Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

brickster69 · 01-11-2018 11:32pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

You are throwing out statistics here without clarifying what they are or where you are getting them from. Are you saying that the UK represents 30% of exports for Germany?

30% would be an exaggeration of all German exports but UK is a significant trading partner

https://comtrade.tradingeconomics.com/comtrade/share?r=deu&c=0000&v=treemapmarkets&t=2&title=

True, my mistake i meant 30% of EU - EU trade.

brickster69 · 01-11-2018 11:32pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

You are throwing out statistics here without clarifying what they are or where you are getting them from. Are you saying that the UK represents 30% of exports for Germany?

30% would be an exaggeration of all German exports but UK is a significant trading partner

https://comtrade.tradingeconomics.com/comtrade/share?r=deu&c=0000&v=treemapmarkets&t=2&title=

True, my mistake i meant 30% of EU - EU trade.

First Up · 01-11-2018 11:50pm

brickster69 wrote: »

Spook_ie wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

You are throwing out statistics here without clarifying what they are or where you are getting them from. Are you saying that the UK represents 30% of exports for Germany?

30% would be an exaggeration of all German exports but UK is a significant trading partner

https://comtrade.tradingeconomics.com/comtrade/share?r=deu&c=0000&v=treemapmarkets&t=2&title=

True, my mistake i meant 30% of EU - EU trade.

Of what?
If you are basing your argument on statistics you could at least try to get them right.

For the record, the UK takes slightly less than 7% of German exports.

brickster69 · 01-11-2018 11:59pm

First Up wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Spook_ie wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

You are throwing out statistics here without clarifying what they are or where you are getting them from. Are you saying that the UK represents 30% of exports for Germany?

30% would be an exaggeration of all German exports but UK is a significant trading partner

https://comtrade.tradingeconomics.com/comtrade/share?r=deu&c=0000&v=treemapmarkets&t=2&title=

True, my mistake i meant 30% of EU - EU trade.

Of what?
If you are basing your argument on statistics you could at least try to get them right.

For the record, the UK takes slightly less than 7% of German exports.

Between EU - EU countries ?

Enzokk · 02-11-2018 12:03am

brickster69 wrote: »

True, my mistake i meant 30% of EU - EU trade.

brickster69 wrote: »

Between EU - EU countries ?

What are you meaning and where are you getting your numbers from? Are you saying that the UK is involved with 30% of the trade totals of the EU?

You got your numbers on the trade for Germany and the UK totally wrong so I am just looking to see how you get to your conclusion that the UK is involved with 30% of EU trade.

AlmightyCushion · 02-11-2018 12:09am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It actually was pulled from a post on evoting.
But it shows the power and influence of the UK where iphone have 50% market share.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46043668

It really doesn't. In countries like the US, Canada, Australia and Japan the iPhone has even more market share than in the UK. Does that mean they have less power and influence than the UK?

brickster69 · 02-11-2018 12:29am

Enzokk wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

True, my mistake i meant 30% of EU - EU trade.

brickster69 wrote: »

Between EU - EU countries ?

What are you meaning and where are you getting your numbers from? Are you saying that the UK is involved with 30% of the trade totals of the EU?

You got your numbers on the trade for Germany and the UK totally wrong so I am just looking to see how you get to your conclusion that the UK is involved with 30% of EU trade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_United_Kingdom
Total trade balance with the EU
Germany 30% of that.

VonZan · 02-11-2018 12:31am

I think this plan is unworkable because the DUP won't bite on anything but full alignment with the rest of the UK. The reality is that this is unworkable but there doesn't seem to be any political will in either party to stop this madness. I think it's plainly obvious that were into fudge territory at this stage and we'll get a complete disaster of a deal that will just defer the inevitable.

I think it would be better if May was cast aside and a Brexiteer like Mogg or Davis leads the party so a deal can actually be discussed rather than May trying to sell a deal to the ERG outside of the central negotiations. I think that would dramatically increase the possibility of the realisation that you can't have your cake and eat it.

[Deleted User] · 02-11-2018 12:41am

brickster69 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_United_Kingdom
Total trade balance with the EU
Germany 30% of that.

That is a list of goods trade only and only from the UKs point of view - it is very much a 'fog in the channel, continent cut off' point of view.

German exports:
US 8.8%, France 8.2%, China 6.8%, Netherlands 6.7%, UK 6.6%, Italy 5.1%, Austria 4.9%, Poland 4.7%, Switzerland 4.2% (2017)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html

Water John · 02-11-2018 12:46am

The ERG wing have only about 60 votes. They know they can't replace May. If they move against her they may unleash the majority of MPs in their own Party turning on them.

Angry bird · 02-11-2018 1:04am

I don't know why people are getting their knickers in a twist. Very predictable that there's all sort of stories coming out. There will be a deal, the UK will sell this as a victory for them, in reality land it's them signing up to what the EU is willing to give. Right of veto remains for any of the 27 countries.

fash · 02-11-2018 3:23am

charlie14 wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

You think the British parliament should have been forced by the EU, early in a negotiation process, to enact legislation to enforce a partial agreement cementing the possible segmentation of the UK?

No chance. Never going to happen.

We were assured that unless the border backstop was resolved to our satisfaction then negotiations would not proceed to Phase 2. For that to be really "politically bullet proof" would have, (and still will), required the British parliament to enact legislate.
What we accepted was a fudge that let the British off the hook in December, and allowed them to do the exact opposite.

But even if the UK introduced legislation, that would not constitute a "cast iron guarantee" - they could simply amend the legislation 2 days later. What is the difference between between doing that and what they have done on their undertaking?
The only way to get the type of "cast iron guarantee" you are talking about, is if they dissolved the UK and, surrendered to the jurisdiction of another EU country - thus permanently preventing them from revoking their undertaking.
Now how likely were they to do that?
Anything else is, I would suggest, your own over reading of the term " cast iron guarantee" (which in any case seems to have been written on some form of wood pulp based paper and not any form of metal - cast or forged).

Peregrinus · 02-11-2018 3:36am

Fash is correct. An Act of Parliament committing the UK to keep the border open could be repealed at will.

The best guarantee of an open border that you can get is to give the UK something it really, really wants in return for a commitment to keep the border open. That way, if the UK closes the border, it does so at great cost to itself.

This is why demanding that the UK give a unilateral commitment to keep the border open is a stupid strategy. Even if the UK were to agree, it could later walk away from that commitment at virtually no cost to itself.

Current strategy is, in the short to medium term, to offer the UK a withdrawal agreement and a transition period in return for an open border commitment. The UK really wants and needs both of these things. So its a good strategy, so far as it goes.

But it doesn't go very far. In a few years, after the transition period has expired, and after the UK has had the bulk of whatever benefits it gets from the withdrawal agreement, there's not much to hold the UK to its open-border promise. They lose little by walking away from it at that point.

Which is why the long-term strategy is to negotiate a future relationship agreement with the UK which (a) provides continuing benefits to the UK, and (b) delivers an open border. That way, the UK will continue to be in the position that it will lose something valuable to it if it walks away from the open border.

And note where Ireland's interests lie in this. The more generous the future relationship agreement is to the UK, the better for us, because the greater the cost to the UK of introducing a hard border and so losing the future relationship agreement. So, assuming there is a withdrawal agreement, when the parties move on to negotiate the future relationship expect us to be warm advocates of British interests, and a strong supporter of the UK's desire for generous and easy terms.

EdgeCase · 02-11-2018 8:29am

That's why the GFA is an international treaty lodged with the UN. Act of parliament wouldn't have been considered secure enough.

McGiver · 02-11-2018 8:35am

Peregrinus wrote: »

And note where Ireland's interests lie in this. The more generous the future relationship agreement is to the UK, the better for us, because the greater the cost to the UK of introducing a hard border and so losing the future relationship agreement. So, assuming there is a withdrawal agreement, when the parties move on to negotiate the future relationship expect us to be warm advocates of British interests, and a strong supporter of the UK's desire for generous and easy terms.

Isn't the FRA only a political statement as opposed to the WA which has actual stuff in it? Hence the FRA won't be legally binding or static, it's basically a political statement of what the parties would like to achieve. Now, few years later a new EP comes in, new EC comes in, new HMG comes and everything may change, or am I wrong?

Enzokk · 02-11-2018 8:56am

brickster69 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_United_Kingdom
Total trade balance with the EU
Germany 30% of that.

Ok, so your original assertion was not correct then.

brickster69 wrote: »

Don't think Germany would be too chuffed about that idea considering the UK buys 30% of it's total exports and represents 20% of the total EU - EU exports.

The UK imports £61b from Germany out of a total of £220b from the whole of the EU. That does represent almost 30% of the imports for the UK from the EU, but for Germany this is only about 7% of their exports.

As for the second assertion, the UK exports about 186b euro in goods to the EU. This is out of a total of 3.4t euro of total goods exported by other EU countries within the EU. So the UK exports to the EU are around 6% of the total intra EU trade. The UK does import more from the EU than it exports and this is where the mantra of they need us more than we need them come in from. The problem is that the totals for those countries are not as big as the UK really need them to be to force a deal through.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Intra-EU_trade_in_goods_-_recent_trends

L1011 · 02-11-2018 9:19am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

under what versions of Brexit will I be able to live up north and become non tax resident anywhere (with a day in Switzerland)

None.

Not no deal, no circumstances. What you want isn't possible

Mc Love · 02-11-2018 9:39am

Reports that Raab is on his way to meet with the DUP to see if they'll make some concessions for a backstop.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46065909

prawnsambo · 02-11-2018 9:44am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fash is correct. An Act of Parliament committing the UK to keep the border open could be repealed at will.

The best guarantee of an open border that you can get is to give the UK something it really, really wants in return for a commitment to keep the border open. That way, if the UK closes the border, it does so at great cost to itself.

This is why demanding that the UK give a unilateral commitment to keep the border open is a stupid strategy. Even if the UK were to agree, it could later walk away from that commitment at virtually no cost to itself.

Current strategy is, in the short to medium term, to offer the UK a withdrawal agreement and a transition period in return for an open border commitment. The UK really wants and needs both of these things. So its a good strategy, so far as it goes.

But it doesn't go very far. In a few years, after the transition period has expired, and after the UK has had the bulk of whatever benefits it gets from the withdrawal agreement, there's not much to hold the UK to its open-border promise. They lose little by walking away from it at that point.

Which is why the long-term strategy is to negotiate a future relationship agreement with the UK which (a) provides continuing benefits to the UK, and (b) delivers an open border. That way, the UK will continue to be in the position that it will lose something valuable to it if it walks away from the open border.

And note where Ireland's interests lie in this. The more generous the future relationship agreement is to the UK, the better for us, because the greater the cost to the UK of introducing a hard border and so losing the future relationship agreement. So, assuming there is a withdrawal agreement, when the parties move on to negotiate the future relationship expect us to be warm advocates of British interests, and a strong supporter of the UK's desire for generous and easy terms.

Well the one thing the UK wants post brexit is a FTA with the EU. That will take years. A framework agreement in the WA will not deliver this, so the UK shouldn't be thinking about reneging on any arrangement they have made wrt the border for fear of causing FTA talks to break down.

Tell me how · 02-11-2018 9:47am

Trinity College Dublin cleverly took the opportunity to give their view on Brexit.

TCD open letter

"Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years." Edmund Burke

Zubeneschamali · 02-11-2018 9:47am

Mc Love wrote: »

Reports that Raab is on his way to meet with the DUP to see if they'll make some concessions for a backstop.

Translation: Raab on his way to threaten to take back their £1 billion pound bribe if they don't play ball.

Zubeneschamali · 02-11-2018 9:49am

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well the one thing the UK wants post brexit is a FTA with the EU. That will take years.

They also really, really need a transition from where they are now into the new arrangement. Being out in the cold while negotiating that FTA would be a disaster.

Imreoir2 · 02-11-2018 9:50am

Mc Love wrote: »

Reports that Raab is on his way to meet with the DUP to see if they'll make some concessions for a backstop.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46065909

Ha. God love him. I would love to get a word count on the number of times "No" and "Never" are said during that meeting.

kuro68k · 02-11-2018 9:52am

Brexiteers have gone from "they need us more than we need them" to "if we go over the cliff we can drag them with us".

Neither is true.

Enzokk · 02-11-2018 9:57am

Mc Love wrote: »

Reports that Raab is on his way to meet with the DUP to see if they'll make some concessions for a backstop.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46065909

But I thought the EU was making all the concessions?

In other news, here is a Daily Mail article about Arron Banks and the investigation.

So how could Brexit Bad Boy Arron Banks afford to give £8m to the Leave campaign... and why did Theresa May STOP security services probing him before the referendum?

Basically questions have to be asked how someone who seems to not have that much money was able to afford to pay £8m to fund the Vote Leave campaign. The fact that there are more meetings with Russians than either Banks or Wigmore admitted. There are also questions on investments in Russian mines that occurred strangely around the time that Vote Leave was established.

Then there was the lunch with the Russian Ambassador as well that was 6 hours long.

While this was ongoing, a number of highly damaging allegations appeared in the press concerning his close ties with senior Russian officials.

In June this year the Observer said it had seen leaked emails which suggested multiple meetings between Banks and figures linked to the Russian government, from November 2015 when Leave.EU launched its Brexit campaign, to last year.

Far more contact than Banks had previously admitted.

Of particular importance was the role of the Kremlin’s London ambassador Alexander Yakovenko, who at their first meeting treated Banks and his business associate Andy Wigmore to a ‘six-hour boozy lunch’ at his residence.

prawnsambo · 02-11-2018 10:06am

In the same article it says:

The Mail understands that in early 2016 the then home secretary Theresa May declined a request by one of the security services to investigate Banks

That in itself is huge. Why would she refuse such a request?

First Up · 02-11-2018 10:08am

Enzokk wrote: »

Ok, so your original assertion was not correct then.

Hardly the first time a Brexiteer has got the facts ar**ways.

RTE this morning interviewed Brexiteers in Sunderland (a city about to be decimated by Brexit) going on with the usual tripe about "unelected bureaucrats forcing laws on the UK". These twits know nothing about how the EU works and just take the red top rags at their word.

Pitiful but its a waste of time trying to educate them.

Let them wallow in it and move on.

demfad · 02-11-2018 10:17am

fash wrote: »

But even if the UK introduced legislation, that would not constitute a "cast iron guarantee" - they could simply amend the legislation 2 days later. What is the difference between between doing that and what they have done on their undertaking?
The only way to get the type of "cast iron guarantee" you are talking about, is if they dissolved the UK and, surrendered to the jurisdiction of another EU country - thus permanently preventing them from revoking their undertaking.
Now how likely were they to do that?
Anything else is, I would suggest, your own over reading of the term " cast iron guarantee" (which in any case seems to have been written on some form of wood pulp based paper and not any form of metal - cast or forged).

The UK has already legislation in the form of an amendment to withdrawal Bill making it illegal to erect physical infrastructure in the border. This will have to be repealed if/when no deal to be able to trade under WTO rules.

Enzokk · 02-11-2018 10:23am

prawnsambo wrote: »

In the same article it says:

That in itself is huge. Why would she refuse such a request?

Might explain the "political sensitivities"given by the Met as to why they hadn't investigated the evidence that the Electoral Commission gave to them in May and July when they concluded their investigations.

If this is true then while I don't think she is involved with the campaign and where the money came from, she at the very least abdicated her responsibility (again) to investigate a foreign threat to the country. That is just another low in the career of Theresa May, if true.

Kermit.de.frog · 02-11-2018 10:38am

Mc Love wrote: »

Reports that Raab is on his way to meet with the DUP to see if they'll make some concessions for a backstop.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46065909

Whiskey and revolver time?

There is no time left for negotiation if November 21st is to be an organised summit.

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments