Brexit discussion thread III

Larbre34 · 22-06-2018 12:02AM

I've been citing Airbus since Day 1, finally theyve shown their hand to max effect.

Every public rep in Wales just had to change their underwear simultaneously.

Peregrinus · 22-06-2018 01:26AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ah Ming the MEP. He has some clever and insightful anti-EU arguments. Consider this:

"One thing I do not support is a union that tells me what time I have to go to the toilet at, how long I can work - that should be the decision of the people of Ireland . . . "

Ooh! Can we all agree to tell him to go to the toilet now? And to stay there, indefinitely?

Peregrinus · 22-06-2018 01:31AM

Bit cynical wrote: »

It does mean however that negotiations seeking no hard border in the north are futile after this point. The EU can't insist on no hard border while at the same time ordering Ireland to institute border controls.

Well, by definition, after the point where the only possibility is that the UK will crash out, negotiations about no hard border are futile. Negotiations about anything are futile; that's what "crash out" means.

But, until crash-out is the only possibility, it's not the only possibility. So it makes sense to negotiate to avoid a crash-out, while at the same time still planning and preparing for a crash-out, should it come to that.

Peregrinus · 22-06-2018 01:45AM

Nody wrote: »

And we have the latest cake strategy identified by the UK; an associate agreement like Ukraine or Moldova has...

You'd think they would learn that cherry picking is simply not going to work but somehow every single solution comes back to the same cherry picking of the 4 freedoms and involving EU changing everything to give UK what it wants.

It doesn't matter the future UK/EU relationship is packaged; the UK is still going to have to decide which of its red lines it will compromise on in order to secure some of its objectives, and which of its objectives it will abandon in order to stick to some of its red lines.

The talk of an association agreement is in fact a cover for a move by the UK to give up quite a bit of cakery. As has been noted, the UK is seen to want to move away from membership, but with lots of opt-outs, and towards non-membership, but with lots of opt-ins - to the free market in goods, to Erasmus, to Galileo, to the European Arrest Warrant, etc, etc. There are a number of problems with this, but let me mention just two:

- First, it seems to imply a complex mess of treaties, agreements, etc covering specific sectors and situations. The EU already has this with Switzerland, doesn't like it, doesn't think it's a good model, doesn't want to replicate it.

- Secondly, most of the programmes, schemes, etc that it wants to opt into aren't just policies or practices; they are legal constructs, established by EU law and interpreted and applied, ultimately, by the European Court of Justice. The no-ECJ-jursdiction red line is a serious barrier to participation. The no-free-movement red line is a problem for some as well.

So the suggested solution - and note this suggestion is coming mainly from voices on the UK side - is to have an Association Agreement, the usual vehicle for "deep and special" relationships between the EU and third countries. This would provide an overarching framework for the UK to participate in various aspects of the EU. The framework would include submission to EU law and ECJ jurisdiction (or, conceivably, the jurisdiction of a joint EU/UK court). This would be a huge climbdown on the UK side, but it would be dressed up as "we are not subject to ECJ jurisdiction - except where we, in the free exercise of our sovereign independence, agree to accept it in relation to particular transnational programmes, arrangements, policies, etc that we freely and in a fully sovereign way agree to participate in". And a similar fig-leaf argument for the acceptance of free movement in order to secure free trade.

On the EU side, they're a bit wary. They've no object to the UK covering the nakedness of its climbdown with some kind of figleaf, but the Association Agreement is used as a vehicle for third countries which are looking to get closer to the EU, with a view to eventual membership, not members that are looking to draw away. Still, it might offer a way out of the current impasse.

Nody · 22-06-2018 04:36AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

I've been citing Airbus since Day 1, finally theyve shown their hand to max effect.

Every public rep in Wales just had to change their underwear simultaneously.

For those not aware:

Brexit: Airbus warns it could quit UK in event of 'no deal'

The company, which employs 14,000 people at 25 sites across the country, said it would “reconsider its investments in the UK, and its long-term footprint in the country” if Britain crashed out of the single market and customs union without a transition agreement.

“Far from Project Fear, this is a dawning reality for Airbus. Put simply, a no-deal scenario directly threatens Airbus’ future in the UK."

Full article is here but it was not important enough to make the Independent's front page

.

22-06-2018 05:00AM

And Wales voted to leave.

Peregrinus · 22-06-2018 05:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And Wales voted to leave.

And Flintshire and Newport, the two Welsh voting areas which actually have Airbus plants located in them, voted to leave by a significantly larger margin than the rest of Wales did.

Nody · 22-06-2018 06:59AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And Flintshire and Newport, the two Welsh voting areas which actually have Airbus plants located in them, voted to leave by a significantly larger margin than the rest of Wales did.

Well if you enjoy a headache read the posts on the Telegraph article on the same subject. You see; we've misunderstood it all because:

1) China is not in the EU so why can't UK sell stuff to Airbus just as well
2) China has in no way the skilled people to build the wings anyway (not like they are building military and civilian air planes already or anything, right?)
3) EU needs UK to use their excess electricity (yes, seriously that was one argument put forth)
4) This is all project fear; UK will not be a competitor to EU anyway it's old ways of thinking
5) They are only looking for a tax break anyway

I could go on but honestly I despair to do so.

First Up · 22-06-2018 07:41AM

Nody wrote: »

Well if you enjoy a headache read the posts on the Telegraph article on the same subject. You see; we've misunderstood it all because:

1) China is not in the EU so why can't UK sell stuff to Airbus just as well
2) China has in no way the skilled people to build the wings anyway (not like they are building military and civilian air planes already or anything, right?)
3) EU needs UK to use their excess electricity (yes, seriously that was one argument put forth)
4) This is all project fear; UK will not be a competitor to EU anyway it's old ways of thinking
5) They are only looking for a tax break anyway

I could go on but honestly I despair to do so.

Reminds me of the classic from Yes Minister, where Bernard describes the profile of the readers of the various British newspapers:

- The Express is read by people who think the country should be run the way it used to be;

- The Telegraph is read by people who think it still is.

Enzokk · 22-06-2018 07:42AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

I've been citing Airbus since Day 1, finally theyve shown their hand to max effect.

Every public rep in Wales just had to change their underwear simultaneously.

Deleted User wrote: »

And Wales voted to leave.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And Flintshire and Newport, the two Welsh voting areas which actually have Airbus plants located in them, voted to leave by a significantly larger margin than the rest of Wales did.

This is why my sympathy is low at the moment. Those jobs will be hard to replace and it will leave families in trouble, but seeing as more than 100 000 people indirectly benefit from Airbus in the UK and most of those would be around the areas where their plants are located it would stand to reason that most people will feel a positive effect from Airbus. Even if the chipper doesn't have any direct involvement with Airbus in the area, if one Airbus employee buys his food from there he benefits. Still people thought and still think they should just get on with it.

Zubeneschamali · 22-06-2018 07:48AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

the Association Agreement is used as a vehicle for third countries which are looking to get closer to the EU, with a view to eventual membership, not members that are looking to draw away.

That's how it has been used up to now, but we are in new territory anyway. I don't think the EU would object if the UK can finally agree on a pathway and it involves an Association Agreement.

Peregrinus · 22-06-2018 07:54AM

Enzokk wrote: »

This is why my sympathy is low at the moment. Those jobs will be hard to replace and it will leave families in trouble, but seeing as more than 100 000 people indirectly benefit from Airbus in the UK and most of those would be around the areas where their plants are located it would stand to reason that most people will feel a positive effect from Airbus. Even if the chipper doesn't have any direct involvement with Airbus in the area, if one Airbus employee buys his food from there he benefits. Still people thought and still think they should just get on with it.

Well, in defence of the poor deluded Leave voters, Airbus are contemplating withdrawing from the UK if there is a crash-out Brexit, but none of the Leave campaigns advocating a crash-out Brexit, and nobody who voted Leave can be taken to have expected or approved a crash-out Brexit (and psychotics who now contemplate a crash-out Brexit and say there is a democratic mandate for it are lying).

So in fact they didn't vote for the destruction of their own jobs; they just voted in a way which opened up an opportunity for those willing to destroy their jobs in pursuit of a fantasy. That may be cold comfort to them, but they must take what comfort they can get.

Sam Russell · 22-06-2018 08:06AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

The use of religious designations for voters is suspect. Are they self declared, or assumed? The term 'Catholic', 'Nationalist', 'Republican', or for the other side - 'Protestant', 'Unionist', 'Loyalist' are used by different pundits to mean different things - quite often a graded distinction.

It is like the adverts that declare - '85% of cats that showed a preference, chose our Tiddles cat food' without saying how many cats did not show a preference. I wonder how many respondents did not declare their religion or the way they voted? Lies, damn lies, and poll results.

There is no mention of 'Republican' or 'Loyalist' here. There is nothing odd about asking people if they identify as Protestant, Catholic, Other or No Religon. People might lie, but what is the purpose of that?
What exact issue do you have with the methodogy here?

As I say, there are 'Lies, damn lies, and poll results'.

With no information on the methodology of this survey, it is meaningless. No mention on how respondents were selected, how many were in the sample, or how their preferences were determined.

How many 'Protestant Nationalists' were there? or 'Catholic Unionists'?

Meaningless nonsense.

Leonard Hofstadter · 22-06-2018 08:16AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's how it has been used up to now, but we are in new territory anyway. I don't think the EU would object if the UK can finally agree on a pathway and it involves an Association Agreement.

Well as long as it doesn't involve them having their cake and eating it then yes (and it might help solve some of the border issues for us), but remember that countries like the Ukraine submit to ECJ rulings.

So if Britain wants an association agreement with the EU, they'd want to ditch their red lines, otherwise it's still cakeism by the UK.

Also, given the arrogance of the UK and their willingness to abandon things their Prime Minster signed, how can they be trusted? And would the other EU countries still want to keep their ties with Britain given the actions of the British Government? I bet most EU countries just want them gone now, the Tories have burned an awful lot of bridges with European countries (including ours).

Peregrinus · 22-06-2018 08:20AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

As I say, there are 'Lies, damn lies, and poll results'.

With no information on the methodology of this survey, it is meaningless. No mention on how respondents were selected, how many were in the sample, or how their preferences were determined.

How many 'Protestant Nationalists' were there? or 'Catholic Unionists'?

Meaningless nonsense.

Honestly, Sam. I have already posted the number in the sample - 1,666 adults in NI. In addition there were 1,500 adults in the Republic, and 3,294 adults in Great Britain. Interviewees were selected at random from the YouGov base panel of 185,000 persons. The data obtained from interviewees was then weighted to be representative of the overall population of the territories concerned, based on census data. The interviewees' political, religious and party identifications were as stated by themselves. Qualitative data was obtained from 14 focus groups conducted in Ballymena, Belfast, Dublin, Sligo, Liverpool, Glasgow and Chichester. All of this information is freely available.

By all means criticise the methodology of the polling when you have taken the trouble to find out what it is. At the moment you come across as dismissing the results as "meaningless nonsense" on the basis of your own ignorance of the pollling methodology.

Nody · 22-06-2018 08:22AM

captainspeed wrote: »

Also, given the arrogance of the UK and their willingness to abandon things their Prime Minster signed, how can they be trusted?

The solution I've seen mentioned around this is a guillotine clause; it's similar in the setup of what's with Switzerland. Hence if they break any part of the agreement the whole deal goes with it meaning they can't try to "only" break a few things and get away with losing that; no they lose everything on a breach no matter what part they break.

Peregrinus · 22-06-2018 08:26AM

captainspeed wrote: »

Well as long as it doesn't involve them having their cake and eating it then yes (and it might help solve some of the border issues for us), but remember that countries like the Ukraine submit to ECJ rulings.

So if Britain wants an association agreement with the EU, they'd want to ditch their red lines, otherwise it's still cakeism by the UK.

I think the idea is that the Association Agreement will be the fig-leaf behind which the UK conceals a high degree of compromising of its red lines.

Nody wrote: »

The solution I've seen mentioned around this is a guillotine clause; it's similar in the setup of what's with Switzerland. Hence if they break any part of the agreement the whole deal goes with it meaning they can't try to "only" break a few things and get away with losing that; no they lose everything on a breach no matter what part they break.

From the EU side, this would be one of the attractions of the Association Agreement - it's a package, and if the UK defaults on one element, or wants or needs to renegotiate it, the whole thing is on the table.

Akrasia · 22-06-2018 08:39AM

Enzokk wrote: »

This is why my sympathy is low at the moment. Those jobs will be hard to replace and it will leave families in trouble, but seeing as more than 100 000 people indirectly benefit from Airbus in the UK and most of those would be around the areas where their plants are located it would stand to reason that most people will feel a positive effect from Airbus. Even if the chipper doesn't have any direct involvement with Airbus in the area, if one Airbus employee buys his food from there he benefits. Still people thought and still think they should just get on with it.

These are high paying high skilled jobs so the multiplier effect is even higher than the likes of poundland going out of business. These 14k workers would be buying new cars, taking nice holidays, sending their kids to expensive after school activities, volunteering in the community themselves... Losing jobs in the aerospace industry is a disaster for these areas.

EdgeCase · 22-06-2018 09:05AM

Losing those kinds of jobs is also a creator of long term unemployment. Many of the people in them, while highly skilled, tend to not have transferable skills for the kinds of jobs that exist in the British economy.

You could be looking at causing a major problem for that whole region.

ameathdub · 22-06-2018 09:36AM

Does anyone believe the Tories have a masterplan that they will suddenly unveil - or will this depressing situation carry on endlessly. They seem to have no understanding of the sensitivities of the Irish border for sure and many of the Pro Brexit Tories seem now to show outright hostility to Ireland. Such a sad change and the bitterness and division may get worse as these horrible negotiations carry on. I just hope that the general UK public do not feel alienated from Ireland and the rest of Europe. I truly believe that if they had a chance for a rethink the result would be different now.

Leroy42 · 22-06-2018 09:47AM

Master Plan? No, it certainly appears not. They seem to oscillate between different plans. There was the two path approach which was much argued by the Cabinet (Max Fac and NCU) after which both were dismissed by the EU (Well they were dismissed even before that as not meeting the agreed outcomes).

now they want an association membership, or do they? Who knows. They are going to get a deal, but want to be able to simply walk away.

The Irish problem, as central as it is to us, isn't even the main point. You could argue that they are at least thinking about that.

What strikes me is how utterly unprepared they are in all other aspects. Recall the Davies spent weeks trying to stop the publication of sectoral reports, only to have to admit that no such reports were even done save for some bland generalised "What is Fishing" type reports. Is there any reason that either reports have been completed and if so have they been taken into consideration? I don't get that impression.

So I think Ireland is being used as a scapegoat by the UK, and will continue to be, as the reason Brexit was a mess. And it certainly is playing a large part. But even removing that issue, nobody has come out and explained how the likes of Dover will be able to cope (save for doing no checks at all. And seemingly nobody has an issue with the likely scenario of those currently in French asylum seeker camps simply coming over to the UK since there will be no checks!

It appears that none of this is considered, every new item appears as a complete shock to the ministers. They have no idea how much all the new systems are going to costs, still prattling on about the saving from the EU contribution but never saying what additional spend there will be.

Fox has been able to give no indication of what all these new trade deals will be worth, how quickly he will get them and what the costs to the state will be to help the UK economy shift away from its traditional markets and enter new ones.

The lack of any information if staggering

Zubeneschamali · 22-06-2018 09:56AM

ameathdub wrote: »

Does anyone believe the Tories have a masterplan that they will suddenly unveil - or will this depressing situation carry on endlessly.

I think it is pretty clear that May's plan is to do whatever it takes to stay in #10 for another 24 hours.

Eventually, this will run up against the real deadline: Brexit day.

swampgas · 22-06-2018 10:13AM

It does expose just how fact-free British politics has become. Within the UK there is so much blatant propoganda, and outright lying, which is not being properly challenged by the press or even by the opposition. The UK Government have been avoiding uncomfortable and politically damaging truths for years, and are now backed into a corner. They have, perhaps, two unappealing options:

- Bite the bullet. Admit that the UK has no leverage, that Brexit was a mistake.
Try to mend bridges with the EU and avoid economic hardship.
This would be hugely humiliating for the current government, nationally and internationally.

- Play for time. Stiff upper lip, keep calm and carry on, and hope that it will work out somehow.
Then crash out of the EU in April 2019.

My money is on the second option.

joeysoap · 22-06-2018 10:57AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You don't even need to smuggle or launder

Cross-border fuel trade is worth €230m annually to the Exchequer as thousands of motorists from the North avail of cheaper petrol and diesel in the Republic. That's 2% of our overall carbon emissions. Which we could be fined for under Koyoto.

Coal down here has a €20 a tonne carbon tax while up north it doesn't, and our VAT is 13.5% while up there it's only 5%

Is that not balanced a bit by us border residents (me) buying our home heating oil in the north?

But I take your point, much the same as new factories , call centres, data centres etc adding to the carbon footprint,

And not forgetting Dublin airport attracting European travelers using the US pre clearance, adding to the massive growth AL are/have embarked on.

farmchoice · 22-06-2018 10:58AM

PERFIDIOUS ALBION....

they are up to something I'm convinced of it. there is no way, no way, they could be this disorganized, incompetent and reckless. whilst this may not be the greatest crop of British politicians ever, far from it, they are all functioning adults who have all gone past the equivalent of 6th class.

i think they all know quite well how disastrous a hard Brexit will be but the reality is the people voted for ''it'', maybe not this ''it'' maybe they didn't know what ''it'' but if they try and abandon ''it'' for the good of the same people who voted for ''it'' they are creating grave political instability and worse again harming their own chances of re-election.

May and her cabinet have a grand plan, all this in fighting and prevarication is part of it, i think its an attempt to not so much wrong foot the EU ( who were well warned of the kind of tactics the Brits would use by our good selves) as to cause such confusion and uncertainty in the uk its self so that a last minute deal will be able to be got through with something approaching consensus support in the commons.

corbyn will go for this not because he is anti eu ( although he may well be)but because he knows if he was in power he would be dealing with the exact same mess, he is banking on may taking the flack.

The north is in one way a very useful foil for may and her cabinet, its keeping a lot of people in the UK from asking a lot of hard questions about a lot of other things.

this is all just an opinion based on little more then a deep suspicion of any english politician playing the fool.

Seth Brundle · 22-06-2018 11:03AM

Bertie says "Boris Johnson is a ‘buffoon’ who will ‘ruin’ Ireland"
Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile!
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/boris-johnson-is-a-buffoon-who-will-ruin-ireland-bertie-ahern-1.3540025

Enzokk · 22-06-2018 11:26AM

The replies to the Airbus story is out and it seems the regular suspects are dismissing the threat from Airbus because it is a EU company that has received subsidies from EU government. Again they forget to mention that the UK participated in those "subsidies" and actually is still receiving money from their RLI investments in some Airbus projects.

Airbus is a private company that needs to make profit for their shareholders. Some of their shareholders are EU countries, but their are many more private investors out there who want their investment to make money. If Brexit will cost Airbus money they will move production to other countries to negate those extra costs. This is not rocket science and the fact we are still discussing stories that were published before the vote is a sad indictment of the situation we find ourselves in.

Leroy42 · 22-06-2018 11:27AM

FarmChoice, I have had that thinking too, and that it all part of some grand plan to get a deal done and give no room for others to block it.

But, in doing that they would have annoyed the EU, Ireland, many of their own MP's, the Lords, the courts, the civil service, the media, the union itself and many many voters.

But it also puts at risk many of the current ministers. Why would someone like Fox be going on which something like, this, or Boris.

And surely part of this plan could not have involved Boris openly challenging May?

And to what end? If they really believe that they have to lie to get some sort of deal through, it must be n the basis that to do otherwise would be worse. So surely the better option is to simply explain that

trellheim · 22-06-2018 12:11PM

Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Share this contribution
Further to the question of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), Michel Barnier has said this week that the United Kingdom could not remain in the European arrest warrant system post Brexit. What plans does the Secretary of State have to meet this concern, and to address the issue of the 300 additional PSNI officers for which there will be a vital need post Brexit?

Karen Bradley
Share this contribution
As I have said, I discussed this matter with the Chief Constable this morning. We need to make sure that there are arrangements in place so that the way in which the arrest warrant has operated, very successfully, in Northern Ireland can continue.

( as expected. Cant see how the UK can do this without ECJ overwatch)

From NI Questions just before PMQs in the commons https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-20/debates/B46C0FB7-2347-43F4-A9BF-514B8E9CFCC9/SecuritySituation

listermint · 22-06-2018 12:13PM

The headline shown in the Times is pure comedy gold,

see top and sub headlines for effect

https://twitter.com/johnamcgowan/status/1010129584023580672

Brexit discussion thread III

Comments