Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Guardian:
Brexit is national crisis, former diplomats tell Theresa May
Ex-ambassadors and high commissioners say UK is weakened by ‘fiasco’

“Our country’s national interest must always be paramount. The Brexit fiasco has already weakened the UK’s standing in the world. We strongly advocate a change of direction before it is too late. It is clear that Brexit has turned into a national crisis.

“There is no possible deal that will be a sensible alternative to the privileged one we have today as members of the EU with a seat at the table, inside the single market and customs union but outside the Euro[zone] and Schengen [area].

They add: “There is now, in addition to extending article 50, a powerful argument to go back to the people and ask them whether they want the negotiated Brexit deal or would prefer to stay in the European union.”

They warn: “If the prime minister’s deal is passed in parliament it will not be the end of Brexit but will in fact mark the start of year upon on year of negotiation and renegotiation – truly a ‘Brexternity’ of endless uncertainty about our future for both citizens and businesses alike.”

I don't see how anyone could not agree with these basic points. Brexit - terrible idea, say UK diplomats. The list of signatories is impressive. Pretty bad though when your senior foreign ambassadors need to club together and write the government that they are destroying the country.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There are approximately 125,000 members of the police force in the UK. The quoted figure would mean that each and every one of them would make an average of 4,300 queries each year.

I'm sceptical.

You may be sceptical, but it is a reputible newspaper quoting from evidence that the police themselves gave before a parliamentry committee, so as far as things go it is a fairly credible claim.

One has to ask the question of what exactly counts as an individual "use" for the purpose of these stats, from the article it seems that a lot of it may be part of an automated process that is crossreferencing multiple databases at once, which may explain the large number.

Rain Ascending wrote: »

I agree.

There has been a good deal of commentary in the UK regarding the practical impacts of no deal (and even there, there a lot is of dubious quality), but very little on the resulting political developments. It's clear that a lot of the latent support for no deal within the UK population is based on its apparent simplicity, the idea that with one bound the country is "free of the shackles of the EU". Of course, the idea that the UK could sustain a situation where it doesn't have normalized relationships with most of Europe is completely nuts.

D1ND (the British Civil Service term for the first day of a no-deal Brexit) would be the start of yet another vicious argument within the UK as to the next steps, with plenty of unicorns in the mix: continued no-deal, managed no-deal, mini-deal no deal, negotiations for Canada+++, Malting House, current WA + FTA, etc., etc. And that's before the EU sets it parameters for its negotiation position (most probably a variant on today's WA, adapted for a post-A50 legal framework).

And then the first of the practical impacts of no-deal Brexit start to be felt, raising the stakes even further.

The UK government would be faced with some serious decisions in a fraught political environment. Many from the Brexiteer wing will complain that this wasn't "the no-deal scenario they would have chosen"!

[Incidentally, this is why putting a no-deal option on a ballot paper in any second referendum would be meaningless without additional qualification.]

Politically, no-deal is no easy escape for the UK... the political chaos would continue.

There seems to be a perception in some quarters that in a no-deal scenario, the UK might go through a period of difficulty, but that this difficulty will disapate, that there will be a recovery of sorts following the chaos and the emergence of a "new normal".

I am of the opinion that there would be no new normal in a no-deal scenario. I think that in reality no-deal would be marked by a continual deterioritation of the UK position and that the absence of a deal would prevent any recovery or the emergence of a stable new normal. The EU will be able to sit back and simply wait the UK out. If after a month the UK remains unable to agree, then wait and see how they feel after two months. If after two months they still cannot agree, then after four months their position will again have materially worsened. Eventually this continual deterioration will be enough to change their priorities. Bluster, brexiteer rhetoric and blame gaming may get them through one month or two. Eventually however, with no answers to real problems and no end in sight, the Brexiteers are sure to lose sway and a pragmatic consensus will have room to come belatedly to the fore.

Valhallapt wrote: »

Were those two ROROs on the roadmap before Brexit or are they in direct response to Brexit?

SFAIK at least the first of them was already on order before the Brexit decision, but the shipowner's decision to employ them on the Dublin-Zeebrugge and Dublin-Rotterdam routes was a response to Brexit.

Valhallapt wrote: »

Also anything on the shorter France crossing?

The owners, CLdN, have six more vessels under construction each of about two-thirds the size of the Celine and the Delphine, plus options on another four. Decisions about where to deploy them will be made when delivery is due. It iwll party depend on how Brexit unfolds; if there's a no-deal Brexit there'll be less demand on the UK routes, plus those routes will be operating less efficiently, so the new vessels (and indeed the existing vessels) might be more profitably used if redeployed to Irish and Baltic routes.

However CLdN don't currently operate out of any French ports, so other carriers who already have a French base might be better positions to transfer ships from FRA-UK routes to FRA-IRL routes. CLdN might be more inclined just to up the frequency of their Dublin-Rotterdam and Dublin-Zeebrugge sailings.

J Mysterio wrote: »

What's mad if you think about it is Davis kept saying 'wait for the German car manufacturers to weigh in' - they will force a trade deal we want.

But the trade deal isnt coming - per red lines - and the car manufacturers are packing up shop before Brexit has even happened. Imagined leverage- gone.

Varik wrote: »

Ye, it's the other way around.

German manufacturers selling to the UK as it's a large market.

Two different (but related) things getting mixed up here.

First, the German car manufacturers. They don't manufacture cars in the UK. (Or, at any rate, they don't manufacture what we think of as German cars in the UK - BMW owns Rolls Royce and Mini, but they don't make BMWs in the UK.) They sell German cars into the UK.

If the UK leaves the EU, and doesn't sign a free trade agreement with the EU, then cars sold into the UK will face a 10% tariff. The Brexiter thinking here is that this would hit the sale of German cars into the UK (which is a significant market for them - German marques are considered very desirable in the UK), so the German manufacturers would put pressure on their government which would put pressure on the EU to yied to British demands so that a trade deal would be signed.

This argument is quite separate from - and in fact ignores - the position of the motor manufacturing industry in the UK. If there's no deep FTA they face two problems. First, their business model is bust - they all depend on seamless, just-in-time, international supply chains. Secondly, even if they manage to solve that problem, they face a 10% tariff on their cars sold into the EU. And, however the UK market is for EU manufacturers, the EU market is vastly more important for UK manufacturers. So, applying Brexity thinking, the pressure the EU might be put under by the German (and EU) auto industry to accommodate to the wishes of the UK is nothing to the pressure the UK could expect to be put under by the UK auto industry to accommodate to the wishes of the EU.

But there's more. And this is an extra bit that the Brexiters never thought about because, well, they're Brexiters, and the Brexity faith requires them to deny this bit. But it's real just the same. It's this:

For the UK auto industry there is no downside at all in the UK caving to the EU's wishes. In fact the best possible outcome for the UK auto industry would be no Brexit at all. But if there is to be a Brexit, if the UK gives up its ambitions to negotiate its own trade deals, yadda yadda yadda, that's all upside for the auto industry. So naturally they will push strongly for it.

Whereas, from the EU side, it's different. The auto industry really, really, really likes the Single Market. So if the UK is looking for concessions that threaten or weaken the integrity of the Single Market, that puts them in a conflicted position. If the EU caves to the UK, on the one hand the EU auto industry retains good access to the UK market but, on the other hand there's now a long-term threat to the viablity and durability of the Single Market. So it's not a shoe-in that they will lobby for the EU to give the UK what it wants. They themselves might have very mixed feelings about the EU doing that.

Brexiters, for the most part, can't see this. Not understanding the basis on which the Single Market works (remember for how long they insisted that the UK could participate in the single market without freedom of movement, and if this was denied to them they were being "bullied"?), they don't see why what they ask is a threat to the single market. But the EU auto industry sees it.

In short, Brexit was always going to be a much bigger threat to the UK auto industry than to the EU auto industry, and the position the Brexiters were pushing for was never going to be that attractive to the EU auto industry anyway. So all the pressure has been applied in precisely the opposite direction to the one they predicted.

Not sure it reflects that badly on TM, certainly for the HoC.

TM is saying this is Brexit, this is the deal available. She knows there is no point asking for anything different as this is the only solution that meets the requirements.

The HoC has stated it won't accept no deal. So exactly what is there left for TM to do? She is basically leaving the HoC the time to come to the only solution available to them.

Unfortunately for everyone they are still in the fantasy phase and still seem to believe that there is another way.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Don't they need something like six weeks for all the enabling legislation?

Something like that. Once Parliament signals its intention to approve the deal, May will ask for, and almost certainly get, an extension of that kind of length. she can't say that she will ask for one(or, I think, hope to be given one) until Parliament signals that intention.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Don't they need something like six weeks for all the enabling legislation?

Totally, but she cannot begin that process until the HoC actually agrees what it wants to do.

In was referring to the notion that TM was stalling for time, which she is. But in reality there really isn't much else she can do.

I disagree with Tusks latest tweet asking where is there a plan from the UK. There is none, there won't be. TM and the government have fully accepted that TM deal is the only way forward. I don't see the point of making that point by Tusk.

TM has no options left. She has no authority over her own party, cannot be seen to include the Labour party and so she is stuck. How many times has she repeated the line that the best way forward is to vote for her deal? But none of the MP's are either listening or as likely believe her.

So her only option is to wait and hope that the cliff edge will bring the HoC to its senses.

Would love to hear how some of the pro-brexit peiople on here feel after hearing stuff like this.


https://twitter.com/zdboren/status/1095285542718263296

Is it still project fear? Or does the UK have some kind of secret plan to beat the US in the trade negotiations? Bearing in mind agreeing to stuff like this could well be pre-conditions to even starting negotiations with the US.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't see the point of making that point by Tusk.

As Tusk has said, he has given up on Remain. He is now trying to pressure the HoC into accepting the deal on the table, by repeating over and over that the deal will not be re-opened, and by the way, tick-tock.

VinLieger wrote: »

Would love to hear how some of the pro-brexit peiople on here feel after hearing stuff like this.


https://twitter.com/zdboren/status/1095285542718263296

Is it still project fear? Or does the UK have some kind of secret plan to beat the US in the trade negotiations? Bearing in mind agreeing to stuff like this could well be pre-conditions to even starting negotiations with the US.

I mean... where do you start with that?

The combination of the FPTP for Westminster and d'Hondt PR for the Euro elections has also been a problem, with zero Ukippers in Parliament but 10% of MEPs coming from UKIP.


The UKIP people have a valid complaint about not being represented in Westminster, which may have been part of the reason why the BBC wanted to give them airtime despite being bonkers.