Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler · 24-06-2019 05:17PM

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Brexit: alternative to Irish backstop 'feasible in three years'

So I haven't read the report itself, but the article seems to suggest that they think the solution would be for the EU to allow Ireland deviate from EU standards and have special rules for Ireland and Britain? ...

That was my initial impression, from speed-reading the executive summary.

It also seems to take (yet again) the supposed frictionless and infrastructure-free Swiss border as a model for this new Irish border. I know Brexiteers have a tendency to not see things that are really there, but FFS how can you not see all the signs, infrastructure and customs agents on the Swiss borders? I've been working this month in the France-Germany-Switzerland frontier zone, and there is nothing "frictionless" about it ... and I've only be crossing it as an ordinary traveller.

20silkcut · 24-06-2019 05:47PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

That was my initial impression, from speed-reading the executive summary.

It also seems to take (yet again) the supposed frictionless and infrastructure-free Swiss border as a model for this new Irish border. I know Brexiteers have a tendency to not see things that are really there, but FFS how can you not see all the signs, infrastructure and customs agents on the Swiss borders? I've been working this month in the France-Germany-Switzerland frontier zone, and there is nothing "frictionless" about it ... and I've only be crossing it as an ordinary traveller.

And they want a relationship with the EU that’s more distant than Switzerland.

Nody · 24-06-2019 05:53PM

20silkcut wrote: »

And they want a relationship with the EU that’s more distant than Switzerland.

No; they want a closer relationship but for some reason thinks that means they can still be as free as Botswana in terms of making up their own rules at the same time. It's the inherent paradox of all Brexit arguments; they think they can have only the benefits and skip out on the obligations that comes with it (i.e. full single market access without having to be compliant with the single market rules etc.) and that EU should destroy itself to give it to them if they simply twist things enough / channel the WW2 winning spirit.

Sam Russell · 24-06-2019 05:54PM

20silkcut wrote: »

And they want a relationship with the EU that’s more distant than Switzerland.

I thought they wanted a very close relationship with the EU - FTA, Single Market Access, full passporting for financials, no free movement, no ECJ, plus access to most EU progammes and Agencies, and no budgetry contribution.

What is the name for a horse with a horn? A unicorn.

20silkcut · 24-06-2019 05:59PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought they wanted a very close relationship with the EU - FTA, Single Market Access, full passporting for financials, no free movement, no ECJ, plus access to most EU progammes and Agencies, and no budgetry contribution.

What is the name for a horse with a horn? A unicorn.

Over 40% of the population of the UK and the loudest of their politicians want no deal with the EU. Effectively they want a trade war economic sanctions and the destruction of the EU. To me that puts them further outside the tent than the Swiss.

trellheim · 24-06-2019 05:59PM

The Brexit Party Objectives ( FOI ) https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/255134/FOI-015-19.pdf

Joe_ Public · 24-06-2019 06:08PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It was interesting to hear arch Brexiteer Fox forensically dismiss Johnson's belief that GATT 24 (interesting summation here would mitigate the impact of No Deal. In fact, much of what Fox said throughout the interview was mood music for a May type premiership.

Was watching Adam Boulton this morning and Johnson supporter Kwasi Kwateng basically called Fox (and Mark Carney by implication) a liar when Fox's interview on Marr was brought up. Such was the level of waffle emanating from Kwateng's mouth that the normally implacable Boulton was very close to losing his rag. "Specious nonsense," was how he described the stuff coming from the Johnson camp on the GATT24 issue. Sophie Ridge also gave another Johnson supporter a torrid time on her show yesterday morning. Seems to me the questioning of Johnson's Brexit stance is really beginning to get some incisive scrutiny. Not sure how much difference it will make with tory membership, though, and Hunt too deserves the same level of scrutiny.

eire4 · 24-06-2019 06:11PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought they wanted a very close relationship with the EU - FTA, Single Market Access, full passporting for financials, no free movement, no ECJ, plus access to most EU progammes and Agencies, and no budgetry contribution.

What is the name for a horse with a horn? A unicorn.

Well they do already have a unicorn on the front of their passports so they obviously believe in them!

Strazdas · 24-06-2019 06:11PM

trellheim wrote: »

The Brexit Party Objectives ( FOI ) https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/255134/FOI-015-19.pdf

Interesting that the party was called the "British Union and Sovereignty Party" as recently as February.

CelticRambler · 24-06-2019 07:15PM

eire4 wrote: »

Well they do already have a unicorn on the front of their passports so they obviously believe in them!

That belongs to Scotland, doesn't it? Maybe if they gave the Scots their independence, everything else would suddenly make sense ... ?

... or maybe not. :pac:

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2019 08:12PM

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Brexit: alternative to Irish backstop 'feasible in three years'

Three years ? They can dream on.

The age verification system for porn sites was promised in 2015 and dure to roll out last April, instead it will be delayed for another 6 months because,
and this is pure Brexit, the government failed to inform the EU of its proposals,

Beechwoodspark · 24-06-2019 08:46PM

Panorama currently looking at Johnson and hunt. Both are very underwhelming with plenty of skeletons in closet.

An Ciarraioch · 24-06-2019 10:10PM

Behind paywall, but Peter Foster saying France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Poland and Denmark are asking Dublin to outline its border plans in the event of a no-deal Brexit:

http://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1143262368299986947

FrancieBrady · 24-06-2019 10:19PM

The British media with their loaded reportage, 'under pressure'? Maybe they have just been asked for their plans in the event of a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has known from the beginning that a border would be required, I sincerely hope we have detailed plans.

MrMusician18 · 24-06-2019 10:59PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British media with their loaded reportage, 'under pressure'? Maybe they have just been asked for their plans in the event of a No Deal Brexit. Everyone has known from the beginning that a border would be required, I sincerely hope we have detailed plans.

One would expect there are detailed plans but that the government are pinning their hopes on the ensuing chaos of no deal forcing the UK back to the table in short order.

If no deal persists for more than a year then border infrastructure will be erected. It's a hard thing politically to say but it's what's required. Quite frankly, the border will be sacrificed so that jobs in our key exporters are not.

Russman · 24-06-2019 10:59PM

Watching Newsnight on BBC and it’s mind boggling. There’s a conservative representative of BoJo on and he’s still talking about GATT 24, they need us more than we need them, Teresa May crumbled we need a PM who won’t, we’ll start to see some fragmentation of the EU’s position when they see we’re serious about no deal, we’ll be quids in with the £39BN plus all the tariffs we’ll collect, yadda, yadda, yadda........

It’s actually frightening. There’s no hope at all for that nation.

Mr.Nice Guy · 24-06-2019 11:01PM

Bernard Jenkin struggling badly on Newsnight under the questioning of Emily Maitlis. More of the 'they need us more than we need them' narrative. Seems GATT 24 is the new unicorn for the coming months.

I'm not sure they actually believe any of the guff they're coming out with though. I think they're laying the groundwork for a blame game down the line. Will be all about how they tried to be reasonable but the EU 27 didn't want to listen. It will likely go down well with a sizeable chunk of their electorate.

LeinsterDub · 24-06-2019 11:07PM

https://twitter.com/Freight_NI/status/1143239903557431305

Nightmare for NI fishing in the event of no deal.

10000maniacs · 24-06-2019 11:11PM

Bernard Jenkin on Newsnight now suggesting that it is possible to do a basic interim trade deal and do it before the 31st of October just on goods and even better can be done on a few sheets of paper under GATT Article 24. Do they really want to put tariffs on trade between the UK and EU? he bellows.
Emily Maitlis is again clueless on this and gets muddled and flustered. Andrew Neal would rip Jenkin to shreds on the same issue.

Tell me how · 25-06-2019 12:04AM

Are James O'Brien, Emma Barnett good journalists, or........ remainers who feel they are in a fight and must do what they can?

I enjoy them both, and their lines of questions are much more direct than most, but, it seems that they are very much anti-brexit also. Is that because of an inherent belief in the EU project or because they realise these questions must be asked because Brexit just does not seem to make sense in how it has played out thus far?

I think Carol Cadwalladr is someone who asked the questions solely because she saw something wasn't right in how the Leave campaign was funded. Ian Dunt also describes himself as a Loyalist and is ripping the Brexit argument to pieces.

Peregrinus · 25-06-2019 02:36AM

Tell me how wrote: »

Are James O'Brien, Emma Barnett good journalists, or........ remainers who feel they are in a fight and must do what they can?

I enjoy them both, and their lines of questions are much more direct than most, but, it seems that they are very much anti-brexit also. Is that because of an inherent belief in the EU project or because they realise these questions must be asked because Brexit just does not seem to make sense in how it has played out thus far?

I think Carol Cadwalladr is someone who asked the questions solely because she saw something wasn't right in how the Leave campaign was funded. Ian Dunt also describes himself as a Loyalist and is ripping the Brexit argument to pieces.

If you can't tell whether a critical line of questioning addressed to a Brexiter is motivated by:

(a) a partisan preference for Remain; or

(b) common sense and rational analysis

that tells you a great deal about the nature of the Brexit project.

AngryHippie · 25-06-2019 03:01AM

Tell me how wrote: »

Are James O'Brien, Emma Barnett good journalists, or........ remainers who feel they are in a fight and must do what they can?

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The leave campaign was based on lies and in breach of campaign finance regulations.
The leave arguments still don't stack up with all of the tory candidates trotting out nonsense arguments that fly in the face of expert opinion.

I think that to be a good journalist, the focus must be on the facts. Something the brexiteers are notoriously short of.

Russman · 25-06-2019 09:07AM

10000maniacs wrote: »

Do they really want to put tariffs on trade between the UK and EU? he bellows.

I know ! All he was short of saying was "do they not know who we are ?"

He still brought up the German car makers, the northern French farmers and the Irish and how badly they'd all be hit in a no-deal. Honestly the tone was pretty much the UK telling the EU that we can do this the hard way or the easy way, its up to you..........
Really disappointing there wasn't a voice of reason, like even say a random EU official or just someone who's familiar with how it works, to contradict all his points.

If its not total delusion its an attempt at the biggest ever bluff. How can you bluff when the other side has seen your hand ? Its off the wall stuff.

54and56 · 25-06-2019 09:15AM

10000maniacs wrote: »

Bernard Jenkin on Newsnight now suggesting that it is possible to do a basic interim trade deal and do it before the 31st of October just on goods and even better can be done on a few sheets of paper under GATT Article 24. Do they really want to put tariffs on trade between the UK and EU? he bellows.
Emily Maitlis is again clueless on this and gets muddled and flustered. Andrew Neal would rip Jenkin to shreds on the same issue.

Jenkin was cooing that a No Deal would allow the UK to drop tariffs to zero which would lower the cost of living for everyone and actually be a boost to the economy. I was disappointed that Matlis didn't point out that whilst that would allow the country to be flooded with cheap low quality products it would also completely wipe out local industries who couldn't compete with low cost imports and other industries who had previously served export markets but would in a No Deal Brexit be faced with WTO tariffs and therefore become uncompetitive overnight.

Actions have consequences but right now it seems those pushing for a hard or No Deal Brexit are only focused on some hypothetical benefits and completely in denial about the very real world consequences which will destroy businesses and livelihoods.

Zubeneschamali · 25-06-2019 09:29AM

Tell me how wrote: »

I enjoy them both, and their lines of questions are much more direct than most, but, it seems that they are very much anti-brexit also. Is that because of an inherent belief in the EU project or because they realise these questions must be asked because Brexit just does not seem to make sense in how it has played out thus far?

Try to imagine that you are a UK journalist and No Deal Brexit looks likely. I know it seems impossible that such a frankly suicidal, insane policy would ever be actually likely to be carried out, but for a minute, imagine that's the situation.

Imagine it is being championed by a group who lie confidently every single time they open their mouths or write a word on the subject. Literally everything they say is untrue.

As a journalist, one course would be to stick to the facts, report objectively and be labelled as an antiBrexit extremest, traitor, quisling, Remoaner and True Believer in the EU.

Or you could do what many in the UK have done, which is to adopt the position that there are two extremes, so neutrality requires you to adopt a position in the middle and pretend they are equally far from some reality in the centre.

So you pretend that someone who wants to change nothing at all, to continue with things just as they are today is somehow as much of an extremist as someone who literally plans to wreck trade, drive the UK into the worst recession in living memory, actively drive away foreign investment, key workers in all industries, alienate all of the UKs allies, and give comfort to their international enemies.

Balance.

Enzokk · 25-06-2019 09:33AM

Boris Johnson did a interview with the BBC. Below is the transcript of the interview. Lots of blather as usual. Laura Kuenssberg did okay, but I fell she let him off on a few points where she had him in a difficult spot. As an example on his record in the Foreign Office and the Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe affair he shifts the blame off himself totally. I feel she could and should have asked him if he accepts his words they used made it worse.

On the backstop it is more waffle about the UK not going to put up a border in no-deal. I don't know how that works, how can you threaten no-deal but not go through with the threat and put up a border? That seems counter intuitive to me. If you are preparing for no-deal it means borders and if you are serious you should be willing to put up infrastructure because the EU will do that if it is needed.

In full: Boris Johnson interview with BBC's Laura Kuenssberg

BJ: Well, because I think on both sides of the Channel there's an understanding that we have to come out, but clearly Parliament has voted three times against the backstop arrangements that you rightly describe. And at present the UK, and any UK government, with this appalling choice of either being run by the EU whilst being outside the EU, which is plainly unacceptable, or else giving up control of the government in Northern Ireland. There is a way forward which I think, actually, to be fair all the candidates in the Conservative Party leadership contest broadly endorsed, which was to change the backstop, get rid of the backstop, in order to allow us to come out without this withdrawal agreement, and as far as I understand the matter, that is also the position of my remaining opponent.

...

LK: But do you accept that your plan would require agreement from the European Union, political goodwill, and why do you think they would do that when if the UK had just walked away from a deal that has taken them three years to put together?

BJ: Several reasons. First of all, don't forget, that as I say they got the Brexit MEPs they don't particularly want. They want us out, they've got the incentive of the money. They've also got to understand, Laura, is what has changed and what will be so different is that the intellectual capital that had been invested in the whole backstop had really come from the UK side. We were committed to it. We actually helped to invent it. We were the authors of our own incarceration. Take that away. Change the approach of the UK negotiators and you have a very different outcome.

...

LK: And Boris Johnson are you, would you really be willing as prime minister to face the consequences of no deal which could mean crippling tariffs on some businesses? It could mean huge uncertainty over what on earth happens at the Northern Irish border. It could mean huge uncertainty for people's livelihoods and people's real lives. Now in the real world, as prime minister and I know you dispute how bad it would be, but are you willing to face the consequences of what a no deal might mean for the people of this country?

BJ: In the real world, the UK government is never going to impose checks or a hard border of any kind in Northern Ireland. That's just number one. Number two in the real world the UK government is not going to want to impose tariffs on goods coming into the UK.

The three bolded parts are of interest for me. Firstly it is Johnson confirming he will bin the deal as it has the backstop in it. The second part is to get rid of the negotiators as they seems to be getting the blame. He doesn't seem to understand the civil service only works of instructions from the ministers, if they do a bad job it is the ministers who are in charge of them who are to blame.

Third one he confirms that the UK will not impose checks in NI. So it is a threat to the EU to put up a border basically, and the answer to this seems to have been a question to us to inform other countries of our border plans. Also, you have this answer to where we stand on the border.

https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1143409863453814784

FrancieBrady · 25-06-2019 09:36AM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

One would expect there are detailed plans but that the government are pinning their hopes on the ensuing chaos of no deal forcing the UK back to the table in short order.

If no deal persists for more than a year then border infrastructure will be erected. It's a hard thing politically to say but it's what's required. Quite frankly, the border will be sacrificed so that jobs in our key exporters are not.

I would imagine that there are plans for infrastructure too.

And it shouldn't be 'politically hard to say'. What seems difficult for some Irish political parties is to lay the blame for having to erect such infrastructure fairly and squarely where it belongs for fear of causing offence. :rolleyes:

Hurrache · 25-06-2019 09:48AM

So Johnson on Sky News basically saying this morning that it's MaxFac or they walk way and go to GATT.

Nody · 25-06-2019 10:07AM

Hurrache wrote: »

So Johnson on Sky News basically saying this morning that it's MaxFac or they walk way and go to GATT.

And of course GATT does not exist in such a scenario so it's WTO but GATT forms a great excuse to blame the pain on EU (in UK's press at least) since minor things such as reality does not need to bother itself there.

Enzokk · 25-06-2019 10:07AM

He was on LBC this morning with Nick Ferrari and it is much the same as the BBC interview. Bluster and obfuscations and lies. He still believes the £350m per week lie and takes not responsibility for any of his actions.

This tweet seems to answer one of his statements about the UK avoiding tariffs.

https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/1143441608827965440

https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/1143442522678730757

He is a chancer who will win because the people that believe in Brexit will believe his bluster.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments