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 X (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

This is the tenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread, so Ive copied ACDs comments from the last thread to here. Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Stop moaning ffs

Strazdas wrote: »

The DUP are all into flags and symbolism. The flags and anthems and displays of loyalty to the Crown take precedence over everything (many would argue their loyalty comes from a place of deep insecurity, not strength).

Absolutely agree. It’s confounding. It’s obvious to blind dogs in the street it’s going to come back to bite them on just about every level, when Boris throws them overboard and they then have to face the next election up there.

WomanSkirtFan8

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Johnson heading to Berlin and Paris next week.

What happened to not meeting them before there were changes to the WA?

BJ knows an emergency UK govt is now closer than ever so he has to move.

The EU don't have to move one iota.

And they shouldn't either given how incompetent and inept the British government are at the moment.

Capt'n Midnight

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Why does it always fall to the EU to have to make changes and offers? In what way have the UK moved during any of the negotiations?

Cameron , May , Johnson and Corbyn have all been big on compromise.

Asking everyone else to compromise on their long held fundamental principles.

If anyone of them had compromised they wouldn't be in this mess. Red lines and unrealistic demands everywhere.

trellheim

Change WA : Legally binding (3 year backstop + Unity Poll at the end) what odds

54and56

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

We have little faith in Johnson but still hope that he will throw the DUP out and put the border in the sea. It’s the only or least worst option and way forward I can see

Has anyone suggested holding a referendum in NI to see if the majority would support NI remaining aligned within the EU and for the customs border to be down the Irish sea?

That would test the "undemocratic backstop" mantra.

I believe whilst DUP/UUP politicians and their hard core followers will fight anything they perceive as weakening or threatening the Union I think a lot of Unionists would take a far more pragmatic view of the financial benefits remaining in the SM will give them and that such a vote would deliver a result which would unlock the undemocratic backstop issue.

prunudo

trellheim wrote: »

Change WA : Legally binding (3 year backstop + Unity Poll at the end) what odds

Given the UK's approach to the whole process to date I wouldn't for a second grant them anything time limited, goal or target set but not time.

Valhallapt

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Bloomberg don’t usually publish rumours or nonsense but this could be either.
Johnson could be plotting an early surprise exit to outflank manoeuvres to replace him?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-14/u-k-tory-suggests-johnson-could-execute-surprise-august-brexit?cmpid%3D=socialflow-facebook-brexit&utm_medium=social&utm_content=brexit&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter

I wonder is this a scheme by Boris. Attempt to take the UK out early. This fails, he then can call an election and say I tried to take us out in a no deal but HoC stopped me, I need a majority from a new election.

Jizique

Melanchthon wrote: »

What? That makes little sense and is typical of the thinking of this forum

UK may reduce tarrifs for some stuff but what's going to happen with autos is that it will be a quick trade deal with the US and a possible deal with Japan in relation to this in relation to cars. Tarrifs on other countries cars e.g Germany could be much much higher

Now the standard reply to this is the house Dems will block that type of deal, so they are really going to turn around to factory workers and say "nope we are blocking this" Trump would love that and the Dems know this (and it's not like Irish Americans are even that solid a Dem group anymore).

Do you really think US automakers are going to retool plants to produce product for the UK market?
We might see a few more pickups and Escalades, but the US product is a million miles from what the UK market demand

Stop moaning ffs

54&56 wrote: »

Has anyone suggested holding a referendum in NI to see if the majority would support NI remaining aligned within the EU and for the customs border to be down the Irish sea?

That would test the "undemocratic backstop" mantra.

I believe whilst DUP/UUP politicians and their hard core followers will fight anything they perceive as weakening or threatening the Union I think a lot of Unionists would take a far more pragmatic view of the financial benefits remaining in the SM will give them and that such a vote would deliver a result which would unlock the undemocratic backstop issue.

It’s johnsons idea. It’s in the Bloomberg article a page or two back. It is just rumour but safe to assume he’s considering all options at this stage

Capt'n Midnight

54&56 wrote: »

Has anyone suggested holding a referendum in NI to see if the majority would support NI remaining aligned within the EU and for the customs border to be down the Irish sea?

That would test the "undemocratic backstop" mantra.

I believe whilst DUP/UUP politicians and their hard core followers will fight anything they perceive as weakening or threatening the Union I think a lot of Unionists would take a far more pragmatic view of the financial benefits remaining in the SM will give them and that such a vote would deliver a result which would unlock the undemocratic backstop issue.

50% of people in Northern Ireland now describe themselves as neither unionist or nationalist…

For the times they are a-changin'

It used to be that you could tell when you crossed the border because the roads got better. Except now it happens in the opposite direction.

As for the financial benefits.

The HSE on the way up is meeting the NHS on the way down.

The recent announcement of going back to health boards would make it easier to integrate all-island. This week ambulance shortages up there have been covered ones from down here.

Yes there would be winners and losers but PIP assessments are removing benefits UK wide and no one is predicting a jobs boom in the North from Brexit.

Been done on slugger many times but now RTE have picked up on the costs of the NI subvention too.

Lost the link to slugger but from page 4 of the ESRI NI economy doc itself, of the £9.2 Bn Net Fiscal Balance some stuff just drops out.

Up to £8.5Bn of it :eek:

included in identifiable expenditure in Northern Ireland 2012-13 Social Protection
budget is pensions accounting for £2.8 billion. These would initially be the responsibility of
the British Government as the pension liability was accrued while Northern Ireland was part
of the United Kingdom.

Congressman Boyle’s report explains, non-identifiable expenditure of £2.9billion includes
Defence Expenditure and UK Debt Interest. These would not be a liability of a new unified
Ireland. Thumann explains that not all the accounting adjustments figure of £1.1billion
would be applicable in a reunification scenario. Also the convergence of the public service
numbers between the north and the south would bring a saving of £1.7billion per annum in
the current budget expenditure of Northern Ireland.

Taking the above adjustments and savings into account the cumulative figure is £8.5 billion.
With the reported deficit for Northern Ireland is at £9.2 billion therefore the current income
and expenditure figure for Northern Ireland comes near a balanced budget in a reunification
scenario. This is of course before taking into account the likely potential for growth in
Northern Ireland following unification as happened in East Germany following its
reunification and to eastern European countries on their accession to the EU.

CelticRambler

Melanchthon wrote: »

it will be a quick trade deal with the US

Can you provide us with an example of any trade deal the US has done quickly? Just one will do.

And while we're waiting, what's going to happen to the UK's car industry in the meantime? What cars will be sold on dealers' forecourts - the ones everyone's familiar with, albeit at a higher price, or a whole load of new models with engines and spare parts that local mechanics haven't seen before?

trellheim

Can you provide us with an example of any trade deal the US has done quickly? Just one will do.

Just been looking this up out of idle curiosity here its

NAFTA 1988-1994 for the usa to ratify and activate it

KORUS 2006-2012 from beginning to ratify and activate

AUSFTA 2003-2005 over two years but a lot of groundwork done in advance , looks like the fastest I've seen

Nody

Melanchthon wrote: »

What? That makes little sense and is typical of the thinking of this forum

No, it simply means unlike you we actually know the factual information on the topic which you keep showing your ignorance on along with multiple other new posters who for some odd reason all keep coming to post in this thread and then disappear again and always with a consistent slant on their attitude and posting.

UK may reduce tarrifs for some stuff but what's going to happen with autos is that it will be a quick trade deal with the US and a possible deal with Japan in relation to this in relation to cars. Tarrifs on other countries cars e.g Germany could be much much higher

First of all even republicans thinks a trade deal will take months if lucky and that's assuming UK don't mind selling out on every single topic from farming to NHS etc. More realistic is that it will take years (normally a trade deal are decade+ negotiations) but it really comes down to how much UK want to bend over to get any deal. Secondly; cars have a tariff of 10% as per WTO; you can't really go higher since WTO is the highest term set there but ignoring that; what cars exactly from Japan and USA do you expect people to buy (after months and months of negotiations) exactly that will replace Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari etc.? US cars are not exactly renown for being fuel efficient and big sellers in the first place. Or let me guess, they will all buy poorly constructed Teslas?

Now the standard reply to this is the house Dems will block that type of deal, so they are really going to turn around to factory workers and say "nope we are blocking this" Trump would love that and the Dems know this (and it's not like Irish Americans are even that solid a Dem group anymore).

Well that's assuming Trump is around for very long and that there is even a FTA to be signed but hey let's say the stars align they will block it and state it's not in the interest of USA to reignite the war over Northern Ireland and that shores up Irish voters etc. Secondly those car workers probably care a whole lot more for US to get that deal with EU (you know the market that's 5x the size and not in deep recession at the time) vs. UK...

Enzokk

Melanchthon wrote: »

What? That makes little sense and is typical of the thinking of this forum

UK may reduce tarrifs for some stuff but what's going to happen with autos is that it will be a quick trade deal with the US and a possible deal with Japan in relation to this in relation to cars. Tarrifs on other countries cars e.g Germany could be much much higher

Now the standard reply to this is the house Dems will block that type of deal, so they are really going to turn around to factory workers and say "nope we are blocking this" Trump would love that and the Dems know this (and it's not like Irish Americans are even that solid a Dem group anymore).

Any country other than the US will ask firstly, what is your relationship with the EU? That is what will matter to countries trying to do a deal with the UK, because they will either try to use the UK as a gateway to the EU single market. Or they will just bypass them and go directly, as is the case with Japan and the deal they recently signed. Either way it isn't a great position to be in and it has gotten worse for the UK with the announcement of deal recently adding to their woes.

trellheim

FTAs in the USA although negotiated outside Congress, MUST be ratified by the House of Representatives and the Senate both. They may or may not be able to amend them - depends on if fast-track or not, but that doesn't matter, its still a straight approve or reject.

Nancy Pelosi has said plainly and firmly she will block any FTA if the GFA is affected. Everyone in DC has said "if she says it, its true" so defacto not possible, the UK will not get a trade deal as things stand

At this point in time effectively on trade the EU and the USA are closed doors no matter what waffle comes out of Trump . The UK is free to do what it wishes, but its like telling a child not to touch an electric fence at the moment

fash

Enzokk wrote: »

Any country other than the US will ask firstly, what is your relationship with the EU? That is what will matter to countries trying to do a deal with the UK, because they will either try to use the UK as a gateway to the EU single market. Or they will just bypass them and go directly, as is the case with Japan and the deal they recently signed. Either way it isn't a great position to be in and it has gotten worse for the UK with the announcement of deal recently adding to their woes.

Yes this is an important point to understand. Assuming the UK leaves on a no deal, it will remain a roughly 50/50 place - with one half tugging towards the EU and the other pushing away. It is not a place where policy will be stable. You can get your side to "win" in the short term- but when the other side gets in, policy change 180 degrees. It becomes massively unstable for business and other countries to do treaties.

Melanchthon

CelticRambler wrote: »

Can you provide us with an example of any trade deal the US has done quickly? Just one will do.

Jordan was done pretty quickly, I don't think there will be a large over-reaching US trade deal done quickly that would take years, on certain things agreement can be reached pretty fast though

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

Assuming the UK leaves on a no deal, it will remain a roughly 50/50 place - with one half tugging towards the EU and the other pushing away. It is not a place where policy will be stable. You can get your side to "win" in the short term- but when the other side gets in, policy change 180 degrees. It becomes massively unstable for business and other countries to do treaties.

This will be true initially but part of the vote for remain is fear of the unknown: better the devil you know etc. This aspect of the remain vote will fade over time as the country adapts and people get used to the UK being outside the EU.

CelticRambler

Melanchthon wrote: »

Jordan was done pretty quickly, I don't think there will be a large over-reaching US trade deal done quickly that would take years, on certain things agreement can be reached pretty fast though

Well done for finding an example that (only) took 15 months from the date of announcement to becoming law (6 June 2000 -> 28 September 2001) ... but considering it was seen by the US primarily as a means to "normalize strained relationships and offer institutional mechanisms to resolve and prevent political disputes" (C&P from Wikipedia) it's hardly a great model for the trade in real goods.

And as always when this topic comes up, I ask: what exactly does Britain - isolated from the EU and the Single Market - have to offer the US (or any other bloc) that would warrant a fair deal?

Melanchthon

Nody wrote: »

No, it simply means unlike you we actually know the factual information on the topic which you keep showing your ignorance on along with multiple other new posters who for some odd reason all keep coming to post in this thread and then disappear again and always with a consistent slant on their attitude and posting.

Ah that good old Politics Smug, what have I said so far thats factual incorrect.
Perhaps people don't stick around in this forum with different opinions apart from jump in re-regs and the SF trench war participants because the place is a bit of a circle-jerk. I've been in and out of here since the days Oscar Bravo and Scofflaw ruled the roost so I know how it goes.

Nody wrote: »

First of all even republicans thinks a trade deal will take months if lucky and that's assuming UK don't mind selling out on every single topic from farming to NHS etc. More realistic is that it will take years (normally a trade deal are decade+ negotiations) but it really comes down to how much UK want to bend over to get any deal. Secondly; cars have a tariff of 10% as per WTO; you can't really go higher since WTO is the highest term set there but ignoring that; what cars exactly from Japan and USA do you expect people to buy (after months and months of negotiations) exactly that will replace Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari etc.? US cars are not exactly renown for being fuel efficient and big sellers in the first place. Or let me guess, they will all buy poorly constructed Teslas?

Lexus might take up some of the middle higher range type , Hyundai middle of road , lots and lots of Toyota and Ford, Chevrolet (particularly Bolts) Mustangs etc fit the porshe type but a bit more muscular. I think people think of American cars like they were stuck in the 80's their engines are generally bigger but not less efficient (engine efficiency isnt the same as miles per gallon), take comparisons of MPG between US testing and EU testing with a pinch of salt too particularly after the years of revelations, you can see this as the US testing will give a lower efficiency for the same model than the EU one.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091877_why-european-gas-mileage-ratings-are-so-high--and-often-wrong

Nody wrote: »

Well that's assuming Trump is around for very long and that there is even a FTA to be signed but hey let's say the stars align they will block it and state it's not in the interest of USA to reignite the war over Northern Ireland and that shores up Irish voters etc. Secondly those car workers probably care a whole lot more for US to get that deal with EU (you know the market that's 5x the size and not in deep recession at the time) vs. UK...

Nancy Pelosi is important but she doesn't rule without consensus, if she goes through with a threat to veto a US UK trade deal which requires politicians with manufacturing in their districts its just giving Trump ammunition. This view of Irish - Americans as a Democratic stronghold and an intense interest in Northern Ireland went out of the way with Bill Clinton.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

This will be true initially but part of the vote for remain is fear of the unknown: better the devil you know etc. This aspect of the remain vote will fade over time as the country adapts and people get used to the UK being outside the EU.

You make a valid point: the country/the electorate will indeed adapt to the new reality of being outside the EU. However, part of that adaptation will undoubtedly be a recognition by the electorate of at least two of the UK's constituent countries that they were in the past, and would be in the future, better off being part of the EU club.

I am quite sure the next century's historians, looking back at these times, will consider the Brexit referendum as the event that caused the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

You make a valid point: the country/the electorate will indeed adapt to the new reality of being outside the EU. However, part of that adaptation will undoubtedly be a recognition by the electorate of at least two of the UK's constituent countries that they were in the past, and would be in the future, better off being part of the EU club.

I am quite sure the next century's historians, looking back at these times, will consider the Brexit referendum as the event that caused the break-up of the United Kingdom.

For certain and it could well wipe out the two party system as well. We might never see a Tory or Labour majority government again.

Melanchthon

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well done for finding an example that (only) took 15 months from the date of announcement to becoming law (6 June 2000 -> 28 September 2001) ... but considering it was seen by the US primarily as a means to "normalize strained relationships and offer institutional mechanisms to resolve and prevent political disputes" (C&P from Wikipedia) it's hardly a great model for the trade in real goods.

And as always when this topic comes up, I ask: what exactly does Britain - isolated from the EU and the Single Market - have to offer the US (or any other bloc) that would warrant a fair deal?

This is what I don't get about these arguments, when Trump plays hard ball and threatens to not sign agreements and puts pressure on people shout that freer trade is an advantage and trade deficits don't mean anything.
When the conversation is about a hypothetical Brexit Britain its the opposite.
The UK is a not insignificant market thats not going to flood the US with goods that put american voters jobs at risk its much easier to be fair that way, the UK is also less emotionally tied to agriculture compared to the French, Irish or Belgians, most English meat unless you buy high end is already poor quality which might be why they are worried about the US, and if you are worried about the food standards thing take a good long look at the Dutch practices as they are appalling.
I don't think Brexit is a good idea if your asking that, they should have stayed and worked with the eastern europeans to reform it.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

This will be true initially but part of the vote for remain is fear of the unknown: better the devil you know etc. This aspect of the remain vote will fade over time as the country adapts and people get used to the UK being outside the EU.

It is more an issue for foreign countries- should they do a deal with the UK or wait? Where will the UK be in 5 years time or 10 years time? What will be its relationship with the EU (with which it does 50% of trade and needs impossibly smooth access to continue supplying services)?
Will the UK actually drop and maintain dropped a large amount of its tariffs? (Will it be left or right wing- or swinging massively?) If so, what will they offer in an FTA - and how valuable is that if that is the only thing they have to "prostitute" to the world/everyone else?
It is hard to not expect that foreign countries will need to adopt a wait and see approach.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

part of the vote for remain is fear of the unknown: better the devil you know etc. This aspect of the remain vote will fade over time

No, it really, really won't.

A huge part of the vote for remain is, as you say, a vote for the status quo. But the fact that many have shifted to "just get it over with" while others still think No Deal means no change shows that even Remainers largely have no idea how bad No Deal will be.

When it hits and they realize that everyone except the EU was lying to them, they are going to get angry.

Riot police angry.

johnnyskeleton

Melanchthon wrote: »

I don't think Brexit is a good idea if your asking that, they should have stayed and worked with the eastern europeans to reform it.

Can I ask what reforms you would like to see the EU make?

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it really, really won't.

A huge part of the vote for remain is, as you say, a vote for the status quo. But the fact that many have shifted to "just get it over with" while others still think No Deal means no change shows that even Remainers largely have no idea how bad No Deal will be.

When it hits and they realize that everyone except the EU was lying to them, they are going to get angry.

Riot police angry.

Yes, it could easily lapse into civil disturbances and rioting in a No Deal setting. The type of seismic rupture they are planning would spark off rioting in any member state, not just the UK.

McGiver

Melanchthon wrote: »

I don't think Brexit is a good idea if your asking that, they should have stayed and worked with the eastern europeans to reform it.

Which Eastern Europeans? What reform?
If you mean Central Europe, Hungary or Poland - they don't want any reform. Even if you take the Visegrad Group (CZ, PL, SK and HU), they don't agree on anything amongst themselves on any EU reform, except of NO to asylum seekers redistribution, all of the 4 countries are different with different political situations, although PL and HU are quasi-authoritarian but either are of a very different hard right flavour, CZ and SK are generally centre-left.

UK doesn't and didn't want any reform, they wanted special treatment, more opt-outs and generally doing what they wanted and bossing others around (as they used to in the Good Old Empire you know).

"EU reform" is a eurosceptic cliché with no basis. Anything to anyone - a bit like Brexit i.e. a unicorn.

Capt'n Midnight

Melanchthon wrote: »

Jordan was done pretty quickly, I don't think there will be a large over-reaching US trade deal done quickly that would take years, on certain things agreement can be reached pretty fast though

There was a previous deal done in 1996 so it didn't come out of nowhere.

http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/fta.nsf/7a9d3143265673ee85257a0700667a6f/196ed79f4f79ac0085257a070066961d

Products manufactured in QIZs must comply with strict rules of origin:

1) 35% Jordanian content, of which
11.7% must come from a Jordan QIZ.
8% from Israel (7% for high tech goods).
the remainder of the minimum may be fulfilled by content from a Jordan QIZ, Israel, USA or West Bank / Gaza.

2) 20% Jordanian content + 15% U.S. content

Furthermore, the U.S.-Jordan FTA rules of Origin require that Jordanian exports to the United States must have 35 percent Jordanian content in order to receive FTA duty benefits.

Melanchthon

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Can I ask what reforms you would like to see the EU make?

Its never going to role back to the early 90's in role so maybe a two speed Europe, the decline of Italy vs France/Germany over that time period is is enlightening (and no Italian politicians were no better in the 80's they just weren't tied to flawed mechanisms).

Spitballing.

Investigate two-speed Europe.

Give European parliament greater role in selection of EU roles, minimum that they propose legislation and can veto particular candidates not the whole selection.

Transparency about expenses and lobbying in EU parliament, remove fixed rate expenses for EU politicians. Put in place that national representatives to EU have to be approved by the electorate more directly, e.g have an election for the role of EU commissioner on a national list system (might be an unworkable idea).

Try scale back the primacy of court rulings have such wide reaching effects, it shouldn't happen that a spanish court ruling about a teenager taking his mums car thats off the road and killing somebody changes the rules for the entire EU (not kept upto date on this case but an example of over reach).

Explore the idea of migration breaks so flows of people are more even, take into account the very large differences in Purchasing Power Parity for a union that has SE England and rural Romania.

Reform CAP

Take a long hard look at the long term social and economic policies, for an apparently technocratic system the EU and particularly the Eurozone has preformed pretty poorly since the great recession, socially even without the culture wars thing the idea that bringing in a large numbers of people with low levels of education at a time when wide spread automation is around the corner makes little sense particularly with the still high levels of youth unemployment in Southern Europe.

Break Germany back up into its historic Kingdoms and Prince Bishoprics "too big for Europe, too small for the world"

.
On a serious point though the fact that the German political system put in place by the allies has served as a model for parts of the EU isn't a good thing, its a system thats built on a distrust of the masses because the Nazi's actions, and the Germans are pretty weird politically, take a look at opinion polling about trust as well as what countries they would defend.

Perhaps the fundamental thing would be to recognize Euro-federalism is not popular with the population at large and act on that.