Brexit discussion thread II

zetalambda · 22-11-2017 04:47PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The biggest loser is London surely?

Is it? I thought it was a reality TV show.

ambro25 · 22-11-2017 04:50PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

No projection of the elusive recession that was predicted by Osborne and Co. To be honest these figures show that the economy is going to fare pretty well despite Brexit uncertainty for the next 5 years.

These figures have been determined by applying forecasting model(s) to past real-life economic data, including post-referendum data indicative of the real-life economic uncertainty caused by an consultative vote and the ensuing management of voter expectations by the government.

I seem to recall many a Leave supporter accusing Brexit detractors from crystal-ball gazing whenever consequences of Brexit are being discussed.

Well, that one swings both ways of course: current indications are never guarantees of future performance and, lest people forget, the same OBR overshot UK assets by half-a-trillion for a few years.

If the UK manages these figures Brexit notwithstanding, indeed it will have done well for itself. But for what it's worth, I think they're still optimistic.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It also has no bearing on what will happen when final trade terms are resolved or the benefit of seeking more progressive trading terms with other countries. I think slower growth for a few years will be worth it for the control that will be regained.

I hope you don't mind expanding on that last bit a little more. What 'control' is worth a socio-economic regression?

Professor Moriarty · 22-11-2017 04:54PM

Aegir wrote: »

You said this:

Which is wrong, because the "Elites" have deleted nothing

yes, it is being replaced, not deleted. The British Bill of rights would set out the minimum standard for Human rights in the UK, based on ECHR articles. No one knows the details yet, because no legislation has been drafted.

No one, despite your daily mailesque sensationalism, is deleting anything.

Hmmm. So an act that is being replaced with another act hasn't been deleted? Following that logic, slavery might still be in with a shout.

So what purpose and meaning will the replaced but undeleted HRA have once the Tories bring in their putative Bill of Rights?

blanch152 · 22-11-2017 04:56PM

zetalambda wrote: »

Dublin the big loser in the battle for the Brexit bankers...

Frankfurt has so far secured over 3000 jobs, Paris has secured almost 2000 (including the EBA) and Dublin has so far secured a paltry 150 jobs due to Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-bankers/

We've only got 3% of the jobs, which is less than I hoped, but we are still batting above our EU weight of 1%.

22-11-2017 04:59PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. So an act that is being replaced with another act hasn't been deleted? Following that logic, slavery might still be in with a shout.

So what purpose and meaning will the replaced but undeleted HRA have once the Tories bring in their putative Bill of Rights?

you didn't mention an act, you said this in relation to the eu charter on fundemental rights not being copy and pasted in to UK law:

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ordinary people vote in a party of elites. The party of elites deletes their charter of rights. Quelle surprise.

which is, quite clearly, wrong.

ancapailldorcha · 22-11-2017 05:00PM

Aegir wrote: »

yes, it is being replaced, not deleted. The British Bill of rights would set out the minimum standard for Human rights in the UK, based on ECHR articles. No one knows the details yet, because no legislation has been drafted.

No one, despite your daily mailesque sensationalism, is deleting anything.

The best scenario is that it'll be watered down. The Human Rights Act was passed by the first Blair government in 1998 so it's hardly decrepit. There seems to be some disdain among some Conservatives for human rights which would explain why they're so keen on scrapping the 1998 Act.

blanch152 · 22-11-2017 05:05PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I gave my 'opinion' of what the EU would say, based on what has happened so far.

Why would a sea border make the Scottish request for a referendum any stronger?

It won't because the answer will be that the Irish situation is unique, which the rest of the EU have already stated again and again and which Westminister also recognise.

I have read your post again:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you could for once leave the 'dreaming republican' rants out of it, and listen to what is being said.
The EU will not consider it, May and the Scots and the DUP can ask, but they will be told NO because it is the GFA that makes the Irish situation require a unique solution.

"The EU will not consider it" is a very definitive statement, it isn't qualified as just being your opinion, which renders it as useful as anyone else's opinion.

I would once again point out that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that if the Scots want to stay in the CU and SM once the Northern Ireland option is available, while also remaining part of the UK, then nobody anywhere has said the EU will not consider it.

Professor Moriarty · 22-11-2017 05:08PM

Aegir wrote: »

you didn't mention an act, you said this in relation to the eu charter on fundemental rights not being copy and pasted in to UK law:

which is, quite clearly, wrong.

Don't really know where you're going on this now.

Let me be crystal clear. The elitist Tory party's Bill of Rights will not be better for Joe Soap than the ECHR.

breatheme · 22-11-2017 05:10PM

blanch152 wrote: »

zetalambda wrote: »

Dublin the big loser in the battle for the Brexit bankers...

Frankfurt has so far secured over 3000 jobs, Paris has secured almost 2000 (including the EBA) and Dublin has so far secured a paltry 150 jobs due to Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-bankers/

We've only got 3% of the jobs, which is less than I hoped, but we are still batting above our EU weight of 1%.

And sadly, Dublin would need a lot of infrastructure to cope. It doesn't even have a metro, and hell, you can't pay cabs with a card... (without going in too deep) it's a bit behind other European capitals, and it's going to show as it lags a bit behind other more developed cities. However, you're right, Ireland is batting above its weight.

FrancieBrady · 22-11-2017 05:13PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I have read your post again:

"The EU will not consider it" is a very definitive statement, it isn't qualified as just being your opinion, which renders it as useful as anyone else's opinion.

I would once again point out that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that if the Scots want to stay in the CU and SM once the Northern Ireland option is available, while also remaining part of the UK, then nobody anywhere has said the EU will not consider it.

My opinion is that the EU won't.

And that is from somebody who has no problem with them asking for it.

murphaph · 22-11-2017 05:19PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Perhaps because the Scots know the reason why a different approach is needed in the Irish situation - namely the GFA. That is key to it and is why the EU is interested in supporting the Irish position.

That wouldn't fly if the Scots asked for a border and they know it - hence why it has no traction as a solution for the Scots. They will just let Brexit itself sell the idea of independence.

I don't think a vote on the matter in Scotland or NI would result in a preference for remaining in the EU if England and Wales leave. Personally I hope the Scots stay in the UK. They would be stuff competition for us, especially in financial services.

blanch152 · 22-11-2017 05:20PM

breatheme wrote: »

And sadly, Dublin would need a lot of infrastructure to cope. It doesn't even have a metro, and hell, you can't pay cabs with a card... (without going in too deep) it's a bit behind other European capitals, and it's going to show as it lags a bit behind other more developed cities. However, you're right, Ireland is batting above its weight.

We are limited by our infrastructure and the exodus from London will be such that we couldn't cope. Getting more than our fair share should be the aim.

22-11-2017 05:24PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The best scenario is that it'll be watered down. The Human Rights Act was passed by the first Blair government in 1998 so it's hardly decrepit. There seems to be some disdain among some Conservatives for human rights which would explain why they're so keen on scrapping the 1998 Act.

it was Cameron's brain child that he came up with before the tories got in to power. what his objectives were though, other than to give supremacy to UK courts is pretty much unknown. It was the Blair/Brown governments that implemented a lot of the snooping charters and the extension of the detention without trial laws (which prompted the resignation of a certain David Davis), so I'm not sure if what they did was any sort of benchmark.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Don't really know where you're going on this now.

Let me be crystal clear. The elitist Tory party's Bill of Rights will not be better for Joe Soap than the ECHR.

but they can't, by definition, be worse.

if you are having trouble keeping up, then let me remind you (again) what you said. It was:

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ordinary people vote in a party of elites. The party of elites deletes their charter of rights. Quelle surprise.

you want to know where I am going? simple. The above post is completely wrong.

good for a few thanks, but alas, wrong.

zetalambda · 22-11-2017 05:26PM

breatheme wrote: »

And sadly, Dublin would need a lot of infrastructure to cope. It doesn't even have a metro, and hell, you can't pay cabs with a card... (without going in too deep) it's a bit behind other European capitals, and it's going to show as it lags a bit behind other more developed cities. However, you're right, Ireland is batting above its weight.

Yeah, the infrastructure and public transport in Dublin is mediocre at best. You have shithole eastern European countries with better public transport and far cheaper to use while in the UK you have airports serving less than a million passengers a year with direct rail links!

FrancieBrady · 22-11-2017 05:27PM

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think a vote on the matter in Scotland or NI would result in a preference for remaining in the EU if England and Wales leave. Personally I hope the Scots stay in the UK. They would be stuff competition for us, especially in financial services.

What makes you think northern Ireland wouldn't vote to remain in the EU? I would imagine more are convinced that leaving is suicide for them rather than less.
The connection to the UK fror unionists is an abstract thing, it doesn't exist in the physical world.
They only have to get over that hump. It wouldn't diminish their identity in any real way.

Professor Moriarty · 22-11-2017 05:33PM

Aegir wrote: »

it was Cameron's brain child that he came up with before the tories got in to power. what his objectives were though, other than to give supremacy to UK courts is pretty much unknown. It was the Blair/Brown governments that implemented a lot of the snooping charters and the extension of the detention without trial laws (which prompted the resignation of a certain David Davis), so I'm not sure if what they did was any sort of benchmark.

but they can't, by definition, be worse.

if you are having trouble keeping up, then let me remind you (again) what you said. It was:

you want to know where I am going? simple. The above post is completely wrong.

good for a few thanks, but alas, wrong.

My post wasn't wrong. But I'm not trawling thorough the thread to prove a meaningless point.

Let's be definitive here. How do you know that the Bill of Rights won't be worse? Do you know what the Tory policy is?

22-11-2017 05:42PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

My post wasn't wrong. But I'm not trawling thorough the thread to prove a meaningless point.

no need to trawl through the thread, i have quoted your post several times to demonstrate that it is wrong. Please just accept that.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's be definitive here. How do you know that the Bill of Rights won't be worse? Do you know what the Tory policy is?

the bill of rights can't be worse than the ECHR articles, because the UK is a member of the council of europe and as such, agrees to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

This, however, is a meaningless point because, at the moment, no legislation has been proposed, drafted or presented to parliament.

Professor Moriarty · 22-11-2017 05:47PM

Aegir wrote: »

no need to trawl through the thread, i have quoted your post several times to demonstrate that it is wrong. Please just accept that.

the bill of rights can't be worse than the ECHR articles, because the UK is a member of the council of europe and as such, agrees to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

This, however, is a meaningless point because, at the moment, no legislation has been proposed, drafted or presented to parliament.

Right. I'll leave it at that.

An Ciarraioch · 22-11-2017 06:03PM

Aegir wrote: »

no need to trawl through the thread, i have quoted your post several times to demonstrate that it is wrong. Please just accept that.

the bill of rights can't be worse than the ECHR articles, because the UK is a member of the council of europe and as such, agrees to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

This, however, is a meaningless point because, at the moment, no legislation has been proposed, drafted or presented to parliament.

Then why not just vote to enshrine the ECHR?

ancapailldorcha · 22-11-2017 06:14PM

Low quality posts deleted.

murphaph · 22-11-2017 06:20PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What makes you think northern Ireland wouldn't vote to remain in the EU? I would imagine more are convinced that leaving is suicide for them rather than less.
The connection to the UK fror unionists is an abstract thing, it doesn't exist in the physical world.
They only have to get over that hump. It wouldn't diminish their identity in any real way.

Most NI exports go to GB. That's reason enough to believe a vote to exit the UK common market would be a hard sell indeed. But I don't care personally. It would almost certainly be the lesser of 2 evils for the republic.

First Up · 22-11-2017 06:21PM

An Ciarraioch wrote:

Then why not just vote to enshrine the ECHR?

Because that would look like they were accepting instructions from evil Europe.

(I tried to put it more succinctly but the mod wouldn't let me.)

Professor Moriarty · 22-11-2017 06:26PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Then why not just vote to enshrine the ECHR?

Good question. The answer is because they intend to deviate from the ECHR and the Human Rights Act (once they have scrapped and replaced the act). This is verbatim from a Tory policy document. In particular, notice the pieces that I've highlighted in bold:

The key objectives of our new Bill are:
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium]• Repeal Labour’s Human Rights Act.
[/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium]Put the text of the original Human Rights Convention into primary legislation. [/FONT][/FONT]There is nothing wrong with that original document, which contains a sensible mix of checks and balances alongside the rights it sets out, and is a laudable statement of the principles for a modern democratic nation. We will not introduce new basic rights through this reform; our aim is restore common sense, and to tackle the misuse of the rights contained in the Convention.
[FONT=Open Sans,Open Sans][FONT=Open Sans,Open Sans]•
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium,Franklin Gothic Medium]Clarify the Convention rights, to reflect a proper balance between rights and responsibilities. [/FONT][/FONT]This will ensure that they are applied in accordance with the original intentions for the Convention and the mainstream understanding of these rights.

For instance:

We will set out a clearer test in how some of the inalienable rights apply to cases of deportation and other removal of persons from the United Kingdom. The ECtHR has ruled that if there is any ‘real risk’ (by no means even a likelihood) of a person being treated in a way contrary to these rights in the destination country, there is a bar on them being sent there, giving them in substance an absolute right to stay in the UK. Our new Bill will clarify what the test should be, in line with our commitment to prevent torture and in keeping with the approach taken by other developed nations.
The Convention recognises that people have civic responsibilities, and allows some of its rights to be restricted to uphold the rights and interests of other people. Our new Bill will clarify these limitations on individual rights in certain circumstances. So for example a foreign national who takes the life of another person will not be able to use a defence based on Article 8 to prevent the state deporting them after they have served their sentence.
Some terms used in the Convention rights would benefit from a more precise definition, such as ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, which has arguably been given an excessively broad meaning by the ECtHR in some rulings. For example in one case, the simple fact that an individual would have to live in a particular city in Somalia was deemed put him at real risk of degrading treatment.
It will not necessarily be possible to clarify every potential application of Convention rights in the new law. Parliament will consider the Convention rights set out in the law in all the legislation it passes.

[FONT=Futura,Futura]

[FONT=Futura,Futura]

[/FONT][/FONT]

22-11-2017 06:31PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Then why not just vote to enshrine the ECHR?

because the option isn't on the table. the EU Fundamental charter on Human Rights and the UK's adoption of the ECHR are two completely separate issues.

The EU charter essentially gives the final say to the ECJ, the ECHR to the European Court of Human Rights. The former is an EU body, the latter is an instrument of the Council or Europe. They are two completely separate entities.

blanch152 · 22-11-2017 07:13PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What makes you think northern Ireland wouldn't vote to remain in the EU? I would imagine more are convinced that leaving is suicide for them rather than less.
The connection to the UK fror unionists is an abstract thing, it doesn't exist in the physical world.
They only have to get over that hump. It wouldn't diminish their identity in any real way.

That is your opinion, and you are free to imaging that more are convinced so much that they will vote for a united Ireland.

Let's face it, the EU know that the UK won't give on Northern Ireland, they are using it as an excuse to force a hard Brexit and teach the UK a lesson, they can mollify Ireland with grants, telling us how hard they tried.

FrancieBrady · 22-11-2017 07:16PM

blanch152 wrote: »

That is your opinion, and you are free to imaging that more are convinced so much that they will vote for a united Ireland.

Let's face it, the EU know that the UK won't give on Northern Ireland, they are using it as an excuse to force a hard Brexit and teach the UK a lesson, they can mollify Ireland with grants, telling us how hard they tried.

So you have bought into the Laura Kuenssberg angle.

That the EU and Ireland are just throwing shapes. Ok.

blanch152 · 22-11-2017 07:22PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you have bought into the Laura Kuenssberg angle.

That the EU and Ireland are just throwing shapes. Ok.

No. Ireland aren't throwing shapes, it is genuine from Leo. I do think he is being particularly vocal in order to put pressure on the EU, but when it comes to it, the EU won't die in the ditch for Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable.

If you look at your view of the UK that Northern Ireland is a small and insignificant part of it and that mainland UK doesn't really care, well apply that analogy to the EU where Ireland is even smaller and even more insignificant and then you will understand where I am coming from.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

22-11-2017 07:27PM

blanch152 wrote: »

No. Ireland aren't throwing shapes, it is genuine from Leo. I do think he is being particularly vocal in order to put pressure on the EU, but when it comes to it, the EU won't die in the ditch for Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable.

If you look at your view of the UK that Northern Ireland is a small and insignificant part of it and that mainland UK doesn't really care, well apply that analogy to the EU where Ireland is even smaller and even more insignificant and then you will understand where I am coming from.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

there could also be a "OK Leo, we will work with you on this, but you need to make Apple cough up and tighten up your tax rules".

mickoneill31 · 22-11-2017 07:33PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is that the EU has to get the best possible deal for the EU members.
That means not doing the UK any favours to the detriment of the EU, which to some equals "teaching the UK a lesson".
It's almost funny that the UK is now whinging about the EU protecting itself. That's it's job. The UK had the same benefits before it voted for Brexit and it had a huge role in creating most of the laws that they moaned about.

What should the EU do differently about Northern Ireland? The UK have said they don't want a border but will come up with magical imaginative solutions on how they can have that cake and eat it. So far their solutions haven't been imaginative and we're heading towards a solution which was obvious from day one.

Samaris · 22-11-2017 07:46PM

blanch152 wrote: »

No. Ireland aren't throwing shapes, it is genuine from Leo. I do think he is being particularly vocal in order to put pressure on the EU, but when it comes to it, the EU won't die in the ditch for Ireland, and that is perfectly understandable.

If you look at your view of the UK that Northern Ireland is a small and insignificant part of it and that mainland UK doesn't really care, well apply that analogy to the EU where Ireland is even smaller and even more insignificant and then you will understand where I am coming from.

The most important thing from Brexit from an EU perspective is to teach the UK a lesson so nobody follows them out.

Except it isn't - to any of it. Bar perhaps the amount of a damn the UK has been showing for Northern Ireland so far.

The EU has this as a red line because a) it severely impacts a member state, which is indeed a full member state with all rights and protections of being a member of the EU and b) because the EU as a group was involved in the Good Friday Agreement as a co-guarentor of sorts and it is a duty to uphold that as far as possible. It is in no-one's interest for a return to the Troubles, and the 27 remaining countries are well aware of that.

The EU is not going to be nice on the UK, because to the UK, being nice would be being actively detrimental to the EU for the sake of the UK. There is absolutely no reason to do so. However, nothing so far has been malicious against the UK, bar a very mild snark from Barnier there a few days ago that Brexit does indeed mean Brexit and so the European institutions are leaving.

The bill has been phrased as getting the UK to start paying attention to what they signed up for and to come up with a method of calculating what they owe towards commitments made by the UK.

The citizens rights has been a reciprocal thing, protecting both UK and EU citizens.

The border is intractable, but that is because the border situation is intractable. That the EU don't feel particularly inclined to do all the work for the UK (and have made a very unusual offer as is) is hardly unreasonable.

In fact, all three positions have been reasonable so far. That the UK press has been ranting and raving like a set of toddlers and that the Tory government is deeply divided with a weak prime minister and cannot get anything done is neither here nor there.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments