Brexit discussion thread II

ambro25 · 05-10-2017 01:00PM

Dear me, what a morning for Theresa, after yesterday's discomfiture:

UK car sales down 10%, first drop since the last recession

City firms give No.10 until Xmas to arrange a transition deal with the EU before they start moving jobs

Two thirds of Hammond's £26bn 'Brexit' war chest facing wipeout by OBR

Talk about a mongo hangover. I nearly feel sorry for her. Nearly.

Given the objective chances of the UK securing 'enough of' of a transition deal with the EU by Christmas, either Theresa will be gone by then, or approx. 10,000 City jobs.

demfad · 05-10-2017 01:12PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But but but the special relationship?

Best case scenario for the UK will be that they become a vassal state of the USA. The USA's Israel in Europe.

This is what Liam Fox was brought in for.

He was involved in the Atlantic Bridge between US and UK when he was previously sacked as minister. That grouping involving RW US corporations and businessmen wanted a reduction in regulations to allow US trade to flow into the UK.
Fox is minister for trade for that deal. The Legatum Institute (more or less disaster capitalists) have their man Steve Baker as no2 to David Davis. Murdoch seems to have Gove and Johnson in his pocket now. All these powerful groups want the hardest of Brexits to make money, take control and allow the US maximum cheap access.

As well as moving the UK further under corporate control you will have a massive hit to International Climate control efforts which is the single biggest issue facing the world now. The politics will follow elsewhere in the next year or so.

Jim2007 · 05-10-2017 01:16PM

ambro25 wrote: »

City firms give No.10 until Xmas to arrange a transition deal with the EU before they start moving jobs

Given the objective chances of the UK securing 'enough of' of a transition deal with the EU by Christmas, either Theresa will be gone by then, or approx. 10,000 City jobs.

It is all very well to be asking for a transition deal, but a transition to what? What is the benefit to the EU? There is no point in giving then a transition period only to have them carry on the same nonsense as now.

Nate--IRL-- · 05-10-2017 01:25PM

It does seem that a Transition is being taken for granted by the UK side. Has the EU given much indication as to what is necessary for a transition?

Nate

ambro25 · 05-10-2017 01:30PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is all very well to be asking for a transition deal, but a transition to what? What is the benefit to the EU? There is no point in giving then a transition period only to have them carry on the same nonsense as now.

To finding working out what Brexit actually consists of, I'd say.

Provided such a deal is parameterised and straightforward enough (e.g. "EU-with-the-ECJ-but-without-the-MEPs-and-interfering" in effect), the obvious benefits for the EU are supplemental income (beyond the exit bill itself) and timed certainty (arguably that has inherent advantages for the EU(27) and all who sail in her). Besides kicking the highly-thorny issue of NI a bit further into the long grass.

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It does seem that a Transition is being taken for granted by the UK side. Has the EU given much indication as to what is necessary for a transition?

I believe it has, through Barnier's and the EU Parliament's various proclamations since May's speech in Florence: to agree mutually-acceptable positions (at least in principle) about each of-

(i) the UK's exit bill
(ii) reciprocal citizens rights
(iii) NI border

Nothing Davis didn't know about since around April 2017, nor agree to since, I believe?

Naturally, the likelihood of real sufficient progress being achieved on all of the above fast enough to also hash out and agree a transition deal within the next 3 months...well...I don't think using "miracle" is hyperbolic, here.

Zubeneschamali · 05-10-2017 01:38PM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It does seem that a Transition is being taken for granted by the UK side. Has the EU given much indication as to what is necessary for a transition?

They have "unexpectedly" rejected UK requests to talk about it until the first phase is complete.

https://www.ft.com/content/c1420590-a1fe-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2?mhq5j=e5

Zubeneschamali · 05-10-2017 01:42PM

ambro25 wrote: »

I don't think using "miracle" is hyperbolic, here.

Juncker says miracles are needed for progress on Brexit talks

A senior EU source said of Juncker’s comments: “Mr Juncker is a commissioner. He believes in miracles.” But the official added: “If it will happen, it will be in December.” A European council summit of EU leaders is due to take place on 14 December.

Asked if Brussels expected any further concessions from the British prime minister at Tory party conference next week, the source said: “We believe in miracles. We are not hallucinating.”

Professor Moriarty · 05-10-2017 02:01PM

demfad wrote: »

This is what Liam Fox was brought in for.

He was involved in the Atlantic Bridge between US and UK when he was previously sacked as minister. That grouping involving RW US corporations and businessmen wanted a reduction in regulations to allow US trade to flow into the UK.
Fox is minister for trade for that deal. The Legatum Institute (more or less disaster capitalists) have their man Steve Baker as no2 to David Davis. Murdoch seems to have Gove and Johnson in his pocket now. All these powerful groups want the hardest of Brexits to make money, take control and allow the US maximum cheap access.

As well as moving the UK further under corporate control you will have a massive hit to International Climate control efforts which is the single biggest issue facing the world now. The politics will follow elsewhere in the next year or so.

Exactly. Britain is heading towards becoming the 51st state of the US. Which is ironic considering the 'patriotic' speeches at the Tory conference this week.

flatty · 05-10-2017 03:21PM

Being a 51st state would be far preferable to Isolation.
A pal was speaking to, of all things, a daily mail journo this week, who had this to say:
" the whole Brexit thing is a mess and would be quietly swept under the carpet if there were someone strong enough to do so in the political establishment".

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 03:48PM

flatty wrote: »

Being a 51st state would be far preferable to Isolation.
A pal was speaking to, of all things, a daily mail journo this week, who had this to say:
" the whole Brexit thing is a mess and would be quietly swept under the carpet if there were someone strong enough to do so in the political establishment".

A daily mail journo said that?

They are the exact reason why Brexit can't be swept under the rug, rags like that just wouldn't allow it regardless of how strong a leader was.

Jaggo · 05-10-2017 03:48PM

flatty wrote: »

Being a 51st state would be far preferable to Isolation.

Porto Rico might disagree!!

Of the c900 trade agreements that the UK has to re-sign, I thought the WTO agreement would be one of the easiest. The fact that the US and Australia are willing to put the boot in at this stage is pretty depressing. Note that the US et al. must have been preparing this stab in the back while the UK/EU was still trying to hammer out first principles.

I fear this will happen to pretty much all the remaining trade agreements too. Each, just a little bit to the UKs disadvantage.

Panrich · 05-10-2017 04:18PM

The vultures are beginning to circle even on WTO terms. The US is leading a chorus of exporteres to the EU concerned that splitting current EU quotas between EU/UK might deprive them of filling those export quotas if the UK can't buy all of it's share. The countries include New Zealand and Canada, so UK allies seem thin on the ground now.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-rounds-on-britain-over-food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

"The big food exporters argue that two fixed quotas — a U.K. quota and an EU27 quota — make markets less easy to sell to than one big quota.

The logic is this: if the EU quota for, say, lamb is 100,000 tons, the exporters say they lose out if that is divided into 30,000 tons for the U.K. and 70,000 tons for the EU27. If British lamb consumption plunges and the quota is unfilled, the exporter cannot necessarily compensate by selling more of the meat to France or other EU markets. The original 100,000-ton lamb quota allowed the exporter more flexibility in where it could sell in case one market buys less."

flatty · 05-10-2017 04:25PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Being a 51st state would be far preferable to Isolation.
A pal was speaking to, of all things, a daily mail journo this week, who had this to say:
" the whole Brexit thing is a mess and would be quietly swept under the carpet if there were someone strong enough to do so in the political establishment".

A daily mail journo said that?

They are the exact reason why Brexit can't be swept under the rug, rags like that just wouldn't allow it regardless of how strong a leader was.

Indeed. But there you have it.

murphaph · 05-10-2017 04:42PM

Panrich wrote: »

The vultures are beginning to circle even on WTO terms. The US is leading a chorus of exporteres to the EU concerned that splitting current EU quotas between EU/UK might deprive them of filling those export quotas if the UK can't buy all of it's share. The countries include New Zealand and Canada, so UK allies seem thin on the ground now.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-rounds-on-britain-over-food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

"The big food exporters argue that two fixed quotas — a U.K. quota and an EU27 quota — make markets less easy to sell to than one big quota.

The logic is this: if the EU quota for, say, lamb is 100,000 tons, the exporters say they lose out if that is divided into 30,000 tons for the U.K. and 70,000 tons for the EU27. If British lamb consumption plunges and the quota is unfilled, the exporter cannot necessarily compensate by selling more of the meat to France or other EU markets. The original 100,000-ton lamb quota allowed the exporter more flexibility in where it could sell in case one market buys less."

Oh dear. Where's that queue of countries wanting to sign trade agreements again?!

It's become a complete farce.

Zubeneschamali · 05-10-2017 05:49PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A daily mail journo said that?

They are the exact reason why Brexit can't be swept under the rug, rags like that just wouldn't allow it regardless of how strong a leader was.

Well, yes, but that is the editorial crew.

Individual journalists do not have to personally agree with the editorial spin, they just write what they are told to write.

Junkyard Tom · 05-10-2017 06:13PM

murphaph wrote: »

It's become a complete farce.

I was just wondering if there is anyone with a big enough profile in the UK to drop the anchors and shout STOP! I did a bit of googling to see if QE2 has the power to do such a thing, as I believe she's just about the only person in Britain who could get a very large majority to agree with her, but it appears not.

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 06:30PM

demfad wrote: »

This is what Liam Fox was brought in for.

He was involved in the Atlantic Bridge between US and UK when he was previously sacked as minister. That grouping involving RW US corporations and businessmen wanted a reduction in regulations to allow US trade to flow into the UK.
Fox is minister for trade for that deal. The Legatum Institute (more or less disaster capitalists) have their man Steve Baker as no2 to David Davis. Murdoch seems to have Gove and Johnson in his pocket now. All these powerful groups want the hardest of Brexits to make money, take control and allow the US maximum cheap access.

As well as moving the UK further under corporate control you will have a massive hit to International Climate control efforts which is the single biggest issue facing the world now. The politics will follow elsewhere in the next year or so.

If I was her I'd let Boris have it. If people can't see that Boris was partly to blame for this mess then they'll certainly see it if he's the prime minister.

Enzokk · 05-10-2017 06:49PM

murphaph wrote: »

Oh dear. Where's that queue of countries wanting to sign trade agreements again?!

It's become a complete farce.

I think there will be a queue, that queue will however not be there to just give the UK a good trade deal. They will give them a trade deal that the other country wants, and if both benefit then great, if not why should (enter country name) worry if their trade deal doesn't benefit the UK to the best it can?

Calina · 05-10-2017 06:50PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

If I was her I'd let Boris have it. If people can't see that Boris was partly to blame for this mess then they'll certainly see it if he's the prime minister.

I doubt it. The EU is being lined up to be the fall guy.

Samaris · 05-10-2017 06:55PM

Calina wrote: »

I doubt it. The EU is being lined up to be the fall guy.

Tbh though, the EU countries know it and don't really care that much. The UK can sit outside and bitch to its heart's content, it won't be able to do nearly so much damage outside as it could inside it.

Eventually someone's got to be the adult. And the EU has been the fall guy for years due to cowardly politicians looking for someone to redirect voter ire at. Tell enough lies, get enough people to believe them and suddenly you find your country's voted to abandon ship.

Calina · 05-10-2017 07:14PM

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh though, the EU countries know it and don't really care that much. The UK can sit outside and bitch to its heart's content, it won't be able to do nearly so much damage outside as it could inside it.

Eventually someone's got to be the adult. And the EU has been the fall guy for years due to cowardly politicians looking for someone to redirect voter ire at. Tell enough lies, get enough people to believe them and suddenly you find your country's voted to abandon ship.

Oh agreed. But ultimately the question is who the UK are going to be blaming and I really can't see the Tory party grandees standing up and saying Mea Culpa. Although Johnson might because he's that sort of guy. Why use English when there's a handy bit of Latin?

First Up · 05-10-2017 07:28PM

Calina wrote:

Oh agreed. But ultimately the question is who the UK are going to be blaming and I really can't see the Tory party grandees standing up and saying Mea Culpa. Although Johnson might because he's that sort of guy. Why use English when there's a handy bit of Latin?

That's a matter for them to sort out among themselves. Nobody else really gives a toss.

gjim · 05-10-2017 07:41PM

demfad wrote: »

Amazed you say that. This week Catholic families were still being forced out of an area by loyalist paramilitaries. Loyalists still control many areas.
Dissident Republicans are still going strong. The executive is in danger of being ditched for direct rule.

The ECHR is an independent arbiter for the GFA. It is there for a reason.

Eh? The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU or Brexit.

Zerbini Blewitt · 05-10-2017 07:43PM

One thing that seems common to all brexiters (whether they were propaganised into their position or they were the origin of the idealogy) is:-

A total inability to not strawman or misrepresent their opponents arguements. This is a definite red flag phenomenon. It’s almost like debating honestly - to a purist brexiteer - is what a mirror is to a vampire!

In any honest political debate, someone on one side may say something where their opponent pauses briefly & responds “well, I never thought of that. You have a point there”.

But with brexiters, there’s never such reflection. Its all big lie, brutalist ideology.

But anyway what could be the reason Brexiters misrepresent their opponents arguments so consistently? :-

• Their position is so rubbish that debate is essentially a scorched Earth exercise
• They want to weaken (as they see it) their opponents position
• The end-game reality might not work out for them???
• (religious like) imperial beliefs are comforting to them & needs must
• Other reasons (probably a long list)

Brexit/British Eurscepticism appears to me to be at its core: RW English Nats championing Great Grandma’s or Great Grandpapy’s primitivism (by contemporary standards) – which makes it a sad loser ideology, essentially wasting everyone’s time. What a disastrous 21st century farce!

Having said that, it’s not entirely unusual that a former Imperial power [that survived the 20th century] like the UK was always going to decline in a different manner to most countries (who instead were variously conquered or humiliated).

So, perhaps the Irish viewpoint is not much use to a modern day ideological Brexiteer who already seems to have more than enough struggles with the nature of reality.

If only a few members of the Tojo cabinet of Imperial Japan were still around - they might be able to offer counsel now (if time could be halted to around mid 1942, that is) or a Roman Emperor was still alive. Ok, I’m stretching now.

The Rape of Lucretia · 05-10-2017 07:58PM

Calina wrote: »

I doubt it. The EU is being lined up to be the fall guy.

EU will sail blithely on, and wont even notice if it is the 'fall guy' or not. But if that keeps Brexiteers happy, sure, then whats the harm in it?

Enzokk · 05-10-2017 08:26PM

gjim wrote: »

Eh? The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU or Brexit.

Yeah, and it seems that most people in the UK doesn't know that. They just hear European Convention on Human Rights, or European Court of Human Rights and only see the word European and throw a fit, or a Brexit.

I have linked stories where Theresa May has hinted that she wants to get rid of the ECHR in the UK and don't want the ECtHR to have no say in the UK at all. So while its not Brexit related in that they will leave this in April 2019, there are indications that they want to get rid of it all together.

flutered · 05-10-2017 08:41PM

Enzokk wrote: »

I think there will be a queue, that queue will however not be there to just give the UK a good trade deal. They will give them a trade deal that the other country wants, and if both benefit then great, if not why should (enter country name) worry if their trade deal doesn't benefit the UK to the best it can?

the vulture funds need a hard brexit, what they have picked up in ireland is peanuts compared to the pickings to come in the uk

jm08 · 05-10-2017 10:02PM

More trading problems rearing their head. Washington really is some 'special friend'.

In a fast-developing second trade spat, Washington has teamed up with Brazil, Argentina, Canada, New Zealand, Uruguay and Thailand to reject Britain’s proposed import arrangements for crucial agricultural goods such as meat, sugar and grains after Brexit. The fact that the U.K.’s opponents include the U.S., Canada and New Zealand is a significant setback because Britain is trying to style its former colonies as natural strategic and commercial allies after it has quit the EU.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-rounds-on-britain-over-food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 10:17PM

jm08 wrote: »

More trading problems rearing their head. Washington really is some 'special friend'.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-rounds-on-britain-over-food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

That article indicates that those countries are more concerned about reduced quotas in to the eu than they are with quotas for the uk.

The article linked says that the eu is facing the prospect of picking a fight with the wto, or with its own farmers.

Professor Moriarty · 05-10-2017 10:29PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That article indicates that those countries are more concerned about reduced quotas in to the eu than they are with quotas for the uk.

The article linked says that the eu is facing the prospect of picking a fight with the wto, or with its own farmers.

Indeed. That negotiation alone should take months to agree. Hopefully, the EU will demand an inordinately larger portion of the the quotas on the basis that they are in no hurry to agree anything and they won't allow their farmers to be out of pocket. Or they could simply make it another red line before full trade talks begin. No rush.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments