First Up wrote: » fash wrote: The UK can stay in a no deal for longer than one might expect- why would Johnson not brazen it out for 5 years, blaming the EU along the way? He can blame who he likes. The people he'll have to answer to are not the EU.
fash wrote: The UK can stay in a no deal for longer than one might expect- why would Johnson not brazen it out for 5 years, blaming the EU along the way?
Ulster Unionist Leader, Robin Swann MLA, has stated that the new proposals from the UK Government would see Northern Ireland left in a perpetual cycle of uncertainty. Robin Swann MLA said: “The Prime Minister and the DUP are fooling no-one with these proposals. This new protocol should be deeply concerning for all those who have the long term economic and constitutional welfare of Northern Ireland and its people at heart. “Northern Ireland would be locked into continual political debates about Brexit and alignment with the rest of the UK or EU. They would set the theme of every Assembly and Westminster election. It plunges Northern Ireland into a referendum in the Assembly Chamber every four years with high stakes consequences for our people. It will keep our businesses and agri-food sector in a perpetual cycle of uncertainty. “These proposals haven`t been thought through and would see DUP statements that Northern Ireland would leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom being flipped on their heads. “Northern Ireland would become a hybrid part of the UK with a border up the Irish Sea. “This represents a road to Damascus conversion by the DUP and a very sharp u-turn on statements they made to the Northern Ireland public. The Prime Minister and the DUP were full of big talk. These proposals don`t offer them much of a fig leaf.”
gooch2k9 wrote: » From the reaction it is getting it won't get past the HOC, opposition leaders against it.
igCorcaigh wrote: » I see... And on the other hand, if we accepted a bad deal, we would be stuck with it? OK, so it's not quite a rock and a hard place then.. Holding tight, beyond a no deal is in our favour? It kinda makes sense, but maybe the least worse option?
Nody wrote: » Because even if he magically strikes FTAs with USA (who'll bend 'em over), or China (for one way trade) the companies that export to EU will not magically start to export to other countries and losing give or take 40% of your BNP because companies can't export their goods to their customers anymore (and hence fire people and the ripple effect coming with such a huge mass layoff). That's before any side effects such as no radio active materials for hospitals, power plants etc. are taken into account or NHS being sold off (sorry competitively bid for) to US. And that's not taking into issues with food imports (trucks can't leave the UK empty due to queues would cause serious shipping issues for example) etc. and assume zero tariffs on all imports as temporary solution (if not it gets even worse).
Tippex wrote: » I think the most ridiculous thing in all of this and probably what the EU should do is say come back to us once the proposals have been ratified by the HOC & HOL and then we will look at it. We have had an agreement that you have failed to get ratified by your own parliament so get that bit done first.
fash wrote: » The UK can stay in a no deal for longer than one might expect- why would Johnson not brazen it out for 5 years, blaming the EU along the way?
fash wrote: » The UK can stay in a no deal for longer than one might expect- why would Johnson not brazen it out for 5 years, blaming the EU along the way? I agree it's the only option- but I think it likely to be a long while for it to resolve.
AlmightyCushion wrote: » igCorcaigh wrote: » I see... And on the other hand, if we accepted a bad deal, we would be stuck with it? OK, so it's not quite a rock and a hard place then.. Holding tight, beyond a no deal is in our favour? It kinda makes sense, but maybe the least worse option? If we accept this deal, we have a border and that's it. At least if we hold out there is a chance at no border (because they went with the WA or withdraw article 50) or we do get a border but because the UK does not have a deal with the EU (and won't get one until they sort the border issue) it will put them in a very bad position that they could reconsider the WA again. No deal is bad, but a bad deal that puts a border up is even worse. This is a bad deal.
CelticRambler wrote: » It bears repeating: there is no such thing as a no-deal Brexit. The UK cannot function in the modern world without a deal, or at least not unless they want to model themselves on North Korea.
NIMAN wrote: » Didn't the UK parliament have a vote recently that would not allow a no Deal Brexit?
Enter name here wrote: Keep up the comedy, it does keep one entertained. After the UK leaves and EU will start to crumble and the EU will cease to exist within 20 years and be looked back on in the future as the third loss for Germany trying to take over Europe.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No Deal is absolutely not a good situation for us, will hurt a lot in the Border regions, and really, really hurt a lot in NI. But yes, it is not as bad as an agreed, permanent hard border, which could be bad forever. (In fact, I think none of this is forever, and the UK will rejoin the EU in maybe 20 years, assuming they ever actually leave. But No Deal can't last even one year, and might be over much faster than that.)
Nody wrote: » It's May's words coming back to haunt us all over again; No deal is better than a bad deal :P
AlmightyCushion wrote: » No deal is bad, but a bad deal that puts a border up is even worse. This is a bad deal.
Mefistofelino wrote: » I wouldn't be too ecstatic. Currently there are interconnector projects between the Ireland & UK and UK to France. Effectively, because of Brexit, we've now got to install a massive extension lead between Ireland and France. Given the cost of similar projects, that will be North of a billion euro, of which the EU will give~ half. We still have to pony up at least half a billion Euro for infrastructure that probably wouldn't have been required otherwise.
igCorcaigh wrote: » Holding tight, beyond a no deal is in our favour? It kinda makes sense, but maybe the least worse option?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Should they be? The Financial Times thinks they are having trouble reading the small contradictory printhttps://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1179404545698516992
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No Deal. No Deal is a temporary thing, since the day after Brexit and all the street parties and flag waving, the UK will be looking to make a Free Trade deal with the EU. And the EU will say... we are happy to negotiate a deal after you sign up to the backstop, pay us €30 billion and guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK. The UK will of course say no, until No Deal starts to bite. Soon enough there will be a more pragmatic UK government, and the Border will go away again.
Dytalus wrote: » The former, definitely. If we sign a deal that leads to a hard border, then we have agreed to close off the border. A decision the Government and People of Ireland cannot countenance. Signing any kind of deal to bring one about, however temporary, is a grave failing. And when negotiations happen in the future the UK can always point at us and say "you were fine with it last time". But if it happens because of UK intransigence, there is always the option to return to the negotiating table and correct it. We won't have sullied our hands, or our negotiating position, by previously saying "okay, we can accept a hard border".
