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 XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

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

Zubeneschamali

igCorcaigh wrote: »

If it comes down to a hard border either by a UK deal to impose one, or a default one by no deal, which option would the Irish government favour...

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.

igCorcaigh

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

A no deal border puts us and the EU in a much stronger position. The UK will need a trade deal with the EU and we can tell them we won't consider a trade deal until they sort out the border issue and the divorce bill.

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?

Kermit.de.frog

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, Arlene is happy:

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1179400476892303366

Should they be? The Financial Times thinks they are having trouble reading the small contradictory print

https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1179404545698516992

igCorcaigh

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".

Thank you, and other repliers.

This is what I was trying to get at. It's an unfortunate state of affairs that a UK crash out seems to be our best option.

gooch2k9

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.

All the lads will have their money made, and can bet the other way with their profits to make even more. Utterly disgusting. There will surely have to be enquiries around all of this at some point.

CelticRambler

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.

quokula

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Should they be? The Financial Times thinks they are having trouble reading the small contradictory print

https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1179404545698516992

She possibly cares more about creating a border in Ireland than avoiding one in the sea.

AlmightyCushion

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.

Podge_irl

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Should they be? The Financial Times thinks they are having trouble reading the small contradictory print

https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1179404545698516992

Well the regulatory zone would require approval by Stormont and I imagine Foster is confident that the DUP could simply block that (either by not bringing back the Assembly or using a Petition of Concern).

Zubeneschamali

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Holding tight, beyond a no deal is in our favour? It kinda makes sense, but maybe the least worse option?

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.)

jm08

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.

Surely the French will also be putting up half the cash? It works both ways.

Tippex

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.

Nody

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No deal is bad, but a bad deal that puts a border up is even worse. This is a bad deal.

It's May's words coming back to haunt us all over again; No deal is better than a bad deal :P

Hurrache

The CEO of Manufacturing NI has said that this 'deal' will leave them in a worse position than under no deal whatsoever.

AlmightyCushion

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.

Very good point actually.

Nody wrote: »

It's May's words coming back to haunt us all over again; No deal is better than a bad deal :P

Ha ha, I was thinking that as I wrote it.

NIMAN

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.

Didn't the UK parliament have a vote recently that would not allow a no Deal Brexit?

Enter name here

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.)

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.

First Up

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.

Welcome back.

og2k7

NIMAN wrote: »

Didn't the UK parliament have a vote recently that would not allow a no Deal Brexit?

I thought that too - but does it not require different parties Lib Dems and Labour working together?

I know an information overload is bad, but the more I hear/learn/read about Brexit the less I know. Less than a month to go, and we are none the wiser

fash

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.

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.

First Up

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.

robinph

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.

I think we've finally reached the point that May was making back in the day where she said "no deal is better than a bad deal". Who would have guessed she was talking about Ireland.

Nody

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.

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) esp. when the global economy is stuttering and about to fall. 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).

In short if you want to go for a crash out Brexit now is about the worst possible time to do so with an world economy that's about to turn down again and hostile tariffs driven world leaders fighting trade wars causing the worst possible environment for companies to shift their sales markets. That is what will stop him to brazen it out for five years; the economy he's crashing into the ground because people who've been fired are not going to be happy campers about it.

CelticRambler

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?

Because they need agreements (i.e. deals) for everything - landing of aircraft, docking of ships, transit of goods, transit of people, financial transactions, exchange of information (fines, arrest warrants, suspected terrorists), etc, etc, etc.

Johnson can try to brazen it out, safe in the knowledge that his rich friends will shield him from the worst effects of the country being isolated from the Continent, but the plain people of England will feel the effects sooner rather than later.

gooch2k9

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.

From the reaction it is getting it won't get past the HOC, opposition leaders against it.

is_that_so

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).

US one is a complete non-runner if he shafts the GFA.

one armed dwarf

I don't like wishing a brutal and unfair outcome on 16.5 million voters, particularly as I regard the UK and London as my home away from home. But it's gotten to that point that I've started wishing for them to have their hard crash out. Where else is there to go for them at this stage?

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1179391092057399297

Not sure about that Nigel.

The backstop would please Ireland.

Call me Al

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?

Not only would we be stuck with it. The political party in power who actually agreed to a bad deal of this type would go down in history as the party that negotiated the reinstatement of the physical border. The optics of this would be political devastating for any party.

Tippex

gooch2k9 wrote: »

From the reaction it is getting it won't get past the HOC, opposition leaders against it.

yep that's my whole point why bother sending it to EU when your own parliament won't ratify it. Why don't the opposition call him out on this (we all know why but anyway)