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

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/rees-mogg-urges-may-to-call-ireland-s-bluff-on-border-1.3530989?mode=amp&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

To paraphrase Dirty Harry go ahead JRM make our day

He obviously doesn't realise how stupid his whole position is. If they crash out and think they can just ignore the border they could find themselves outright blockaded from Europe as all ports and airports would be closed off to anything from Britain as well as the unwanted situation that could quickly develop in NI if thing's go tits up.

Honestly I wish that eejit would get his own comeuppance he's a hypocrite.

Enzokk

Bigus wrote: »

I think we're gone from cakeism to a Tommy Cooper magic trick.

From the telegraph

Theresa May poised to give NHS £4bn-a-year boost funded by Brexit dividend, borrowing and income tax

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/14/theresa-may-poised-give-nhs-4bn-a-year-boost-funded-brexit-dividend/

Interesting, for me it is clear that Theresa May sees Boris Johnson as her biggest risk to staying in Downing Street. Why else would she put up with him through all that he has done? Usually just one of those things would get you the door, yet he is still there.

Now she had adopted his own slogan from Brexit when the funds will not come from a Brexit dividend. They will find somewhere else to fund this, maybe some Labour councils will see even less money from the Treasury to help keep her in her job for another week/month/year.

[Deleted User]

Can someone tell me what type of Brexit would be required for the UK to not end up on WTO terms with literally every country and bloc in the world?

I presume the deals that the EU makes are based on the Single Market, not the Customs Union. And therefore, it's just impossible that without complete reversal, they go to WHO on day one?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone tell me what type of Brexit would be required for the UK to not end up on WTO terms with literally every country and bloc in the world?

I presume the deals that the EU makes are based on the Single Market, not the Customs Union. And therefore, it's just impossible that without complete reversal, they go to WHO on day one?

The answer depends on whether there is a Withdrawal Agreement of a No-Deal Brexit

If they do succeed in cobbling together a Withdrawal Agreement, the EU has agreed that it will notify third countries with whom they have trade deals that, during the transitional period, the UK will continue to participate in both the Single Market and the Customs Union. The hope/expectation is that those third countries will then treat the UK as still being covered by the trade deal. Of course, there can be no guarantee that they will; that's up to them. But, fingers crossed.

So, all going well, the UK will remain covered by the EU trade deals with third countries until the end of the transitional period, currently projected to be 31 December 2020.

During this period they will of course trade on WTO terms with countries with which the EU does not have trade deals. But, of course, they do already, so n o change there.

Also during this period, they'll try to negotiate their own trade deals, to commence (if agreed by then) on 1 January 2021. To the extent that they don't succeed in doing this, they'll be trading on WTO terms.

If there's a No-Deal Brexit:

UK trades on WTO terms with the entire world from 30 March 2019.

They can move as fast as they like to try to make trade deals with any or all countries or trade blocks. Obviously, they'll move faster by conceding more, so that's a trade-off they'll have to make.

They'll also want to avoid making little trade deals on terms that might subsequently impede efforts to make much more important trade deals with more significant partners. There might be symbolic signficance in making a quick trade deal with Teapotistan, but they won't want that deal to include terms that would stuff up a potential trade deal with the US or the EU (even though, in a No-Deal Scenario, a UK-EU trade deal would be a remote prospect, it would still be an important one.)

[Deleted User]

Thanks, Peregrinus.

That puts a lot of the noise I've been hearing over the last couple of weeks into context. I've been busy and haven't been able to get a proper handle on it.

Peregrinus

Sh1t gets real!

BREXIT MAY CAUSE A GIN SHORTAGE, EXPERTS WARN

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

31 December 2020.

Also during this period, they'll try to negotiate their own trade deals, to commence (if agreed by then) on 1 January 2021. To the extent that they don't succeed in doing this, they'll be trading on WTO terms.

Just to note that even in this best case scenario, there is no real possibility of them doing even one important trade deal in 2 years flat, so it'll be WTO terms anyhow.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Just to note that even in this best case scenario, there is no real possibility of them doing even one important trade deal in 2 years flat, so it'll be WTO terms anyhow.

Basically, yes, I agree.

There's a possibility that they might be able to put together some kind of interim roll-over deal with some of the countries with whom they have a trading relationship under an existing EU deal. Essentially, "we'll continue trading after 31 December 2020 on the current terms while we work on a permanent deal". Even this wouldn't be straightforward; there would be a bit of horse trading involved. But if the will was there it could be done.

And they may also be able to put in place some deals with less-developed countries, which will be all give and no take, along the lines of the EU's Everything But Arms initiative. This isn't really a trade deal, but it can be packaged and marketed as such for brexity purposes.

Jim2007

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a possibility that they might be able to put together some kind of interim roll-over deal with some of the countries with whom they have a trading relationship under an existing EU deal. Essentially, "we'll continue trading after 31 December 2020 on the current terms while we work on a permanent deal". Even this wouldn't be straightforward; there would be a bit of horse trading involved. But if the will was there it could be done.

It would require WTO approval and in the light of the objections over their trade schedules it is unlikely to be approved any time soon.

EdgeCase

You’ve also got to factor in Donald Trump who could play very hard ball on trade.

Despite all the rhetoric about special relationships in the UK, the current US administration is only interested in hard bargaining.

The UK competes directly with Wall Street and quite a lot of other US business sectors and I could see any trade deal being quite rough.

Also, the UK seems to be adopting the notion that it could get access to the USA market, on a one way basis where it doesn’t accept rules on things like agricultural regulation, opening its marke to American producers.

In fact, it seems very similar to the stance the UK is taking towards the EU.

The US is also very heavily regulated across a range of areas too. It just tends to be less focused on food and agriculture than the EU. So I predict a BIG problem with any bilateral deal as the British side will have to be a rule taker, and will have no bargaining power at all and Trump will take advantage of that.

Also the UK has a £34 billion trade surplus (mostly in services) with the US, which is something Trump would likely seek to rebalance, not just accept.

https://fullfact.org/economy/trade-deficit-surplus-USA-EU/

He’ll just see London as “taking” billions from Wall Street.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

You’ve also got to factor in Donald Trump who could play very hard ball on trade . . .

Oh, yes. Quick or slow, any trade deal the UK makes with the Trumpista regime will be hugely asymmetric, and in the US's favour.

Ironically, though, that might make the UK side conclude that there is no merit in prolonging the negotiations to bargain for a better outcome, since they are not going to secure a better outcome. They may as well just cave at once and surrender themselves to the tender ministrations of Trump. If you're going to be thoroughly walloped, the sooner you get it over with, the better.

So, faced with a choice between a quick and lousy deal, or a slow and lousy deal, they might go for quick. The only alternative would be to go for very slow, and wait for happier times in Washington DC before attempting to make any real progress at all. And I don't think the Brexiter Tories can afford to wait that long before closing their super duper trade deals.

Professor Moriarty

Underneath a picture of the infamous Brexit bus showing the '350 million every week to the EU' slogan, the Telegraph has an article about how May will increase funding to the NHS (which is presently grossly underfunded but that's nothing to do with the Tories) via "borrowing, income tax and a Brexit dividend". If British people swallow this crap again then they deserve everything they get.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, yes. Quick or slow, any trade deal the UK makes with the Trumpista regime will be hugely asymmetric, and in the US's favour.

Ironically, though, that might make the UK side conclude that there is no merit in prolonging the negotiations to bargain for a better outcome, since they are not going to secure a better outcome. They may as well just cave at once and surrender themselves to the tender ministrations of Trump. If you're going to be thoroughly walloped, the sooner you get it over with, the better.

So, faced with a choice between a quick and lousy deal, or a slow and lousy deal, they might go for quick. The only alternative would be to go for very slow, and wait for happier times in Washington DC before attempting to make any real progress at all. And I don't think the Brexiter Tories can afford to wait that long before closing their super duper trade deals.

The way they are handling Brexit would seem to go against that theory.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

The way they are handling Brexit would seem to go against that theory.

It's the way their Brexit strategy has worked out for them that might persuade them to try a different strategy with Trump!

Leroy42

Only saw a few snippets of QT last night, but it seemed there was some pretty high level of anger at the government and May over how badly they are handling the whole thing.

Could just be the bits that I saw, and with the usual caveat that the QT is not particularly representative (although better than anything we have).

My take from it is that people are starting to realise that Brexit is a disaster. At the moment they are blaming both the EU and starting to blame the government. The Lords is of course part of the problem, along with the Judges. MP's of all parties, both leavers and remainers are also the problem.

Maybe, by finally seeing that the government is making a bad situation worse, they will start to see that maybe the whole thing needs a serious rethink. The idea of Brexit might make sense to them but clearly the execution is totally lacking. It would make far more sense to admit it, and look to start again at a future date when they finally get all the arguments and ideas agreed.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's the way their Brexit strategy has worked out for them that might persuade them to try a different strategy with Trump!

I think that this has been their 'strategy' from the start. They knew they had nothing, knew they could offer nothing so they basically went with the delay tactic.

Its the oldest tactic in the book, used by governments and unions the world over. Delay, drag things out, argue over the smallest detail, go into long meandering speeches which say nothing.

All in the hope that the other side simply lose the will to fight and give in eventually.

Enzokk

The current set of politicians in charge of Brexit really are spineless at the moment. First we have the reported "Brexit dividend" that will pay for the NHS. This is going against it seems the path of the Chancellor.

Then we have the news story that a report was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Office and a recommendation was made that MLA pay be cut if they are doing nothing. Seeing that they have not officially worked for 15 months seems fair that they should be paid less. That is unless you have the PM by the throat and the NI Secretary will just delay the implementation of said report.

Secretary of State Karen Bradley has declined to explain what has caused months of delay in cutting the pay of MLAs while Stormont lies empty.

Every one of the 90 MLAs has been paid at least £49,000 for more than a year – despite spending just 46 minutes in the Assembly chamber since the last election 15 months ago – and some MLAs are being paid much more

Further delay in cutting MLA pay

On Theresa May, she is doing a good job of heading towards the cliff of hard Brexit. She seems to have misled her own MPs that wanted a soft Brexit. She didn't mislead JRM or DD, so we should assume that she would be happy with a hard Brexit and the chance to get the foreigners out of her country and she can get her target she was aiming for all those years ago when she was in charge of the Home Office.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

On Theresa May, she is doing a good job of heading towards the cliff of hard Brexit. She seems to have misled her own MPs that wanted a soft Brexit. She didn't mislead JRM or DD, so we should assume that she would be happy with a hard Brexit and the chance to get the foreigners out of her country and she can get her target she was aiming for all those years ago when she was in charge of the Home Office.

Oh I think she has very much misled them, she has been lying to every side since she became leader.

She doesn't know what she wants or how to get it. Plenty is written about Trump being susceptible to the last person he talked to, but May appears to be exactly the same. She will agree with whomever she is talking to at the time.

Take the December agreement for example. She went over to Brussels and made a deal, then the DUP stamped their feet and since she has been saying how nobody could ever agree.

She was just about to before Foster got involved.

The difference this time is the remainers feel they have been publicly made fools of (which many people stated would happen at the time) whilst the likes of DD and JRM know they are (they accepted the 39bn payment which before was never going to happen, and a transition period) but are hoping that they can continue to work on such a weak leader to get what they want without getting their hands dirty.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Only saw a few snippets of QT last night, but it seemed there was some pretty high level of anger at the government and May over how badly they are handling the whole thing.

Could just be the bits that I saw, and with the usual caveat that the QT is not particularly representative (although better than anything we have).

My take from it is that people are starting to realise that Brexit is a disaster. At the moment they are blaming both the EU and starting to blame the government. The Lords is of course part of the problem, along with the Judges. MP's of all parties, both leavers and remainers are also the problem.

Maybe, by finally seeing that the government is making a bad situation worse, they will start to see that maybe the whole thing needs a serious rethink. The idea of Brexit might make sense to them but clearly the execution is totally lacking. It would make far more sense to admit it, and look to start again at a future date when they finally get all the arguments and ideas agreed.

Ironically, it seems as if it was the Lords who tried to inject some sense into thr process, as all scramble to denounce them and want them abolished.

Leroy42

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ironically, it seems as if it was the Lords who tried to inject some sense into thr process, as all scramble to denounce them and want them abolished.

Sorry, I left out the end of my post.

My point being that it would appear that the true cost of Brexit will not be in terms of the economics (although it appears that will be pretty big, but hard to prove it is down to Brexit) but rather the upending of the very fabric of the UK itself.

From a breakdown in trust in politicians (or maybe a further breakdown) to a rejection of the institutions that have carried the UK all this time, like the Lords and even the UK itself.

And maybe that is a good thing. Maybe this is the wake up call they need to see that it isn't the EU that is solely to blame (it does carry some of it) but the very nature of how the UK runs itself that is a core part of the problem.

From their lack of a representative electoral system, lack of a constitution, lack of any connection with the voters (the ref itself is being blamed!).

Igotadose

Reading today's Indo, the article the other day from the academics about the army being used to solve the border problem, it seems like 'hardcore Brexit' is, well, bonkers. They're having a fight over some politicians wanting to prevent hard brexit, which the government is apparently willing to consider as a valid option.

Really. Hard Brexit. Border crossings, tariffs, delays. They should try it for a week and then see if they want it. In-freaking-sane. Just don't see any rational players on the pro-Brexit side, seems they're gone and it's just the rabid ones like that phony Rees-Mogg and the extremist DUP types, who never met an act of violence they couldn't get behind.

Just plain frightening. Europe needs an army to protect itself from the UK, too.

Leroy42

Unfortunately it is not just the rabid ones. As a collective the whole UK system seems to be caught up in a kind of loop.

"The will of the people" is the line, a line that simply cannot not be crossed, no matter what the outcome.

They appear to be in the loop whereby they have started a process they are not sure how, not sure what they want, not sure how to get it, but damned if they are going to admit that they made a mistake.

Despite all the evidence pointing to significant costs, significant issues and potential damage to the union itself, the course is set and that's that.

On the whole, the voters in the UK have stayed roughly the same in terms of the Leave/Remain split. It is almost seen as any discussion about backing down is treason. We are going over the top lads, I know we are all going to die, but never let it be said we stayed in the bunker! Many voters now seem to be of the opinion that they should just get on with it, whatever it (Brexit) actually entails. They are fed up talking about it. 'Hey, I voted, now don't bother me with details and just do whatever' seems to be the thinking.

Do many of them even understand what Brexit No deal would actually mean? I doubt it. They take all this stuff for granted (we all do) and thus seem to think that the UK have done everything despite the EU rather than because of it.

Based on the last two years, I really don't think the EU really thought things would go as badly as they have. They were prepared for a negotiation, but what they got instead is like dealing with a family of children in a supermarket. They each want their own thing, but also what the others have, hate being their, hate each other, and don't understand why they can't just buy everything from the sweet shop beside the house. All the time instead of the parent they have the babysitter who didn't even want to be there in the first place.

[Deleted User]

Leroy42 wrote: »

Based on the last two years, I really don't think the EU really thought things would go as badly as they have. They were prepared for a negotiation, but what they got instead is like dealing with a family of children in a supermarket. They each want their own thing, but also what the others have, hate being their, hate each other, and don't understand why they can't just buy everything from the sweet shop beside the house. All the time instead of the parent they have the babysitter who didn't even want to be there in the first place.

On a similar note the last couple of years have shown that in a slightly different way. No-one expected the vote to go the way it did but straight away the Europeans got ready for negotiations, made plans, offers and everything else. Meanwhile David Cameron stepped down allowing a weak leader and remainer to take his place. She's made a mess of just about everything since. She's called an election which weakened her hand when she expected to strengthen it. Her brain trust includes David "They read everything" Davis and Boris Johnson. She triggered Article 50 with no plan. She's thrown down some "Red Lines" beyond what many hard-Brexiters suggested before the vote and all the while the Europeans have acted like adults.
The difference is astounding and continues to grow all the time.

briany

And now for your daily dose of rhetoric from Jacob Rees Mogg

Mr Rees-Mogg, who chairs the European Research Group of pro-Brexit Tory MPs, said Theresa May should call Ireland’s bluff rather than allow the Border issue to hold Brexit to ransom.

“Will the Irish put up a border? Will a government that has always believed there should be a single government across the whole island of Ireland suddenly put up a wall? Is it going to be a Trump-like wall built by Mr Varadkar?

The British government has repeatedly said it will not impose a border, so it is entirely up to Mr Varadkar, ” he told The Irish Times.

“I think we can easily negotiate a deal on trade across the Border, but I don’t think this issue should hold us to ransom on doing everything else, which is what it’s currently being used for.

"I think we should simply make it clear that we will not put up a border and that is our position. And what would the Irish do if the EU insisted? I think that is a really interesting question. I think we should call that particular bluff.”

Leroy42

Taking control of our borders but not taking control of our borders!

The DUP can't really accept this position though. If there is no border checks into NI then surely they are being treated differently than the rest of the UK

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

On a similar note the last couple of years have shown that in a slightly different way. No-one expected the vote to go the way it did but straight away the Europeans got ready for negotiations, made plans, offers and everything else.

I have to correct you on that. The Rederendum was in June 2016

This ERSI report was November 2015 I'm still waiting for the Brexiteers to produce a similar report with real figures instead of vague hand waving.

BTW
How much has the EU shifted from the initial position published the week after Article 50 was triggered ?

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Are you sure? All I can find is the replacement bill which is not with Euratom and a deal with US which is not signed yet. Yes it has clauses how they wish to remain a member etc. if all else fail but that does not mean they will have it.

Apologies. I had thought they'd actually progressed further.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-UK-on-track-with-post-Euratom-preparations-11061801.html

The UK last week completed two more milestones in its preparations to leave the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). On 7 June, Parliament passed the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and government officials signed new international safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

And the news for EDF and the future of UK electricity supply isn't good. The UK is depending on them to build two reactors at Hinkley C or the UK will need to start looking for other ways to generate electricity in the next few years. Or they could reduce demand and Brexit looks like doing that.

Finland will have to wait until Sept 2019 at least
And Flamanville could be delayed for months. And the regulators are watching them.

An Claidheamh

I know we're repeating ourselves on here but here is an example of the class of individual that spreads propaganda in Britain to the great British unwashed and believes they can still have an empire.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/974938/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Christopher-Chope-European-Union-Theresa-May-negotiations-latest

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/tory-mp-christopher-chope-blocks-progress-of-upskirting-bill

Nody

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Apologies. I had thought they'd actually progressed further.

Nothing to apologize for; I was simply curious if I had missed something going on (which considering the chasm Brexit will cause is easy to do) to keep myself updated. The main problem with UK is that they can actually join Euratom (with reduced power ala Switzerland or Turkey) but that would put them under ECJ control from my understanding. That in turn is yet another red line which is why May has said she only wants to join (and agree she will pay for) for the Research program access but not for a full membership.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

On a similar note the last couple of years have shown that in a slightly different way. No-one expected the vote to go the way it did but straight away the Europeans got ready for negotiations, made plans, offers and everything else. Meanwhile David Cameron stepped down allowing a weak leader and remainer to take his place. She's made a mess of just about everything since. She's called an election which weakened her hand when she expected to strengthen it. Her brain trust includes David "They read everything" Davis and Boris Johnson. She triggered Article 50 with no plan. She's thrown down some "Red Lines" beyond what many hard-Brexiters suggested before the vote and all the while the Europeans have acted like adults.
The difference is astounding and continues to grow all the time.

I think the clear issue on the British side is that Brexit was fuelled by English nationalism. Whereas the Tory's are infused with British nationalism: Global Britain, Empire 2.0 and so on. The two identities are opposed: British is an imperial, multi national identity designed to unify the ruling caste of a global empire. English is...well, English. English nationalism won Brexit, but the UK government implementing Brexit remains in control of the British nationalists. Disharmony is inherent.

The real struggle in the UK is between those two identities with their opposed interests. Brexit is just another battlefield.