Brexit discussion thread II

flaneur · 28-11-2017 01:38PM

My view of it at this stage is the UK doesn’t give a hoot about us and it’s everyone for themselves, so we should just go in aggressively after as many Brexit fleeing businesses as we can possibly convince to move here.

There are predictions of up to 50,000 job losses here and it’s likely to be as as bad or worse in the north. So we are going to have to do something. There’s a hell of a lot of people’s livelihoods hanging in the balance over something we did not in anyway cause.

Peregrinus · 28-11-2017 01:43PM

flaneur wrote: »

But a vocal minority representing a particularly extreme version of unionism hold all the power in Westminster and will absolutely not budge.

But they won't hold it for very long. If we have to, it makes sense for us to hold out until the situation changes.

Leroy42 · 28-11-2017 01:59PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they won't hold it for very long. If we have to, it makes sense for us to hold out until the situation changes.

I'm not sure about that. I think their thinking is that the UK will cover any possible loses and as such there really isn't a cost.

The question will be if the mainland voters are willing to put up with that. However, May successfully gave them an additional £1bn without much blowback

Akrasia · 28-11-2017 02:03PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This isn't true. It simply isn't possible to guarantee a border until you can guarantee the free flow of goods over that border. This requires both parties to guarantee that.

What?
Borders have existed for thousands of years that are sealed to free trade. Do you think South Korea does much trading with North Korea?

Free trade across borders is rare, and only happens when there are extensive arrangements and treaties in place.

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2017 02:04PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I still think the pressure is in the wrong place

This is the very definition of wishful thinking.

Akrasia · 28-11-2017 02:06PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's a bluff at best. The UK cannot afford to exit with no deal.

But if that is the UK's real position, we choose no deal. The next UK government (possibly of a smaller UK) will be more reasonable.

Yep. We might lose trade with the UK in the short term, but we still have 250 million other potential customers in the EU. If the UK leave with no deal, they're on their own, reliant on imported food, defaulted to extremely restrictive WTO rules and with aviation and financial services on their knees.

Peregrinus · 28-11-2017 02:07PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. I think their thinking is that the UK will cover any possible loses and as such there really isn't a cost.

The question will be if the mainland voters are willing to put up with that. However, May successfully gave them an additional £1bn without much blowback

My point is that the DUP's leverage at Westminster is unlikely to survive the next election. If there's no EU/UK trade deal because the present UK government is hamstrung by the DUP and is unable to make the moves needed to enable a open borders , the next UK government (of either party) is unlikely to be similarly hamstrung. Therefore even if the UK government won't move to facilitate open borders now, the next UK government may have more room for rational self-interested manouevre. It's in our interests to wait for better times rather than to give up.

murphaph · 28-11-2017 02:33PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Again this position doesn't quite make sense. The UK has made it very clear that it wants an open border and has provided several lines of discussion that could achieve that in the August paper.

It is the EU that is adamant that trade and customs and in turn the final state of the border can't be discussed.

The idea that the veto will lead to single market and customs union membership or a sea border is a misplaced one. I can't see that happening. I also can't see it leading to an election.

The UK have compromised several times in this process. I don't support them compromising on Single Market and Customs Union membership as it would stop the UK Government delivering the logical outcomes of the referendum.

I still think the pressure is in the wrong place and that the Irish Government are being foolish here. They won't get what they want here.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nobody will get what they want except Putin.

Sam Russell · 28-11-2017 02:38PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. I think their thinking is that the UK will cover any possible loses and as such there really isn't a cost.

The question will be if the mainland voters are willing to put up with that. However, May successfully gave them an additional £1bn without much blowback

The only problem is that the £1bn has yet to arrive, and that there is no Assembly to spend it. Great deal.

murphaph · 28-11-2017 02:43PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only problem is that the £1bn has yet to arrive, and that there is no Assembly to spend it. Great deal.

The biblical DUP got their 40 pieces of silver as an IOU that will never materialise.

I agree that we can maintain this pressure with our EU partners until the British government collapses and we can talk business with a new government without the DUP blocking the sea border idea.

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2017 03:18PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Should Ireland not just start planning for that now.

Don't worry, Irish officials already have plans. Leo told them to shut up about them as they were well ahead of where the UK have admitted the position is, and we don't want to be giving them ideas, but the plans are drawn up.

Sam Russell · 28-11-2017 05:12PM

I think we should see a bit of UK movement over the next week as the tabloids have been diverted by a much more important story.

steddyeddy · 28-11-2017 06:26PM

flaneur wrote: »

But a vocal minority representing a particularly extreme version of unionism hold all the power in Westminster and will absolutely not budge.

That's the problem. People over here (England) have been telling me they thought that Arlene Foster represents Northern Ireland. Even better is the fact that when I go to the states they think Arelene Foster is representative of Britain's wishes.

solodeogloria · 28-11-2017 07:14PM

Good evening!

The Telegraph have an article claiming the EU and the UK have agreed on the money issue.

Not anywhere else yet. Claimed ballpark is €45-55bn. Admittedly too much for my liking if true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy · 28-11-2017 07:20PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The Telegraph have an article claiming the EU and the UK have agreed on the money issue.

Not anywhere else yet. Claimed ballpark is €45-55bn. Admittedly too much for my liking if true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Ha 60 billion according to the Telegraph there. Finally the penny drops that they're the small fish in the negotiation.

solodeogloria · 28-11-2017 07:22PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ha 60 billion according to the Telegraph there. Finally the penny drops that they're the small fish in the negotiation.

Good evening!

Further down it shows that the agreed range is €45-55bn. You'd need an account to see that though due to the pay wall.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

kowtow · 28-11-2017 07:24PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The Telegraph have an article claiming the EU and the UK have agreed on the money issue.

Not anywhere else yet. Claimed ballpark is €45-55bn. Admittedly too much for my liking if true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Still, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

So they obviously feel they'll be getting something worthwhile in return.

Calina · 28-11-2017 07:29PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Further down it shows that the agreed range is €45-55bn. You'd need an account to see that though due to the pay wall.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If you read further down, you'll find they agreed a methodology, not a sum.

Here's the money quote on that:

The Telegraph understands that the final figure, which is deliberately being left open to interpretation, will be between €45bn and €55bn, depending on how each side calculates the output from an agreed methodology.

This methodology is something which I'm pretty sure we pointed out to you was what had to be agreed, not a random sum.

From here, it looks as though the UK is starting to deal with reality.

solodeogloria · 28-11-2017 07:54PM

Calina wrote: »

If you read further down, you'll find they agreed a methodology, not a sum.

Here's the money quote on that:

This methodology is something which I'm pretty sure we pointed out to you was what had to be agreed, not a random sum.

From here, it looks as though the UK is starting to deal with reality.

Good evening!

All is yet to be confirmed but the article gives a range of where it will come to. That's what we've got for now.

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina · 28-11-2017 08:00PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

All is yet to be confirmed but the article gives a range of where it will come to. That's what we've got for now.

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What matters is they agreed a methodology. Per my last post. I'd point out that what the UK actually winds up having to pay will vary for them because the sum is expressed in euros and sterling has been floating a bit.

Sam Russell · 28-11-2017 08:00PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

All is yet to be confirmed but the article gives a range of where it will come to. That's what we've got for now.

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU were not looking for a particular sum but a methodology to calculate that sum. Since the methodology has not been published (yet) we can only guess at what the final bill will be. Also, it depends on the payment schedule, and if they have agreed that the sum is due - deal or no deal.

So, it just leaves the Citizen's rights and the Irish border. Now that Leo can concentrate on both, we shall see a shift in the British position - perhaps to off-shore.

We await developments.

solodeogloria · 28-11-2017 08:01PM

Calina wrote: »

What matters is they agreed a methodology. Per my last post. I'd point out that what the UK actually winds up having to pay will vary for them because the sum is expressed in euros and sterling has been floating a bit.

Good evening!

My post and the article express the sum in Euro. I'm fully aware of currency risk.

Let's wait to see the details. I definitely can't see it above the top threshold.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Igotadose · 28-11-2017 08:02PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

All is yet to be confirmed but the article gives a range of where it will come to. That's what we've got for now.

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Whatever the amount was, it finally does seem like there's some tangible progress. IMO 60bn should be 'chump change' to the UK with an annual revenue of about 750 billion sterling. They don't leave the EU too often, and heck, there's that 350million/week they'll get back for the NHS (/sarcasm).

More momentous is that they've actually done something. The first easy issue is done - a process for determining the divorce bill now exists. Now the harder issues need progress - NI and the border, and EU Citizens rights.

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2017 08:15PM

Calina wrote: »

From here, it looks as though the UK is starting to deal with reality.

Perhaps the statements that there will be no Phase 2 until progres is made on Phase 1 have sunk in.

Or perhaps they are using Royal Wedding cover to release unpopular news which they knew would have to come out eventually.

Leonard Hofstadter · 28-11-2017 08:17PM

This is obviously a welcome development. Still not enough for us to give the green light though... Now that there's not going to be an election our negotiating leverage has increased and we need to let Varadkar and Coveney get back to making sure there's no change to the border and look after our interests... something they were doing very well before the recent nonsense with the Tánaiste blew up.

solodeogloria · 28-11-2017 08:17PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU were not looking for a particular sum but a methodology to calculate that sum. Since the methodology has not been published (yet) we can only guess at what the final bill will be. Also, it depends on the payment schedule, and if they have agreed that the sum is due - deal or no deal.

So, it just leaves the Citizen's rights and the Irish border. Now that Leo can concentrate on both, we shall see a shift in the British position - perhaps to off-shore.

We await developments.

Good evening!

We certainly do. I personally suspect a fudge is on the horizon. I still don't believe they will move on the sea border with the DUP in confidence and supply.

Citizens rights is broadly consistent. Again, I can't see her getting away with ECJ direct oversight.

Interesting times ahead.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42 · 28-11-2017 08:28PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

€55bn at a max is definitely too much but it's better than some of the other ludicrous numbers we've seen.

What is your assertion that it is definitely too much based on? Have they released the methodology?

An Ciarraioch · 28-11-2017 08:30PM

captainspeed wrote: »

This is obviously a welcome development. Still not enough for us to give the green light though... Now that there's not going to be an election our negotiating leverage has increased and we need to let Varadkar and Coveney get back to making sure there's no change to the border and look after our interests... something they were doing very well before the recent nonsense with the Tánaiste blew up.

And Gavan Reilly reports that there appears to be broad agreement on the ultimate citizens' rights deal, so we now firmly hold the whip hand on both the Border and phase two.

https://mobile.twitter.com/gavreilly/status/935571691153121280

kowtow · 28-11-2017 08:40PM

My guess is that they will end up with a fudge which guarantees no regulatory divergence in NI until such time as a mutually acceptable electronic whole Island border thingy is implemented. They'll aim to use the transition period to do much of the work for this. They'll offer a bit of cash to Ireland to help in the planning and we'll jump.

The alternative is we hold up the talks (which even if right, doesn't help us much) and they drive home the message that they have never had any intention of putting a border up and Ireland and the EU obviously want to.

Once the rest of the 27 have a sniff of the money the pressure will be on from a lot of directions.

Then on with the second phase where the EU go for the same amount of money again in return for financial services pass porting rights. In many ways that's where things get interesting.

Nody · 28-11-2017 08:40PM

Sadly citizen rights and the bill are the easier of the two even though the bill amount could be political dynamite. I think if the bill is agreed to be paid over a longer time (let's say 8 billion 2019, 2020 and then taper off to cover the longer term items at a billion a year or similar) I think it can be sold in easily enough though. Then we're down to the border and that's the interesting one due to May's weak position with DUP playing the king maker; honestly not sure how that can be resolved (I'm sure May would happily sell out NI for a good trade deal if she did not have to rely on them to stay in power). Even if she gets Labour to support that specific bill she'd be dead in the water afterwards.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments