Brexit discussion thread III

flatty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

It's all he's looking at anyway of labour get in.
It'll coincide with a downturn, likely sharp on the economy. He will offset this with more borrowing, which will widen a trade gap which is already a chasm. Sterling will fall, the markets will get spooked, interest rates will go up. Mortgage rates will go up. There will be an awful lot of people swimming with no togs as the tide goes out. House prices will finally fall (a good side effect), but middle England will scream blue murder as the tory hard right sit back and enjoy corby and Labour taking the rap for a brexit induced depression shaped entirely by themselves.
Corbyn thinks he is being clever. He is being short term cunning but mid term idiotic.
None of them give a sh1t about the population in general.
The rich will snap up the deflated property that the squeezed middle can no longer afford.

Right but this short termist thinking will only serve to confine Labour to the history books for at least a decade and we'll have another set of election campaigns going on and on ad nauseam about Labour borrowing too much while an ever increasingly toxic Conservative party grows ever more willing to indulge in fringe elements while the centrists have nowhere to go.

That is exactly my point. It is a super example of one of the flaws of five year politics.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I suspect strongly that the younger Corbyn supporters are pro-Remain and are in for a nasty shock if they think he has any desire to stay in the EU.

And what is the labour party doing for them ?

Jeremy Corbyn pledges free bus travel for under-25s

Econ_

Looking at reports the last couple of days from British journalists in the know, it seems the U.K. government could be shaping up to perform a U-turn on the Customs Union.

Professor Moriarty

Econ_ wrote: »

Looking at reports the last couple of days from British journalists in the know, it seems the U.K. government could be shaping up to perform a U-turn on the Customs Union.

When a staunch Brexiteer such as The Telegraph's Asa Bennett even mentions the possibility then you know there's something in the air. Might be a thing of nothing but here's hoping.

joeysoap

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

When a staunch Brexiteer such as The Telegraph's Asa Bennett even mentions the possibility then you know there's something in the air. Might be a thing of nothing but here's hoping.

Something happened today alright, , Euro down a cent on the pound in a matter of hours.

Professor Moriarty

joeysoap wrote: »

Something happened today alright, , Euro down a cent on the pound in a matter of hours.

Apparently, that's because of an unexpected slowdown of growth in the Eurozone.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I disagree. The nearer the end-state of Brexit is to EU membership, the less damage to the EU (and the UK, but that is their worry now, not ours).

So if the "transition period" is membership stripped of influence, agencies and representation but with budget contributions, regulations, EU courts and free movement, where is the damage to the EU?

Continuing instability and uncertainty, and a constant drain on the political resources and attention of the EU.

I take your point about the money, but my impression is that the EU has looked at the financial side of Brexit, quantified the cost, and decided that it's a finite cost, and one they can bear. While they wouldn't be averse to avoiding the cost, there's a limit to what they will do to avoid it. And having an endlessly- extended transition, with the UK half-in and half-out, and continuing discussion about how to complete Brexit with the unstated expectation that it will never be completed, and continuing sniping and moaning from Brexiters, is too rich a price.

And I also take your point about the European Project but, again, I don;t think they want UK participation at any price, still less UK semi-participation. They don't want a UK that's unable fully to leave the project and is resentful about it's inability to do so; they want a UK that is committed to the Project. Endlessly extended transition is certainly not that.

I think it's very telling that May wants a longer transition than is currently on offer, and a transition that is capable of further extension, and the EU is saying "no" to both of those things. That tells me that the EU does not see transition as a way of keeping the UK semi-in the Union indefinitely. And that in turn tells me that the EU is not interested in that.

For those who want to be semi-in the Union there is already a structure; the EEA. The UK doesn't want that, and the EU accepts that the UK doesn't want that. They are not going to try and invent a differenst structure for those who want to be semi-in the Union but are in denial about the fact. That couldn't end well.

flatty

The defined exit date may also be one of the few ways a rightly exasperated eu has of getting a straight answer out of may on anything.
The most sinister thing in many ways about all of this though, is the degree of collusion evident between the print media, the BBC, and the tory hard right.
The BBC in particular have been shameful. They take taxpayers money, yet refuse the responsibility that goes with it.

Zubeneschamali

Good points, Peregrinus, as usual. There are certainly reasons for the EU to want a short, sharp transition rather than an endless one, and I am probably underestimating just how annoying the UK has been over the years.

Just one response here:

Peregrinus wrote: »

For those who want to be semi-in the Union there is already a structure; the EEA. The UK doesn't want that, and the EU accepts that the UK doesn't want that.

Disagree here. The current UK Government doesn't want that, but the people were not consulted, and the Leave campaign were quite complimentary about the EEA before the referendum. It is more than possible that the EEA was exactly what Leave voters thought they would be getting.

The next UK Government may not agree with the current one.

And I think the EU would certainly be happier with the UK in the EEA.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Disagree here. The current UK Government doesn't want that, but the people were not consulted, and the Leave campaign were quite complimentary about the EEA before the referendum. It is more than possible that the EEA was exactly what Leave voters thought they would be getting.

The next UK Government may not agree with the current one.

And I think the EU would certainly be happier with the UK in the EEA.

Oh, sure. "Yes" to all of that.

But the EU isn't negotiating Brexit with the people of the UK; it's negotiating it with the UK itself - the state, not the nation. HMG speaks for the state. The EU will not second-guess HMG about what the British people really want. What the British people really want is no concern of the EU's and, even if it were, the EU has no moral, political or legal right to decide what that this; that's HMG's business.

The EU has consistently signalled to HMG that they would be very happy for HMG to change it's position in relation to EEA membership. Even the most recent negotiating guidelines say, in as many words, that the EU's position has been developed in response to the UK's "red lines" and that, if the UK were to move on from some of its red lines, all kinds of good things could become possible. But they will not cross the line of either imagining that the UK has moved on from its red lines, or assuming that the UK will move on from its red lines.

The UK has adopted a negotiating strategy constructed on preconceptions about what the EU should do, or ought to do, or can be expected to do, and it has been an absolute train wreck for them. The EU have not made the same mistake.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And I think the EU would certainly be happier with the UK in the EEA.

The EEA is an agreement between EFTA and the EU, it is something you can join without being a member of one of the two organisations. It means FMOP, it means acceptance of ECJ via the EEA court which follows the rulings of the ECJ, it means contributions and very little say in what goes on. Hard to imagine that that is what the UK voters want.

Furthermore it is very questionable as to whether the current member of EFTA would approve the UK membership. Norway has a already said it feels the UK would exert undue influence over the organisation and Switzerland sees the none EEA agreements of EFTA as very important to its trade policy. The last thing we need is a member starting trade disputes with the EU... I think it likely that a referendum in Switzerland would fail.

Peregrinus

Jim2007 wrote: »

The EEA is an agreement between EFTA and the EU, it is something you can join without being a member of one of the two organisations. It means FMOP, it means acceptance of ECJ via the EEA court which follows the rulings of the ECJ, it means contributions and very little say in what goes on. Hard to imagine that that is what the UK voters want.

Furthermore it is very questionable as to whether the current member of EFTA would approve the UK membership. Norway has a already said it feels the UK would exert undue influence over the organisation and Switzerland sees the none EEA agreements of EFTA as very important to its trade policy. The last thing we need is a member starting trade disputes with the EU... I think it likely that a referendum in Switzerland would fail.

The EEA is established, unsurprisingly, by the Agreement on the European Area, a treaty whose parties are (a) the EFTA member states (other than Switzerland, which has signed the treaty but never ratified it), (b) the EU member states and (c) the EU itself. EFTA is not a party to the Treaty; EFTA doesn't enter into treaties on behalf of its member states.

The upshot of all this is that the UK is already a party to the Agreement on the EEA; if it wants to remain in the EEA it doesn't need to sign and ratify the treaty again. And SFAIK the Art 50 notification which it has delivered does not operate to terminate its participation in the Agreement on the EEA.

What would be needed is some amendments to the treaty, to address the changed circumstances, and that would require the consent of all parties. It wouldn't require Swiss consent; Switzerland is not a party. It would require Norwegian consent, but I think Norway would come under considerable pressure to consent; the EU would not be comfortable about Norway exercising a veto over who could, and who could not, be admitted to the Single Market, which is basically an EU construction.

Norway has legitimate concerns, of course, but I think the pressure would be on to address these not by excluding the UK from the EEA, but either by allowing it to participate in the EEA without joining EFTA, or by tweaking the governance rules of EFTA so that the UK could become a member but the interests of smaller member states would be protected.

It's all a bit academic, at present, since as you point out the UK isn't seeking EEA membership. But the notion that it's not what UK voters want is not all that compelling; none of the feasible models for the UK/EU relationship post-Brexit have any plausible claim to be "what the voters want". Nobody ever asked them what they wanted.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's all a bit academic, at present, since as you point out the UK isn't seeking EEA membership. But the notion that it's not what UK voters want is not all that compelling; none of the feasible models for the UK/EU relationship post-Brexit have any plausible claim to be "what the voters want". Nobody ever asked them what they wanted.

In addition, prominent Leavers like Farage were very complimentary about the Norway model before the Referendum, the Daily Telegraph pushed strongly for Leave to identify the Norway model as the goal of the leave campaign, and many leavers strongly denied that trade with the EU would be subject to customs and tariffs after brexit.

So any model more distant then Norway, with customs and tariffs, can also be said to be something UK voters did not want.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In addition, prominent Leavers like Farage were very complimentary about the Norway model before the Referendum, the Daily Telegraph pushed strongly for Leave to identify the Norway model as the goal of the leave campaign, and many leavers strongly denied that trade with the EU would be subject to customs and tariffs after brexit.

So any model more distant then Norway, with customs and tariffs, can also be said to be something UK voters did not want.

All models can be said to be something that UK voters don't want. 48%, we know, actually want EU membership, and I think we can be reasonably confident that, of the variety of non-EU-membership models out there, there is no single one that would command the support of all the 52% who voted for Brexit, or of so much of them as would amount to 50% of the total population.

In this situation it falls to Parliament to make and implement a judgment about what is in the best interests of the people of the UK. Note that this is not necessarily the same thing as what the people of the UK might want. In so far as Parliament does take the wishes of the people into account, it should consider the wishes of all the people, not just the 52% who voted for Brexit. So if Parliament wants to target a post-Brexit relationship, while not the favoured relationship of a majority of voters (since that's impossible) is neverhtheless the relationship which commands the broadest degree of assent, it should be looking to balance the concerns of leavers and the concerns of remainers, and steering a middle course.

In other words, EEA membership, or something not a thousand miles away from it.

EdgeCase

I just can't believe this is still going on. There appears to have been almost no progress at all and the deadline gets closer and closer.

Also over the last few weeks Brexit is not really in focus as much in the media. I think people are getting fed up talking about it and there are other more interesting stories.

My concern about that is the lack of progress isn't even being reported.

flatty

I suppose people in general are just believing the "nothings agreed til it's all agreed", and that the politicians are just tying up a few loose ends.
It is interesting that Anna Soubry et al have gone quiet on the issue. I actually know her well enough, and it's not like her to go quiet on anything, though I haven't spoken to her about any of it.
The print media don't have much to make a headline of it seems, and the BBC are too cowardly to do anything as whichever govt is in power merely waves the threat of revoking the licence fee at them, and they turn tail.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

I just can't believe this is still going on. There appears to have been almost no progress at all and the deadline gets closer and closer.

Also over the last few weeks Brexit is not really in focus as much in the media. I think people are getting fed up talking about it and there are other more interesting stories.

My concern about that is the lack of progress isn't even being reported.

No, there is progress, but it's mostly behind-the-scenes. The publicity comes in fits and starts, e.g. when there's a European Council meeting to which progress must be reported, or which must authorise further negotiations; these "milestones" act as deadlines, and generate interest and publicity, and focus attention on where things have got to. But the work is going on all the time.

Right now, for example, we're in the middle of a series of meeting on various aspects of issues related to Ireland/Northern Ireland. That series started with a meeting on 26 March on customs and goods regulation; the most recent was a meeting on Wednesday on North/South co-operation; on 18 April there's to be a review meeting where the conclusions of all these meetings will be drawn together. But they happen just below the radar; the fact of the meetings is well known but there aren't announcements after each one about what progress has or hasn't been made. And there are other meetings going on to thrash out other strands of Brexit.

If you look at the (more serious) media now, you'll find plenty of commentators analysing where we are and where we're going, and plenty of speculation/rumour/well-informed discussion of how things are shaping up. For example just yesterday Bloomberg ran a piece suggesting that the UK was shaping up to change tack and accept Customs Union membership, ostensibly as a measure to keep the Irish border open but in reality also because UK business interests have been strongly pressing for that, and have persuaded the government (or enough of them) that, yes, it really is in Britain's interests. At this point we don't know whether this is wild rumour or well-informed speculation or a kite being flown by the UK who are thinking about doing this and want to gauge what public reaction might be. But the point is things are happening, options are being considered, things are shifting. We won't get the kind of blanket coverage that we got in December, and last March, until the clock runs out and we know where things end up; I think that's next due to happen at the European Council meeting in June.

LuckyLloyd

flatty wrote: »

It's all he's looking at anyway of labour get in.
It'll coincide with a downturn, likely sharp on the economy. He will offset this with more borrowing, which will widen a trade gap which is already a chasm. Sterling will fall, the markets will get spooked, interest rates will go up. Mortgage rates will go up. There will be an awful lot of people swimming with no togs as the tide goes out. House prices will finally fall (a good side effect), but middle England will scream blue murder as the tory hard right sit back and enjoy corby and Labour taking the rap for a brexit induced depression shaped entirely by themselves.
Corbyn thinks he is being clever. He is being short term cunning but mid term idiotic.
None of them give a sh1t about the population in general.
The rich will snap up the deflated property that the squeezed middle can no longer afford.

I don't know about that at all tbh. I think Corbyn is a rarity of a politician who does care, and has no ability to shake off his actual beliefs. He's 69 in May, he was never going to have more than a term in office anyway. If he gets in, the war on the poor will be stopped and he'll engage in a fundamental rework of social provision services. Of course Brexit will squeeze funding for those services in the longer term, but a revamp in the mindset will make a huge difference to those in front line receipt of same.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't know about that at all tbh. I think Corbyn is a rarity of a politician who does care, and has no ability to shake off his actual beliefs. He's 69 in May, he was never going to have more than a term in office anyway. If he gets in, the war on the poor will be stopped and he'll engage in a fundamental rework of social provision services. Of course Brexit will squeeze funding for those services in the longer term, but a revamp in the mindset will make a huge difference to those in front line receipt of same.

He probably does care, I agree. He's held positions in the past which would have been difficult at the time such as his opposition to apartheid.

However, he's also a creature of political expedience as much as anyone else. Note that Labour is still against Scottish independence while Corbyn would like support a border poll in Northern Ireland. Also note the link that Capt'n Midnight shared about the latest offer of free transport to younger people. All this might help him get into No. 10 but I don't see things improving in that scenario unless there's a coalition with the SNP and/or the Liberal Democrats involved which might lead to a referendum on the final deal.

J Mysterio

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't know about that at all tbh. I think Corbyn is a rarity of a politician who does care, and has no ability to shake off his actual beliefs. He's 69 in May, he was never going to have more than a term in office anyway. If he gets in, the war on the poor will be stopped and he'll engage in a fundamental rework of social provision services. Of course Brexit will squeeze funding for those services in the longer term, but a revamp in the mindset will make a huge difference to those in front line receipt of same.

I'd say he probably does 'care' too, but he's misguided. He can make all the reforms he wants, reform social services etc. but at the end of the day, Britain will suffer because of Brexit and will be significantly materially less well off. So, I dont see how he (if he ever becomes PM) could possibly have the budget to introduce whatever 'big society' provisions and safety nets etc. he wants.

Unless of course he makes big cuts elsewhere - like to trident, military or whatever - and/or raises tax/ corporation tax or whatever. RE: taxes and such, that wont be attractive to business either, especially at a time when business is already fleeing or preparing to. What's his idea?

J Mysterio

Labour voices are also becoming increasingly ill disciplined as they grow frustrated with Corbyns leadership on Brexit. Sacking Smith was one, Gardiner saying that Brexit redlines were always nonsense was another...

He may not ever make it to be PM.

Enzokk

The DCMS (The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee) published a legal opinion on EU referendum spending. I could be wrong here, but what they advise is that they feel there is a case to be answered by the evidence that has been gathered by the committee. While the DCMS doesn't have to pass the information on to the authorities as they have some wiggle room on if they feel it would not succeed legally. The opinion doesn't agree with this as they feel that the only opinion on whether there has been a crime should be on the authorities and not a parliament committee.

So we wait to see if the DCMS will pass on their evidence to the relevant authorities and whether there will be legs to this.

Committee publishes legal opinion on EU referendum campaign spending

176. In summary, there is strong evidence to indicate that Mr Halsall and/or Vote Leave have
committed offences under PPERA in connection with Vote Leave spending over the spending
limits because:
46
a. Vote Leave’s spending return should have recorded the AIQ payments.
b. In omitting those payments, Vote Leave’s spending return was not a complete and
correct return as required by law (and in particular by s 120(2) of PPERA).
c. Since the AIQ payments, if incorporated into the return, would have taken Vote
Leave above a total expenditure of £7m, it breached its spending limits under
PPERA.
177. We consider that there is prima facie evidence that the following electoral offences were committed in the EU referendum campaign, which require urgent investigation so that
consideration can be given to whether to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for a
decision on whether to prosecute:
a. that Mr Halsall authorised expenses to be incurred by Vote Leave where he knew or
reasonably ought to have known that expenses would be incurred in excess of that
limit, contrary to s 118(2) of PPERA;
b. that Vote Leave committed the same offence;
c. that Mr Halsall delivered an expenses return which did not comply with the
statutory requirements under s 120(2)-(3) of PPERA; and
d. that Mr Halsall knowingly or recklessly made a false declaration in the declaration
submitted with the Vote Leave return, and/or that the requirements as to a lawful
return were contravened during the period in which he was the responsible person,
contrary to s 123(4)(a) and/or (b) PPERA

191. However, the Commission does not have its own prosecutorial powers. The Commission’s
Policy states, at paragraph 6.18, that (only) if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an
offence has occurred, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the police or relevant
prosecuting authority. We consider that that test sets too high a threshold for referral to the
prosecuting authorities to consider whether there is a basis for prosecution. By reserving the
exercise of that power to cases in which the Commission itself is sure that an offence has been
committed, the Policy fetters the Commission’s discretion in a way which is likely to frustrate
the purposes of PPERA by unduly limiting the cases which could be assessed by the
prosecuting authorities and considered by a criminal court. By contrast, the evidential stage
of the CPS Prosecutor’s Code states (at paragraph 4.4) that in order for the evidential test for
sending a case to trial that prosecutors must be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of
securing a conviction on the evidence which is or may become available.
192. If the Commission indeed refrains from even exercising a discretion as to whether to refer a
matter to the police or prosecuting authorities until it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that an offence has been committed, this in our view would constitute an unlawful fetter on
its regulatory discretion.

EdgeCase

From a business point of view this is all crazy. The entire fundamentals of trade between Ireland (and other EU countries) and the UK is being potentially turned upside-down and there's no road map, no clarity, nothing.

How the hell is anyone supposed to plan?

We've already cancelled UK projects due to risk as there's no concept of what's happening after 2019, so basically everything's on hold. A lot of stuff is just being quietly parked until there's clarity.

I mean, we could all just pretend that it's not going to happen, but there are also various business organisations discussing scenarios around hard Brexit and how we'll cope in that scenario.

For a supposedly pro-business party, the Tories are really hanging the 'business community' (i.e. everyone who's actually generating income to pay for all the rest of the UK's economy) out to dry.

At this stage, it's not even Brexit, but the complete lack of any clear map of what's going to happen, when it's going to happen and so on. You can't plan for a completely nebulous situation that's changing at the whim of backbenchers, tabloids and the DUP.

For example, are we going to get to another fantastic proposal for Northern Ireland that's just immediately vetoed by the DUP?

It's all fun and games for those of us who don't have to actually work for a living i.e. politicians.

Leroy42

Did you not hear Kate Andrews, News Editor at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London on QT last night?

“There are going to be a lot of Remainers in particular who are absolutely dumfounded in March 2019, when the UK does leave the European Union and it doesn’t fall off a cliff.

“It’s not going to be perfect right away, but I think it’s going to be okay.”

So you see, fretting about nothing.

LuckyLloyd

J Mysterio wrote: »

Labour voices are also becoming increasingly ill disciplined as they grow frustrated with Corbyns leadership on Brexit. Sacking Smith was one, Gardiner saying that Brexit redlines were always nonsense was another...

He may not ever make it to be PM.

I've been reading about how Corbyn is going to be ousted as Labour leader since he became Labour leader...

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you see, fretting about nothing.

She is right in one sense, the UK will indeed "leave" in March 2019 and nothing much will change that day, because "leaving" will just mean going into the "transition period" which means no change.

The question is what will happen 20 months after that when they leave for real.

This slower transition will probably smooth things out a bit so that instead of going off a cliff, they will slide down a steep slope.

Also known as "going downhill, fast".

Seth Brundle

Jaguar Land Rover to cut jobs due to Brexit - source

"Britain’s biggest carmaker Jaguar Land Rover will cut around 1,000 jobs and production at two of its English factories due to uncertainty around Brexit and confusion over diesel policy leading to a fall in sales, a source told Reuters."

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She is right in one sense, the UK will indeed "leave" in March 2019 and nothing much will change that day, because "leaving" will just mean going into the "transition period" which means no change.

The question is what will happen 20 months after that when they leave for real.

This slower transition will probably smooth things out a bit so that instead of going off a cliff, they will slide down a steep slope.

Also known as "going downhill, fast".

Yeah well, if you're going to bring facts and knowledge into this then of course it sounds bad.

Anything can sound bad if you do that!

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

All models can be said to be something that UK voters don't want. 48%, we know, actually want EU membership, and I think we can be reasonably confident that, of the variety of non-EU-membership models out there, there is no single one that would command the support of all the 52% who voted for Brexit, or of so much of them as would amount to 50% of the total population.

In this situation it falls to Parliament to make and implement a judgment about what is in the best interests of the people of the UK. Note that this is not necessarily the same thing as what the people of the UK might want. In so far as Parliament does take the wishes of the people into account, it should consider the wishes of all the people, not just the 52% who voted for Brexit. So if Parliament wants to target a post-Brexit relationship, while not the favoured relationship of a majority of voters (since that's impossible) is neverhtheless the relationship which commands the broadest degree of assent, it should be looking to balance the concerns of leavers and the concerns of remainers, and steering a middle course.

In other words, EEA membership, or something not a thousand miles away from it.

And parliament bears a solemn responsibility towards the millions of under 18s who could not vote but who will be most affected in all likelihood. It must represent their interests too, not just the electorate.

Leonard Hofstadter

The IEA is a very right wing pro free market think tank, I wouldn't take anything they say too seriously at all.

That said, the pound has been making pretty big gains over the past couple of weeks, it's up to almost €1.16 now, it hasn't been that high against the euro in nearly a year (but is still down by over 10% compared to before the referendum, indeed in early 2016 it was closer to €1.40), so it does seem like the UK isn't going to come out of this too badly (mainly because there will be a lot more capitulating to what the EU wants by the UK).

ArthurDayne

Out of interest here, has anyone else (with as little to do in life as I have!) ever perused similar forum sites in the UK to see how the debate is going there ?

While I have found the quality of posting on this thread to have been of very high quality, I feel sometimes it can be bit of an echo chamber (though I'd caveat that in saying that it is an echo chamber which is at least based at solid reasoning and Irish opinion is naturally going to drift generally in favour of the EU).

I went on a bit of a random trawl through UK-based forum sites, hoping to come across really good debate and compelling views from pro-Brexit folk. The sad thing is that I haven't really been successful. The views being espoused on forums over there in favour of Brexit are, in general, as watery and lacking in substantive content as the guff being spouted by the politicians.

J Mysterio

We had Solodeogloria for a while, not sure what happened to him, I expect he lost the faith.

Much thanks,
JM

ambro25

EdgeCase wrote: »

From a business point of view this is all crazy. The entire fundamentals of trade between Ireland (and other EU countries) and the UK is being potentially turned upside-down and there's no road map, no clarity, nothing.

How the hell is anyone supposed to plan?

<....>

Pragmatically, “for worst” (hard Brexit contingency), whilst “hoping for best.

Your mileage with that may vary, depending on the regulatory framework(s) involved for your particular business.

For those with a particularly stringent or rigid framework built from many-fold and heavily-interweaved treaties, agreements and other compliance-setting hoops (such as in finance), the objective planning time may already be long past.

As I say to most, don’t be -or remain- a hostage to the situations brought about by the referendum and its mismanagement to date: if you’re looking like losing the game (through e.g. stalling your investment/project: your competitors may not be) , change the rules (look to do business elsewhere/different business).

Nitrogan

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Out of interest here, has anyone else (with as little to do in life as I have!) ever perused similar forum sites in the UK to see how the debate is going there ?

While I have found the quality of posting on this thread to have been of very high quality, I feel sometimes it can be bit of an echo chamber (though I'd caveat that in saying that it is an echo chamber which is at least based at solid reasoning and Irish opinion is naturally going to drift generally in favour of the EU).

I went on a bit of a random trawl through UK-based forum sites, hoping to come across really good debate and compelling views from pro-Brexit folk. The sad thing is that I haven't really been successful. The views being espoused on forums over there in favour of Brexit are, in general, as watery and lacking in substantive content as the guff being spouted by the politicians.

I don't think internet forums would be a useful barometer of public opinion for this subject. A lot of people who voted for Brexit are of an age group that wouldn't be familiar with the internet nevermind discussion boards.

A bit like the upcoming abortion referendum in Ireland apart from the zealots you won't see much of the opinions of older voters, who will likely vote against it, online.

MBSnr

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Out of interest here, has anyone else (with as little to do in life as I have!) ever perused similar forum sites in the UK to see how the debate is going there ?

While I have found the quality of posting on this thread to have been of very high quality, I feel sometimes it can be bit of an echo chamber (though I'd caveat that in saying that it is an echo chamber which is at least based at solid reasoning and Irish opinion is naturally going to drift generally in favour of the EU).

I went on a bit of a random trawl through UK-based forum sites, hoping to come across really good debate and compelling views from pro-Brexit folk. The sad thing is that I haven't really been successful. The views being espoused on forums over there in favour of Brexit are, in general, as watery and lacking in substantive content as the guff being spouted by the politicians.

https://forums.digitalspy.com/categories/politics

Breaks into 2 camps though - hardened Brexiteers and those very Pro Remain. Hardly heavy weight stuff but an insight into a more general politics forum.

A good number of Irish posters lurking there as well. The ignorance of many hard line Brexiteer posters from the UK on there about any Irish aspect is fairly shocking....

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

We had Solodeogloria for a while, not sure what happened to him, I expect he lost the faith.

Much thanks,
JM

Solo bailed out about three months ago because he found the atmosphere here uncongenial - which, to be fair to him, it probably was, from his perspective.

I miss him. He made a brave effort at articulating the pro-Brexit position, and he wasn't afraid to engage in discussion with opposing points.

And, yes, it has been a bit of an echo-chamber since.

murphaph

I'd love for a second coming of the bauld Solo now that we're getting into the meat and potatoes of what it means to leave the EU.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

I miss him. He made a brave effort at articulating the pro-Brexit position, and he wasn't afraid to engage in discussion with opposing points.

And, yes, it has been a bit of an echo-chamber since.

I found he often avoided answering the more difficult questions, but it was good to have an interlocutor at least, someone in favour of Brexit.

It may be a bit of an 'echo chamber' alright but, at the same time, I havent seen any convincing arguments for Brexit, so I think that's a pretty natural result.

You get the odd person saying we should 'work with Britain' and 'dont punish them' or 'be difficult', but that argument never stands up.

Many of those in favour of Brexit seem to just want full 'Independence' from the EU at all costs. Seemingly just an emotional response sprung from patriotism, but devoid of logic.

Considering I can't find a one British politician to engage in reasonable discourse on (a) the benefits of Brexit or, (b) how a Brexit can be reasonably achieved, I'm not surprised it's an 'echo chamber'.

Finally.. on 'echo chambers' - a real thing - I think we should be slow to overuse the term. I like to think there's a very bright collective of posters who've been engaging here for some time, and it does us a disservice to suggest we aren't capable of critical and independent thought.

ArthurDayne

I was a little reluctant to use the term 'echo chamber' -- hence why I really wanted to caveat it. The posts here are well written, drawing on good sources and based on reasoning. It's much different to the social media echo chambers where people are getting those "EU ministers finally revealed as DRAGONS" headlines from the bloody Express.

But yes, I wonder can we coax another Brexiteer into the Boards web ? :-)

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

Solo bailed out about three months ago because he found the atmosphere here uncongenial - which, to be fair to him, it probably was, from his perspective.

I miss him. He made a brave effort at articulating the pro-Brexit position, and he wasn't afraid to engage in discussion with opposing points.

And, yes, it has been a bit of an echo-chamber since.

What engagement? Solo refused to provide any facts or links to back up any of their claims and insisted that every claim was wrong because brexit would be great for the UK 'cause they stated so. When asked to provide any form of factual links to this claim it was ignored and continued stating how great everything was and no matter what facts or sources given showing why Brexit has negative effects it was waved away as not true. I found Aegir while more aggressive (imo) in posting style was providing a much better discussion on the topic while I disagree with their view and answer at times.

On a separate note here's a blog post from a small UK manufacturer explaining what will happen after Brexit (no matter which style) which is well worth a read. It highlights clearly the issues Brexit will have and the long term effects those waves will cause for companies.

strandroad

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I was a little reluctant to use the term 'echo chamber' -- hence why I really wanted to caveat it. The posts here are well written, drawing on good sources and based on reasoning. It's much different to the social media echo chambers where people are getting those "EU ministers finally revealed as DRAGONS" headlines from the bloody Express.

But yes, I wonder can we coax another Brexiteer into the Boards web ? :-)

The tone on thread has changed somewhat though. When solo was around, his attitude was broadly "yes it's a disruptive event and let's not talk about Farage or Johnson, but I have full confidence that the actual task force figures it out and delivers" and it was somewhat justified in that at the time there was still space for such hopes and therefore some grounds for debate.

Since then, there have been numerous examples of such incompetency and often either simple or feigned ignorance from the British officials (i.e. the implementation task force) that solo, or whoever wanted to assume his mantle, would find his attitude close to indefensible today.

Sand

strandroad wrote: »

The tone on thread has changed somewhat though. When solo was around, his attitude was broadly "yes it's a disruptive event and let's not talk about Farage or Johnson, but I have full confidence that the actual task force figures it out and delivers" and it was somewhat justified in that at the time there was still space for such hopes and therefore some grounds for debate.

Since then, there have been numerous examples of such incompetency and often either simple or feigned ignorance from the British officials (i.e. the implementation task force) that solo, or whoever wanted to assume his mantle, would find his attitude close to indefensible today.

Solo would simply ignore those examples of incompetency as he ignored the earlier examples of incompetency. He never ever engaged with or acknowledged contradicting evidence to his views and freely admitted he would never accept Brexit was a bad idea under any circumstances. There's a level of mythology arising over Solo's contribution to the Brexit discussions. They were repetitive, ignored any evidence and were framed in a manner many found aggravating. For many months, the thread was everyone interacting with Solo in the same argument on the same points day after day, week after week. I half think people believed they might somehow convert Solo.

I get there is a bit of an echo chamber on Brexit here, but its hard to find anyone who thinks that Brexit is defensible on economic grounds. Its a terrible idea on economic grounds. Those who would defend Brexit on economic grounds are almost entirely charlatans, or grossly mistaken. For those who would defend Brexit on sovereignty or nationalistic terms, they probably are not concerned with the opinions of non-British people on non-British forums to the extent that they would engage. So we are where we are. The thread is still extremely useful for discussing the likely impact of Brexit, and to an extent the lack of a Punch and Judy back and forth on it is beneficial too. I think the tone has improved, and there is still room for disagreement on the impact.

Econ_

Sand wrote: »

Solo would simply ignore those examples of incompetency as he ignored the earlier examples of incompetency. He never ever engaged with or acknowledged contradicting evidence to his views and freely admitted he would never accept Brexit was a bad idea under any circumstances. There's a level of mythology arising over Solo's contribution to the Brexit discussions. They were repetitive, ignored any evidence and were framed in a manner many found aggravating. For many months, the thread was everyone interacting with Solo in the same argument on the same points day after day, week after week. I half think people believed they might somehow convert Solo.

I get there is a bit of an echo chamber on Brexit here, but its hard to find anyone who thinks that Brexit is defensible on economic grounds. Its a terrible idea on economic grounds. Those who would defend Brexit on economic grounds are almost entirely charlatans, or grossly mistaken. For those who would defend Brexit on sovereignty or nationalistic terms, they probably are not concerned with the opinions of non-British people on non-British forums to the extent that they would engage. So we are where we are. The thread is still extremely useful for discussing the likely impact of Brexit, and to an extent the lack of a Punch and Judy back and forth on it is beneficial too. I think the tone has improved, and there is still room for disagreement on the impact.

Those who would defend Brexit on sovereignty or nationalistic terms are also grossly mistaken.


Successive British governments have CHOSEN to pool aspects of the country’s sovereign power in the EU in order to achieve national objectives that they could not have achieved on their own, such as creating the single market, constraining Iran’s nuclear programme, helping to design an ambitious EU climate change strategy etc. Continuing to pool its sovereign power selectively in the EU would enable the UK to help design integrated EU responses to many challenges that it cannot resolve on its own like energy efficiency and sustainability; energy security; internet governance, the fight against terrorism etc.

The British government still determines the vast majority of policy over every issue of greatest concern to British voters – including health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security.

The notion of ‘absolute’ British sovereignty is illusory. It is also worthless if it limits the ability of future British governments to ensure the security and prosperity of their citizens.

EdgeCase

In many ways it could end up far less sovereign being bounced around by the US, the EU, China and others, desperate for trade deals.

It's unrealistic to assume that they will get trade deals on a non-strings attached basis. It doesn't make any sense.

Sand

Econ_ wrote: »

Successive British governments have CHOSEN to pool aspects of the country’s sovereign power in the EU in order to achieve national objectives that they could not have achieved on their own,

Yes, and now they're choosing not to. The flow of sovereignty between the EU and member-states is not one way. If anything else, Brexit is helpful in demonstrating the EU is not an open air prison camp.

Econ_

EdgeCase wrote: »

In many ways it could end up far less sovereign being bounced around by the US, the EU, China and others, desperate for trade deals.

It's unrealistic to assume that they will get trade deals on a non-strings attached basis. It doesn't make any sense.

Absolutely. However it's far more likely they will lose sovereignty through being a long-term vassal state of the EU.

Sand wrote: »

Yes, and now they're choosing not to. The flow of sovereignty between the EU and member-states is not one way. If anything else, Brexit is helpful in demonstrating the EU is not an open air prison camp.

These are just words - you are lacking detail.

Can you tell me some practical, real world consequence of this supposedly increased sovereignty?

Or do you think it just has merit in idealistic theory?

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EEA is established, unsurprisingly, by the Agreement on the European Area, a treaty whose parties are (a) the EFTA member states (other than Switzerland, which has signed the treaty but never ratified it), (b) the EU member states and (c) the EU itself. EFTA is not a party to the Treaty; EFTA doesn't enter into treaties on behalf of its member states.

The upshot of all this is that the UK is already a party to the Agreement on the EEA; if it wants to remain in the EEA it doesn't need to sign and ratify the treaty again.

Technically speaking the UK would have to give 12 months notice to leave the EEA, but the other side of that coin is that they'd need obey all the rules until they leave.





Brexit is like Fr Ted where Dougal is having problem with a diagram.




This one.

Slide presented by Michel Barnier to the European Council on the consequences of UK 'red lines'
15 December 2017

The UK would have to get rid of most of it's self imposed red lines to avoid breaking the EEA rules.

Sand

Econ_ wrote: »

Absolutely. However it's far more likely they will lose sovereignty through being a long-term vassal state of the EU.



These are just words - you are lacking detail.

Can you tell me some practical, real world consequence of this supposedly increased sovereignty?

Or do you think it just has merit in idealistic theory?

I don't think I can convince you of anything you're not open to. Nor do I wish to argue for Brexit, its a bad idea. However, people have risked their lives, and died doing so because of words and concepts like sovereignty. Idealism, even against their own individual self interest. Especially against their own individual self interest. Sovereignty is a powerful idea, and annual GDP % growth and bank balance sheets has yet to inspire people to similar sacrifices. People want to have a sense of control over their lives. The Leave campaign successfully offered a vision of that. The Remain campaign offered only more non-choices.

You stated that the UK chose to pool their sovereignty with others in the EU. If that was a genuine choice which they freely made, then you must equally accept now that they choose not to. There will be consequences to that, but they're not going to have to die for it.

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

I don't think I can convince you of anything you're not open to. Nor do I wish to argue for Brexit, its a bad idea. However, people have risked their lives, and died doing so because of words and concepts like sovereignty. Idealism, even against their own individual self interest. Especially against their own individual self interest. Sovereignty is a powerful idea, and annual GDP % growth and bank balance sheets has yet to inspire people to similar sacrifices. People want to have a sense of control over their lives. The Leave campaign successfully offered a vision of that.

And yet, those people who want a sense of control over their lives - as distinct from any actual control over their lives - get huffy at the idea that Brexit is and always has been fundamentally about nothing whatsoever but xenophobia.

Because, let's face it, what you're arguing boils down to nothing more noble than the idea that some people would rather be worse off than live with the suspicion that foreigners have any input into their lives.

PeadarCo

Sand wrote:

You stated that the UK chose to pool their sovereignty with others in the EU. If that was a genuine choice which they freely made, then you must equally accept now that they choose not to. There will be consequences to that, but they're not going to have to die for it.

The problem is while I agree with your overall point. By leaving the EU I'd argue that the UK is giving up its sovereignty in many areas. If the government or businesses end up just co opting and updates in trade regulations made by the EU the UK will in effect be making changes that are effectively dictated by the EU either directly or indirectly. As a member of the EU the UK has a direct say on any changes.

While I agree listing the economic impacts won't change the views of many leavers. However as the EU is comfortably the UK largest trade partner and will remain so into the future. The EU will directly impact the UK with any changes it makes internally. The could end up a version of fax diplomacy where the EU decides something and the UK has no other practical option but to go along with it.

It was a failing of remain campaign to link the two.