Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

McGiver · 01-11-2018 2:31am

Strazdas wrote:

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law but they remind me a lot of the Nazis, especially towards the end of the war when everything starts to collapse around them but they remain true to the ideology (to the point where such behaviour becomes very self destructive).

Now, you've done it and killed the thread

But you haven't mentioned Hitler so you are grand.

Joking aside, yes, the Brexiteers' ideological zealousness, resembling a religion, is very similar to how autocratic ideologies present themselves. It's scary that something like that happens in a western European country with free press, functioning democracy and governance.

The problem is there won't be an actual collapse in the event of no deal, it will be bad but it won't be a collapse, and that's what the Brexiteers count on. I fear that the Brexiteers will keep spitting their lies taking advantage of the situation and keep going. I don't think they will ever be held accountable. It's basically populist politics, but a new form of it, populism post-truth politics embedded into "traditional" political framework, which makes it quite different from new protest populist parties and movements we saw before and see at the moment elsewhere.

Peregrinus · 01-11-2018 3:16am

charlie14 wrote: »

What would have been a solid approach by Ireland when we had the backing of our E.U. partners that talks would not progress until we were satisfied was a legal binding agreement passed into law by the British parliament.

That would have ensured they would not get around a vaguely worded agreement that we accepted to let talks proceed.

This could never, ever have happened, and EU demands back in December 2017 that it should happen would have been - rightly - seen as a thinly-disguised technique for bringing the talks to an end and ensuring a no-deal Brexit (and a hard border).

Peregrinus · 01-11-2018 3:23am

Gintonious wrote: »

Which will drive up the cost and time for it to get there.

What we export to Belgium is mostly pharmaceuticals and organic chemicals - mostly not perishable, so delivery times are not critical. For all I know much of this stuff is already containerised and goes by slower but cheaper routes.

But a significant chunk of our exports to the EU-26 is represented by meat, dairy, other food and agri-produce and other perishable goods and, yeah, extended transit times would be a signficant issue.

20silkcut · 01-11-2018 8:24am

McGiver wrote: »

Now, you've done it and killed the thread But you haven't mentioned Hitler so you are grand.

Joking aside, yes, the Brexiteers' ideological zealousness, resembling a religion, is very similar to how autocratic ideologies present themselves. It's scary that something like that happens in a western European country with free press, functioning democracy and governance.

The problem is there won't be an actual collapse in the event of no deal, it will be bad but it won't be a collapse, and that's what the Brexiteers count on. I fear that the Brexiteers will keep spitting their lies taking advantage of the situation and keep going. I don't think they will ever be held accountable. It's basically populist politics, but a new form of it, populism post-truth politics embedded into "traditional" political framework, which makes it quite different from new protest populist parties and movements we saw before and see at the moment elsewhere.

But will the EU purposely make life difficult for Britain post no deal brexit.
I can see a lot of animosity towards Britain in such a scenario. I certainly would like to see Britain punished if they crash and burn.
The EU has the clout to turn Britain into a pariah. I’d imagine they could influence other countries to treat them unfavorably in any future trade deals. I’d certainly hope they will if it comes to a no deal brexit.

20silkcut · 01-11-2018 8:24am

McGiver wrote: »

Now, you've done it and killed the thread But you haven't mentioned Hitler so you are grand.

Joking aside, yes, the Brexiteers' ideological zealousness, resembling a religion, is very similar to how autocratic ideologies present themselves. It's scary that something like that happens in a western European country with free press, functioning democracy and governance.

The problem is there won't be an actual collapse in the event of no deal, it will be bad but it won't be a collapse, and that's what the Brexiteers count on. I fear that the Brexiteers will keep spitting their lies taking advantage of the situation and keep going. I don't think they will ever be held accountable. It's basically populist politics, but a new form of it, populism post-truth politics embedded into "traditional" political framework, which makes it quite different from new protest populist parties and movements we saw before and see at the moment elsewhere.

But will the EU purposely make life difficult for Britain post no deal brexit.
I can see a lot of animosity towards Britain in such a scenario. I certainly would like to see Britain punished if they crash and burn.
The EU has the clout to turn Britain into a pariah. I’d imagine they could influence other countries to treat them unfavorably in any future trade deals. I’d certainly hope they will if it comes to a no deal brexit.

Peregrinus · 01-11-2018 8:47am

20silkcut wrote: »

But will the EU purposely make life difficult for Britain post no deal brexit.

No.

In this scenario the EU will be wholly focused on minimising harm to the EU. To some extent that may also tend to lessen harm to the UK, but that will be a by-product. The EU absolutely will not adopt an objective of causing harm to the UK, because (a) that would be wrong and bad and very wicked, and (b) it would be highly counterproductive, and (c) it will be entirely unnecessary.

20silkcut wrote: »

I can see a lot of animosity towards Britain in such a scenario. I certainly would like to see Britain punished if they crash and burn.

Crashing and burning is the punishment.

20silkcut wrote: »

The EU has the clout to turn Britain into a pariah. I’d imagine they could influence other countries to treat them unfavorably in any future trade deals. I’d certainly hope they will if it comes to a no deal brexit.

Britain has the clout to turn Britain into a pariah; they will require no EU assistance. The EU will certainly not seek to influence third countries seeking to do trade deals with the UK; those third countries will be pursuing their own advantage and would bitterly resent bullying by the EU in relation to a trade deal that is absolutely no concern of the EU's. Even if the EU wished to harm the UK, which it does not, it would certainly not poison its own relations with third countries in an attempt to bring that about.

L1011 · 01-11-2018 9:11am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Telegraph readers seem to have a thing for 'Eire' and WW2.

That would be because most remember WW2 and possibly the introduction of the 1937 constitution. Have you seen the age profile of their readers?

Tell me how · 01-11-2018 9:42am

McGiver wrote:

The problem is there won't be an actual collapse in the event of no deal, it will be bad but it won't be a collapse, and that's what the Brexiteers count on. I fear that the Brexiteers will keep spitting their lies taking advantage of the situation and keep going. I don't think they will ever be held accountable. It's basically populist politics, but a new form of it, populism post-truth politics embedded into "traditional" political framework, which makes it quite different from new protest populist parties and movements we saw before and see at the moment elsewhere.

The definition of collapse is a curious one.
It's like Ireland after financial crisis in 2008.
Did it collapse? Well if you who were someone who was applying for jobs in Starbucks with a Masters degree or were one of the thousands out of work who had to emigrate then it most certainly did.
But if you still had a job albeit with no payrise for 4 or 5 years then it was unpleasant. Distinctly unpleasant but not a "collapse".

I don't suspect the UK will outright collapse either but I expect many stories of difficulty across entire industries, towns, regions etc while the Brexiteers say that those difficulties are simply teething problems and will be over soon.

Ireland (and Europe) will want to serve and be served by the UK market as it is now and so efforts to facilitate trade will be stronger than suggested now while not being outright plain sailing.

RobMc59 · 01-11-2018 9:43am

If there is a hard Brexit I believe the UK will go into a"siege "mentality and would never consider a united Ireland.On the other hand,if there is an agreement a united Ireland is possible in my opinion-the DUP have hardly covered themselves in glory in all this and may have to pay the price down the line as people won't forget.

kuro68k · 01-11-2018 9:55am

I really hope there is a united Ireland. I hope Scotland becomes independent soon too.

The UK is toxic. It needs to be broken up.

Tell me how · 01-11-2018 9:56am

RobMc59 wrote:

If there is a hard Brexit I believe the UK will go into a"siege "mentality and would never consider a united Ireland.On the other hand,if there is an agreement a united Ireland is possible in my opinion-the DUP have hardly covered themselves in glory in all this and may have to pay the price down the line as people won't forget.

I think they'd be glad to be rid of it if they could only get past the "empire needs to grow not diminish" crew.

They're giving it vast amounts of money, the security/conflict issues are a headache and none of the government care about or understand it.

Hence NI secretary Karen Bradley expressing surprise on learning that nationalists and unionists vote categorically on party lines.

Again, that's the NI secretary saying that. In 2018.

Nody · 01-11-2018 9:58am

RobMc59 wrote: »

If there is a hard Brexit I believe the UK will go into a"siege "mentality and would never consider a united Ireland.On the other hand,if there is an agreement a united Ireland is possible in my opinion-the DUP have hardly covered themselves in glory in all this and may have to pay the price down the line as people won't forget.

I could easily see them agree to a UI simply to cut costs and/or as "the part of UK that's not part of UK anyway but really Irish who're not really British".

Enzokk · 01-11-2018 9:59am

charlie14 wrote: »

I didn`t, and I said so in December that I believed it was a fudge to allow talks to move to Phase 2 and that it would come back to haunt us if it wasn`t dealt with comprehensively and conclusively at the time.
Back now where we were in December, I`m afraid is not what I would view as being successful from a RoI perspective.

Well the only way to comprehensively and conclusively dealt with it in December was to ask for it to be written down and signed as a legal text in December. But as we know already, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and even if we got the text signed off as part of the WA in December, if the withdrawal agreement isn't signed then it is not worth the paper it is written on because it is only part of the whole agreement.

If we had insisted, as you seem to imply, that the border issue was dealt with conclusively in December we probably would have been still trying to get the UK to agree on the border text now, but the rest of the negotiations would not have been able to commence and even if they were to agree the border text at the last moment then there would not have been time to conclude the rest of the negotiations for the WA. Then it would have automatically been no-deal.

So while you are right that the December wording was a fudge to get the negotiations going again, we also got guarantees in writing from the UK that there will not be a border and Theresa May has confirmed this a few times as well. What can you do when someone walks back on their word and there is no written contract yet to confirm who has what legal obligations?

First Up · 01-11-2018 10:04am

I can see why some Brexiteers would like to give Northern Ireland to the EU as a parting gift. It would greatly simplify their desire to control their borders and at the same time give the EU a ticking bomb to defuse.

Mc Love · 01-11-2018 10:07am

TM saves the day

What is the deal?
UK financial services companies will be able to operate as they now do in Europe. The EU will accept that the UK has “equivalent” regulations to Brussels and therefore be allowed market access.

The notion of “equivalence” is not new to the EU but has so far had limited application. One reason for this is that under existing rules market access can be withdrawn unilaterally with only a month’s notice. Such uncertainty makes it almost impossible for foreign financial services firms to take advantage of it.

However, under the new deal equivalence will be extended and fall under the governance of the wider trade treaty. This will allow the EU and the UK to change or set new financial regulations but each will have to consult the other beforehand.

Should the EU decide that the UK’s rules were no longer equivalent to its own it could notify Britain of its intention to deny access to the UK-based firms. However, there is expected to be arbitration in the case of dispute.

Enzokk · 01-11-2018 10:08am

There are reports that a deal for services has been reached with the WA.

Brexit deal on financial services agreed – report

Theresa May has reportedly struck a tentative deal with the European Union that would give UK financial services companies continued access to European markets after Brexit.

British and European negotiators have reached tentative agreement on all aspects of a future partnership on services, as well as the exchange of data, the Times reported on Thursday, citing government sources.

The services deal would give UK companies access to European markets as long as British financial regulation remained broadly aligned with the EU’s, it said.

You have to wonder what pound of flesh the EU will get from the UK for this. This is good news though as it means the UK will not be allowed to just diverge on a whim of the USA and it seems to me that the end result will be basically, BRINO.

Akrasia · 01-11-2018 10:09am

Nody wrote: »

I could easily see them agree to a UI simply to cut costs and/or as "the part of UK that's not part of UK anyway but really Irish who're not really British".

NI are the part of the UK that defines the UK. Without NI it's just 'Great Britain'

NI leaving would literally break up the United Kingdom

20silkcut · 01-11-2018 10:12am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No.

In this scenario the EU will be wholly focused on minimising harm to the EU. To some extent that may also tend to lessen harm to the UK, but that will be a by-product. The EU absolutely will not adopt an objective of causing harm to the UK, because (a) that would be wrong and bad and very wicked, and (b) it would be highly counterproductive, and (c) it will be entirely unnecessary.

Crashing and burning is the punishment.

Britain has the clout to turn Britain into a pariah; they will require no EU assistance. The EU will certainly not seek to influence third countries seeking to do trade deals with the UK; those third countries will be pursuing their own advantage and would bitterly resent bullying by the EU in relation to a trade deal that is absolutely no concern of the EU's. Even if the EU wished to harm the UK, which it does not, it would certainly not poison its own relations with third countries in an attempt to bring that about.

Jason hunter has suggested that this is a feature of trade deals that parties to free trade agreements can place certain restrictions on their partners trading with third countries.
After 29th March in a hard deal brexit the EU will be immediately restricting 27 countries from trading with the UK.

Akrasia · 01-11-2018 10:20am

TM can agree all this with the EU but if she can't get it through her own parliament its a waste of time

The EU have made no concessions here at all. The UK won't be able to control their own financial services regulations and the EU can change our regulations and force the UK to change theirs (just with longer notice period)

It's an agreement for the UK to be worse off in basically every way they were before Brexit.

Its a negotiated surrender where they're taking reasonable terms rather than be annihilated by going for a no deal crash out

I can't see the hardcore Brexiters voting for this kind of an arrangement.

Peregrinus · 01-11-2018 10:21am

20silkcut wrote: »

Jason hunter has suggested that this is a feature of trade deals that parties to free trade agreements can place certain restrictions on their partners trading with third countries.
After 29th March in a hard deal brexit the EU will be immediately restricting 27 countries from trading with the UK.

They don't so much prevent their partner from trading with a third country as restrict the terms on which they can do so. For instance if you do a trade deal with the US one term might be that you won't enter into a trade deal with any third country under which you would accept a ban on hormone-treated beef. And that limits the trade deal you might then do with the EU.

Countries can if they have the negotiating muscle, and the EU would have it. But they don't do that in order to harm the third country, but to protect or advance their own interests. A straight up ban on trading with Teapotistan, unless Teapotistan is under UN sanctions or something of the kind, would (a) be a hostile act towards Teapotistan (by both countries - the one that demands this, and the one that agrees to it) and (b) very illegal under WTO rules.

lawred2 · 01-11-2018 10:22am

Akrasia wrote: »

NI are the part of the UK that defines the UK. Without NI it's just 'Great Britain'

NI leaving would literally break up the United Kingdom

Not really.. when Ireland was partitioned they just renamed it the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It would just be renamed without the "and Northern Ireland" bit.

To be honest most British people wouldn't really lost too much sleep over NI.

Scotland breaking away would be a whole different ball game.

LeinsterDub · 01-11-2018 10:22am

First Up wrote: »

I can see why some Brexiteers would like to give Northern Ireland to the EU as a parting gift. It would greatly simplify their desire to control their borders and at the same time give the EU a ticking bomb to defuse.

Why would it be a ticking time bomb. Unionists would have no reason to exist politically. They'd essentially have the same options unionists had in 1922 get use to it or leave.

Akrasia · 01-11-2018 10:27am

20silkcut wrote: »

Jason hunter has suggested that this is a feature of trade deals that parties to free trade agreements can place certain restrictions on their partners trading with third countries.
After 29th March in a hard deal brexit the EU will be immediately restricting 27 countries from trading with the UK.

The WTO terms does this. If you have no trade deal, the tariffs you apply to one country, has to apply to every other country for that type of good or service, so the EU won't prevent anyone from doing a trade deal with the UK, we will object If any third party tries to import UK products at tariffs lower than the WTO terms.

Hunter was referring to negotiators being ruthless in playing their own advantages and forcing the UK to negotiate from the desperate position they find themselves even if this means denying them any trade deal for years waiting for the UK to be desperate enough to accept desperate terms

Peregrinus · 01-11-2018 10:28am

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the only way to comprehensively and conclusively dealt with it in December was to ask for it to be written down and signed as a legal text in December.

There is no possible way the UK would have agreed to this - what, we ask the UK to enter into binding commitments to the EU in return for which the UK gets absolutely nothing at all in terms of binding commitments from the EU? Simple self-respect would prevent any country from agreeing to that, and even to demand it would be seen as so unreasonable and unrealistic that it would be tantamount, as I said, to a move designed to bring discussions to a permanent close.

Enzokk wrote: »

So while you are right that the December wording was a fudge to get the negotiations going again, we also got guarantees in writing from the UK that there will not be a border and Theresa May has confirmed this a few times as well. What can you do when someone walks back on their word and there is no written contract yet to confirm who has what legal obligations?

This. What we got in December was agreement that there would be no Withdrawal Agreement unless it included a backstop to keep the Irish border open. That's not legally enforceable, but it doesn't have to be - it's enforceable in practice, without recourse to law or tribunals, by the EU simply refusing to enter into any Withdrawal Agreement which doesn't include a backstop to keep the border open.

Tell me how · 01-11-2018 10:29am

LeinsterDub wrote:

Why would it be a ticking time bomb. Unionists would have no reason to exist politically. They'd essentially have the same options unionists had in 1922 get use to it or leave.

Yes but their numbers would be proportionally much smaller than in 1922.

Some elements could attempt to become instigators of violence, but, to what end if the UK didn't actually want them back?

Could absolutely see it to be a very psychologically difficult thing for staunch unionists. Like a child who is besotted with their father being told to go live with their mother after a divorce.

Peregrinus · 01-11-2018 10:29am

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why would it be a ticking time bomb. Unionists would have no reason to exist politically. They'd essentially have the same options unionists had in 1922 get use to it or leave.

Or embark on a campaign of resistance.

After all, Unionists might equally have said in 1922 that nationalists in NI had the same two options. And look what happened.

LeinsterDub · 01-11-2018 10:34am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or embark on a campaign of resistance.

After all, Unionists might equally have said in 1922 that nationalists in NI had the same two options. And look what happened.

Resistance to what end? The UK wouldn't want them back. Nationalist always had the option of joining a UI. Once out of the UK there will be no way back in.

kalych · 01-11-2018 10:35am

Peregrinus wrote: »

This. What we got in December was agreement that there would be no Withdrawal Agreement unless it included a backstop to keep the Irish border open. That's not legally enforceable, but it doesn't have to be - it's enforceable in practice, without recourse to law or tribunals, by the EU simply refusing to enter into any Withdrawal Agreement which doesn't include a backstop to keep the border open.

This and also the fact that EU showed its own member states that it is not necessarily a mindless bureaucratic machine it is sometimes portrayed to be. EU was as accommodating to the UK as it possibly could be WHILE also protecting its interests (hence the compromising backstop in December. Compromising in the sense we allowed negotiations to continue). I'm personally very impressed with the way EU negotiators handled this and the support our own government managed to agree with the EU.

Peregrinus · 01-11-2018 10:36am

Enzokk wrote: »

There are reports that a deal for services has been reached with the WA.

Brexit deal on financial services agreed – report

You have to wonder what pound of flesh the EU will get from the UK for this. . .

Nothing. This is a non-story. It's the usual "UK media trumpets position which EU has long held as a breakthrough/climbdown/hostile attack on the UK/game-changer" routine.

Enzokk · 01-11-2018 10:43am

Akrasia wrote: »

TM can agree all this with the EU but if she can't get it through her own parliament its a waste of time

The EU have made no concessions here at all. The UK won't be able to control their own financial services regulations and the EU can change our regulations and force the UK to change theirs (just with longer notice period)

It's an agreement for the UK to be worse off in basically every way they were before Brexit.

Its a negotiated surrender where they're taking reasonable terms rather than be annihilated by going for a no deal crash out

I can't see the hardcore Brexiters voting for this kind of an arrangement.

Agreed, while the UK can spin this as a win it is just continuing on the same path as before Brexit. If they see staying aligned with the EU as a win then in the end we will be the winners if they reach their goal.:eek:

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is no possible way the UK would have agreed to this - what, we ask the UK to enter into binding commitments to the EU in return for which the UK gets absolutely nothing at all in terms of binding commitments from the EU? Simple self-respect would prevent any country from agreeing to that, and even to demand it would be seen as so unreasonable and unrealistic that it would be tantamount, as I said, to a move designed to bring discussions to a permanent close.

Yes, that is why I am confused on why the poster thought anything different could have been achieved. If maybe the election had resulted in a Labour victory or a strong majority for May and she was inclined to a soft Brexit (not sure she is though), then an agreement could have been cemented legally in December as she had the votes to get it through. Seeing as she is in the current position the only way she gets anything through parliament is at the last moment, and even that is not a certainty.

Theresa May would have had to be very secure with her position and the numbers in parliament to agree a legal backstop in December and not be challenged for her leadership.

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments