Brexit discussion thread II

Sam Russell

Samaris wrote: »

That and the width of Europe in the way.

I think the Russians would sneak around the back across the North Sea or the Atlantic.

They Need Nukes to get them to go the other way.

Professor Moriarty

Arlene Foster has stated that Ireland and the EU's preferred option of a sea border between Britain and Ireland is a definitive red line for the DUP. Ireland and the EU believe that a hard border is inevitable in the absence of a sea border. Wonder what David Davis will bring to the table now?

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

Rabo Bank are joining project fear I guess because they have calculated the cost of a hard brexit to £400 billion pounds to 2030.

They say this is larger than other estimates, but the UK govt estimated that GDP would be 5-10% lower than trend after 15 years, which (after EU contributions are recouped), taking the middle 7.5% figure, comes to 66 billion a year by 2032.

If that GDP loss is evenly spread, that would be an average 33 billion a year, every year. By 2030 that's 400 billion, same as Rabo, so their estimate does not look high to me.

And that is not the worst case govt. estimate of 10%.

In human terms, more worrying is the prospect that the hit to GDP will not be a simple, even drop in the slope of the growth graph: it may be a crash and then a prolonged recession, followed by an eventual bounce back to growth at or a bit below the Remain trend. This will be a lot more painful than an evenly spread reduction.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They say this is larger than other estimates, but the UK govt estimated that GDP would be 5-10% lower than trend after 15 years, which (after EU contributions are recouped), taking the middle 7.5% figure, comes to 66 billion a year by 2032.

If that GDP loss is evenly spread, that would be an average 33 billion a year, every year. By 2030 that's 400 billion, same as Rabo, so their estimate does not look high to me.

And that is not the worst case govt. estimate of 10%.

In human terms, more worrying is the prospect that the hit to GDP will not be a simple, even drop in the slope of the growth graph: it may be a crash and then a prolonged recession, followed by an eventual bounce back to growth at or a bit below the Remain trend. This will be a lot more painful than an evenly spread reduction.

Such predictions reinforce the reality that the EU has the upper hand in negotiations by a country mile.

devnull

So still no real progress has been made as of today, coupled with May continuing to try and use EU Citizens as a bargaining chip this is not looking good, no matter how much Tories like Redwood come on TV saying the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs them.

The UK is sleepwalking into a complete disaster because of the arrogance of a group of leavers who have no idea what to do and expected the EU to bow to their every demand. Their negotiation style is pitiful and this could turn into one of the biggest acts of shooting yourself in the foot a country in the West has committed in a long time.

Zubeneschamali

devnull wrote: »

The UK is sleepwalking into a complete disaster because of the arrogance of a group of leavers who have no idea what to do and expected the EU to bow to their every demand. Their negotiation style is pitiful and this could turn into one of the biggest acts of shooting yourself in the foot a country in the West has committed in a long time.

Well, yes, maybe.

Or maybe they know they can't concede too much now because of domestic politics, and they are waiting for the last minute to push a deal through that will be unpopular at home. Hence the rumblings from the Tory party conference that the real talks will start after Christmas, and the kites from May about this "implementation period" of at least 2 years.

I think what will emerge is an "implementation period" which is just membership by another name, and a new Brexit date of 2021, and more talking.

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, yes, maybe.

Or maybe they know they can't concede too much now because of domestic politics, and they are waiting for the last minute to push a deal through that will be unpopular at home. Hence the rumblings from the Tory party conference that the real talks will start after Christmas, and the kites from May about this "implementation period" of at least 2 years.

I think what will emerge is an "implementation period" which is just membership by another name, and a new Brexit date of 2021, and more talking.

I think this is the most likely scenario. I would imagine the EU see it like that as well.

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Arlene Foster has stated that Ireland and the EU's preferred option of a sea border between Britain and Ireland is a definitive red line for the DUP. Ireland and the EU believe that a hard border is inevitable in the absence of a sea border. Wonder what David Davis will bring to the table now?

So now we have another red line to contend with. I guess we have to prepare for a hard border now. I don't see how any of the pronouncements will lead to anything but a border here on Ireland.

I do wonder, coming from a state that voted to stay in the EU, how the DUP can assert policies that are so against the people. I also wonder how she will keep the DUP relevant in the case of a hard Brexit and economic hardship in NI and it will all fall on her parties shoulders. She kept the Tories in power and she is going against what the people want in Northern Ireland. I suppose she will always have her voters that hate the other side, but those on the margins will surely start seeing the woods for the trees if things go wrong. This is one very high stakes gamble she has taken.

Thomas__

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

devnull wrote: »

The UK is sleepwalking into a complete disaster because of the arrogance of a group of leavers who have no idea what to do and expected the EU to bow to their every demand. Their negotiation style is pitiful and this could turn into one of the biggest acts of shooting yourself in the foot a country in the West has committed in a long time.

Well, yes, maybe.

Or maybe they know they can't concede too much now because of domestic politics, and they are waiting for the last minute to push a deal through that will be unpopular at home. Hence the rumblings from the Tory party conference that the real talks will start after Christmas, and the kites from May about this "implementation period" of at least 2 years.

I think what will emerge is an "implementation period" which is just membership by another name, and a new Brexit date of 2021, and more talking.

I doubt that very much because the Brits are wasting their time and the EU negotiators will just allow that to continue until the deadline is reached and afterwards it means "so long and thanks for nothing". It takes an Agreement between the UK and the EU to even consider this transition period and given the UK govt is more likely to continue in their incompetence and "I want, I want, I want ..." attitude there´s no way that they´ll settle anything within the given time frame until their formal exit from the EUby the end of March 2019.

If there would be another, means new and not Tory UK govt in place, well, then maybe your suggestion will have some chances for a real prospect, but as long as Mrs May and her lot of Brexiters are in charge of the UK´s govt, there´s is no real chance for having anything accomplished except the crashing out of the EU by a hard Brexit which means no deal with the EU at all. The Tories may well try to betray and ly to the British People, but I seriously doubt that the EU will let allow herself to be led up the garden path by this bunch of apparently amateur politicians and poor negotiators. That´s because the damage on the EU´s reputation would be too serious and they cannot and will not allow to let this happen.

Thomas__

Enzokk wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Arlene Foster has stated that Ireland and the EU's preferred option of a sea border between Britain and Ireland is a definitive red line for the DUP. Ireland and the EU believe that a hard border is inevitable in the absence of a sea border. Wonder what David Davis will bring to the table now?

So now we have another red line to contend with. I guess we have to prepare for a hard border now. I don't see how any of the pronouncements will lead to anything but a border here on Ireland.

I do wonder, coming from a state that voted to stay in the EU, how the DUP can assert policies that are so against the people. I also wonder how she will keep the DUP relevant in the case of a hard Brexit and economic hardship in NI and it will all fall on her parties shoulders. She kept the Tories in power and she is going against what the people want in Northern Ireland. I suppose she will always have her voters that hate the other side, but those on the margins will surely start seeing the woods for the trees if things go wrong. This is one very high stakes gamble she has taken.

I have no illusions whatsoever that the diehard DUPers and those Orangemen who support them will still vote for this nasty party come what may as long as they can "stay British". These types of Unionist bigots are quite fine with a hard border on the Island of Ireland as Long as they don´t live along that border themselves, but even some of those who live close to it, wouldn´t give much of a fiddlers when not bothered by traffic congestions on the check points which have to be installed. Otherwise one can´t run a real hard border anyway.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

So now we have another red line to contend with. I guess we have to prepare for a hard border now. I don't see how any of the pronouncements will lead to anything but a border here on Ireland.

I do wonder, coming from a state that voted to stay in the EU, how the DUP can assert policies that are so against the people. I also wonder how she will keep the DUP relevant in the case of a hard Brexit and economic hardship in NI and it will all fall on her parties shoulders. She kept the Tories in power and she is going against what the people want in Northern Ireland. I suppose she will always have her voters that hate the other side, but those on the margins will surely start seeing the woods for the trees if things go wrong. This is one very high stakes gamble she has taken.

Indeed. Plus if/when Corbyn takes over, Britain will be a very cold place for unionism. I think their deal with the Tories is unionism's swansong in terms of power and ascendancy. The Tories have no interest in unionism anymore other than their 10 votes in parliament as they are too busy fighting for relevance in England with an aging electorate and trying to manage an impossible Brexit.

I can see NI becoming an economic wasteland with renewed sectarian violence once Britain abandons it. Best case scenario in that case would be that the EU takes responsibility for its governance.

blanch152

Thomas__ wrote: »

I have no illusions whatsoever that the diehard DUPers and those Orangemen who support them will still vote for this nasty party come what may as long as they can "stay British". These types of Unionist bigots are quite fine with a hard border on the Island of Ireland as Long as they don´t live along that border themselves, but even some of those who live close to it, wouldn´t give much of a fiddlers when not bothered by traffic congestions on the check points which have to be installed. Otherwise one can´t run a real hard border anyway.

If you are to put it another way, you would say that the DUP are prepared to put the principle of Britishness above their own prosperity.

That is little different to those nationalists in the South who want unity tomorrow who are putting that principle above their own prosperity.

I don't agree with either position but they are entitled to their view.

Thomas__

blanch152 wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

I have no illusions whatsoever that the diehard DUPers and those Orangemen who support them will still vote for this nasty party come what may as long as they can "stay British". These types of Unionist bigots are quite fine with a hard border on the Island of Ireland as Long as they don´t live along that border themselves, but even some of those who live close to it, wouldn´t give much of a fiddlers when not bothered by traffic congestions on the check points which have to be installed. Otherwise one can´t run a real hard border anyway.

If you are to put it another way, you would say that the DUP are prepared to put the principle of Britishness above their own prosperity.

That is little different to those nationalists in the South who want unity tomorrow who are putting that principle above their own prosperity.

I don't agree with either position but they are entitled to their view.

Being entitled to their own view is one thing, wracking the future prospects of a whole country is quite another. That is what the DUP is doing and that is the core of my argumentation. But anyway, maybe you can tell me what ever good has come from the DUP at all. I´d have to try very hard to find anything at all, because what has been achieved was more due to the engagement and care by SF and isn´t lasting on the initiative by the DUP.

They can have their own views, but they shouldn´t be allowed to help to bring more missery upon the whole of the people in NI for their silly sake of being loyal to the British govt who has no clue at all and is caught up in their selfish dreamland of a "mega prosperous past-Brexit UK".

Fratton Fred

Thomas__ wrote: »

I doubt that very much because the Brits are wasting their time and the EU negotiators will just allow that to continue until the deadline is reached and afterwards it means "so long and thanks for nothing". It takes an Agreement between the UK and the EU to even consider this transition period and given the UK govt is more likely to continue in their incompetence and "I want, I want, I want ..." attitude there´s no way that they´ll settle anything within the given time frame until their formal exit from the EUby the end of March 2019.

If there would be another, means new and not Tory UK govt in place, well, then maybe your suggestion will have some chances for a real prospect, but as long as Mrs May and her lot of Brexiters are in charge of the UK´s govt, there´s is no real chance for having anything accomplished except the crashing out of the EU by a hard Brexit which means no deal with the EU at all. The Tories may well try to betray and ly to the British People, but I seriously doubt that the EU will let allow herself to be led up the garden path by this bunch of apparently amateur politicians and poor negotiators. That´s because the damage on the EU´s reputation would be too serious and they cannot and will not allow to let this happen.

Are the details of the discussions in the public domain, or are you just guessing?

Anyways, here is a very good (as always) blog from Laura Kuenssberg http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41598453

Not even Brexit's biggest cheerleader could claim the discussions in Brussels have been going well. And there are visible frustrations on both sides.
But before claiming this morning's drama means the whole thing is doomed there are a few things worth remembering.
At the very start of this whole process, the hope was that in October, the EU would agree to move on to the next phase of the talks, to talk about our future relationship. But for months it has been clear that the chances of that were essentially zero.
It is not, therefore, a surprise to hear Mr Barnier saying right now, he doesn't feel able to press the button on phase 2, however much he enjoyed the drama of saying so today.
Second, behind the scenes, although it has been slow, there has been some progress in the talks but officials in some areas have reached the end of the line until their political masters give them permission to move on

As she correctly states, none of this is a surprise, the eu always said October was ambitious.

This seems to be quite an important point as well, so it may be that the posturing is on both sides of the table

Mr Barnier is understood to have asked the EU 27 last Friday if he can start exploring transition for that reason, but Germany is resisting. So in this area, it is a possible, and would be a positive outcome for the UK, if at next week's political summit, Barnier asks the 27 for formal permission to talk transition.

Thomas__

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

So now we have another red line to contend with. I guess we have to prepare for a hard border now. I don't see how any of the pronouncements will lead to anything but a border here on Ireland.

I do wonder, coming from a state that voted to stay in the EU, how the DUP can assert policies that are so against the people. I also wonder how she will keep the DUP relevant in the case of a hard Brexit and economic hardship in NI and it will all fall on her parties shoulders. She kept the Tories in power and she is going against what the people want in Northern Ireland. I suppose she will always have her voters that hate the other side, but those on the margins will surely start seeing the woods for the trees if things go wrong. This is one very high stakes gamble she has taken.

Indeed. Plus if/when Corbyn takes over, Britain will be a very cold place for unionism. I think their deal with the Tories is unionism's swansong in terms of power and ascendancy. The Tories have no interest in unionism anymore other than their 10 votes in parliament as they are too busy fighting for relevance in England with an aging electorate and trying to manage an impossible Brexit.

I can see NI becoming an economic wasteland with renewed sectarian violence once Britain abandons it. Best case scenario in that case would be that the EU takes responsibility for its governance.

That´s well put and I can only agree with you there. Just to add that the many of the DUPers refuse to realise that as they always have done so.

Thomas__

It appears to be all back to square one:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1012/911823-brexit-talks/

The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has said he will not be recommending to EU leaders at next week's summit that the talks can move to the future trading relationship between the UK and the European Union.

Speaking during a news conference ending the fifth round of Brexit negotiations in Brussels, Mr Barnier said there was still a deadlock on the three key issues, EU citizens’ rights, Britain's financial liabilities, and the border with Ireland.

This was the fifth round of negotiations, and with the cacophony of rancour and division in Westminster over Brexit almost audible in Brussels, few  anticipated any breakthrough.

But this isn´t all so far:

With regards to Ireland, Mr Barnier said: "This week we advanced on the joint principles on the continuation of the Common Travel Area and I welcome this.

"We continued our intensive work on mapping out areas of cooperation that operate on a North South basis on the island of Ireland.

"There is more work to do in order to build a full picture of the challenges to North-South cooperation resulting from the UK, and therefore Northern Ireland, leaving the EU legal framework.

"This is necessary in order to identify the solutions.

"This week, we agreed that the six principles proposed by the EU in September would guide our work on protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions."

The limbo situation is to be continued.

Thomas__

Sam Russell wrote: »

carrickbally wrote: »

Non verifiable e-voting is a recipe for the corruption of the election system in any democracy.

The blunt pencil and the bit of paper is there for all to see.

Non-verifiable e-voting is totally open to insider manipulation.

eVoting is not what we should have gone for but eCounting.

What Bitain needs is the abandon First past the Post as it give power to minority parties.  With STV
, the Tories would never get into power on their own, and so no Brexit.

The very reason for why they are so strong against any alteration of the electoral system cos that might cost them more seats and would give other political parties the chance to enter the Commons taking their seats. Just to imagine the UKIPers would had won more seats by another electoral system.

Sam Russell

Thomas__ wrote: »

The very reason for why they are so strong against any alteration of the electoral system cos that might cost them more seats and would give other political parties the chance to enter the Commons taking their seats. Just to imagine the UKIPers would had won more seats by another electoral system.

If the Tories or Labour were to agree to STV system of voting, both parties would immediately split since both are a combination of disparate ideologies. Labour have the Left Socialist side and the Workers Unions side. The Tories have the UKIP/Little Englanders and the 'One Nation' Tories.

If this were to happen, the UK would be subject to coalition governments for ever more.

Might be a shock to their system to have a bit of democracy in action. A real European solution to a British problem.

Zubeneschamali

Thomas__ wrote: »

Ithe Brits are wasting their time and the EU negotiators will just allow that to continue until the deadline is reached and afterwards it means "so long and thanks for nothing".

a) it is not in the EUs selfish interests to have the UK catch fire and sink into the ocean.

b) The EU is an old hand at kicking the can down the road rather than grasping the nettle.

View

blanch152 wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

I have no illusions whatsoever that the diehard DUPers and those Orangemen who support them will still vote for this nasty party come what may as long as they can "stay British". These types of Unionist bigots are quite fine with a hard border on the Island of Ireland as Long as they don´t live along that border themselves, but even some of those who live close to it, wouldn´t give much of a fiddlers when not bothered by traffic congestions on the check points which have to be installed. Otherwise one can´t run a real hard border anyway.

If you are to put it another way, you would say that the DUP are prepared to put the principle of Britishness above their own prosperity.

That is little different to those nationalists in the South who want unity tomorrow who are putting that principle above their own prosperity.

I don't agree with either position but they are entitled to their view.

The criticism of the DUP here is unreasonable. Whether or not you agree with them, they both want to be and are British. They therefore are prepared to take whatever comes as part of that nation, be that good or ill.

And while many here would criticise them, their position is in many ways similar to that of the people here in (the Republic of) Ireland who equally are prepared to take whatever comes as part of our nation, be that good or ill. I doubt anyone would be impressed with, let's say, the people of Munster, if they suddenly announced they were abandoning being Irish and instead wanted to be part of France or Spain because they had concluded they'd be more prosperous by doing so. 😀

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

a) it is not in the EUs selfish interests to have the UK catch fire and sink into the ocean.

b) The EU is an old hand at kicking the can down the road rather than grasping the nettle.

I think you can look at two examples of existential situations and look at how the EU dealt with them.

1. Ireland and the crash. EU offered help on their own terms which protected French and German banks. The terms were accepted by the Irish Gov and lead to austerity and the bank bailout. People were not bailed out.

2. Greece and their crash. The EU offered help on their terms which were rejected and no other help was offered. Greece held out, but their was no other offer so Greece had to accept austerity at a level that destroyed their economy. People were not bailed out.

So the UK want a settlement on their terms. Good luck with that.

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you can look at two examples of existential situations and look at how the EU dealt with them.

1. Ireland and the crash. EU offered help on their own terms .

2. Greece and their crash. The EU offered help on their terms

Exactly. Pulling the plug on a chaotic hard Brexit without a transition would be the equivalent of letting Ireland and Greece crash with no help - it would damage the whole EU.

So instead, they will first, give the process more time via the "implementation period" dodge, and second, they will offer help on their own terms to avoid the chaos.

It may be that the UK will choose a hard brexit, but if it helps the EU to give time for customs, immigration and so on to be ready, they will do it. Why shoot themselves in the foot?

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

The criticism of the DUP here is unreasonable. Whether or not you agree with them, they both want to be and are British. They therefore are prepared to take whatever comes as part of that nation, be that good or ill.

And while many here would criticise them, their position is in many ways similar to that of the people here in (the Republic of) Ireland who equally are prepared to take whatever comes as part of our nation, be that good or ill. I doubt anyone would be impressed with, let's say, the people of Munster, if they suddenly announced they were abandoning being Irish and instead wanted to be part of France or Spain because they had concluded they'd be more prosperous by doing so. 😀

The only reason the DUP are pro Brexit is because it is the opposite view to those who identify as Irish.
They will and have been trying to row back on that and appeal to the taxpayer in the UK to make up the shortfall that the north of Ireland is going to feel most.
They have been blinded once again and have undermined the status of the north.

Chips Lovell

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly. Pulling the plug on a chaotic hard Brexit without a transition would be the equivalent of letting Ireland and Greece crash with no help - it would damage the whole EU.

So instead, they will first, give the process more time via the "implementation period" dodge, and second, they will offer help on their own terms to avoid the chaos.

Except that the implementation period is tied to them agreeing the first three issues and they are not backing down from that demand. So far UK has shown zero ability to answer coherently to the question on how to do it in practice and another 2 years with the same party would not change that or get it closer to resolution.

It may be that the UK will choose a hard brexit, but if it helps the EU to give time for customs, immigration and so on to be ready, they will do it. Why shoot themselves in the foot?

Because EU will not compromise what EU is and stands for in the hope that UK will start acting as adults out of the blue and actually get **** done. If UK was showing steady progress on resolving the issues and needed 2 more years it would make sense; however UK is demanding that EU compromises on everything it stands for (access to the single market without freedom of movement, right to certify goods without being under ECJ jurisdiction, zero tariff trade with EU and the rest of the world at the same time etc.). That's simply not going to happen and it's a waste of EU time and money to extend it for two years which will have no effect in reality. Will it hurt EU? Sure; but a quick pain and done with allowing EU to move on and grow is better than a long drawn out divorce costing resources, money, time and effort that is better utilized somewhere else.

FrancieBrady

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

They aren't being singled out by anyone. Being the only pro Brexit party on this island, they have done that themselves.

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

The criticism of the DUP here is unreasonable. Whether or not you agree with them, they both want to be and are British. They therefore are prepared to take whatever comes as part of that nation, be that good or ill.

And while many here would criticise them, their position is in many ways similar to that of the people here in (the Republic of) Ireland who equally are prepared to take whatever comes as part of our nation, be that good or ill. I doubt anyone would be impressed with, let's say, the people of Munster, if they suddenly announced they were abandoning being Irish and instead wanted to be part of France or Spain because they had concluded they'd be more prosperous by doing so. 😀

The only reason the DUP are pro Brexit is because it is the opposite view to those who identify as Irish.
They will and have been trying to row back on that and appeal to the taxpayer in the UK to make up the shortfall that the north of Ireland is going to feel most.
They have been blinded once again and have undermined the status of the north.

The DUP have been hostile to the ECs/EU consistently throughout the decades. In fact, they were hostile to it when the two major UK parties were both (relatively) supportive of it. As such this isn't something new they have just developed.

Nor presumably would the DUP regard it as undermining the status of the north since they intend to leave with the rest of the UK, just as they would have stayed had the UK decided to Remain.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

Because 98% of the 'entire country' don't have a red line regarding a sea border.

Panrich

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

Aside from UKIP, they were the only political party to campaign for Brexit. That is why they are being singled out. They campaigned for this, but don't have a plan.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

Because EU will not compromise what EU is and stands for in the hope that UK will start acting as adults out of the blue and actually get **** done.

But the timing of Brexit is a UK priority, not an EU one. The EU would be happy if they never left, they have said this many times. So why pull the plug if the UK go right to the wire and then announce that they will accept current terms during the "implementation period" of 2 more years?

That's 2 more years for the EU to get set.

I am not suggesting that they will do this to help the UK, I am saying they will do it to help themselves.

Chips Lovell

Panrich wrote: »

Aside from UKIP, they were the only political party to campaign for Brexit. That is why they are being singled out. They campaigned for this, but don't have a plan.

Technically correct. But (at least) half the Conservative party was campaigning for it as well. None of them have a plan.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly. Pulling the plug on a chaotic hard Brexit without a transition would be the equivalent of letting Ireland and Greece crash with no help - it would damage the whole EU.<...>

But then, Ireland, Italy and Greece are €zone.

The UK is not.

I'd say that this not-so-insignificant difference is likely to mitigate the amount of momentum applied by the EU27 to the (brexiting UK-) can

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the timing of Brexit is a UK priority, not an EU one. The EU would be happy if they never left, they have said this many times. So why pull the plug if the UK go right to the wire and then announce that they will accept current terms during the "implementation period" of 2 more years?

Because for most of EU it's a side show and distraction at this stage that simply should be done with and moved on from as other items have much higher priority. All Brexit is now is a nuisance dealing with a partner behaving like a 4 year old in a candy store demanding they get everything. By pulling the plug at the date agreed they can draw a line under that story and move on focusing on EU fully. As I said if UK was behaving like adults your point would have merit but they are not so why waste your time?

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

a) it is not in the EUs selfish interests to have the UK catch fire and sink into the ocean.

b) The EU is an old hand at kicking the can down the road rather than grasping the nettle.

I think you can look at two examples of existential situations and look at how the EU dealt with them.

1. Ireland and the crash. EU offered help on their own terms which protected French and German banks. The terms were accepted by the Irish Gov and lead to austerity and the bank bailout. People were not bailed out.

This is wrong. Ireland had decided to bailout our banks before the Troika were called in. The monies used to do bailout the banks came from "Irish sources" - specifically "normal" pre-Troika government borrowing and the NPRF (with the latter being classified as part of the international "bailout" programme).

The money that the Troika loaned us did not go to the banks. Instead it was used to bridge the massive shortfall in our public finances and was spent by our government on "routine" government budget items such as the provision of our civil & public services etc. Austerity itself was the painful but necessary re-adjustments required to bring the state's tax receipts and expenditure into line with each other. Those Troika loans ameliorated but did not prevent that austerity and we would have had to endure much, much more painful austerity in the absence of those loans.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They aren't being singled out by anyone. Being the only pro Brexit party on this island, they have done that themselves.

didn't People Before Profit campaign for Brexit as well?

Sinn Fein aren't exactly "Pro" EU either and in fact, they didn't actually register to campaign either way in the referendum

Chips Lovell

A deal will be done but it'll be done at the last minute because any realistic agreement is going to be politically unpalatable for the Brexit-wing of the Conservative party.

It'll more than likely be "UK pays €Xbillion + mutual assurances on citizens rights + some kind of border fudge + UK staying in single market (with all that entails, such remaining under the ECJ) for Y number of years post-Exit while it sorts itself out."

Taking it down to the wire will minimise the window for dissent/mutiny.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

As I said if UK was behaving like adults your point would have merit but they are not so why waste your time?

My point is that it is not even a consideration how the UK is behaving. Were Greece behaving themselves? Were Ireland's finances models of German bookkeeping? No.

They did not help us because we were good citizens who needed help and played nice with the EU. They helped us on their own terms because not helping would be worse FOR THEM than helping.

Similarly, a chaotic Brexit will hurt the EU more than an orderly one. So they will allow more time for an orderly one.

And if it ends up that the UK never really leaves except in name, well, good.

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

This is wrong. Ireland had decided to bailout our banks before the Troika were called in. The monies used to do bailout the banks came from "Irish sources" - specifically "normal" pre-Troika government borrowing and the NPRF (with the latter being classified as part of the international "bailout" programme).

The money that the Troika loaned us did not go to the banks. Instead it was used to bridge the massive shortfall in our public finances and was spent by our government on "routine" government budget items such as the provision of our civil & public services etc. Austerity itself was the painful but necessary re-adjustments required to bring the state's tax receipts and expenditure into line with each other. Those Troika loans ameliorated but did not prevent that austerity and we would have had to endure much, much more painful austerity in the absence of those loans.

Brian Lenihan was prevented from burning the bond holders by the ECB - 'a bomb will go off in Dublin' or words to that effect. If Anglo had been collapsed when it was insolvent, the bond holders would have taken the hit and not the Irish Gov. It did not all happen in a weekend, and was played out in several acts - as any good tragedy.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

Because EU will not compromise what EU is and stands for in the hope that UK will start acting as adults out of the blue and actually get **** done.

But the timing of Brexit is a UK priority, not an EU one. The EU would be happy if they never left, they have said this many times. So why pull the plug if the UK go right to the wire and then announce that they will accept current terms during the "implementation period" of 2 more years?

That's 2 more years for the EU to get set.

I am not suggesting that they will do this to help the UK, I am saying they will do it to help themselves.

There is no reason for the EU to agree to a transition/implementation phase per se.

If the UK wants a "hardest of hard" Brexits then, from an EU perpective, there is nothing to transition to and the UK might as well jump off the economic cliff in 2019 as in 2021 or 2022.

It is only IF the UK outlines a post-exit scenario, such as EFTA/EEA membership, AND that scenario is judged by the EU member states to be in their (the EU member states' individual) interest that the issue of a transition deal arises since it would clearly be fairly stupid for all countries to put massive new physical customs installations in place on all trade to/from the UK in 2019 and then have them largely redundant in, let's say, 2020, after the UK became an EFTA/EEA member.

A Little Pony

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are being intransigent

Good.

The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result

She has changed tack completely because the referendum, held to marginalize the Tory Eurosceptics, backfired and strengthened the Eurosceptic wing of the party, and she had to change sides to get the top job.

If internal Tory party politics dictated that she should change back, announce Parliament is sovereign and hang the referendum result to stay at number 10, she would do so in a heartbeat.

That is just delusion of the highest order. Brexit is a foregone conclusion now. The aim is to get out of the single market and all the EU institutions, otherwise the vote was a waste and it would be the greatest betrayal of the 21st century. I make no apologies for my position on this. 

I am aware we have traitors in the government like Hammond and some backbenchers  like Anna Soubry but the result has to be respected. The majority of people who voted want Brexit and it absolutely must be delivered. Others will say this in a more politically correct way but I am just being honest about it, I want what I voted for and Brexit simply has to be delivered.

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

View wrote: »

This is wrong. Ireland had decided to bailout our banks before the Troika were called in. The monies used to do bailout the banks came from "Irish sources" - specifically "normal" pre-Troika government borrowing and the NPRF (with the latter being classified as part of the international "bailout" programme).

The money that the Troika loaned us did not go to the banks. Instead it was used to bridge the massive shortfall in our public finances and was spent by our government on "routine" government budget items such as the provision of our civil & public services etc. Austerity itself was the painful but necessary re-adjustments required to bring the state's tax receipts and expenditure into line with each other. Those Troika loans ameliorated but did not prevent that austerity and we would have had to endure much, much more painful austerity in the absence of those loans.

Brian Lenihan was prevented from burning the bond holders by the ECB - 'a bomb will go off in Dublin' or words to that effect. If Anglo had been collapsed when it was insolvent, the bond holders would have taken the hit and not the Irish Gov. It did not all happen in a weekend, and was played out in several acts - as any good tragedy.

By the time that particular piece of political theatre was played out, the primary institution that would have suffered would have been our Central Bank as it had given Anglo tons of loans (and on fairly questionable grounds). Understandably the ECB did not want any negative impact on a member (central) bank of the ESCBs since it would have negatively impacted the whole ESCB and would probably have left our Central Bank insolvent and in need of a bailout. That's not to say they prevented Lenihan doing so since he had the power to do so but obviously the ECB would not have rushed to help him to clean up the resulting mess.

A Little Pony

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

It is something my fellow Brexiteers argue against or feel almost insulted if this is mentioned. You can make a case for Brexit on other issues but self belonging was the crux of the whole thing and was for decades. I take pride in that nationalism and I don't see it as a shame at all. 

I am not European, I have no love for the EU flag, it means absolutely nothing to me, has always meant nothing. The EU couldn't have done anything to make the majority in the UK want to be part of the EU or love what it stands for. I simply disagree with the whole concept of the EU. 

Saying we will be worse off economically to begin with doesn't mean anything to me, it didn't drive my views on voting for it anyway and I couldn't care less.

View

A Little Pony wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are being intransigent

Good.

The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result

She has changed tack completely because the referendum, held to marginalize the Tory Eurosceptics, backfired and strengthened the Eurosceptic wing of the party, and she had to change sides to get the top job.

If internal Tory party politics dictated that she should change back, announce Parliament is sovereign and hang the referendum result to stay at number 10, she would do so in a heartbeat.

That is just delusion of the highest order. Brexit is a foregone conclusion now. The aim is to get out of the single market and all the EU institutions, otherwise the vote was a waste and it would be the greatest betrayal of the 21st century. I make no apologies for my position on this. 

I am aware we have traitors in the government like Hammond and some backbenchers  like Anna Soubry but the result has to be respected. The majority of people who voted want Brexit and it absolutely must be delivered. Others will say this in a more politically correct way but I am just being honest about it, I want what I voted for and Brexit simply has to be delivered.

No doubt, prior to last year's referendum, you were equally forthright in your condemnation as "traitors" of the government Ministers who over the decades betrayed the result of the '75 referendum, right?

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

If the UK wants a "hardest of hard" Brexits then, from an EU perpective, there is nothing to transition to and the UK might as well jump off the economic cliff in 2019 as in 2021 or 2022.

If they tell us now that they will do it in 2022, well a) we have more time to prepare, lessening the damage to us and b) maybe they will cop on, or Corbyn will get in, or some unforeseen movement spring up and save the day...

And nobody in the EU cares if they call it a transition period, an implementation period or more honestly, a delayed Brexit. That's a domestic problem for May, not something the EU cares about.

Zubeneschamali

A Little Pony wrote: »

The aim is to get out of the single market and all the EU institutions, otherwise the vote was a waste and it would be the greatest betrayal of the 21st century.

My point is that May would commit the greatest betrayal of the 21st century if it meant she got to stay in #10.

We already know it, she already betrayed her own principles and the best interests of the British people to get in there.

Zubeneschamali

A Little Pony wrote: »

I have no love for the EU flag, it means absolutely nothing to me, has always meant nothing.

I wish everyone felt that way about all flags.

Lemming

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not really sure why the DUP is being singled out. 52 percent of the entire country put British nationalism ahead of their own prosperity.

We're a page past this point but to correct you there BdC; 52% of those who voted put nationalism ahead of their own prosperity. That 52% was considerably less than 52% of the nation or even 52% of the voting populace of the nation.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

didn't People Before Profit campaign for Brexit as well?

Sinn Fein aren't exactly "Pro" EU either and in fact, they didn't actually register to campaign either way in the referendum

Oh yeah, forgot PBP

I have issues with the EU and there will always be issues with the EU. But advocating to leave it is an entirely different issue.

Professor Moriarty

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is just delusion of the highest order. Brexit is a foregone conclusion now. The aim is to get out of the single market and all the EU institutions, otherwise the vote was a waste and it would be the greatest betrayal of the 21st century. I make no apologies for my position on this. 

I am aware we have traitors in the government like Hammond and some backbenchers  like Anna Soubry but the result has to be respected. The majority of people who voted want Brexit and it absolutely must be delivered. Others will say this in a more politically correct way but I am just being honest about it, I want what I voted for and Brexit simply has to be delivered.

Can you outline the nature of the Brexit you voted for? Is the Brexit that you voted for the same as the Brexit other people voted for?

jm08

View wrote: »

The criticism of the DUP here is unreasonable. Whether or not you agree with them, they both want to be and are British. They therefore are prepared to take whatever comes as part of that nation, be that good or ill.

And while many here would criticise them, their position is in many ways similar to that of the people here in (the Republic of) Ireland who equally are prepared to take whatever comes as part of our nation, be that good or ill. I doubt anyone would be impressed with, let's say, the people of Munster, if they suddenly announced they were abandoning being Irish and instead wanted to be part of France or Spain because they had concluded they'd be more prosperous by doing so. &#55357;&#56832;

The people of NI voted to remain in the EU though, and if a similar situation happened in Ireland (an advisory referendum on EU membership), whether the Government of the day liked it or not, they would have to speak for what people voted for. I'd imagine if it was close as it was in the UK referendum, we'd think again as well.