Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does anyone have any thoughts on what a Labour deal might mean? I can easily see the EU coming back to the table if they think they can secure a People's Vote or at the very least, regulatory alignment on things like workers' rights, standards, environmental protections, etc and it does seem like Labour would be open to that as a whole.

At a guess, bearing in mind that Labour haven't any formal policy beyond the six tests, which is very vague, I would imagine that they will want something like the following:
1. Access to the single market based on regulatory alignment, but, with specific areas where the UK is exempted from State Aid rules (and as a corollary, the UK will have limited quotas on these or will, in the alternative, have to account to the EU in some other way).
2. Close alignment to the Customs Union without actually being in it.
3. Some fudge about matching or exceeding EU workers rights, environmental standards etc.
4. A guarantee that the UK will not support farmers beyond what CAP allows.
5. Paying pro rata what Norway pay for their access to the single market, which will probably be more than what the UK currently pays net of rebate, but without the other benefits
6. Theoretical limits on free movement of persons ala Switzerland i.e. the UK will have the power to refuse entry to EU citizens without stated reasons, provided that they never actually use this power.

I can't see such a deal passing the UK people, as the leavers would say its Brexit in name only, and remainers would say it is a worse deal than staying in. I can't, in turn, seeing such a deal being put to the people by the parliament on the basis of this deal v remain, as the leavers would say that it will present a false choice to the electorate.

A second option would be that the Corbyn deal is like the May deal and the Johnson deal, only with some minor cosmetic changes to the future relationship declaration i.e. aspirational statements that they will keep close alignment on workers rights, environmental protection and limit state aid to key industries, with ECJ jursidiction over any disputes.

This might pass parliament and might be acceptable to the British people. But they can't say that this is what they want, because then anyone in favour of it would just vote for the Tory deal.

Labour's current policy is designed to keep a fractured party together for the election, but won't survive more than a few days in government. More cynically, Labour's current policy is selling just as many unicorns and the dream of sunny uplands as the Tories are, and they are hoping no one looks into their policies too deeply.

Enzokk

The message from the Ireland is clear, they will listen to proposals and any suggestion that no further negotiations could take place if Labour takes over is not true.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1197546926893391872?s=20

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

The message from the Ireland is clear, they will listen to proposals and any suggestion that no further negotiations could take place if Labour takes over is not true.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1197546926893391872?s=20

That's if they offer something new, such as remaining in the Customs Union. And it's not clear that the EU would be prepared to extend the time without a firm proposal along the lines of dropping one or more of the red lines.

But yeah, I don't think anyone would dispute that Labour could get further time to negotiate, if the identified what they were actually standing for.

That's a far cry from saying that Labour will automatically get more time merely because they win an election. More than that would be needed to convince the EU.

One reading of the Labour manifesto, as set out above, is that it is basically Brexit in name only. I'd say the EU would jump at that, to be honest. But they are still left their domestic problems, as also set out above

Enzokk

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's if they offer something new, such as remaining in the Customs Union. And it's not clear that the EU would be prepared to extend the time without a firm proposal along the lines of dropping one or more of the red lines.

But yeah, I don't think anyone would dispute that Labour could get further time to negotiate, if the identified what they were actually standing for.

That's a far cry from saying that Labour will automatically get more time merely because they win an election. More than that would be needed to convince the EU.

One reading of the Labour manifesto, as set out above, is that it is basically Brexit in name only. I'd say the EU would jump at that, to be honest. But they are still left their domestic problems, as also set out above

At the very least you suspect they would give Labour time to hold a second referendum if they keep to their election promise. That way if people still decide to vote for the Johnson deal, if that is what the EU gives the UK, then there is no excuse from politicians for not getting it through parliament. Even if there is no new deal with a customs union, Labour could agree a FTA quickly along the lines of current membership and it would still satisfy the result. Close alignment on tariffs and then standards, no border between this island and GB with no checks needed.

Johnson's deal doesn't rule this out so even if no nee negotiations are given a super soft Brexit can still be done.

It is about certainty for the EU, if Labour lays out their plan and the time needed, the EU will accommodate them. If they go and propose plans that only brings uncertainty the EU will not be happy.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

On the subject of a trade deal, here's a thread from Katya Adler:

twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1197484860547444736

I don't get this bit of "they need us more than we need them"

Why would UK sign off eg on post #Brexit security deal with EU, where it arguably gives more that it receives - when it can use future security relations with EU as a bargaining chip to get something on services for example - which U.K. wants but EU is reluctant to concede?

The UK makes an enormous amount of annual database queries, IIRC it's about the same as the population of the EU. And the UK's data protection laws and privacy rights are diverging from the EU.

So yes the UK will still be in Interpol, but Europol and European Arrest Warrants is not a given.


Going back years I can remember the UK messing up extradition warrants from here. This today on a very important case.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/21/essex-lorry-deaths-warrant-to-extradite-driver-was-rushed-dublin-eamonn-harrison

Capt'n Midnight

About that whole Irish Sea Border and the UK going it alone.

If the UK cuts aid to it's farmers then quality will suffer. I would not be surprised if removing the support provided by the common agricultural policy and cheap foreign labour and tariffs on imported machinery lead to some farmers cutting corners. BSE , foot and mouth, could African swine fever or something else be next ?


https://www.farmersjournal.ie/incurable-goat-disease-discovered-in-ni-510293

An incurable goat disease has been discovered for the first time on the island of Ireland by Northern Irish authorities in Co Derry.

...
an initial epidemiological assessment has concluded that the most likely source of infection was at the herd of origin in GB

liamtech

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's if they offer something new, such as remaining in the Customs Union. And it's not clear that the EU would be prepared to extend the time without a firm proposal along the lines of dropping one or more of the red lines.

But yeah, I don't think anyone would dispute that Labour could get further time to negotiate, if the identified what they were actually standing for.

That's a far cry from saying that Labour will automatically get more time merely because they win an election. More than that would be needed to convince the EU.

One reading of the Labour manifesto, as set out above, is that it is basically Brexit in name only. I'd say the EU would jump at that, to be honest. But they are still left their domestic problems, as also set out above

Yes i agree. I read (some) of the Manifesto

Labour will secure a new Brexit deal – one that protects jobs, rights and the environment, avoids a hard border in Northern Ireland and protects the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process.

Fairly ambiguous as to what this means - needs clarification - CM/CU not mentioned at all

A permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union, which is vital to protect our manufacturing industry and allows the UK to benefit from joint UK-EU trade deals, and is backed by businesses and trade unions

It really says very little, and its not clear how soft, or perhaps less hard a labour party Brexit would be

... but i digress because i TBH i dont think it matters

This manifesto will not be implemented. I think Labours best hope is to deny the Tory's a majority, and possibly get a coalition with the Lib Dems, and/or SNP

And at that stage this Manifesto will be negotiated out of existence. My own view is that the renegotiation will be as follows

• Lib Dems want a straight Revoke
• Labour want a renegotiation and then a referendum
• SNP want to stop Brexit and an Indy Ref next year

and pure speculation would be that

• Referendum on Brexit - the existing Deal V Remain (that way neither labour nor Lib Dem get their way
• Scottish Ref further into the term of the Government - perhaps 2022

Thats the best i am hoping for - and as for Corbyn it will either be standing aside, or standing by his statement on the Current Withdrawal Agreement -

We will rip up the deeply flawed deal negotiated by Boris Johnson. We opposed his deal precisely because it would do such harm to workers’ rights, environmental protections and to our manufacturing industry. Boris Johnson’s deal is even worse than Theresa May’s: it would leave the UK £70 billion worse off by 2029; it would give the green light to deregulation undermining UK manufacturing; and it would leave our NHS at the mercy of a trade deal with Donald Trump. This sell-out deal is unacceptable to Labour.

So that will be the Labour party having to back remain, for surely no Labour MP could support the above

McGiver

stefanovich wrote: »

Of course the UK wants a deal, as does the EU. Everything else is just posturing.

The EU is a protectionist entity at its core. The Germans will still want to sell BMWs to the UK.

All trade blocks are protectionist - they protect themselves .

The only totally open economies with zero tariffs etc are city states and tax havens like Singapore, Hong Kong and Macao. And despotic oil/gas mini states such as Brunei. Larger economies and blocks cannot really have zero tariffs.

Average tariff rates:
Australia - 1.18%
New Zealand - 1.27%
Switzerland - 1.31%
Canada - 1.52%
USA - 1.66%
EU - 1.79%
Japan - 2.51%
Turkey - 3.45%
Russia - 3.61%
China - 3.83%
South Africa - 4.51%
India - 6.35%
Brazil - 8.01%
South Korea - 8.67%

Basically, Canada/US/EU are levelling to the same number. The above figures don't include CETA, Japan-EU and other recent EU FTAs, which will further decrease the average EU tariff. If EU is protectionist so is US, Canada, Japan, SA, Korea etc.

Try another Euro-myth.:cool:

Strazdas

McGiver wrote: »

All trade blocks are protectionist - they protect themselves .

The only totally open economies with zero tariffs etc are city states and tax havens like Singapore, Hong Kong and Macao. And despotic oil/gas mini states such as Brunei. Larger economies and blocks cannot really have zero tariffs.

Average tariff rates:
Australia - 1.18%
New Zealand - 1.27%
Switzerland - 1.31%
Canada - 1.52%
USA - 1.66%
EU - 1.79%
Japan - 2.51%
Turkey - 3.45%
Russia - 3.61%
China - 3.83%
South Africa - 4.51%
India - 6.35%
Brazil - 8.01%
South Korea - 8.67%

Basically, Canada/US/EU are levelling to the same number. The above figures don't include CETA, Japan-EU and other recent EU FTAs, which will further decrease the average EU tariff. If EU is protectionist so is US, Canada, Japan, SA, Korea etc.

Try another Euro-myth.:cool:

I keep saying that the Brexit movement has zero understanding of the modern world and the global economy, you can see this all across social media.....they are economically illiterate.

I'm guessing that they are working off a 1950's trading model and haven't a clue about the services sector.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

I keep saying that the Brexit movement has zero understanding of the modern world and the global economy, you can see this all across social media.....they are economically illiterate.

I'm guessing that they are working off a 1950's trading model and haven't a clue about the services sector.

Lest we forget, those leading the Brexit movement are largely privileged members of the English elite. As such, they have no understanding of, or interest in, the British economy.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

If Johnson wins a majority he will have the votes to undo any previous amendments from parliament that rules out no-deal and the UK will leave the EU automatically on the 31st January 2020 without a deal if Johnson decides to forget about passing his deal in parliament. He will also have the votes to stop any attempts by parliament to enact a Benn bill again. So in actual fact a Tory majority doesn't rule out no-deal but makes it more possible with a threat of a border.

In fairness it is highly unlikely that Johnson will opt not to leave with the deal as currently negotiated. The main threat of no deal comes rather at the end of the transition period.

20silkcut

McGiver wrote: »

All trade blocks are protectionist - they protect themselves .

The only totally open economies with zero tariffs etc are city states and tax havens like Singapore, Hong Kong and Macao. And despotic oil/gas mini states such as Brunei. Larger economies and blocks cannot really have zero tariffs.

Average tariff rates:
Australia - 1.18%
New Zealand - 1.27%
Switzerland - 1.31%
Canada - 1.52%
USA - 1.66%
EU - 1.79%
Japan - 2.51%
Turkey - 3.45%
Russia - 3.61%
China - 3.83%
South Africa - 4.51%
India - 6.35%
Brazil - 8.01%
South Korea - 8.67%

Basically, Canada/US/EU are levelling to the same number. The above figures don't include CETA, Japan-EU and other recent EU FTAs, which will further decrease the average EU tariff. If EU is protectionist so is US, Canada, Japan, SA, Korea etc.

Try another Euro-myth.:cool:

Basically any country that has manufacturing or Agricultural industry has some form of protection .

J Mysterio

Woman does not like robotic Raab speech:

https://twitter.com/saira_ramadan/status/1197614243958476802
I do not like it either.

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does anyone have any thoughts on what a Labour deal might mean? I can easily see the EU coming back to the table if they think they can secure a People's Vote or at the very least, regulatory alignment on things like workers' rights, standards, environmental protections, etc and it does seem like Labour would be open to that as a whole.

Then there is the point that Johnnyskeleton raises. If Labour wins only a slight majority, they need to get as many things through Parliament as the Tories do now and we see where that leads though there are of course other parties who may entertain suggestions of supply and confidence deals. It's something that hasn't really been commented on, surprisingly in hindsight.

I think a likely deal would be a Norway style deal but without the extra say in regulations that Corbyn wants and probably feels justified because of the size of the UK economy. The EU can easily insist on this because the worst Corbyn can do is cancel Brexit.

Bit cynical

gooch2k9 wrote: »

From my point of view I'd like a referendum as it could stop Brexit. If it didn't so be it. A second referendum on known terms deserves to be respected in a way that the first one doesn't.


Whichever way it would go would at least be an informed decision.

Yes were there to be a second referendum and Leave won a second time, most people would probably have to accept the result.

But I wonder how many remain supporters would actually choose a second referendum if outright cancellation of Brexit without one was an option such as what the Lib Dems are proposing.

quokula

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes were there to be a second referendum and Leave won a second time, most people would probably have to accept the result.

But I wonder how many remain supporters would actually choose a second referendum if outright cancellation of Brexit without one was an option such as what the Lib Dems are proposing.

Even if 80% of remain supporters would support revoke over a referendum (and I doubt it’s that high), that would still only be 40% of the electorate compared to 60% opposed.

Polling suggests remain is ahead of leave on average over the last year or two, but it is still very close to 50-50 so any attempt to just ignore half the electorate by pursuing the most extreme outcome at either end of the spectrum is very questionable.

The most pragmatic solution is to take an explicit negotiated outcome (whether the current WA or something newly negotiated without May’s red lines) and put it back to a referendum in a legally binding vote for the public to make a final, more informed choice.

PeadarCo

quokula wrote:

The most pragmatic solution is to take an explicit negotiated outcome (whether the current WA or something newly negotiated without May’s red lines) and put it back to a referendum in a legally binding vote for the public to make a final, more informed choice.

But the issue that has been pointed out is where does Labour actually stand on Brexit. What form of Brexit do they want? No matter what they do they will annoy some people as people in in the UK have completely unrealistic expectations for Brexit. And Labour under Corbyns stewardship has done nothing to call the Conservatives out on this. These unrealistic expectations are a mill stone around any UK governments neck who ever leads it. No attempt has been made by Labour to call the Conservatives out and explain the real trade offs involved. When people talk about lack of leadership from Corbyn this is what they mean. Remaining silent on Brexit is not leadership. Challenging unrealistic expectations is even if doing that will annoy people is.

Labours six tests are essentially the Tory negotiation strategy on day 1 of negotiations. The strategy fell apart very quickly due to the weak UK negotiating position and that no real attention was made to the trade offs involved. Following the initial Tory strategy with a referendum tacked on won't work.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes were there to be a second referendum and Leave won a second time, most people would probably have to accept the result.

But I wonder how many remain supporters would actually choose a second referendum if outright cancellation of Brexit without one was an option such as what the Lib Dems are proposing.

I'd rather Brexit was revoked, but in the absence of a sensible question being asked on December 12th for such a situation that could possibly result in a Lib Dem majority I'll more than happily take the Labour position of a second referendum instead.

Are people really stupid or can they just not comprehend politics across a divide?

I hope it's just that the Tories only plan is to put Labour adown, as they have no better policies and are running the country into the ground

Labour's take on Brexit:

Renegotiate deal over a 3-6 month period.
Hold a referendum on their deal vs remain.
The leader of the party will not support remain/leave to prove how impartial he will be and carry out the legally binding referendum.

Labour as a party will leave it up to their MP's to campaign for or against.

I personally think they should not renegotiate. It should be Johnson's plan vs remain.

If Corbyns plan fails a vote, the Tories will be screaming about how Johnson's plan would have worked and passed through, when we all know it wouldn't.

In the campaign for the remain/deal vote, who is going to support Corbyn's plan?
Not the Tories, who will huff and puff about having no choice but to remain to renegotiate, besides there is no chance the Tories will ever support anything from a Corbyn govt. I dare say Corbyn could hold a vote on free ice cream on Wednesdays and the Tories would argue against it.
Not the majority of Labour who know that remaining is always going to be the best option.
It won't be conservative enough for the DUP or ERG and I'm sure it won't be , "Brexit means Brexit" enough for the Brexit party to support.

It's bizarre times we live in

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

Renegotiate deal over a 3-6 month period. Hold a referendum on their deal vs remain. The leader of the party will not support remain/leave to prove how impartial he will be and carry out the legally binding referendum.

What makes you think the EU is open to yet another renegotiation?

First Up

First Up wrote: »

What makes you think the EU is open to yet another renegotiation?

Without May's red lines, change of govt, of course they would.

johnnyskeleton

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50511847

The U.K. have refused to hand back the Chagos Islands. There are two aspects of this related to Brexit:

1. The votes over the last few years reflect how little respect the rest of the world has for the U.K. anymore. If I remember correctly, the majority of the U.K.'s friends and allies in Europe abstained from the vote. In future years, I suspect that Ireland at the very least, will vote against them in the UN

2. If an international organisation suggests that they hold to their committment to an territorial area which has a difficult demographic divide, and that organistations name is the EU, the Brexiteers claim that the EU is trying to steal their territory. But when another international organisation insists that they give up territory, there isn't a peep out of them. If the Brexiteers were intellecutally honest (which they're not) they should be advocating to leave the UN and their security council seat too.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

I personally think they should not renegotiate. It should be Johnson's plan vs remain.

They need to do something with the deal to justify having voted against it. It will just be the existing deal on red paper and with Johnsons name scrubbed out but if they don't attempt to make some changes then they are really just campaigning for a straight remain choice in the GE and that doesn't offer leaver anything.

But I'd prefer if they just put the existing deal up against remain.

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

Without May's red lines, change of govt, of course they would.

No they won't.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are people really stupid or can they just not comprehend politics across a divide?

I hope it's just that the Tories only plan is to put Labour adown, as they have no better policies and are running the country into the ground

Labour's take on Brexit:

Renegotiate deal over a 3-6 month period.
Hold a referendum on their deal vs remain.
The leader of the party will not support remain/leave to prove how impartial he will be and carry out the legally binding referendum.

Labour as a party will leave it up to their MP's to campaign for or against.

I personally think they should not renegotiate. It should be Johnson's plan vs remain.

If Corbyns plan fails a vote, the Tories will be screaming about how Johnson's plan would have worked and passed through, when we all know it wouldn't.

In the campaign for the remain/deal vote, who is going to support Corbyn's plan?
Not the Tories, who will huff and puff about having no choice but to remain to renegotiate, besides there is no chance the Tories will ever support anything from a Corbyn govt. I dare say Corbyn could hold a vote on free ice cream on Wednesdays and the Tories would argue against it.
Not the majority of Labour who know that remaining is always going to be the best option.
It won't be conservative enough for the DUP or ERG and I'm sure it won't be , "Brexit means Brexit" enough for the Brexit party to support.

It's bizarre times we live in

If there was a referendum between Labours brexit deal versus remain would the Tories campaign for remain?
Thereby screwing over 17.4 million people.... according to their own logic

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

If there was a referendum between Labours brexit deal versus remain would the Tories campaign for remain?
Thereby screwing over 17.4 million people.... according to their own logic

I believe they would as I imagine Labour's plan, absolutely regardless of what it sets out, would be a Terrible, Awful, Worst Thing That Could Happen To Britain plan according to the Tories*.

They would argue to remain so they themselves can break from the EU, with their deal du jour.

*Even if did include free ice-cream on Wednesdays.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

They would argue to remain so they themselves can break from the EU, with their deal du jour.

But in a best case scenario for the Brexiteers then, they would have at least another 5 years before even being able to hold another referendum on the matter as they would have to wait out the end of Corbyns term, win a majority, get enough MP's that still care enough about brexit at that point to approve a referendum, wait six months to hold the referendum, win that, trigger Article 50 (which by then I'd expect to have be significantly re-written to prevent more stupidity like Brexit happening) and then re-negotiate it all over again. Probably looking at another decade before they would get their Brexit if they went for remain in the hope of getting an appropriately blue shade of Brexit over the line.

Or they go with their last potential way of Brexit, and then when Corbyns Labour falls apart they get in and can see about pulling apart the rest of the bits they don't like of the Brexit deal that has already happened.

Zubeneschamali

robinph wrote: »

Or they go with their last potential way of Brexit, and then when Corbyns Labour falls apart they get in and can see about pulling apart the rest of the bits they don't like of the Brexit deal that has already happened.

One of the arguments for Brexit Now is ending uncertainty - but if the Tories want a maximum Free Trade deal, and Labour want close alignment with the EU, does that mean that after every change of government, a bunch of international agreements will be torn up and a new bunch signed?

Not much certainty for business there.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One of the arguments for Brexit Now is ending uncertainty - but if the Tories want a maximum Free Trade deal, and Labour want close alignment with the EU, does that mean that after every change of government, a bunch of international agreements will be torn up and a new bunch signed?

Not much certainty for business there.

There is only one way that a FTA can be achieved prior to the Dec 2020 deadline, one that the UK signs up to all EU regulations and agrees to be bound by them into the future.

The EU will not agree, and why should they, anything less than that.

So Johnson will faced with crash out or a real hand over of sovereignty as the UK will be total rule takers without any say whatsoever.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Are people really stupid or can they just not comprehend politics across a divide?

...

It's bizarre times we live in

Not really that bizzare: contrary to the use of the word "United" in relation to the kingdom, England has been divided into a "them and an "us" for almost as long as it's existed. There are still people who use the War of the Roses (1485) to justify their prejudices against those who live on the wrong side of the Pennines; remember that our Battle of the Boyne (1689) was in fact a facing off of two English competitors (with the Scots chipping in). There was widespread social discontent in the 1800s (the Corn Wars were the Brexit of the day) essentially concreting the urban-rural that persists to this day. And, of course, there's the infamous North-South divide that's been characteristic of British politics during our lifetimes.

So no, people aren't "stupid" - but British society is built on deep foundations of polarity, and finding common ground is not something that fits comfortably with their socio-political tradition.