Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

1…137138140142143…330

Comments

  • #4172
    fash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭fash


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    What agreement are they not honouring?
    The 2014 budget framework agreement.


  • #4173
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    fly_agaric wrote: »
    If UK is no longer a member and has left very much under a cloud without a deal and refuses to pay any money at all, why can't the EU decide unilaterally as to its continuing obligations (e.g. rights of UK employees and ex employees of the EU, their pensions, rapid winding up of funds to any left-over EU funded projects in the UK)?
    Well the issue of salaries and pensions would be between the EU as an employer and the individual employees as well the relevant employment laws I would have thought.


  • #4174
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    fash wrote: »
    The 2014 budget framework agreement.
    I can see why this might apply to members wishing to enjoy the continued benefits of membership of the EU. But a country leaving the EU would only be obliged to pay the agreed amount up until its time leaving.


  • #4175
    fash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭fash


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    Sure but that same forecast by the IMF has the UK only slightly higher. So if you are pretty happy with that, why should the UK be worried?
    Because aside from the EU, they won't get a deal with the US, Mercosur, India or China. In the medium term that means the dissolution of the union, the reunification is Ireland and the reestablishment of Scotland.


  • #4176
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    fash wrote: »
    Because aside from the EU, they won't get a deal with the US, Mercosur, India or China. In the medium term that means the dissolution of the union, the reunification is Ireland and the reestablishment of Scotland.
    However that forecast is for the overall economic hit due to a hard brexit. So if we don't think the impact on Ireland will be too great then according to the same forecast, we also have to say that others in the UK will be saying the same thing.


  • Advertisement
  • #4177
    fash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭fash


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    I can see why this might apply to members wishing to enjoy the continued benefits of membership of the EU. But a country leaving the EU would only be obliged to pay the agreed amount up until its time leaving.
    Actually no - if you read the links I provided, Even the UK admitted that it is fully obliged to pay this. Hence there is literally no dispute (aside from you- and I suspect nobody important cares what you think) as to this payment.


  • #4178
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    A previously informative thread overnight infested by several accounts all at once posting misinformation outright lies and bullsh!t

    Where have we seen this before?


  • #4179
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    And here is RTE quoting the report. It could not be plainer

    80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time. Plain and simple


    I agree that it couldn't be plainer, and I am at a loss to see how you are misreading things you are quoting yourself:


    The bit you are missing is in bold here:


    The ESRI estimates that ten years after the UK leaves with a deal, employment in Ireland will be some 45,000 lower than it would have been if the UK remained a member state.

    A disorderly no-deal Brexit would see that number almost double, with around 80,000 fewer in employment.


  • #4180
    fash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭fash


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    However that forecast is for the overall economic hit due to a hard brexit. So if we don't think the impact on Ireland will be too great then according to the same forecast, we also have to say that others in the UK will be saying the same thing.
    In the UK as a whole , who cares - in. NI, about 10 years growth and without central support.


  • #4181
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,172 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Most of the arguments don't hold water I'm afraid. For example, it has been suggested that the UK in the event of no deal in some way owes money towards the pensions of those employed by the EU while the UK was a member.

    It is true that if the UK left the EU without a deal, the money paid by the UK for membership would cease but financial obligations of the EU would continue. But that is simply unfortunate for the EU. It is not an obligation of the UK to compensate the EU for lack of a member.

    The EU is, of course, entitled to make some sort of compensation part of a deal if it wants but it can't force another country to sign up to that deal. And without a deal, nothing is owing.

    I've yet to hear a counter-argument to this. I would be very surprised if there is one.

    There's nothing in A50 that mentions monies owed or obligation to discharge anything.

    But that doesnt stop the UK owing money for agreements entered into for anything, EU or outside the EU.

    Of course the agreed sums it pays as a full member will cease - no-one, not even the EU have suggested otherwise, as it will no longer be a member. Again, no-one has ever disputed this.

    The UK has happily accepted in the WA that it should pay certain sums into the budget.


  • Advertisement
  • #4182
    First Up
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Bit cynical wrote:
    Sure, if the UK wants a deal. But as with the other obligations, these payments are tied getting a deal.

    No they are not. They were agreed as a prequisite for discussions on the Withdrawal Agreement to start.


  • #4183
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    Outside of a deal, it is not an obligation of the UK to pay the expenses of an organisation of which it is not a member.

    The UK needs a deal. If not a big WA style deal, it needs lots of little deals.

    For example, on Nov 1st, planes will only be able to fly from the UK to EU destinations because the EU says they may. The UK really needs a deal to allow them to keep flying.

    The EU is under no obligation to extend any such deal. Likewise nuclear materials for medical use from EURATOM, and tens or hundreds of other such issues.

    The 39 billion is a small item compared to the power the EU has over a small neighbour like Brexitland.


  • #4184
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I agree that it couldn't be plainer, and I am at a loss to see how you are misreading things you are quoting yourself:


    The bit you are missing is in bold here:


    The ESRI estimates that ten years after the UK leaves with a deal, employment in Ireland will be some 45,000 lower than it would have been if the UK remained a member state.

    A disorderly no-deal Brexit would see that number almost double, with around 80,000 fewer in employment.

    From your link to the Irish Times:

    In a disorderly scenario, economic output here would be 5 per cent lower after 10 years than if the UK remained in the European Union, while employment would be 3.4 per cent lower, which equates to 77,500 fewer jobs. The disorderly scenario would also mean a hit to real wages of approximately 1.4 per cent with a knock-on impact on consumption.

    From my link to RTE:

    The ESRI estimates that ten years after the UK leaves with a deal, employment in Ireland will be some 45,000 lower than it would have been if the UK remained a member state.

    A disorderly no-deal Brexit would see that number almost double, with around 80,000 fewer in employment.


    I said that there would be 80000 fewer jobs as a result of Britain crashing out of the EU. You disputed that. My link and your link both prove, in plain and simple English, that there will be 80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time if Britain crashes out. It's not possible for me to make it any simpler.


  • #4185
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Not sure if anybody saw the performance of chief ERG cheerleader Andrew Bridgen on sky news this morning. I seriously doubt a greater number of fantasy/half-truths/misinformation/ambiguity/falsehood/outright lies has been squeezed into a single 10 minute broadcast since this whole debacle began.

    Apparently "hundreds" of deals have already been done with the EU, on everything from aviation to transport of goods across the continent, all ready to roll on 1 November. The EU has said [by telling Bridgen personally i can only assume] that there'll be "at least 9 months" with no extra checks on goods on the continent, and "surprise, surprise" the Irish gov has already rowed back on the backstop, just like he always told us they would. And not only can they sign a G24 tarriff free deal the moment they leave, what he calls a "one pager", but they can simply "cut and paste" the EUs existing trade agreements and use them for themselves after they leave. Delusion doesn't begin to cover it.

    "We'll be the customer [with the EU after leaving]," he said, "and as everyone in business knows, the customer is always KING."


  • #4186
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    trellheim wrote: »
    There's nothing in A50 that mentions monies owed or obligation to discharge anything.

    But that doesnt stop the UK owing money for agreements entered into for anything, EU or outside the EU.

    Of course the agreed sums it pays as a full member will cease - no-one, not even the EU have suggested otherwise, as it will no longer be a member. Again, no-one has ever disputed this.

    The UK has happily accepted in the WA that it should pay certain sums into the budget.
    If the UK has accepeted the WA. But if you read back of the last few posts, what is being disputed is what is owed by the UK in the event of no deal in which case the WA does not apply.


  • #4187
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    If the UK has accepeted the WA. But if you read back of the last few posts, what is being disputed is what is owed by the UK in the event of no deal in which case the WA does not apply.

    It’s been explained to you multiple times that if they don’t pay what they owe,
    They dirty their bib on an international scale and would soon feel the cold shoulder in every trade deal and the WTO/IMF/world banks would not be happy.

    Read the replies.


  • #4188
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Not sure if anybody saw the performance of chief ERG cheerleader Andrew Bridgen on sky news this morning. I seriously doubt a greater number of fantasy/half-truths/misinformation/ambiguity/falsehood/outright lies has been squeezed into a single 10 minute broadcast since this whole debacle began.

    Apparently "hundreds" of deals have already been done with the EU, on everything from aviation to transport of goods across the continent, all ready to roll on 1 November. The EU has said [by telling Bridgen personally i can only assume] that there'll be "at least 9 months" with no extra checks on goods on the continent, and "surprise, surprise" the Irish gov has already rowed back on the backstop, just like he always told us they would. And not only can they sign a G24 tarriff free deal the moment they leave, what he calls a "one pager", but they can simply "cut and paste" the EUs existing trade agreements and use them for themselves after they leave. Delusion doesn't begin to cover it.

    "We'll be the customer [with the EU after leaving]," he said, "and as everyone in business knows, the customer is always KING."

    I've given up listening to and watching these people. It really is depressing to see people lie so easily and readily.


  • #4189
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    It’s been explained to you multiple times that if they don’t pay what they owe,
    They dirty their bib on an international scale and would soon feel the cold shoulder in every trade deal and the WTO/IMF/world banks would not be happy.


    Read the replies.
    Most of the posts, unfortunately, fail to establish that in the event of no deal, that the UK actually owes that money.


    Therefore, while it is possible to post that the IMF or whatever would not be happy, it does not mean that there's any foundation to these assertions.


  • #4190
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I've given up listening to and watching these people. It really is depressing to see people lie so easily and readily.


    Yes, its so obviously deliberate and a depressing development. It seems to me that the classic twitter strategy, put the lie up there so it always sits on top no matter how often it is debunked beneath, is now increasingly evident on tv. Just keep repeating the lies often enough, doesnt even matter if they're challenged or debunked, just say them and put them out there and enough people will believe them without questioning. The times we live in.


  • #4191
    fly_agaric
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,345 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    Well the issue of salaries and pensions would be between the EU as an employer and the individual employees as well the relevant employment laws I would have thought.

    Fair enough - all within an EU (rather than a UK) framework which could be changed without UK input. I admit that is very unlikely. The situation (Brexit, let alone a no-agreement Brexit) was never envisaged I'm sure. edit: my knowledge is limited but for most of these jobs you are meant to be an EU citizen when they hire you... Perhaps that could be used to make most of them redundant after 1st of November somehow if the EU was being ungenerous about it!

    Would you agree the UK does owe a non-zero amount of money on leaving?
    As you point out there is nothing above and beyond their relationship with each other governing this situation and no way for it to be enforced on the UK. There is no 3rd party that is going to decide on it.
    Any post Brexit relationship (such as it is) is likely to be quite nasty if the UK decides to pay nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • #4192
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Yes, its so obviously deliberate and a depressing development. It seems to me that the classic twitter strategy, put the lie up there so it always sits on top no matter how often it is debunked beneath, is now increasingly evident on tv. Just keep repeating the lies often enough, doesnt even matter if they're challenged or debunked, just say them and put them out there and enough people will believe them without questioning. The times we live in.

    They're copying the Trump playbook.


  • #4193
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    They're copying the Trump playbook.


    Yep, the Trump/Bannon playbook. Almost to the letter. I have my doubts as to how well it will ultimately translate to the british electorate. I believe - and it may be wishful thinking on my part - that the latter is a more sophisticated one than its US counterpart, regardless of what the most recent elections might suggest. We'll find out one way or another very soon i guess.


  • #4194
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    These Neil interviews have come 2 weeks too late. All irrelevant now. I remember when Hunt claimed he was the one to renegotiate the WA because Merkel and others had personally told him it was possible. Dont hear him claiming that anymore, though.


  • #4195
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Yep, the Trump/Bannon playbook. Almost to the letter. I have my doubts as to how well it will ultimately translate to the british electorate. I believe - and it may be wishful thinking on my part - that the latter is a more sophisticated one than its US counterpart, regardless of what the most recent elections might suggest. We'll find out one way or another very soon i guess.

    I think you're right. The British electorate is largely more informed it would seem. The big problem is FPTP which can give a majority to a party with 37% of total votes cast.


  • #4196
    20silkcut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    Just watching the tri colour burn in orange pyres today in fairness in light of the whole Brexit situation and the havoc it’s going to wreak on this island it’s utterly unacceptable. There is no justification for it. We don’t burn their flags in any officially sanctioned ceremonies like this and we have much more reason than they have . Why do we accept this???


  • #4197
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    20silkcut wrote: »
    Just watching the tri colour burn in orange pyres today in fairness in light of the whole Brexit situation and the havoc it’s going to wreak on this island it’s utterly unacceptable. There is no justification for it. We don’t burn their flags. Why do we accept this.

    Because we are better than that.


  • #4198
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    fly_agaric wrote: »
    Fair enough - all within an EU (rather than a UK) framework which could be changed without UK input. I admit that is very unlikely. The situation (Brexit, let alone a no-agreement Brexit) was never envisaged I'm sure.

    Would you agree the UK does owe a non-zero amount of money on leaving?
    I think I'd need to see somewhere where the UK agreed to pay a specific sum of money to the EU independent of any subsequent deal. Not quite the same but I believe the norm for a country breaking away from a larger country (e.g. Scotland breaking away from the UK) is that in the absence of a deal, no money is payable.

    This is not to say that it might be in the UK's interest to pay some money but this would not be out of legal obligation imo.
    As you point out there is nothing above and beyond their relationship with each other governing this situation and no way for it to be enforced on the UK. There is no 3rd party that is going to decide on it.
    Any post Brexit relationship (such as it is) is likely to be quite nasty if the UK decides to pay nothing.
    However I think the main nastiness will be between the UK and the EU (with Ireland caught in the crossfire). I don't think outside entities will regard the UK as in breach of its agreements since that money does appear to be part of a negotiation in return for other things that failed to reach completion.

    This is all concerning the scenario of a no deal brexit. If a deal happened and part of it was the UK paying over a sum of money which they subsequently did not do, then that would be a different matter.


  • #4199
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I said that there would be 80000 fewer jobs as a result of Britain crashing out of the EU. You disputed that. My link and your link both prove, in plain and simple English, that there will be 80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time if Britain crashes out. It's not possible for me to make it any simpler.


    There will be 80,000 jobs fewer if the UK leaves than if the UK stays.

    If the UK stays, we might add 200,000 jobs in 10 years, 80K less means we only add 120,000 jobs.

    Neither article says there will be 80000 jobs less than there are now, that would be maybe 300,000 less than if the UK stays, and not what either article says.


  • #4200
    Lackadaisical
    Closed Accounts Posts: 518 ✭✭✭Lackadaisical


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Because we are better than that.


    Well, we're remarkably tolerant of it but it's probably because we're confident in our national identity, non-conflicted and don't define ourselves by obsessing over a piece of coloured fabric.

    Personally, I wouldn't even bother responding to that kind of provocation, because that's precisely what it is. All I would say is that it must be an extremely stressful existence to go around fuming with hatred of 'others' and it's very much the same kind of negative energy that's fuelling the extremes of Brexit in Britain too.


  • Advertisement
  • #4201
    20silkcut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Because we are better than that.

    I hope we are


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement