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

Enzokk

Shelga wrote: »

If there was no Northern Ireland- if Ireland was one united country already- would it really be so easy for the UK?

Would they just be leaving the customs union and single market permanently on March 29th, and suddenly everything would be brilliant?

Or would they be staying in during the transition period, but free to try to strike trade deals on their own?

I think that they would have still gotten a transition deal where the FTA was negotiated and for the UK to set up replacement agencies to replicate the work the EU is doing for them currently. They would have left both the SM and CU at the end of 2020 and all of of the EU bodies as well.

Shelga

Enzokk wrote: »

I think that they would have still gotten a transition deal where the FTA was negotiated and for the UK to set up replacement agencies to replicate the work the EU is doing for them currently. They would have left both the SM and CU at the end of 2020 and all of of the EU bodies as well.

So it may have been more straightforward, but she probably still would have struggled to get a majority in the HoC for this plan? Would there be advantages to leaving the SM and CU in these circumstances? Wouldn’t businesses like JLR and Nissan still be horrified?

mrbrianj

Strazdas wrote: »

That part indeed sounds bonkers. The idea of the Taoiseach leaking sensitive info to the Daily Telegraph of all newspapers is ludicrous (the Telegraph utterly despise him and it sounds far more like something May and her No.10 advisers would do).

Yes, a well know source of Irish Government leaks The Daily Telegraph. Who Dominic Raab also writes pieces for. Raabs accusation really stands up alright!

Whats amazes most is not the arrogance of the UK political class - that's a given, but its the way they openly and clearly lie but are never called out on it.

seamus

If NI wasn't a factor, the deal would already be done, but that's not to say it would be "easy" for the UK. On a global scale it would still be a little fish in a big pond, with a limited amount of time to strike its own trade agreements.

The UK would still come out of Brexit considerably worse off than it was.

The HSA (at the Government's insistence) are running radio ads now advising anyone who imports chemicals from the UK to look at their supply lines and make arrangements for Brexit. It's getting real now, we can expect considerable amounts of leaflets drops and information campaigns to prepare for no deal over the next 2 months.

Enzokk

Shelga wrote: »

So it may have been more straightforward, but she probably still would have struggled to get a majority in the HoC for this plan? Would there be advantages to leaving the SM and CU in these circumstances? Wouldn’t businesses like JLR and Nissan still be horrified?

With no border and GFA to worry about I think she would have gotten a majority to leave both the SM and CU quite easily. She would have gotten the ERG on board as well as Labour MPs who is in Leave constituencies who feel they have to vote for it.

It would have still been a disaster for their economy though either way as whichever way they leave will hurt them. Her red lines will not have shifted with no NI to worry about.

Anthracite

Peregrinus wrote: »

EMA is in Sloterdijk. It's only about 15 minutes from Schiphol by train, and there's a frequent service.

The main problem, though, is that DUB-AMS takes about 1 hr 45 mins, as opposed to 40 mins to LHR. And of course there are many fewer flights each day, so between the more limited schedule and the extra flight time in each direction, a day trip to AMS, while doable, involves a lot more travelling time, and a lot less meeting/interaction time, than going to London.

When you factor in the time getting to and from the airport, and waiting at the airport, and security, that difference is really rather diminished.

Russman

Macy0161 wrote: »

The EU would be open to an Norway type deal imo. It was not an option because of the UK's Red Lines. Norway is in the Single Market.

The Swiss deal I would suggest is the intention of the type of deal envisaged for the full FTA. And would deal with the backstop, given the conditions of the Swiss Deal. Again the most likely issues is the UK Red Lines (Free Movement is one of the conditions).

Basically, the only thing stopping Norway, Norway+, Swiss FTA is the the UK Red Lines, not EU intransigence.

The EU, even now, is saying that the WA is the best available unless the UK removes some of it's self imposed Red Lines.

I think this is essentially it. They want a square peg to be designed (by someone else) to go into a round hole, fitting perfectly.

I wasn't aware of the stats mentioned a few posts above about the UN classification of advanced economies, and just how few there are available for the UK to do a deal with (seems its just the US :eek:), but it throws an even starker light on the whole thing.
It really rubbishes claims made on that Sky News show last night from Sunderland that, and I'm paraphrasing here, it doesn't matter about companies relocating out of the UK because of Brexit, other countries really want to trade with Britain and will continue to do so.

As Dougal himself might have said, "that's mad, Ted".

seamus

Meanwhile in fantasyland, Jeremy Hunt is suggesting that an A50 extension may be necessary if the HoC don't approve a deal until late March. Because apparently the UK believes that , "we do now have a consensus in parliament.".

"We don't know what we want, but we're all agreed that we don't know. Therefore there is a consensus".

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0131/1026634-brexit-uk/

If I were to read between the lines, this is softening the media and the public up for the reality that the UK will have to relent at the last minute and approve the withdrawal agreement. But they have to continue this little farcical dance up to the last minute because they don't know how to govern any other way.

Leroy42

I have been wondering about services the last few days. There seems to be nothing dealing with services and all the discussion in the HoC and the media is about trade and NI.

Services are the most important part of the UK economy, so one must conclude that they have A) simply abandoned them, b) forgot about them or c) have some other plan in mind.

My own thinking (C), is that the UK have actually manufactured this from the outset. Create a seemingly impossible position, paint the EU as intransigent and thus unwilling and unable to conclude a deal, thus forcing the UK to crash out. No PM could accept this deal etc

In light of this act of aggression from the EU, and the subsequent negative impact on the economy including possible food shortages, the public will be looking to hit back. "Do Something". That something will be the complete deregulation of the financial services sector, not through choice of course but because the UK have no option due to the horrible EU. Cue FS companies flooding back into the UK on the back of tax cuts and Deregulation, Singapore-on-Thames.

Noises will be made about retraining all the people that lose their jobs in manufacturing, but it will amount to nothing (and is unworkable in the short-term anyway).

prawnsambo

seamus wrote: »

If NI wasn't a factor, the deal would already be done, but that's not to say it would be "easy" for the UK. On a global scale it would still be a little fish in a big pond, with a limited amount of time to strike its own trade agreements.

I'm not sure that we can assume that. The vote in the HoC the other night just put through an unenforceable amendment. So there were no high stakes involved. A decision without meaning basically.

But put the 'substantive question' to the house, and tell them that it's enforceable and will be actioned and you may well get a different answer. Backstop or no backstop. Because the problem with brexit is that nobody can agree on what exactly that is and what exactly they want from it. And that's exacerbated by the dawning realisation that no brexit is going to deliver sunlit uplands and unicorn farms.

When the ERG set themselves the task of writing a 'better deal', they fudged and procrastinated and eventually gave up. Because putting a plan on paper necessitates compromises and accepting losses. And nobody wants to put their name to that.

Leroy42

Apparently Tusk had a long phone call with TM last night. From the tweets about it, thus it carries the usual healthwarning although apparently not disputed by either EU or TM, Tusk made the point that the EU still do not know what the UK wants.

https://twitter.com/Stone_SkyNews/status/1090694975837347840

But it very much appears that the EU are open to changes, based on that exchange. That is a very far cry from saying no renegotiation.

robinph

Shelga wrote: »

If there was no Northern Ireland- if Ireland was one united country already- would it really be so easy for the UK?

Would they just be leaving the customs union and single market permanently on March 29th, and suddenly everything would be brilliant?

Or would they be staying in during the transition period, but free to try to strike trade deals on their own?

If NI wasn't included then the Torys would have a majority of 8.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apparently Tusk had a long phone call with TM last night. From the tweets about it, thus it carries the usual healthwarning although apparently not disputed by either EU or TM, Tusk made the point that the EU still do not know what the UK wants.

https://twitter.com/Stone_SkyNews/status/1090694975837347840

But it very much appears that the EU are open to changes, based on that exchange. That is a very far cry from saying no renegotiation.

Is that not just Tusk saying what we all know? That the UK are incapable of putting forward an alternative backstop, but instead of saying no renegotiation, he's saying show us your unicorns.

In other words, calling their bluff, by offering something he knows won't ever be called on. Like saying "I'll bet you a million euro" because you know you'll never have to pay out.

Penn

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apparently Tusk had a long phone call with TM last night. From the tweets about it, thus it carries the usual healthwarning although apparently not disputed by either EU or TM, Tusk made the point that the EU still do not know what the UK wants.

https://twitter.com/Stone_SkyNews/status/1090694975837347840

But it very much appears that the EU are open to changes, based on that exchange. That is a very far cry from saying no renegotiation.

That's the thing, the Backstop is only supposed to be there until the UK can come up with a reasonable alternative proposal. Their 'technological border' solution has had to be dismissed because the technology for it doesn't exist yet. If the UK could come up with an actual workable solution to solve the border issue, the EU would jump at that and work with them on it because that's what the Backstop is supposed to lead to.

But, the UK don't have a reasonable alternative to the Backstop and the withdrawal date is fast approaching, so at this stage even if the technology was miraculously invented, it still wouldn't be implemented or in place by March 29th. Hence why from the EU's perspective, the Backstop is an absolute requirement, because the UK cannot and will not get something else worked out and in place by March 29th. So at this stage, it's right for the EU to say there's no renegotiation on the backstop. The UK had over 2 years to come up with a solution/proposal, and they haven't been able to come up with anything.

Calina

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apparently Tusk had a long phone call with TM last night. From the tweets about it, thus it carries the usual healthwarning although apparently not disputed by either EU or TM, Tusk made the point that the EU still do not know what the UK wants.

https://twitter.com/Stone_SkyNews/status/1090694975837347840

But it very much appears that the EU are open to changes, based on that exchange. That is a very far cry from saying no renegotiation.

This is not news. The UK consistently wamts something but expects the otherside to define it. The backstop is something they came up with too btw and now cannot accept it.

robinph

The EU could do with pointing out a bit more, and getting it into the UK media, that the backstop is already limited in how long it will apply for and just as soon as there is another solution it can be got rid of. Letting the brexiteers and the media continue with the lie about it being permanent isn't helping anyone. It's only as permanent as long as an alternative isn't thought up.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109288434&postcount=9069

The Barnier slide is from a long time ago, and is missing the current ERG bugbear, the backstop.

No backstop, no Canada deal - yiz are out on yizzer ears with No Deal in 57 days, 14 hours, 20 minutes.

Zubeneschamali

eagle eye wrote: »

The UK are not going to run back to Europe quickly. They will look at making deals outside if the EU.

Yes, send Davis and Raab to talk to the Americans, that'll go well.

Macy0161

Leroy42 wrote: »

But it very much appears that the EU are open to changes, based on that exchange. That is a very far cry from saying no renegotiation.

I'd say again, they've never said no renegotiation. They've said no renegotiation with the UK's current Red Lines. A removal of the UK's self imposed "no customs union" red line, and the backstop is effectively redundant.

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

Deleted post.

wow - that's repugnant, crass and offensive

Extremely personal too

Why does UK discourse always have to reduce to baser elements and denigration of personalities?

Igotadose

Strazdas wrote: »

You'll struggle to find any discussion forum in Europe where people are talking up the "positives" of Brexit.

The Brexiteers are well and truly on their own : nobody likes them or think they are doing the right thing (they are the political equivalent of Millwall fans).

But that Millwall guy saved all those people from the attackers on London Bridge. So, objectively, Millwall's done at least *1* thing to add to the public good. Unlike Brexit!

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/736343/lion-of-london-bridge-millwall-fan-roy-larner-jail-drug-crimes-trial

Of course, being Brexit, said hero's now been arrested for dealing Fentanyl.

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

wow - that's repugnant, crass and offensive

Extremely personal too

Why does UK discourse always have to reduce to baser elements and denigration of personalities?

Because it has the desired effect. As evidenced by Folkstonian's description of certain EU figures as 'odious'. And that's driven entirely by the UK media like the Express, Telegraph, Times etc.. And of course the same mouthpieces have similar things to say about our own government and ministers.

eagle eye

Calina wrote:

This is not news. The UK consistently wamts something but expects the otherside to define it. The backstop is something they came up with too btw and now cannot accept it.

They don't want the backstop, they should have never agreed to it, because it gives the EU a massive hand in any negotiations.

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

wow - that's repugnant, crass and offensive

Extremely personal too

Why does UK discourse always have to reduce to baser elements and denigration of personalities?

The dumb thing is that it appears on their website for Irish subscribers to the Ireland edition. They really need to differentiate more between the 2 as currently the Ireland section for the daily publication is basically an add-on to the bottom of the UK edition landing page.

[Deleted User]

eagle eye wrote: »

They don't want the backstop, they should have never agreed to it, because it gives the EU a massive hand in any negotiations.

How? The backstop removes a time limit on trade negotiations which is a big help for the UK.

prawnsambo

eagle eye wrote: »

They don't want the backstop, they should have never agreed to it, because it gives the EU a massive hand in any negotiations.

How exactly does it do that?

Calina

eagle eye wrote: »

They don't want the backstop, they should have never agreed to it, because it gives the EU a massive hand in any negotiations.

They asked for it to apply to the whole UK. Are you saying that even when we give them something they ask for it is wrong? Cos I don't get this.

Give them something they want WRONG
Dont give them something they want WRONG.

We are talking about a country with approx 60 million people that is allegedly one of the more advanced. Not a toddler.

Seth Brundle

Can't link to the video directly but Suella Braverman was challenged on her border nonsense by Jess Phillips on LBC yesterday...
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/mps-clash-over-post-brexit-irish-border-question/

Zubeneschamali

Shelga wrote: »

Or would they be staying in during the transition period, but free to try to strike trade deals on their own?

They would definitely need the transition period. And at the end of the transition period, the cliff would be very nearly the same height despite them having carved two or three steps at the top, and they would ask for a long extension.

And eventually, a sane government would get in and apply for a Norway deal.

Because Brexit is a really, really bad idea on every front. In any shape or form, it will leave the UK worse off than remaining, and May's Brexit is frankly insane.

VinLieger

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Can't link to the video directly but Suella Braverman was challenged on her border nonsense by Jess Phillips on LBC yesterday...
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/mps-clash-over-post-brexit-irish-border-question/

Basically unicorns as usual is the answer.

Im also delighted to finally see one of them have to deal with the question that they have largely been ignoring about how they control freedom of movement into Dublin mixed with the CTA to cross the border into NI. Also expededly she failed completely to answer the question.