Brexit discussion thread II

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

This is nonsense. The UK have offered a way forward to the EU on all of these issues. The UK aren't "blocking" anything, they are simply saying that the EU's position on the border is unreasonable because trade and customs inevitably need to be discussed, paying large sums of money without transitional terms is unreasonable.

This is where we differ, I don't see the monies as a negioation, I see the payment as a totally separate issue. A payment that has to be made, close that chapter and then move onto trade discussions.
My take on it is the UK wants to separate from the UK. To do this there are commitments and legal contracts they are a party to. Once these are honoured or even agreed to be honoured, the EU will move to trade talks.
The EU won't move to trade talks until the UK agree the measuring system of those liabilities, and when I say liabilities I mean commitments the UK has made.
So it's not nonsense, the path forward is totally in the UKs hands. If they choose to ignore the settlement bill that's their choice, but by doing so they are blocking the EU from moving toward trade talks. If the UK do this then they can only blame themselves.
What your intimating is, the settlement of existing commitment payments is contingent on trade discussions. Can't you see that that is totally dishonest.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

My point is simple. The likelihood of getting agreement on payment with nothing in return from the UK is zero in the current political climate.

As per my last post, your suggesting payment for existing commitments is to now be tied to future trade discussions.
I guess your not party to the actual brexit discussions, but your sentiment is what I would expect from an english man.

flatty

I was in the pub this evening with four others for a while. One was vehemently pro brexit. When pressed , he had no reason for this, other than that "the EU is fcuked". I pointed out the relatively miniscule size of the EU budget. He didn't believe this,and was quite taken aback when shown, but remained adamant.
A second voted brexit for no good reason, wishes he hadn't, and would vote remain if given another choice. His partner didn't "get round to voting", but was horrified, and was passionately anti brexit.
Another joined us who was very pro European. Her company, an American one, has just started the relocation if 2500 jobs to France. This is fact. Soldeogloria can argue abstracts all he/she wants. The fact is, that good, stable, well paid middle class jobs are bleeding with increasing pace. The UK , or whatever is left of it, is in for a hard few years.

ArthurDayne

Gerry T wrote: »

If you mean "they" as in the DUP, yes they wouldn't like a change. I was thinking put a vote to all in the North. Let them as a group decide their faith. If they want to align with the UK then that prob means a hard border with south, but the majority might decide a sea border with EU lite membership is best for them.
The north is a special case, I would think UE lite is available to them, I don't think the Scots or Welsh would have the same opportunity.

It would be a bit of a constitutional conundrum though. Firstly, there is absolutely no doubt that the DUP would make this a question of a step towards a United Ireland. Cue a digging up of the old hatchet and a vote on EU special status becoming just another Orange vs Green polemic. The British would also have to accept the complete and utter humiliation of their great crusade to 'take back control' ultimately ending in the EU having jurisdiction (limited perhaps but jurisdiction nonetheless) within its sovereign territory. Finally, they would have the Scots to answer to, who were even more emphatic in wishing to remain than Northern Ireland.

Of course, all of this should have been carefully thought of before the the Tally-Ho-Old-Chaps across the Irish Sea pushed the big red Brexit button. But hey, what do the Brexiteers care about 2 million British(ish) citizens across the Irish Sea?

Joking aside, as potentially sensible a solution it is, there are deep constitutional questions it would raise. Having said that -- I have thought from the moment the referendum passed that the UK would be forced to accept humiliations of some sort, maybe this will be one of them.

ilovesmybrick

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, but what you fail to realise solo is that this just isn't a case off the EU as a block being intransigent, you're dealing with twenty plus countries that have very little interest in the Tory parties infighting. I live in an EU country (Austria) that sees Brexit as an irritant that will dominate their EU presidency as they hold it when the UK leaves. The last major article about Brexit in the national papers here was debating how they might be able to get the UK out cleanly without it reflecting badly on their six month presidency. They have no trading relationship with the UK that cannot be sacrificed, they have no understanding or patience for the pointless slogans thrown out by the UK, and the general consensus is best be rid of them as quickly as possible.

The British media focus on what might impact Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands-they forget that there's a large swath of Europe that has nowhere near the same trading relationship with the UK and devotes barely any media time to Brexit, but if it's in their short or medium term political interests they can scupper any deal made, because in fairness that is the same Tory rationale that led to this mess. It just takes one European parliament, and sitting in a landlocked European country there is no reason I can see why they would go out of their way to accommodate the UK. As an Irish person with lots of British relations it would be a bit sad to see them go, but their "compromises" are frankly delusional.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If this was true, it might be helpful, but it isn't true.

The UK's proposals for "settled status" for EU citizens is significantly better than the visa regime for third countries. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

The UK and the EU have together agreed that EU citizens who remain under the settled status criteria can have access to public funds, welfare, and healthcare. This isn't true of third country nationals. The EU and UK have been clear that they will continue to recognise the EHIC of British or EU citizens who live in their respective countries. This was one of the lesser shouted about pieces of progress from the August discussions.

The UK has made a lot of concessions to the EU on the status of those who are already there. To claim otherwise is being dishonest.

You know the thing about Dutch passports is because of the law in the Netherlands about dual nationality and not the law in the UK right? UK citizenship won't be required to accept "settled status" in any case.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Actually you are being disingenuous.

As you link says

Reality Check verdict: If you are already living in another EU country on the day the UK leaves the bloc, that is correct, your EHIC will continue to work.

After that date, for EU citizens wishing to travel to the UK or UK citizens wishing to travel to the EU, it is unclear about what will happen because no deal has yet been reached.

So no certainty there.

No indication of how long the EHIC will last, nothing to do with your rights to remain.

And besides EHIC is very , very different to residency rights.


I might add that since the NHS is basically free it's not like they've an easy way to charge

Jim2007

carrickbally wrote: »

What are the chances of a complete breakdown in Brexit negotiations sooner rather than later?

Is that not what many Brexiteers want?

Consequences?

According to the quotes from many of them the attitude is what consequences.

Even if there is no breakdown and they continue as is, it starts to fall apart next October, not March 2029 and for some UK citizens resident in the EEA/CH block it will be as early as next March!

From next March, the standard 12 month permit that EU citizens have a right to in the EEA/CH block will not longer apply to UK citizens, next in October comes the open skies scheduling and the 6 month work permits for the EEA/CH block fall out as well. Through the winter, they will have holiday booking issues for summer 2019 because they need Schengen visas if there is not travel agreements.

In a way you'd think a couple of stories in the papers next March on families that have had to return to the UK because their work permits were not renewed etc... would bring it home to them. But I would not count on it.

Nody

carrickbally wrote: »

What are the chances of a complete breakdown in Brexit negotiations sooner rather than later?

Is that not what many Brexiteers want?

Consequences?

According to the quotes from many of them the attitude is what consequences.

They don't expect to leave on the harshest of terms; they think that if threatened far enough EU will give in on all their red lines because UK is so important in the grand scheme of things and that their money can't be replaced in the budget. Hence I expect somewhere around December/January May to announce a stop to the negotiations (as the three basic issues still are not resolved) as the new way to push EU to give in on everything (here's a fun fact as a side note; unless approved in this upcoming October Council meeting on 27th Oct and if no emergency meeting is called for December and somehow accepted the next Council meeting would be 22nd to 23rd of March to confirm that phase 1 has made sufficient progress to start trade talks which would give EU/UK less than 9 months to strike a trade deal somehow (what UK claims takes normally 2 years).

The real panic in the UK I expect to start around the summer times 2018 when companies are well into up their emergency hard brexit plans (most kicking off Jan. 2018 due to the announcement and lack of progress) and the impacts starts to show. First the companies will be called out to be unpatriotic and foolish; it will be new car lines not coming as expected, investments in expansions not happening and of course banks relocating ever more staff to EU. Around here the politicians will start to panic and expect to see a lot of moral hand wringing and calling out how unfair the companies are, how unpatriotic and how the public should boycott them etc. and of course calls for the central government to "do something" and give them more money to compensate for the job losses in their respective regions.

Now come autumn travel agencies will start reporting on the price increases for the 2019 summer vacations and how there is a last chance for good deals for Christmas holidays this year. The British airlines who've not split up their business will quietly drop certain flights or outsourced them to a fully European partner instead. I'd expect the Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris hubs to become the main destinations from UK. I'd also expect farmers to start making some noise when their applications for funds for 2019 are coming back rejected on how the government should compensate them instead. The government will of course make noises about how they are going to cover it all but new legislation needs to be put in place and bungle the whole thing something horribly.

Come end of 2018 and still no deal in sight nor an extension the doom headlines will start to appear in the news papers. First the likes of Guardian and the Independent but let's be real here and recognise that the Sun will have a field day with the headlines as well. The Sun will call out for example cream and the 55% WTO tariff on it or pick other high tariff items and make a news piece about it. They of course completely miss / ignore the real elephant in the room which is the export queues and issues that will come April 1st.

solodeogloria

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, but what you fail to realise solo is that this just isn't a case off the EU as a block being intransigent, you're dealing with twenty plus countries that have very little interest in the Tory parties infighting. I live in an EU country (Austria) that sees Brexit as an irritant that will dominate their EU presidency as they hold it when the UK leaves. The last major article about Brexit in the national papers here was debating how they might be able to get the UK out cleanly without it reflecting badly on their six month presidency. They have no trading relationship with the UK that cannot be sacrificed, they have no understanding or patience for the pointless slogans thrown out by the UK, and the general consensus is best be rid of them as quickly as possible.

The British media focus on what might impact Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands-they forget that there's a large swath of Europe that has nowhere near the same trading relationship with the UK and devotes barely any media time to Brexit, but if it's in their short or medium term political interests they can scupper any deal made, because in fairness that is the same Tory rationale that led to this mess. It just takes one European parliament, and sitting in a landlocked European country there is no reason I can see why they would go out of their way to accommodate the UK. As an Irish person with lots of British relations it would be a bit sad to see them go, but their "compromises" are frankly delusional.

Good morning!

They are going irrespective. I don't know why you speak of British membership as being a possibility. It isn't.

Brexit isn't primarily about countries like Austria. It's about the UK realising that EU membership wasn't working and charting a different course. Charles de Gaulle was right about the UK in the 60's. Brexit is a result of prime ministers from John Major persistently not listening to the electorate on the EU. Unwinding this will be painful but once it's done there's a lot of opportunity. That's irrespective of whether a deal is done. Taking back control is in the long term interest of the UK.

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

I don't think leaving the EU is a "mess". I'm certain that in 10 - 15 years that Britain will benefit from the flexibility of being outside. Come 2019 Britain should leave come what may. If there's no deal there's no need for ratification either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

dixiefly

Not good reading in this.....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1008/910662-brexit-customs/

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

They are going irrespective. I don't know why you speak of British membership as being a possibility. It isn't.

Brexit isn't primarily about countries like Austria. It's about the UK realising that EU membership wasn't working and charting a different course. Charles de Gaulle was right about the UK in the 60's. Brexit is a result of prime ministers from John Major persistently not listening to the electorate on the EU. Unwinding this will be painful but once it's done there's a lot of opportunity. That's irrespective of whether a deal is done. Taking back control is in the long term interest of the UK.

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

I don't think leaving the EU is a "mess". I'm certain that in 10 - 15 years that Britain will benefit from the flexibility of being outside. Come 2019 Britain should leave come what may. If there's no deal there's no need for ratification either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

10-15 years. Jesus's wept that's a generation of job losses depressesion and recesison

Its actually quite a disgusting attitude to agree with tbh.

Its as if people who are ok with that have no moral compass or are either quite well off or have a back up to exit the UK of needed.

That just leaves all the ordinary workers out in the cold with either no jobs or far less money in their pocket than before, a devalued currency and heavy consumer goods.

All sounds super, where do I sign up

ilovesmybrick

I'm not speaking about British membership as a possibility at all. What I'm saying to you is that there it only takes one EU parliament to end any deal with the UK, including the offer of transitional status. Any deal that the UK gets is going to be worse than the situation now. Yo will not get more favourable trading terms with the EU, your regions will lose their subsidies, the UK is already losing funding through EU programs such as Horizon 2020, WTO members are already saying that the potential splitting of WTO tariffs between the EU and UK is unacceptable.

Frankly, if you think that the current state of Brexit negotiations isn't a mess from the UK side you are patently watching a very different series of negotiations to the rest of us. The UK needs to get it's head around the fact that it is no longer a global, powerful empire, it is a medium sized trading island in the Atlantic with no major manufacturing industries anymore.

carrickbally

The Brexit decision by the British declares economic war on the rest of the EU and especially on this former colony.

That is threatening to cause serious trouble not alone in relation to the peace process through border controls within this country but to trade with the rest of the EU.

Consequently in the negotiations there is no other option for this country, backed up by the rest of the EU, but to support the not an inch policy of insisting on free movement of people and trade.

The British have shown the ill will and thrown down the challenge to all concerned. That has to be confronted and faced down.

Nody

dixiefly wrote: »

Not good reading in this.....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1008/910662-brexit-customs/

Nothing new there except showing how bad the UK paper on the NI border is when faced with reality. The only glaring issue is of course it's based on assuming trade will continue at the same volume as it does today which is not going to be the case. A lot of the volume will now not enter Ireland due to customs/trade regulations and hence the actual staff increase etc. will not be in the 800% but more likely closer to the 400 to 600%.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

Seeing as there has been no trade talks yet, how do you see the deal as a bad one? You are pre-judging the outcome of talks that hasn't even begun yet.

dixiefly wrote: »

Not good reading in this.....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1008/910662-brexit-customs/

This from the article,

The unpublished report, seen by RTÉ News, sets out in stark detail the vast increase in paperwork, human resources and physical space requirements at ports and airports.

The report also declares that an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will be impossible from a customs perspective.

If I read this correctly, there will be a border unless the UK stays in the customs union. If they decide to control their own trade deals they will force a border upon Northern Ireland and Ireland, whether they decide to man the border on their side or not.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

If I read this correctly, there will be a border unless the UK stays in the customs union. If they decide to control their own trade deals they will force a border upon Northern Ireland and Ireland, whether they decide to man the border on their side or not.

There will be a border with inspections if the UK
- is outside the customs union
- has different food and agri standards
- continues to have issues with things "mis-labelled" Chinese imports
- the merest suggestion of BSE

Or
- Ireland joins Schengen , because if we have to go through all the hassle we might as well get some benefit and besides there's screening and passport control on sea and air transport already

Capt'n Midnight

carrickbally wrote: »

The Brexit decision by the British declares economic war on the rest of the EU and especially on this former colony.

Back to the 1930's then.

Leonard Hofstadter

solodeogloria wrote: »

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

Interesting that you've skipped over my post asking for your views about the tariffs being imposed by the UK's supposed 'best friend' in this new post Brexit era on Bombardier and what this means not only for Northern Irish/UK jobs not to mention how this augers for any trade deal with the US.

I wonder why that might be?

carrickbally

Brexit is a disastrous decision motivated by racist contempt for the citizens of the rest of Europe and especially for the citizens of this former colony.

fash

Considering 48% voted to remain in the EU, it is reasonably clear that a majority of Britons want to remain within the single market (I.e. Norway style EFTA membership) - since of the remaining 52%, there will certainly be 3% who support single market access.
That solution would resolve many of the current impasses.
There really isn't a democratic mandate for what the Tory party is currently forcing on everyone.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

They are going irrespective. I don't know why you speak of British membership as being a possibility. It isn't.

Brexit isn't primarily about countries like Austria. It's about the UK realising that EU membership wasn't working and charting a different course. Charles de Gaulle was right about the UK in the 60's. Brexit is a result of prime ministers from John Major persistently not listening to the electorate on the EU. Unwinding this will be painful but once it's done there's a lot of opportunity. That's irrespective of whether a deal is done. Taking back control is in the long term interest of the UK.

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

I don't think leaving the EU is a "mess". I'm certain that in 10 - 15 years that Britain will benefit from the flexibility of being outside. Come 2019 Britain should leave come what may. If there's no deal there's no need for ratification either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Proof that this is the case please?

Solo, you said that you voted remain in the referendum, but with the greatest of respect to you, i've never seen somebody abandon their principles so completely and become an ideological extreme Brexiteer that you now appear to be. You keep saying that Britain is going to do well by cutting its own trade deals etc. and also by 'taking back control'. Most of your responses have been aspirational in nature with little actual hard information on how you are going to get there. Did you read the link to that leaked Revenue Commissioners report posted just up the thread? In the light of that I'm fascinated to hear your opinions on how a port such as Dover would operate in the absence of any deal, considering it currently operates on an 'arrive & drive' model in dealing with goods movement.

http://maritime-executive.com/article/port-of-dover-sounds-the-alarm-on-post-brexit-customs

Capt'n Midnight

carrickbally wrote: »

Brexit is a disastrous decision motivated by racist contempt for the citizens of the rest of Europe and especially for the citizens of this former colony.

It's not racist. It's a power grab. It's an asset stripping exercise. It's a speculators paradise. It's a libertarian's dream. It's taking back control , except that a lot of financial control was passed to the Bank Of England 20 years ago. It's going to limit immigration , except from non-EU countries. It's taking back control, except we are here because the immigration laws weren't used.

To see who is behind it , follow the money. It's "round up the usual suspects". Can you imagine how much money speculators could make if this triggered a break up of the EU and the Euro ? And all for next to zero risk and zero cost considering the possible gains.


To understand why it happened, blame the politicians for not taking control using existing legitimisation the past. Or not explaining the issues properly like mumbled promises with ambiguous words it's everything to everyone, and far too many people chose to hear what they wanted to hear.



Again a reminder that a similar vote here would have to contain exact words and have the referendum commission handouts and have the handouts challenged. Ironically enough there is a chance that depending how the negotiations pan out Irish voters could have more of a say in how this ends than UK ones.

Sam Russell

How many of those that were in favour of the British Empire joining the First World War that began the ultimate demise of the Empire? The entry of the USA on the British side ended the hegemony of Britain in the world and began the militarisation of the USA to becoming a major super power, totally eclipsing Britain.

How many of those in favour of the Second World War would have been in favour of it had they seen the catastrophic cost within Britain, Europe and the world? Again, Britain was supported by the USA but not for free. Effectively Britain was totally bankrupt after the war and was in hock to the USA - hence the special relationship. (Yes,Sir, No, Sir, Three bags full, Sir.)

How many of those 52% who voted for Brexit will wish they had voted differently if they could see the lost decades economically that will result in the break up of the UK? Or even if they were told the truth about the implications of leaving the EU?

How many of those in favour of Britain joining the EEC in 1973 would revisit that and forgo the massive improvement that has visited every aspect of British life? And if they had not joined, how loud would the clamour be to join?

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

And only briefly to clarify some misunderstandings.

listermint wrote: »

10-15 years. Jesus's wept that's a generation of job losses depressesion and recesison

Its actually quite a disgusting attitude to agree with tbh.

Its as if people who are ok with that have no moral compass or are either quite well off or have a back up to exit the UK of needed.

That just leaves all the ordinary workers out in the cold with either no jobs or far less money in their pocket than before, a devalued currency and heavy consumer goods.

All sounds super, where do I sign up

I disagree with the loaded and emotive language in your post. When political decisions are made, they need to be good political solutions for the long term. Short termism doesn't make good politics and good workable lasting solutions. If a half-job is done with Brexit, the issue will simply crop up again in 5 to 10 years. A full job needs to be done now.

I'm supportive of a good deal, I'm not supportive of a bad deal. I'm hopeful that there might be an injection of reason in Brussels in the next few months. Insisting on the supremacy of a European Union court namely the ECJ is not reasonable. Accepting this would constitute part of a bad deal. Paying huge sums with nothing in return would constitute part of a bad deal. Therefore if both of those were in place, I wouldn't support ratifying it.

That's simple. I personally don't believe in the armageddon scenario that you are describing. I also don't believe that the devaluation of sterling has been a bad thing. During the summer we saw tourism at record highs here and it was visibly noticeable on trips that I made.

The idea that Brexit has been or will be an entirely bad decision is not true from my perspective. An opportunity to structure Britain's economy to work independently of the European Union will be an investment that will pay off in years to come. I'm sure of this, even if it is costly in the short to medium term.

Deleted User wrote: »

Proof that this is the case please?

Solo, you said that you voted remain in the referendum, but with the greatest of respect to you, i've never seen somebody abandon their principles so completely and become an ideological extreme Brexiteer that you now appear to be. You keep saying that Britain is going to do well by cutting its own trade deals etc. and also by 'taking back control'. Most of your responses have been aspirational in nature with little actual hard information on how you are going to get there. Did you read the link to that leaked Revenue Commissioners report posted just up the thread? In the light of that I'm fascinated to hear your opinions on how a port such as Dover would operate in the absence of any deal, considering it currently operates on an 'arrive & drive' model in dealing with goods movement.

http://maritime-executive.com/article/port-of-dover-sounds-the-alarm-on-post-brexit-customs

On why I voted remain in the referendum. I've discussed this many times, and you can read the reasons in previous posts. As for "with the greatest respect", I don't think I've been shown "the greatest respect" on this thread. I've been accused of not really being Irish because I choose to dissent with the majority opinion here. So, when you say "with the greatest respect" I take it with a grain of salt unfortunately.

I've also discussed why I think Britain isn't suited to being a member. You can see that in previous posts also. I see no point in going round and round in circles.

I agree that there will have to be a customs border if the UK exits the European Union without a deal. Meaning probably at the very best Ireland will have to deal with the border in a similar way to Norway and Sweden. This isn't what I desire, but if the European Union are not willing to discuss a bespoke arrangement on the border, and if the European Union are not willing to engage with British proposals for customs and trade and strike a middle ground that is what we are getting.

To repeat that again, this is not what I desire at all.

The same is true for the M20 at Dover and the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone and other ports right across Britain. Serious preparations need to be made there for handling customs ideally in land before they reach the port and the tunnel. This is probably the type of work that is happening when David Davis and Theresa May say that they are making preparations for a no deal scenario.

I think people need to understand that if the European Union thinks that the UK are going to crawl back to being members of the European Union if they don't offer transitional terms or a trade deal they can think again. The UK need to leave in 2019 come what may and begin restructuring the British economy to be less dependent on the European Union.

A half-job half in half out won't work, and there will be demand to finish the job off down the line.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flatty

carrickbally wrote: »

Brexit is a disastrous decision motivated by racist contempt for the citizens of the rest of Europe and especially for the citizens of this former colony.

And 48% of its own citizens.

Mezcita

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

And only briefly to clarify some misunderstandings.



I disagree with the loaded and emotive language in your post. When political decisions are made, they need to be good political solutions for the long term. Short termism doesn't make good politics and good workable lasting solutions. If a half-job is done with Brexit, the issue will simply crop up again in 5 to 10 years. A full job needs to be done now.

I'm supportive of a good deal, I'm not supportive of a bad deal. I'm hopeful that there might be an injection of reason in Brussels in the next few months. Insisting on the supremacy of a European Union court namely the ECJ is not reasonable. Accepting this would constitute part of a bad deal. Paying huge sums with nothing in return would constitute part of a bad deal. Therefore if both of those were in place, I wouldn't support ratifying it.

That's simple. I personally don't believe in the armageddon scenario that you are describing. I also don't believe that the devaluation of sterling has been a bad thing. During the summer we saw tourism at record highs here and it was visibly noticeable on trips that I made.

The idea that Brexit has been or will be an entirely bad decision is not true from my perspective. An opportunity to structure Britain's economy to work independently of the European Union will be an investment that will pay off in years to come. I'm sure of this, even if it is costly in the short to medium term.



On why I voted remain in the referendum. I've discussed this many times, and you can read the reasons in previous posts. As for "with the greatest respect", I don't think I've been shown "the greatest respect" on this thread. I've been accused of not really being Irish because I choose to dissent with the majority opinion here. So, when you say "with the greatest respect" I take it with a grain of salt unfortunately.

I've also discussed why I think Britain isn't suited to being a member. You can see that in previous posts also. I see no point in going round and round in circles.

I agree that there will have to be a customs border if the UK exits the European Union without a deal. Meaning probably at the very best Ireland will have to deal with the border in a similar way to Norway and Sweden. This isn't what I desire, but if the European Union are not willing to discuss a bespoke arrangement on the border, and if the European Union are not willing to engage with British proposals for customs and trade and strike a middle ground that is what we are getting.

To repeat that again, this is not what I desire at all.

The same is true for the M20 at Dover and the Channel Tunnel at Folkestone and other ports right across Britain. Serious preparations need to be made there for handling customs ideally in land before they reach the port and the tunnel. This is probably the type of work that is happening when David Davis and Theresa May say that they are making preparations for a no deal scenario.

I think people need to understand that if the European Union thinks that the UK are going to crawl back to being members of the European Union if they don't offer transitional terms or a trade deal they can think again. The UK need to leave in 2019 come what may and begin restructuring the British economy to be less dependent on the European Union.

A half-job half in half out won't work, and there will be demand to finish the job off down the line.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Oh look you didn't answer the question about Bombardier again.

A Little Pony

Not going to be a deal, that much is obvious. EU doesn't want a deal, they will never vote for it if it doesn't include freedom of movement. It's a big waste of time.

Leonard Hofstadter

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!
....

Good afternoon to you as well!

I note you still haven't addressed my two previous two posts asking you about Bombardier (and it's not like I'm the only person who has asked this question), but like you, I am also an optimist and a believer in the phrase 'third time lucky' so perhaps this time, I might finally get a reply!

Any chance you might address how the Brexit is going to be a success for the UK in terms of trade deals given the actions of the US Government this week towards Bombardier?

While I have your attention, you might as well tell me how the WTO quotas fiasco is going to work out for the UK given that all of the countries who the UK is most keen to do trade deals with are saying that to use one of your favourite phrases, 'no deal is better than a bad deal'?

Much thanks,
captainspeed.

Nody

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not going to be a deal, that much is obvious. EU doesn't want a deal, they will never vote for it if it doesn't include freedom of movement. It's a big waste of time.

EU will give them a FTA once the key issues have been settled; however for UK that's not enough and will still leave all their banking and services out in the cold. Not even the lower pound is working for exports as companies are already turning away from UK providers to EU once instead. The article (easily google translated) only confirms that the number of empty trucks leaving the UK is increasing (when in theory with lower pound they should be able to export more to EU instead).

Gerry T

Nody wrote:

EU will give them a FTA once the key issues have been settled; however for UK that's not enough and will still leave all their banking and services out in the cold. Not even the

No they won't, not without ECJ and freedom of movement which the UK won't accept

Nate--IRL--

Gerry T wrote: »

No they won't, not without ECJ and freedom of movement which the UK won't accept

A Canadian type deal could be done, but the UK don't want it.

Nate

steddyeddy

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

A Canadian type deal could be done, but the UK don't want it.

Nate

Indeed May gave a speech in Florence highlighting the UK's sense of entitlement regarding the deal. She said a Candian deal wouldn't be good enough, without explaining why the UK deserves a better deal and what comprises they will make.

Jim2007

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

What I'm saying to you is that there it only takes one EU parliament to end any deal with the UK, including the offer of transitional status.

Well in the EU it is actually 38 regional and national parliaments, but it does not stop there... There is no provision for such an arrangement with the EEA/CH members. The EU has no right to make any comments on behalf of Norway or Switzerland in terms of FMOP.. And what are we going to do with all the U.K. goods crossing the Swiss Alps heading for Southern Europe? Switzerland is not in the EU customs union so legally they are goods from a third country with no WTO agreement, so full inspections and tariffs apply. If Switzerland has to introduces these measures it will delay all north/south trade.

Gerry T

steddyeddy wrote:

Indeed May gave a speech in Florence highlighting the UK's sense of entitlement regarding the deal. She said a Candian deal wouldn't be good enough, without explaining why the UK deserves a better deal and what comprises they will make.

I'm don't know the details of CETA but is it primarily a goods deal with certain restrictions. The UK needs a trade deal for services and goods.
Also the Canadian deal started 8yrs ago.

carrickbally

The London media get more ridiculous by the day.

When making a speech May had a cold, some yob handed her a piece of paper and the people who put up the signs should have done a better job.

Result calls for her resignation from the gutter London media and their extreme favourites in the tory party.

Their solution to Ireland is that we re-join the UK.

Well our solution to them is that they re-join the EU.

A Little Pony

Nody wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not going to be a deal, that much is obvious. EU doesn't want a deal, they will never vote for it if it doesn't include freedom of movement. It's a big waste of time.

EU will give them a FTA once the key issues have been settled; however for UK that's not enough and will still leave all their banking and services out in the cold. Not even the lower pound is working for exports as companies are already turning away from UK providers to EU once instead. The article (easily google translated) only confirms that the number of empty trucks leaving the UK is increasing (when in theory with lower pound they should be able to export more to EU instead).

A deal is never going to happen, the government is already planning behind closed doors for the possibility, they know it's not going to happen but have to give the illusion at this time of it being possible. I'd have already had us out of the EU by now. It's wasting everyone's time and the sooner we leave the better.

murphaph

A Little Pony wrote: »

A deal is never going to happen, the government is already planning behind closed doors for the possibility, they know it's not going to happen but have to give the illusion at this time of it being possible. I'd have already had us out of the EU by now. It's wasting everyone's time and the sooner we leave the better.

It's going to destroy the economy in Northern Ireland and deal a severe blow to the rest of the UK's economy if no deal is reached. You know that, right? Expect to be jettisoned by the English nationalists once the true economic cost of Brexit starts to undermine social services in England and the questions turn from "why do we send so much money to Poland?" to "why do we send so much money to Northern Ireland?". Just a matter of time.

Nody

A Little Pony wrote: »

A deal is never going to happen, the government is already planning behind closed doors for the possibility, they know it's not going to happen but have to give the illusion at this time of it being possible. I'd have already had us out of the EU by now. It's wasting everyone's time and the sooner we leave the better.

Sorry you misunderstood me; I fully agree with you that the Brexit negotiations are going for/will end up in a hard no deal struck ending. However I also expect in the longer term that UK will get a FTA with EU along the lines of Canada (i.e. goods only and no services) over the next decade or so because a limited FTA is better than no FTA for both countries. Hence I do expect a FTA but not one coming out from the Brexit negotiations as such.

murphaph wrote: »

It's going to destroy the economy in Northern Ireland and deal a severe blow to the rest of the UK's economy if no deal is reached. You know that, right? Expect to be jettisoned by the English nationalists once the true economic cost of Brexit starts to undermine social services in England and the questions turn from "why do we send so much money to Poland?" to "why do we send so much money to Northern Ireland?". Just a matter of time.

It will take to long for that pain to hit; remember the deal has to be summed up and ready pretty much this time next year to be voted on in time (and that's assuming all vote yes!) and the economical pain will not hit properly until 1st April 2019 since trade can continue. Yes there will be business leaving and announcing it etc. but that's still not felt and most companies will not make big announcement about it; it will be death by a thousand cuts as factories don't get the new lines to continue production (Toyota's plan investment run 3 years ahead of production for example so for 3 years the pain will not really be felt), it will be orders redirected to EU suppliers instead of UK for smaller companies that while going bankrupt do so over time and quietly. Hence I expect the pain for it all is not going to be there in time to force the deal; that pain will come gradually and remain for decades instead.

ilovesmybrick

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well in the EU it is actually 38 regional and national parliaments, but it does not stop there... There is no provision for such an arrangement with the EEA/CH members. The EU has no right to make any comments on behalf of Norway or Switzerland in terms of FMOP.. And what are we going to do with all the U.K. goods crossing the Swiss Alps heading for Southern Europe? Switzerland is not in the EU customs union so legally they are goods from a third country with no WTO agreement, so full inspections and tariffs apply. If Switzerland has to introduces these measures it will delay all north/south trade.

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear there. I meant that it just takes one of the parliaments of the countries within the EU to stop any agreement. Doesn't really change either of our points though-The "Brussels Bad" concept being put forward vastly oversimplifies the reality of the situation.

A Little Pony

The rest of the EU states get a final vote on any such agreement, it is near on impossible to get a deal if you aim to control your borders by ending freedom of movement and they will never go for it. So the rest of this is all irrelevant because that is the crux of the matter.

The EU is what it is, they will not move on the issue, they didn't with David Cameron, they most certainly won't now. I long ago went past the point of thinking a deal would happen.

steddyeddy

A Little Pony wrote: »

The rest of the EU states get a final vote on any such agreement, it is near on impossible to get a deal if you aim to control your borders by ending freedom of movement and they will never go for it. So the rest of this is all irrelevant because that is the crux of the matter.

The EU is what it is, they will not move on the issue, they didn't with David Cameron, they most certainly won't now. I long ago went past the point of thinking a deal would happen.

That's the most realistic sentiment from a Brexit supporter that I've read.

steddyeddy

Billions of pounds may be unlocked by May in preparation for a no deal scenario. I think it's safe to say that's a very good idea. From the BBC.

Contingency plans in case the UK has to leave the EU with no deal in place are "well under way", a minister has said.
Dominic Raab said while the UK had to "strive for the very best outcome" from Brexit negotiations, it had to "prepare for all eventualities".
The Sunday Telegraph claimed there were plans to "unlock" billions of pounds in the new year to prepare for a "no deal" Brexit, if talks make no progress.
Six months of Brexit negotiations have not led to a significant breakthrough.
Last month Prime Minister Theresa May used a speech in Florence to set out proposals for a two-year transition period after the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, in a bid to ease the deadlock.
Talks had stalled over key issues including EU citizens' rights, a financial settlement and on the Northern Ireland border.
UK must be prepared for no deal Brexit - UKIP leader
Plan for a very hard Brexit, German firms told
Will the government accept no deal?
UK Brexit Secretary David Davis has since said "decisive steps forward" have been made - although EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said there are still "big gaps" between the two sides on some issues.
The Sunday Telegraph reported that, if no further progress is made, Mrs May has decided to commit billions in the new year to spend on things like new technology to speed up customs checks, in case there is no trade deal and the UK has to revert to World Trade Organisation tariffs with the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

Billions of pounds may be unlocked by May in preparation for a no deal scenario. I think it's safe to say that's a very good idea. From the BBC.

But that £350m a week was for the NHS !

Seriously the UK's customs service is already going through a software upgrade. And the first comment says it all really

How can a system that was supposed to come online in December 2020 and not designed to handle EU exports be ready two years earlier (January 2019) and handle EU exports?

Given the negotiations haven't finished, the spec isn't known yet. We don't know what's going to happen about the Irish border.

Nody

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But that £350m a week was for the NHS !

Seriously the UK's customs service is already going through a software upgrade. And the first comment says it all really

It's a System; the magical word for any senior leader on how problems will be solved through a black box solution. We're implementing a new System to fix the issue!

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But that £350m a week was for the NHS !

Seriously the UK's customs service is already going through a software upgrade. And the first comment says it all really

I couldn't think of an adequate reply Cap. So I'll just say that no scenario I can think of will be as bad as the reality of Brexit when everything hits at once.

flutered

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

They are going irrespective. I don't know why you speak of British membership as being a possibility. It isn't.

Brexit isn't primarily about countries like Austria. It's about the UK realising that EU membership wasn't working and charting a different course. Charles de Gaulle was right about the UK in the 60's. Brexit is a result of prime ministers from John Major persistently not listening to the electorate on the EU. Unwinding this will be painful but once it's done there's a lot of opportunity. That's irrespective of whether a deal is done. Taking back control is in the long term interest of the UK.

Would I prefer a deal? - yes. But not a bad one like we're seeing the beginnings of right now.

I don't think leaving the EU is a "mess". I'm certain that in 10 - 15 years that Britain will benefit from the flexibility of being outside. Come 2019 Britain should leave come what may. If there's no deal there's no need for ratification either.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Unwinding this will be painful but once it's done there's a lot of opportunity.
can you please say what this lot of opportunity actually is, is it oppertunity to renegotiate with the eu, start negotiation under wto rules, or perhaps the opportunity is with the countrys that the uk wishes to trade with

Enzokk

A Little Pony wrote: »

The rest of the EU states get a final vote on any such agreement, it is near on impossible to get a deal if you aim to control your borders by ending freedom of movement and they will never go for it. So the rest of this is all irrelevant because that is the crux of the matter.

The EU is what it is, they will not move on the issue, they didn't with David Cameron, they most certainly won't now. I long ago went past the point of thinking a deal would happen.

The UK doesn't have to accept free movement of goods from the EU. That is their choice and it has nothing to do with what the EU wants. But people in the UK should forget about getting a deal close to the one they have at present and it will mean there are barriers to trade that wasn't there before. Most agree that this will be bad for the UK economy so those that advocate it are advocating for hurting the UK economy.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I disagree with the loaded and emotive language in your post. When political decisions are made, they need to be good political solutions for the long term. Short termism doesn't make good politics and good workable lasting solutions. If a half-job is done with Brexit, the issue will simply crop up again in 5 to 10 years. A full job needs to be done now.

I'm supportive of a good deal, I'm not supportive of a bad deal. I'm hopeful that there might be an injection of reason in Brussels in the next few months. Insisting on the supremacy of a European Union court namely the ECJ is not reasonable. Accepting this would constitute part of a bad deal. Paying huge sums with nothing in return would constitute part of a bad deal. Therefore if both of those were in place, I wouldn't support ratifying it.

That's simple. I personally don't believe in the armageddon scenario that you are describing. I also don't believe that the devaluation of sterling has been a bad thing. During the summer we saw tourism at record highs here and it was visibly noticeable on trips that I made.

The idea that Brexit has been or will be an entirely bad decision is not true from my perspective. An opportunity to structure Britain's economy to work independently of the European Union will be an investment that will pay off in years to come. I'm sure of this, even if it is costly in the short to medium term.

I think you don't understand politics, it is all about short term thinking. Do you think Theresa May didn't think in the short term by going from Remain to Leave in a few days? She believed that being in the single market is the correct thing for Brittain, and then she didn't believe it.

I believe now as some have posted already that the UK needs to have a hard Brexit and will need to feel the effect before they will realise what the EU did for them. It seems obvious that even you, someone who will have the benefits of the EU regardless of where you work, is still swayed by the half truths regarding the EU and what they offer people in the UK.

I think its good that you are finding positives in the current financial state of the UK though. I am happy that you enjoy the tourists coming to the UK, unfortunately I don't think this will make up for the lost trade once Brexit actually happens. Remember they are still only talking about how to implement the triggering of article 50 by the UK. We haven't even come close to the reality of the UK out of the EU, just by looking at how the discussions are going and what an eventual deal might look like in the end.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think people need to understand that if the European Union thinks that the UK are going to crawl back to being members of the European Union if they don't offer transitional terms or a trade deal they can think again. The UK need to leave in 2019 come what may and begin restructuring the British economy to be less dependent on the European Union.

A half-job half in half out won't work, and there will be demand to finish the job off down the line.

Its this sort of attitude that has the UK where it is at the moment. The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, right? Any comment on the trade figures of trade the UK does with the EU being skewed by gold? This was a pet argument for why the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU as their trade was going down and was only at around 44% or so. If you discount the trade of gold though the trade to the EU is more than 50%, does that change your thinking at all?

Or will you not think about it and still want the politicians to plunge ahead? This is the same as the Bombardier question, do you feel uneasy that the US has thrown a spanner in UK jobs when Theresa May asked Donald Trump about this when they met before? If this has no effect on your thinking you can say so, then at least we will know what your position is on such news.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Enzokk wrote: »

I think you don't understand politics, it is all about short term thinking. Do you think Theresa May didn't think in the short term by going from Remain to Leave in a few days? She believed that being in the single market is the correct thing for Brittain, and then she didn't believe it.

It's a common criticism of politicians that they don't employ long term solutions that work in favour of short termism. Short termism is a problem in politics. It isn't the definition of politics as you seem to believe.

Enzokk wrote: »

I believe now as some have posted already that the UK needs to have a hard Brexit and will need to feel the effect before they will realise what the EU did for them. It seems obvious that even you, someone who will have the benefits of the EU regardless of where you work, is still swayed by the half truths regarding the EU and what they offer people in the UK.

My position is entirely based on the UK Government implementing the result of the referendum.

I also don't believe the nonsense of "hard" versus "soft" Brexit. There is Brexit, and not really Brexit.

Enzokk wrote: »

IIts this sort of attitude that has the UK where it is at the moment. The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, right? Any comment on the trade figures of trade the UK does with the EU being skewed by gold? This was a pet argument for why the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU as their trade was going down and was only at around 44% or so. If you discount the trade of gold though the trade to the EU is more than 50%, does that change your thinking at all?

Exports are exports. Ignoring parts of the export figure isn't helpful. With gold excluded, the EU figure is 47% according to Sky News.

Enzokk wrote: »

Or will you not think about it and still want the politicians to plunge ahead? This is the same as the Bombardier question, do you feel uneasy that the US has thrown a spanner in UK jobs when Theresa May asked Donald Trump about this when they met before? If this has no effect on your thinking you can say so, then at least we will know what your position is on such news.

The issue with Bombardier and Boeing is an issue between the US and Canada. It isn't primarily an issue between the US and the UK.

Boeing also employ nearly 19,000 people in the UK either directly or in a supply chain. They also spent £2.1bn with British suppliers last year.

Protectionism is bad, but to have the simplistic interpretation that you and others hold isn't helpful. We need the whole picture.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Solo, it's all unravelling faster than a cheap suit and you just can't admit it IMO. I don't think you'd ever admit it was a mistake. Your language has shifted further and further to the extremes, where "pain must be gone through to reap the hypothetical rewards on the other side". There was NO mention of pain to be endured during the referendum, at least not from the Leave side. That was all waved away as project fear but now it's become part of the narrative from the likes of liar Johnson. I don't even think you really believe this stuff yourself any more, deep down. it's just an act of faith on your part to believe that Brexit will all work itself out somehow. I know you're a religious person, maybe I just lack your faith.

murphaph

Bombardier serves as a case study in how the US Department of Commerce will deal with a markedly smaller economy when it feels like it. They never tried to levy a 220% tariff on Airbus aircraft, which actually compete with most of Boeing's line up (the Bombardier aircraft in question does not!) because they know the EU can retaliate in kind and slap a 220% tariff on all Boeing aircraft. It's a kind of MAD that the UK won't be able to invoke because it's economy is much smaller than the EU's.