Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

trellheim

Hunt and Johnson interviews on tv tonight at 7pm, interviewer Andrew Neil. Hunt saying they will be out by Christmas, Johnson by 31st so I expect a redline move from Hunt see my comments above. BBC1 I think

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Let's be realistic here. The UK will take a significant economic hit after Brexit but it will not become North Korea. It will be less of a hit than Ireland took in the financial crisis. Ireland will take a similar hit but again it will be less than we took in the financial crisis.

As for reputational damage, yes, if the UK had agreed to pay 39 billion as part of the WA and then refused to do so, it would take a reputational hit. But I think we're forgetting that this figure only arises as part of the deal. In the event of no deal there is no WA. The UK owes nothing if there's no deal.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the UK admitted it owed a significant amount in and around £39B even in the event of a no deal.

While I know Brexiters hate "facts" and "experts" and "reality", nevertheless sometimes those things can be helpful:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

BluePlanet

Mr Varadkar said Ireland will have to defend the EU Single Market as it protects "our businesses, our livelihoods and our prosperity".

He said: "We’re going to want to protect the single market and make sure that Ireland doesn’t become a back-door to the Single Market to the UK.

Mr Varadkar warned of "huge difficulties" if a BSE cow from Britain or chlorinated chicken from America ended up in France after coming through a back door in Ireland.

He was asked how Ireland would police this and where checks would take place, if as the government has said, they won't happen at the border.

Mr Varadkar said: "They’re the kind of things that we’re trying to work out with the European Commission at the moment and we don’t have a perfect solution."

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/next-british-pm-will-face-very-serious-reality-check-on-brexit-varadkar-warns-38306159.html

Call me cynical but i can imagine within the dark minds of those that want to hurt this country, there will be some people that will want to do just what Varadkar has warned. And 'checks away from the border' may turn out to be a terrible strategy.

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

Show us the forecasts that are the same please.

Well here's one from the IMF last year as published in the Guardian:




URL="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/19/no-deal-brexit-would-harm-all-european-countries-warns-imf"]source[/URL

What we have to remember that if we say that it is not the end of the world for Ireland, others in the UK may say the same for their own country.

MadYaker

fash wrote: »

What you seem to be forgetting is that the UK admitted it owed a significant amount in and around £39B even in the event of a no deal.

While I know Brexiters hate "facts" and "experts" and "reality", nevertheless sometimes those things can be helpful:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

What’s to stop giving 2 fingers to the EU and keeping their 39 billion? No trade deals for a start I’m guessing

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I provided an actual quote above and linked to the report in the Irish times reporting what the ESRI said.


You are wrong.

And here is RTE quoting the report. It could not be plainer:

As well as slowing down the rate of growth, Brexit will also mean fewer jobs in the economy compared with a scenario in which the UK stays in the EU.

The ESRI estimates that ten years after the UK leaves with a deal, employment in Ireland will be some 45,000 lower than it would have been if the UK remained a member state.

A disorderly no-deal Brexit would see that number almost double, with around 80,000 fewer in employment.

80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time. Plain and simple

Calina

What was agreed in the withdrawal was a methodology for calculating the exit liability, not the sum itself. It is recognised by the UK that they have a liability, and this is part of the article 50 wind down negotiations. The figure is a rough guesstimate, dependent on the sterling exchange rate 18 months ago and the settlement will take place over years.

Thr liability doesn't disappear. But the calculation method might be renegotiated post no deal.

kunst nugget

MadYaker wrote: »

What’s to stop giving 2 fingers to the EU and keeping their 39 billion? No trade deals for a start I’m guessing

A completely poleaxed political reputation and junk status credit rating as well.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

None of that has a bearing on the issue. The EU may be down financially on things like pensions to Farage or whatever and may have liked to have the UK contribute to it, but that is not the same as saying that the UK legally owes the EU for Farage's pension (or any other pension for that matter). Wanting something to be the case is not an argument I'm afraid.

So the UK, having walked away from the trade arrangements it enjoyed as part of the EU, is trying to strike bilateral trade terms around the world while at the same time showing that it cannot be trusted to honour its obligations.

And this the country that has long claimed exceptionalism due to its promotion of the rule of law (and whose empire was largely based on establishing rules based trade.)

I think the EU will recover from a blip in its balance sheet a lot quicker than the UK will regain international credibility.

PeadarCo

BluePlanet wrote:

Call me cynical but i can imagine within the dark minds of those that want to hurt this country, there will be some people that will want to do just what Varadkar has warned. And 'checks away from the border' may turn out to be a terrible strategy.

Look if anything like what has been suggested it'll be farmers on the border. Remember the foot and mouth crisis back in the early 2000s. There was no issue with border checks(even if they were limited) then.

If push comes to shove and NI leaves the EU single market and customs union there will be a hard border. The alternative is that Ireland leaves the EU by having a hard border with the rest of the EU.

fash

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There will be trade. But Britain will be competing for EU trade under less favourable terms than 60 other countries. Here's an important fact to illustrate how mad No Deal is. If Britain were to start trading under WTO rules only on Nov 1st, which is what they would have to do if they crashed out, they would be the only country in the world to be doing so.

I read a good analogy about international trade being like escaping from a zombie horde (or I add: a bear). You only need to be faster than the slowest guy. Shooting yourself in the leg so that you can now only limp means that in the medium term, you are screwed.
Here is a nice comparison of the UK-EU exports and EU-UK exports exposure to tariffs.
tweet

Aside from the fact that the EU-UK exports are a tiny fraction of the EU-World exports, the majority of those in a no deal are tariff free. Plus the EU retains all of its FTAs (by far the largest number in the world).

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

So the UK, having walked away from the trade arrangements it enjoyed as part of the EU, is trying to strike bilateral trade terms around the world while at the same time showing that it cannot be trusted to honour its obligations.

And this the country that has long claimed exceptionalism due to its promotion of the rule of law (and whose empire was largely based on establishing rules based trade.)

I'm afraid your argument depends on the money being a legal obligation which it is not.


It is only an obligation if the UK signs up to an agreement saying it is. In the event of no deal they have not. The clue is in the words "no" and "deal".

kunst nugget

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid your argument depends on the money being a legal obligation which it is not.


It is only an obligation if the UK signs up to an agreement saying it is. In the event of no deal they have not. The clue is in the words "no" and "deal".

It's been pointed out to you several times what the legal, financial and political ramifications would be for them withholding the money but it doesn't seem to be sinking in...

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

I'm afraid your argument depends on the money being a legal obligation which it is not.

The clue is in the word "honour" but by all means lets see how they get on winning that argument with the global finance industry.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes but I am not advocating no deal. Both Ireland and the UK are better off economically if there's a deal.

But from the UK's perspective, a large part of the attractiveness of the WA is continuity. While negotiations for the future relationship is ongoing, the UK gets to trade on much the same basis as it was doing as an EU member.

However in the event of no deal, this continuity is lost. It is gone and cannot be brought back. Now they are outsiders. They expect economic hardship - there's been no shortage of doom and gloom forecasts in the press - and they will get it and there will indeed be some political pressure to come crawling back to the EU in humiliation, but there will also be a desire to get on with the task of rebuilding the economy and negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world. .

And who will they agree these deals with?
Mercosur who have demanded the Falklands?
India who have demanded visas (and which the UK has repeatedly refused)?
The US which demands the backstop?
China which demands Hong Kong/UK subservience(and might even demand that the UK liberalise its laws on heroin - or at least that is what I would demand if I were China)
Japan which demands a deal with the EU?
Canada which refuses to roll over CETA?
Australia who want to "wait and see"?
The EU who demand the backstop, £39Bn and citizen rights (which the UK has unilaterally guaranteed anyway)?

Lackadaisical

The single biggest problem with absolutely all of this is we're not negotiating with a rational player. The UK position is all about identity politics, nationalism and has a willingness to select or make up facts to suit their argument and dismisses unbiased, expert opinion if it does not support their world view.

All I see is a circular argument in the UK that has remained basically unchained since 2016. Even over the last few weeks, the arguments seem to be becoming more entrenched and even less rational.

I have a sense that something's going to give over the next few months and it will probably be some kind of significant economic blip as the markets start to realise that the prospect of a major mess is becoming almost inevitable. There's been a sense that this is all a bit surreal and will go away, but I just sense that's fading.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

The clue is in the word "honour" but by all means lets see how they get on winning that argument with the global finance industry.

What agreement are they not honouring?

Professor Moriarty

Lackadaisical wrote: »

The single biggest problem with absolutely all of this is we're not negotiating with a rational player. The UK position is all about identity politics, nationalism and has a willingness to select or make up facts to suit their argument and dismisses unbiased, expert opinion if it does not support their world view.

All I see is a circular argument in the UK that has remained basically unchained since 2016. Even over the last few weeks, the arguments seem to be becoming more entrenched and even less rational.

I have a sense that something's going to give over the next few months and it will probably be some kind of significant economic blip as the markets start to realise that the prospect of a major mess is becoming almost inevitable. There's been a sense that this is all a bit surreal and will go away, but I just sense that's fading.

The pound has been dropping against the Euro for nine consecutive weeks and is about to set a record.

alchemist33

Lackadaisical wrote: »

The single biggest problem with absolutely all of this is we're not negotiating with a rational player. The UK position is all about identity politics, nationalism and has a willingness to select or make up facts to suit their argument and dismisses unbiased, expert opinion if it does not support their world view.

All I see is a circular argument in the UK that has remained basically unchained since 2016. Even over the last few weeks, the arguments seem to be becoming more entrenched and even less rational.

I have a sense that something's going to give over the next few months and it will probably be some kind of significant economic blip as the markets start to realise that the prospect of a major mess is becoming almost inevitable. There's been a sense that this is all a bit surreal and will go away, but I just sense that's fading.

I've been getting that sense too, that a no deal scenario is most likely. It's mostly coming from Boris - I think he thinks he'll get a new deal by dint of charisma alone, bit he won't. And he's painted himself into a no-deal corner by playing to the Brexiteer Tory base.

kunst nugget

Bit cynical wrote: »

What agreement are they not honouring?

If they decide not to pay they are not honouring their commitment to the multi annual financial framework which runs until 2020 which they are signed up to.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well here's one from the IMF last year as published in the Guardian:




URL="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/19/no-deal-brexit-would-harm-all-european-countries-warns-imf"]source[/URL

What we have to remember that if we say that it is not the end of the world for Ireland, others in the UK may say the same for their own country.

About 3.7%? I'm pretty happy with that - certainly within the bounds within which we tell the UK to go f**k themselves about installing a hard border in NI. At that small price, it will be interesting to see how long they can remain together as a single entity

Lackadaisical

alchemist33 wrote: »

I've been getting that sense too, that a no deal scenario is most likely. It's mostly coming from Boris - I think he thinks he'll get a new deal by dint of charisma alone, bit he won't. And he's painted himself into a no-deal corner by playing to the Brexiteer Tory base.

That's also been an issue since day one. The Tories have been playing politics to a domestic audience and really failing to recognise that the EU is basically a technocratic body that tends to base decision making on facts and statistics, not whims of politics.

I also get the impression that the English right-wing voters see a charm and charisma in those kinds of stereotypes of grown up public school boys in a way that nobody else does. They tend to come across as pompous, arrogant and elitist to everyone else.

Attempting to spin to a very well informed, technocratic audience is like trying to bluff your way through a highly technical university essay. The audience knows the subject area in intimate detail and will simply strip away all the waffle, break it down to the bare facts and then translate it into multiple languages. So all the attempts to spin melt away very quickly. That was very evident every time they came in with a new proposal that was essentially the previous rejected proposal written in slightly different language, only to have it rejected again.

What's worrying me is that in three years, nothing's changed and they seem to be preparing to go approach the EU with yet more bluster and fact-free nonsense.

Bit cynical

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's been pointed out to you several times what the legal, financial and political ramifications would be for them withholding the money but it doesn't seem to be sinking in...

Most of the arguments don't hold water I'm afraid. For example, it has been suggested that the UK in the event of no deal in some way owes money towards the pensions of those employed by the EU while the UK was a member.

It is true that if the UK left the EU without a deal, the money paid by the UK for membership would cease but financial obligations of the EU would continue. But that is simply unfortunate for the EU. It is not an obligation of the UK to compensate the EU for lack of a member.

The EU is, of course, entitled to make some sort of compensation part of a deal if it wants but it can't force another country to sign up to that deal. And without a deal, nothing is owing.

I've yet to hear a counter-argument to this. I would be very surprised if there is one.

fash

MadYaker wrote: »

What’s to stop giving 2 fingers to the EU and keeping their 39 billion? No trade deals for a start I’m guessing

That and seizing assets and imposing more punitive no deal tariffs. £39Bn is in the order of 0.2% of EU annual GDP and was (even) to be paid over decades

First Up

Bit cynical wrote: »

What agreement are they not honouring?

The Bravado Brexiteers have threatened to renege on the UK's commitment to honour its contributions to the EU budget until the end of 2020.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

About 3.7%? I'm pretty happy with that - certainly within the bounds within which we tell the UK to go f**k themselves about installing a hard border in NI. At that small price, it will be interesting to see how long they can remain together as a single entity

Sure but that same forecast by the IMF has the UK only slightly higher. So if you are pretty happy with that, why should the UK be worried?

Thargor

Jesus what a complete and utter reptile, the way he gives a completely different answer to what was asked if he doesn't like the question, or just keeps waffling and talking over the interviewer until they have to move on. Glad Andrew Neil called him on it, problem is it works on everyone else, see the end of the ITV debate where he just decided to start shouting over Hunt and the chair.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1149710209671147521?s=20

reslfj

Bit cynical wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I really don't think you get how any of this works at all.

How does it work in your opinion?

As you seems to have so little or no ability and willingness to understand relations between negotiating countries here it goes:

It will surely be solved before it comes to this, but: "The 7 times larger and fully functioning EU27 will effectively kill the UK's the economy" - end of story.

It's an offer you can't refuse - simple really.

Lars

PS! For the EU the money is only number 3 after the rights of EU and UK citizens and the Irish backstop.
For the EU the money is indeed more the principle of 'pay what we agreed and you owe', than the amount itself.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

I've yet to hear a counter-argument to this. I would be very surprised if there is one.

There's nothing to stop the UK paying that money if they refuse.

There's actually nothing to stop the UK doing a lot of things heretofore considered beyond the pale. I suppose the world all these right wing nationalist movements (like Brexit) are busy building is really going to be one where the strong always do what they can and the weak always suffer what they must.
I wonder is the UK one of the strong (or at least strong enough to prosper in that world?) We'll see I suppose.

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is true that if the UK left the EU without a deal, the money paid by the UK for membership would cease but financial obligations of the EU would continue.

If UK is no longer a member and has left very much under a cloud without a deal and refuses to pay any money at all, why can't the EU decide unilaterally as to its continuing obligations (e.g. rights of UK employees and ex employees of the EU, their pensions, rapid winding up of funds to any left-over EU funded projects in the UK)?

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

The Bravado Brexiteers have threatened to renege on the UK's commitment to honour its contributions to the EU budget until the end of 2020.

Sure, if the UK wants a deal. But as with the other obligations, these payments are tied getting a deal. Outside of a deal, it is not an obligation of the UK to pay the expenses of an organisation of which it is not a member.