Brexit discussion thread II

oppenheimer1 · 14-08-2017 01:05AM

Enzokk wrote: »

It misses the point because its not true. The UK has never been told what it can or cannot do domestically. If they were the examples would have been shown time and again by the Leave campaign and you are sure Nigel Farage would not have missed an opportunity to show it to the people. The fact that hardly anyone can point to an example just proves that people, including you, have been indoctrinated to believe a lie and you now take it as fact as a reason to leave the EU.

That is why when talking about the EU we have stories about bendy bananas and them telling people not to wear high heels. Both of these are false, but they are used as examples. I mean the EU are a miserable bunch when they want their citizens to have good quality food that they eat. And how dare they tell hairdressers they need to wear safe footwear if they are going to be in an area that will be slippery.

Indeed. Solo has yet to explain how if it's against British political philosophy to hand over control of say setting trade agreements, why did they do so for 40 years?

Every competency the UK gave to Brussels, it did so voluntarily. Nothing was taken from the UK.

Peregrinus · 14-08-2017 01:10AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Indeed. Solo has yet to explain how if it's against British political philosophy to hand over control of say setting trade agreements, why did they do so for 40 years? . . .

The whole notion of there being a "British political philosophy" is absurd. British people are just as capable as any other nation of holding diverse political philosophies, and the political philosophy of one Briton may flatly contradict that of another.

Solo, I fear, may have unwittingly bought into the language that prevails in a particular strain of right-wing Brexitry in which only the Brexit position is authentically "British", and those who hold less Eurosceptic view are not truly "British", but are cosmopolitan types of suspect allegiance.

Jim2007 · 14-08-2017 06:01AM

I still don't understand why you think referenda don't work in Britain. They've been utilised and they are a good mechanism for determining what the public think on important issues. We can't say that referenda don't work because they sometimes throw up outcomes we don't like.

Because you can't have a sovereign people and a sovereign parliament at the same time, it simply leads to the kind of confusion we have seen in the U.K.

solodeogloria · 14-08-2017 06:08AM

Enzokk wrote: »

It misses the point because its not true. The UK has never been told what it can or cannot do domestically. If they were the examples would have been shown time and again by the Leave campaign and you are sure Nigel Farage would not have missed an opportunity to show it to the people. The fact that hardly anyone can point to an example just proves that people, including you, have been indoctrinated to believe a lie and you now take it as fact as a reason to leave the EU.

That is why when talking about the EU we have stories about bendy bananas and them telling people not to wear high heels. Both of these are false, but they are used as examples. I mean the EU are a miserable bunch when they want their citizens to have good quality food that they eat. And how dare they tell hairdressers they need to wear safe footwear if they are going to be in an area that will be slippery.

Good morning!

You don't get to redefine what I said. There's no point claiming that I'm lying if you've changed what I've said in your reply.

What I said was that the UK handed over control to the EU. That's true. That's what we see in treaties such as TFEU when we see the terms "exclusive competence" or the EU having overriding authority over the member state or "shared competence" which means that the member state can exercise it's competence only when the EU hasn't done so.

Continuing on about why the UK was happy to have the EEC decide it's trade terms. My estimation is probably because the EU had a bigger share of global trade in the 1970's than it does now. The EU has a big share but not a majority of British exports in 2016. The rest of the world is growing more quickly and Britain exports more to it. (56% versus 44%).

Although in the 1970's it might have made sense to agree to a restrictive trade policy, in 2017 it no longer makes sense.

This is why Britain's reason for being in the EU was fickle. I think it was economics initially. The problem with not having a deeper reason to be in the EU is that when an underlying parameter like the global economy changes it's no longer valid. On the other hand Germany's reason will always be true. This is the type of deep membership narrative Britain lacks.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Because you can't have a sovereign people and a sovereign parliament at the same time, it simply leads to the kind of confusion we have seen in the U.K.

So you object to pretty much every major democratic system on the earth then including Ireland and America?

A sovereign parliament is also elected by a sovereign people. There's no reason why a sovereign parliament cannot consult the sovereign people they elected and are accountable to.

The lack of faith in democracy on this thread staggers me. Ireland's democracy in particular is predicated on the referendum.

EDIT:

Peregrinus wrote: »

The whole notion of there being a "British political philosophy" is absurd. British people are just as capable as any other nation of holding diverse political philosophies, and the political philosophy of one Briton may flatly contradict that of another.

Solo, I fear, may have unwittingly bought into the language that prevails in a particular strain of right-wing Brexitry in which only the Brexit position is authentically "British", and those who hold less Eurosceptic view are not truly "British", but are cosmopolitan types of suspect allegiance.

Obviously there are contested views on issues. I'm not suggesting there isn't.

What I am suggesting is that each country has a prevailing political philosophy or political culture. Looking at the underlying motivation of each country to be in the EU (and I've not got an understanding of all of them by any stretch of the imagination) is central to understanding why the UK isn't. I'd be interested to hear analysis about this from others. It's entirely my opinion but I think it makes sense. This lack of a membership narrative in the case of the UK explains a lot.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 14-08-2017 06:30AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Continuing on about why the UK was happy to have the EEC decide it's trade terms. My estimation is probably because the EU had a bigger share of global trade in the 1970's than it does now . . .

This seems improbable, given that the EEC (as it then was) had only six members when the UK joined it.

Even if it were true, so what? If the EU's share of global trade has been shrinking, that's because the share of developing economies - Korea, China, India, etc - has been growing. While this would make trade with those economies a more attractive proposition than it was back in 1973, that in itself wouldn't be a reason for the UK to leave the EU. For Brexit to be a rational response to the growth in the developing economies, two things have to prevail. First, you have to believe that the UK will be better placed to trade with those developing economies as an independent player than it will as a part of the EU - i.e. that it can negotiate more advantageous trading arrangements than the EU can. And, secondly, that it can do this by sufficiently wide margins to offset the damage that Brexit will do to the 60% or so of its trade which is currently conducted within the EU, or under the terms of EU trade deals with third countries which the UK will be leaving.

I've seen no serious analysis which suggests that this is likely. Have you, solo? It's a question I have put to you before, but you have never found the time to answer it.

solodeogloria · 14-08-2017 06:41AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This seems improbable, given that the EEC (as it then was) had only six members when the UK joined it.

Even if it were true, so what? If the EU's share of global trade has been shrinking, that's because the share of developing economies - Korea, China, India, etc - has been growing. While this would make trade with those economies a more attractive proposition than it was back in 1973, that in itself wouldn't be a reason for the UK to leave the EU. For the Brexit to be a rational response to the growth in the developing economies, two things have to prevail. First, you have to believe that the UK will be better placed to trade with those developing economies as an independent player than it will as a part of the EU - i.e. that it can negotiation more advantageous trading arrangements than the EU can. And, secondly, that it can do this by sufficiently wide margins to offset the damage that Brexit will do to the 60% or so of its trade which is currently conducted within the EU, or under the terms of EU trade deals with third countries which the UK will be leaving.

I've seen no serious analysis which suggests that this is likely. Have you, solo? It's a question I have put to you before, but you have never found the time to answer it.

Good morning!

Firstly to comment on the more interesting side of what you've said in your post. It's interesting that you phrase the discussion in terms of reasons to leave. I think the UK has many including this one. The problem which led to Brexit is that the UK had no clear reason to stay in the EU apart from what was offered in terms of fearmongering. The UK needs a better reason to be in.

Secondly - to address the second half of your post. I don't agree with your assumptions which make it difficult to answer your question.

I don't agree with the assumption that Britain cannot get free trade deals with other economies just because it is smaller than the EU. I agree with the fact that the EU is bigger and therefore has a good place to negotiate together. I don't think it's nimble enough though.

I also don't agree with your either or comparison in respect to trade. I don't see why you think that trade with the EU is going to collapse to such an extent. You need to explain to me why that is the case.

Taking two countries on their own. China and America. Britain exports about £100bn with them both. There's an opportunity to expand opportunity to trade with both with the right free trade agreement. I'm sure this is true of many others. I don't see why the shortfall couldn't be made up.

You need to explain to me why you think trade with the EU is going to go through the floor. If the transition period includes leaving the customs union then that will provide a buffer to agree new quotas with existing external trade partners and agree a new arbitration mechanism, finalise the trade agreement with the EU and start negotiating with China and America.

Again, perhaps I'm missing the armageddon scenario that is behind your question.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris · 14-08-2017 07:06AM

Stuff that Britain hasn't yet taken into account:

- Their primary industries rely on migrants, especially the food sectors, and particularly fruit and veg picking and canning. Numbers for the harvest are already down 20% this year because people aren't going to the UK anymore, because they feel unwelcome. That is already causing issues.
- Their National Health system relies on foreign healthcare workers - see above.
- They are not particularly going to be at the front of any queues and they will have to take outsider status in terms of trading with the EU.
- They will have to negotiate dozens of trade deals just to keep the same partners - and they will be negotiating for themselves rather than having the full weight of one of the largest markets in the world negotiating. That makes for a lot less clout.
- They are still going to have to manufacture to EU specifications if they want to export to the EU.
- The headache of border checks on both their Irish border and Calais.
- Euratom relies on EU aid. This impacts health treatment in terms of chemotherapy in particular.
- Their nuclear power stations are coming up towards end of life and all nuclear material is sourced from the EU under EU laws.
- Large questionmark hanging over British expats (mostly elderly) who live in the EU, as they will have the same rights under reciprocal deals that the British government gives EU citizens. So far, the British offer has been "same as everyone else". If Britain end up with a large flow back of pensioners who cannot contribute to the labour force and will need support, that won't improve things for them either.
- What happens to research collaboration within EU institutions?
- Yes, as expected, major banks are moving headquarters away from London, albeit keeping a presence there.

That's just off the top of my head first thing in the morning, so it's not comprehensive. But this whole thing was ill-planned and is being poorly carried out.

Sam Russell · 14-08-2017 08:38AM

Samaris wrote: »

Stuff that Britain hasn't yet taken into account:

- Their primary industries rely on migrants, especially the food sectors, and particularly fruit and veg picking and canning. Numbers for the harvest are already down 20% this year because people aren't going to the UK anymore, because they feel unwelcome. That is already causing issues.
- Their National Health system relies on foreign healthcare workers - see above.
- They are not particularly going to be at the front of any queues and they will have to take outsider status in terms of trading with the EU.
- They will have to negotiate dozens of trade deals just to keep the same partners - and they will be negotiating for themselves rather than having the full weight of one of the largest markets in the world negotiating. That makes for a lot less clout.
- They are still going to have to manufacture to EU specifications if they want to export to the EU.
- The headache of border checks on both their Irish border and Calais.
- Euratom relies on EU aid. This impacts health treatment in terms of chemotherapy in particular.
- Their nuclear power stations are coming up towards end of life and all nuclear material is sourced from the EU under EU laws.
- Large questionmark hanging over British expats (mostly elderly) who live in the EU, as they will have the same rights under reciprocal deals that the British government gives EU citizens. So far, the British offer has been "same as everyone else". If Britain end up with a large flow back of pensioners who cannot contribute to the labour force and will need support, that won't improve things for them either.
- What happens to research collaboration within EU institutions?
- Yes, as expected, major banks are moving headquarters away from London, albeit keeping a presence there.

That's just off the top of my head first thing in the morning, so it's not comprehensive. But this whole thing was ill-planned and is being poorly carried out.

They will also have to do all the work currently being done by the 'un-elected bureaucrats' in Brussels (and elsewhere in the EU) and this will be done by new 'Loyal Civil Servants'. I would imagine the cost of one civil servant would be at least £100,000 per year taking into account salary pension and office accommodation. There was number given that 10,000 civil servants would be required to negotiate Brexit, and that would cost £1 billion/year. I think the £10 billion saving of net payments will soon be eaten up by their new merry band of civil servants doing the work done by the EU.

For example the EU Medicine board, currently in London, will have to be replicated by the UK and the UK have estimated it will need at least a staff of 60% currently employed, all funded by the UK. This will be replicated in the hundred or so EU quangos.

That just takes into account work currently done by the EU. Add in 'new' work, like customs checking at EU borders, staff to negotiate trade deals, staff to do immigration checks, etc. etc.

I doubt if any of this has had much consideration - how much easier continued membership of the SM and CU would be.

14-08-2017 08:51AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The lack of faith in democracy on this thread staggers me.

You shouldn't be conflating the notion that a democratic decision is always equal to a right decision. If its clear that such a vote will lead to conditions worsening for a country as a whole there's no problem in having a second vote to reverse it.

Oh and btw, I despise referendums, especially those that deal with macroeconomic situations, which Brexit was about essentially, since its clear that a substantial number of voters didn't have a clue what they were voting about, or voted motivated by prejudices held personally that clouded their judgement as regards the strategic issues.

Enzokk · 14-08-2017 08:56AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You don't get to redefine what I said. There's no point claiming that I'm lying if you've changed what I've said in your reply.

What I said was that the UK handed over control to the EU. That's true. That's what we see in treaties such as TFEU when we see the terms "exclusive competence" or the EU having overriding authority over the member state or "shared competence" which means that the member state can exercise it's competence only when the EU hasn't done so.

Continuing on about why the UK was happy to have the EEC decide it's trade terms. My estimation is probably because the EU had a bigger share of global trade in the 1970's than it does now. The EU has a big share but not a majority of British exports in 2016. The rest of the world is growing more quickly and Britain exports more to it. (56% versus 44%).

Although in the 1970's it might have made sense to agree to a restrictive trade policy, in 2017 it no longer makes sense.

This is why Britain's reason for being in the EU was fickle. I think it was economics initially. The problem with not having a deeper reason to be in the EU is that when an underlying parameter like the global economy changes it's no longer valid. On the other hand Germany's reason will always be true. This is the type of deep membership narrative Britain lacks.

But is that what most leave voters were upset by? That was really never a reason given for voting to leave though, it was more to do with immigration and not having sovereignty over laws that seemed to come up more than not being able to negotiate their own trade deals. It was used as a benefit of Brexit but I cannot recall it being used on a side of a bus as a reason to vote Brexit.

Also, weren't one of the reasons for voting Brexit given that the British economy is strong and can easily stand on its own? Now it seems you want to claim that in fact the EU was holding it back? Is this what you are posting now? If I have your position wrong please correct me. Has their been any positives from EU membership in your eyes? If not, why did you vote to remain? Has the EU been holding the UK back by not having its interests when negotiating trade deals before?

solodeogloria · 14-08-2017 10:08AM

Good morning!

Last post for today.

Enzokk wrote: »

But is that what most leave voters were upset by? That was really never a reason given for voting to leave though, it was more to do with immigration and not having sovereignty over laws that seemed to come up more than not being able to negotiate their own trade deals. It was used as a benefit of Brexit but I cannot recall it being used on a side of a bus as a reason to vote Brexit.

Control was the underlying reason behind the referendum. The reason why the phrase "take back control" was such an effective slogan is because it hit close to home, it captured a national mood and was convincing in comparison to the alternative which was mainly around fear rather than positive argument.

Immigration is only one facet of what was put to the people. Take back control of laws, money and borders was the broad proposition that was put forward.

Again - although I think there were clear reasons why people voted to leave, I think the problem was that the remain side didn't present positive reasons as to why Britain should have stayed. I think there hasn't been a good national narrative for why Britain should be in the EU.

Ireland's on the other hand is incredibly robust as a small nation that prospered under EU structural assistance and now sees the EU as being a force for good to do the same elsewhere. It's a rock solid reason grounded in history that is almost a moral imperative.

When you understand that the reason that gets Irish people passionate about the EU doesn't apply to the UK in the same way that's when you begin to understand Brexit. Admittedly this passion for the EU isn't something I share as an Irish person. I find it hard to be passionate about. I'm happy Ireland benefited but I'm not convinced any more that the EU is all benevolent. Even though I don't agree it is undisputably Ireland's overriding political philosophy in respect to the EU.

This political philosophy point is important because you wake up to the fact that Britain never fit in to the European project's tapestry philosophically. That's before we think about whether or not membership made sense economically for the UK.

Enzokk wrote: »

Also, weren't one of the reasons for voting Brexit given that the British economy is strong and can easily stand on its own? Now it seems you want to claim that in fact the EU was holding it back? Is this what you are posting now? If I have your position wrong please correct me. Has their been any positives from EU membership in your eyes? If not, why did you vote to remain? Has the EU been holding the UK back by not having its interests when negotiating trade deals before?

I don't think so. I don't think many leavers genuinely proposed Britain cutting off trade ties with the EU. I'm of the mind that free trade with the EU is crucial to a good Brexit for both parties. It would have to be the worst case scenario to entertain falling onto WTO rules.

I don't think the UK was always held back. As a member of the EEC it probably wasn't because it was economically helpful to be a member. I think there's positives in terms of security cooperation and trade cooperation but the terms of membership are too costly.

Some other benefits came with other costs. Let's take two examples.

Firstly that trade policy was determined by the EU. This is an advantage in a sense because you don't need to hire your own negotiators and the EU is a big bloc. The downside is it is too slow, your interests aren't presented particularly in a broader bloc and it is difficult to rebuild this competence if you want to leave.

Secondly the EU provided cheap labour after the accession countries joined. This was an advantage because you can fill roles quickly and labour costs are lower. You don't need to set up a Tier 3 visa because you've got freedom of movement. The flip side of this is that it puts pressure on domestic labour, people feel left behind in certain work and companies stop training British people to do this work because they don't have to.

These are double edged swords. Advantages yes, but with negatives.

I voted remain because I didn't want to rock the status quo and basically because I was chicken by project fear. This isn't a good reason and it isn't a deep seated reason. It also was selfish and ignored genuine concerns in other parts of society that I wasn't able to see. I'm thankful for the opportunity to address this.

I've learned a lot from reflecting on this and I think Brexit is the right course of action. Unless Britain can find a convincing clear reason for its membership it should stay out until it finds one. Brexit is thrilling. It's a country redefining it's outlook to be truly global and a country looking through the mirror glass to see how it can work better.

I'm very happy to be behind it and I'm happy to have changed my mind. You have to realise how humbling this was for me. My conclusion is the result of trying to understand why people voted to leave. During the referendum I also learned lots about the EU. I didn't even know about the restrictions on trade policy for example. The result was as I reflected on the leave outcome without a snobbish attitude of saying people were stupid (I knew intelligent leave voters anyway so that was out) or confused I decided leave was actually the right choice.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 14-08-2017 10:32AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

They will also have to do all the work currently being done by the 'un-elected bureaucrats' in Brussels (and elsewhere in the EU) and this will be done by new 'Loyal Civil Servants'. I would imagine the cost of one civil servant would be at least £100,000 per year taking into account salary pension and office accommodation. There was number given that 10,000 civil servants would be required to negotiate Brexit, and that would cost £1 billion/year. I think the £10 billion saving of net payments will soon be eaten up by their new merry band of civil servants doing the work done by the EU.

For example the EU Medicine board, currently in London, will have to be replicated by the UK and the UK have estimated it will need at least a staff of 60% currently employed, all funded by the UK. This will be replicated in the hundred or so EU quangos.

That just takes into account work currently done by the EU. Add in 'new' work, like customs checking at EU borders, staff to negotiate trade deals, staff to do immigration checks, etc. etc.

I doubt if any of this has had much consideration - how much easier continued membership of the SM and CU would be.

Yeah I said as much before on here but I'm quite sure they will eat up the vast majority of the savings by having to implement a heap of stuff alone that they currently pool resources in. But sure who needs some food safety quango telling us what to do?!

Edit: the "technology" required to man the Irish border alone could swallow billions a year, especially if criminals decide they don't like this technology in the area.

No sane person would proceed with Brexit IMO but the UK must now leave the EU. I think it's getting to the stage where it would be difficult to get unanimity among the 27 to allow the UK to forget the whole thing. It'll be a few years now out on the naughty step to think about what they've done.

First Up · 14-08-2017 11:25AM

Personally speaking, I'm well past caring what they think or do. Maybe they will come to their senses over time - maybe not.

I'm far more interested in how we adapt to the situation, both to minimise damage and exploit opportunities. There will be both.

murphaph · 14-08-2017 11:31AM

First Up wrote: »

Personally speaking, I'm well past caring what they think or do. Maybe they will come to their senses over time - maybe not.

I'm far more interested in how we adapt to the situation, both to minimise damage and exploit opportunities. There will be both.

Yep. This is all that matters for me too now. They've thrown us under the bus but do we lie in the road or get up.

Jim2007 · 14-08-2017 02:09PM

murphaph wrote: »

I think it's getting to the stage where it would be difficult to get unanimity among the 27 to allow the UK to forget the whole thing.

I think the attitude of ordinary citizens has also changed, certainly among the group of Italians, Germans and French that I work with, it has gone from one of shock and disappointment to one of impatience to get the thing over and move on.

And certainly some are beginning to realize that solving some of the problems we face will be easier if we don't continually have to address the U.K. 'special situations'.

jm08 · 14-08-2017 02:43PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

A sovereign parliament is also elected by a sovereign people. There's no reason why a sovereign parliament cannot consult the sovereign people they elected and are accountable to.

The lack of faith in democracy on this thread staggers me. Ireland's democracy in particular is predicated on the referendum.

And there are stringent controls as to how referenda are conducted. While the McKenna judgement took a lot of the 'sport' out of referenda the setting up of the Referendum Commission ensures that we would never have a referenda in Ireland that was conducted the way the Brexit one was.

Jim2007 · 14-08-2017 02:47PM

I don't think the UK was always held back. As a member of the EEC it probably wasn't because it was economically helpful to be a member. I think there's positives in terms of security cooperation and trade cooperation but the terms of membership are too costly.

To my mind that is the biggest joke of all! The reality is that the U.K. has not been able to produce a positive balance of trade in about 25 years, despite the fact that all other major EU economies have been able to do so. It is all very well to blame the EU for missed opportunities, but the reality is that they have failed to to take advantage of the opportunities provided unlike other states.

If the U.K. was fully exploiting the current set of opportunities that would be something, but blaming the EU, while under performing everyone else sounds like a convenient excuse.

And the idea that a country who is dependent of preferential access to a major trading block for 48% of its exports can simply remove itself from that situation without taking a major hit is just not realistic.

The world has changed and the U.K. is no longer in a position to dictate trade as it once was. And given the more even playing field, it has yet to prove it's up to the task.

My expectation is that we are going to see a lot of social unrest in the U.K. in the coming years.

swampgas · 14-08-2017 02:53PM

Assuming the UK go for hard Brexit, and if (and it's a very big if) the UK want back in, and get back in after a number of years, then they will have wasted a huge amount of time and effort just to end up back where they are today but in a weaker position and without many of the opt-outs they currently enjoy right now. And having duplicated all of the civil service functions they will need post-Brexit will they really want to scrap them all again if they rejoin? That's a lot of unpopular redundancies to consider.

And presumably any trade deals signed by the UK with other countries would have to be voided if the UK once again joined the EU, to be replaced with the EU's version instead? Or is that even possible? Seems like a tricky area.

The more I think about it the more it feels like once any kind of hard Brexit occurs, it's going to be pretty permanent.

Kermit.de.frog · 14-08-2017 04:19PM

I think Varadkar has put himself in a bad position optically in relation to the border.

If Theresa May is adamant about a customs border there is little we can do to stop it yet Varadkar gave the impression there was something we could do.

murphaph · 14-08-2017 04:36PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

I think the attitude of ordinary citizens has also changed, certainly among the group of Italians, Germans and French that I work with, it has gone from one of shock and disappointment to one of impatience to get the thing over and move on.

And certainly some are beginning to realize that solving some of the problems we face will be easier if we don't continually have to address the U.K. 'special situations'.

Yes I'm getting that too in Berlin and Munich. It's like "come on get on with it if you want out" is becoming a more common theme.

oscarBravo · 14-08-2017 04:39PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If Theresa May is adamant about a customs border...

Theresa doesn't want a customs border. Theresa also doesn't want to be in the customs union.

When Theresa figures out the difference between her rear end and her elbow, we'll have the basis for an intelligent discussion about the border.

murphaph · 14-08-2017 04:50PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think Varadkar has put himself in a bad position optically in relation to the border.

If Theresa May is adamant about a customs border there is little we can do to stop it yet Varadkar gave the impression there was something we could do.

I won't hold it against him. There's not a lot he can do in the face of such abject stupidity. He had to raise the issue though. The UK is reneging on commitments made under the GFA and we'll have to deal with that as best we can.

Junkyard Tom · 14-08-2017 05:03PM

I believe Varadkar was raising a red flag and, in fairness, did a fairly good job of it. Varadkar was top of the hour news in Britain and LBC's James O'Brien devoted almost an hour to what Varadkar said in QUB and the headlessness of the May led government.

Water John · 14-08-2017 07:10PM

Varadkar is also reinforcing the EU commitment to look after our interests.

FrancieBrady · 14-08-2017 08:25PM

Water John wrote: »

Varadkar is also reinforcing the EU commitment to look after our interests.

That's what I liked about it. He very clearly intimated that we are with the EU.

Samaris · 14-08-2017 08:41PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/infact/brexit-report-latest-remainers-deport-eu-citizens-uk-back-hard-european-union-study-explained-a7892216.html

Regarding that poll that was being waved about - with a bit more analysis of the methodology, the simplistic results presented through the news were rather misleading. It was an interesting experiment that the authors tried, and probably deserves more work at it, but it didn't quite work out this time, at least not in how it was presented.

Water John · 14-08-2017 09:24PM

Guy on ITV news, using an odd twist. That it's the Irish/EU are having the hard border.

Yeah not UK's responsibility at all.

steddyeddy · 14-08-2017 09:24PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think Varadkar has put himself in a bad position optically in relation to the border.

If Theresa May is adamant about a customs border there is little we can do to stop it yet Varadkar gave the impression there was something we could do.

“ I will sit around the European Council table with 26 other Prime Ministers and we will decide together whether sufficient progress has been made on three key issues to allow the Brexit negotiations to proceed to the next phase.” Leo Varadkar, Irish Taoiseach, 4 August 2017

In other words if the border isn't to our liking we can delay trade talks. This would amount to economic sanctions on the UK. We're arguing this with the biggest single market in the world on our side.

oppenheimer1 · 14-08-2017 09:24PM

Headline in Telegraph tonight: its suggesting that the Irish government will use it's veto for the transition over the border issue. Also that the government thinks British ministers are delusional.

Now I know it's the Telegraph, but it's an interesting development. I am looking forward to the anti Irish bile btl.

steddyeddy · 14-08-2017 09:27PM

swampgas wrote: »

Assuming the UK go for hard Brexit, and if (and it's a very big if) the UK want back in, and get back in after a number of years, then they will have wasted a huge amount of time and effort just to end up back where they are today but in a weaker position and without many of the opt-outs they currently enjoy right now. And having duplicated all of the civil service functions they will need post-Brexit will they really want to scrap them all again if they rejoin? That's a lot of unpopular redundancies to consider.

And presumably any trade deals signed by the UK with other countries would have to be voided if the UK once again joined the EU, to be replaced with the EU's version instead? Or is that even possible? Seems like a tricky area.

The more I think about it the more it feels like once any kind of hard Brexit occurs, it's going to be pretty permanent.

It was also hinted that if they re-join it will be without perks. So say goodbye to the pound.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments