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

bilston

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Can you find me anyone (never mind "many") who thinks Ireland won't be negatively affected by a no deal brexit?

So why wouldn't Ireland consider extending A50 if it actually helped them deal with the consequences of a no deal Brexit?

Scoondal

The Brexit deal has been agreed between EU and UK. The UK parliament was due to vote on this in December. Mrs May decided to postpone the vote until January. A full month of no progress. 21 January is time up for approval by UK parliament. If it doesn't get approval by UK by this date then the withdrawal deal cannot be implemented by EU.
The UK parliament WILL NOT vote for this deal.
This is where we are with "Brexit".
So, we have either a "No Deal" brexit with WTO tariffs and rules for UK or we have a delay to the EU Article 50 process which can only happen if there is general election in UK.
Is my understanding of these facts correct ?

Igotadose

Scoondal wrote: »

The Brexit deal has been agreed between EU and UK. The UK parliament was due to vote on this in December. Mrs May decided to postpone the vote until January. A full month of no progress. 21 January is time up for approval by UK parliament. If it doesn't get approval by UK by this date then the withdrawal deal cannot be implemented by EU.
The UK parliament WILL NOT vote for this deal.
This is where we are with "Brexit".
So, we have either a "No Deal" brexit with WTO tariffs and rules for UK or we have a delay to the EU Article 50 process which can only happen if there is general election in UK.
Is my understanding of these facts correct ?

Simpler than that:
UK can vote to approve the deal negotiated with the EU by TM and her government. Or, the UK can crash out with no deal and WTO processes lurched into place. There's nothing 'automatic' about an Art. 50 extension - UK would have to ask and the EU approve it. Nothing's been asked for. Some tea-leave readers think that if the UK goes instead for a new election, the EU might grant an extension but all this is speculative, not definitive. EU could just as soon say, "Sorry, it's March 29th, you're done, best of luck and tally ho."

It *may* be that, once May's deal is approved, an extension might be granted by the EU to implement that deal - but that's not so clear to me that they're tied, I believe the plan is that once May's deal is approved, it takes effect in December 2019.

Scoondal

European culture does not understand "kicking the can down the road" for a late night, last minute deal. The EU has finished negotiations and has arrived at a Brexit deal with the UK government.
It is of no concern to the EU that UK politics is chaotic. The deal is already done.

prawnsambo

bilston wrote: »

So why wouldn't Ireland consider extending A50 if it actually helped them deal with the consequences of a no deal Brexit?

At some point the uncertainty needs to end. An extension will not really help that because it will just pile more uncertainty on top. There might be some benefit at the margins, but three months or whatever extension is sought will only add the possibility of another extension being looked for on another pretext. To be fair, the government will be better placed to assess the benefits and so far they've been pretty much on top of the situation. So if they believe it's of use to us, I'd be happy enough.

Scoondal

Igotadose wrote: »

Simpler than that:
UK can vote to approve the deal negotiated with the EU by TM and her government. Or, the UK can crash out with no deal and WTO processes lurched into place. There's nothing 'automatic' about an Art. 50 extension - UK would have to ask and the EU approve it. Nothing's been asked for. Some tea-leave readers think that if the UK goes instead for a new election, the EU might grant an extension but all this is speculative, not definitive. EU could just as soon say, "Sorry, it's March 29th, you're done, best of luck and tally ho."

It *may* be that, once May's deal is approved, an extension might be granted by the EU to implement that deal - but that's not so clear to me that they're tied, I believe the plan is that once May's deal is approved, it takes effect in December 2019.

But Mrs May's/UK government's deal will never be approved by the UK parliament.

Strazdas

bilston wrote: »

So why wouldn't Ireland consider extending A50 if it actually helped them deal with the consequences of a no deal Brexit?

It would be seen as a hostile act by the UK in bad faith, a V sign to Europe. They would still have the option of calling a second referendum or withdrawing A50 or calling a general election but instead they would be saying 'Hi EU & Ireland, can you please help us smash up the UK-EU relationship forever?'

Folkstonian

listermint wrote: »

Ah you must mean like the multiple opt outs the UK obtained over the years....

Well, not quite. Opt outs are negotiated and formalised in legal treaties. They are very different to what the French government are doing.

I sense the obvious disdain you have for the concept of opt outs - but the primary responsibility of national governments is still, even as members of the EU, to do what they see is in their citizens’ best interests.

If that means deciding not to participate in certain EU policy areas, so what? Compromise and cooperation are at the heart of what the EU is, and it works best when that compromise goes both ways.

Until a couple of years ago, with opt outs from the Schengen Area and the Euro, I thought british politicians had been doing a good on that front!

Scoondal

The Brexit deal has taken 21 months of negotiation wuth EU. When UK parliament rejects this body of work, it will be seen as a waste of EU time and money. I predict a lot of anti-UK sentiment in EU countries in 2019.
EU has important work to do, we don't need time wasters here.

Scoondal

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, not quite. Opt outs are negotiat and formalised in legal treaties. They are very different to what the French government are doing.

I sense the obvious disdain you have for the concept of opt outs - but the primary responsibility of national governments is still, even as members of the EU, to do what they see is in their citizens’ best interests.

If that means deciding not to participate in certain EU policy areas, so what? Compromise and cooperation are at the heart of what the EU is, and it works best when that compromise goes both ways.

Until a couple of years ago, with opt outs from the Schengen Area and the Euro, I thought british politicians had been doing a good on that front!

They have opted out of EU and EEA. So, no more opt outs left now. UK has arrived at a dead end. UK will no longer have any influence within EU.

Folkstonian

Scoondal wrote: »

They have opted out of EU and EEA. So, no more opt outs left now. UK has arrived at a dead end. UK will no longer have any influence within EU.

Possibly. We’ll soon see I guess. We’ve not come to the end of the road just yet.

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

Well despite what many wish to think the Republic of Ireland will be affected negatively by a no deal Brexit...maybe the Irish govt would like a bit more time to prepare.

Yes we will. But we have been preparing unlike the shambolic British parliament.
If are partners in the EU do not want to extend, then I don't see why we should go against their wishes in favour of a government that would readily send ths island back into conflict if it meant they got their way.

joeysoap

listermint wrote: »

That's utter waffle.

Its actually a lie. And probably spread through Facebook idiots.

The HSE are changing the structure of hospitals nationally the name change was part of that plan and it's not decided.

...

The HSE couldn’t organize a piss up in a brewery so I don’t altogether buy this. Can’t live within budget.....can’t cut waiting lists ....which should be more of greater concern to them.

There’s no doubt that a lot of people who voted leave did so because of immigration. Added to that and the straight bananas, the €350 on the side of busses and the unchangelled untruths spouted by Boris, JRM,IDS etc they managed to convince enough voters to vote leave. And they haven’t gone away.

CelticRambler

bilston wrote: »

So why wouldn't Ireland consider extending A50 if it actually helped them deal with the consequences of a no deal Brexit?

As prawnsambo said: not extending A50 creates a Brexit certainty, to (or against) which Ireland can then respond. Every kind of Brexit is bad for Ireland, so hanging around for another three months while the Tories shuffle their deck-chairs is of no help to us at all.

Folkstonian wrote: »

He says, as France ploughs ahead with plans to break EU rules on it’s budgetary deficit. Brussels has sent a strongly worded letter, but seems unwilling to do much more.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Or, to put it another way, Brussels isn't anything like the dictatorial monster who tramples on national sovereignty, as portrayed in the British press. Every member of the Union pushes its luck to the limit - the French with their chronically unbalanced budget, the Irish with their dubious corporation tax deals, the British with their waving through of non-conforming Chinese imports ...

RobMc59 wrote: »

You are correct-I'm just distraught because I don't want the UK to leave

We don't want you leaving either. It's been very handy being able to order cheap stuff from amazon.co.uk, to be delivered by visitors from England. But it's your elected representatives you need to convince, not us!

(If you decide to grab one of those migrant's boats in Dover and refugee yourself in France, you can hide in my barn for a few months)

Scoondal

Fact : EU is UK's biggest market for exports. WTO rules will make UK goods more expensive for EU consumers.

Scoondal

Fact : Under WTO rules UK will not be allowed to treat imports from EU differently from imports from ALL WTO countries. So UK can't have different tariff rules for EU imports or Argentinian imports. Under WTO rules Chinese imports will be subject to the same tariffs and rules as French imports.

trellheim

Oh give over and stop putting up " Fact" type posts. Above you said "the deal is done".

Well thats not correct. A draft deal is on the table which the EU do not want to revisit. Nobody's signed any Withdrawal agreement.

Leroy42

Scoondal wrote: »

Fact : EU is UK's biggest market for exports. WTO rules will make UK goods more expensive for EU consumers.

But where else are the UK going to get the goods from? Any other market is going to cost anyway, either in tariffs or transport/waiting times.

And therein lies the difference. Ireland will suffer but are keeping 27 out of 28 relationships in tact. The UK is clearly very important but we need to refocus.

The UK are riping up all and every one of their relationships and need to start again.

prawnsambo

Scoondal wrote:

Fact : EU is UK's biggest market for exports. WTO rules will make UK goods more expensive for EU consumers.

Scoondal wrote: »

Fact : Under WTO rules UK will not be allowed to treat imports from EU differently from imports from ALL WTO countries. So UK can't have different tariff rules for EU imports or Argentinian imports. Under WTO rules Chinese imports will be subject to the same tariffs and rules as French imports.

Are you trying to make a point with these facts? Everybody knows this stuff, it's global trade 101.

Now what would be a bit more useful is if you could extrapolate these facts into a working hypothesis on how the UK will fare when everything gets more expensive no matter who it trades with and the EU countries will have a choice.

10000maniacs

Scoondal wrote: »

Fact : Under WTO rules UK will not be allowed to treat imports from EU differently from imports from ALL WTO countries. So UK can't have different tariff rules for EU imports or Argentinian imports. Under WTO rules Chinese imports will be subject to the same tariffs and rules as French imports.

Only after they implement trade deals with other third countries.
On March 29th 11:00 they will have no trade deals with anyone if they crash out.
This means they could unilaterally set their own import tariffs at 0% as Boris Johnson suggested last year. But this would be idiotic, as it would undercut UK production of similar goods making them uncompetitive creating more Brexit devastation. Also it would weaken the UK's hand when negotiating tariffs with third WTO countries.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

That's utter waffle.

Its actually a lie. And probably spread through Facebook idiots.

The HSE are changing the structure of hospitals nationally the name change was part of that plan and it's not decided.

So this crap about some new locals having a problem with it sounds like something irexit crowd would get a hard on to propagate

I expect you'll go and correct your wife's family on that ...

I would understand if it`s to change the name for a valid reason-hospitals in the UK have changed names(my local hospital formerly Arrowe Park is now called Wirral university teaching Hospital)if it`s to gain training grants or something like that I would think that`s fine-I only know what I`ve heard 2nd hand.

Scoondal

prawnsambo wrote: »

Are you trying to make a point with these facts? Everybody knows this stuff, it's global trade 101.

Now what would be a bit more useful is if you could extrapolate these facts into a working hypothesis on how the UK will fare when everything gets more expensive no matter who it trades with and the EU countries will have a choice.

Even the most intelligent economists can't predict where this is going. I am merely trying to focus on facts rather than vague possibilities.

Scoondal

10000maniacs wrote: »

Only after they implement trade deals with other third countries.
On March 29th 11:00 they will have no trade deals with anyone if they crash out.
This means they could unilaterally set their own import tariffs at 0% as Boris Johnson suggested last year. But this would be idiotic, as it would undercut UK production of similar goods making them uncompetitive creating more Brexit devastation. Also it would weaken the UK's hand when negotiating tariffs with third WTO countries.

Well yes, they could opt out of WTO rules if they set EU tariffs at zero. What then of their trade with the rest of the world ? Non WTO rules. They are either in WTO or one of the very few countries who are outside even WTO.

Scoondal

prawnsambo wrote: »

Are you trying to make a point with these facts? Everybody knows this stuff, it's global trade 101.

Now what would be a bit more useful is if you could extrapolate these facts into a working hypothesis on how the UK will fare when everything gets more expensive no matter who it trades with and the EU countries will have a choice.

I thought that some may not realise fully the consequences of a "no deal brexit".
UK will fare worse than being within EU with EU's worldwide trade deals. After 10, 20, 30 years they will finalise trade deals with most large economies. But within EU those trade deals already exist between EU and its biggest trading partners.

10000maniacs

Scoondal wrote: »

Well yes, they could opt out of WTO rules if they set EU tariffs at zero. What then of their trade with the rest of the world ? Non WTO rules. They are either in WTO or one of the very few countries who are outside even WTO.

Never said it was un-idiotic. But Johnson put it out there.

What is a more likely scenario is they will start with the easy ones first, i.e. Canada and The USA, and then try to hitch a ride on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The problem with the TPP is there is not a lot that the UK make that can be shipped competitively half way round the world that other closer countries cannot make cheaper, so the negotiations will be tough.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

I would understand if it`s to change the name for a valid reason-hospitals in the UK have changed names(my local hospital formerly Arrowe Park is now called Wirral university teaching Hospital)if it`s to gain training grants or something like that I would think that`s fine-I only know what I`ve heard 2nd hand.

Way off topic but that's exactly what they are doing .

But it seems yourself and and Joey feel it easier to belief someone on Facebook who told your family members that a few new locals moved in and took offense and the our lady in the name. ... Let me guess they weren't not Irish origin these new locals...

Etc etc etc.

Irexit.

Same same but different ay?

Bonus points for guessing what sort of so crap is the origin for brexit.

Il give you a hint. Irrational lies.

prawnsambo

Scoondal wrote: »

Even the most intelligent economists can't predict where this is going. I am merely trying to focus on facts rather than vague possibilities.

That's just nonsense. The use of the word 'intelligent' is probably the most glaring nonsense in that post, but it's a close run thing. It's perfectly obvious what the difference will be between the UK and the EU. The UK will be at a huge competitive disadvantage because of tariffs. And even more so because of the non tariff barriers that will make trade far more difficult.

FrancieBrady

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's just nonsense. The use of the word 'intelligent' is probably the most glaring nonsense in that post, but it's a close run thing. It's perfectly obvious what the difference will be between the UK and the EU. The UK will be at a huge competitive disadvantage because of tariffs. And even more so because of the non tariff barriers that will make trade far more difficult.

Nobody is really looking at further stagnation and instability after Brexit either. Things won't miraculously stay the same after.
I can see a long period of recrimination and instability leading to further departures and even less investment.
Then you have the prospect of the Scots and northern Ireland fracturing away or trying to.
Mess.

Sandor Clegane

How will brexit affect ordering from amazon?

Jim2007

10000maniacs wrote: »

What is a more likely scenario is they will start with the easy ones first, i.e. Canada

Do you realize that the Canada-EU agreement requires EU agreement for Canada to give as good a deal to the UK?

Do you understand that deals with both the US and Canada are not regional deals as set out under WTO rules and must meet the full approval process.

The only ‘easy ones’ as you call them are WTO regional deals as they have very little third party requirements. And in the case of the UK that would be Europe and that is not going so well. In fact the only regional deal they have on the cards right now is Switzerland.