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 V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

kuro68k wrote: »

The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

Given the history of Ireland's economic development since 1973, this is a strange regret.

Google, Facebook, Intel, Big Pharma et al were only possible because of EU membership. EU membership was only possible because of acceptance of the EU fisheries policy.

Being a poorer version of Iceland was where we would have ended up.

We should have kept a 12 mile limit. Or we should have kept a limit within the 12 mile limit for boats of less than 30 metres (which nearly all of our were and nearly all non-Irish boats were not). It would have been a small concession, but it would have been good for Irish fishermen and for Irish fisheries, and could have been a conservation measure.

blanch152

Water John wrote: »

Nicola Sturgeon gives a good assessment. Fisheries will be bargained away in future negotiations.
Fisheries was my one regret that we sacraficed in 1973.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/nov/22/brexit-talks-theresa-may-eu-hancock-rejects-claims-talks-are-in-trouble-saying-last-minute-hitches-normal-in-eu-negotiations-politics-live

Given the history of Ireland's economic development since 1973, this is a strange regret.

Google, Facebook, Intel, Big Pharma et al were only possible because of EU membership. EU membership was only possible because of acceptance of the EU fisheries policy.

Being a poorer version of Iceland was where we would have ended up.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

You may well be right, but the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016, and I suspect this present deal (if finalized) may unleash a little pent up investment as well.

It is funny that anytime economics is raised in regard to the potential cost of Brexit, those supporting leave reply that what price on sovereignty and freedom to make their own laws.

But even if the economic hit is taken as less that some predicted, the effect on the UK's standing and power has been immensely negative.

The UK have shown themselves to be unreliable partners, unpredictable negotiators and domestically almost ungovernable. Their county is completely split, the union is coming under severe pressure.

They have put back UK/Ireland relations years after all the hard and good work over the last few decades. They have opened up old stereotypes of Europeans and Europeans of them.

Both main parties have been shown up to be completely unable to deal with the big questions, to put forward a thought out and reasonable way forward. They are shorn of leaders and now are in the grip of a few, noisy, hardliners on either side.

So, yes, a complete and utter disaster for the UK no matter what way you look at it.

Zubeneschamali

kowtow wrote: »

the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016

The British government backed Remain, and estimated Brexit would cost 3-6% of GDP in lost growth.

Brexit has not even happened yet and it has already cost 2.5%

MrMusician18

Fishing is of minor economic importance but is a totemic political issue.

Where would the UK be now we're it not for Brexit? The thing to remember about alternative histories is that they are fiction.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

They have also secured an end to free movement (which brexiters see as a benefit, but remainers see as a cost). And of course they have secured an exemption from any pressure to participate in further moves towards "ever closer union" (while surrendering any opportunity to shape or influence those moves).

This is very true, and it seems that FOM is a rock that they are prepared to bet the future on the UK on.

But dig a little deeper and you (not you personally) will see that even that is not the great prize that they sell it as. India has already stated that they would expect increased access to the UK for its citizens as part of any deal.

And of course FOM works both ways. There are many UK citizens that get a benefit from FOM that will be lost because of Brexit. Will not having FOM have an impact on the type of people willing to come to the UK for work? Students etc I doubt it, but professionals looking to advance a career, and settle down with families will now have to think twice as if they lose/move job the whole family may be forced to leave the county.

And the ever closer union is an interesting one. The UK continually, during both the campaign and throughout the negotiations, have stated how big and important they are. Yet they seem totally powerless to do anything within the EU itself. As a major player, the UK have a very strong voice within the EU, evidenced by the fact they weren't made take up the Euro.

So its not that the points are not valid, but it seems a very high price to pay to win these concessions.

mickoneill31

kowtow wrote: »

You may well be right, but the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016, and I suspect this present deal (if finalized) may unleash a little pent up investment as well.

Things are going to be interesting going forward, both for the UK and for us within the EU. Life is never going to be quite the same again and a few years from now I doubt whether either Leavers or Remainers will be able to claim that they got everything right.

Well no I don't think either side is ever going to get everything right. Some get it more right than others though.

Bear in mind that the costs that are affecting the UK now are still before Brexit happens. If the deal is accepted, what has the UK really gained for this cost? And if its not accepted the costs for the UK go up. The 39b goes away but that might be the thin end of the wedge.

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

But fishing is very important in localised areas. Politicians incl Tory ones are quite sensitive to its future,

Yeah, but politicians, or some of them, have kind of shot themselves in the foot by promising the sun, moon and stars to fishermen. Basically, fishermen were promised exclusive access to UK fisheries grounds, plus the continued right to export tariff-free to the EU. It looks like, at least initially, they're getting A but not B. This is going to work out very badly for a lot of them - they look to be worse off than at present, which is not at all what they were led to expect.

LeinsterDub

Water John wrote: »

But fishing is very important in localised areas. Politicians incl Tory ones are quite sensitive to its future,

That maybe the case. However you've failed to illustrate how no being in the EU would have stopped the march of progress?

Water John

But fishing is very important in localised areas. Politicians incl Tory ones are quite sensitive to its future,

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

You may well be right, but the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016, and I suspect this present deal (if finalized) may unleash a little pent up investment as well.

Things are going to be interesting going forward, both for the UK and for us within the EU. Life is never going to be quite the same again and a few years from now I doubt whether either Leavers or Remainers will be able to claim that they got everything right.

On the contrary, they'll both be able to claim it. And they will. :rolleyes:

The thing with history is, you don't get to run it a second time. Even now, various models suggest that Brexit has depressed UK GDP by about 2%, but since we don't have an alternative universe in which Remain won the referendum and UK GDP is now 2% higher than it is in this universe, it's relatively easy for those who are so motivate to ignore, deny or simply disregard this.

20silkcut

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is quite a staggering come down though for the UK if the deal goes through.

Essentially all they will have achieved is they gave up their seats in the parliament and any veto over laws and regulations.

I think it will go through, because the alternative of No deal is simply not even worth contemplating. But this is about the worst possible outcome to a project ever devised.

Yes but they can throw the DUP under a bus at some future point and go full Brexit can’t they??
Eu have no objection to an Irish Sea border. And a majority in NI and ROI would probably back an Irish Sea border if it was put to a vote.

LeinsterDub

kowtow wrote: »

You may well be right, but the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016, and I suspect this present deal (if finalized) may unleash a little pent up investment as well.

That's because the BOE stepped in and injected massive amounts of money post brexit to stabilize the situation

Shelga

kowtow wrote: »

You may well be right, but the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016, and I suspect this present deal (if finalized) may unleash a little pent up investment as well.

Things are going to be interesting going forward, both for the UK and for us within the EU. Life is never going to be quite the same again and a few years from now I doubt whether either Leavers or Remainers will be able to claim that they got everything right.

The UK is still in the EU. It will be interesting to see how the economy is faring in 5 years time.

LeinsterDub

Water John wrote: »

Nicola Sturgeon gives a good assessment. Fisheries will be bargained away in future negotiations.
Fisheries was my one regret that we sacraficed in 1973.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/nov/22/brexit-talks-theresa-may-eu-hancock-rejects-claims-talks-are-in-trouble-saying-last-minute-hitches-normal-in-eu-negotiations-politics-live

Why ? In the UK Fish represents less than 0.5% of GDP . The decline in employment in fishing would happen regardless of the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/06/uk-fishing-fleets-unlikely-to-gain-from-brexit-despite-goves-claims-say-experts

First Up

kowtow wrote: »

mickoneill31 wrote: »

The cost is way more than that.

GDP is down at least 2%.
The standing of the UK is diminished - who (apart from the UK) thinks they're going to get great trade deals now.
And many companies have initiated plans to relocate some of all of their business. How do you calculate that cost? I had an interview recently where the job exists in Dublin because they're not replacing leavers in London.

You may well be right, but the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016, and I suspect this present deal (if finalized) may unleash a little pent up investment as well.

Things are going to be interesting going forward, both for the UK and for us within the EU. Life is never going to be quite the same again and a few years from now I doubt whether either Leavers or Remainers will be able to claim that they got everything right.

Nothing in politics, business or life is about getting everything right but the Brexit balance sheet is pretty overwhelmingly lop-sided.

And that's just counting what the UK will have lost. We won't be able to ever see what they might have won.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is quite a staggering come down though for the UK if the deal goes through.

Essentially all they will have achieved is they gave up their seats in the parliament and any veto over laws and regulations.

They have also secured an end to free movement (which brexiters see as a benefit, but remainers see as a cost). And of course they have secured an exemption from any pressure to participate in further moves towards "ever closer union" (while surrendering any opportunity to shape or influence those moves).

kowtow wrote: »

I think the great strength of it, such as it is, like most EU deals is that it kicks the can down the road. To some extent it leaves all the choices open for the UK - not least because it is only a declaration. The Brexiteers in the UK can still make the case for a "hard" Brexit with the minimum of alignment consistent (technology allowing) with avoiding the backstop, whilst the remainers can make the case for something approaching full (albeit non-voting) membership. The UK can still choose in the years to come whether to prioritize trade outside the EU, or trade with the EU - but it can't escape the consequences of making that choice.

In the meantime, the crash out Brexit is avoided - there will never again be the (somewhat overblown) talk of food shortage, aircraft not flying, etc. etc. - because there is plenty of time to put those issues to rest in a calm and rational way. Both sides have, to that extent, put the pin back in the grenade for good.

And the UK has paid 39 billion for the privilege.

The 39 billion isn't a new or additional cost, though. It largely represents money they had already committed to paying. And, because of transition, in return for paying the money they were already committed to paying, they get the benefit of programmes they already expected to benefit from. So I think it's unfair to position it as an extra or new cost. All it means is that Brexit hasn't dissolved the UK's obligations in a way that some of the less grounded-in-reality brexiters hoped it would.

As others have pointed out, the real cost of Brexit is not the divorce payment; its the downturn in national economic performance. Thqat was always going to be the case.

Whether the crash-out brexit is avoided remains to be seen. I think the likelihood of its eventuating is greatly reduced, but a lot of cans have been kicked down the road to the end of transition, and unless the UK can do a lot more in the next two years to prepare for no-deal than it has done in the past two years, if a cliff-edge does threaten in 2020 it won't be much less alarming a prospect then than it is now.

Rhineshark

kowtow wrote: »

You may well be right, but the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016, and I suspect this present deal (if finalized) may unleash a little pent up investment as well.

Things are going to be interesting going forward, both for the UK and for us within the EU. Life is never going to be quite the same again and a few years from now I doubt whether either Leavers or Remainers will be able to claim that they got everything right.

Actually, predictions have been pretty good.

Sterling crashed from 1.50 to hovering around the 1.11/90p level and has remained in the channel since, bounced around by political commentary.

The UK economy contracted (grew weakly).

Jobs have been lost as companies went or committed to going elsewhere.

NHS got a bit more funding - at the expense of all the other struggling sectors.

And there was no actual crash out/hard Brexit, which is what would have caused the crazy stuff.

Saying that well, it didn't happen and/or was overblown is like saying that the Y2K bug was overblown - because it was fixed.

Water John

Nicola Sturgeon gives a good assessment. Fisheries will be bargained away in future negotiations.
Fisheries was my one regret that we sacraficed in 1973.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/nov/22/brexit-talks-theresa-may-eu-hancock-rejects-claims-talks-are-in-trouble-saying-last-minute-hitches-normal-in-eu-negotiations-politics-live

kowtow

mickoneill31 wrote: »

The cost is way more than that.

GDP is down at least 2%.
The standing of the UK is diminished - who (apart from the UK) thinks they're going to get great trade deals now.
And many companies have initiated plans to relocate some of all of their business. How do you calculate that cost? I had an interview recently where the job exists in Dublin because they're not replacing leavers in London.

You may well be right, but the UK has not suffered anything like the fate predicted by those backing remain in 2016, and I suspect this present deal (if finalized) may unleash a little pent up investment as well.

Things are going to be interesting going forward, both for the UK and for us within the EU. Life is never going to be quite the same again and a few years from now I doubt whether either Leavers or Remainers will be able to claim that they got everything right.

EdgeCase

What I find amazing is even the British 'remainers' never seem to get the point across that most of this is money spent on shared services and facilities that allow the EU members to get more bang-for-buck and pool resource and technical expertise in a way that would be more difficult and more expensive at country-by-country level.

Even EU cohesion spending / social spending that works its way through ultimately benefits the UK and other net contributors as it's helping to stabilise and grow the big European social-democratic free market economy model which opens up vast amounts of economic opportunities for the older members too. It's not a one-way street and never has been.

I mean, if you look at Ireland for example, the fact that our economy boomed which was in large part due to initial kick starting by the EU, has resulted in a thriving neighbouring market that buys €34 billion in UK exports every year.

It's always presented as if it's the EU just some big deadweight cost that provides absolutely no benefits and I genuinely find the pro-EU side in the UK fails to communicate most of those issues and I don't see the situation improving at all.

Everything is being presented as little-picture, short-term and totally transactional.

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

The 39 billion is not a cost of Brexit, it is simply paying their dues upon leaving the club (like a bar tab but with future commitments included).

If the UK were to stay, the 39bn would still be payable, but as part of their annual payment to the EU rather than any lump sum

I don't believe the payment will be a lump sum either. Some of the costs haven't be figured out fully such as pensions.

mickoneill31

kowtow wrote: »

And the UK has paid 39 billion for the privilege.

The cost is way more than that.

GDP is down at least 2%.
The standing of the UK is diminished - who (apart from the UK) thinks they're going to get great trade deals now.
And many companies have initiated plans to relocate some of all of their business. How do you calculate that cost? I had an interview recently where the job exists in Dublin because they're not replacing leavers in London.
Then all the other aspects of the EU that the UK loses access to (e.g. medicines regulation, Galileo etc.)

Leroy42

The 39 billion is not a cost of Brexit, it is simply paying their dues upon leaving the club (like a bar tab but with future commitments included).

If the UK were to stay, the 39bn would still be payable, but as part of their annual payment to the EU rather than any lump sum

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is quite a staggering come down though for the UK if the deal goes through.

Essentially all they will have achieved is they gave up their seats in the parliament and any veto over laws and regulations.

I think it will go through, because the alternative of No deal is simply not even worth contemplating. But this is about the worst possible outcome to a project ever devised.

I think the great strength of it, such as it is, like most EU deals is that it kicks the can down the road. To some extent it leaves all the choices open for the UK - not least because it is only a declaration. The Brexiteers in the UK can still make the case for a "hard" Brexit with the minimum of alignment consistent (technology allowing) with avoiding the backstop, whilst the remainers can make the case for something approaching full (albeit non-voting) membership. The UK can still choose in the years to come whether to prioritize trade outside the EU, or trade with the EU - but it can't escape the consequences of making that choice.

In the meantime, the crash out Brexit is avoided - there will never again be the (somewhat overblown) talk of food shortage, aircraft not flying, etc. etc. - because there is plenty of time to put those issues to rest in a calm and rational way. Both sides have, to that extent, put the pin back in the grenade for good.

And the UK has paid 39 billion for the privilege.

ilovesmybrick

lawred2 wrote: »

And this is different from the Withdrawal Agreement?

Is the declaration legally binding? Or just politically binding?

In short the withdrawal agreement outlines how the UK leaves, the political agreement sets the framework for the negotiations on how a future relationship between the EU and UK will operate after March.

EdgeCase

You also have to remember that, in stark contrast with Macron, Merkel is an expert in multilateralism and keeping coalitions on the road. Her job is far closer to what the Taoiseach does then an executive president. She's very definitely aware of the importance of keeping everyone onside and not allowing the UK to try to play one country off against the next.

German domestic politics is all about coalition and consensus building and that carries though into how they deal with multilateral relations. You also see that reflected in how Ireland engages in the EU vs how the UK simply does not and I am seeing very negative engagement from France too and again, it's a first-past-the-post, winner-takes all type of politics there too.

The UK is all about playing the man rather than the ball, both in international relations and in domestic politics. They've been trying to split the EU since the very start and they're not even subtle about it. It's reflective of their own domestic politics too, where the concept of sharing power and creating consensus is really not something that is understood, certainly not by the Tories anyway.

I get the impression that Merkel knows that her role is as the Chancellor of Germany and not the leader of Europe and she seems to be very deliberately avoiding being pushed into some kind of de facto position that she does not have, whereas Macron continuously seems to make statements on behalf of Europe, often totally inappropriately and causes division by so doing.

You fairly regularly see politicians and commentators trying to put Merkel into the "Queen of Europe" role and you see her quietly and politely stepping around that to avoid conflict.

She makes plenty of missteps in domestic policy and I don't really agree with some of her economic reforms, but she's in a totally different league of leadership to the Tories - i.e. she is capable of seeing a bigger picture than her own party squabbles and she's also quite capable of putting forward logical, sensible arguments. There's a calm, sane, sensible type of leadership vs the chaos that's coming out of London at the moment.

I think the UK Government is making a colossal mistake if they think they can drag Merkel into this and Macron's anti-Brexit instincts are being driven by Marine Le Pen's version of UKIP biting at his heals, so the UK's going to get the cold shoulder from France for very different reasons.

ilovesmybrick

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is quite a staggering come down though for the UK if the deal goes through.

Essentially all they will have achieved is they gave up their seats in the parliament and any veto over laws and regulations.

I think it will go through, because the alternative of No deal is simply not even worth contemplating. But this is about the worst possible outcome to a project ever devised.

From start to finish this processing has been a unmitigated mess from the UK. Poor statesmanship, appalling diplomacy, and a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The Labour party has let the disorder in the Tories pass them bby when any other opposition party with any other leadership would have made hay with what's happening, the Tories seem to be comprised of two diametrically opposed parties, and without fail the politicians in charge of negotiations with the EU have demonstrated a complete ignorance of what the EU is or how it operates. Complete GUBU politics that it is hard to fathom coming from the UK.

lawred2

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

On the political declaration between the UK and the EU.

And this is different from the Withdrawal Agreement?

Is the declaration legally binding? Or just politically binding?

kowtow

lawred2 wrote: »

An agreement between whom?

It's the final(?) draft of the political declaration about the future relationship, which was incomplete in the version published last week alongside the withdrawal agreement.

The cynical among us would suggest it was incomplete in order to allow what has happened overnight, the addition of suitable text to pacify as many in London as possible once they have already thrown their toys out of the pram as they did last week.

The new agreement will give TM as much room as possible to win over the waverers and some of those opposed.