Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

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.

And to be honest was entirely the right decision for them to not go in. If they had, the migration crisis would have hammered home Brexit.

Schengen has little benefit for the island nations of Europe anyway.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It won't be properly tangible though until May fails to get her deal through the House of Commons. That'll be it then as the EU are refusing to renegotiate the deal.

I was listening to Brexitcast last night, and although they all commented on the fact that all EU leaders were adamant that the deal was the only one on offer, they all still said that nobody knows what the final deal will be until March.

Whilst of course there is a grain of truth to that, it just strikes me as the UK are still of the view that everything is still to play for.

They took this view of the December agreement, that it was nothing really. But the deal TM has brought back includes all of the December agreement. It seems to me that the EU have taken the view that the UK need to be slow walked through this process, allow them the time and space to come to terms with each part of it, whilst maintaining the central premise throughout.

This deal is now the basis for any future negotiations. If the deal is rejected in the HoC, TM won't be starting from a blank piece of paper. The EU will ask which parts are the problem, what TM needs to change and what is she willing to give up to get it.

Many MP's seem to be talking as if this deal can simply be thrown out and they start all over again.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If? We have had plenty of it already. Car manufacturing bosses being one example. But no matter what it is simply dismissed as Pro-EU Project Fear.

Dyson recently announced is electric cars would be made in Taiwan or somewhere, hardly a ripple for the UK. This was exactly the sort of investment that should have been coming to the UK in the new Brexit era.

And FDI is way down. Investment is down Universities are saying that research and development will take a major hit.

People really don't seem to care. "Just get on with it" seems to be the cry for many a vox pop. What "getting on" and "it" actually are nobody seems entirely sure, but by god the government better get on and deliver.

I think Dyson was always going to manufacture his car in Singapore. The announcement was made just after the EU announced a FTA with Singapore. So that would have been his thinking even if the UK had voted to remain. His major beef with the EU was about his vacuum cleaners and how they were energy rated against the competition.

But there's an ever increasing list of companies relocating some or all of their business away from the UK and into other EU countries. Ireland has gained Barclays, Steris plc, Bank of America (part of), Merrill Lynch (part of), Marshall Wace (hedge fund - part of) and GoldCore (gold storage - part of).

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting Scottish poll today - EU support up to 73%, and every constituency would vote Remain.

Those levels are approaching Irish numbers!

The Telegraph has a poll today from Survation. Surprisingly, it's an argument against The Telegraph's own pro-Brexiteer line. Faced with a choice of May's deal, Remain or No Deal:

16% of voters would support May's agreement
28% would support No Deal
43% would support continued EU membership

Deleted User wrote: »

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting Scottish poll today - EU support up to 73%, and every constituency would vote Remain.

Interesting though that the no to independence camp lead by 10 points currently (if thats accurate), excluding the don't knows. How much do the Scots really love the EU I wonder as against a fall-back position re Brexit?


http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask#line

It's notable that Sturgeon has been canny not to go all in, promoting SM and CU if May's deal is defeated, a People's Vote if that doesn't gain traction, with Indyref 2 only occurring once Brexit has been concluded.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How are you finding the Brexitcast? Remainiacs is the only one I listen to which is obviously horrendously biased but excellent nonetheless.

It is as biased as Remainiacs but with less wit or information.

It seems far more interested in the reality TV show of Brexit rather than a more serious look a the implications. They seem very biased in favor of the UK spin on everything. Never questioning ust how the hell did it come to all this and asking the real questions about how TM, Davis et al have made such a complete hames of the whole thing.

Still, I like to listen to it to get some other perspective

Latest Survation poll indicates 50% of Tory voters now support May's deal, and 62% want their MP to approve it:

http://twitter.com/Survation/status/1067593501066575872

http://twitter.com/Survation/status/1067593937412677632

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Latest Survation poll indicates 50% of Tory voters now support May's deal, and 62% want their MP to approve it:

http://twitter.com/Survation/status/1067593501066575872

http://twitter.com/Survation/status/1067593937412677632

What's the trend on that?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What's the trend on that?

Here you go, support for the deal up 10% among the general public (but support still only at 37%)

Nigel Dodds supports Keith Starmer in looking for the Govn't to honour the instruction of Parliament and release the full legal advice.

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.

Nope. Couple of misconceptions:

1. There is no "CTA legislation"; it rests on policy and administrative agreements.

2. The CTA as we now have it only goes back to the 1950s.

3. But, nevertheless, it's not dependent on EU membership or EU legislation on either side. So a no-deal crash-out by the UK doesn't automatically end the CTA.

4. But it could put it under pressure, depending on what the UK chooses to do with their newly-taken-back "sovereignty". If they impose visa requirements or similar on any (or all) EU citizens then the CTA with Ireland becomes problematic for them, since it provides an easy route for EU citizens to evade visa checks.

5. How much this matters, though, depends on how much the UK decides to rely on visa checks at borders. For which, see below.

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?

Most countries on the mainland have relatively light border controls, but relatively extensive internal controls (population registration, identity papers, that kind of thing). This has been the way for a long time.

By contrast, the UK and Ireland have taken advantage of their island status to mostly control migration at borders, and haven't needed to introduce internal population controls.

So there was a concern that if we joined Schengen there might be a mismatch between the relatively lightly-controlled borders of Schengen countries and the absence of internal controls in the UK and Ireland. People could get into the Schengen area relatively easily, and they travel to the UK or Ireland where their lack of long-term residence rights would not be easily detected or enforced.

Basically, we got to keep the Common Travel Area, which was seen as its own a mini-Schengen, with tougher border controls but lighter internal controls than big Schengen next door. It was accepted that it worked better for us because we are islands.

Ironically, over the past few years the UK has in fact been moving more to a mainland model, with the "hostile environment" policy of requiring people to demonstrate their residence/employment rights internally, when taking up employment, renting accommodation, registering at schools or GP practices, etc. So, if the UK were staying in the Union, the case for the two of us having our own mini-Schengen would be getting somewhat weaker. The more mini-Schengen looks like big Schengen, the less case there is for having the two separate.

With the UK leaving, though, this move by them to a continental model of enforcing migration controls probably won't lead to pressure to end the separate CTA. There'll be no question of the UK joining Schengen, and with the priority according to keeping the Irish border open the EU will not put pressure on Ireland to join Schengen and end the CTA. So this would only happen if (a) the UK ended the CTA, which seems unlikely, or (b) the UK changed its mind about Brexit and in a fit of euro-enthusiasm decided to join Schengen, which seems even more unlikely.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Why would what is considered patriotic to some make you feel nauseous?

Well, that depends on what they consi8der patriotic, surely? In this case we are discussing people who might think that there was some meaningful parallel between (a) the UK leaving the EU and as a result being treated as a non-Member, and (b) an armed invasion by Nazi troops. That parallel would make me feel pretty nauseous, but perhaps you have a stronger stomach than I do.