Brexit discussion thread IV

flutered

Rhineshark wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

They thought they could get at Merkel. Firstly German car industry. Then looking for Merkel to go over the head of Barnier.

Which they've been trying for two years now with various leaders.

At some point is it going to filter through that their strategy isn't working or do they reckon that to keep trying the same thing that isn't working is a mark of stoicism and determination rather than madness?

some uk blogs boast that the can do individual deals with eu countrys post brexit, the penny has not dropped, as some one said online, trying to explain the mechinicims of the eu to brexiteers is akin to trying to get a pig to play the tin whistle

Econ__ wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

Question Time is the flagship current affairs/ political debate show of the BBC and the only one of note in the UK. You expect a good standard. Historically it was pretty good. Like many institutions, Question Time has not coped with Brexit.

The BBC has not coped with Brexit in general.

Too much credence given to proven charlatans like Rees-Mogg and IDS. Also, I think the focus and coverage given to Johnson, a blatant Trump-like demagogue, does the citizens of the UK a major disservice. This is the biggest crisis that Britain has faced since the second World War - the state broadcaster has a responsibility to provide rational, objective and fact based discourse.

the bbc got a wake up call from the torys a few years back, either their version of events or funding would be cut

Kermit.de.frog

I thought they were all tech tzars in the Tory party?

https://twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1046102274823647232

PopePalpatine

This is the party whose leader brought about the "Snoopers' Charter", I'm not surprised.

Enzokk

Econ__ wrote: »

So when do people actually expect the Withdrawal Agreement to be signed?

I cannot see it happening in November and I think those expectations are false. The two sides are still too far apart on the backstop & nobody still has any idea what the political declaration will look like.

I think January is most likely, with the WA getting fast tracked through the national parliaments of the EU27 to meet the deadline. If May doesn't have a deal by January 20th, she has to make a statement to the HoC with regards what she plans on doing next. That statement will be amendable - which would leave open the opportunities for MPs to vote on the prospect of a 2nd referendum. May will not want to lose control of the process in that way, so i suspect the hard deadline for a deal is January 20th.

Surely if the WA is to be signed as late as possible the terms would be even worse for the UK. If you want the EU to sign it before you crash out without a transition deal you will have to give up more to get that transition. The problem is the WA will be the framework for the future deal. Talk about playing with fire.

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Is the situation as it stands that the UK must leave the EU by March '19?
If there is a second referendum , does that automatically mean the UK stays within the EU or must they negotiate to remain?
I only ask because, if at the end of this debacle, there's a second referendum that changes their decision, there should be a penalty for all the time and resources wasted over the last two years.
As in, they must accept the Euro and deeper integration into the EU.

If there is a second referendum after April 2019 then it will be about new membership to the EU as they would have legally left the EU already. I am actually sure the other EU countries will gladly have the UK back in the EU tomorrow at the same benefits they have over other nations currently, to avoid this mess. I also think that of they leave and want to return the EU will not be as generous as before.

flutered

Enzokk wrote: »

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Interesting listening to the English journalist Liam Halligan today on Eamon Dunphys podcast. One of his main points was that if the British get a free trade deal with the US there will be a new improved trading channel opened up between two of our main trading partners sort of bypassing us and maybe taking trade from us too. Ireland will be stuck in a free trade zone with countries such as Lithuania which doesn’t really make much sense.

Swings and roundabouts, right? We could lose trade with the US but we could pick up trade that countries used to do with the UK but will decide to forego to instead trade with the EU. We will also not be stuck with Lithuania but 26 other countries that have multiple trade agreements with other countries around the world. Not sure if it is your opinion or Liam Halligan who feels the need to mention Lithuania but I guess its supposed to be some sort of insult to us and Lithuania.

Just looking at the past few days of political activity from the USA I am not sure if you want to be hoping to be tied to them for anything. Trump has repeatedly stated he will screw over any other country to get better terms for the US. The UK is not some special snowflake and they will be crushed by the current administration when it comes to a deal. My guess is if there is no deal the agreement to allow flights to continue between the US and UK would be their first real dose of reality of what it will be like to deal with Trumps America.

has not the us offered them a flights deal much worse than the one they already have

Enzokk

flutered wrote: »

has not the us offered them a flights deal much worse than the one they already have

They have and I don't see it changing even with a change of President in the next few years. Even with a Democrat in office they would be crazy to just offer the UK a good deal as all other countries would be lined up at their door asking for the same.

US offers UK inferior open skies deal after Brexit

flutered

Enzokk wrote: »

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Interesting listening to the English journalist Liam Halligan today on Eamon Dunphys podcast. One of his main points was that if the British get a free trade deal with the US there will be a new improved trading channel opened up between two of our main trading partners sort of bypassing us and maybe taking trade from us too. Ireland will be stuck in a free trade zone with countries such as Lithuania which doesn’t really make much sense.

Swings and roundabouts, right? We could lose trade with the US but we could pick up trade that countries used to do with the UK but will decide to forego to instead trade with the EU. We will also not be stuck with Lithuania but 26 other countries that have multiple trade agreements with other countries around the world. Not sure if it is your opinion or Liam Halligan who feels the need to mention Lithuania but I guess its supposed to be some sort of insult to us and Lithuania.

Just looking at the past few days of political activity from the USA I am not sure if you want to be hoping to be tied to them for anything. Trump has repeatedly stated he will screw over any other country to get better terms for the US. The UK is not some special snowflake and they will be crushed by the current administration when it comes to a deal. My guess is if there is no deal the agreement to allow flights to continue between the US and UK would be their first real dose of reality of what it will be like to deal with Trumps America.

has not the us offered them a flights deal much worse than the one they already have

Capt'n Midnight

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Is the situation as it stands that the UK must leave the EU by March '19?

Yes.

11pm, 29 March, 2019 (midnight European time)

Though IIRC goods and flight actually in transit at the time may be allowed continue to their destination. Stuff ordered but not shipped has to obey the new rules.

If there is a second referendum , does that automatically mean the UK stays within the EU

No.

However noises have been made that the EU may accept the UK taking back Article 50. But nothing in writing, unlike say the UK promises on the backstop.

or must they negotiate to remain?
I only ask because, if at the end of this debacle, there's a second referendum that changes their decision, there should be a penalty for all the time and resources wasted over the last two years.
As in, they must accept the Euro and deeper integration into the EU.

If there is a second referendum there's uncertainty over what options people will vote on , or even if they will be given real choices or accurate info.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's UK talk about voting on an extension. The reality is that from the start the EU has made it very clear that an extension would only be there if the deal was almost done and just needed a little more work to finalise. "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and right now the UK hasn't even agreed on what it wants to ask for.

Strazdas

Econ__ wrote: »

So when do people actually expect the Withdrawal Agreement to be signed?

I cannot see it happening in November and I think those expectations are false. The two sides are still too far apart on the backstop & nobody still has any idea what the political declaration will look like.

I think January is most likely, with the WA getting fast tracked through the national parliaments of the EU27 to meet the deadline. If May doesn't have a deal by January 20th, she has to make a statement to the HoC with regards what she plans on doing next. That statement will be amendable - which would leave open the opportunities for MPs to vote on the prospect of a 2nd referendum. May will not want to lose control of the process in that way, so i suspect the hard deadline for a deal is January 20th.

January would be way too late. The EU would already have lost interest by this point and told the UK to sling their hook. Macron has already said the emergency November summit should only only go ahead if agreement is close or ready to be signed off on : if not, even holding it would be pointless.

Leroy42

But the EU is not prepared for a crash out. They might be better prepared rhan the UK, but that doesn't say much.

Ireland has no ability to police a border. Calais won't have the capacity.

Even without a deal, nothing is going to drastically change o. 29th Maech next

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the EU is not prepared for a crash out. They might be better prepared rhan the UK, but that doesn't say much.

Ireland has no ability to police a border. Calais won't have the capacity.

Even without a deal, nothing is going to drastically change o. 29th Maech next

What shortages do you anticipate on the EU side if/when the UK leaves ?

Last I heard the EU was an exporter of food.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/26/no-deal-brexit-minor-port-delays-30-minutes-bankrupt-1-in-10-uk-firms

From a survey of more than 1,300 UK and EU-based supply chain managers, the personnel responsible for navigating customs controls for their companies, a tenth at UK firms said it would risk bankruptcy if goods were delayed by between 10 and 30 minutes at the border.

Econ__

Strazdas wrote: »

January would be way too late. The EU would already have lost interest by this point and told the UK to sling their hook. Macron has already said the emergency November summit should only only go ahead if agreement is close or ready to be signed off on : if not, even holding it would be pointless.

Incorrect.

Yes, the pressure has been ramped up by the EU ahead of the October summit - they are hardly going to say to them 'don't worry, we can sort this stuff out at the last minute'.

You're sorely mistaken if you believe that the EU will have 'lost interest' and would tell the UK to 'sling their hook' if there's no agreement before Christmas. No deal doesn't work for the EU either.

British MPs are more likely to sign off on the WA when the cliff edge is closer. Reaching agreement after Christmas is of strategic interest to the EU, as well as the UK government - even if they don't publicly admit it.

Kermit.de.frog

Boris wants a bridge built to Ireland to solve the problem.



SNIP

...which doesn't actually solve the problem but anyhow

Strazdas

Econ__ wrote: »

Incorrect.

Yes, the pressure has been ramped up by the EU ahead of the October summit - they are hardly going to say to them 'don't worry, we can sort this stuff out at the last minute'.

You're sorely mistaken if you believe that the EU will have 'lost interest' and would tell the UK to 'sling their hook' if there's no agreement before Christmas. No deal doesn't work for the EU either.

British MPs are more likely to sign off on the WA when the cliff edge is closer. Reaching agreement after Christmas is of strategic interest to the EU, as well as the UK government - even if they don't publicly admit it.

The UK are the ones dragging their heels, not the EU. The EU would have been prepared to sign the WA in Salzburg last week, but all of the foot dragging was on the British side. The UK are causing the delays by refusing to sign up to the Irish backstop or any trade model on offer from the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Boris wants a bridge built to Ireland to solve the problem.


...which doesn't actually solve the problem but anyhow

It's not even his idea.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/dup-s-idea-of-a-bridge-to-scotland-might-unlock-stalemate-in-the-brexit-negotiations-1-8612615

If Brussels was to take their proposal seriously, even by initially agreeing a feasibility study, in return for DUP acceptance of the backstop, the bridge-building option could be the solution negotiators urgently need.

This would mean the EU secures a backstop, Britain delivers Brexit, Northern Ireland gets the best of both worlds, Scotland gets an EU land link and the British/Irish isles become re-connected in a way not seen since the Giants Causeway was destroyed by the legendary Finn McCool.

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/bridge-between-northern-ireland-and-scotland

Dunlop believes that this Ireland-Scotland “Celtic” bridge would cost just $21 billion (£15 billion), a fraction of the English Channel bridge estimated price of $168 billion (£120 billion).

No prizes for guessing who proposed a bridge to France though

Econ__

Strazdas wrote: »

The UK are the ones dragging their heels, not the EU. The EU would have been prepared to sign the WA in Salzburg last week, but all of the foot dragging was on the British side. The UK are causing the delays by refusing to sign up to the Irish backstop or any trade model on offer from the EU.

Yes, but that's a different argument to the one that you're making. There's no stage in the Article 50 process where the EU will give up and refuse to engage with the UK.

They've known from the start that the UK are likely to capitulate when they feel the pressure of the clock ticking. An agreement in January wouldn't be an issue for the EU.

Leroy42

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What shortages do you anticipate on the EU side if/when the UK leaves ?

Last I heard the EU was an exporter of food.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/26/no-deal-brexit-minor-port-delays-30-minutes-bankrupt-1-in-10-uk-firms

I never mentioned shortages. But delays are inevitable and the EU currently does not have the capacity in the ports/airports to handle the separation of UK goods and people.

The Irish government will not have a hard border ready to go on 30th March. So at at very most we will have a soft Brexit in March, nothing will really chance. They will be talk but you will be able to drive unhindered from Dublin to Belfast on the 30th March, be it car or truck.

The UK is a net importer, so have massive tailbacks in Dover and Calais/Dublin will effect the exporters to the UK and thus have a massive problem for the EU. They will want to avoid that.

IMO, a fudge will be found, or simply nothing done, in the hope that a few more months of talking can bring about a resolution.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

IMO, a fudge will be found, or simply nothing done, in the hope that a few more months of talking can bring about a resolution.

Disagree.

The exit arrangements will be finalised as scheduled. There may be a transition period to allow for the necessary infrastructure but there will not be a fudge and there will be no compromise on the integrity of the Single Market.

mickoneill31

First Up wrote: »

Disagree.

The exit arrangements will be finalised as scheduled. There may be a transition period to allow for the necessary infrastructure but there will not be a fudge and there will be no compromise on the integrity of the Single Market.

I was just going to type that. We won't have a border on March 30th. If I was the negotiators for the eu and we got to a no deal situation, I'd give the UK a transition period just long enough for the EU to get itself ready.

The UK needs a much longer transition than that but if we got to that position that's no longer the EUs problem.

If that came to pass good look to the UK too get its new and better deals with other countries.

Boris is in the news today saying he was told that the backstop agreement in December was just agreed to move negotiations along and they didn't really mean it. We knew that and the EU knew that but for UK to say it means you can't trust them negotiating at all. Admittedly though, Boris could be lying, but what are the odds of that

Leroy42

But isn't a transition period itself a fudge. If the UK leave on 29th, there is no reason for a transition period unless the EU need it. It was originally offered as part on overall agreement,combined with Backstop, divorce settlement and EU citizens rights.

But it was to give both parties time to prepare. Neither side is ready for a crash out and whilst they will pretend that its a transition, surely that will raise problems with other countries. Will, for example, would Turkey have to continue with their checks. The EU are happy to allow the rules of the SM be tweaked.

They will of course dress it up as being the UK are aligned, but there will be no systems to check that so it will be simply based on trust. SO much for a rules based system.

mickoneill31

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't a transition period itself a fudge. If the UK leave on 29th, there is no reason for a transition period unless the EU need it. It was originally offered as part on overall agreement,combined with Backstop, divorce settlement and EU citizens rights.

But it was to give both parties time to prepare. Neither side is ready for a crash out and whilst they will pretend that its a transition, surely that will raise problems with other countries. Will, for example, would Turkey have to continue with their checks. The EU are happy to allow the rules of the SM be tweaked.

They will of course dress it up as being the UK are aligned, but there will be no systems to check that so it will be simply based on trust. SO much for a rules based system.

What would you suggest so? Start putting in the infrastructure for the worst case scenario now?

Why does a transition period raise issues for other countries? A transition period means that the UK is still part of the EU. Why would there be no systems to check that the UK is aligned. Nothing would change on March 30th.
Yes the UK could go maverick with a no deal and just say on March 30th that it's a free for all. Hopefully that's a low possibility as it'd knock their new shiny deals back years (when they need them immediately). In the real world the longer the transition period they get the better it is for them.

Rhineshark

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't a transition period itself a fudge. If the UK leave on 29th, there is no reason for a transition period unless the EU need it. It was originally offered as part on overall agreement,combined with Backstop, divorce settlement and EU citizens rights.

Depends what you mean by a fudge. A new invention to facilitate something that's never been done before in the most practical way, sure. But the UK will be following the rules while in transition.

But it was to give both parties time to prepare. Neither side is ready for a crash out and whilst they will pretend that its a transition, surely that will raise problems with other countries. Will, for example, would Turkey have to continue with their checks. The EU are happy to allow the rules of the SM be tweaked.

The UK arrangement is done in a very specific, time-limited way during which the UK is aligned so Turkey has no leg to stand on in complaining. Now that other suggestion, of British checks at British ports afterwards (UK shot it down anyway which might be just as well) might have caused a protest. Transition period is not the same thing.

They will of course dress it up as being the UK are aligned, but there will be no systems to check that so it will be simply based on trust. SO much for a rules based system.

They don't have to dress it up as, that is the case. And yes, it is a rules based system. UK follow the rules and get a transition period. Turkey does not follow the neccessary rules and does not get dispensation.

Now where fun might/eh will arise is when the Tories decide yet again that rules don't apply to them and change UK regs in such a way as to come into direct conflict with EU trading rules. Then we are into messy territory again. That's the problem with dealing with a poor faith negotiating partner, but the EU is in a cleft stick to not look unreasonable.

But dismissing it as a rules based organisation because of the transition period is a running jump at the isle of conclusions tbh. It is a rules-based organisation but given how it is set up it us flexible enough to allow for bends for pragmatic reality. It would not have survived for forty+ years otherwise.

Edit: blast I may have misread. Do you mean a transition to no deal? Meh, no deal, no transition, unless it is an emergency "couple of weeks" type thing.

mickoneill31

https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2018

That's a report saying that the cost of Brexit to the UK so far is 500m a week. And growing.
He goes into guide a bit of depth to show how the numbers were derived.

RobertKK

Watching the Andrew Marr show, and Theresa May is on.
If Brexit was not so serious it would be a comedy.

May still claiming she doesn't know what the European concerns are. Andrew marr telling her the Chequers plan destroys the Single Market.

ancapailldorcha

RobertKK wrote: »

Watching the Andrew Marr show, and Theresa May is on.
If Brexit was not so serious it would be a comedy.

May still claiming she doesn't know what the European concerns are. Andrew marr telling her the Chequers plan destroys the Single Market.

I am aghast that her answer to Marr's question about GDP drops predicted to result from EEA/CETA+/WTO terms is to bring up Chequers. Again.

RobertKK

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I am aghast that her answer to Marr's question about GDP drops predicted to result from EEA/CETA+/WTO terms is to bring up Chequers. Again.

It is like the UK government believes in self immolation, as they argue that car crashing the UK is going to be good for the UK.

This period of British history will be talked about in centuries to come and how inept the leaders have been.

Theresa with her 'lets not play politics with Brexit'. The whole thing is a result of politics and Cameron gambling with EU membership to shut up UKIP and Tory eurosceptics.

They really need to vote again and put this mess behind them and everyone else affected...

20silkcut

RobertKK wrote: »

It is like the UK government believes in self immolation, as they argue that car crashing the UK is going to be good for the UK.

This period of British history will be talked about in centuries to come and how inept the leaders have been.

Theresa with her 'lets not play politics with Brexit'. The whole thing is a result of politics and Cameron gambling with EU membership to shut up UKIP and Tory eurosceptics.

They really need to vote again and put this mess behind them and everyone else affected...

I remember when Cameron announced an “in/out referendum before 2017” I thought to myself oh lord Jaysus.
He oversaw the near disastrous Scottish referendum of 2014.I remember that summer of 2014 and he running around in a panic reassuring the queen when it looked like the scots would leave. I thought to myself how in the name of god will he get an EU referendum over the line.
He played high stakes and lost. He should have taken a leaf out of the John major handbook and fudged his way through.

Capt'n Midnight

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Theresa May announces Festival of Great Britain and NI plan

to take place in 2022.

Can kicked.

Except it's not. I just can't see it being regarded as inclusive up north, not celebrating Unionism enough on hand, rubbing salt on the other.

The Pheasant2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Theresa May announces Festival of Great Britain and NI plan

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-45697248


:rolleyes:

Another 120 million GBP down drain due to Brexit, anyone keeping tabs?

Stolen from Steve Bullock on Twitter:

Exclusive: initial planning for PM’s Brexit Britain Festival leaked:

– deport-a-foreigner tombola

– pin the blame on a remainer

– experts in stocks

– othering tent

– hate pavilion

– raffle with prizes including a months supply of insulin, basic food, or an exit visa

– displays celebrating both of the UK’s home nations

– workshops on how to cook chlorinated chicken

ancapailldorcha

RobertKK wrote: »

It is like the UK government believes in self immolation, as they argue that car crashing the UK is going to be good for the UK.

This period of British history will be talked about in centuries to come and how inept the leaders have been.

Theresa with her 'lets not play politics with Brexit'. The whole thing is a result of politics and Cameron gambling with EU membership to shut up UKIP and Tory eurosceptics.

They really need to vote again and put this mess behind them and everyone else affected...

I think the arch-Brexiteers, especially the guys behind the scenes see themselves as revolutionaries similar to Thatcher even though she was a major driver of the single market's creation. They see the EU holding back the UK the same way that Thatcher viewed trade unions and the state. They've convinced themselves that despite being highly privileged, ludicrously wealthy and cossetted as such right wingers always are, they are somehow the victims and underdogs.

They also seem to hate the EU. I don't understand why. Is it that they don't like foreigners being in the UK? Is it the idea of pan-European cooperation? Or perhaps it's the simple truth that in an age of globalisation and American and Chinese power that England just isn't that important anymore? That it's less relevant than before?

While hindsight is 20:20, I just don't see how Brexit will enrich the UK. It will likely fortify the position of the cossetted conservative types who now seem to be dominating the Conservative party to say nothing of foreign interference and dark money. How odd that these nationalists seem to have no qualms with the possibility that a hostile foreign power interfered with British democracy.

There are no markets beyond those currently in existence. The Commonwealth is much too small to replace the EU's single market. A trade deal with the US will require the NHS to be opened up to foreign corporations which would like destroy it and just be another way to transfer taxpayers' money to the private sector. India has said that any trade deal will require more visas for Indians. A deal with China will probably decimate what remains of Britain's manufacturing industry.

I think it's highly unlikely that people voted to Leave so that the hollowing out processes of British institutions could progress to the next level. The "Take back control" slogan resonated for a reason and we now have a shadowy cabal of high-up Tories looking to establish Singapore-on-Thames where workers' rights no longer exists, healthcare becomes unaffordable for many, public services vanish and housing is only for the very wealthy to invest in.

And it'll still be the EU's fault.