Brexit discussion thread III

Harika

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

Yeah that it is the exact dilemma of Brexit. UK and EU will be worse off after Brexit, whatever the outcome will be. And the UK playbook was from the beginning to divide the EU and then get the best deal out, from the pressure of within the EU. This hasn’t happened. All the industries have not changed each countries stance toward Brexit. 12 months in, and the EU front is still standing, a big problem for the UK.

For the EU, there is one way to lessen the impact of Brexit, and that is throwing all their red lines over board and basically agreeing that the UK stops paying a membership fee, has full access to customs union and the single market, gets transfer payments out of the budget and everything else. That will work short term fine, until the first country decides that Brexit was a great idea and exits on the same terms UK was given. This means the end of the EU and we are back to 50 years ago.

Does that clear why there are those red lines from the EU?

flatty

Honestly, if I were the eu, I would look at doing exactly this, BUT, I would make it a major irritant to the great British public on a personal level, ensuring long queues at every tourist border, sitting back and watching the roaming charges go through the roof, and generally demonstrating at every turn the non commercial benefits of the EU.
That way there would be no collateral damage, the brexity population will atrophy, and the younger people will be far more likely to rejoin lock stock and barrel. It's the small steady things that make the EU great, that and the sense of place and solidarity.
This phoney war is being waged on the wrong terms. The EU needs to step back, and work on positive PR aiming for complete UK integration in 20 or 30 years, with no opt outs.
That's what I think anyway.
May, Boris Davies gove and their ilk will soon enough be gone and forgotten.
The next generation should be led to water gently, not whipped.
It'd stick in everyone's craw, the triumphant braying, but a couple of hours in a sweltering airport queue every time they want to go on holidays, and a hundred quid extra in flight tax, and a weak currency would slowly squeeze the calves rather then dragging the reins.
Won't happen though. Too much pride at stake.
I think the EU is a sense of purpose rather than an economic stick.

flatty

I'd add that the red lines are teresa mays, and teresa mays only.

Would that not play into the hands of the tabloids narrative of an evil EU?

Denying the British the benefits of the EU should be enough, there is no reason to punish them. It would also be harder to agree amongst the 27 if say the costs of the lost holidays were to be disproportionately felt by the Spanish or whoever.

flatty

Deleted User wrote: »

Would that not play into the hands of the tabloids narrative of an evil EU?

Denying the British the benefits of the EU should be enough, there is no reason to punish them. It would also be harder to agree amongst the 27 if say the costs of the lost holidays were to be disproportionately felt by the Spanish or whoever.

I'd put it the other way. I would not be draconian on market access, as this has been thrust upon the population by elderly bigots who are largely well pensioned and housed, and by the tory right and Labour left for widely differing reasons.
Once these atrophy, which they will, with a well managed plan from the eu, and new leadership in the UK, rejoining the eu in totality, with no opt outs, should be the aim.
The eu can demonstrate its benefits both on a national level meantime, through pr, and on an individual level by making things a bit less easy for individual travellers.
It won't happen for a variety of reasons, but I think the eu could bypass the demonisers easily enough here. At the minute, it's benefits are still too abstract. Two hours in a prefab in benidorm would perhaps be a better demonstration.
I don't think they need to get in a beggar thy neighbour tit for tat, though I absolutely accept that this has been 100% provoked and perpetuated by the tory right, the British media oligarchy, and the xenophobia predominant amongst a disproportionately elderly swathe of baby boomer insulated bigots.

demfad

flatty wrote: »

I'd put it the other way. I would not be draconian on market access, as this has been thrust upon the population by elderly bigots who are largely well pensioned and housed, and by the tory right and Labour left for widely differing reasons.
Once these atrophy, which they will, with a well managed plan from the eu, and new leadership in the UK, rejoining the eu in totality, with no opt outs, should be the aim.
The eu can demonstrate its benefits both on a national level meantime, through pr, and on an individual level by making things a bit less easy for individual travellers.
It won't happen for a variety of reasons, but I think the eu could bypass the demonisers easily enough here. At the minute, it's benefits are still too abstract. Two hours in a prefab in benidorm would perhaps be a better demonstration.
I don't think they need to get in a beggar thy neighbour tit for tat, though I absolutely accept that this has been 100% provoked and perpetuated by the tory right, the British media oligarchy, and the xenophobia predominant amongst a disproportionately elderly swathe of baby boomer insulated bigots.

I have a feeling that if they actually leave: the transition will end up being a transition to rejoin.

Tropheus

demfad wrote: »

I have a feeling that if they actually leave: the transition will end up being a transition to rejoin.

If they leave and want to re-join in the future, adopting the Euro will be firmly on the table.

Capt'n Midnight

trellheim wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. We will be worse off when they leave. Lets try and mitigate that.

Our mitigation started with the ERSI report on Brexit in November 2015. I don't believe the UK have published anything substantially better than this yet https://www.esri.ie/pubs/RS48.pdf




Yes we will be worse off if the UK leave. 7% worse off by 2030.

Last year our economy grew by a headline figure of 7.8%

In the grand scheme of things Brexit may be no more than a speed bump for us.

sink

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes we will be worse off if the UK leave. 7% worse off by 2030.

Last year our economy grew by a headline figure of 7.8%

In the grand scheme of things Brexit may be no more than a speed bump for us.

The financial services, technology and pharmaceutical industries are likely keep expanding and may even see benefits through relocation of UK firms and elimination of UK competition within the single market.

However the agri-food industry is likely to be hit exceptionally hard, as they're geared toward consumer demands of the UK market. Staple goods such as cheddar don't have developed alternative markets to switch to and production can't easily be switched to producing goods with greater consumer demand in continental markets.

Agri-food jobs are of course concentrated in rural areas which have already seen relative economic decline for decades. Brexit will exacerbate this decline. People who loose their jobs in rural areas will not find local alternatives easily and will force them to move to urban areas upending their lives and taking further jobs with them as demand for local services drops. These areas may never recover, I wouldn't call that a speed bump for anyone affected.

First Up

sink wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes we will be worse off if the UK leave. 7% worse off by 2030.

Last year our economy grew by a headline figure of 7.8%

In the grand scheme of things Brexit may be no more than a speed bump for us.

The financial services, technology and pharmaceutical industries are likely keep expanding and may even see benefits through relocation of UK firms and elimination of UK competition within the single market.

However the agri-food industry is likely to be hit exceptionally hard, as they're geared toward consumer demands of the UK market. Staple goods such as cheddar don't have developed alternative markets to switch to and production can't easily be switched to producing goods with greater consumer demand in continental markets.

Agri-food jobs are of course concentrated in rural areas which have already seen relative economic decline for decades. Brexit will exacerbate this decline. People who loose their jobs in rural areas will not find local alternatives easily and will force them to move to urban areas upending their lives and taking further jobs with them as demand for local services drops. These areas may never recover, I wouldn't call that a speed bump for anyone affected.

The agri-food sector is the most exposed but its a bit soon to say it is likely to be hit exceptionally hard.

There is scope for market diversification (which being worked on intensely) but the UK market won't disappear either. They will still need to import and we will still be their closest source. Plus we know the market and have established customers and channels.

Of course a bit depends on the terms of the eventual EU-UK trade arrangements but the UK will need to strike some pretty extraordinary deals elsewhere to justify tariff free access to their market - and they would need to end up with a pretty disastrous arrangement with the EU to justify tariffs on EU food imports.

We'll probably see competition from Argentinian and Brazilian beef and New Zealand lamb but I wouldn't panic just yet.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

The agri-food sector is the most exposed but its a bit soon to say it is likely to be hit exceptionally hard.
...

We'll probably see competition from Argentinian and Brazilian beef and New Zealand lamb but I wouldn't panic just yet.

We have the advantage of being close for fresh food. If UK food standards drop our to farm tracking will be a premium product. China won't take UK milk for babies.

Cheddar exports will take a hit. But it's not like there's a huge stockpile of the stuff and besides there's the other problem of NI milk not being able to cross the border.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/spilt-milk-how-brexit-threatens-baileys-and-dubliner-cheese-1.3242752

Liquid milk tends to flow South-North in January-March and in the autumn, and North-South the rest of the year.
...
“This is the biggest single investment ever in the dairy industry there,” says D’Arcy. With the new capacity “we could, in fact, process the whole Northern Ireland output so that no raw milk crosses the Border”.
...
Mallusk produces around 70 per cent of all the Baileys sold worldwide. Some 97 per cent of the liqueur made there is exported.
...
Tipperary Co-Op started to produce emmental, which, on the Continent, is the go-to cheese for grating and baking.

blanch152

sink wrote: »

The financial services, technology and pharmaceutical industries are likely keep expanding and may even see benefits through relocation of UK firms and elimination of UK competition within the single market.

However the agri-food industry is likely to be hit exceptionally hard, as they're geared toward consumer demands of the UK market. Staple goods such as cheddar don't have developed alternative markets to switch to and production can't easily be switched to producing goods with greater consumer demand in continental markets.

Agri-food jobs are of course concentrated in rural areas which have already seen relative economic decline for decades. Brexit will exacerbate this decline. People who loose their jobs in rural areas will not find local alternatives easily and will force them to move to urban areas upending their lives and taking further jobs with them as demand for local services drops. These areas may never recover, I wouldn't call that a speed bump for anyone affected.

This is the real problem. You could have Ireland growing at 6-7% a year if it fully exploits a hard Brexit, but that would be growth of 10-12% a year in the sectors you mention balanced by decline of 4-5% in the rural economy. That is a problem for the capital plan, both to ensure that the bigger cities like Dublin and Cork can cope with the expansion but also that regeneration can take place in the smaller cities and large towns. In all honesty, there are some places that will never recover and we will have to find ways to manage the social consequences of that.

joeysoap

Mairead McGuinness in question time. Nothing on EU so far

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

Completely accept all of that. But - its only one side of the equation ! - it does not benefit Ireland - quite the reverse - the harder the Brexit is .

We can affect two sides of that albeit indirectly on on one side - the UK side and the EU side. Strikes me both sides should be worked.

Taoiseach and Coveney have been consistent on this - that we need to be the UK's best friend in negotiating their Brexit because its in Ireland's best interest to do so.

We have worked both sides on this. And, it's generally recognised, in working the EU side, we have acheived a high degree of success. It's due to deft and effective diplomacy from the lads in Iveagh House that "no hard border in Ireland" is front and centre of the EU's Brexit stance. And the EU is in a far, far better position to acheive that outcome than Ireland could ever be, acting on its own.

The biggest threat to us is a hard border in Ireland, and a hard border between RoI and GB. (The two are obviously linked.) But if the EU, with its negotiating muscle, cannot persuade the UK to open/soft borders, I cannot for the life of me think what you imagine Ireland can do, or why you imagine it might enjoy greater success by acting independently of the EU than it has by acting to influence the EU's position.

Can you get a bit specific and detailed about exactly what kind of things you think the Irish government should be doing? What steps can the Irish government take that would be effective to avoid a hard border? Right now, I am genuinely mystified as to what you have in mind.

You say in post #5591 you suggest that we should aim to be the UK's "best friend". What, exactly, do you think we need to change in order to make this happen?

FrancieBrady

joeysoap wrote: »

Mairead McGuinness in question time. Nothing on EU so far

Only tuned in when I saw your post and missed her earlier stuff. Thought she put the Tory very firmly in his box. Was not difficult in fairness, he seemed to be under the influence of a very strong drug tbh.

joeysoap

I dont know what the guy from RT was on about. Either in the nerve gas attack or on the EU. If he was being ironic it went over everyone’s head. Mairead put him in his box and he never came out of it again. Thought Brian Cox was very passionate. Anyway we have it from Greyling, no hard border and no checks in Dover.

Cookie_Monster

so after month and months of research they reach the blindingly obvious conclusion that a hard border cannot be avoided...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/hard-border-cannot-be-avoided-uk-committee-finds-1.3428736

There is “no evidence to suggest that, right now, an invisible border is possible” between the North and the Republic after Brexit, a House of Commons committee has found.

Peregrinus

. . . which would be a nonsensical conclusion since an invisible border is not only possible; it actually exists right now.

I think we need to put this statement in context. The Committee is talking about the implementation period. What they say is this:

"The current negotiating timeline means, in our view, it would be challenging to expect full implementation of a new, non-visible, customs regime by March 2019. We have seen no evidence to suggest that, right now, an invisible border is possible. To provide adequate time for new customs processes to be put in place, the UK may need to remain in or parallel to the Customs Union and Single Market throughout the implementation period. During this implementation period, we call upon the Government to work closely with counterparts in Ireland and the EU to develop an innovative border system capable of delivering customs compliance without traditional physical infrastructure at the border."

So I think they are still open to the possibility that by the end of the implementation period, likely to be 31 December 2020, an "invisible border" could be feasible. At any rate, they're not ruling it out. All they are really saying here is that, during the implementation period, the UK needs to stay both in the SM and in the CU, and it needs to work hard to develop a border system that can deliver an invisible border.

This isn't really earth-shattering - it pretty much lines up with what HMG says. But there are passages in the report which suggest that, yeah, developing a system which can reliably deliver an invisible but effective border is tall order - no-one has managed it yet, anywhere in the world. And the report doesn't address the fairly obvious possibility that developing such a system may turn out to be not difficult, but impossible. What then?

J Mysterio

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so after month and months of research they reach the blindingly obvious conclusion that a hard border cannot be avoided...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/hard-border-cannot-be-avoided-uk-committee-finds-1.3428736

Haha, even the UK government's own committee is saying 'this is bollocks, show us how this could conceivably work'. So the UK government joins the chorus of the EU and Ireland in asking the UK governement this.

"The Westminster Northern Ireland Affairs Committee calls on the British government to show how a “hard” border can be avoided should the UK leave the EU customs union and single market."

To be fair, this committee has done sterling work under Tony Benn. Yvette Cooper has done some reasonable work in the committee system too.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't really earth-shattering - it pretty much lines up with what HMG says.

This committee has actually been quite critical of the government, it's plans and of Brexit. They even visited the border!

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

This committee has actually been quite critical of the government, it's plans and of Brexit. They even visited the border!

Yes, but their finding that "this technology does not yet exist" is uncontroversial. That is already HMG's position. What would have really put the cat among the pigeons would be a finding by the committee that "this technology does not yet exist and we doubt that it can be developed". They kind of skirt around that last point.

I don't like saying it, but perhaps we should be paying more attention to a different finding in the same report:

"The EU Commission’s Draft Withdrawal Agreement does not properly represent the commitments made in paragraph 49 of the Joint Report. It presumes to make distinct arrangement for Northern Ireland, which is in direct contravention of the democratic provisions set out in paragraph 50. The Committee supports the Prime Minister’s clear rejection of the current proposals in the Draft Withdrawal Agreement which would result in a customs border in the Irish Sea. The issues of the land border cannot be resolved by creating a costly barrier to trade with Northern Ireland’s largest market, neither would such a measure be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. This proposal would also have significant detrimental consequences for the substantial exports from Ireland to Great Britain."

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but their finding that "this technology does not yet exist" is uncontroversial. That is already HMG's position. What would have really put the cat among the pigeons would be a finding by the committee that "this technology does not yet exist and we doubt that it can be developed". They kind of skirt around that last point.

Id say we would need to see the actual report, but Benn has said this. I posted an interview with him from the entrance hall in Westminster about a month ago where he said this, can't find it now.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Id say we would need to see the actual report . . .

Behold, it is even as you have commanded.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't like saying it, but perhaps we should be paying more attention to a different finding in the same report:

"The EU Commission’s Draft Withdrawal Agreement does not properly represent the commitments made in paragraph 49 of the Joint Report. It presumes to make distinct arrangement for Northern Ireland, which is in direct contravention of the democratic provisions set out in paragraph 50. The Committee supports the Prime Minister’s clear rejection of the current proposals in the Draft Withdrawal Agreement which would result in a customs border in the Irish Sea. The issues of the land border cannot be resolved by creating a costly barrier to trade with Northern Ireland’s largest market, neither would such a measure be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. This proposal would also have significant detrimental consequences for the substantial exports from Ireland to Great Britain."

Ahh... that's disheartening. The problem with the committee is they have to find a consensus and go with that.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Behold, it is even as you have commanded.

:pac:

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ahh... that's disheartening. The problem with the committee is they have to find a consensus and go with that.

Yes. And, from the fact that they said nothing about the situation in which the invisible border technology is not available by 31 December 2020, I deduce that they couldn't find a consensus about that.

But they did find a consensus on the unacceptability of the Irish sea border. Nobody in GB seems seriously to question but that it is unacceptable.

But there is a modest silver lining in the cloud. As far as they're concerned, the Irish sea border is unacceptable not just because it constitutes a trade barrier between NI and GB, but also because it constitutes a trade barrier between RoI and GB. And of course the imact of such a barrier on both NI and RoI is greatly diminished if the whole of the UK remains in Customs Union.

The Committee's object is to investigate the effect of the governments decision to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union; to see how its going to play out in practice. It's not within their brief, I think, to query the decision itself; the decision is taken as a given, and its consequences are explored. (In any event, if they did challenge the decision itself, probably they wouldn't be able to find a consensus on that.) But they do point to the contradictions and tensions that the decision gives rise to, and to the fact that no way of reconciling these has yet been proposed. And they say:

We recommend that, as a matter of urgency and in order that citizens and businesses on both side of the border can have clarity, both the UK Government and the EU spell out exactly what full alignment would mean. The Government’s stated intention, that Northern Ireland will be outside of the EU Customs Union and Single Market but require no border infrastructure, is unprecedented. In its response to this Report, the Government should set out in detail how the future EU-UK relationship could make the traditional requirements of border infrastructure unnecessary, citing precedent and the evidence base on which it is relying.

This doesn't amount to a denunciation of the decision to leave the SM and CU, but it does provide ammunition for those who want to claim that the decision, coupled with a commitment of no hard border, is incoherent, and therefore ought to be revisited. And it is entirely consistent with a solution to the problem in which not only NI but also GB remain in the Customs Union, and also commit to "regulatory alignment".

J Mysterio

To a hard Brexit we march then..

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

To a hard Brexit we march then..

Or they keep the whole UK in alignment until they figure out what the hell they are doing.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or they keep the whole UK in alignment until they figure out what the hell they are doing.

This.

Remember, the consequences of Brexit don't bite until 31 December 2020, if there is an "implementation period" on terms that the UK stays in the single market and the customs union until them. This opens up the way to a compromise/fudge as follows:

1. The UK continues to maintain that it does not like the default option of "full regulatory alignment", and a sea border between NI and GB.

2. However, that's only the default. It will never actually apply if, before 31 December 2020, the UK invents invisible border technology that is acceptable to the EU. Or, if the UK comes up with a "customs partnership/customs area/customs agreement/whatever you want to call it" that is acceptable to the EU.

3. The UK can "cave" and sign a withdrawal agreement which contains the objectionable default, and defend its decision to do so by saying that, though the default is objectionable, the government is confident that it will never come into operation, because one of the two alternatives to it will be developed, and will be put in place.

I think this is a fudge that the Committee did not wish to preclude. It buys the government more time, and gets them the implementation period they desparately need. The downside is that if, by the end of 2020, the necessary agreement on customs partnership/magic technology is not forthcoming, the UK is legally committed to full regulatory alignment. They might hope that, by then, political conditions have changed so that they are no longer dependent on the DUP. Or, they might hope to introduce FRE throughout the UK, so as to avoid an Irish Sea border. Or, they might hope to seek an exension of the implemtenation period, ostensibly to have more time to develop and agree alternatives to FRE, but in reality so that when they have to face the consequences of not having such alternatives the DUP will not be in the position they are now in.

Leroy42

The EU don't think that they will somehow 'take over' NI as has been the headlines in the UK.

The EU are merely drawing a line in the sand, putting a marker down, in an attempt to get the UK to actually engage in more than soundbites and summaries.

They have laid out that, should the UK fail to come up with a solution, then the EU is prepared to do it. it puts the pressure squarely on the UK government to come up with a position.

If they fail, then it will fall as a failure of the UK. The UK kept saying they couldn't give their positions away as it would weaken their negotiation power, so the EU did it for them.

farmchoice

J Mysterio wrote: »

Haha, even the UK government's own committee is saying 'this is bollocks, show us how this could conceivably work'. So the UK government joins the chorus of the EU and Ireland in asking the UK governement this.

"The Westminster Northern Ireland Affairs Committee calls on the British government to show how a “hard” border can be avoided should the UK leave the EU customs union and single market."

To be fair, this committee has done sterling work under Tony Benn. Yvette Cooper has done some reasonable work in the committee system too.

just to clarify one point this is not Hillary Benns committee. his is the ''uk withdrawal committee'' or words to that effect.
it is a really excellent committee and has done great work. i have watched a lot of its sittings on parliament tv and the amount of information they have gleaned is incredible.

its an example of what they should have done before they triggered article 50.
spend a year approaching the issue from all angles invite in experts in their field. explore different options.

reese mogg is on the committee and in general he is as quite as a mouse.
sammy wilson is on it as well, it doesn't matter who the expert is he only ever asks leading ques tons about how a no border solution can be compatible with leaving the customs union. he never gets the answer he wants.

J Mysterio

Ah, yeah, Hilary Benn!... not his pops. Woops.

Yeah, ive watched a good bit as well, agree they have done some good work. Equally Yvette Cooper.

trellheim

Couple of things

1

You say in post #5591 you suggest that we should aim to be the UK's "best friend". What, exactly, do you think we need to change in order to make this happen?

I'd like to develop this a little as its a fair question - I'm in the job at the moment so will revert. First point is, though, I think the Government are doing all they can under the hood on this one.


2. Last nights Question Time was one of the best hours of live TV I've ever seen, and the Russia Today fella got Keir Starmer demented . Well done Mairead McGuinness and Cox ; I was surprised Chris Grayling wasn't asked about the Virgin Trains fiasco but it was Dover so there you are it was heavy on the Brexit "park in RAF Manston lol"

3. Not sure if it was posted yet or not but the EU updated the draft withdrawal ( or transition ? ) agreement last night - see https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/negotiation-agreements-atom-energy-15mar_en.pdf

skip to the end for NI but its fairly hard stuff.

Leroy42

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ah, yeah, Hilary Benn!... not his pops. Woops.

Yeah, ive watched a good bit as well, agree they have done some good work. Equally Yvette Cooper.

Seems all a bit pointless though. When people like Davies can come in and simply lie about reports and then claim that it wouldn't matter what the reports said, if they did exist, since who cares what experts say anyway, you have to question is anybody actually taking any notice.

As was said earlier, it should have been done prior to triggered A50, and then it might have had an impact. But the government, led by May, seems intent on following this path regardless of what anybody says.

The fact that they are dismissing the, now pretty much accepted point that Brexit will make the country poorer as not really a big deal, shows to me the lengths they are willing to go to over this.

The best that anyone has been able to come up with it that over the medium to long term new trade deals may bring them back to the position they are at now (GDP wise).

If you think back to just after the result, we had some MP's calling for warships to be sent to Gibraltar to show the Spanish they meant business. This is the sort of nonsense that they are talking about.

Harika

Some lunch time read of the Center of European Reform, basically stating that the reason why the UK has not cracked the unity of the 27 is because of the self imposed UK red lines.

http://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2018/will-unity-27-crack

Conclusion from the PDF

The paper has considered four possible reason why the 27 might diverge over their future relationship with the UK. The most likely instigator of a split would be an offer of significant UK contributions to economic development in the poorer regions of the EU. The Polish prime minister said at the Brussels Forum on March 8th that he would welcome UK contributions to the EU budget, post-Brexit. The politics of the EU budget are going to be especially difficult in the next round, and if the UK offered a significant sum, it might unlock some benefits in the negotiations over a free trade deal. Any benefits that an offer of money might provide will be limited if the UK does not accept the other “ The next EU budget talks will be thornier than usual: a generous UK contribution might yield some benefits.”
...
A stance of complete unity worked in phase one of the talks. The 27 got what they wanted on the sequencing and the withdrawal agreement by acting together. The Commission, Germany and France are in a strong position to persuade the others that continued unity will help them to pursue their interests. And the overwhelming interest among the 27 will remain ensuring the integrity of the single market and the longevity of the European project. And this doesn’t look set to change any time soon, despite Brexit.

I have missed that the Polish prime minister has asked for a contribution to the budget to get a better deal, it seems the EU unity is only cracking in the other way UK wanted. Get a better deal for more contribution.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The fact that they are dismissing the, now pretty much accepted point that Brexit will make the country poorer as not really a big deal, shows to me the lengths they are willing to go to over this.

The UK Government warned the electorate that Brexit would make them 3-6% poorer before the vote. (I think this is low, given the kind of Brexit they are going for it is more like 5-15%, but anyhow...) Surveys show that Leave voters don't care, and that even if a family member loses their job as a result, they still want to Brexit.

So saying now that they shouldn't Brexit because it will make them poorer is too late - they know, they don't care. Brexit is not about money.

Seth Brundle

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Brexit is not about money.

But what is it about?
I'm struggling to find one reason that stands up to any simple scrutiny.
The only thing I can think of is in terms of regaining their "Britishness" as if they will become the dominant global force they were a century ago and even that isn't that strong an argument.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK Government warned the electorate that Brexit would make them 3-6% poorer before the vote. (I think this is low, given the kind of Brexit they are going for it is more like 5-15%, but anyhow...) Surveys show that Leave voters don't care, and that even if a family member loses their job as a result, they still want to Brexit.

So saying now that they shouldn't Brexit because it will make them poorer is too late - they know, they don't care. Brexit is not about money.

Oh I totally agree, I just meant that the fact that you now have the government of the UK are actively following a path, and seemingly intent on going out as hard as possible

Leroy42

kbannon wrote: »

But what is it about?
I'm struggling to find one reason that stands up to any simple scrutiny.
The only thing I can think of is in terms of regaining their "Britishness" as if they will become the dominant global force they were a century ago and even that isn't that strong an argument.

You have nailed it. It is about Britishness. It is clear that that idea overrides all the other concerns.

Zubeneschamali

kbannon wrote: »

But what is it about?

Immigration, control, sovereignty, patriotism, the Queen, Rule Britannia.

Two fingers up to Johnny Foreigner.

Two World Wars and One World Cup, Brexit, Brexit!

Wonky veg. The Pound. The Belgrano.

Leroy42

Just watched last nights question time. Thought Mairead McGuinness came across very well (not sure about the whole "I'm the only woman" and the love in with Brian Cox) but I thought she did a good job and did her best to try to defuse some of the cries of threat and being intimidated etc.

Chris Grayling stated that the UK would not be checking any trucks at Dover. So we had a government minister stating publicly that the UK will not be undertaking any border checks for trucks leaving the country.

And the UK have asked that the EU trust them that they will abide by regulations!

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the UK have asked that the EU trust them that they will abide by regulations!

And trustworthy they surely are I mean it's not like every agreement reached in the negotiations so far the British have attempted to walk back .

Tropheus

Looking at the headlines over the past couple of days, May must be delighted she has the nerve gas attack to distract from the shambles that is Brexit. Nothing like a threat of war (no matter how vague) to improve a British PMs rating in the poles.

farmchoice

Tropheus wrote: »

Looking at the headlines over the past couple of days, May must be delighted she has the nerve gas attack to distract from the shambles that is Brexit. Nothing like a threat of war (no matter how vague) to improve a British PMs rating in the poles.

Oh i'd say so and before that the snow, but unfortunately for her a day will come in the very near future where it will have to be faced up to.

may is on borrowed time, every day she hangs on to number 10 is a bonus now and as far as i can make out her entire political raison d'etre is simply staying in number 10 for as many more days or weeks as possible. i dont think she is in a position to think in terms of months, even 2 of them.

Leroy42

One gets the feeling that the EU understand that as bad as May is, what could potentially replace her is far worse.

The likes of Boris, JRM etc aren't even listening to the points being made. They simply claim that the reports are wrong or the people voted.

I really don't think there is much chance of TM being ousted before 2019. Why would anyone want to take up the challenge?

She is also secure because of the lack of any serious opposition she receives from Crobyn. Whatever about the points he makes, his timing and reading of the mood is terrible.

I could see the frustration on Mairead McGuinness on QT last night, she sees the 'arguments' as nothing more than soundbites dressed up as a position. Imagine having to sit beside the UK transport secretary, who just spent the last 20 minutes arguing for Brexit, and then having him trot out the line that there will be no effects on the borders!

EU have been placed in a terrible situation as the UK are totally failing to take this seriously and only want to negotiate on the basis of how brilliant a deal the EU will be forced to give them. They are continuing to state that they want to control their own borders, but it is up to the EU to set up any borders.

Its an impossible situation for the EU, and by extension Ireland, to come out of without serious negative impact.

farmchoice

in the next few weeks she is going to have to present something concrete to the eu this will mightily piss off one or the other sides of the tory split.

her majority is too thin and the dup are a bomb waiting to go off she has kicked the can down the road beautifully so far but she is running out of road.

if i was a betting man id suggest a few pound on a uk election by june would be a decent gamble.

this will surely return a lab/snp government.

Leroy42

Just to follow up on what Grayling stated during QT last night;

Sky News Breaking
‏
Verified account

@SkyNewsBreak
Follow Follow @SkyNewsBreak
More
Sky News understands non-disclosure agreements the Government is asking businesses in the UK to sign include a plan not to enforce a customs border if no deal is reached on Brexit

10:00 AM - 16 Mar 2018

This must be possible, otherwise they wouldn't be suggesting it (the non enforcement, not the non-disclosure). I assume they are doing this to try to alleviate any delays due to Brexit border checks, but what practical impact could it have?

I assume the EU would then need to check every shipment arriving from the UK, so are the simply trying to shift the problem further down the line?
As isn't this acceptable? I mean, it is the EU issue to police what comes in I would have thought

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I assume they are doing this to try to alleviate any delays due to Brexit border checks, but what practical impact could it have?

Peregrinus called this out as a possibility some time ago - although WTO rules require them to enforce customs on goods from the EU in the same way as from China or the US, they could simply refuse to do it.

Eventually the WTO would get around to fining them or putting punitive tariffs on their exports, but that would be medium term, and at least they wouldn't starve in the meantime.

So it's just kicking the can down the road a bit more.

Skedaddle

I still find this a bit like:

UK: "I am going to drill huge ventilation hole in the bottom of the ship"
EU: "but your boat will sink if you do that!!"
UK: "it's the democratic will of the British people to drill this hole!"
EU: "ok, but you'll still sink"
UK: "your threatening me you big bully! Stop trampling upon British dreams and hurry up and change the laws of physics! We voted! How dare you!"

LeinsterDub

Sky News Breaking
‏
Verified account

@SkyNewsBreak
Follow Follow @SkyNewsBreak
More
Sky News understands non-disclosure agreements the Government is asking businesses in the UK to sign include a plan not to enforce a customs border if no deal is reached on Brexit

10:00 AM - 16 Mar 2018

Hat tip to Leroy42.

What the hell does this even mean? Businesses don't enforce borders governments do. If the UK doesn't want to enforce it's borders fine but the WTO says they must offer the same deal to everyone.