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 XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but 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
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

reslfj

Deleted User wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

What makes you think the EU is open to yet another renegotiation?

Without May's red lines, change of govt, of course they would.

I'm not so sure the EU27 would change anything of substance in the WA. Going back to the TM deal with its UK wide CU is e.g. unlikely, I think.

The EU got out of its huge CU concession to the UK and the EU/Ireland got the Backstop replaced by a permanent Irish Sea Front-stop.
A Front-stop that can only be changed after 2024-26 by an (unlikely) absolute DUP majority or in time by a GFA dual referendum majority for a UI.

The EU will negotiate, but changes will have to be in the PD - and the PD only.

Important parts of UK business will in addition to the Norway/EEA SM membership need the CU for friction-less borders when trading farm+fish products, for the car export and indeed for much of its JIT industry to survive.

Norway had and still has - apart from emotions among its voters - two good reasons for not joining the EEC/EU and in 1973 its common market and now the EU's CU.

Protection of its very inefficient farmers.
Keeping its huge undisputed Atlantic fishing grounds for itself.

The UK on the other hand wants to compete with both some farm+fish export to the EU27 and importantly with its industrial products which creates much needed jobs and wealth outside London and other UK cities.

Lars

Zubeneschamali

reslfj wrote: »

I'm not so sure the EU27 would change anything of substance in the WA. Going back to the TM deal with its UK wide CU is e.g. unlikely, I think.

The WA, no, it won't change much. But the real deal is in the Future Relationship, where anything from North Korea all the way to Norway is possible.

First Up

reslfj wrote:

I'm not so sure the EU27 would change anything of substance in the WA.

I didn't say they would. The ink is dry on the WA; we are all just waiting for the UK to return to planet earth (which they will find to be less friendly than when they left) and accept it.

reslfj

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The WA, no, it won't change much. But the real deal is in the Future Relationship, where anything from North Korea all the way to Norway is possible.

Norway will not be nearly enough for the UK economy. Farm, fish, cars and the JIT industry (and even supply chains for supermarkets) need friction-free 'No Stop' borders.

FoM for people follows the SM which removes some of the NTBs, but the CU in addition to low/no tariffs removes the rest of the NTBs needed to keep a 'No Stop' border. Take a look at the Norwegian or Swiss borders.

Lars

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

I appreciate that it is more art than science, but any discussion that is wholly related to the UK election rather than to the specific Brexit parts of it should be here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058030141

WomanSkirtFan8

reslfj wrote: »

I'm not so sure the EU27 would change anything of substance in the WA. Going back to the TM deal with its UK wide CU is e.g. unlikely, I think.

The EU got out of its huge CU concession to the UK and the EU/Ireland got the Backstop replaced by a permanent Irish Sea Front-stop.
A Front-stop that can only be changed after 2024-26 by an (unlikely) absolute DUP majority or in time by a GFA dual referendum majority for a UI.

The EU will negotiate, but changes will have to be in the PD - and the PD only.

Important parts of UK business will in addition to the Norway/EEA SM membership need the CU for friction-less borders when trading farm+fish products, for the car export and indeed for much of its JIT industry to survive.

Norway had and still has - apart from emotions among its voters - two good reasons for not joining the EEC/EU and in 1973 its common market and now the EU's CU.
Protection of its very inefficient farmers.

Keeping its huge undisputed Atlantic fishing grounds for itself.

The UK on the other hand wants to compete with both some farm+fish export to the EU27 and importantly with its industrial products which creates much needed jobs and wealth outside London and other UK cities.

Lars

The EU have already said multiple times that the WA will not be changed one iota. I don't know how much clearer they can make this.

Joe_ Public

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

The EU have already said multiple times that the WA will not be changed one iota. I don't know how much clearer they can make this.

Do you mean since they changed it in october or before that? I dont know how likely it is personally, but the only senior eu politician I've heard ruling it out was Juncker and i wouldnt lean too heavily on that. They changed it in october because it was in their interests to do so and if that is the case again then i see no reason why they mightnt do so again.

Bit cynical

Akrasia wrote: »

If there was a referendum between Labours brexit deal versus remain would the Tories campaign for remain?
Thereby screwing over 17.4 million people.... according to their own logic

What I could see happening, depending on the arithmetic, is the Conservatives with the Brexit Party pushing pushing through amendments forcing a leave at the end of the transition period with or without a deal. Only possible in the case of a Labour minority government of course. This would effectively take the remain option in any referendum off the table.

An Claidheamh

CelticRambler wrote: »

finding common ground is not something that fits comfortably with their socio-political tradition.

Except against Johnny Foreigner.

One British historian once defined Britishness/British foreign policy as 'anti-Catholic and anti-French'.

Substitute French for European and Catholic for... well.. Catholic (and now Islam).

Plus ca change.

First Up

Joe_ Public wrote:

Do you mean since they changed it in october or before that?

The only thing that changed in October was Johnson agreeing to checks on goods moving between Britain and N Ireland. Not much of a renegotiation and the HoC rejected it anyway.

liamtech

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

I appreciate that it is more art than science, but any discussion that is wholly related to the UK election rather than to the specific Brexit parts of it should be here:

was going to suggest we have a POLL on tonight's debate - could have interesting results? Being a 4 way

My money is on Sturgeon to make the biggest impression - and im just hoping Boris Makes another fool of himself

Irish Praetorian

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Except against Johnny Foreigner.

One British historian once defined Britishness/British foreign policy as 'anti-Catholic and anti-French'.

Substitute French for European and Catholic for... well.. Catholic (and now Islam).

Plus ca change.

Linda Colley you're thinking of. And it is peculiar that this very (for the lack of a better term) xenophobic sense of national identity germinated at a time when the British monarch was still also the King of Hanover and the downfall of Napoleon was still dependent on the support of enormous swathes of Europe. Even during it's moments of greatest supposed isolation, like 1940 or 1811, the UK has traditionally benefited from the support of allies near and far.

Joe_ Public

First Up wrote: »

The only thing that changed in October was Johnson agreeing to checks on goods moving between Britain and N Ireland. Not much of a renegotiation and the HoC rejected it anyway.

I wasn't suggesting they ripped the whole thing up and started again or anything, but the fact is the WA was reopened because it was in the eu interests to do so. So i understand people saying it wont be reopened again for labour, just i wouldnt be so definitive again.

Strazdas

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Linda Colley you're thinking of. And it is peculiar that this very (for the lack of a better term) xenophobic sense of national identity germinated at a time when the British monarch was still also the King of Hanover and the downfall of Napoleon was still dependent on the support of enormous swathes of Europe. Even during it's moments of greatest supposed isolation, like 1940 or 1811, the UK has traditionally benefited from the support of allies near and far.

Britain got sucked into both WW1 and WW2 precisely because of its close alliances with its European neighbours.

What it is attempting now is quite unprecedented in its history : becoming an isolationist and protectionist state with a strictly hands off relationship with Europe.

First Up

Joe_ Public wrote:

I wasn't suggesting they ripped the whole thing up and started again or anything, but the fact is the WA was reopened because it was in the eu interests to do so. So i understand people saying it wont be reopened again for labour, just i wouldnt be so definitive again.

All that happened in October was an effort to resolve the contradiction of the UK leaving the EU and a borderless Ireland. That remains unresolved, unless and until the HoC accepts the inevitable.

Nothing has being "renegotiated" and nothing will.

Tea Shock

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting they ripped the whole thing up and started again or anything, but the fact is the WA was reopened because it was in the eu interests to do so. So i understand people saying it wont be reopened again for labour, just i wouldnt be so definitive again.

Teresa May's WA (page 302) allowed for the backstop to be replaced by alternative arrangements. The only thing that changed was a change already negotiated and agreed to be allowed and present in that original WA.

Irish Praetorian

Strazdas wrote: »

Britain got sucked into both WW1 and WW2 precisely because of its close alliances with its European neighbours.

What it is attempting now is quite unprecedented in its history : becoming an isolationist and protectionist state with a strictly hands off relationship with Europe.

I'm not sure that exactly what Brexit will bring to the UK - on the contrary I suspect it might be considerably more Libertarian and free-for-all than. Nor would I suspect it to be particularly isolationist in its outlook for the simple reason that it cannot afford to be; then (as in WW1 or WW2 or even the Napoleonic Wars) Britain's involvement with Europe has been aimed at preventing a single hegemonic power which would on it's own far outstrip the power of even the two islands united. By leaving the EU, Britain emerges onto this invidious geopolitical stage and if it hopes to be anything more than a third rate power on the political and perhaps economic margins of the European core, it will need to set about opposing that state of affairs as quickly as possible - not that they would be guaranteed to succeed in that endeavour mind.

black forest

Till now the most likely outcome of the elections sees the Tories in Government. Assuming this the WAB will be signed and the UK will leave the EU end of January 2020. There seems to be a bit of confusion about the new Frontstop which replaced the old Backstop and it’s valididity should the UK possibly leave without any agreement end of 2020.

Dom Walsh from “Open Europe” clearly states that there will be no hard land border on the island of Ireland. Whether there will be a trade agreement with the UK or not.

https://twitter.com/domwalsh13/status/1197854578018009088?s=21

For better reading ThreadReaderApp or his article.

Given that the biggest immediate problems for the EU will be solved the incentive to reach a FTA with the UK might be reduced. There are already countries who just want to get rid of the UK and after 31st of January 2020 it will get quite a bit more complicated. There will be 30 local and regional parliaments that will discuss every agreement and have to give their consent. And each one can throw in a veto.

The negotiations till now will seem like a walk in the park for the UK. After January the gloves will be off and the UK will just be another 3rd country and potential rival.

Joe_ Public

Tea Shock wrote: »

Teresa May's WA (page 302) allowed for the backstop to be replaced by alternative arrangements. The only thing that changed was a change already negotiated and agreed to be allowed and present in that original WA.

Ok maybe I'm being pedantic but the WA had to be reopened to take account of these changes, however small. The issue of consent was certainly a new one anyway. But if the eu insist they wont reopen it, then thats fair enough. I have no shred of evidence certainly to suggest otherwise.

An Claidheamh

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Linda Colley you're thinking of. And it is peculiar that this very (for the lack of a better term) xenophobic sense of national identity germinated at a time when the British monarch was still also the King of Hanover and the downfall of Napoleon was still dependent on the support of enormous swathes of Europe. Even during it's moments of greatest supposed isolation, like 1940 or 1811, the UK has traditionally benefited from the support of allies near and far.

Prussian cavalry stopped French reserves from reaching the British at Waterloo.

They were actually saved by the Germans!

An Claidheamh

Strazdas wrote: »

Britain got sucked into both WW1 and WW2 precisely because of its close alliances with its European neighbours.

What it is attempting now is quite unprecedented in its history : becoming an isolationist and protectionist state with a strictly hands off relationship with Europe.

But you may recall they were isolated in the 19th century, when they could rule their empire.

The so-called 'splendid isolation'.

Which is exactly the time Brexiters appear to live in.

20silkcut

An Claidheamh wrote: »

But you may recall they were isolated in the 19th century, when they could rule their empire.

The so-called 'splendid isolation'.

Which is exactly the time Brexiters appear to live in.

But they weren’t isolated from their colonies.
Isolation for them is a lot different today than what it was in the 19th century.

It’s literally just the island of Britain today and in time just England.
It would be more North Korea than pax Britannia.

robindch

Not quite relevant to Brexit, but certainly relevant to the bleatings of the ERG and its supporters regarding "exiting on WTO terms".

We're three weeks out from December 11th when the WTO's Appellate Body, the court system which adjudicates in trade disputes between WTO members, will become defunct as #45 refuses to nominate any new judges to the Court. The EU, Canada, Norway and some other countries are working to create a parallel arbitration system, but this protective activity has raised #45's ire and he's now threatening to withhold payments to the WTO which would may threaten the institution itself.

Non pay-walled news on this topic is in short supply, but this Reuters report from July remains accurate:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-wto-eu-canada/eu-canada-agree-first-workaround-to-avoid-u-s-block-on-wto-judges-idUSKCN1UK2QY

Leroy42

I actually believe that the ERG types, Farage etc, are planning on the collapse of WTO. Then they, sided with the US, can create a new system heavily weighted in their favour or simply bully other countries if they don't agree.

Trumps actions with NAFTA and China would seem to run in that vein, not to mention pulling out of Paris Accord.

So when they talk about WTO I don't believe for a second that they really expect to abide by those rules.

ancapailldorcha

Off topic posts deleted.

woohoo!!!

Strazdas wrote: »

Britain got sucked into both WW1 and WW2 precisely because of its close alliances with its European neighbours.

What it is attempting now is quite unprecedented in its history : becoming an isolationist and protectionist state with a strictly hands off relationship with Europe.

Vladimir Putin has the most to gain from such a scenario. I would agree with Macron to up the requirement for joining the EU, Brexit means Brexit.

Strazdas

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Vladimir Putin has the most to gain from such a scenario. I would agree with Macron to up the requirement for joining the EU, Brexit means Brexit.

They (the UK) would be doing so at precisely the time when the world is moving into large global trading blocs. Seeking to isolate themselves when you have big juggernauts like the EU, the US and China out there seems an insane move

briany

Strazdas wrote: »

They (the UK) would be doing so at precisely the time when the world is moving into large global trading blocs. Seeking to isolate themselves when you have big juggernauts like the EU, the US and China out there seems an insane move

Brexiteers don't envision isolation from the rest of the world. They envision a 'fantastic' trade deal with the USA. The idea they have is that they'll be able to cut trade deals with the world, and that these deals will be squarely in the UK's interest.

The problem with the above is that, as you say, there are a few large blocs about and the UK would be doing very well indeed to be dictating the terms of trade deals with these blocs. I don't believe Brexiteers want to bring back the empire, but they seem to believe that Britain ought to have the clout of the USA or China, and that just isn't going to happen any time soon.

My guess is that the UK could exit its current deal with much of Europe, and walk into a 'fantastic' trade deal with the USA. The politicians will tell the public it's fantastic, and about half of that public will swallow that readily, despite nothing being further from the truth.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

Brexiteers don't envision isolation from the rest of the world. They envision a 'fantastic' trade deal with the USA. The idea they have is that they'll be able to cut trade deals with the world, and that these deals will be squarely in the UK's interest.

The problem with the above is that, as you say, there are a few large blocs about and the UK would be doing very well indeed to be dictating the terms of trade deals with these blocs. I don't believe Brexiteers want to bring back the empire, but they seem to believe that Britain ought to have the clout of the USA or China, and that just isn't going to happen any time soon.

My guess is that the UK could exit its current deal with much of Europe, and walk into a 'fantastic' trade deal with the USA. The politicians will tell the public it's fantastic, and about half of that public will swallow that readily, despite nothing being further from the truth.

The whole "sovereignty" argument in the modern world is an utter nonsense. This is the era of the internet, instant communication, people moving freely around without borders and yet they are yearning to go back to a 19th century version of the world and of trading : a world of hard borders and where every island nation is literally an island.

They will surely find out the hard that their radical experiment is not going to work. They are not the USA and have not got the clout to succeed on their own.

Zubeneschamali

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With Johnson at the helm, we can expect a strong delivery of a Majority Conservative Party to - Get Brexit Done.

With Johnson's craven WA in place, this is not the worst result for Ireland and the EU. It will be a decade long humiliation for the UK (if the UK lasts that long), and horrible for the poorer half of the English people, but I am past sympathizing with anyone who falls for Johnson's bull.