Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Peregrinus · 28-11-2018 9:40am

First Up wrote: »

. . . The only circumstances in which Ireland can join Schengen are the end of the CTA. That won't be our doing and would be regrettable but if the CTA ends we should join Schengen the next day.

Yes. We could, and we would. But "if the CTA ends" is, at the moment, a fairly remote eventuality.

First Up · 28-11-2018 9:48am

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

. . . The only circumstances in which Ireland can join Schengen are the end of the CTA. That won't be our doing and would be regrettable but if the CTA ends we should join Schengen the next day.

Yes. We could, and we would. But "if the CTA ends" is, at the moment, a fairly remote eventuality.

Let's hope so.

Meanwhile if your flight into a Schengen country coincides with a flight from China, Japan, India, Turkey or a former colony in Africa or Latin America, your desire for Schengen membership will rise rapidly.

Peregrinus · 28-11-2018 9:58am

First Up wrote: »

Let's hope so.

Meanwhile if your flight into a Schengen country coincides with a flight from China, Japan, India, Turkey or a former colony in Africa or Latin America, your desire for Schengen membership will rise rapidly.

Since the checks that Schengen countries carry out on non-Schengen EU/EEA citizens are quite different from the checks that they carry out on third-country citizens, many (most?) international airports have separate queuing/processing for the two groups. So choose the right airport, and this shouldn't be too big a problem.

First Up · 28-11-2018 10:42am

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Let's hope so.

Meanwhile if your flight into a Schengen country coincides with a flight from China, Japan, India, Turkey or a former colony in Africa or Latin America, your desire for Schengen membership will rise rapidly.

Since the checks that Schengen countries carry out on non-Schengen EU/EEA citizens are quite different from the checks that they carry out on third-country citizens, many (most?) international airports have separate queuing/processing for the two groups. So choose the right airport, and this shouldn't be too big a problem.

I can think of quite a few airports where that is not the case. In fact I can't think offhand of one where it is.

And its hard to chose an airport after you have chosen your destination!

Imreoir2 · 28-11-2018 11:13am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, all of this is true but, in fairness, saving time at airports probably isn't the biggest issue here, in the scheme of things. Countries in the Schengen area operate a common visa policy with respect to third countries, and so if we joined we could no longer operate an independent visa policy for third countries, as we do at present. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's almost certainly a more significant thing than the impact on processing times at airports.

But I think the discussion is academic. Ireland has an opt-out from Schengen (as does the UK) so that it can continue to operate the Common Travel Area with the UK. The EU is supportive of this, and has reiterated its support in the context of Brexit. Ireland wishes to maintain the Common Travel Area. Given this, the only circumstance that could bring about a change is if the UK acted so as to undermine or terminate the CTA arrangements, and this seems unlikely; their stated policy is also to maintain the CTA, and this is written into the Joint Report and the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

So, prinzeugen's prediction that Ireland will be required to join the Schengen Area seems about as well-grounded and well-reasoned as most of his other prognistications. None of the three entities involved - Ireland, the UK, the Union - wish to end the CTA or extend Schengen. Of the three, at the moment the UK is perhaps the most unstable, irrational and unpredictable but, even so, it would be a fairly remarkable volte-face for them to change their minds on this. So I don't see any reason for thinking as prinzeugen does (and, as is customary, he hasn't offered any reason).

The only thing that has tied us to the CTA is NI, ensuring that there can be no need for immigration controlls between NI and the Republic is vital and rules out joining Schengen for as long as partition continues. I would be of the opinion that a UI would be better off in Shengen than the CTA, but until then it is really a non starter.

trellheim · 28-11-2018 11:15am

In a no-deal scenario they crash out of the CTA or do I have that right . Albeit the CTA legislation does go back to 1920 on both sides.

First Up · 28-11-2018 11:19am

trellheim wrote: »

In a no-deal scenario they crash out of the CTA or do I have that right . Albeit the CTA legislation does go back to 1920 on both sides.

Doesn't matter how far back it goes. New laws supercede old ones.
Its hard to see how a UK wide CTA could operate in a no deal situation. An NI specific FTA is technically possible but a political minefield.

mickoneill31 · 28-11-2018 11:24am

First Up wrote: »

I can think of quite a few airports where that is not the case. In fact I can't think offhand of one where it is.

And its hard to chose an airport after you have chosen your destination!

It's probably because you're usually traveling to or from a non Schengen country. I worked in CDG and they segregate passengers based on if they're traveling between Schengen countries. You wouldn't ever see that if you're only ever flying to Ireland or the UK.

Leroy42 · 28-11-2018 11:30am

Hammond has come out today saying that all scenarios Brexit will result in a negative impact on the economy. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/chancellor-uk-worse-off-brexit-scenarios-philip-hammond

He states that TM's proposed deal is the least worst option.

Now, when the chancellor is telling you that the whole country is going to become poorer you would think that people would pay some heed, but of course this will simply be waved away as Remainer nonsense.

There is one line in particular caught my eye:

Hammond said “looking purely at the economics, remaining in the single market would give us an economic advantage”, comments that are likely to rile Brexiters in his party.

. The expert opinion, from the person charged with managing the states finances, is something to be riles about? It is an odd state of affairs when the journalists even feel the need to put in something like that.

LuckyLloyd · 28-11-2018 11:37am

prinzeugen's contributions and - to a lessor extent - those of Folkstonian are notable examples of increased frustration at this thread having fundamentally rejected the emotional premise of Brexit some time ago. The opinion pages of the Telegraph are currently full of diatribes that come from such a place: 'shove your economic realities, I want to talk about freedom and the unspecified future promise of exotic global trade deals'

This was a rather bizarre example of the art form:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/17/cling-corrupt-tatty-comfort-blanket-remainers-us-brexiteers/

But enough logic – it’s still a thrill. BREXIT! It may be winter outside, but in my heart it’s spring – spring 2016 and all the fun and joy of Victory Day still coming round that bend. Once again, I feel that familiar feeling of being quite niche in my interests, as apparently we’re all meant to be bored by now.

But how can people ever be bored by politics? It’s like being bored by sex or religion – the great trinity of enthralling social intercourse. I pity the poor fool who can’t wait for a world fit only once more for chatter of shopping, sport and the weather. “Wrap up warm!” the forecasters moan each morning, and you’d be forgiven for thinking they’re talking about more than the temperature.

But I don’t want a life in which “wrapping up warm” and “staying safe” are the be-all and end-all. I want to live my life like an adult aware of risks and responsibilities, not like a child or Chicken Licken fearing the sky will fall if things change.

Listening to the radio, looking at the internet and reading the papers, the scare stories are still coming thick and fast; as I write, we’re just recovering from Mr Kipling complaining that his French Fancies may suffer from a shortage of such complex raw materials as sugar (because they don’t grow that in the Commonwealth Caribbean, of course) and squaring up to a New York Times expose about the effect Brexit may have on the freshness of cut flowers. The phrase First World Problems is greatly over-used, but it does come somewhat to mind.

The old glass-half-full/glass-half-empty personality test has never been so in-your-face. Where Remainers see Here Be Dragonnes, I see a vista of possibilities. Property prices plunging? Great, now young people will stand a chance of making the first rung on the housing market. Workers hired for the cheapness of their labour leaving the country? Fine, now employers will have to pay a decent wage.

You cling to this corrupt, tatty old comfort blanket all you like, Remainers. But please don’t ever again portray yourselves as enlightened, democratic, daring embracers of change. Don’t call yourselves internationalists when you’re willing to sacrifice a generation of Southern European youth to the feather-bedded, over-used fantasies of a cabal of filthy rich old duffers who no one ever elected.

Like someone afraid to leave a bad marriage and step out into the sunshine of uncertainty, you carry on believing the gaslighting lies – “You look fat in that Union Jack mini dress! No one else ever will want you!”

Before the referendum, I was willing to believe that our stroppiness made us Bad Europeans – but since the bullying began, I know that it’s not me, it’s EU.

The top comments to this wallowing nonsense:

So right. Remainers are the status quo afraid to rock their comfy lives. It's the poor who need revolution to change things and Labour could have done better if they saw that. Young people are indoctrinated at university to be pro-eu and think they are cleverer but instead are sheep. We need free thinkers and a vision of a better world not controlled by banks and business and insipid celebrities. Have we forgotten the banking crash and who payed? Us the ordinary folk. Lets leave in wto terms and negotiate a trade deal after. The peoples vote was the 2016 one and we won!

Good analogy. Most remainers that I know are Public Sector. The realities of life outside a nice safe cocoon are an anathema to them.

Great piece. Now how do we get MPs to overcome their overblown fears and vote for WTO?

It's an unfortunate consequence of our fractured societal discourse (where everyone is indeed willingly "cocooned" in a bunker of their own ideas) that you cannot discuss / debate / argue with the real Brexit believers. The general (though not exclusive, it is important to note) tone and focus of this thread is on the economic and political realities, and the legal binds that underpin the EU and the UK's membership of same. Essentially realpolitik, and I guess some shades of schadenfreude borne of pure frustration at the religious fervour with which Brexit is held in some quarters despite the absence of any concrete plan to underpin the blind faith.

To those believers such focussed conversation is anathema - as is the realities of the negotiated deal. I unfortunately think the only way in which they might be shaken from their position is if they were laid off and had to face empty supermarket shelves in the wake of a disorderly exit. But even then, the EU will be the problem and those who just didn't believe in Brexit quite enough.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/11/26/unless-eu-changes-approach-brexit-meaningful-long-term-deal/

But whatever happens in the next few weeks, it is becoming ever more clear that, unless the EU radically changes its approach to the United Kingdom’s exit – that it stops treating Brexit as a chance to punish our nation in a desperate attempt to shore up support for the failing European project – we will not be able to do a meaningful long-term deal with Brussels. The UK entered this process seeking a fair-minded agreement that would keep trade flowing while cementing our friendship through cooperation as equals. If all the EU is willing to countenance is our capitulation to its terms, we should not be afraid to walk away.

And in this way the Brexit dream has shifted from 'easiest trade deal ever' to 'taking back control on WTO terms'. But if we get there, then I think the loop will be closed for the vast majority of people. There will be no more imaginary spaces of milk and honey for Brexit to inhabit. Not that it will help the already suffering working poor in the UK so cynically manipulated into voting for this idiocy.

flatty · 28-11-2018 11:39am

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hammond has come out today saying that all scenarios Brexit will result in a negative impact on the economy. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/chancellor-uk-worse-off-brexit-scenarios-philip-hammond

He states that TM's proposed deal is the least worst option.

Now, when the chancellor is telling you that the whole country is going to become poorer you would think that people would pay some heed, but of course this will simply be waved away as Remainer nonsense.

There is one line in particular caught my eye:

. The expert opinion, from the person charged with managing the states finances, is something to be riles about? It is an odd state of affairs when the journalists even feel the need to put in something like that.

Interesting in that he seems to have been given tacit or overt permission to state this publicly now. May would have tried to have his head on a spike for speaking as openly a year ago.
It strikes me that it took two years, but it's finally dawning on her what she has done, and is in the process of doing.

prawnsambo · 28-11-2018 11:40am

First Up wrote: »

Doesn't matter how far back it goes. New laws supercede old ones.
Its hard to see how a UK wide CTA could operate in a no deal situation. An NI specific FTA is technically possible but a political minefield.

I'm open to correction here, but in the case of a crash out, all the 'new' agreements between the UK and the EU die. Until they're replaced, existing laws and agreements outside the EU stand. From an Irish point of view, nothing has changed. From a UK point of view, the CTA will also stand. Unless of course the UK decides to revoke it. But wouldn't that require them to actually revoke it rather than it dying as a result of hard brexit?

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2018 11:46am

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hammond has come out today saying that all scenarios Brexit will result in a negative impact on the economy.

Before the Referendum, the UK Government estimated Brexit would cost 3-6% of GDP longterm, depending on how close the future trading relationship is, but the Leave side just waved the numbers away, no-one listens to experts anymore.

It has already cost 2.5%, and I have seen estimates from 3-9% more depending on the future relationship.

But no-one really knows how much a crashout will hurt, it is really difficult to estimate. More than 9%, that is for sure.

First Up · 28-11-2018 11:49am

mickoneill31 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I can think of quite a few airports where that is not the case. In fact I can't think offhand of one where it is.

And its hard to chose an airport after you have chosen your destination!

It's probably because you're usually traveling to or from a non Schengen country. I worked in CDG and they segregate passengers based on if they're traveling between Schengen countries. You wouldn't ever see that if you're only ever flying to Ireland or the UK.

As I understand it, the claim is that there are three routes in CDG; an open one for flights between Schengen countries, and two passport check routes - one for non-Europe flights and another for flights from non- Schengen/EEA countries.

I'm familiar with the first two but not the third.

28-11-2018 12:08pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's an unfortunate consequence of our fractured societal discourse (where everyone is indeed willingly "cocooned" in a bunker of their own ideas) that you cannot discuss / debate / argue with the real Brexit believers. The general (though not exclusive, it is important to note) tone and focus of this thread is on the economic and political realities, and the legal binds that underpin the EU and the UK's membership of same. Essentially realpolitik, and I guess some shades of schadenfreude borne of pure frustration at the religious fervour with which Brexit is held in some quarters despite the absence of any concrete plan to underpin the blind faith.

Might not be suited to this thread but I've been thinking about this from the opposite direction recently. With society being much more permissive now and the death of the mantra of never discussing politics or religion I think it's actually the fact that people will discuss anything that has led to the fracturing and the situation where it's possible to manipulate almost anything into a 50/50. Because people think about things they form a belief and that's it. Where before people were open-minded in a sense, really empty-minded, now when political campaigns start they don't have as much effect. Look at Reagan as a good example, or any of the older political races tbh. Sure the polls now might be off by a percent or 2 but it used to be a 6 week campaign with not a whole lot happening would have huge variation and momentum swings. Now it's a fight for a tiny middle ground because people are "aware", or at least that's what they call it when they've made up their minds.

Professor Moriarty · 28-11-2018 12:37pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Before the Referendum, the UK Government estimated Brexit would cost 3-6% of GDP longterm, depending on how close the future trading relationship is, but the Leave side just waved the numbers away, no-one listens to experts anymore.

It has already cost 2.5%, and I have seen estimates from 3-9% more depending on the future relationship.

But no-one really knows how much a crashout will hurt, it is really difficult to estimate. More than 9%, that is for sure.

I posted this yesterday: The LSE, King's College and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have published a joint report. According to their research, May's deal will cost Britain anywhere between 1.9-5.5% of GDP. So it will be an economic negative. No deal brings it up to 3.5-8.7%.

Of course the economic negatives are only a facet of the total implications. The societal impacts will be even worse - workers' rights, travel, security etc.

Zubeneschamali · 28-11-2018 12:41pm

I can't see these numbers having any effect on Brexit voters, though. They were well publicized and then dismissed two years ago.

Anyone afraid of a 5% drop is just lacking that WWII bulldog spirit, why we faced worse than that at Agincourt etc. etc.

Professor Moriarty · 28-11-2018 12:42pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I can't see these numbers having any effect on Brexit voters, though. They were well publicized and then dismissed two years ago.

Anyone afraid of a 5% drop is just lacking that WWII bulldog spirit, why we faced worse than that at Agincourt etc. etc.

Yes, we'll fight them on the beaches etc. ad nauseam.

ancapailldorcha · 28-11-2018 12:48pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I can't see these numbers having any effect on Brexit voters, though. They were well publicized and then dismissed two years ago.

Anyone afraid of a 5% drop is just lacking that WWII bulldog spirit, why we faced worse than that at Agincourt etc. etc.

No but I get the impression that a lot of people, thought not nearly enough have woken up to the con.

The WWII spirit/Agincourt thing tends to be more common among older people in my experience who will of course be fine given that they own homes. It's the younger people who will bear the consequences and are less likely to spout such claptrap.

Professor Moriarty · 28-11-2018 12:55pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No but I get the impression that a lot of people, thought not nearly enough have woken up to the con.

The WWII spirit/Agincourt thing tends to be more common among older people in my experience who will of course be fine given that they own homes. It's the younger people who will bear the consequences and are less likely to spout such claptrap.

IIRC, somebody researched the age demographic and calculated that over a two year period there would be a 4% swing away from to Remain from Leave due to older people dying off and younger people maturing enough to take an interest and voting.

ancapailldorcha · 28-11-2018 12:56pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

IIRC, somebody researched the age demographic and calculated that over a two year period there would be a 4% swing away from to Remain from Leave due to older people dying off and younger people maturing enough to take an interest and voting.

Pretty much. Wonder how much difference the utter farce of the last two and a half years would make.

bob mcbob · 28-11-2018 12:56pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

Yes I forgot the world is going to end. No food etc. People will survive. Did it before. The only people in trouble will be the ones that survive on imported food.

Ie Lidl and Aldi shoppers!

Or those people dependent on imported chemicals to keep the tap water clean.
Still it's only a bit water born diseases. It's not like the world is going to end.

Tell me how · 28-11-2018 12:59pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Pretty much. Wonder how much difference the utter farce of the last two and a half years would make.

I think it's still hard to call just what a new vote would end up with.

I think many might actually still vote to leave on the basis that they think democracy is being railroaded.
Also, I bet that a great number of people are not informed enough as to just what is going on. What they hear is the big bad EU is bullying us and making us pay £39B just to leave.

I do suspect that Remain would win but I think it would still be surprisingly close and hence Eurosceptics would continue to look to exit.

Professor Moriarty · 28-11-2018 1:02pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Pretty much. Wonder how much difference the utter farce of the last two and a half years would make.

It's a bit like Trump. There's a hardcore who buy into the nationalistic hubris and who will always want a Brexit at whatever cost. It's the middle ground that is shifting. The big problem is that the ERG and DUP have inordinate influence. So much so that this small rump could yet cause Britain to crash out.

keane2097 · 28-11-2018 1:09pm

Slightly off topic but maybe someone can give me the five line version of what the downsides to Schengen are that kept Ireland and the UK out of it in the first place?

Leroy42 · 28-11-2018 1:10pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's a bit like Trump. There's a hardcore who buy into the nationalistic hubris and who will always want a Brexit at whatever cost. It's the middle ground that is shifting. The big problem is that the ERG and DUP have inordinate influence. So much so that this small rump could yet cause Britain to crash out.

I think it is more than that. Whilst there has been a small shift in the polls in terms of remain/leave, not nearly enough to warrant anybody to claim that things havw changed.

And for that, the voters need to take full responsibility. The mess that HMG have made of it, the resignation of so many ministers, the failure to deliver on any campaign promises, the failure to point to anything concrete in terms of benefits. Yet none of that seems to be making a significant difference.

The public seem very much of the view that the vote happened, they want nothing more to do with it.

mariaalice · 28-11-2018 1:12pm

The edges of the hardcore are wabbling a bit, listened to an interview with a hardcore brexiter, and they grudgingly admitted to there being maybe a few bumps if they crashed out, but still, paradise was on the way if they held their nerve. First time I have ever heard the hardcore admitting they could be any problems.

ancapailldorcha · 28-11-2018 1:14pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think it is more than that. Whilst there has been a small shift in the polls in terms of remain/leave, not nearly enough to warrant anybody to claim that things havw changed.

That's as things are now. If there were another referendum, I think that the remain side would have learned the lessons from last time and now have a lot more ammunition thanks to the constant bungling and venality of the Leavers and that's not even been fully exposed yet.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And for that, the voters need to take full responsibility. The mess that HMG have made of it, the resignation of so many ministers, the failure to deliver on any campaign promises, the failure to point to anything concrete in terms of benefits. Yet none of that seems to be making a significant difference.

Aye but modern Politics on both sides of the pond is based on pandering to voters with Trump being the prime example. It's never their fault, the narrative goes. It's those evil liberal corporations, students, elites, etc... Replete with soundbytes like "Remoaners" I might add... We've a heck of a way to go back to get anywhere near to what you're describing.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The public seem very much of the view that the vote happened, they want nothing more to do with it.

Depends on where you cast the net. Bolton? Sure. Stoke-on-Trent? Most definitely. Birmingham? There's an interesting one. If Theresa May's plate balancing act collapses and major employers announce relocation plans, I'd say the penny will drop sharpish but it'll be too late then.

FreudianSlippers · 28-11-2018 1:22pm

keane2097 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but maybe someone can give me the five line version of what the downsides to Schengen are that kept Ireland and the UK out of it in the first place?

In short, the UK didn't join because they didn't believe that the EU's external borders were strong enough or well enough policed - which would result in unwanted non-EU migration into the UK (read: the UK wanted to pick-and-choose who it let in); Ireland didn't join because the UK didn't join - it would have effectively ended the CTA between UK/Ireland.

Basically, the UK wanted to have their cake and eat it for their entire EU membership.

keane2097 · 28-11-2018 1:27pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In short, the UK didn't join because they didn't believe that the EU's external borders were strong enough or well enough policed - which would result in unwanted non-EU migration into the UK (read: the UK wanted to pick-and-choose who it let in); Ireland didn't join because the UK didn't join - it would have effectively ended the CTA between UK/Ireland.

Basically, the UK wanted to have their cake and eat it for their entire EU membership.

Thanks, I figured that would probably be the case.

Incidentally, I've heard it suggested that we are missing out on a bunch of wealthy Far Eastern tourist money because of the additional barrier of having to get a non-Schengen visa for those travellers. Not sure how true that is or how much it might be worth.

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments