Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell · 24-10-2020 5:32pm

View wrote: »

Leaving the ERM was unquestionably a temper tantrum.

The Conservatives could easily have just devalued and stayed in the ERM as many other countries, including us, did at the time.

Well yes, hey did a bit of megaphone diplomacy, and devalued anyway. A Major mistake.

Nody · 24-10-2020 7:16pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd say the best model is Norway, but it'll take them 20 to swallow their pride and admit it.

Disagree, they don't have the natural resources to pull it off.

I think the best bet and this will require a bit of squinting the eyes and magic jelly beans approach is to try to keep London relevant. Make it the European timezone to deal with finance, insurance etc. Cut regulation, cut legislation and let it rip.

The reason for my thinking here is relatively simple, UK has no real competitive advantage in terms of EU access anymore etc. That means their competitive advantage then relies on timezone & history, for obvious reasons there's a lot of finance there already etc.

They can't compete on manufacturing even if they cut the minimum wage in half simply because there will be no real export market for them. EU would simply add tariffs and claim unfair competition, USA already do tariffs and the rest of the world is to far away to be competitive.

They can't compete on natural resources because they already export their fish and they can't pump enough oil and gas to compete with the big guys.

They can't compete on tourism simply because they are not in the right climate for it. Yes the likes of Oxford etc. will bring in some nice money from foreign students it's not enough to live on and most tourists simply don't see UK as a more than a weekend drop in kind of place. They might get away with trying to become a Dubai of kitsch with claiming it's tradition but between weather and alternatives I simply don't see it working far enough to carry the country's economy.

If you want a slight more optimistic view you could argue innovation due to their universities etc. but honestly with being locked out from EU funding on science and co-operation I simply don't see them being able to pull it off. There will always be larger markets with more capital (Silicon Valley, China, EU etc.) for the scientists to go instead.

This pretty much leaves Finance and making it so tempting and good place to be for companies that you remain the European finance hub. Of course making your economy even more reliant on London will not go down well with the masses and other countries either; but hey it's a dog eat dog's world out there. The benefit here is you don't have to rely on a FTA for it and you can sort of shadow some aspects of the EU rules as needed without committing to them. You don't want to go down the tax heaven route further simply because it's not going to be competitive enough. But you can allow new derivatives, new financial products to tempt EU capital to invest in things with higher growth than before (same way done with the subprime bubble etc.) esp. in this low interest economy. Then you spin everything else around the London finance hub and service them. The waitresses will need their take out etc. and you can let the rest of UK slowly decay into mulch to be bought by rich stockbrokers as estates with beautiful nature and forests to hunt fox in. And for the Tories that's perfectly fine anyway because they will get their "consultant gigs" afterwards to help make it a reality. Only concern would obviously be some kind of Labour revolt in election but that seems quite a bit away and by then Labour don't have a choice or their tax money walks away crashing the economy even further. Better to rely on London and send out a bit more taxes to the rest of the UK.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-10-2020 8:21pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd say the best model is Norway, but it'll take them 20 to swallow their pride and admit it.

LOL

Norway could loose the plot if the UK get a better deal than they do. Both the EU and UK will need gas come January. Norway will have influence.

Norway means autonomy on fishing and agriculture and raw materials but with tariffs on them.

Norway means single market access, at a price the UK won't pay.

Norway means Four freedoms. And negotiating an opt out from Schengen, which the UK will get it but it will cost them something. Especially if we put the boot in and demand Schengen for lolz and leverage.

Norway is paying about the same per capita to the EU as the UK did because the UK used to get a rebate.

Norway means EEA and EFTA rules or equivalent or the most favoured nation rules apply and that means most EU directives and the EFTA Court which is more or less the ECJ because of those EU directives. The UK will not be getting a 50:50 court.

The UK's feelings about the ECHR which is not related to the EU won't improve relations with Norway or anyone elese. While Norway can't vote on internal EU matters they can make their preferences known.

CelticRambler · 24-10-2020 9:49pm

Nody wrote: »

I think the best bet and this will require a bit of squinting the eyes and magic jelly beans approach is to try to keep London relevant. Make it the European timezone to deal with finance, insurance etc. Cut regulation, cut legislation and let it rip.

The reason for my thinking here is relatively simple, UK has no real competitive advantage in terms of EU access anymore etc. That means their competitive advantage then relies on timezone & history, for obvious reasons there's a lot of finance there already etc.

While I agree with your "what else? nothing much" analysis, and that all the British eggs will almost inevitably end up in the City basket, I'm not sure that tradition alone will be enough to keep the City relevant to the same extent. If they're not going down the anything-goes-light-touch regulation (further than they already are) then what advantage is it to EU investors to trade in London instead of with, say, Zurich? If they're more-or-less aligned to the EU rules, then there will probably be at least a marginal advantage for intra-EU operations; and if they go all-out tax-havenish, the EU/ECB will fast-track every possible financial service relocation out of London and into Paris/Frankfurt/Dublin/Riga/wherever ...

Similarly, why would non-European traders want to do business with London when all the creative accounting has to be based on hard assets somewhere, and the vast bulk of those will be in various EU countries? There may be some short-term gain buying up whatever's left in a fire-damaged post-Brexit Britain, but once they've been scavenged, and the population's already on the hook for Wonga-rated sovereign debt repayments for 100 years, what particular advantage can London offer that can't be matched by New York or Singapore?

25-10-2020 7:24am

Sam Russell wrote: »

They also have a high rate of genetic intolerance to alcohol.

[Not relevant to this, but indicative to local and cultural differences. In that part of the world they drink tea, not beer].

The Japanese are massive drinkers, as are the Koreans. Their intolerance just means they get absolutely obliterated drunk.

Sam Russell · 25-10-2020 10:17am

Deleted User wrote: »

The Japanese are massive drinkers, as are the Koreans. Their intolerance just means they get absolutely obliterated drunk.

That is the intolerance kicking in.

J Mysterio · 25-10-2020 11:56am

Guardian: Johnson will wait for US election result before no-deal Brexit decision

Ivan Rogers, former UK ambassador to the EU, says prime minister will think ‘history was going his way’ if Donald Trump is re-elected

Rogers said: “Several very senior sources in capitals have told me they believe Johnson will await clarity on the presidential election result before finally deciding whether to jump to ‘no deal’ with the EU, or to conclude that this is just too risky with Biden heading for the White House, and hence live with some highly suboptimal (for Johnson) skinny free-trade agreement.”

The former ambassador to the EU – who quit under Theresa May’s premiership because of disagreements over Brexit strategy – remains in regular contact with senior government figures in EU capitals."

Nothing like gambling the future of your nation on DT, and his capriciousness, and just ignore the warnings from the Ways and Means Committee etc.

CelticRambler · 25-10-2020 12:20pm

Given that the definitive results of that election might not be known till the end of November - or even some time in December - that's a fairly dodgy strategy.

Making it a classic "paint me into a corner" Johnson strategy. :rolleyes:

Sam Russell · 25-10-2020 12:31pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Given that the definitive results of that election might not be known till the end of November - or even some time in December - that's a fairly dodgy strategy.

Making it a classic "paint me into a corner" Johnson strategy. :rolleyes:

I don't think Johnson has a strategy of 'paint me into a corner' - because that would assume he would realise that he was painting himself into a corner ahead of noticing too late that he was already in that corner with no easy escape.

To avoid 'painting yourself into a corner' then you need a planned future position and a plan that will always give you an adequate future strategy should things go awry, with several reasonable alternatives.

Surely that is what Johnson follows.

Nody · 25-10-2020 1:05pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

Nothing like gambling the future of your nation on DT, and his capriciousness, and just ignore the warnings from the Ways and Means Committee etc.

What I don't get is why does he bank on a FTA with US? It's not like Trump will pull any punches in the FTA with UK knowing he got UK bent over a barrel tied up (and that's before we add Trump being Trump to the equation). The FTA with USA will by definition be even more one sided than with EU and will involve several items that even Boris supporters are against such as lowered food standards on imports (chlorinated chicken, hormone beef etc.), sell out of NHS ("open for fair competition"), higher medication cost ("paying their fair share") etc. I could go on listing the items USA has listed on their website along with statements on requirements from a UK deal.

Sure; he got a FTA but the FTA will not actually do anything to fix the day 1 issues he'd face. A FTA is not going to save the car manufacturing, it's not going to create new jobs for the unemployed, it's not going to give an export market for fresh fish, it's not going to fix travel to EU (see passport issue) or import/export issues etc. In short; a FTA with USA will in no way actually resolve or fix any of the issues caused by a crash out brexit. Sure he can claim USA wants to deal with us but any benefits will be years away were as the Brexit crash out issues are day 1 issues that needs dealing with. Distractions don't work well if you've just been fired and then have your PM claim the great benefits of the FTA with USA will not put food on your table.

Joe_ Public · 25-10-2020 1:05pm

Leaving aside the obvious fact that the democrats will still hold an effective veto over any trade deal via congress, the notion that under Trump they'd be able to negotiate some amazingly favourable trade deal is almost touching. In the immortal words of the brexiteers, the us would hold all the cards and threatening to walk away is not even an option for optics.

Leroy42 · 25-10-2020 1:33pm

If true, what it really means is that even at this late stage, the UK still doesn't know what it actually wants.

Strazdas · 25-10-2020 2:16pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Leaving aside the obvious fact that the democrats will still hold an effective veto over any trade deal via congress, the notion that under Trump they'd be able to negotiate some amazingly favourable trade deal is almost touching. In the immortal words of the brexiteers, the us would hold all the cards and threatening to walk away is not even an option for optics.

Leaving themselves at the mercy of an election in another country shows just how disastrous a thing Brexit is. If it was a good idea, and the right way to go for the UK, it wouldn't need the election of a right wing demagogue in another country to make it work.

Tell me how · 25-10-2020 2:25pm

Strazdas wrote: »

Leaving themselves at the mercy of an election in another country shows just how disastrous a thing Brexit is. If it was a good idea, and the right way to go for the UK, it wouldn't need the election of a right wing demagogue in another country to make it work.

Heard that exact message on a podcast recently. Think it was The Stand. Someone was saying that Dominic Cummings project is massively dependent on Trump being re-elected.

I think this is for 2 reasons. One, the message from Trump will be pro-nationalist and will encourage the British that they were right to split from the EU, even as the US look to pillage them in trade negotiations.
Two, Trump's behaviour and diplomacy has emboldened other governments to be less conscientious of the public perception of their actions. I think some of the policies and language in relation to stopping migrants reach the UK would not have been as forceful without the lowering of the tone from the US.

ancapailldorcha · 25-10-2020 2:28pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

Guardian: Johnson will wait for US election result before no-deal Brexit decision

Ivan Rogers, former UK ambassador to the EU, says prime minister will think ‘history was going his way’ if Donald Trump is re-elected

Nothing like gambling the future of your nation on DT, and his capriciousness, and just ignore the warnings from the Ways and Means Committee etc.

This is just utterly ridiculous.

One of these two men will be US president come 2021. Biden has made encouraging noises about protecting the GFA and much of the Democratic establishment will be loathe to see one of their foreign policy triumphs undermined by nativism.

That leaves Donald Trump. For some reason, Brexiters seem to think he can and will give the UK a favourable trade deal. I've always struggled to understand this. He and various Members of Congress from rural states will be under pressure from lobbyists to make sure he can open up the British markets for their subpar, toxin-riddled exports. He wasn't kidding when he said "America First". His isolationist foreign policy has been one of the few constant themes of his presidency. Some of the Tory party may welcome such a deal but all it would really achieve is to push the UK in a Socialist direction as it must now subsidies individuals, farms and businesses in much the same way it is now to keep afloat. Of course, this all ignores the Democrat-controlled Ways & Means Committee which has jurisdiction over trade deals.

Joe_ Public · 25-10-2020 2:33pm

Strazdas wrote: »

Leaving themselves at the mercy of an election in another country shows just how disastrous a thing Brexit is. If it was a good idea, and the right way to go for the UK, it wouldn't need the election of a right wing demagogue in another country to make it work.

Yes, but it's also predicated on the assumption that they'll be treated very favourably if it's a Trump administration when the reality is they'd almost certainly end up ceding as much, if not more, sovereignty than in any deal with the eu, whether in the form of "poison pill" clauses or otherwise.

Strazdas · 25-10-2020 2:37pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Heard that exact message on a podcast recently. Think it was The Stand. Someone was saying that Dominic Cummings project is massively dependent on Trump being re-elected.

I think this is for 2 reasons. One, the message from Trump will be pro-nationalist and will encourage the British that they were right to split from the EU, even as the US look to pillage them in trade negotiations.
Two, Trump's behaviour and diplomacy has emboldened other governments to be less conscientious of the public perception of their actions. I think some of the policies and language in relation to stopping migrants reach the UK would not have been as forceful without the lowering of the tone from the US.

100% : "Trumpism" has been an entirely negative phenomenon. I would say even some of the very hostile and aggressive behaviour we see on social media has its roots in he being elected.

Tell me how · 25-10-2020 2:37pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, but it's also predicated on the assumption that they'll be treated very favourably if it's a Trump administration when the reality is they'd almost certainly end up ceding as much, if not more, sovereignty than in any deal with the eu, whether in the form of "poison pill" clauses or otherwise.

Yes, But Trump would be telling them how much of a friend they are, how brave they were to stand up to the dictatorship which is the EU and that message would be valued more to the Brexiteers than retaining standards.

moon2 · 25-10-2020 4:30pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

Guardian: Johnson will wait for US election result before no-deal Brexit decision

Or, this is simply another way for johnson to delay the announcement by pretending he's waiting for an unrelated announcement to be made.

The UKs sovereignty is hardly based on who the US president is... or is it?

25-10-2020 4:41pm

moon2 wrote: »

Or, this is simply another way for johnson to delay the announcement by pretending he's waiting for an unrelated announcement to be made.

The UKs sovereignty is hardly based on who the US president is... or is it?

It is dependent on whether he has a friend or foe in the white house.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-10-2020 4:43pm

moon2 wrote: »

The UKs sovereignty is hardly based on who the US president is... or is it?

Does this mean there isn't a Special Relationship :eek:

Realistically even if the Democrats get the presidency and both houses the US will still behave substantially the same way towards the UK.

They'll still want to make $ from the NHS, they'll still want to use the UK as a junior partner in US wars, they'll still insist on a US first trade deal.

Professor Moriarty · 25-10-2020 4:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It is dependent on whether he has a friend or foe in the white house.

Biden opposed Brexit and has stated that he wants a good relationship with the EU. He has also stated that there will be no US-UK trade deal without the GFA being protected. Biden also called Johnson a Trump "clone".

druss · 25-10-2020 5:24pm

Democrats and "old-school" Republicans would have viewed UK presence within the EU as being broadly useful to the US in terms of influence on trade/geopolitical items.

As Obama said at the time, the priority was a US-EU trade deal. UK, by leaving would have dropped to the back of the queue for any priority trade negotiations with a Clinton administration and basically made themselves less "useful"

On the other hand, the friendly US faces who helped to bankroll Brexit were also viewing this through an EU-US prism. Basically that a weakened EU, or ideally the collapse of the EU, would make it easier for US side to call the shots and weaken the EU voice globally. Not that a relationship with the Uk was so prized by the US.

Even Trump, from time to time, showed his hand in his eagerness to do deals with Merkel (believing that she could negotiate for the EU).

If the UK leaving does not bring on the collapse of the EU, then the UK is no longer as useful to US interests of any persuasion. The whole "special relationship" schtick fades without the leverage of being an influential player within the EU.

I would suggest that this drop in usefulness applies no matter who is in the White House and that, at least, there is a possibility of building a sane trade relationship with a Biden administration than with one who views every single transaction as one of winners and losers.

CelticRambler · 25-10-2020 6:25pm

If Biden takes the White House and the Democrats make in-roads into the Senate (as well as holding Congress) then I would imagine they would make it a priority to restore America's image on the world stage. In that context, the US would be very hesitant to start this new chapter by deliberately pissing off the EU in supporting/facilitating Brexiter nonsense such as unilateral re-writing of previously agreed treaties.

Perhaps Johnson's alleged wait-and-see strategy is really a question of him wanting to know just how cooked is the Brexit goose. Perhaps even so that he can plan his own departure for alternative sunlit uplands.

fly_agaric · 25-10-2020 7:16pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That leaves Donald Trump. For some reason, Brexiters seem to think he can and will give the UK a favourable trade deal. I've always struggled to understand this. He and various Members of Congress from rural states will be under pressure from lobbyists to make sure he can open up the British markets for their subpar, toxin-riddled exports. He wasn't kidding when he said "America First". His isolationist foreign policy has been one of the few constant themes of his presidency. Some of the Tory party may welcome such a deal but all it would really achieve is to push the UK in a Socialist direction as it must now subsidies individuals, farms and businesses in much the same way it is now to keep afloat. Of course, this all ignores the Democrat-controlled Ways & Means Committee which has jurisdiction over trade deals.

They (UK govt./Brexiters running it) can break Withdrawal Agreement, tell the EU to "do one" and Donald Trump will still be willing to try & facilitate the UK desires for a trade deal. Maybe even likelyhood of agreement increases as he will approve of these actions.

Trump may not be able to anyway (because of his own administration's incompetence or the Congress blocking it), and as you say any deals would likely be rotten for the UK, but they will have a ally of sorts in the Whitehouse & possibility of it exists.

Of course a rotten deal for the average person in the UK could still be good for many sectors of UK economy, in particular for Tory party "friends" and donor companies etc. which might be more important to the govt. than what the public thinks given a general election is quite a long way off in the UK.

Strazdas · 25-10-2020 7:49pm

druss wrote: »

Democrats and "old-school" Republicans would have viewed UK presence within the EU as being broadly useful to the US in terms of influence on trade/geopolitical items.

As Obama said at the time, the priority was a US-EU trade deal. UK, by leaving would have dropped to the back of the queue for any priority trade negotiations with a Clinton administration and basically made themselves less "useful"

On the other hand, the friendly US faces who helped to bankroll Brexit were also viewing this through an EU-US prism. Basically that a weakened EU, or ideally the collapse of the EU, would make it easier for US side to call the shots and weaken the EU voice globally. Not that a relationship with the Uk was so prized by the US.

Even Trump, from time to time, showed his hand in his eagerness to do deals with Merkel (believing that she could negotiate for the EU).

If the UK leaving does not bring on the collapse of the EU, then the UK is no longer as useful to US interests of any persuasion. The whole "special relationship" schtick fades without the leverage of being an influential player within the EU.

I would suggest that this drop in usefulness applies no matter who is in the White House and that, at least, there is a possibility of building a sane trade relationship with a Biden administration than with one who views every single transaction as one of winners and losers.

That's an excellent point. The UK has diminished itself on the world stage and has less clout after Brexit (though that penny might not have even dropped with the Brexiteers yet).

amacca · 25-10-2020 8:58pm

Strazdas wrote: »

That's an excellent point. The UK has diminished itself on the world stage and has less clout after Brexit (though that penny might not have even dropped with the Brexiteers yet).

Add to that this disastrous brexit nonsense has served as an example that leaving is not beneficial and even seems to have served to strengthen the EU (I dont hear any loud noises agitating for leaving the EU in other countries now)

Sam Russell · 25-10-2020 10:40pm

amacca wrote: »

Add to that this disastrous brexit nonsense has served as an example that leaving is not beneficial and even seems to have served to strengthen the EU (I dont hear any loud noises agitating for leaving the EU in other countries now)

The major problems facing the EU, apart from Covid - which is the whole world's problem, are 1) the 'rule of law' issues with Hungary and Poland and 2) the migrant issue from outside the EU.

Brexit is already baked in. The EU has already moved to compensate. It will be OK - deal or no deal.

Strazdas · 25-10-2020 10:46pm

amacca wrote: »

Add to that this disastrous brexit nonsense has served as an example that leaving is not beneficial and even seems to have served to strengthen the EU (I dont hear any loud noises agitating for leaving the EU in other countries now)

Interestingly, I think if it does transpire that the UK is diminished and weakened outside the EU, it will be very hard for the shysters in the British press to conceal this. You would think it will become evident very quickly that the UK is isolated and nobody is even listening to them any longer.

We're in for an intriguing couple of years, where all the bragging about 'Global Britain' and it being free to be an economic superpower, now that it is free of the shackles of the EU, is going to come under the most intense scrutiny.

Peregrinus · 26-10-2020 2:56am

Strazdas wrote: »

Interestingly, I think if it does transpire that the UK is diminished and weakened outside the EU, it will be very hard for the shysters in the British press to conceal this. You would think it will become evident very quickly that the UK is isolated and nobody is even listening to them any longer.

We're in for an intriguing couple of years, where all the bragging about 'Global Britain' and it being free to be an economic superpower, now that it is free of the shackles of the EU, is going to come under the most intense scrutiny.

Yeah. But, the immediate but transient disruption resulting from the end of transition aside, the real injury of Brexit is not dramatic and sudden, but persistent and cumulative. The UK will fall further and further behind comparator countries due to years and years of relative underperformance. It's not the UK economy will shrink every year; it will just not grow as fast as comparable neighbouring countries. It's not that the UK will have no diplomatic or international clout; it will just have less than it could as a member of the EU. Etc, etc. Eventually there will be a perception of the UK as "the sick man of Europe", but this will take a while. And it will be a perception that takes root outside the UK before it is widely accepted as correct within the UK.

Strazdas · 26-10-2020 3:40am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah. But, the immediate but transient disruption resulting from the end of transition aside, the real injury of Brexit is not dramatic and sudden, but persistent and cumulative. The UK will fall further and further behind comparator countries due to years and years of relative underperformance. It's not the UK economy will shrink every year; it will just not grow as fast as comparable neighbouring countries. It's not that the UK will have no diplomatic or international clout; it will just have less than it could as a member of the EU. Etc, etc. Eventually there will be a perception of the UK as "the sick man of Europe", but this will take a while. And it will be a perception that takes root outside the UK before it is widely accepted as correct within the UK.

For sure, but I don't think it will take years and years either. All it will take will be one or two high profile snubs to the UK for the penny to start dropping that nobody is paying too much attention to them any longer. Even the 'sick man of Europe' thing could unfold more quickly, especially with Covid-19 raging on and with a bunch of total incompetents in charge.

Peregrinus · 26-10-2020 8:13am

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but I don't think it will take years and years either. All it will take will be one or two high profile snubs to the UK for the penny to start dropping that nobody is paying too much attention to them any longer. Even the 'sick man of Europe' thing could unfold more quickly, especially with Covid-19 raging on and with a bunch of total incompetents in charge.

Not many voters in the UK care greatly about the country's diplomatic heft. They care about whether they have a job, whether their kids will get jobs, the price of goods in the shops, whether the neighbourhood is safe and the schools are thriving. Whether the UK is taken more or less seriously on the international stage, not so much.

26-10-2020 8:38am

Yeah. During the referendum campaign the remain side weren't able to sell the positives of EU membership, I don't see how people are suddenly going to recognise or value them now.

Any visible negatives will be as expected or worth it or someone else's fault.

People notice job losses (eg a factory closing), they don't notice the factory that never opened because the UK had become less competitive, even if it had the same quantum of jobs lost.

Lumen · 26-10-2020 9:04am

I think it's worth bearing in mind that Brexit has never been about cold hard economic calculus. Economic arguments have been deployed by the Brexiter leaders, but if you look at the reaction of the pro-Brexit voters when those tissue thin arguments are torn apart, they quickly brush it aside and say that it doesn't really matter whether the country will end up poorer, because that's not what this is about.

This is about feelings. If the Brexiters feel victorious, they are victorious.

So w.r.t a US trade deal, it doesn't matter to the Brexiters if they end up with poor quality food pouring in from the US. The people who care about chlorinated chicken and financial sector passporting are the whinging liberal elite Europhiles.

If you think back to the Iraq war, who were the 1m people out on the streets clamouring for the UK to avoid war? Not the Eurosceptics. It was middle class Labour supporters who felt betrayed by their leader.

The special relationship morons are Brexiters are Trump fetishists. It's the same mentality. They love strong power, unilateralism, small security councils with them in it.

The real irony is that the country that actually has the special relationship is Ireland, although it has limits and shouldn't be taken for granted. Try getting the Tories to recognise that one.

Anyway, my point is that Boris doesn't need to find a solution that makes the UK richer, which is convenient because that's impossible. He just needs to find a solution which is emotionally acceptable to his tribe.

Peregrinus · 26-10-2020 9:08am

But his tribe is a minority. The same tribe would have approved of the UK's part in the invasion of Iraq, but look at how that adventure is regarded now. Will Brexit come to be seen in a similar light?

The invasion of Iraq could never be undone, but Brexit could be. Hard Brexiters have never troubles to build an enduring consensus for the kind of Brexit they want, and that could prove to be their undoing. Even if they get what they want, they may not get to keep it.

Lumen · 26-10-2020 9:15am

It is already seen in exactly the same light by opponents!

The difference is that Brexit was done with an explicit democratic mandate, and plenty of time to think it through. So whereas Iraq was hung squarely on Blair and Campbell, responsibility for Brexit is diffused over half the population.

Peregrinus · 26-10-2020 9:19am

I think many people who voted for Brexit are already aware that the Brexit they are getting is not the one they voted for. Just how much it's not the one they voted for will shortly be brought home to them. And, continuing the Iraq war parallel, they may come to feel like people to supported or assented to the invasion of Iraq because they were told all about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They might feel they've been had. And they might be quite cross about that.

Leroy42 · 26-10-2020 9:28am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think many people who voted for Brexit are already aware that the Brexit they are getting is not the one they voted for. Just how much it's not the one they voted for will shortly be brought home to them. And, continuing the Iraq war parallel, they may come to feel like people to supported or assented to the invasion of Iraq because they were told all about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They might feel they've been had. And they might be quite cross about that.

But nobody knows what Brexit they voted for, if they claim it isn't the right type of Brexit they are either told that everyone else knew or that its all the EU fault but being so unfair and punishing the UK

Sam Russell · 26-10-2020 10:32am

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1026/1173929-northern-exports/

Govt presses EU and UK to protect NI exporters

The NI protocol does not allow NI goods to be treated as EU goods under the NI protocol because NI is under the UK customs area.

This affects products that are incorporated into Irish products, like milk that goes onto be infant formula. I am not sure the resolution is in the UK or EU hands as it affects 60 or so trade agreements that might need individual negotiation - not easy.

It could be simply to adjust the NI protocol to make NI part of the EU customs area - expect opposition from some sections of NI. Of course, it is probably much more serious than this and require the UK to do the unthinkable - ask the EU for assistance in this matter.

rock22 · 26-10-2020 12:18pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1026/1173929-northern-exports/

The NI protocol does not allow NI goods to be treated as EU goods under the NI protocol because NI is under the UK customs area.

...

It could be simply to adjust the NI protocol to make NI part of the EU customs area - expect opposition from some sections of NI. Of course, it is probably much more serious than this and require the UK to do the unthinkable - ask the EU for assistance in this matter.

To be honest, this reflects badly on the Irish negotiators, Coveney etc. Surely,
in pushing for a protocol for Ni they should have ensured that it would have the desired affect. Was all the talk and hold up a complete waste of time?

Professor Moriarty · 26-10-2020 12:27pm

rock22 wrote: »

To be honest, this reflects badly on the Irish negotiators, Coveney etc. Surely,
in pushing for a protocol for Ni they should have ensured that it would have the desired affect. Was all the talk and hold up a complete waste of time?

Ireland's mistake was to take Johnson at his word. Turns out he continues to be an inveterate liar.

Nate--IRL-- · 26-10-2020 12:32pm

rock22 wrote: »

To be honest, this reflects badly on the Irish negotiators, Coveney etc. Surely,
in pushing for a protocol for Ni they should have ensured that it would have the desired affect. Was all the talk and hold up a complete waste of time?

To be honest, protecting NIs exports to the world is something the British government should be seeking/negotiating on behalf of Northern Ireland, instead of Ireland. The Fact that they haven't cared about maximising this possible advantage for NI is not surprising.

Nate

ancapailldorcha · 26-10-2020 12:34pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah. But, the immediate but transient disruption resulting from the end of transition aside, the real injury of Brexit is not dramatic and sudden, but persistent and cumulative. The UK will fall further and further behind comparator countries due to years and years of relative underperformance. It's not the UK economy will shrink every year; it will just not grow as fast as comparable neighbouring countries. It's not that the UK will have no diplomatic or international clout; it will just have less than it could as a member of the EU. Etc, etc. Eventually there will be a perception of the UK as "the sick man of Europe", but this will take a while. And it will be a perception that takes root outside the UK before it is widely accepted as correct within the UK.

To add to this, I used to think that a sizeable proportion of the public here would just lap up whatever excuses the tabloids would feed them. However, as time has gone on they've become more and more drained by both Brexit and the drama surrounding it. Covid has become the principal source of drama here now so I think most people here are ignoring Brexit, think it's been done or are just affording it minimal attention.

It's going to be a long period of constant bad news as opposed to one big shock. I think you're right there. Until the people of this country see tangible material changes to their own lives, they won't change their minds or show an interest in the EU again. Data isn't going to convince them either.

Professor Moriarty · 26-10-2020 12:37pm

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

To be honest, protecting NIs exports to the world is something the British government should be seeking/negotiating on behalf of Northern Ireland, instead of Ireland. The Fact that they haven't cared about maximising this possible advantage for NI is not surprising.

Nate

Interestingly, 59% of people in NI would prefer a border in the Irish Sea. 41% would prefer a border with the Republic.

Sam Russell · 26-10-2020 1:36pm

rock22 wrote: »

To be honest, this reflects badly on the Irish negotiators, Coveney etc. Surely,
in pushing for a protocol for Ni they should have ensured that it would have the desired affect. Was all the talk and hold up a complete waste of time?

If there was a mistake, it was two mistakes.

1. NI should have been designated as part of the EU customs area for CoO purposes. All goods are in free circulation within the SM so have equal status with all other such goods - I cannot see how one litre of milk can be different to another when it is in the creamery truck.

2. They gave NI the right to change their status every four years, but the voting arrangement was 'those attending to vote' instead of 'a majority of those entitled to vote'. Could be a big difference, if it is close.

However, the whole episode was rushed, and cool heads would have taken longer on it, but as Tipp O'Neal would have said - 'When you have the votes, take the vote!'.

Strazdas · 26-10-2020 2:27pm

Lumen wrote: »

It is already seen in exactly the same light by opponents!

The difference is that Brexit was done with an explicit democratic mandate, and plenty of time to think it through. So whereas Iraq was hung squarely on Blair and Campbell, responsibility for Brexit is diffused over half the population.

Invasion of Iraq had a democratic mandate (of sorts) though. Right wing press acted as cheerleaders for it and opinion polls showed well over 50% of the population were in favour (the main ones objecting were the Left).

I can see Brexit going the same way as the Iraq invasion. Everyone eventually admitting the thing was a disaster - Brexiteers will still claim it was a good idea in principle, but will have to admit that implementation of it failed.

dogbert27 · 26-10-2020 4:53pm

Strazdas wrote: »

Invasion of Iraq had a democratic mandate (of sorts) though. Right wing press acted as cheerleaders for it and opinion polls showed well over 50% of the population were in favour (the main ones objecting were the Left).

I can see Brexit going the same way as the Iraq invasion. Everyone eventually admitting the thing was a disaster - Brexiteers will still claim it was a good idea in principle, but will have to admit that implementation of it failed.

So Blair's obvious mistake was he should have repeatedly stated "I'm following the will of the people and invading Iraq"! :pac:

Sam Russell · 26-10-2020 5:27pm

dogbert27 wrote: »

So Blair's obvious mistake was he should have repeatedly stated "I'm following the will of the people and invading Iraq"! :pac:

I think Blair's mistake was invading Iraq.

dogbert27 · 26-10-2020 5:39pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think Blair's mistake was invading Iraq.

Well if you want to be factual about it.

Much like Cameron's mistake was having a referendum with such a childishly simple question that did not convey the weight of the ramifications.

Well just having a referendum full stop.

His second mistake was going through with the result even though it was not legally binding.

Strazdas · 26-10-2020 5:45pm

dogbert27 wrote: »

Well if you want to be factual about it.

Much like Cameron's mistake was having a referendum with such a childishly simple question that did not convey the weight of the ramifications.

Well just having a referendum full stop.

His second mistake was going through with the result even though it was not legally binding.

Referendum was held by him as a cheap and cynical political stunt : he wasn't remotely interested in the British public's opinion on anything. Problem was, once the result came in, he couldn't admit the referendum was a cynical stunt. He had to pretend it was real and 'democratic'.

Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments