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 VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The UK is a big importer of beef and dairy, which will protect the Northern Irish supplies but a net exporter of lamb.
UK agriculture has been badly affected by EU membership.

This was the claim in June 2016 and publications like Farmers Weekly were urging their readers to vote Leave. But the latest story is that British farmers are in a complete state of panic and dreading No Deal.

Seth Brundle

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

UK agriculture has been badly affected by EU membership.

In what way?

A Dub in Glasgo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Erm, those vans (which were years ago and probably never existed except as a photo-opportunity).

Oh they existed alright and they were divisive and stirred up anti-immigrant sentiment

Tell me how

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Erm, those vans (which were years ago and probably never existed except as a photo-opportunity) were specifically aimed at illegal immigrants. Could you please explain to me why illegal immigrants should not be reminded that they have no right to be in a country and should leave?

And if you are complaining about the cost to EU citizens of applying for the right to permanent residency (which the Irish do not have to apply for) then ask yourself how much it costs to apply to become an Irish Citizen or even to renew your passport. National Insurance numbers do not bestow residency rights, by the way.

And I don't think reciprocal arrangements have been offered by many EU countries.

Others have posted links and also, those vans would most certainly have stoked anti-immigrant sentiment.

You can bet that many legally entitled immigrants were shown the vans or had them pointed out to them and told to pack their bags just because of their colour.

ThePanjandrum

murphaph wrote: »

You are oversimplifying things. If the UK is forced to throw the doors open to cheap food, its own agriculture sector will be wiped out overnight as it cannot compete on price.

It also depends on what sort of food. Do you really expect a head of Australian lettuce to survive the journey as well as one from Spain?

Countries trade with neighbours for a reason: it's cheaper to transport goods over shorter distances. The consumer is used to fresh food these days, not stuff pickled in the colonies and shipped home in a windjammer.

In the event of a no deal Brexit in 3 months the UK will face food shortages in anything they normally import from the continent.

Have you ever heard of quotas? They are one of the parts of the WTO schedules and have been divided between the EU and UK so apart from anything else, much of UK agriculture can be protected in this way so in many cases all that will be happening is that goods will be bought from the rest of the world rather than from the EU.

breatheme

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Have you ever heard of quotas? They are one of the parts of the WTO schedules and have been divided between the EU and UK so apart from anything else, much of UK agriculture can be protected in this way so in many cases all that will be happening is that goods will be bought from the rest of the world rather than from the EU.

But part of the negotiating process of FTAs is increasing/aboloshing quotas. So what is it, the UK trades with the whole world on WTO terms... sets up FTAs with quotas...?

One moment they are saying they'll set their tariffs to zero and import from all over the world and the next they are saying they'll have the upper hand in FTAs with the whole world. Which one is it?

ThePanjandrum

UsedToWait wrote: »

It was 2013, and it was under the current Prime Minister's remit,

And the vans did exist - though I'm guessing you knew that already.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/26/theresa-may-go-home-vans-operation-vaken-ukip

To be honest, I'd never taken much interest. Looking at the report 2 vans were used, each was used for 7 days of 8 hours each.

So I make that 112 hours that the vans were used and their usage was restricted to 6 districts of London.

It's hardly the threat of 1984, is it?

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

ThePanjandrum

CelticRambler wrote: »

The Brits are paying the French to print their new Blue Passports; they're paying the French to process residents' permits; they're paying the French for their nuclear electricity; the French have just bought Gatwick; and now the Brits are paying the French to ferry them across the Channel.

Never mind turning the clocks back to the Imperial Britain of the 1800s - it's starting to look like they really want to go all the way back to Norman times.

Protectionism is a wonderful thing and the French manage to apply it even in a supposedly open single market.

Capt'n Midnight

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

And I don't think reciprocal arrangements have been offered by many EU countries.

Seriously ?

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-spain-pm-pedro-sanchez-eu-settlement-scheme-video/

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said the rights of the 300,000 British people living in Spain would be secured even in the case of a no deal Brexit as long as the same was offered to Spanish people in the United Kingdom.

Capt'n Midnight

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Have you ever heard of quotas? They are one of the parts of the WTO schedules and have been divided between the EU and UK so apart from anything else, much of UK agriculture can be protected in this way so in many cases all that will be happening is that goods will be bought from the rest of the world rather than from the EU.

The problem for Oz and NZ is that the continentals pay a premium relative to what the UK pays for the same product. The name of the game was to move the UK imports to the rest of the EU.

Splitting the quota means less profit for NZ and Oz because the UK quota can't be moved anymore. Something they'll bring up in any new FTA's.

NI farmers get most of their income from the EU, similar in the rest of the UK. Grove has already said continued govt subsidies will depend on farms going green or some such moving goal post.

I can't see any good news on the horizon for UK farming.

cml387

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Seriously ?

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-spain-pm-pedro-sanchez-eu-settlement-scheme-video/

France have offered a similar guarantee.

EdgeCase

The situation with citizens' rights is actually far more complex than the British media seems to think. For a start, there's actually no point in trying negotiate this with the EU as it does not have any role in the matter for citizens of 3rd countries (other than the EEA members and CH which have special status within the EU systems).

In a scenario where there's a hard Brexit, UK citizens in the EU are subject to each of the 27 members national immigration laws. So, basically it could mean that UK nationals might have absolute rights to residency in Ireland, no particular fuss in Spain but might need to apply for a visa in say.. Poland or Germany.

They would be entitled to apply for Schengen visas, but they are not long term residency permits.
Schengen Visas only cover short stay (up to 90 day) scenarios. They've never covered immigration.

Basically, once UK citizens are no longer EU citizens, the EU's role in their freedom of movement ends.

You also have a problem where by a UK citizen might get a permit to live in France, but that does not mean they could then move to Spain or Germany. You're back to non-EU systems at national level.

It's likely that a 90 day visa waiver will be negotiated with most of the 27 member states, but beyond that nobody knows and it would very much depend on how nationals of those countries are treated by the UK.

Given the hostility towards central and eastern Europe in the rhetoric from Brexiteers, I could see some of it becoming problematic.

Christy42

cml387 wrote: »

France have offered a similar guarantee.

Didn't all EU countries agree to this when they made the no deal plans. The one were London can keep the derivatives trading and whatever had this as a part of it. I think that was agreed by all EU countries.

murphaph

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Have you ever heard of quotas? They are one of the parts of the WTO schedules and have been divided between the EU and UK so apart from anything else, much of UK agriculture can be protected in this way so in many cases all that will be happening is that goods will be bought from the rest of the world rather than from the EU.

The UK leaves the EU in three months. There is no time to negotiate a FTA with anyone. This means the UK is on most favoured nation terms immediately. That means the UK cannot discriminate against the EU or anyone else. The same tariffs has to be applied to the same types of goods regardless of origin.

The UK will have to drop tariffs to very low levels to prevent food price inflation. It's a totally vicious circle.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

The UK leaves the EU in three months. There is no time to negotiate a FTA with anyone. This means the UK is on most favoured nation terms immediately. That means the UK cannot discriminate against the EU or anyone else. The same tariffs has to be applied to the same types of goods regardless of origin.

The UK will have to drop tariffs to very low levels to prevent food price inflation. It's a totally vicious circle.

Or agree to the WA, or rescind Art 50.

Their choice.

Strazdas

EdgeCase wrote: »

The situation with citizens' rights is actually far more complex than the British media seems to think. For a start, there's actually no point in trying negotiate this with the EU as it does not have any role in the matter for citizens of 3rd countries (other than the EEA members and CH which have special status within the EU systems).

Also, ripping up long standing immigration agreements going back decades with neighbouring countries seems an extremely retrograde action.

I'm surprised this isn't causing huge controversy in the UK. By any criteria, it is a hostile gesture towards former friends and neighbours. If Ireland announced tomorrow it was ending the CTA, how would that be interpreted in Britain?

Nody

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Have you ever heard of quotas? They are one of the parts of the WTO schedules and have been divided between the EU and UK so apart from anything else, much of UK agriculture can be protected in this way so in many cases all that will be happening is that goods will be bought from the rest of the world rather than from the EU.

Oh you mean the qoutas UK submitted with EUROs in the surcharges? The same qoutas that already have over 20 countries objecting to them inc. Russia filing an official complaint stopping the process? You know the qoutas which will not be valid unless every WTO country agrees to them; are those the qoutas you are talking about? Because I only want to make sure we're talking about the same qoutas here seeing of how UK so far has made a complete and utter failure in their attempt to submit and get them approved after all. You know; the whole take back control while giving 163 countries the right to veto what UK wants etc.

On separate news UK government has offered up juicy ferry contracts around Christmas snapped up by EU ferry companies to offer more volume going over. It's always nice of the UK government to help fund the EU business in such a way esp. as it will do nothing to fix the issue of returning trucks (that are not empty). A commentator (Lucrecia) on the Indy article summed it up nicely:

In a blistering wave of genius Britain changes tack and decides to stop punching itself in the face and kicks itself in the nuts instead. And the amazing thing is it pays European companies for the pleasure.

CelticRambler

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm surprised this isn't causing huge controversy in the UK.

Nothing about Brexit is causing huge controversy in the UK. Ordinary Joe goes willingly to his doom ...

dr.fuzzenstein

CelticRambler wrote: »

Nothing about Brexit is causing huge controversy in the UK. Ordinary Joe goes willingly to his doom ...

It is a game of "stop hitting yourself" where the other side really is doing it all themselves.

Water John

Good to hear thought and discussion has been put into avoiding a Crash out Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march

Senior Tory and Labour MPs are planning to force the government to delay Brexit by several months to avoid a no-deal outcome if Theresa May fails to get her deal through parliament in January, the Observer has been told.

Cross-party talks have been under way for several weeks to ensure the 29 March date is put back – probably until July at the latest – if the government does not push for a delay itself. It is also understood that cabinet ministers have discussed the option of a delay with senior backbench MPs in both the main parties and that Downing Street is considering scenarios in which a delay might have to be requested from Brussels.

One senior Tory backbencher said: “I have had these discussions with ministers. They will not say so in public but of course the option of a delay has to be looked at in detail now. If we are determined to avoid a no deal, and the prime minister’s deal fails, we will have to ask to stop the clock, and that will give time for us to decide to go whatever way we decide thereafter.”

Seth Brundle

Can the deadline date be delayed?

Nody

Water John wrote: »

Good to hear thought and discussion has been put into avoiding a Crash out Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march

Senior Tory and Labour MPs are planning to force the government to delay Brexit by several months to avoid a no-deal outcome if Theresa May fails to get her deal through parliament in January, the Observer has been told.

Cross-party talks have been under way for several weeks to ensure the 29 March date is put back – probably until July at the latest – if the government does not push for a delay itself. It is also understood that cabinet ministers have discussed the option of a delay with senior backbench MPs in both the main parties and that Downing Street is considering scenarios in which a delay might have to be requested from Brussels.

One senior Tory backbencher said: “I have had these discussions with ministers. They will not say so in public but of course the option of a delay has to be looked at in detail now. If we are determined to avoid a no deal, and the prime minister’s deal fails, we will have to ask to stop the clock, and that will give time for us to decide to go whatever way we decide thereafter.”

Great; more UK internal debates with the assumption that EU will do whatever UK decides. At least some of the politicans do however have picked up on the minor details such as "no further negotiation" and "new referendum" being requirements but I doubt most will get that far.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Can the deadline date be delayed?

Yes but only if UK requests it and all EU27 vote to agree to the extension. EU's position is basically only way for extension is to allow a referendum or possibly a tighter deal (i.e. drop May's red lines and go for a Norway style deal) even though not stated (no renegotiation of existing deal possible) by proof of significant change basically. Gut feeling is EU would probably allow extension simply to allow Ireland, Belgium etc. shore things up further but that's for EU's benefits and not UKs benefit.

Strazdas

Water John wrote: »

Good to hear thought and discussion has been put into avoiding a Crash out Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march

Senior Tory and Labour MPs are planning to force the government to delay Brexit by several months to avoid a no-deal outcome if Theresa May fails to get her deal through parliament in January, the Observer has been told.

Cross-party talks have been under way for several weeks to ensure the 29 March date is put back – probably until July at the latest – if the government does not push for a delay itself. It is also understood that cabinet ministers have discussed the option of a delay with senior backbench MPs in both the main parties and that Downing Street is considering scenarios in which a delay might have to be requested from Brussels.

One senior Tory backbencher said: “I have had these discussions with ministers. They will not say so in public but of course the option of a delay has to be looked at in detail now. If we are determined to avoid a no deal, and the prime minister’s deal fails, we will have to ask to stop the clock, and that will give time for us to decide to go whatever way we decide thereafter.”

I think the British side would have to come up with something concrete in order to halt the March 29th exit date (ie. it would have to be something dramatic like the announcement of a second referendum or a general election).

Halting the exit date for the sake of halting the exit date would probably be dismissed by the EU. They've had nearly three years to sort out the Brexit shambles and have gotten virtually nowhere.

Strazdas

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Can the deadline date be delayed?

In theory, but it would need some big breakthrough on the British side. Saying "Give us a few more months so we can keep on arguing with ourselves" would be given short shrift.

Water John

Basically if TM's Deal doesn't get the votes a Ref looks likely. The EU would need ' a significant move' to accede to an extension. Of course a Deal that incl staying in CU and SM would qualify too.

Leroy42

Have they discussed this with the EU I wonder?

Doesn't read like it, but I would assume that they are aware that it not simply up to them.

And July. So what happens with the EU elections and the budget?

Water John

Yes, whilst we know already such talks with the EU have taken place, the article does state that these have taken place, or did I read a different article.

'Brussels has made clear that it would consider putting back the date of Brexit for a good reason, but has stressed that this could not mean reopening negotiations. The EU would be willing to allow extra time for a second referendum to take place.' Quote.

Strazdas

That Dr. North guy over at the eureferendum site seems to be showing his true colours at last : demanding that Brexit be implemented no matter what the consequences, even if it means No Deal, saying a second referendum would be sacrilege and that Parliament has no right to do anything that would interfere with implementation of the referendum result.

I've always had my suspicions he is a hardcore Brexiteer and Europhobe.

Hurrache

Interest take on what the British government are at
https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1079159383123247106?s=19

mickoneill31

Leroy42 wrote: »

Have they discussed this with the EU I wonder?

Doesn't read like it, but I would assume that they are aware that it not simply up to them.

Doubtful. Corbyn was saying earlier on this month that he'd delay Brexit to renegotiate the deal. That's another unicorn.
He seems to be saying and doing the minimum so when it goes tits up he can say "well they didn't do my plan which would have avoided this"