be next to impossible to police, not least because next to nobody lives close to the border. Think the EU want to allow England to have benefits of the EU by the back door? Not going to happen
The border didnt feature very much in the articles, and the Euro may be a more difficult problem.
Although there doesnt seem to be a deadline for any new members to adopt the Euro.
I've said it before. And will say it again. The UK needs to look forward, as to how to best deal with the new map of Europe (economically). Looking backwards all the time is just not helping. By that I don't mean you. I mean the sad political losers wasting our time with their sad stories wishing doom and gloom on us all. It won't be "chaos". It will cost us an amount of money. But that is what people have voted for.
Looking forward, the breakup of The Union will be a problem.
The deal that Boris did has exacerbated this.
I think he was completely out of his depth in the negotiations.
I am not even sure he understood what was going on.
Why do we need a 2 year grace period extension, in order to contend with teething problems?
Although Michael Gove has now admitted that they arent.
I bet that the vast majority of our Brexit voting fishermen wish they hadnt.
I am certain that Boris would be getting far more consideration from the EU, if he had slagged them off a bit less, and been a little more honest.
It seems ridiculous that we are just over a month into an agreement that he signed off on, and so many problems have arisen that have seemed so much of a surprise to him.
Some products are being held up through a shortage of vets to inspect them, shellfish are being stopped because we dont have enough purification tanks, it goes on and on, as businesses suffer.
Where did advising businesses to set up subsidiaries in the EU, and lay off staff in the UK, feature in the referendum campaign?
So you arguments are:-
1. IF Scotland were to be accepted, it would take 8 years. 2 problems there-the word "if", and how to remain solvent during an 8-year period where all business would be waiting for change
2. You seem to believe that Spain would prefer to hurt England, than do what is best for the people doing the voting, ie the current leaders of Spain. Good luck with that. I am rather confident that self-interest will prevail
The deal that Boris did has exacerbated this.
I think he was completely out of his depth in the negotiations.
I am not even sure he understood what was going on.
Why do we need a 2 year grace period extension, in order to contend with teething problems?
Although Michael Gove has now admitted that they arent.
I bet that the vast majority of our Brexit voting fishermen wish they hadnt.
I am certain that Boris would be getting far more consideration from the EU, if he had slagged them off a bit less, and been a little more honest.
It seems ridiculous that we are just over a month into an agreement that he signed off on, and so many problems have arisen that have seemed so much of a surprise to him.
Some products are being held up through a shortage of vets to inspect them, shellfish are being stopped because we dont have enough purification tanks, it goes on and on, as businesses suffer.
Where did advising businesses to set up subsidiaries in the EU, and lay off staff in the UK, feature in the referendum campaign?
So you arguments are:-
1. IF Scotland were to be accepted, it would take 8 years. 2 problems there-the word "if", and how to remain solvent during an 8-year period where all business would be waiting for change
The word if is important, as it obviously wouldnt guaranteed by any means.
Ms Sturgeon was putting forward a phased approach.
Most UK businesses are now very familiar with waiting for change
And once Scotland left the UK, the EU would agree an association agreement with it, one that would give substantial access to EU markets until talks were done.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18102174.independent-scotland-join-eu-brexit/
Nicola Sturgeon confessed Scotland's EU membership ‘may be phased'
"Now it may be that we have a phased approach to that by necessity."
Asked whether that could mean EFTA membership first and EU membership later, she said: "It may be by necessity, even if we didn't want that.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1362591/nicola-sturgeon-news-snp-scotland-brexit-eu-membership-efta-spt
'Empathy' for independent Scotland joining the EU says Tusk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51342714
3. You seem to believe that Spain would prefer to hurt England, than do what is best for the people doing the voting, ie the current leaders of Spain. Good luck with that. I am rather confident that self-interest will prevail
One of the articles I read gave that view.
Others said Spain have changed their mind and no longer see a problem with it.
Spain says it will not impose veto if Scotland tries to join EU
Foreign minister says Madrid remains opposed to an independent Scotland, but would not block any EU application
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/spain-drops-plan-to-impose-veto-if-scotland-tries-to-join-eu
Spain ‘would not block Scotland joining the EU’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spain-would-not-block-scotland-joining-the-eu-tbwknv38k
Spain would not block independent Scotland from joining EU, diplomat insists
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/06/06/spain-would-not-block-independent-scotland-from-joining-eu-dipl/?
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/06/06/spain-would-not-block-independent-scotland-from-joining-eu-dipl/?
@YesScot
·
6 Jun 2019
📄 Spain’s top diplomat in Scotland wrote to the Herald to explain that Spain will not block an independent Scotland joining the EU.
🗞️ Read more here: https://thenational.scot/news/17686950.spain-we-will-not-block-independent-scotlands-eu-membership/
Scotland is FREE to join EU, says Spain: Spanish INFURIATE UK with goading on Brexit deal
BREXIT will lead to the breakup of the UK, according to Spanish foreign minister Josep Borrell, as Spain drops its historic opposition to Scotland rejoining the EU as an independent country.
Spain has faced its own independence claim from the region of Catalonia, which voted to separate in a referendum dubbed illegal by Madrid. The Spanish government has always opposed Scotland being allowed to join the EU, apparently worried that it would start a precedent for newly independent European states to join, encouraging Catalan separatists. Opponents of the Scottish National Party (SNP) used this opposition to dismiss the idea of Scotland joining the EU in the event of independence.
This represents a dramatic U-turn from a government minister, who said Spain would not stop an independent Scotland join the EU if it left the UK on a legal basis with Westminster's consent.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1048158/brexit-news-scottish-independence-spain-catalonia-nicola-sturgeon-spanish-foreign-minister
Brussels plot to humiliate Boris by using Scotland's EU entry as a 'victory' against UK
THE EU will seek to score a "victory" over the UK and humiliate Boris Johnson by allowing Scotland to join the Brussels' bloc if Nicola Sturgeon secures independence.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1381427/EU-news-Boris-Johnson-Brussels-Scotland-independence-referendum-Sturgeon-SNP-latest-vn
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
The Spanish government hasn’t said that it would veto an independent Scotland joining the European Union.
OUR VERDICT
Correct, although it has said that Scotland would have to leave the EU and re-apply from the outside.
No other EU member state has said that it would veto an independent Scotland’s membership... The Spanish have not said that. Go home and Google this evening, the Spanish government have not said that they would veto.”
Joanna Cherry MP, 16 March 2017
“No because if you are thinking about Catalonia the situation is very very very different to the Scottish situation."
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-membership-spain-scotland/
European politics is rather deeper than that.
No-one will use a veto, because that would be seized upon by the various other separatist movements throughout Europe.
No-it will be waffle-"we'd love to admit Scotland, but regrettably due to problems related to the border between England/Scotland, and/or the shared currency and/or the various shared institutions, and/or any other excuse we can dream up over the next 8 years..."
But no-one will admit that. Because they would look weak. And might lose power in their own country.
Catalonia used to be part of an entirely separate kingdom, but were forced by a King to be part of a united kingdom in the 18th Century.
In recent years have been granted an amount of localised separate government, but have been denied a vote as to whether they can become independent.
Many of its citizens sick of being governed by a big city hundreds of miles away that is culturally very different.
Totally different
The Spanish area around Barcelona and Girona inc Tossa and Lloret and the French areas of Perpignon and Toulouse .
Therefore any question of independence is very difficult.
But there’s a possible misunderstanding here. There’s a difference between staying in the EU and rejoining it.
Essentially, Spain says that Scotland would have to exit the EU in the event of an independence vote, and then apply to join as a new member. (That’s also what the central EU bodies say.)
“Were Scotland to become independent... the country would be treated as a third state and would have to get in line to join the EU.” That’s from Spanish newspaper El País, summarising the position taken by the country’s foreign minister this week.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-membership-spain-scotland/
There were a number of technological solutions put forward in respect of the Irish border problem, put forward by the UK side.
They suggested them, even though they are currently unavailable.
Maybe they will be in 8 to 10 years time.
Perhaps NI will go first.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/ian-blackford-no-hard-border-england-after-independence-1417037
In their first release, titled Independent Scotland’s Smart Borders, they said the issue of borders has gone from “a stick pro-Union forces will attempt to use to beat down the case for independence” during the first indyref to becoming “increasingly detoxified” because of Brexit and coronavirus.
The SIC report, written by Bill Austin, calls for an independent Scotland to adopt “smart borders” where revenue, immigration and safety functions can be checked not at “a line on a map” but at “the most appropriate, cost effective and convenient real or virtual space.”
The report says: “The very notion of a ‘hard border’ where everything and everyone is stopped and searched is a ridiculous and almost cartoonish fiction, not resembling reality in any other European nation.
“Indeed, it is not a concept recognised by the World Customs Organisation, an organisation the UK has been a member of since 1952."
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18892950.independence-wont-lead-hard-border-england/