nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bit cynical

Econ_ wrote: »

The government is incompetent but not completely stupid - most would know that no deal would wreck their reputation and career. In other words they are likely to agree to just about anything to avoid it.

Theresa May probably want a deal. Others like John Redwood want a clean break from the EU and its institutions. The EU's hard line suits Redwood's agenda.

An Ciarraioch

Nissan to cut hundreds of jobs in Sunderland - the same plant where May met the executives during the election campaign last year:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/20/nissan-to-cut-hundreds-of-jobs-at-sunderland-plant

An Ciarraioch

Won't have any impact on the general Brexit dynamic, but still interesting to note the decision today of the Welsh First Minister to resign:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/21/carwyn-jones-to-step-down-as-first-minister-of-wales

CelticRambler

John Redwood was on RTE at lunchtime spouting the same old nonsense "we won't be putting up a border ... technology will solve any problems ... the EU needs us more than we need them". They brought in a professor of (?)international law to talk about the implications of a country not establishing its own border controls when trading under WTO rules, but his contribution was a bit too high-brow and technical to be useful as a counter-argument to Redwood's airyfairyness.

As the road to Brexit runs out, I get the impression that contributors to this kind of discussion have got to the point where they just don't see the point of trying to contradict the disillusions of the Leave spokespeople. In any case, the latter definitely overestimate how much we continentals care about Brexit. Were it not for the fact that I'm Irish and read boards.ie, I wouldn't hear anything about it from one summit meeting to the next. As far as the French are concerned, Brexit has already happened; it's not news any more; and I imagine the rest of the EU - other than Ireland - has pretty much the same attitude.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think the Brexit bubble will "burst" as predicted by some, but will "deflate" slowly over several years, leaving just a sticky mess that takes ages to clear up. The sportswear manufacturer, cited earlier, is a good example of how things will start but this is obviously a cherry-picked case: a small business with a very significant EU market, and an owner who has made an effort to understand the implications of leaving the EU.

But beyond that, what will be the direct effect on restaurants, high-street retailers, public service employers, the construction industry, the tourist industry, etc? The employees of these businesses, catering to primarily to the British in Britain, are not going to be hit immediately by price rises or sudden shortages of stock, even if they're wrapped up in whatever mess of a transitional arrangement comes into effect.

It'll be the insidious damage of businesses - like the sportsware manufacturer - realising that the sums don't add up any more and either move staff and production (back) to the EU or just close down, that will slowly drain the economy of its vitality, and lead to the infamous lost decade. Such a slow rate of decay will be very hard to pin directly on Brexit, making it difficult to argue in favour of re-joining the EU, unless and until there's a huge gulf between the UK and the rest of the continent.

I'm fairly confident we'll see a United Ireland (as a result of Brexit) before we see England back in the EU.

CrabRevolution

The Irish media have been pretty good on the Brexit situation I've found. The whole inferiority complex thing is mostly gone.

As with our politicians, for years there was a fear of even being seen to have a negative opinion of something the UK was doing. All the talk had to be about how they're our best friends and all in this together. If you didn't follow this narrative, you risked being associated with Sinn Féin, or going further back, the IRA.

The UK knew this too, and if a Taoiseach wasn't cooperating with them, their press and politicians weren't averse to insinuating the Taoiseach was backing Sinn Féin and/or the IRA.

The EU helped the "the UK is not to be criticised" idea, as now we were in the same club, had closely integrated economies, no border checks etc. It made it easier to say we're all on the same page.

But now that brexit is here and is going to be a total disaster for Ireland, the shackles are off and our politicians and journalists are free to call the UKs actions out for what they are.

Brexit has cleaved the connection between standing up for Ireland and militant republicanism. There is now nothing to lose for any politician or journalist who criticises such terrible decisions by the UK government.

If anything it has greatly helped Varadkar and FGs standing in Ireland that they're taking what would traditionally be a dangerously "republican" line and not rolling over for the UK. When various British press and politicians dusted off the old "The Irish government is obviously acting under the orders of Sinn Féin" line hoping to spook them and get a reaction, it was instead greeted with derision in Ireland.

Hurrache

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Newstalk and RtÉ either don't challenge, criticise or ask pertinent questions of Brexiteers

They very much do, there's regularly testy debates across the afternoon shows on both channels, Kenny always very critical of them. As I said a few posts ago, his regular spots with Edwina Curry a case in point.

Suggesting it's because of an inferiority complex is a bizzare comment to make.

An Claidheamh

Econ_ wrote: »

The government is incompetent but not completely stupid - most would know that no deal would wreck their reputation and career. In other words they are likely to agree to just about anything to avoid it.

Secondly, the point I actually made in my post which you failed to rebut, is that even in the very unlikely event that the government does end up wilfully leading the country into a no deal in March 2019 - Parliament can force the government to take another path.

So in reality, when you actually examine what needs to happen for a no deal in March 2019 to occur - the prospect is remote.

If the interviewer knew his stuff - he would have put it to him that the UK would be legally required under WTO rules to apply a hard border if NI were to have different customs arrangements. He would have also have challenged the notion that the US-Canada border is largely frictionless - bull****.

Never invite a Brexiteer on unless you know your stuff - they are very skilful liars and Jenkins took that interviewer to the cleaners there quite frankly.

Yesterday people texted into newstalk to give out to Ivan Yates about his interview with that lady, that he did not challenge her nonsense at all.

Newstalk and RtÉ either don't challenge, criticise or ask pertinent questions of Brexiteers out of fear they won’t come on again, incompetence or more likely an inferiority complex.

O'Rourke with Adam Boulton was poor aswell.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course it is but had Cameron that sort of foresight we wouldn't be in this mess.

No gifs in the politics forum, but I wish there was an exception here where I could post him whistling whilst walking away from the job. It's just spot on.

Nody

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Guardian assess the negotiations and conclude that the only logical endgame is the UK remaining in some form of customs union:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/20/guardian-view-brexit-irish-border-alchemy-fails

The CU is not enough because:

EU Referendum blog wrote:

Article 26(2) gives them the definition of the "internal market" (aka Single Market), which "shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties".

Hence joining a CU is not same as what is contractually required for NI which is a frictionless border; to be part of the Single Market UK has to be part of EU and accept the four freedoms which is why a CU is not enough (Turkey is a CU and that's not frictionless by any imagination). That is why I keep saying that UK will not sign the papers or get an extension and end up with an accidental crash out. And no the parliament will not be able to change that because the Government will not call a new election and between Tory, DUP and Labour brexiteers there is not going to be enough support to magically push through a cancellation of article 50; even if they somehow did the Tories can simply keep stalling long enough (remember those 66 Tory MPs who are all for brexit) to stop it. Now if even that somehow would be overcome by a sudden metric ton of reality checks suddenly happening out of the blue we'd still face the issue that not only would people scream about democracy not followed etc. but the core issue of the decades of lies and the "paradise of free trade and streets of milk and honey without brown people" would still be in play ensuring a new brexit vote would happen and we'd start it all over again.

On a separate note I highly recommend this blog post which clearly goes through how wrong the whole UK press and establishment has got the whole point on the CU etc. and why the likely answer is a crash out at this stage.

An Ciarraioch

The Guardian assess the negotiations and conclude that the only logical endgame is the UK remaining in some form of customs union:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/20/guardian-view-brexit-irish-border-alchemy-fails

Econ_

Sand wrote: »

There is a very real prospect of the UK crashing out. The UK ruling class is utterly complacent, even now, 5 months to the realistic deadline, with no practical solution to the Irish border. Which they wilfully ignored until 4 months ago.

If they don't find a solution by erasing some of their red lines, there is no deal and there is no transition period to 2021. There is a brutal, sharp Brexit which only the most fanatical and savage ideologues could wish for.

The government is incompetent but not completely stupid - most would know that no deal would wreck their reputation and career. In other words they are likely to agree to just about anything to avoid it.

Secondly, the point I actually made in my post which you failed to rebut, is that even in the very unlikely event that the government does end up wilfully leading the country into a no deal in March 2019 - Parliament can force the government to take another path.

So in reality, when you actually examine what needs to happen for a no deal in March 2019 to occur - the prospect is remote.

Hurrache wrote: »

She's been pushing that line of a soft border, easily managed, with no issues around it for quite some time now on Pat Kenny. That debate gets quite fractious at times.

And there was a guy on News at 1, missed the start so didn't catch who it was, getting very annoyed at the suggestion at a hard border saying if there are customs posts it won't be the British putting them there.

Edit, Bernard Jenkin it was
https://twitter.com/RTENewsAtOne/status/987300796101484545?s=19

https://twitter.com/bernardjenkin/status/987316849493803008?s=19

If the interviewer knew his stuff - he would have put it to him that the UK would be legally required under WTO rules to apply a hard border if NI were to have different customs arrangements. He would have also have challenged the notion that the US-Canada border is largely frictionless - bull****.

Never invite a Brexiteer on unless you know your stuff - they are very skilful liars and Jenkins took that interviewer to the cleaners there quite frankly.

Hurrache

She's been pushing that line of a soft border, easily managed, with no issues around it for quite some time now on Pat Kenny. That debate gets quite fractious at times.

And there was a guy on News at 1, missed the start so didn't catch who it was, getting very annoyed at the suggestion at a hard border saying if there are customs posts it won't be the British putting them there.

Edit, Bernard Jenkin it was
https://twitter.com/RTENewsAtOne/status/987300796101484545?s=19

https://twitter.com/bernardjenkin/status/987316849493803008?s=19

Capt'n Midnight

EdgeCase wrote: »

Well, considering that there was a called on LBC suggesting that we either re-join the UK or face a prospect of being compulsorily microchipped, there are definitely a few very hardliners out there...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-microchipping-irish-border-brexit/

I'm just posting this as a bit of an illustration of the level of incredibly ill-informed debate that's going on in certain circles.

Edwina Currie was on Newstalk earlier going on about how the border could be solved by registering companies and doing spot checks on the odd white van. And using CCTV and facial recognition of vehicle occupants and stuff.

I've posted before about how gross fuel imports in to NI fell by IIRC 40% because so much was smuggled / laundered. That's an industrial scale that couldn't be done with white vans.

She also went on about being able to sell the magic frictionless border technology elsewhere. See any of my posts about UK IT projects to see how likely I think anything like that will be on-time, on-budget. Here's a clue - we still don't know the terms so the goal posts and specs are still moving.

There's a lot of people , at best , believing each others lies.

EdgeCase

Well, considering that there was a called on LBC suggesting that we either re-join the UK or face a prospect of being compulsorily microchipped, there are definitely a few very hardliners out there...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-microchipping-irish-border-brexit/

I'm just posting this as a bit of an illustration of the level of incredibly ill-informed debate that's going on in certain circles.

Sand

Econ_ wrote: »

By the way, I don’t think there’s any real prospect of the U.K. crashing out. I don’t think parliament will let it happen

There is a very real prospect of the UK crashing out. The UK ruling class is utterly complacent, even now, 5 months to the realistic deadline, with no practical solution to the Irish border. Which they wilfully ignored until 4 months ago.

If they don't find a solution by erasing some of their red lines, there is no deal and there is no transition period to 2021. There is a brutal, sharp Brexit which only the most fanatical and savage ideologues could wish for.

Capt'n Midnight

Not news unless you live in the UK , rinse and repeat.

Why Brussels seems relaxed about the end game

"Besides which," he added with a glint in his eye, "we know the Brexit drill by now.

"The UK makes a fuss, tells us things are unacceptable - like the financial settlement (the so-called Brexit bill), and like allowing EU citizens the right to stay permanently in the UK, even if they only move there in the transition period after Brexit - but the British Government gives in, in the end. Even if they dress up the fact to make it more acceptable at home."

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why create the red lines in the 1st place? Surely setting out the stall from the very start on such a basis was asking for trouble?

What other negotiations do people enter with such closed minds, and publicly touting them as well.

It wasn't setting out their stall that was asking for trouble it was setting out a stall of mutually exclusive issues that was asking for trouble.

sink

Brexit is 'The Emperor's New Clothes' manifest.

Econ_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Absolutely stunning. I was actually shocked scrolling across on press reader when the tone changed to opinion / editorial comment with no forewarning.

The particular journalist that reported the story, Peter Foster, is a bit of an outlier in the Telegraph in the sense that he's slightly more willing to speak his mind.

I listened to the Telegraph's Brexit podcast last week and he was on it. While I wouldn't say he rocked the pro-Brexit boat, he had a less than enthusiastic tone about the whole process and certainly wasn't afraid to criticise the government. He wanted to talk about the insurmountable realities while the others preferred to talk around them so as not to confront the obvious - that Brexit is a load of Bollocks.

But apparently most journalists at Pro-Brexit newspapers don't believe in Brexit. See this from the FT.

A colleague at one big Brexit-supporting newspaper told me “95 per cent” of its journalists oppose Brexit. Another friend puts the figure at his pro-Brexit paper at “80 to 90 per cent”. He tries to switch his mind off Brexit. At least Remoaners like me believe the stuff we write, pointless as it is.

https://www.ft.com/content/2ceb393e-3213-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22f03?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

James O'Brien, who is a very well connected journalist, backs this up.

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/980008320588185600

The right wing press in Britain is literally a Brexit propaganda machine. There will be investigations in years to come as to how this was allowed to happen.

Sam Russell

The whole Telegraph story has be denied by the EU and by the Irish Gov - fake news.

LuckyLloyd

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. It's very striking that the article so openly blends reportage of an exclusive story, and editorial comment on its implications - and that in a page 1 lead. In the good old days a newspaper with pretensions to quality like the Telegraph was careful to distinguish factual news reportage from the opinions of a columnist, or even the opinions of the editor. Mixing them like this is extraordinary.

Absolutely stunning. I was actually shocked scrolling across on press reader when the tone changed to opinion / editorial comment with no forewarning.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why create the red lines in the 1st place? Surely setting out the stall from the very start on such a basis was asking for trouble?

What other negotiations do people enter with such closed minds, and publicly touting them as well.

Of course it is but had Cameron that sort of foresight we wouldn't be in this mess.

Capt'n Midnight

https://twitter.com/seanwhelanRTE/status/987268183005519872/photo/1

Shipping and ports here are are preparing for Brexit. As the infrastructure comes it will mean less traffic through the UK.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0420/955953-dublin-port/

The MV Celine is the world's largest short sea Ro-Ro ship and will transport freight between Dublin and the continent.

The vessel is 235m long and has a capacity of 8km.

Such is the scale of the ship it would not have been able to dock in Dublin prior to the completion of recent expansion works.

...
He also said Dublin Port will build the necessary custom posts and inspection facilities at the port to allow for customs checks in the event of a hard border.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Barnier has already signalled that the Single Market is still open until 2020, all they have to do is change their minds.

But the extended time to 2020 is assuming that they sign the agreement in the first place; if they refuse to sign the existing document on the phase 1 discussion (including the NI remaining in alignment etc. which is the major issue there which they have not agreed to how it is documented today) there is no extension to 2020. Hence the actual deadline is coming up in October for the dotted line to be signed (anything after October is unlikely to be ratified in time); if not it's a hard crash out come March 30th 2019.

Leroy42

So why create the red lines in the 1st place? Surely setting out the stall from the very start on such a basis was asking for trouble?

What other negotiations do people enter with such closed minds, and publicly touting them as well.

ancapailldorcha

EdgeCase wrote: »

Sadly, there's no real evidence of any strategy from the UK on this.

The strategy to me seems to be trying to find the best way to reconcile the desires of Leave voters with those of the British economy. The problem is that Leave voters didn't actually vote FOR anything, just to leave the EU with no mandate whatsoever for any one set of terms. The result is a government trying to get the best access to the single market possible which will be objectively inferior to the status quo while keeping within the red lines. As if this weren't enough, there's also the border issue in Northern Ireland which is nowhere close to being resolved while the Conservatives continue to achieve nothing tangible.

Professor Moriarty

EdgeCase wrote: »

To be honest, I think that's just someone desperately trying to find a cunning plan that isn't there and hoping that it really can't be as ridiculous as it looks.

Sadly, there's no real evidence of any strategy from the UK on this.

No, there's never been a strategy. Not least because Leave was never meant to win. This strategy is damage limitation. It's intended to promote the idea that 'We tried our best but the dastardly EU wouldn't play ball so our hands are tied.'

EdgeCase

To be honest, I think that's just someone desperately trying to find a cunning plan that isn't there and hoping that it really can't be as ridiculous as it looks.

Sadly, there's no real evidence of any strategy from the UK on this.

Professor Moriarty

EdgeCase wrote: »

What's worrying me is that there's very little evidence of any progress at all.

It's like:

1 UK presents cherry picking list.
2 EU says no cherry picking!
3 UK re-spins cherrypicking as 'managed divergence' or something equally ridiculous.
4 Go to step 1.
(repeat until you feel queasy or bang your head off the desk.)

Interesting thought on that in The Guardian. May & Co are deliberately putting forward suggestions that they know will be shot down by the EU. This will eventually allow her to tell the cabinet that they have only two options, a soft or hard Brexit as the EU won't countenance anything else. Makes sense when you think how, in the past week, The Telegraph has been floating the idea that a customs union might be inevitable.

Econ_

ambro25 wrote: »

They do not have that power or prerogative. That is solely the EU’s.
That one is allegedly more do-able, but only through the EU sanctioning the requisite fudge. So again the EU owns the balance of power.

May effectively stripped Parliament of powers in relation to Brexit by default, when she deposited the Art.50 notification: from that point forward, the EU was always going to have the advantage no matter what, even if all it did was simply wait out the clock, because Parliament does not have jurisdiction over the TEU and it’s effects.

This is why all the noises about a Parliament vote against a government-negotiated deal restoring the situation to status quo ante (U.K. back in EU by default) weren’t worth entertaining or engaging about, and still aren’t, no matter what journos and politicos may proclaim: a Parliament vote against that deal, means an exit in March 2019 without any deal, ie a hard Brexit, if there is insufficient time to tweak the deal and re-vote.

By October 2018, that is, to ensure it is also voted by all the other democratic representative assemblies in the EU (which thus have, effectively, just as much power as Parliament in that respect) in good time by March 2019.

All the above long-known to longtime thread followers, but worth reiterating as a refresher.

If you listen to people close to parliament that actually know what they’re talking about they’ll tell you that if the deal is voted down by parliament - there is no way that’ll be an automatic no deal, despite whatever the government says before hand. The institute for government did a report on the scenario and interviewed Tory MP Dominic Grieve (a guy who knows what he’s taking about - it was his amendment that secured parliament having a vote on the deal) and he is adamant that the govt is talking complete nonsense on this. Amendments can be made and the govts hands could be forced at multiple stages around October.

I agree that of course the EU hold the balance of power as they’d have to agree to pause article 50 - but if you listen to certain people who have discussions with Barnier and officials in Brussels, they will tell you (Nick Clegg - worked with the EU commission) that it is highly likely the EU would accommodate such a situation.