Brexit discussion thread II

demfad

Super blunders by the Uk government:

1: Triggering article 50, the legal countdown to Brexit before the UK was ready or knew what ready meant (still doesnt)

2: Lancaster speech:

THe 3 redlines of no customs union no single market no ECJ. This is not just showing your hand: It is playing it. Easy for EU now: Canadian FTA best that can be offerred and the obvious implication of 3 redlines to Ireland (and other strict Brexit issues) must be addressed before that.

Withholding the redlines would have increased the possibility greatly of a bespoke deal deeper into the single market. Once those cards were played early that possibility vanished.

Professor Moriarty

This leaked strategy paper will make for grim reading if you are a Brexiteer.

Despite May's speech in September where she specifically rejected a Canadian deal, a Canadian deal seems to be all that the EU is prepared to offer:
The paper states that “single market arrangements in certain areas” or the “evolution of our regulatory frameworks” could not be managed within the EU body of law as it stands and therefore the UK would have to be satisfied with a “standard FTA”.

And it seems there will be no lifeline thrown to The City:
The documents explain that the UK’s insistence on “regulatory autonomy” and its intention to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the European court of justice mean it is “not compatible” as a partner within the EU framework.
Such a model would provide “no direct branching in sectors like financial services” and the documents add that there are only “limited EU commitments to allow cross-border provision of services”.

And the Tory Transition Deal appears to be very delusional:
The member states do not envision a lengthy extension of the two years, however. One EU diplomat said: “We all have our own domestic political situations to deal with and so I can’t imagine us having unanimity on extending article 50. And this extension would only be if we are near striking a deal and need a few extra weeks or months.”

Of course this paper may well have been leaked deliberately and/or be a ruse to frighten the horses. However, the positions it outlines are in alignment with what Barnier has being saying repeatedly since Article 50 was triggered. Dunno how many times May and Davis have to be told.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This leaked strategy paper will make for grim reading if you are a Brexiteer.

Hard border for Northern Ireland so.

The EU-Canada deal slashes tariffs but trade in food is restricted by quotas and phytosanitary controls. There is also no additional access to the single market for financial services based in Canada.

Anthracite

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is an exporter of services primarily. That just means the UK has a different economy to Germany's. Exporting services isn't inferior to exporting goods.

Do you know much about WTO regs and trade in services?

An Ciarraioch

Ian Parsley, a prominent Alliance member:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ianjamesparsley/status/931259341965025281

murphaph

Anthracite wrote: »

Do you know much about WTO regs and trade in services?

It's gas. I (and plenty of others) have been hammering this point home here for months. Solo does not get it.

The UK is indeed a service based economy and there are NO current examples of FTAs with services that would be absolutely crucial to an economy like the UK's that simply does not make much stuff anymore.

That's why the single market is perhaps more important to the UK than any other country in it because it does enable the UK to trade in services.

If you asked a Martian which country based on their economy would least likely leave the EU they'd say the UK. Go figure.

ancapailldorcha

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Ian Parsley, a prominent Alliance member:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ianjamesparsley/status/931259341965025281

Mod: If you wish to post a link, please offer some form of opinion or comment along with it as opposed to just pasting it.

An Ciarraioch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: If you wish to post a link, please offer some form of opinion or comment along with it as opposed to just pasting it.

Basically outlines David Davis's visit to Germany, details the various options post-Brexit UK has for dealing with the Single Market as a third country, explains why the EU has the political and economic advantage, and why Davis was mocked as a result.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

It's gas. I (and plenty of others) have been hammering this point home here for months. Solo does not get it.

The UK is indeed a service based economy and there are NO current examples of FTAs with services that would be absolutely crucial to an economy like the UK's that simply does not make much stuff anymore.

That's why the single market is perhaps more important to the UK than any other country in it because it does enable the UK to trade in services.

If you asked a Martian which country based on their economy would least likely leave the EU they'd say the UK. Go figure.

Good evening!

Non-EU countries trade services with the EU today. So again, to say that trading services with the EU isn't possible as a third country isn't true.

It will be possible to trade services post-Brexit. The UK trades services with other EU countries, and the UK trades services with non-EU countries. There's no reason to believe that this won't continue.

This is why keeping a cool head and waiting for proper discussions on trade to begin is probably sensible instead of speculating wildly about boogeymen that probably don't exist.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Non-EU countries trade services with the EU today. So again, to say that trading services with the EU isn't possible as a third country isn't true.

It will be possible to trade services post-Brexit. The UK trades services with other EU countries, and the UK trades services with non-EU countries. There's no reason to believe that this won't continue.

This is why keeping a cool head and waiting for proper discussions on trade to begin is probably sensible instead of speculating wildly about boogeymen that probably don't exist.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fantasy. Pure and utter fantasy. UK services are far far more easily substituted than BMWs. That's all this comes down to.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

No response to the clear point - third countries import services into the EU today? These services are required and therefore are imported.

For the EU27 - there are specific financial services in London that will be required post-Brexit particularly in debt and capital markets.

Again, I think it may be a case of hysteria on your part. Let's wait and see what happens before we go down the apocalypse route.

I'm not looking to stop importing German cars. All the aggressive nonsense is coming from you. I want a good deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

Davis give us the best slogan of Brexit: 'Don't put politics above prosperity'.
Only problem, he was addressing the German business leaders in Berlin.

LeinsterDub

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Assured by who?

So I assume we are not going find out who assured them?

listermint

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So I assume we are not going find out who assured them?

Assured by people, very good people.

The best people.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

No response to the clear point - third countries import services into the EU today? These services are required and therefore are imported.

For the EU27 - there are specific financial services in London that will be required post-Brexit particularly in debt and capital markets.

Again, I think it may be a case of hysteria on your part. Let's wait and see what happens before we go down the apocalypse route.

I'm not looking to stop importing German cars. All the aggressive nonsense is coming from you. I want a good deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Of course you want (need) a good deal. The rest of the EU doesn't particularly. That's the problem for the UK!

Anthracite

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Non-EU countries trade services with the EU today. So again, to say that trading services with the EU isn't possible as a third country isn't true.

It will be possible to trade services post-Brexit. The UK trades services with other EU countries, and the UK trades services with non-EU countries. There's no reason to believe that this won't continue.

This is why keeping a cool head and waiting for proper discussions on trade to begin is probably sensible instead of speculating wildly about boogeymen that probably don't exist.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's possible to put people on the moon. We've managed 12 so far.

flutered

here is more tory ramblings
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/fox-lauds-wto-global-trade-deals-contrast-trump-203906835--finance.html

Leonard Hofstadter

Water John wrote: »

Davis give us the best slogan of Brexit: 'Don't put politics above prosperity'.
Only problem, he was addressing the German business leaders in Berlin.

The hypocrisy is simply staggering given that that is precisely what Brexit is about - putting internal Conservative party politics above the good of the UK.

It is clearly and unambiguously not in the UK's interest to be leaving the EU - and not just on the economic front, I mean in terms of the loss in the UK's standing right across the world, the level of influence the UK will be able to exert over the rest of Europe (as a mere third country) never mind the whole world, the fact that we are trying to solve the problem that is the UK and Brexit rather than fighting terrorism and all the other challenges the world faces, the loss of cultural diversity for the UK with the population becoming more homogeneous, and all the lost opportunities for the young generation of Brits in particular who very much wanted to stay in the EU but yet have been thrown under the bus by their parents and grandparents.

Leonard Hofstadter

flutered wrote: »

here is more tory ramblings
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/fox-lauds-wto-global-trade-deals-contrast-trump-203906835--finance.html

Stunning stuff given that the UK is in a process of putting up barriers with its largest trading partner - the rest of the EU. Of course, it's also putting up barriers by putting up barriers with the 50 odd countries the EU currently has free trade agreements with (most notably, Canada).

The British Government clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word irony.

Vronsky

I'm sorry Solo, I just can't read your posts any more. They're long and detailed but you continually miss the point or obfuscate on, ignore or simply hand want genuine issues away. Whether this is wilful or not, I don't know, but it's tiring.

It's good that there are different points of view in the thread but only when the posters engage in meaningful debate on the topic.

I'm still waiting for that positive vision for Brexit, accompanied with detailed solutions to the challenges it poses from someone who advocates that position - Solo, you have posted over 450 times in this thread and all the while advocating the Brexit position, have you yet to tell us how the issues will be solved in a realistic way.

Kind regards

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

New opportunities to liberalise trade would inevitably give more opportunities to British businesses and create jobs. I don't take that comment back because it is true.

Yes, but it's also true that if you burn down your house it gives you new opportunities to extend your garden shed. That kind of misses the point.

Brexit is a wholesale shredding of existing British business and trading opportunities. Once you get to year zero, naturally any further progress can only be upwards, but the notion that this justifies the destruction of what you had before is not a very appealing one.

Enzokk

Someone will have to explain again to me why leaving a bloc that is able to fight for your interests is a good idea when it comes to taking on the US. The EU will fight for the suppliers of Bombardier in their dispute with the US.

Brussels sides with UK in Bombardier tariff row

The EU source said Brussels had been providing support to the UK “throughout the US investigation and today formally submitted its arguments to the US authorities”.

But I guess control and trade deals...or something like that.

Nody

Oh dear; looks like the best thing UK will get is a Canadian FTA without any special deal on services such as banking. I guess Boris will not be allowed to eat his cake and keep it after all; exactly as the rest of the world told the Brexiteers from the start (and yet another "special relationship" that UK has that does not work once real politics come into play)...

According to framework documents from EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier seen by POLITICO, London’s insistence on quitting the single market and customs union means that a basic EU-Canada-style deal is the only option.

The documents, provided to Barnier’s team on Tuesday for a “preparatory discussion” on the “framework for the future relationship,” reveal Barnier’s concerns over why Britain’s market access will have to be limited.

he documents explain the U.K.’s demands for “regulatory autonomy” as well as its failure to obey European Court of Justice rulings mean it is “not compatible” as a partner within the EU framework.

The papers explain that taking in “single market arrangements in certain areas” or managing the “evolution of our regulatory frameworks” would not work within EU laws. This means that the remaining model would have to be in line with a “standard FTA.”

That also means trade in food is restricted by quotas and phytosanitary controls (i.e. controls that require physical checking of goods which require special locations to be built up and on perishable goods such as fresh food will add waiting time for goods going into EU) and require a minimum 6 months only for the origin piece to reduce the sample check from 40ish % to mid single digit numbers.

And of course since a hard brexit is on the table minor things such as Interpol access will also be cut off. On day 1 there is no Interpol access as it's hinged on EU membership; once a deal has been negotiated UK is not going to have direct access (that's for EU members only) and will have to ask for each review to be done for them while the deal will take a while...

This would mean the UK cannot retain direct access to Europol databases, nor a participating place on the management board.

here is also precedent for access by countries outside the EU to the EAW system, but Norway and Iceland’s deals took years to negotiate and a similar agreement “would probably mean that some EU countries won’t be able to surrender their own nationals to the UK,” the report said.

Researchers concluded that although the EU will not want to lose access to British intelligence, the European Commission would have to approve transfers and could demand “adequacy” on data protection.

The European Court of Justice, which the Prime Minister has vowed to leave, has already ruled mass data collection under the Investigatory Powers Act illegal and the efforts could prove a stumbling block in negotiations.

But hey; it's all project fear when pointing out that leaving existing deals behind cause adverse effect in doing so; esp. with the aim to have a no border in NI with Ireland for the criminals to use to escape to Europe since European Arrest Warrants will no longer exist for UK to catch Britain’s most-wanted criminals since that would exceed May's red line of ECJ oversight. Oh dear; project fear coming out correct again...

Samaris

An Irish paper was also leaked which makes it clear that hoping for the 'invisible border ' that Davis reckons he's nearly absolutely committed to is 'naive' and won't work. On a phone so no links, but I think the story was from yesterday.

Also, there is something kinda insulting to the rest of the world that such incompetant people are allegedly in charge. Davis is in charge of completing what may be the most difficult and convoluted set of negotiations in history eith 27 other countries who can act both individually and collectively. This is the same man who twice referred to the prospective hard NI/Rep border as 'internal'. Mate, if you aren't even fully sure of where -your- country is, how are you going to work with 27 other ones? And that's before the babble about going to Berlin to negotiate a trade deal rather than Berlin because he STILL DIDN'T UNDERSTAND the fundamental impossibilty of it.

And then there's Johnson, who is indeed a complete johnson, busily insulting as many other countries as possible in the lead-up to having to convince ALL of them to accept Britain's position, schedules and sector protections in about 18months when the UK will be in a very dangerous position.

Then there's all the bull****, the sweepingly blithe assumptions, the insults and mockery and celebratory attitude to 'damaging' the EU, which will particularly hit Ireland.

Also shut up about the War, jesus.

But, ofc, all other countries will swallow it for all the amazing trade deals, because ofc johnney foreigners can't read English and will be desperate (yes we can and not nearly as desperate as the UK).

Brexit should not be impossible. But it needs very good people at the wheel. Instead there is a clown convention.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but it's also true that if you burn down your house it gives you new opportunities to extend your garden shed. That kind of misses the point.

Brexit is a wholesale shredding of existing British business and trading opportunities. Once you get to year zero, naturally any further progress can only be upwards, but the notion that this justifies the destruction of what you had before is not a very appealing one.

Good morning!

If I was advocating for no deal I'd agree with you. But I'm not. I'm advocating for a comprehensive free trade arrangement.

I've been clear that Brexit is a task with two sides:
1) maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible.
2) expanding and liberalising trade with other countries.

This is the more difficult option but the better one long term. Staying in the single market and customs union won't allow number 2 to happen. No deal will heavily impact number 1.

Therefore I support the middle option. I've been really really clear as to why so we don't need to go around in circles.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

If I was advocating for no deal I'd agree with you. But I'm not. I'm advocating for a comprehensive free trade arrangement.

I've been clear that Brexit is a task with two sides:
1) maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible.
2) expanding and liberalising trade with other countries.

This is the more difficult option but the better one long term. Staying in the single market and customs union won't allow number 2 to happen. No deal will heavily impact number 1.

Therefore I support the middle option. I've been really really clear as to why so we don't need to go around in circles.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But what happens if the UK enshrine in law the leaving day and no deal is reached that day.

I am advocating free puppies for all but don’t think it’s possible. A Brecit with a tarrif free trade deal maybe possible but that brings its own problems a brexit with the benefits of membership of FTA without being a member impossible.

EU has tariff free trade with for example China my new iPhone moved very easy from China to me, but that tariff free trade can be cut off in a second unlike being a member of the FTA.

What you and the UK want is not possible or ye both misunderstand the difference between tariff free trade and membership of a FTA.

solodeogloria

Really Interested wrote: »

But what happens if the UK enshrine in law the leaving day and no deal is reached that day.

I am advocating free puppies for all but don’t think it’s possible. A Brecit with a tattoo free trade deal maybe possible but that brings its own problems a brexit with the benefits of membership of FTA without being a member impossible.

EU has tariff free trade with for example China my new iPhone moved very easy from China to me, but that tariff free trade can be cut off in a second unlike being a member of the FTA.

What you and the UK want is not possible or ye both misunderstand the difference between tariff free trade and membership of a FTA.

Good morning!

Firstly - It looks like May is backtracking on this amendment. It probably won't be in the bill given that Grieve and others won't vote for it.

Secondly - It's not helpful to have patronising nonsense in your post. We need to respond to each other with respect. I'm taking a hard position on this thread. That should be respected. We could do without the "free puppies for all" type comment.

Thirdly - yes, I understand that a FTA is different than having zero tariffs on particular categories of goods. I don't know why you bring it up. By the by - the EU doesn't have tariff free trade with China, it just has 0% tariffs on some types of electronics such as mobile phones with all countries.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Firstly - It looks like May is backtracking on this amendment. It probably won't be in the bill given that Grieve and others won't vote for it.

Secondly - It's not helpful to have patronising nonsense in your post. We need to respond to each other with respect. I'm taking a hard position on this thread. That should be respected. We could do without the "free puppies for all" type comment.

Thirdly - yes, I understand that a FTA is different than having zero tariffs on particular categories of goods. I don't know why you bring it up. By the by - the EU doesn't have tariff free trade with China, it just has 0% tariffs on some types of electronics such as mobile phones with all countries.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

May is showing how stupid the UK is being.

But I am being patronising because you don’t seem to get how fvcking stupid you and the UK are being.

Many fvcking thanks

Really interested

You know how stupid your fake good morning and signature are.

##Mod Note##

1 Day Ban.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

If I was advocating for no deal I'd agree with you. But I'm not. I'm advocating for a comprehensive free trade arrangement.

I've been clear that Brexit is a task with two sides:
1) maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible.
2) expanding and liberalising trade with other countries.

This is the more difficult option but the better one long term. Staying in the single market and customs union won't allow number 2 to happen. No deal will heavily impact number 1.

Therefore I support the middle option. I've been really really clear as to why so we don't need to go around in circles.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

With all due respect. No one cares what you are advocating. Can you please discuss the unfolding situation. The recent news about a Canadian deal being the best the EU will offer for example?

How do you think the UK will move the EU futher towards free trade?

What if they can't, how do you expect the UK to adapt. How would banking adapt?

What does this offer mean for NI?

solodeogloria

Really Interested wrote: »

May is showing how stupid the UK is being.

But I am being patronising because you don’t seem to get how fvcking stupid you and the UK are being.

Many fvcking thanks

Really interested

You know how stupid your fake good morning and signature are.

Good morning!

Again - I've been for the most part reasonable in terms of how I've respected other posters so far.

You were mistaken in respect to tariff schedules. I wasn't.

I'm fully aware of what an FTA is.

The standard of posting really needs to improve. The moderation on this thread is also pretty deficient to say the least.

I can't particularly be bothered if this kind of post is all I'm getting.

LeinsterDub - it's an opening gambit. The Canada model is a good start but we need to see the direction of travel. I'm not expecting a Norway style deal. The UK could still say no to the settlement if the deal isn't sufficient. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - I've been for the most part reasonable in terms of how I've respected other posters so far.

You were mistaken in respect to tariff schedules. I wasn't.

I'm fully aware of what an FTA is.

The standard of posting really needs to improve. The moderation on this thread is also pretty deficient to say the least.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

What happens if no deal, can you I’d any country outside of EU or EFTA that have a total tariff free trade deal with the EU?

solodeogloria

Really Interested wrote: »

What happens if no deal, can you I’d any country outside of EU or EFTA that have a total tariff free trade deal with the EU?

Good morning!

I have to say I'm not particularly interested in replying to you after your last post. I'm not bothered replying to people who refuse to respect me in the same way I try to respect them.

You can read the thread for my previous replies.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I have to say I'm not particularly interested in replying to you after your last post. I'm not bothered replying to people who refuse to respect me in the same way I try to respect them.

You can read the thread for my previous replies.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you have no answers.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I have to say I'm not particularly interested in replying to you after your last post. I'm not bothered replying to people who refuse to respect me in the same way I try to respect them.

You can read the thread for my previous replies.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Perhaps you could ignore those users who are insulting and engage with those of us who are politely and repeatedly asking you legitimate questions which you are ignoring?

ambro25

Alright, long breath, and let's refocus for a moment

While we have you here, solo:

solodeogloria wrote: »

If I was advocating for no deal I'd agree with you. But I'm not. I'm advocating for a comprehensive free trade arrangement.

I've been clear that Brexit is a task with two sides:
1) maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible.
2) expanding and liberalising trade with other countries.

This is the more difficult option but the better one long term. Staying in the single market and customs union won't allow number 2 to happen. No deal will heavily impact number 1.

Therefore I support the middle option. I've been really really clear as to why so we don't need to go around in circles.

Since it is now all but confirmed that what the EU can offer the UK (in view of the UK's red lines) is CETA: are you happy with the CETA model matching your position, solo?

After all, this option-

(1) "maintains as much trade with the EU as possible" (however much of that in practice, relative to current trade levels) ; and

(2) "expands and liberalises trade with other countries" (EU/3rd party FTA, UK as the 3rd party can do as it wants for further FTAs <naturally, within the confines of any relevant clauses/caveats of this new EU/UK FTA, that is).

LeinsterDub

Samaris wrote: »

Brexit should not be impossible. But it needs very good people at the wheel. Instead there is a clown convention.

Brexit or a anyone else exit doesn't need anything of the sort and is certainly possible. All it needs is a piece of paper saying we quit. Now I'm not entirely convinced that Brexit or an any one exit could ever be implemented without a serious amount of upheaval and economic damage but the current UK situation appears to be heading for maximum damage and maximum upheaval.

LeinsterDub

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1117/920753-taoiseach-to-meet-british-pm-over-brexit/

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/931448317241974784?s=17

How many times have we seen this from the UK side before? We've made great progress /we are nearly in agreement only for the EU side to come out and basically say eh lads we've no idea what you're talking about but we are certainly not in agreement

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

No response to the clear point - third countries import services into the EU today? These services are required and therefore are imported.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Your point is not clear or substantiated until you provide examples of services that 3rd countries import into the EU.
As the Canada option is the only one the EU says is on the table you will need to show how the Canada option which deals almost exclusively in goods will help UK services to continue to import into EU in its current volume .

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

LeinsterDub - it's an opening gambit. The Canada model is a good start but we need to see the direction of travel. I'm not expecting a Norway style deal. The UK could still say no to the settlement if the deal isn't sufficient. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

If the UK insists on no single market and no customs union then the best they can hope for is the Canada model. There is nowhere else to go. If the UK wants more access they will have to be more flexible with their red lines. The EU has its rules that everyone follows. That is the way to keep the project in check because if you have 27 countries not wanting to follow certain rules it becomes chaotic and will fail. Everyone in the world seem to know this but the British, who seem to think they are special and should receive a special deal.

demfad

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1117/920753-taoiseach-to-meet-british-pm-over-brexit/

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/931448317241974784?s=17

How many times have we seen this from the UK side before? We've made great progress /we are nearly in agreement only for the EU side to come out and basically say eh lads we've no idea what you're talking about but we are certainly not in agreement

She said this in the commons about Enda Kenny and he remained silent. She said he was squarely on the same page with her re NI. Then she made the Lancaster speech.
Pressure should have been exerted from Ireland from the start, saying the UK would have to stay in the SM and CU for economic, financial, social etc. stability in NI. Basically saying what we all know to be true.

LeinsterDub

demfad wrote: »

She said this in the commons about Enda Kenny and he remained silent. She said he was squarely on the same page with her re NI. Then she made the Lancaster speech.
Pressure should have been exerted from Ireland from the start, saying the UK would have to stay in the SM and CU for economic, financial, social etc. stability in NI. Basically saying what we all know to be true.

I think Ireland and the EU's strategy was hoping that reality would dawn on the UK without us telling them so . If it had then it would have been better for all involved as it wouldn't be the EU tell the UK what to do.

blanch152

demfad wrote: »

She said this in the commons about Enda Kenny and he remained silent. She said he was squarely on the same page with her re NI. Then she made the Lancaster speech.
Pressure should have been exerted from Ireland from the start, saying the UK would have to stay in the SM and CU for economic, financial, social etc. stability in NI. Basically saying what we all know to be true.

Pressure was exerted from Ireland from the start, in fact even before the start, as Kenny came out against Brexit during the referendum campaign.

It is pathetic and laughable the lengths some people will go to try and find something to criticise the government on. I can see why the two main parties are rising in the polls as the electorate begin to realise that the opposition parties have little to offer other than criticism.

Chips Lovell

I think everybody does know that the only way to avoid a hard border is for Britain to remain in the single market and customs union. But the British government has to at least pretend it's looking for some alternative for unity's sake. If May admits too early that the only choices are hard Brexit or remaining within the single market, her government will fall apart. Hence the pantomime.

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Brexit or a anyone else exit doesn't need anything of the sort and is certainly possible. All it needs is a piece of paper saying we quit. Now I'm not entirely convinced that Brexit or an any one exit could ever be implemented without a serious amount of upheaval and economic damage but the current UK situation appears to be heading for maximum damage and maximum upheaval.

For minimum gain most importantly; that's the part that confuses me the most because there's no benefit in upheaval for upheavals sake beyond vulture funds.

Professor Moriarty

It's getting embarrassing at this stage. A laughable attempt at divide and conquer. Any residual credibility that Tory Little Englanders such as May, Davis and Johnson had is draining away. They really are traitors.

This from Davis's interview on BBC:
France and Germany are blocking a Brexit deal, David Davis has suggested, as he listed five European Union countries that want to "move on".

I'm sure the governments of these countries will raise an eyebrow:
Mr Davis said: “Many of them do want to move on. You know, they see it's very important to them.
"Countries like Denmark. Countries like Holland. Countries like Italy and Spain. Countries like Poland can see the big, big benefit in the future deal that we're talking about.

A lie:
"And as I say, this is not a one-way street. This is not a something for nothing. This is something which benefits everyone."

And the piece de la resistance, its not our fault:
"So, you know, we have been actually offering some quite creative compromises. We haven't always got that back."

I think 'delusional' is the word that Davis was looking for rather than 'creative'.

Water John

UK still going with the old, divide and conquer strategy. Would they please stop and show the EU some respect.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've been clear that Brexit is a task with two sides:
1) maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible.
2) expanding and liberalising trade with other countries.

Except that it isn't. It's also about paying as little to the EU post-Brexit as possible for posterity's sake which is important given that the Chuka Umunna's amendment to the Brexit date bull to secure this extra funding has just been defeated:

https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/829400745623617537

And then there's the fact that you never go deeper than this? What's the sweet spot between conceding ground to Brussels and trade freedom in your opinion? Finally, you never go into detail as to how EU membership has restricted trade to the rest of the world, a statement which sharply juxtaposes the fact that over half of Britain's trade is with non-EU members. How much room is there to liberalise trade, exactly? Surely with the election of Emmanuel Macron, this would be an ideal time for the British government to push the EU in a new global trade position? But then, this would do nothing for the Paleosceptics who want out at all costs.

demfad

Electoral Commission inquiry into Leave.EU reportedly has been delayed due to leave.eu not supplying documents requested by the commission. Letter from the Commission to Aaaron Banks:

Investigations can take further time where the Commission needs to go back to organisations to ensure that full disclosure of requested material has been provided. In relation to our first investigation in respect of Leave.EU, the Commission will shortly set out to Leave.EU areas where it appears material has not been provided, notably relating to documents comprising the services provided by Goddard Gunster in late 2015/early 2016. We look forward to cooperation in disclosing this material to us.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/237612/2017-11-16-Electoral-Commission-to-Leave.EU..pdf?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SocialSignIn

Meanwhile MPs demand a full probe into whether Leave.EU colluded with Russia to influence the EU referendum result:

Labour MPs today called for Parliament’s Intelligence committee to probe whether leading Brexit campaigners colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the EU referendum .

An army of ‘bots’ - automated accounts programmed to push propaganda on Twitter - shared messages thousands of times a day from millionaire Brexiteer Arron Banks’ campaign group Leave.EU, the Mirror can reveal.


Researchers from Swansea University found they retweeted Banks’ group seven times more often than posts from the official campaign. On average, the accounts shared 15 posts a day from Leave.EU, compared to just 2 a day for Vote Leave.

Yesterday it emerged an Kremlin-linked troll account had pushed Banks' news website , Westmonster, while tweeting in the wake of the Westminster Bridge attack......The Electoral Commission is currently investigating whether Banks’ pro-Brexit group accepted illegal overseas donations in the run up to the referendum.

But it emerged today that the investigation had been delayed because Leave.EU had failed to hand over information it had requested.

Labour MPs Ben Bradshaw, Chris Bryant and David Lammy today called for Tory MP Dominic Grieve, the expected chair of the new Intelligence and Security Committee to urgently investigate whether Brexit campaigns colluded with Russia.

Mr Bradshaw said: “Given the people who were behind Leave.EU, this is extremely interesting. It is vital that the ISC examines this as part of a wider probe into Russian interference, but also that the Government comes clean on what it knows.”

The Government is unlikely to accept or come clean on what it knows (unless forced to) for a few reasons one of them cited below by the Times.

The Kremlin has long sought to weaken or divide the European Union, perceiving it as a rival for influence in countries from the former Soviet bloc. And Russia’s main propaganda outlets like Sputnik and Russia Today pushed hard for Brexit.

But the British government, consumed by the negotiations for an exit from the European Union, has not yet obtained similar disclosures. Although a parliamentary committee recently asked the social media companies for information, many critics have argued that the government has little appetite for an inquiry that could muddy its mandate.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/world/europe/russia-brexit-twitter-facebook.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=android-app://com.twitpane.premium

The UK government also has a history of not wanting to upset Russia:

Lavish London mansions. A hand-painted Rolls-Royce. And eight dead friends. For the British fixer Scot Young, working for Vladimir Putin's most vocal critic meant stunning perks – but also constant danger. His gruesome death is one of 14 that US spy agencies have linked to Russia – but the UK police shut down every last case. A bombshell cache of documents today reveals the full story of a ring of death on British soil that the government has ignored.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil?utm_term=.jmzVLNRVJ#.dyJj96OjJ

Also worth noting Bill Browder's podcast on Magnitsky Act and why UK so reluctant to pass full act (only partial clause, never used):
At 54:50 he says London is "Levitating on a tide of dirty money. Many in the political establishment benefitting from Russian criminals."
Earlier in the podcast he says that the oligarchs all have a 50:50 deal with Putin on their money. He has a personal wealth of £200 billion outside Russia in accounts under other names. We can say that all of the 100s billions of Russian money sloshing around London is dirty and that a fair portion of it is Putins.
What Browder is saying is that if the money is followed with some prominent British politicians it will lead to Russia. Journalists need to do this: starting with who objects loudest to requests for investigations.
https://twitter.com/JOE_co_uk/status/931178821209833472

Nody

Water John wrote: »

UK still going with the old, divide and conquer strategy. Would they please stop and show the EU some respect.

Or someone tell Davis that it's not a majority decision but unanimous decision required for the Brexit deal; hence pissing in a few countries cornflakes to try to make the other look good is not really going to improve UK's position...

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Or someone tell Davis that it's not a majority decision but unanimous decision required for the Brexit deal; hence pissing in a few countries cornflakes to try to make the other look good is not really going to improve UK's position...

Exactly. The Tories' floundering and flailing about as they sink is just going to harden attitudes within the EU collectively and individually. Only yesterday, there was yet another article in the Torygraph blaming Ireland for impeding progress. Little Englander hubris is showing its true colours.