Brexit discussion thread II

Sam Russell · 12-10-2017 03:58PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

a) it is not in the EUs selfish interests to have the UK catch fire and sink into the ocean.

b) The EU is an old hand at kicking the can down the road rather than grasping the nettle.

I think you can look at two examples of existential situations and look at how the EU dealt with them.

1. Ireland and the crash. EU offered help on their own terms which protected French and German banks. The terms were accepted by the Irish Gov and lead to austerity and the bank bailout. People were not bailed out.

2. Greece and their crash. The EU offered help on their terms which were rejected and no other help was offered. Greece held out, but their was no other offer so Greece had to accept austerity at a level that destroyed their economy. People were not bailed out.

So the UK want a settlement on their terms. Good luck with that.

Zubeneschamali · 12-10-2017 04:12PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you can look at two examples of existential situations and look at how the EU dealt with them.

1. Ireland and the crash. EU offered help on their own terms .

2. Greece and their crash. The EU offered help on their terms

Exactly. Pulling the plug on a chaotic hard Brexit without a transition would be the equivalent of letting Ireland and Greece crash with no help - it would damage the whole EU.

So instead, they will first, give the process more time via the "implementation period" dodge, and second, they will offer help on their own terms to avoid the chaos.

It may be that the UK will choose a hard brexit, but if it helps the EU to give time for customs, immigration and so on to be ready, they will do it. Why shoot themselves in the foot?

FrancieBrady · 12-10-2017 04:12PM

View wrote: »

The criticism of the DUP here is unreasonable. Whether or not you agree with them, they both want to be and are British. They therefore are prepared to take whatever comes as part of that nation, be that good or ill.

And while many here would criticise them, their position is in many ways similar to that of the people here in (the Republic of) Ireland who equally are prepared to take whatever comes as part of our nation, be that good or ill. I doubt anyone would be impressed with, let's say, the people of Munster, if they suddenly announced they were abandoning being Irish and instead wanted to be part of France or Spain because they had concluded they'd be more prosperous by doing so. ðŸ˜€

The only reason the DUP are pro Brexit is because it is the opposite view to those who identify as Irish.
They will and have been trying to row back on that and appeal to the taxpayer in the UK to make up the shortfall that the north of Ireland is going to feel most.
They have been blinded once again and have undermined the status of the north.

Chips Lovell · 12-10-2017 04:19PM

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

Nody · 12-10-2017 04:21PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly. Pulling the plug on a chaotic hard Brexit without a transition would be the equivalent of letting Ireland and Greece crash with no help - it would damage the whole EU.

So instead, they will first, give the process more time via the "implementation period" dodge, and second, they will offer help on their own terms to avoid the chaos.

Except that the implementation period is tied to them agreeing the first three issues and they are not backing down from that demand. So far UK has shown zero ability to answer coherently to the question on how to do it in practice and another 2 years with the same party would not change that or get it closer to resolution.

It may be that the UK will choose a hard brexit, but if it helps the EU to give time for customs, immigration and so on to be ready, they will do it. Why shoot themselves in the foot?

Because EU will not compromise what EU is and stands for in the hope that UK will start acting as adults out of the blue and actually get **** done. If UK was showing steady progress on resolving the issues and needed 2 more years it would make sense; however UK is demanding that EU compromises on everything it stands for (access to the single market without freedom of movement, right to certify goods without being under ECJ jurisdiction, zero tariff trade with EU and the rest of the world at the same time etc.). That's simply not going to happen and it's a waste of EU time and money to extend it for two years which will have no effect in reality. Will it hurt EU? Sure; but a quick pain and done with allowing EU to move on and grow is better than a long drawn out divorce costing resources, money, time and effort that is better utilized somewhere else.

FrancieBrady · 12-10-2017 04:27PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

They aren't being singled out by anyone. Being the only pro Brexit party on this island, they have done that themselves.

View · 12-10-2017 04:27PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

The criticism of the DUP here is unreasonable. Whether or not you agree with them, they both want to be and are British. They therefore are prepared to take whatever comes as part of that nation, be that good or ill.

And while many here would criticise them, their position is in many ways similar to that of the people here in (the Republic of) Ireland who equally are prepared to take whatever comes as part of our nation, be that good or ill. I doubt anyone would be impressed with, let's say, the people of Munster, if they suddenly announced they were abandoning being Irish and instead wanted to be part of France or Spain because they had concluded they'd be more prosperous by doing so. ðŸ˜€

The only reason the DUP are pro Brexit is because it is the opposite view to those who identify as Irish.
They will and have been trying to row back on that and appeal to the taxpayer in the UK to make up the shortfall that the north of Ireland is going to feel most.
They have been blinded once again and have undermined the status of the north.

The DUP have been hostile to the ECs/EU consistently throughout the decades. In fact, they were hostile to it when the two major UK parties were both (relatively) supportive of it. As such this isn't something new they have just developed.

Nor presumably would the DUP regard it as undermining the status of the north since they intend to leave with the rest of the UK, just as they would have stayed had the UK decided to Remain.

Professor Moriarty · 12-10-2017 04:31PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

Because 98% of the 'entire country' don't have a red line regarding a sea border.

Panrich · 12-10-2017 04:31PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

Aside from UKIP, they were the only political party to campaign for Brexit. That is why they are being singled out. They campaigned for this, but don't have a plan.

Zubeneschamali · 12-10-2017 04:37PM

Nody wrote: »

Because EU will not compromise what EU is and stands for in the hope that UK will start acting as adults out of the blue and actually get **** done.

But the timing of Brexit is a UK priority, not an EU one. The EU would be happy if they never left, they have said this many times. So why pull the plug if the UK go right to the wire and then announce that they will accept current terms during the "implementation period" of 2 more years?

That's 2 more years for the EU to get set.

I am not suggesting that they will do this to help the UK, I am saying they will do it to help themselves.

Chips Lovell · 12-10-2017 04:39PM

Panrich wrote: »

Aside from UKIP, they were the only political party to campaign for Brexit. That is why they are being singled out. They campaigned for this, but don't have a plan.

Technically correct. But (at least) half the Conservative party was campaigning for it as well. None of them have a plan.

ambro25 · 12-10-2017 04:39PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly. Pulling the plug on a chaotic hard Brexit without a transition would be the equivalent of letting Ireland and Greece crash with no help - it would damage the whole EU.<...>

But then, Ireland, Italy and Greece are €zone.

The UK is not.

I'd say that this not-so-insignificant difference is likely to mitigate the amount of momentum applied by the EU27 to the (brexiting UK-) can

Nody · 12-10-2017 04:41PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the timing of Brexit is a UK priority, not an EU one. The EU would be happy if they never left, they have said this many times. So why pull the plug if the UK go right to the wire and then announce that they will accept current terms during the "implementation period" of 2 more years?

Because for most of EU it's a side show and distraction at this stage that simply should be done with and moved on from as other items have much higher priority. All Brexit is now is a nuisance dealing with a partner behaving like a 4 year old in a candy store demanding they get everything. By pulling the plug at the date agreed they can draw a line under that story and move on focusing on EU fully. As I said if UK was behaving like adults your point would have merit but they are not so why waste your time?

View · 12-10-2017 04:45PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

a) it is not in the EUs selfish interests to have the UK catch fire and sink into the ocean.

b) The EU is an old hand at kicking the can down the road rather than grasping the nettle.

I think you can look at two examples of existential situations and look at how the EU dealt with them.

1. Ireland and the crash. EU offered help on their own terms which protected French and German banks. The terms were accepted by the Irish Gov and lead to austerity and the bank bailout. People were not bailed out.

This is wrong. Ireland had decided to bailout our banks before the Troika were called in. The monies used to do bailout the banks came from "Irish sources" - specifically "normal" pre-Troika government borrowing and the NPRF (with the latter being classified as part of the international "bailout" programme).

The money that the Troika loaned us did not go to the banks. Instead it was used to bridge the massive shortfall in our public finances and was spent by our government on "routine" government budget items such as the provision of our civil & public services etc. Austerity itself was the painful but necessary re-adjustments required to bring the state's tax receipts and expenditure into line with each other. Those Troika loans ameliorated but did not prevent that austerity and we would have had to endure much, much more painful austerity in the absence of those loans.

Fratton Fred · 12-10-2017 04:46PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They aren't being singled out by anyone. Being the only pro Brexit party on this island, they have done that themselves.

didn't People Before Profit campaign for Brexit as well?

Sinn Fein aren't exactly "Pro" EU either and in fact, they didn't actually register to campaign either way in the referendum

Chips Lovell · 12-10-2017 04:51PM

A deal will be done but it'll be done at the last minute because any realistic agreement is going to be politically unpalatable for the Brexit-wing of the Conservative party.

It'll more than likely be "UK pays €Xbillion + mutual assurances on citizens rights + some kind of border fudge + UK staying in single market (with all that entails, such remaining under the ECJ) for Y number of years post-Exit while it sorts itself out."

Taking it down to the wire will minimise the window for dissent/mutiny.

Zubeneschamali · 12-10-2017 04:51PM

Nody wrote: »

As I said if UK was behaving like adults your point would have merit but they are not so why waste your time?

My point is that it is not even a consideration how the UK is behaving. Were Greece behaving themselves? Were Ireland's finances models of German bookkeeping? No.

They did not help us because we were good citizens who needed help and played nice with the EU. They helped us on their own terms because not helping would be worse FOR THEM than helping.

Similarly, a chaotic Brexit will hurt the EU more than an orderly one. So they will allow more time for an orderly one.

And if it ends up that the UK never really leaves except in name, well, good.

Sam Russell · 12-10-2017 04:52PM

View wrote: »

This is wrong. Ireland had decided to bailout our banks before the Troika were called in. The monies used to do bailout the banks came from "Irish sources" - specifically "normal" pre-Troika government borrowing and the NPRF (with the latter being classified as part of the international "bailout" programme).

The money that the Troika loaned us did not go to the banks. Instead it was used to bridge the massive shortfall in our public finances and was spent by our government on "routine" government budget items such as the provision of our civil & public services etc. Austerity itself was the painful but necessary re-adjustments required to bring the state's tax receipts and expenditure into line with each other. Those Troika loans ameliorated but did not prevent that austerity and we would have had to endure much, much more painful austerity in the absence of those loans.

Brian Lenihan was prevented from burning the bond holders by the ECB - 'a bomb will go off in Dublin' or words to that effect. If Anglo had been collapsed when it was insolvent, the bond holders would have taken the hit and not the Irish Gov. It did not all happen in a weekend, and was played out in several acts - as any good tragedy.

View · 12-10-2017 04:59PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

Because EU will not compromise what EU is and stands for in the hope that UK will start acting as adults out of the blue and actually get **** done.

But the timing of Brexit is a UK priority, not an EU one. The EU would be happy if they never left, they have said this many times. So why pull the plug if the UK go right to the wire and then announce that they will accept current terms during the "implementation period" of 2 more years?

That's 2 more years for the EU to get set.

I am not suggesting that they will do this to help the UK, I am saying they will do it to help themselves.

There is no reason for the EU to agree to a transition/implementation phase per se.

If the UK wants a "hardest of hard" Brexits then, from an EU perpective, there is nothing to transition to and the UK might as well jump off the economic cliff in 2019 as in 2021 or 2022.

It is only IF the UK outlines a post-exit scenario, such as EFTA/EEA membership, AND that scenario is judged by the EU member states to be in their (the EU member states' individual) interest that the issue of a transition deal arises since it would clearly be fairly stupid for all countries to put massive new physical customs installations in place on all trade to/from the UK in 2019 and then have them largely redundant in, let's say, 2020, after the UK became an EFTA/EEA member.

A Little Pony · 12-10-2017 05:04PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are being intransigent

Good.

The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result

She has changed tack completely because the referendum, held to marginalize the Tory Eurosceptics, backfired and strengthened the Eurosceptic wing of the party, and she had to change sides to get the top job.

If internal Tory party politics dictated that she should change back, announce Parliament is sovereign and hang the referendum result to stay at number 10, she would do so in a heartbeat.

That is just delusion of the highest order. Brexit is a foregone conclusion now. The aim is to get out of the single market and all the EU institutions, otherwise the vote was a waste and it would be the greatest betrayal of the 21st century. I make no apologies for my position on this.

I am aware we have traitors in the government like Hammond and some backbenchers like Anna Soubry but the result has to be respected. The majority of people who voted want Brexit and it absolutely must be delivered. Others will say this in a more politically correct way but I am just being honest about it, I want what I voted for and Brexit simply has to be delivered.

View · 12-10-2017 05:11PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

View wrote: »

This is wrong. Ireland had decided to bailout our banks before the Troika were called in. The monies used to do bailout the banks came from "Irish sources" - specifically "normal" pre-Troika government borrowing and the NPRF (with the latter being classified as part of the international "bailout" programme).

The money that the Troika loaned us did not go to the banks. Instead it was used to bridge the massive shortfall in our public finances and was spent by our government on "routine" government budget items such as the provision of our civil & public services etc. Austerity itself was the painful but necessary re-adjustments required to bring the state's tax receipts and expenditure into line with each other. Those Troika loans ameliorated but did not prevent that austerity and we would have had to endure much, much more painful austerity in the absence of those loans.

Brian Lenihan was prevented from burning the bond holders by the ECB - 'a bomb will go off in Dublin' or words to that effect. If Anglo had been collapsed when it was insolvent, the bond holders would have taken the hit and not the Irish Gov. It did not all happen in a weekend, and was played out in several acts - as any good tragedy.

By the time that particular piece of political theatre was played out, the primary institution that would have suffered would have been our Central Bank as it had given Anglo tons of loans (and on fairly questionable grounds). Understandably the ECB did not want any negative impact on a member (central) bank of the ESCBs since it would have negatively impacted the whole ESCB and would probably have left our Central Bank insolvent and in need of a bailout. That's not to say they prevented Lenihan doing so since he had the power to do so but obviously the ECB would not have rushed to help him to clean up the resulting mess.

A Little Pony · 12-10-2017 05:12PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

It is something my fellow Brexiteers argue against or feel almost insulted if this is mentioned. You can make a case for Brexit on other issues but self belonging was the crux of the whole thing and was for decades. I take pride in that nationalism and I don't see it as a shame at all.

I am not European, I have no love for the EU flag, it means absolutely nothing to me, has always meant nothing. The EU couldn't have done anything to make the majority in the UK want to be part of the EU or love what it stands for. I simply disagree with the whole concept of the EU.

Saying we will be worse off economically to begin with doesn't mean anything to me, it didn't drive my views on voting for it anyway and I couldn't care less.

View · 12-10-2017 05:22PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are being intransigent

Good.

The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result

She has changed tack completely because the referendum, held to marginalize the Tory Eurosceptics, backfired and strengthened the Eurosceptic wing of the party, and she had to change sides to get the top job.

If internal Tory party politics dictated that she should change back, announce Parliament is sovereign and hang the referendum result to stay at number 10, she would do so in a heartbeat.

That is just delusion of the highest order. Brexit is a foregone conclusion now. The aim is to get out of the single market and all the EU institutions, otherwise the vote was a waste and it would be the greatest betrayal of the 21st century. I make no apologies for my position on this.

I am aware we have traitors in the government like Hammond and some backbenchers like Anna Soubry but the result has to be respected. The majority of people who voted want Brexit and it absolutely must be delivered. Others will say this in a more politically correct way but I am just being honest about it, I want what I voted for and Brexit simply has to be delivered.

No doubt, prior to last year's referendum, you were equally forthright in your condemnation as "traitors" of the government Ministers who over the decades betrayed the result of the '75 referendum, right?

Zubeneschamali · 12-10-2017 05:40PM

View wrote: »

If the UK wants a "hardest of hard" Brexits then, from an EU perpective, there is nothing to transition to and the UK might as well jump off the economic cliff in 2019 as in 2021 or 2022.

If they tell us now that they will do it in 2022, well a) we have more time to prepare, lessening the damage to us and b) maybe they will cop on, or Corbyn will get in, or some unforeseen movement spring up and save the day...

And nobody in the EU cares if they call it a transition period, an implementation period or more honestly, a delayed Brexit. That's a domestic problem for May, not something the EU cares about.

Zubeneschamali · 12-10-2017 05:42PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

The aim is to get out of the single market and all the EU institutions, otherwise the vote was a waste and it would be the greatest betrayal of the 21st century.

My point is that May would commit the greatest betrayal of the 21st century if it meant she got to stay in #10.

We already know it, she already betrayed her own principles and the best interests of the British people to get in there.

Zubeneschamali · 12-10-2017 05:45PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

I have no love for the EU flag, it means absolutely nothing to me, has always meant nothing.

I wish everyone felt that way about all flags.

Lemming · 12-10-2017 05:58PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

We're a page past this point but to correct you there BdC; 52% of those who voted put nationalism ahead of their own prosperity. That 52% was considerably less than 52% of the nation or even 52% of the voting populace of the nation.

FrancieBrady · 12-10-2017 06:34PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

didn't People Before Profit campaign for Brexit as well?

Sinn Fein aren't exactly "Pro" EU either and in fact, they didn't actually register to campaign either way in the referendum

Oh yeah, forgot PBP

I have issues with the EU and there will always be issues with the EU. But advocating to leave it is an entirely different issue.

Professor Moriarty · 12-10-2017 06:36PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is just delusion of the highest order. Brexit is a foregone conclusion now. The aim is to get out of the single market and all the EU institutions, otherwise the vote was a waste and it would be the greatest betrayal of the 21st century. I make no apologies for my position on this.

I am aware we have traitors in the government like Hammond and some backbenchers like Anna Soubry but the result has to be respected. The majority of people who voted want Brexit and it absolutely must be delivered. Others will say this in a more politically correct way but I am just being honest about it, I want what I voted for and Brexit simply has to be delivered.

Can you outline the nature of the Brexit you voted for? Is the Brexit that you voted for the same as the Brexit other people voted for?

jm08 · 12-10-2017 06:36PM

View wrote: »

The criticism of the DUP here is unreasonable. Whether or not you agree with them, they both want to be and are British. They therefore are prepared to take whatever comes as part of that nation, be that good or ill.

And while many here would criticise them, their position is in many ways similar to that of the people here in (the Republic of) Ireland who equally are prepared to take whatever comes as part of our nation, be that good or ill. I doubt anyone would be impressed with, let's say, the people of Munster, if they suddenly announced they were abandoning being Irish and instead wanted to be part of France or Spain because they had concluded they'd be more prosperous by doing so. &#55357;&#56832;

The people of NI voted to remain in the EU though, and if a similar situation happened in Ireland (an advisory referendum on EU membership), whether the Government of the day liked it or not, they would have to speak for what people voted for. I'd imagine if it was close as it was in the UK referendum, we'd think again as well.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments