Brexit discussion thread II

Leonard Hofstadter · 26-08-2017 11:15PM

Water John wrote: »

Starmer has just set off a hand grenade. LB moving to soft Brexit with transition time of staying in the single market and customs union.
So David heads to Brussells for talks on Monday, with a position that doesn't have the support of the majority in Westminister.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/26/labour-soft-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may

A pity this hand grenade wasn't set off sooner, but still, better late than never. At last, we have a sensible alternative to the Tories (I can't believe I'm saying that about Labour, especially Labour with 'Jez we can' as leader, but these are the times we live in).

Nody · 26-08-2017 11:17PM

Water John wrote: »

Starmer has just set off a hand grenade. LB moving to soft Brexit with transition time of staying in the single market and customs union.
So David heads to Brussells for talks on Monday, with a position that doesn't have the support of the majority in Westminister.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/26/labour-soft-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may

Sorry but what's the real difference? It's still a hard brexit the only difference being they delay it for 2 to 4 years; after that they are back at Tories position again while Tories already talked about wanting a transition period as well. The problem in both cases is wtf EU would want to have a transition period and secondly what difference 2 years delay would make in practice as the government will still be unprepared as it is today.

Water John · 26-08-2017 11:18PM

Also a few of the Tory remainers may get brave. Then Fox, Davie et al are in a worse pickle, than they already are.

steddyeddy · 26-08-2017 11:21PM

captainspeed wrote: »

A pity this hand grenade wasn't set off sooner, but still, better late than never. At last, we have a sensible alternative to the Tories (I can't believe I'm saying that about Labour, especially Labour with 'Jez we can' as leader, but these are the times we live in).

I personally think the Lib Dems are speaking the most sense. I.E stop this madness. The Conservatives are making no economic sense whatsoever.

ArthurDayne · 27-08-2017 01:12AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I personally think the Lib Dems are speaking the most sense. I.E stop this madness. The Conservtives are making no economic sense whatsoever.

The Tories are in a total shambles on this. My fear however is that the same jingoistic tripe that led them down this sorry path will prevent them from publicly stepping forward and being honest with the British people; that this whole ill-thought, ill-defined Brexit process is a lame duck. They are a party wading across Macbeth's river of blood; stepped in so far that to return now and face the wrath of the wounded British ego is as tedious and treacherous a prospect to them as fumbling onward with this mess.

In their view, the Tories need to win something from this to avoid a total humiliation of the UK. Such blind devotion to anti-defeatism is a dangerous mindset.

LeinsterDub · 27-08-2017 01:24AM

captainspeed wrote: »

A pity this hand grenade wasn't set off sooner, but still, better late than never. At last, we have a sensible alternative to the Tories (I can't believe I'm saying that about Labour, especially Labour with 'Jez we can' as leader, but these are the times we live in).

In what way is it sensible. They'll leave the EU therefore having no say in how the laws are made but they'll also be tightly bound to the EU so they'll have to follow all the EU laws. Now don't get me wrong leaving the EU also makes very little sense but at least with the hardest of hard Brexit they'll be free of the EU and more than likely free to enjoy their economic collapse

Calina · 27-08-2017 03:43AM

Sensible is on a continuum in this case and this buys Labour time to lose Corbyn and get a reverse in the pro-Brexit nonsense. They should never have waved Article 50 through the way they did.

A lot can change in four years.

Peregrinus · 27-08-2017 04:24AM

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but what's the real difference? It's still a hard brexit the only difference being they delay it for 2 to 4 years . . .

The difference, I think, is that (a) the markets, the economy and the voters have a couple of years to react to the Brexit deal after they know what it is, but before it is implemented, and (b) within that period a general election occurs. Odds are that there will be a change of government at the next election. (Does May look to you like the kind of Prime Minister who is likely lead the Tories back into government at a fourth successive general election? No, me neither.)

This doesn't necessarily change the long term outcome, but it opens up a space within which there is room for a change to occur.

Jim2007 · 27-08-2017 07:47AM

Calina wrote: »

Sensible is on a continuum in this case and this buys Labour time to lose Corbyn and get a reverse in the pro-Brexit nonsense. They should never have waved Article 50 through the way they did.

A lot can change in four years.

A lot can change, but not just in the UK. From reader comments on German/French political and media sites, that attitude is changing to one of irritation and a wish to get this over with. On top of this EU member states will have gotten used to a lot less friction in decision making - no more UK opt out crap etc..

If the UK do decide they want back in at some state, they may find the EU a lot less welcoming that they might expect.

Jim2007 · 27-08-2017 07:58AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I personally think the Lib Dems are speaking the most sense. I.E stop this madness. The Conservatives are making no economic sense whatsoever.

But stop is not an option, no matter how many common law jurists say it is. Any action seeking the enforcement of A50 will be heard by a large majority of civil law jurists and I have yet to hear of a senior civil law jurist expressing the opinion that it can be withdrawn. In civil law the stumbling block is that there is no provisions what so ever in the treaties to allow for it's withdrawal. Civil law is not judge made as in common law.

In which case they would need to reapply for membership and this time round there would be very little support among the 27 for all the opt out nonsense again.

Jim2007 · 27-08-2017 08:19AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I have no doubt at all that it will be better off outside the European Union.

And this confidence is based on what exactly?

- The UK has failed to produce a positive balance of trade in over 25 years, what is going to change so that they suddenly become a trading nation again?

- Last time I looked 48% of their exports went to the EU and in fact 18% of their exports got to three small member states. What are they going to do to retain those exports if the are forced to accept WTO tariffs and more challenging - tariff free quotas?

- As a third country directly competing with low cost competition, who are they planning to maintain the standard of living while taking on this competition?

- Assuming the UK can get WTO full membership in say two years (three currently being the fastest so far), a trade deal in say three years (again very optimistic in WTO terms) and say five years for UK industry to build a market, that is about ten years.... what is the plan to plug the whole in that period?

- Under what circumstances will the UK be able to get better trading terms than WTO without entering into a customs union and accepting restricted negotiating rights?

solodeogloria · 27-08-2017 08:23AM

Good morning!

Repeatedly citing a metric that excludes Britain's biggest trade output namely services is silly.

48% is wrong. It was 44% in 2016 and decreasing each year. My point is if Britain gets a good trade deal that covers as much of this 44% as possible and new trade deals with other countries such as America and China to expand trade then there's every reason why Brexit can be a success.

I've got no reason to predict the apocalypse right now.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ELM327 · 27-08-2017 08:24AM

Calina wrote: »

Sensible is on a continuum in this case and this buys Labour time to lose Corbyn and get a reverse in the pro-Brexit nonsense. They should never have waved Article 50 through the way they did.

A lot can change in four years.

It was my understanding that once Article 50 was triggered, it was irrevocable?

First Up · 27-08-2017 09:18AM

ELM327 wrote: »

It was my understanding that once Article 50 was triggered, it was irrevocable?

Not quite. It could be revoked but only if all 27 members agree -and they could each set conditions. It could only happen if the UK (a) first undergoes a major political upheaval - as in chaos, parties fragmenting etc. and (b) is prepared to endure complete humiliation. I think chaos and humiliation are inevitable but its hard to see them admitting it.

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 09:19AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Repeatedly citing a metric that excludes Britain's biggest trade output namely services is silly.

48% is wrong. It was 44% in 2016 and decreasing each year. My point is if Britain gets a good trade deal that covers as much of this 44% as possible and new trade deals with other countries such as America and China to expand trade then there's every reason why Brexit can be a success.

I've got no reason to predict the apocalypse right now.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You keep mentioning China. The UK does more trade with Ireland than it does with China, does more trade with France than it does with Austrailia and does more trade with Germany than it does with Japan. Look at any other country and you'll see a similar pattern. Trade correlates positively with distance. Closer countries trade more. That's because exporting costs money and continues to cost as a function of distance. It's not as simple as just trading with China and Austrailia. Any free trade deal you get might not cover the increased cost associated with trading with such a country.

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 09:21AM

First Up wrote: »

Not quite. It could be revoked but only if all 27 members agree -and they could each set conditions. It could only happen if the UK (a) first undergoes a major political upheaval - as in chaos, parties fragmenting etc. and (b) is prepared to endure complete humiliation. I think chaos and humiliation are inevitable but its hard to see them admitting it.

It was also hinted by Guy Verhofstadt that any return by the UK would require them to take the Euro.

ELM327 · 27-08-2017 09:24AM

First Up wrote: »

Not quite. It could be revoked but only if all 27 members agree -and they could each set conditions. It could only happen if the UK (a) first undergoes a major political upheaval - as in chaos, parties fragmenting etc. and (b) is prepared to endure complete humiliation. I think chaos and humiliation are inevitable but its hard to see them admitting it.

Ah yes, of course.
I can't see the likes of Spain et al accepting a reversal of Article 50 unless it was perceived as a huge climbdown by the UK.

I can't see anyone in the UK agreeing to take the Euro etc so it's for all intents and purposes rendered therefore irrevocable. IMO.

I didn't think they would actually go through with it, until they actually triggered the article, at which point there is now really no going back.

Water John · 27-08-2017 10:27AM

Corbyn may not be some peoples, cup of tea. One thing I would say is that he is honourable. Stand him alongside, Fox, David Johnson et al, I know who I would prefer.

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 10:30AM

Water John wrote: »

Corbyn may not be some peoples, cup of tea. One thing I would say is that he is honourable. Stand him alongside, Fox, David Johnson et al, I know who I would prefer.

The next potential Tory leader is Jacob Reece Mog. That says it all really.

Calina · 27-08-2017 10:42AM

ELM327 wrote: »

It was my understanding that once Article 50 was triggered, it was irrevocable?

The UK government fought the Miller case on the basis that it was irrevocable and it is fair to say that the treaty says nothing explicit about the irrevocability or otherwise of an Article 50 notification. The drafter of the article has apparently stated that of course it is revocable. It may wind up being an ECJ decision which decides one way or the other.

An extension of the 2 year period is possible with, I think, unanimous accord of the other members so one fudge would be an indefinite extension. However, that's really an interim solution so the question is what might happen the next time there are a bunch of treaty negotiations.

The UK has historically managed to carve itself out a number of fudges and member state specific agreements. I don't exclude the possibility of a fudge. What I do think is this: if Labour had won the last election, the sane thing to do would have been to request an extension immediately given the arrival of a new government. I don't think this is necessarily something that the Tory party could get away with since they own the entire mess but a new and less obnoxious negotiating government might have.

Ultimately, all things remaining equal - and this includes things like referenda in the UK to come on future agreements - Article 50 notification stands, so exit in March 2019, controlled or not controlled. The issue as I see it is that in practical terms, the UK is doing nothing at all to prepare for being a third country. Either they expect to win (unlikely) or they expect not to have go to through with it (doesn't align with their behaviour to date). But I've seen no rationale for the latter position and the former is delusional.

Calina · 27-08-2017 10:44AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The next potential Tory leader is Jacob Reece Mog. That says it all really.

I see comments today that the expected battle is between Jacob, yes, on the one side, and Boris Johnson on the other. This rather reinforces to me the idea that the Tories are completely out of touch.

They need a John Major, urgently. What they have is a Philip Hammond. It really is rather worrying.

Panrich · 27-08-2017 10:50AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In what way is it sensible. They'll leave the EU therefore having no say in how the laws are made but they'll also be tightly bound to the EU so they'll have to follow all the EU laws. Now don't get me wrong leaving the EU also makes very little sense but at least with the hardest of hard Brexit they'll be free of the EU and more than likely free to enjoy their economic collapse

The labour new position sees them now open to a permanent retention of single market and customs union membership. That would be a game changer for the border and the knock effects of existing trade within the EU. Negotiations become a lot simpler and co-operations less complicated.

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 10:56AM

KPMG conducted a study on the effects of Brexit on the skilled workforce:

"A survey of 2,000 EU workers in Britain by KPMG, the professional services firm, found that 55% of those with PhDs and 49% of those with postgraduate degrees were either planning to go or were actively considering it."

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/27/million-skilled-eu-workers-planning-to-leave-uk-brexit

LeinsterDub · 27-08-2017 11:24AM

Panrich wrote: »

The labour new position sees them now open to a permanent retention of single market and customs union membership. That would be a game changer for the border and the knock effects of existing trade within the EU. Negotiations become a lot simpler and co-operations less complicated.

I acknowledge that but my point is that in a referendum to "take back control" this outcome would actually give up control.

Alan_P · 27-08-2017 11:24AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Repeatedly citing a metric that excludes Britain's biggest trade output namely services is silly.

48% is wrong. It was 44% in 2016 and decreasing each year. My point is if Britain gets a good trade deal that covers as much of this 44% as possible and new trade deals with other countries such as America and China to expand trade then there's every reason why Brexit can be a success.

I've got no reason to predict the apocalypse right now.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I have college friends all over Europe, we had a big reunion a few days ago. What they are telling me is that the UK's biggest enemy is sheer indifference. There is concern about Ireland, but the general perception is that the UK is gone and it's now a matter of lawyers and diplomats. If Barnier can't sort it noone cares really.
This is a very important matter to the UK press, and to the UK. The rest of Europe is assuming it leaves on hardest terms, and doesn't care really.

The EU extends a long way these days.

ELM327 · 27-08-2017 11:25AM

Anyway, other than as a propaganda basis or "public view" basis, a UK referendum holds no legal status. They are subjects in a monarchy and not citizens of a republic so there was no requirement to go through with article 50 at all.

Nate--IRL-- · 27-08-2017 11:29AM

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyway, other than as a propaganda basis or "public view" basis, a UK referendum holds no legal status. They are subjects in a monarchy and not citizens of a republic so there was no requirement to go through with article 50 at all.

This is known - however it is political suicide to ignore it.

Nate

ELM327 · 27-08-2017 11:38AM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This is known - however it is political suicide to ignore it.

Nate

Even though, when they triggered article 50, over 50% of the 3 countries and 6 counties were Remainers (due to old age deaths of the leave group)

oscarBravo · 27-08-2017 12:13PM

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Such blind devotion to anti-defeatism is a dangerous mindset.

It's an inevitable consequence of the opposition-for-opposition's-sake that the UK's Parliament (and those, like ours, modeled on it) engenders.

If a government pursues a policy that the opposition disagrees with, the opposition will (reasonably) say that the government is wrong. If the government sees the error of its ways and changes course, the opposition will berate the government for flip-flopping or U-turning. There's really very little difference in outcome for the government in pursuing a wrong-headed policy or retreating from it, so the logical course of action is full steam ahead.

The press are guilty of this also. As long as changing your mind is portrayed as a punishable error, there will always be pressure to double down on mistaken policies.

Samaris · 27-08-2017 12:18PM

Calina wrote: »

I see comments today that the expected battle is between Jacob, yes, on the one side, and Boris Johnson on the other. This rather reinforces to me the idea that the Tories are completely out of touch.

They need a John Major, urgently. What they have is a Philip Hammond. It really is rather worrying.

Hammond at least seems to be more in touch with reality than most of them and so far, I'm grudgingly approving of the few steps he's made that I've heard of. He was the one urgently pointing out that they need a transitional period because they are not going to be ready versus the airy pie in the sky of most of the rest of them. He's not got enough support in the cacophony of snarled cogs that is the British government to do much else than squeak in alarm though.

I don't know much to anything about Jacob Reese-Mogg (bar that his name is splendidly British), but Boris Johnson should not be allowed to run an ice-cream stand.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments