Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

UK-US Open Skies talks hit Brexit turbulence.

FT report on the UK's discussions with the US regarding an aviation agreement for the UK, to replace the US/EU agreement that they will fall out of as a result of Brexit.

Long story short: the talks were cut short when the US offered the UK a lousier deal than the one they currently enjoy as EU members. The US offered a standard bilateral deal which would only benefit airlines that were 51% owned in either the UK or the US. This would exclude British Airways, which is owned by IAG, a Spanish company, and will also exclude Virgin Atlantic, if the proposed sale of a 30% stake to Air France./KLM goes ahead.

The UK also wants the US to extend to it the benefit of the EU agreement during the transition period from March 2019 to December 2020. The US hasn't agreed to this.

It's unthinkable that US-UK transatlantic flights would end; more than a third of transatlantic traffic is between the US and the UK. So there will be a deal, and what we are seeing at the moment is preliminary posturing. But the US do not seem minded to be as generous with the UK as they were with the EU, and they will undoubtedly use the UK's awkward circumstances to drive a tougher deal than the one the UK currently enjoys.

Enzokk

J Mysterio wrote: »

I'm pretty furious that May has flip flopped on the December Agreement. That deal was the ideal solution for Northern Ireland/ Ireland.

There is no surprise she has flopped on it. The UK Government were under severe pressure to move the talks onto phase 2, so they took what they got. What they got after reflection was EU customs union between NI and Ireland and they have been forced by the DUP to make this the same between NI and the mainland. Should we have expected anything less?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The thing is, May is still negotiating Brexit with the Tory party. Until those negotiations are resolved, she's not really in any position to do much serious negotiating with the EU. The EU have been unimpressed with what she came out with last week, but it wasn't really intended for their consumption.

If she was a stronger leader she would have staked out a path already. Her reputation is that she hides from tough situations. I think she has reacted the way she always has. She is hiding from making a tough decision and she is the reason why there is so little progress within her party. If Andrea Leadsom had been leader she would have probably barreled head first through the wall, but at least everyone would know where they stood.

I think she has gotten a lot of sympathy from commentators for the ability of keeping the party from not biting each others heads off. She has been successful with that but the main aim is not the appease everyone in the party, it is to negotiate the best deal for the UK. Which one will she be judged on when we look back?

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

. . . I think she has gotten a lot of sympathy from commentators for the ability of keeping the party from not biting each others heads off. She has been successful with that but the main aim is not the appease everyone in the party, it is to negotiate the best deal for the UK. Which one will she be judged on when we look back?

Oh, I don't think history is going to judge her kindly. She decided early on to encourage hard brexiters to think that they could have their cake and eat it, and she painted the UK into a position of seeking a much harder Brexit than the referendum result required. Then she called a disastrously-mistimed general election which fatally undercut her position within the party, leaving her unable to suppress the appetite for hard brexit that she had earlier fuelled , and simultaneously unable to deliver the kind of Brexit that she had encouraged people to expect.

Every possible mistake that she could make, she has made. Every opportunity to benefit her country, she has squandered. The only thing that stops her from being judged the worst living UK Prime Minister is the fact that David Cameron still draws breath.

Skedaddle

Peregrinus wrote: »

UK-US Open Skies talks hit Brexit turbulence.

FT report on the UK's discussions with the US regarding an aviation agreement for the UK, to replace the US/EU agreement that they will fall out of as a result of Brexit.

Long story short: the talks were cut short when the US offered the UK a lousier deal than the one they currently enjoy as EU members. The US offered a standard bilateral deal which would only benefit airlines that were 51% owned in either the UK or the US. This would exclude British Airways, which is owned by IAG, a Spanish company, and will also exclude Virgin Atlantic, if the proposed sale of a 30% stake to Air France./KLM goes ahead.

The UK also wants the US to extend to it the benefit of the EU agreement during the transition period from March 2019 to December 2020. The US hasn't agreed to this.

It's unthinkable that US-UK transatlantic flights would end; more than a third of transatlantic traffic is between the US and the UK. So there will be a deal, and what we are seeing at the moment is preliminary posturing. But the US do not seem minded to be as generous with the UK as they were with the EU, and they will undoubtedly use the UK's awkward circumstances to drive a tougher deal than the one the UK currently enjoys.

A lot will change on that, as the UK will no longer be a gateway to Europe.

However I have no idea why the Tories persist in this notion that the USA owes them a special deal. The special relationship they're always talking about seems to be unknown on the USA. I've honestly never seen any evidence of it in US domestic politics.

You're also looking at a US administration that's promising tough replacements for trade deals and to use all of its leverage to achieve"America First".
Brexit just means that they can unpick existing trade deals and renegotiate with this new Trump inspired philosophy.

Sam Russell

Skedaddle wrote: »

However I have no idea why the Tories persist in this notion that the USA owes them a special deal. The special relationship they're always talking about seems to be unknown on the USA. I've honestly never seen any evidence of it in US domestic politics.

I think that their special relationship with the USA is like the wealthy person who has fallen on hard times who has a 'special' relationship with the porn broker who gives him a 'good' price for a few more pieces of the family silver.

Would many countries still be going on with a minority government and an opposition completely in opposition? Surely a grand coalition or whatever would have been the sensible idea? Between Labour and the Tories there should be enough cop-on to get the votes to go a sensible path in the negotiations. I supppose party loyalty often trumps national loyalty.

Skedaddle

I think it's more that the UK (well England) just has a very overinflated self-image.

Britian really doesn't feature at all in US political debate.

They've had a few eras where the British and American military needs have aligned, but I'm not really seeing much evidence of that being acknowledged in American politics other than at a very superficial level during diplomacy.

I've found a lot of Americans not all that warm towards the UK. They find the accent and traditional royalty stuff quirky and interesting and they're aware of some of the pop culture. However, my experience of Americans dealing with British culture head on in business contexts is they often see the British as snooty and cold. Why so you think they regularly cast nasty characters in movies with upper class British accents?

British (more so southern English) language is also often very indirect and doesn't get to the point. That tends to cause American business type to react badly. They're not really into burying things in politeness and see if as tricky or indecisive.

Then you've also got to factor in American history. They do still celebrate having beaten the British and gained their independence...

It's a complex relationship but I think you would be kidding yourself to think that most of them spend more than a few seconds thinking about the UK. I would doubt that most US politicians even know what Brexit is.

Trump's even prepared to go into trade wars with their closest and probably friendliest neighbour, Canada. So I think the UK is really in for a harsh dose of reality in these talks.

For example, why would the USA undermine Wall Street to facilitate London? It just doesn't make sense. What are they offering in return ? Access to a midsized market that they'll already have access to anyway?

It's also not like the UK needs to be bought keep it on side militarily. It does that all by itself out of blind one way loyalty and alignment of ideologies.

Also Trump is all about retreating to the domestic economy and withdrawing America from the world. The UK's problems are its own. He simply won't really care. He'll say nice things but, that's as far as it goes as there's no domestic drivers for it at all.

Peregrinus

The "special relationship" is mainly reflected in defence and intelligence co-operation. There isn't a huge public consciousness in the US of the UK/UK "special relationship"; those who have heard of it understand it to be mainly a military/intelligence relationship, which it is.

It has never really been manifested as the UK getting sweet deals, economically speaking, from the US, and Brexiters who fancy that it will be reflected in that way now delude themselves in this, as in so much else. There are strong economic links between the US and the UK, but these are mainly attributable to shared language, shared legal system and shared business culture. These factors are not going to become any stronger after Brexit. No US administration was ever likely to do favourable deals with the UK in order to shield the UK from the consequences of Brexit, and the present US administration certainly will not. The UK's problems resulting from Brexit will be seen as creating opportunities for the US, not as something the US is expected to solve.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Would many countries still be going on with a minority government and an opposition completely in opposition? Surely a grand coalition or whatever would have been the sensible idea? Between Labour and the Tories there should be enough cop-on to get the votes to go a sensible path in the negotiations. I supppose party loyalty often trumps national loyalty.

In the British tradition, a "grand coalition" is something that only finds favour when the kingdom is facing an existential threat, as in 1939-45. And of course Brexiters would never accept that their cherished policy consyitutes an existential threat to the country, so they would never participate in such a coalition.

Skedaddle

The other big factor is the US will very likely shift back to a Democrat dominated house very soon and could well have a Democrat in the presidency in 3 years time.

The typical view in the Democratic party wouldn't be very warm to Brexit.

Also they would want to be a little careful about the Irish American interests in avoiding a Northern Ireland mess. Domestic politics aside, Irish Americans on both sides of the house will tend to all agree on wanting a peaceful solution to that and actually not many Irish Americans are overly warm towards British establishment types messing up Irish stuff. They can be far more hard-line nationalist/republican (in the Irish context) than people in the Republic of Ireland are and tend to have a very binary view is the situation in the North.

You'd be playing with US domestic politics if you inflame the Irish American population. It's not a distinct political lobby that is on one side of the house, but they're scattered across the whole spectrum.

Trump's cabinet is also very Irish American dominated. It's just the conservative, right wing catholic aspect of Irish American culture as opposed to the Kennedy like social democratic element that we tend to prefer to be associated with. They’re still Irish though and will have quite a nostalgia for the old sod.

The U.K. may well have a lot of military and intelligence interdependencies but in general I think Ireland has a lot of just straight forwards familial connections to the US in a way that they tend to underestimate.

In fact, I think an element in the UK seems to not understand that Ireland has a life beyond the UK relationship and that we actually have other markets, strong and long established, friendly diplomatic relations with continental countries etc etc. I’ve spoken to people in England who assumed for example that we would have no transatlantic flights if we didn’t have access to London airports. They seem to still see us as a quasi UK region, not an independent country.

They’ve also generally have an amazingly poor understanding of Irish history which isn’t helping either. Particularly when you’ve people very naively suggesting things like a British-Irish Union ?!!? You might as well be suggesting the UK hands itself back to the

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

So what's the point in trying to buy yourself time if all you're doing is deferring the agony?

Every day of time she buys is another day in #10 Downing Street as PM. That's all this is about.

Leroy42

In terms of the US/UK relationship, I think one area that we might be underestimating is just how much on a thorn the EU is to the US.

Having the UK outside it, and potentially prosper, would be a major headache to the EU and potentially lead to a significant reduction in its strength (the UK leaving is undoubtedly making the EU weaker).

So it might be in the longer-term interest for the US, at least under the line, to be helping the UK out.

Skedaddle

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the British tradition, a "grand coalition" is something that only finds favour when the kingdom is facing an existential threat, as in 1939-45. And of course Brexiters would never accept that their cherished policy consyitutes an existential threat to the country, so they would never participate in such a coalition.

British politics is also very different to what we are used to in the Dail.

The PR-STV voting system tends to bring about consensus building politics here. I mean, I know we like to bash the Dail and Irish politics but at the same time it’s a very stable and sensible kind of a system that has evolved a lot since the days when FF could manage to find a majority.

Most of our legislation tends to start life and be tweaked in committees that are entirely cross party. Decisions require building a big consensus in the Dail and we have a lot of odd systems in the background like social partnership, participative democracy attempts like the citizens’ assembly and so on.

Almost all politicians here in all parties, even the fringes of the left, are very pragmatic and willing to negotiate positions and influence where the Centre is.

Uk politics is very much still a tribal system of two big parties that hate each other and that have origins in class and ideological divides.

Then you’ve the little, more pragmatic Lib Dems who are just ignored.

Meanwhile NI runs in its own parallel universe, yet in the same parliament, voting for small parties and Scotland is increasingly going that way too.

So while a coalition seems obvious to us and probably the Germans and the Dutch and most of Northern Europe. It’s an alien concept in Westminster

Call me Al

Skedaddle wrote: »

.....

In fact, I think an element in the UK seems to not understand that Ireland has a life beyond the UK relationship and that we actually have other markets, strong and long established, friendly diplomatic relations with continental countries etc etc. I’ve spoken to people in England who assumed for example that we would have no transatlantic flights if we didn’t have access to London airports. They seem to still see us as a quasi UK region, not an independent country.

They’ve also generally have an amazingly poor understanding of Irish history which isn’t helping either. Particularly when you’ve people very naively suggesting things like a British-Irish Union ?!!? You might as well be suggesting the UK hands itself back to the

I don't know if you listened to John Major's speech and subsequent q&A session last week.

There was an audible gasp and muttering amongst those in attendance when he pointedly explained that the UK had more trade with the Rep of Ireland than Australia India Argentina and (I think*) South Korea combined. And he explained that geographically it was always going to be easier to trade with those closest to you.

He wasn't addressing the great unwashed public audience who might be forgiven for not knowing better. These were journalists and vested interests who should be aware of significant details like this. It should be bread and butter stuff for them.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, I don't think history is going to judge her kindly. She decided early on to encourage hard brexiters to think that they could have their cake and eat it, and she painted the UK into a position of seeking a much harder Brexit than the referendum result required. Then she called a disastrously-mistimed general election which fatally undercut her position within the party, leaving her unable to suppress the appetite for hard brexit that she had earlier fuelled , and simultaneously unable to deliver the kind of Brexit that she had encouraged people to expect.

Every possible mistake that she could make, she has made. Every opportunity to benefit her country, she has squandered. The only thing that stops her from being judged the worst living UK Prime Minister is the fact that David Cameron still draws breath.

Agrre totally except for last sentence.

She's easily worse than Cameron. Yes, Cameron made a lot of mistakes and misteps, towed the US line, granted a referendum etc. but you knew what he stood for and he was generally a decent and straightforward person. May is a chameleon who appears not to have a personality or personal view - hence 'Maybot'. She has shown 0 leadership ability. Her party has basically been in open revolt for two years and she has done nothing about it. She is leading the UK into obscurity.

Skedaddle

It's really surprising how little they know about most things. When you consider that cutting the UK off from the Irish market is the equivalent of removing a large, pretty wealthy, English region from the British economy. We are one of the only export destinations for a lot of UK manufactured good, particularly in the food/drinks sector and many of those can be replaced by Irish or continental similar products.

It will cost jobs in England and quite a lot of them are in manufacturing, distribution and so on.

What's frightening is that UK politicians are willing to pluck figures out of the air and twist statistics to suit an agenda.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42223732

You can have a political debate about the pros and cons of Brexit, but you need to be able to have that debate in the context of reality and facts and not just ill-informed opinions.

Zubeneschamali

Skedaddle wrote: »

You can have a political debate about the pros and cons of Brexit, but you need to be able to have that debate in the context of reality and facts and not just ill-informed opinions.

I don't agree. Brexit is not about reality and facts and money and trade.

It is about freedom, independence, sovereignty, nationality, country and patriotism: emotional values.

The British public have been told that it will cost them money and jobs, and when asked, they say even if it costs money and jobs it will be worth it.

All of the Remainers lecturing them about GDP and inflation are wasting their breath. Negotiations going badly with the UK, Project Fear's predictions coming true, everyone yelling "We told you so, you idiots!" - all these simply reinforce these emotional reasons for Brexit.

trellheim

Yesterdays Hansard is now up - UKPM discussing Brexit in the context of briefing the House of Commons. I recommend serious contributors here read the full thing to get the actual update
the quote below is only Theresa May's first response ; NI comes up several times.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-03-05/debates/2F58E7E5-EEF6-4B6D-9C04-6DDF431F1D9F/UKEUFutureEconomicPartnership

3.34 pm

The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Share this contribution
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on our future economic partnership with the European Union.

In December we agreed the key elements of our departure from the EU, and we are turning that agreement into draft legal text. We have made clear our concerns about the first draft that the Commission published last week, but no one should doubt our commitment to the entirety of the joint report. We are close to agreement on the terms of a time-limited implementation period to give Governments, businesses and citizens on both sides time to prepare for our new relationship, and I am confident that we can resolve our remaining differences in the days ahead. Now we must focus on our future relationship: a new relationship that respects the result of the referendum, provides an enduring solution, protects people’s jobs and security, is consistent with the kind of country that we want to be, and strengthens our union of nations and people. Those are the five tests for the deal that we will negotiate.

There are also some hard facts for both sides. First, we are leaving the single market. [Interruption.] In certain ways, our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now. We need to strike a new balance. However, we will not accept the rights of Canada and the obligations of Norway.

Secondly, even after we have left, EU law and ECJ decisions will continue to affect us. The European Court of Justice determines whether agreements that the EU has struck are legal under the EU’s own law. If, as part of our future partnership, Parliament passes a law that is identical to an EU law, it may make sense for our courts to look at the appropriate ECJ judgments so that we both interpret those laws consistently—[Interruption] —as they do for the appropriate jurisprudence of other countries’ courts. However, the agreement that we reach must respect the sovereignty of both our legal orders. That means that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the United Kingdom will end. It also means that the ultimate arbiter of disputes about our future partnership cannot be the court of either party.

Thirdly, if we want good access to each other’s markets, it has to be on fair terms. As with any trade agreement, we must accept the need for binding commitments, so we may choose to commit some areas of our regulations, such as state aid and competition, to remaining in step with the EU’s.

Finally, we must resolve the tensions between some of our objectives. We want the freedom to negotiate trade agreements around the world. We want control of our laws. We also want as frictionless a border as possible with the EU, so that we do not damage the integrated supply chains on which our industries depend, and do not have—[Interruption.]

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

So it might be in the longer-term interest for the US, at least under the line, to be helping the UK out.

Good thing they have Trump as president then because that will never happen as long as he's in power. Even if he thought of doing it he'd be distracted by another Fox news piece to tweet about instead.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

In terms of the US/UK relationship, I think one area that we might be underestimating is just how much on a thorn the EU is to the US.

Having the UK outside it, and potentially prosper, would be a major headache to the EU and potentially lead to a significant reduction in its strength (the UK leaving is undoubtedly making the EU weaker).

So it might be in the longer-term interest for the US, at least under the line, to be helping the UK out.

Going by the current US negotiating strategy they seem to be trying to screw the UK as much as possible, they have offered a far worse open skies agreement than the EU and are trying to get them to sell off their cultural brands like pasties and scotch etc so the US can invade the UK with cheap knock off versions

Water John

That's a copy and paste from her speech the other day. Probably just reading it, into the Record of the House.

Not sure do TM's words mean anything, any more. Just watch the action and direction.

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

Good thing they have Trump as president then.

Its not really relevant. Trump will be POTUS for 7 more years at most, this is a longer term view.

But even in the context of Trump being POTUS, I actually see that as more of a threat. Clearly, Trump sees US being a loser on trade, and whilst he has taken aim primarily on Mexico and Canada, there is no doubt that he holds the same view to the EU.

Having the UK on his side would make perfect sense and give them even more power to tackle the EU. It would therefore make sense to help out the EU.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

That's a copy and paste from her speech the other day. Probably just reading it, into the Record of the House.

Not sure do TM's words mean anything, any more. Just watch the action and direction.

I watched some of that from the House yesterday. There was almost a gleefulness that the UK had finally put the EU back in its box. May have delivered and all would be well.

At times it is quite surreal.

Particularly when May was asked about the border and she gave the example of the US/Canada border, to which the the response came that that was policed by guard dogs,armed patrols and physical barrier. Hardly what they are going for? ( this has been discussed already in the thread, only mentioning it in terms of the nature of the 'debate' in the House)

trellheim

That's a copy and paste from her speech the other day. Probably just reading it, into the Record of the House.

The questions and answers that follow are what matter.

J Mysterio

Barnier's chief adviser rejects May's 'mutual recognition' plan.

"Mr de Rynck said in a lecture at LSE on Monday: “The EU has moved away in the wake of the financial crisis from mutual recognition of national standards to a centralised approach with a single EU rule book and common enforcement structures and single supervisory structures.

“If you are in a very integrated market but you don't have the joint enforcement structures then you can see the potential for all kinds of difficulties"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-michel-barnier-stefaan-de-rynck-trade-deal-mansion-house-speech-response-a8241646.html

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Every day of time she buys is another day in #10 Downing Street as PM. That's all this is about.

Being PM must be really, really, really good, in that case.

But if, as the other posters say, May is trying to quell infighting among her party members, it can't actually be that good. There appears to be a schism within the Conservative party that is irreconcilable for the next couple of years until Brexit is done and politicians just accept it as the playing field the UK is then on.

Inquitus

briany wrote: »

Being PM must be really, really, really good, in that case.

But if, as the other posters say, May is trying to quell infighting among her party members, it can't actually be that good. There appears to be a schism within the Conservative party that is irreconcilable for the next couple of years until Brexit is done and politicians just accept it as the playing field the UK is then on.

Yep the election where she threw away her majority hasn't helped, but even if she had won that with an increased majority, I am still not sure what her Brexit vision would be, is she more hard Brexit because of that failure and her inability to deal with that wing of her party, or was she always hard Brexit anyway?

ancapailldorcha

Inquitus wrote: »

Yep the election where she threw away her majority hasn't helped, but even if she had won that with an increased majority, I am still not sure what her Brexit vision would be, is she more hard Nrexit because of that failure and her inability to deal with that wing of her party, or was she always hard Brexit anyway?

She seems to be obsessed with controlling immigration and expanding state surveillance. I don't see much enthusiasm nor antipathy from her for trade. She gave one speech in favour of remain and couldn't even do that without shoehorning in her absurd "tens of thousands" target for immigration.

I think the point of calling an election was to win a better majority. She should really have been able to clear 400 seats given the open goal she had. This would have freed her from the fetters imposed on her by the Brexiteers in her cabinet and her party. She fouled that up and so now must pay the DUP and keep them sweet, a party that something fewer than 1% of the electorate voted for.

Leroy42

I'm not so sure. i think the massive majority that she, and many, expected, would have been used not to free her from the Brexiteers, but rather from the remainers. She would not have to worry about Labour, or the sniping from the SNP.

Ever since she was elected party leader, and thus PM, she has been very pro Brexit. She has never, until Friday, hinted that she was looking for or even believed in a soft brexit.

briany

Inquitus wrote: »

Yep the election where she threw away her majority hasn't helped, but even if she had won that with an increased majority, I am still not sure what her Brexit vision would be, is she more hard Nrexit because of that failure and her inability to deal with that wing of her party, or was she always hard Brexit anyway?

All I know is that Theresa May was on the Remain campaign, so this immediately calls into question the motivations for, and sincerity of, her current rhetoric. Perhaps she's a politician who doesn't have any hard and fast views on anything and just aligns herself to whatever gives the most promise of power. So, she was initially Remain because that's the way the UK looked to be going, and now she's Brexit because that's the way it's going now.

But what's interesting is that before the Brexit vote the declared stance of Con MPs was 185 Remain to 135 Leave, and I wonder how many of those have truly changed their position. If it's really a case that there is still a silent majority of Remain in the Con camp, maybe they should stick their head up a bit more. Yes, it might lead to them having their picture up in the DM some day with a headline like 'Traitor' under it, and they may even lose their seat in the next GE. I have a feeling the way this whole thing is going, a whole of Cons will be losing their seats anyway.

Hurrache

The French Ambassador doing a bit of PR for a frictionless border today posting a series of tweets about his travels around the border area

https://twitter.com/stephanecrouzat

https://twitter.com/stephanecrouzat/status/970978046848233472

Havockk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

She seems to be obsessed with controlling immigration and expanding state surveillance.

I wonder will there be more protests and angry citizens when the porn filter kicks in soon enough.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not so sure. i think the massive majority that she, and many, expected, would have been used not to free her from the Brexiteers, but rather from the remainers. She would not have to worry about Labour, or the sniping from the SNP.

Ever since she was elected party leader, and thus PM, she has been very pro Brexit. She has never, until Friday, hinted that she was looking for or even believed in a soft brexit.

I don't know. If she were ever to so much as suggest that Brexit might not lead to a land of milk and honey, she would be eviscerated by the rightwing press. The residents of English hamlets in the southeast would still vote for her but they'd lose the North and Scotland forever. If Labour had a more centrist leader, there's no way she'd still be in government though there is the fact that Brexit frees her from the ECHR, the ECJ and free movement so she probably does see some positives.

Skedaddle

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't agree. Brexit is not about reality and facts and money and trade.

It is about freedom, independence, sovereignty, nationality, country and patriotism: emotional values.

The British public have been told that it will cost them money and jobs, and when asked, they say even if it costs money and jobs it will be worth it.

All of the Remainers lecturing them about GDP and inflation are wasting their breath. Negotiations going badly with the UK, Project Fear's predictions coming true, everyone yelling "We told you so, you idiots!" - all these simply reinforce these emotional reasons for Brexit.

Some of it is.
I was told by several UK leave campaigners before the referendum that of “of course we aren’t leaving the common market, just the EU”

I’ve also been hearing about economic opportunities that apparently the UK is going to have outside the EU that it didn’t have inside it. All these trade deals that are somehow going to be on better terms.

Also all that EU money that’s going to be diverted into the NHS.

For some it’s emotional for some they bought into an argument that they were better off out than in.

J Mysterio

Fintan O'Toole destroys UK approach to the border in todays Irish Times.

Specifically that the UK already badly failed their own internal e-border experiment - overspending by 100's of millions and going way over time.

Also rubbishes Trusted Trader scheme etc.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-british-can-t-deliver-promises-of-frictionless-trade-1.3415561?mode=amp

Hurrache

O'Toole has been playing a blinder on Brexit, destroying all Brexit arguments across a number of different media publications.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

There appears to be a schism within the Conservative party that is irreconcilable for the next couple of years until Brexit is done and politicians just accept it as the playing field the UK is then on.

Brexit will never be done. The Rejoin campaign will start the day Brexit happens, if it ever happens.

Skedaddle

Even the concept of “trusted traders” is very anticompetitive practice.

Who will decide they’re trusted?
Why?
What are the criteria?

Will that mean all cross border business is dominated by a handful of companies? Probably.

Is there room for massive corruption, cronyism and favoritism : definitely?

How will this scheme be regulated ? No idea!
How is it remotely compatible with EU competition law or even the principles of fairness : it’s not.

Also it would undermine thousands of Irish and uk SMEs and micro businesses.

lapua20grain

J Mysterio wrote: »

Fintan O'Toole destroys UK approach to the border in todays Irish Times.

Specifically that the UK already badly failed their own internal e-border experiment - overspending by 100's of millions and going way over time.

Also rubbishes Trusted Trader scheme etc.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-british-can-t-deliver-promises-of-frictionless-trade-1.3415561?mode=amp

Good article, I work for a UK company with a branch in Ireland and asked the question around what their strategy was if there was no deal and the response was that they have not thought about it but will see what happens and the economy has flourished since they voted to leave so they will be fine. I have also spoken to people I know in the UK and they say the same that their employers have taken the wait and see approach which I am flabbergasted at.

Skedaddle

A lot of businesses aren’t very strategic about macro issues and just think quarter to quarter.

They’ll react in a panic if they have a problem.

A lot of companies also fail to upgrade IT systems because they don’t understand the risk and then end up in massive hacks and data protection breeches.

I think this is similar mentality stuff.

You have to also remember that unlike this thread, most people in the UK have Brexit fatigue by now and think it will all just be fine.

You also can’t plan for something that has no facts! That’s what’s really really going to damage businesses.

Also I would doubt that most companies have assigned a Brexit Startegy Manager. Until you’ve someone responsible for a strategy, it doesn’t get taken seriously.

For a lot of companies is probably too late anyway at this stage. If there's a crash out they won't be able to react in time.

Zubeneschamali

Skedaddle wrote: »

You have to also remember that unlike this thread, most people in the UK have Brexit fatigue by now and think it will all just be fine.

I think a lot of business people think that the Government are too sensible to actually jump off a cliff, and that some fudge/compromise will be found to keep trade going.

I hope they are right.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. If she were ever to so much as suggest that Brexit might not lead to a land of milk and honey, she would be eviscerated by the rightwing press. The residents of English hamlets in the southeast would still vote for her but they'd lose the North and Scotland forever. If Labour had a more centrist leader, there's no way she'd still be in government though there is the fact that Brexit frees her from the ECHR, the ECJ and free movement so she probably does see some positives.

I will never understand what Labour were thinking electing corbyn, if they had gone centrist they would have won in a landslide, the constant push to the extremes of either political idealogy hurts everyone

briany

Skedaddle wrote: »

You have to also remember that unlike this thread, most people in the UK have Brexit fatigue by now and think it will all just be fine.

It might all be fine for the average working class or lower-middle-class Brexiteer. It depends on how you define 'fine', I suppose. If you're from a socioeconomically deprived part of the UK, it might be a case of 'How much worse can it get? And at least we're out."

It reminds me of that Bill Hicks bit about listening to CNN going, "WAR! FAMINE! DEATH! AIDS!", and him sticking his out the window and just hearing crickets chirping. If you've got a lot of news foretelling of major economic strife in the UK over Brexit, there's still a gulf between that talk and convincing a Brexit voter how that translates into a downturn for them when their definition of 'fine' was pretty modest to begin with.

Havockk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think a lot of business people think that the Government are too sensible to actually jump off a cliff, and that some fudge/compromise will be found to keep trade going.

I hope they are right.

If anyone thinks that, they just have not been paying attention.

ancapailldorcha

VinLieger wrote: »

I will never understand what Labour were thinking electing corbyn, if they had gone centrist they would have won in a landslide, the constant push to the extremes of either political idealogy hurts everyone

It does but people seem to be fed up of the status quo. While the victories have gone to the far right, the far left has seen some benefit as well. Meanwhile, moderates come out with uninspiring things like trimming tuition fees which pale in comparison to the idea that they should be abolished.

LuckyLloyd

VinLieger wrote: »

I will never understand what Labour were thinking electing corbyn, if they had gone centrist they would have won in a landslide, the constant push to the extremes of either political idealogy hurts everyone

What's the point in winning if you don't get the policies you want? 40.0% of the public voted for his manifesto, 40.7% voted for Blair in 2001.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It does but people seem to be fed up of the status quo. While the victories have gone to the far right, the far left has seen some benefit as well. Meanwhile, moderates come out with uninspiring things like trimming tuition fees which pale in comparison to the idea that they should be abolished.

At least Corbyn appears to stand for something. The previous Labour leader, Ed Milliband, was about as inspiring as a wet tea towel.

Inquitus

VinLieger wrote: »

I will never understand what Labour were thinking electing corbyn, if they had gone centrist they would have won in a landslide, the constant push to the extremes of either political idealogy hurts everyone

That's the problem with a 2 party system, we have far right and far left in the UK and nothing of substance that people could vote for in the middle. Labour's own fault for how they decide to choose their leader, sadly. The Tory system is actually a lot better in that regard.

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

At least Corbyn appears to stand for something. The previous Labour leader, Ed Milliband, was about as inspiring as a wet tea towel.

Right but he'd be a much more palatable choice than far left Corbyn. Recall that both Tony Blair and David Cameron won elections by moving to the centre. Now, both main parties have headed for the fringes.

Sam Russell

VinLieger wrote: »

I will never understand what Labour were thinking electing corbyn, if they had gone centrist they would have won in a landslide, the constant push to the extremes of either political idealogy hurts everyone

I think there may have been a few Tories that joined the Labour Party for £3 to be able to vote for Jezza in the hope that if he were elected, it would do serious harm the LP for a generation.

After all, the LP did themselves quite a bit of harm previously by voting in the wrong Millieband brother.

But sometimes, the wrong thing might turn out to be the right thing in the end - maybe a bit of left wing action might correct a few things that need correcting.