@"CroakandDagger
No deal is better than a bad deal. Kudos to the DUP."

No deal means WTO rules apply, sudden shock to the British and Irish economies. (Big deal for Ireland, both Republic and Northern, because of the amount of cross border trade - Massive deal for Britian, because your biggest trading partner is the EU).

Without either a commonwealth, Chinese, Indian, or EU trade deals the UK's economy is fucked.

This 'no deal is better than a bad deal' just seems like insanity. Any EU deals no longer applying to the UK is shite. WTO trade rules applying to the UK will screw your economy. And the Irish are the one EU member state who is most at risk from that - which is why the rest of the EU is backing us up on our position.

Basically the UK has just been shown to not be in a strong position. May was happy to make a deal on the Irish border issue, but it sounds like the DUP didn't get a copy pf the plan until monday morning... And they absolutely don't approve... Even though collapsing May's govt would risk a SNP-Labour-Lib dem coalition, which would not benefit the DUP even sligthly.

@orathaic

you do understand that at this point, the EU's position on Britain is one of blackmail, right? Come back and give up a bit of sovereignty, or else we're going to impose trade barriers, sanctioned with the WTO.

On a separate note, it's interested how many people criticize Trump on wanting to put up tariffs, but are perfectly fine with the EU forcing people to choose between a common market and sovereignty control, vs. a restricted market and sovereignty.

The UK is an import economy, WTO tariffs will do more good than harm to us if implemented.

@JY: The United States is roughly equal to the entire EU in terms of population and GDP. Most European nations have decided to band together in order to have more power as a Union. Playing by a common set of rules is a good thing. Britons are used to the English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish nations behaving more or less in concert. Geography matters.

@"you do understand that at this point, the EU's position on Britain is one of blackmail, right? Come back and give up a bit of sovereignty, or else we're going to impose trade barriers, sanctioned with the WTO."

The default is the automatic WTO rules... This isn't blackmail, the UK choose to stab itself in the foot. And everyone knew the EU would act to preserve it's integrity (all power acts to preserve itself) - they are only to see the UK's economy tank, if it means other countries will avoid leaving the EU... But then everyone always knew that is how the EU would act.

I don't see it as blackmail... And specifically talking about the Irish border, which the UK created in 1923, i can't help but feel that centuries of colonial policy coming back to bite them in the ass is somehow well earned.

@"On a separate note, it's interested how many people criticize Trump on wanting to put up tariffs, but are perfectly fine with the EU forcing people to choose between a common market and sovereignty control, vs. a restricted market and sovereignty."

Shared sovereignty, something the UK choose to go into. And the EU hasn't said they will not agree a trade deal, they have every reason to go ahead with a low tariff trade deal; we just haven't gotten to the point of negotiating one yet. The EU is simply pushing the UK around, because they are the ones who put themselves at a huge disadvantage.

Of course, i'm firmly of the opinion that the UK should negotiate a Brexit deal, and then let the public have a vote on said deal.

@Croakand... How does all your imports costing more do you any good?

Because it discourages trade with the EU and they will lose us as customers if they don't agree to a FTA.

"The default is the automatic WTO rules..."

the default is a free market

the manipulation is the WTO.

saying "do this or else be subject to these rules" is blackmail essentially.

I mean, the PURE free trade advocates are only one step off of the unbridled globalist agenda here folks, I thought I'd get more shit from ND about this stance...

@C&D

Discouraging trade reduces efficiency. Buying from the cheapest source means whoever has the biggest advantage at making a product or service gets your business, which ideally is whoever is most efficient at that.

By cutting the UK off from EU business you do encourage entrepreneurs in the UK, who don't currently have a comparative advantage, to setup shop and make new things (goods/services), but the net effect is a reduction in efficiency.

@JY, no, in the absence of WTO rules, the EU could place tariff levels at whatever amount they wanted. Could basically cut UK exports into a fraction of what they are today... The Irish and British had a trade war in the, eh, 30s i think, it did no-one any good, but definitely hurt the Republic more than the larger economic player. This time the UK is the smaller one.

But WTO rules restrict what tariffs can be put on, so the EU can't strategically target British industries... Unfortunately this is still a worse position to out yourself in than being part of the common market. Not the EU's fault that the UK choose to go down this route.

Someone who understands the theory of comparative advantage. How refreshing. +1 Ora.

I mean, you have to account for the transport cost, and in a fossil fuel era, the externalities brought with emmitting CO2, but yes. Comparative advantage - you should do the thing you are best at...

@ ksako

There you go. An agreement has been fudged in a late night meeting in the finest traditions of European diplomacy. As was always going to be the case.

An interesting point for keen diplomacy players. The DUP made a big point of repeatedly saying they never "saw" any agreement prior to telling May no. When questioned by the BBC last night (or it may have been the night before) on whether they had been told what it was they avoided the question. So, what we gather is they never saw anything written down but they knew full well what was going on. It's all smoke and mirrors and theatrics.

I am very unclear on what has been agreed. Does the UK leave the SM and CU in name only?

What's been agreed seems to be to not properly agree the details until later, but to smile and shake hands regardless. Extra creamy Christmas fudge :)

But the highlights include a vague idea of how much will be paid, an undefined "role" for the European Court of Justice for 8 years, and (bear in mind I may have misunderstood this bit) what seems to be the end of a default hard Brexit if talks fail.

The latter I saw as well. Surprising. Brexit in name only?

The Institutions were always going to betray the People over Brexit. Not really a surprise, but still disappointing.

@CandD,
1) the referendum wasn't legally binding.

2) Leaving the EU but staying in the Common market and customs union, is still leaving the EU - yes you still have to apply almost all EU regulations, and you don't get a say in how those are applied; but it is a British Exit.

3) The people were not given a choice on what terms would be available after Article 50 was triggered, no-one voted for 'pure free trade' or 'WTO rules', or a 'EU free trade agreement' - because those were not optiond.

4) the govt doing its best to negotiate something is thus not a betrayal. Because what the public voted for is unclear.

Now IF you want a truely democratic decision, the Govt should continue negotiations, and then hold a second referendum on the actual deal. Something i seriously doubt will happen.

@Octavious, the wording (even just of the irish border issue) was super vague.

This line: "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."

Basically says that unless the EU agreed to a trade deal - which doesn't require a hard border between NI and the RoI - then the UK will continue to follow the rules of the common market. But then it goes on to say (in my reading) that it will only follow those rules (and any new future EU rules) where they support North-South cooperation or the all-island economy (for example, there is an all-island energy market, which makes sense for an Island with limited interconnectors to trade electricity across the Irish sea...).

But it is vague to the point of suggesting the UK will only follow EU rules where they are important to maintaining the economic realities on the Island of Ireland... Which, well imm not sure what that means in practice.

@CandD: This is actually a commitment to live up to obligations which the British government made to Ireland in the 1998 (good friday) agreement - you know, the peace process which has seen the majority of paramilitaries give up and destroy their weapons? 100% not betraying the people. Even if you'd prefer to ignore the fact that 6/32 parts of Ireland are still part of the UK.

@"financial settlement will be drawn up and paid in euro."

Wow, the UK agree to pay the EU and monies owed in euro, which means that if the Sterling loses value (or should i say more value) against the euro over the next few years, then the bill will effectively increase... Better hope for a deal which protects the city of london's financial status and don't have markets react to the 'No deal is better than a bad deal' rhetoric by massive capital flight and collapse of the value of the Sterling.

(See: https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/joint_report.pdf )

Deals with the EU are functionally irrelevant when it comes to the Irish border. Do you know why? Because all the British government has to do is not maintain a hard border between northern ireland and the rest of the island.

If the EU wanted to implement a hard border in those circumstances despite the wishes of the RoI then that would be their choice. One likely to further alienate the RoI, sure, but when has alienating a member state ever been a concern for the EU?

1) No, but it displayed the will of the people quite clearly.

2) Bull shit.

3) Whinging remoaners claiming that "people didn't know they were voting to leave the common market" are delusional. Both sides of the Brexit debate made arguments regarding the common market. Brexiteers said that we'd be better off out of it, and Remainers said if we left we'd be doomed.

4) The government doing its best to negotiate something would not be a betrayal, you're right. I would not describe the current pitiful shower as "Doing their best".

@4 you over estimate something, either the competence of your own government (minority thay it is not withstanding), or their influence/power at the negotiating table (with what amounts to a bigger economy than China's, the EU trading block is second only to the US; and some figures place it ahead of the US, though after the UK leaves i doubt that will he the case any more).

Traditionally the UK has held a balanve of power with France and Germany at each other's throats, in the last half century it has been a united europe, and the UK's waning powr as the Empire dissolved around it, leaves you in a very weak position compared with the rest of europe backing up France and Germany.

@"Because all the British government has to do is not maintain a hard border between northern ireland and the rest of the island. "

This is utter tripe.

What happens if, say, the EU bans neonicotinoids (to protect bee populations, for the sake of arguement). Now any produce made in the UK which is grown using a neonicotinoid can't be exported to the EU, and guess who has to enforce those rules?

If the Irish govt allows exports of food from Northern Ireland they want a guarantee that no neonicotinoids were used on said food, so you need a customs post along the border to check (not such a big deal for the rest of the a UK as shipments from a Britian can simply be stopped at existing sea and air ports and checked by the current customs services).

If Ireland didn't implement this, then we'd be subject to EU fines, and thus every vehicle carrying goods across the border would need to be stopped.

And setting up border check points like that would threaten the peace process, cost us lots, and hurt both economies. Nobody wants that to happen, not Theresa May, not the Irish govt, not any of the political parties in Northern Ireland.