Brexit discussion thread III

Nody

trellheim wrote: »

Time is of the essence. Barnier must be going ape trying to figure out what they are up to.

Doubt it; UK has shown themselves to have an incompetent government lead by most likely the weakest PM in modern history who're utterly clueless. A year ago you could maybe have claimed secret strategy if being very benign but honestly at this stage it's a set of clown pulling each other noses arguing over what's the proper color to wear to mass on the beach as the Tsunami is approaching from the sea. He knows that there are only two possible outcomes of either he gets the Brexit he wants or a hard brexit which hurts UK far more than EU and either way will see him successfully fulfilling his mandate (official and political in ensuring no other country will consider leaving for at least one or two decades seeing the pain of Brexit).

LeinsterDub

The British government will host a summit encouraging six European countries to join the EU for the sake of their “security, stability and prosperity”, months before it is due to sign its own Brexit withdrawal deal with Brussels

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-summit-why-join-eu-balkans-serbia-albania-berlin-process-a8347111.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

No it's not April 1st. It's a newspaper story that can barley believed the UK.

Critics said the UK government must have “a sense of humour” for hosting a conference on EU enlargement and extolling the benefits of accession as Britain itself headed towards the exit door.

Capt'n Midnight

Instead of wiping the Tories over Breit Labour are fighting the powah, they will "bring the super elite to a shuddering halt" . Good sound bite but right now Labour are doing the super elite's dirty work letting Brexit roll on by on their watch.

Yes being in the Single Market means Corbyn can't nationalise certain industries in the strictest sense of the word nationalise. But a government could simply buy enough shares in key companies to have de-facto control, probably a lot cheaper than Brexit. Or play the national-security card like France does. There's ways and means of skirting regulations, if there is a will to do it.

If Labour could find a few loopholes that the electorate could live with they could stop Brexit dead. Send home EU citizens who have no means of support after the allowed deadline , or do the Irish water thing like we do to appease the public. Highlight all the good stuff the EU gave the UK public.

On the jobs front they could stop the MoD buying so much foreign kit , it's not like the UK has to import Landrovers or tanks or ships. Use the old Tory trick of selling off key assets to companies you want to support, like handing Rover over to Rolls Royce for half nothing.

Or fund R&D. Over the years NASA has gone though $30Bn funding the development of SLS / Orion using off-the shelf flight proven tech from the Space Shuttle. SpaceX offer a rocket with similar capability for $150m.

There's lots of ways to work around supposed limitations of the Single Market.

Nody

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Instead of wiping the Tories over Breit Labour are fighting the powah, they will "bring the super elite to a shuddering halt" . Good sound bite but right now Labour are doing the super elite's dirty work letting Brexit roll on by on their watch.

Yes being in the Single Market means Corbyn can't nationalise certain industries in the strictest sense of the word nationalise. But a government could simply buy enough shares in key companies to have de-facto control, probably a lot cheaper than Brexit. Or play the national-security card like France does. There's ways and means of skirting regulations, if there is a will to do it.

If Labour could find a few loopholes that the electorate could live with they could stop Brexit dead. Send home EU citizens who have no means of support after the allowed deadline , or do the Irish water thing like we do to appease the public. Highlight all the good stuff the EU gave the UK public.

On the jobs front they could stop the MoD buying so much foreign kit , it's not like the UK has to import Landrovers or tanks or ships. Use the old Tory trick of selling off key assets to companies you want to support, like handing Rover over to Rolls Royce for half nothing.

Or fund R&D. Over the years NASA has gone though $30Bn funding the development of SLS / Orion using off-the shelf flight proven tech from the Space Shuttle. SpaceX offer a rocket with similar capability for $150m.

There's lots of ways to work around supposed limitations of the Single Market.

But all of that assumes an interest to do so; the Tories were told years ago what to do with for example EU individuals who claimed support behind closed doors to deal with their issues. But the goal is not to deal with the issues but to make public statements and direct rage against someone else while continuing doing what they want to profit personally and their backers. To continue the sycophant story shared by the Sun etc. about the evil EU, the bent banana law, the Eurocrats holding back the real glory of Brittania and stopping them from taking it's proper stage on the world stage again.

Seeing the Tory and Labour leadership both are heavily invested in leaving EU (albeit for different reasons) we'd need a new leader to step up and actually call out the BS going on. Someone who'd step up and say, look the previous leaders lied to you and here's the reality. But by the same definition there's no chance such a new leader would ever win the vote as the old guard would block him five ways to Sunday short of a root based revolution. Which is also why I think a (hard) Brexit has to happen to wake up the UK population to the reality of what EU membership really do bring in terms of benefits.

flatty

I'm resigned to a hard brexit, and dya know what, they've asked for it.

catrionanic

flatty wrote: »

I'm resigned to a hard brexit, and dya know what, they've asked for it.

But we didn’t.

So dismayed with everything. I thought Coveney spoke well on the BBC this morning, however with the best negotiating skills in the world, there’s nothing at all we can do about our border and our economy if the British government keep heading the way they are going.

As a nordie living in the south, the thought of a hard border between my family in the north and the family I’ve created in Dublin literally makes me well up. Myself and my parents cross the border at least twice a week, often more. My heart aches a little bit just thinking about it.

Econ_

catrionanic wrote: »

But we didn’t.

So dismayed with everything. I thought Coveney spoke well on the BBC this morning, however with the best negotiating skills in the world, there’s nothing at all we can do about our border and our economy if the British government keep heading the way they are going.

As a nordie living in the south, the thought of a hard border between my family in the north and the family I’ve created in Dublin literally makes me well up. Myself and my parents cross the border at least twice a week, often more. My heart aches a little bit just thinking about it.

The chances of it happening are slim IMO.

As I've outlined a number of times, I just don't think there's the majority in the House of Commons required to push through a hard Brexit.

Anthracite

Econ_ wrote: »

The chances of it happening are slim IMO.

As I've outlined a number of times, I just don't think there's the majority in the House of Commons required to push through a hard Brexit.

Hard Brexit is the default. Nobody needs to push it through anything.

PeadarCo

Econ_ wrote:

The chances of it happening are slim IMO.

I'd agree but for different reasons. In the event of a hard brexit it can't be shut down. But places like Calais, Dover, Rotherham etc can be all the ports. A hard border can be put in place over night. You would hope the chaos that would bring would snap the UK to its senses before any meaningful border infrastructure could be put in place on the NI/roi border .

Capt'n Midnight

More surfacing on how the UK respects EU citizens rights.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44093868

The Home Office under Theresa May introduced the concept of rough sleeping as an abuse of EU treaty rights two years ago.

But immigration enforcement teams were targeting rough sleepers even if they were in work or had a permanent right of residence in the UK.

First Up

PeadarCo wrote: »

Econ_ wrote:

The chances of it happening are slim IMO.

I'd agree but for different reasons. In the event of a hard brexit it can't be shut down. But places like Calais, Dover, Rotherham etc can be all the ports. A hard border can be put in place over night. You would hope the chaos that would bring would snap the UK to its senses before any meaningful border infrastructure could be put in place on the NI/roi border .

You'd need to shovel a fair bit of earth to make Rotheram a port.

LeinsterDub

Econ_ wrote: »

The chances of it happening are slim IMO.

As I've outlined a number of times, I just don't think there's the majority in the House of Commons required to push through a hard Brexit.

No majority is required just drag their feet till March.

Econ_

Anthracite wrote: »

Hard Brexit is the default. Nobody needs to push it through anything.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/30/fresh-lords-defeat-for-government-makes-no-deal-less-likely

Labour said the amendment, which is the seventh Lords defeat for the government on the EU withdrawal bill, would effectively prevent Britain crashing out of the EU with no deal.

There are tons of other amendments that have to go back to the House of Commons for votes that will also effectively prevent a no deal scenario.

This is another one, specifically with regards the Irish border (which would fundamentally alter the governments negotiating position)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/house-of-lords-backs-move-to-prevent-hard-border-1.3481985

Britain’s House of Lords has backed a move to prevent a hard border after Brexit under which no new checks or controls could be imposed without the agreement of the Irish Government.

And now look at the make up of the House of Commons since the 2017 election:

(and consider there are plenty of Conservative moderates who have already declared they will vote against the government in many of the amendments)

Conservative 318
Labour 262
Scottish National Party 35
Liberal Democrat 12
Democratic Unionist Party 10
Sinn Fein 7
Plaid Cymru 4
Green Party 1
UKIP 0




When you look at the amendments that have to come back to the House of Commons and when you do the maths with regards the parliamentary arithmetic, you will quickly realise that a hard Brexit or the manifestation of a no deal is highly unlikely.

There is no doubt that a majority of those MPs will be acutely aware that there's an excellent chance that there political career would be finished if the UK has to suffer the consequences of a no deal and they didn't exercise their votes to prevent it.

Econ_

Suprisingly good Brexit article here from the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/13/brexiteers-believe-control-position-far-weaker-think/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AqpwFTGrLCxl

See… saw… see… saw… the advantage has swung back towards the Brexiteers – or so they think. The Prime Minister has yet again reiterated her pledges to take back control of Britain’s money, borders and laws.

On Sunday Michael Gove went on TV to talk down her idea for a “customs partnership” due to “significant questions over its deliverability”. This is Gove-speak for what the Foreign Secretary already said: it’s crazy.

Each time it seems as if Theresa May is about to betray the Eurosceptics, she pulls back. But her conciliatory feints disguise the truth: the Brexiteers are in a weak position, and it’s getting weaker.

At the heart of this weakness is the agreement that Mrs May struck in December. Few Brexiteers except Mr Gove seem to realise it, but that was the moment when the Prime Minister gave up on everything they want. Her policy since then has been to drift until confronted, and then make a “strong statement” to convince the Eurosceptics that she’s still on board. Surprisingly, this seems to be working.

Mrs May surrendered on two major issues: the cash and the Irish border. Regarding the cash, she not only agreed to pay up (which hardly matters, since we would have paid up anyway if we had stayed in the EU); she also gave up on using the cash as leverage to secure a trade deal. Without any legal conditionality attached our EU payments, Britain’s biggest bargaining chip disappeared.

Then there’s Ireland. In her desperation for a “breakthrough”, the Prime Minister agreed to a form of wording that is wholly incompatible with her Brexit promises. The December document says that if Brussels doesn’t fancy our alternative suggestions for the Irish border, Britain will maintain “full alignment” with EU rules.

The “customs partnership” idea now preoccupying our government is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, a smokescreen for effectively staying in the customs union, as Ireland wants. Simon Coveney, Ireland’s deputy Prime Minister, said as much on the BBC yesterday when he voiced support for an EU-UK “customs partnership”.


Despite all of this, the Brexiteers act relaxed. When I asked Parliament’s chief Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg, why, he shrugged it off. The Irish backstop is a “meaningless” piece of paper, he said. Legally, perhaps. But diplomatically, that piece of paper is a set of shackles, and it’s one that the EU and Ireland fully intend to use.

The Brexiteers tend to repeat its comforting mantra: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” The problem is that Mrs May’s concessions have now made “everything” a very unpalatable option. And they cannot be sure that, given the choice, Mrs May will choose “nothing” over “everything”.

Unfortunately, without being willing to risk “nothing” – a “no deal” Brexit – we will not break the impasse over Ireland. The EU will stick to its guns, betting that our Prime Minister doesn’t have the stomach to walk out for real.

It is just about possible that it is wrong. Perhaps, in the autumn, Mrs May will undergo a personality transplant, jump up and shout: “Non!” God knows she will have left it horribly late to take her stand, but stranger things have happened.

The likelihood, however, is that this won’t happen. Instead, she will sign on the dotted line. What, then, will be the options available to the Brexiteers? There are two possibilities.

The first is that they try to force her out. So we’d see an en-masse resignation of Brexiteer Cabinet ministers and a flood of letters to the 1922 Committee. Before a leadership contest can start, though, the rules require Tory MPs to hold a vote of no confidence in their leader.

Mrs May would almost certainly survive such a vote. Hardcore Brexiteers account for no more than 100 MPs on the Conservative benches. That leaves more than 200 loyalists to keep her in place.

Eurosceptics would still have a second potential way to stop the Prime Minister from reneging on her Brexit promises. Thanks to the amendments passed by Remainers, which require Parliament to be given a “meaningful” vote on Brexit, MPs will have the chance to vote on the deal she brings back from Brussels. If Mrs May has made too many concessions, Brexiteers could simply vote it down.

They would, ironically, be using a tool crafted by their opponents. The Remainers’ thinking was that, because they make up a majority in both Houses, holding a parliamentary vote on Brexit would help their cause. But most Remainers sit on the Labour and SNP benches. Labour will certainly never vote to take joint responsibility for Mrs May’s Brexit by endorsing it. So Mrs May needs all of her MPs and the DUP to pass the deal.

To Brexiteers, this is a backdoor way of achieving their ends. They think that if the government’s deal fails in Parliament, we will simply cruise out of the EU with no deal at all. And if Mrs May doesn’t want to be in the driver’s seat, well, she can move over.

There are two problems with this plan. First, if she is rejected by the Brexiteers, the spurned Mrs May could seek out other parliamentary allies. A cross-party alliance of Remainers, who far outnumber Brexiteers, might offer her a bargain: we’ll vote for your godforsaken deal if you return to Brussels to water it down further, or if you hold a second referendum on it.

Second, Mrs May could play the most deadly card of all: holding a parliamentary vote of confidence in her government. The Brexiteers would then be in an absurd position. Either they would vote to keep her in place despite having rejected her most important and defining policy, or they would vote to topple her, which could trigger either the formation of a pro-Remain “unity” government or fresh elections. Meanwhile, the public would be watching in disbelief.

Even if the Brexiteers did manage to scupper Mrs May’s deal, there will be precious little time left for preparing the country for a “no deal”. And if there is one sure-fire way to frighten markets and undermine confidence in Brexit and Brexiteers, it is by tipping the government into full-blown chaos. It’s a scenario that is certainly seen as very helpful by those people who want Britain to hold a second referendum.

The Brexiteers might huff and puff, but they have lost control of Brexit. With every day that passes, it gets harder to see how they can take it back.

Anthracite

Econ_ wrote: »

There are tons of other amendments that have to go back to the House of Commons for votes that will also effectively prevent a no deal scenario

I don't understand: it's not like there is a deal agreed that they can default to. If they can't vote through hard Brexit, there isn't a ready-made deal waiting for them.

An Ciarraioch

For some unearthly reason, Lionel Shriver, of We Need To Talk About Kevin fame, is writing about the Border for the Spectator - and makes an incoherent dog's dinner of it:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-irish-border-is-the-eus-problem-not-ours/

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

For some unearthly reason, Lionel Shriver, of We Need To Talk About Kevin fame, is writing about the Border for the Spectator - and makes an incoherent dog's dinner of it:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-irish-border-is-the-eus-problem-not-ours/

A lecture on the Irish border by some shrill and clueless libertarian yank? Eh, no thanks.

Econ_

Anthracite wrote: »

I don't understand: it's not like there is a deal agreed that they can default to. If they can't vote through hard Brexit, there isn't a ready-made deal waiting for them.

They don't need to agree to a fully fledged deal.

They just need to make the necessary concessions in the withdrawal agreement and make a short political statement on the future trading relationship and then the transition will go ahead. They then negotiate the details of the deal during the transition.

This is already the agreed plan of action. The sticking point in the withdrawal agreement is that it must guarantee no hard border in Ireland by means of a border in the Irish Sea OR the whole UK agrees that it will stay in the Customs Union and align themselves with the relevant parts of the single market.

If we reach a stage with a few months to go and there is no agreement with the withdrawal treaty (when a no deal scenario beckons), I would be shocked if parliament didn't put forward and vote for amendments that force the government to agree the withdrawal treaty. The last thing the vast majority of parliament want is to walk into no deal; and there will be plenty of opportunity for them to prevent it.

joeysoap

Econ_ wrote: »

Suprisingly good Brexit article here from the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/13/brexiteers-believe-control-position-far-weaker-think/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AqpwFTGrLCxl

The article is a more subtle call to arms for Brexiteers.


They don’t appear to see anything wrong in reneging on agreements, instead classing the agreement as a set of shackles


Despite all of this, the Brexiteers act relaxed. When I asked Parliament’s chief Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg, why, he shrugged it off. The Irish backstop is a “meaningless” piece of paper, he said. Legally, perhaps. But diplomatically, that piece of paper is a set of shackles, and it’s one that the EU and Ireland fully intend to use.

Anthracite

Despite all of this, the Brexiteers act relaxed. When I asked Parliament’s chief Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg, why, he shrugged it off. The Irish backstop is a “meaningless” piece of paper, he said. Legally, perhaps. But diplomatically, that piece of paper is a set of shackles, and it’s one that the EU and Ireland fully intend to use.

'A set of shackels'...or a negotiated agreement, as the civilised world calls it. The Brexit-think makes your head spin, sometimes.

PeadarCo

First Up wrote:

You'd need to shovel a fair bit of earth to make Rotheram a port.

Typo I meant Rotterdam.

An Claidheamh

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

For some unearthly reason, Lionel Shriver, of We Need To Talk About Kevin fame, is writing about the Border for the Spectator - and makes an incoherent dog's dinner of it:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/the-irish-border-is-the-eus-problem-not-ours/

Where do they keep finding these reprobates?

This clown, who isn't even British spouting the usual clichés.

It's as if she just copied and pasted someone else's work.
She must need the money or something.


"Eurocrats, Sinn Féin, blackmail"

"Michel Barnier.... just like his concern for ‘peace’. That guy doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Northern Ireland."

Pass the sick bag.... Please.


That American airhead should stay out of European affairs.

Peregrinus

To be fair to Shriver, she lived in Belfast for a number of years, and still visits regularly. She loves the place. She has written about Northern Ireland in the past and has never been behind in expressing her opinions. And, when her opinions have later proven to be spectacularly wrong, she has had the grace to acknowledge the fact.

I'm fairly confident that in time she will have an opportunity to acknowledge the wrongness of these opinions, too.

ancapailldorcha

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Where do they keep finding these reprobates?

This clown, who isn't even British spouting the usual clichés.

It's as if she just copied and pasted someone else's work.
She must need the money or something.


"Eurocrats, Sinn Féin, blackmail"

"Michel Barnier.... just like his concern for ‘peace’. That guy doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Northern Ireland."

Pass the sick bag.... Please.


That American airhead should stay out of European affairs.

No more name calling please. This isn't serious discussion.

Econ_

Anthracite wrote: »

'A set of shackels'...or a negotiated agreement, as the civilised world calls it. The Brexit-think makes your head spin, sometimes.

Of course.

If you're a supporter of Brexit, or if you work for a newspaper that compels you to support Brexit, you're overwhelmingly likely to think in such ways.

This is why the UK is in crisis. Half of their government has the immoral, autocratic, deceptive and corrupt mindset necessary to support Brexit.

Brexit is like an abstract, conceptual form of Donald Trump.

Econ_

Brexiteers new favorite line, when they are being quizzed with regards how badly the government are handling the negotiations, is to point to the "great success" of the phase 1 December agreement, that "nobody expected them to get."


December agreement:

-Agreed some form of deal for citizens rights.

-Caved into the EU demands for bill of £40 Billion (having previously said that the EU can 'go whistle')

-Made clear commitments with regards the Irish border, of which they've been trying to wriggle free from ever since. (and don't forget the DUP embarrassing them late on by delaying the agreement)

-All of this could have been agreed months before



And this is now revised and held up to be a demonstration of their competence. Welcome to Brexit Britain.

Leroy42

Totally agree Econ, and yet they claim that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

TM has certainly used the line about making an agreement when nobody thought she could as a signal to how well she is doing yet at the same time declaring that the deal meant nothing!

The bit about that line they seem to leave out is that since the deal was agreed, then why would the EU now agree to anything less. Why, for example, would they agree to a FTA without the €40bn settlement? Why would they agree to tariff free without the UK sticking to the deal with regards to the NI border?

JRM etc seem to believe that they should renege on a deal which the PM agreed to on behalf on the country (legally they can but what sort of signal does that send) but also that even if they go with that option then by default the only alternative is a hard Brexit. They continue to talk as if the negotiations are about to start from scratch and nobody pulls them up on it.

LuckyLloyd

What do we think would happen if - at the end of June - the EU withdrew from further talks, declared there would be no transition period and said its focus was now on preparing the EU 27 and making arrangements to treat the UK as a third country as of March 29 2019.

My sense is that sterling would immediately plummet to new depths and there would be a noticeable shock in share prices / investment in UK based companies. I think we'd see panic in the Business community generally too, and confirmation of contingency plans left, right and centre. We'd be hit too, as we'd have to start making arrangements for a hard border and the EU as a whole would have budget holes to fill. But the ramifications would be way more significant for the UK economy, and they'd almost certainly be immediately thrown back into a recession by the news alone.

The point here being that I feel like the EU has a grenade yet to throw, and that fundamentally undermines a key tenant many Brexiteers have lived by to date: that "No Deal" is their hole card. Maybe if they'd played the card last year it would have been advantageous from their perspective, but given the timelines at this stage I think they only lose if it becomes a reality.

Infini

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2018/0514/963352-coveney-barnier-brussels/

Negotiations over the Irish Border effectively have stalled out while Brits basically beat themselves up.

This is gonna end one of 3 ways

1) Rerun of Brexit referendum with a most likely Remain win this time due to Brexit shown as a failure and joke.
2) Brits effectively cave on the North regardless of the DUP's stupidity and NI remains within EU with customs at ports/airports.
3) They crash out hard resulting in a wrecking of the UK and possible breakup down the line.

Econ_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What do we think would happen if - at the end of June - the EU withdrew from further talks, declared there would be no transition period and said its focus was now on preparing the EU 27 and making arrangements to treat the UK as a third country as of March 29 2019.

My sense is that sterling would immediately plummet to new depths and there would be a noticeable shock in share prices / investment in UK based companies. I think we'd see panic in the Business community generally too, and confirmation of contingency plans left, right and centre. We'd be hit too, as we'd have to start making arrangements for a hard border and the EU as a whole would have budget holes to fill. But the ramifications would be way more significant for the UK economy, and they'd almost certainly be immediately thrown back into a recession by the news alone.

The point here being that I feel like the EU has a grenade yet to throw, and that fundamentally undermines a key tenant many Brexiteers have lived by to date: that "No Deal" is their hole card. Maybe if they'd played the card last year it would have been advantageous from their perspective, but given the timelines at this stage I think they only lose if it becomes a reality.

This is essentially what may end up happening at the June Summit.

But negotiations would come to a halt on the premise that the British have made no progress to uphold their commitments on the Irish Border.

And it's important that the EU frames it this way and makes it clear that negotiations will be reopened when they reconcile their negotiating position with that commitment. The right wing press will already have a field day in this scenario but imagine the vitriol they would stir up if the EU abruptly cut off negotiations? :eek:

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally agree Econ, and yet they claim that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

TM has certainly used the line about making an agreement when nobody thought she could as a signal to how well she is doing yet at the same time declaring that the deal meant nothing!

The bit about that line they seem to leave out is that since the deal was agreed, then why would the EU now agree to anything less. Why, for example, would they agree to a FTA without the €40bn settlement? Why would they agree to tariff free without the UK sticking to the deal with regards to the NI border?

JRM etc seem to believe that they should renege on a deal which the PM agreed to on behalf on the country (legally they can but what sort of signal does that send) but also that even if they go with that option then by default the only alternative is a hard Brexit. They continue to talk as if the negotiations are about to start from scratch and nobody pulls them up on it.

Exactly.

Leroy42

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What do we think would happen if - at the end of June - the EU withdrew from further talks, declared there would be no transition period and said its focus was now on preparing the EU 27 and making arrangements to treat the UK as a third country as of March 29 2019.

My sense is that sterling would immediately plummet to new depths and there would be a noticeable shock in share prices / investment in UK based companies. I think we'd see panic in the Business community generally too, and confirmation of contingency plans left, right and centre. We'd be hit too, as we'd have to start making arrangements for a hard border and the EU as a whole would have budget holes to fill. But the ramifications would be way more significant for the UK economy, and they'd almost certainly be immediately thrown back into a recession by the news alone.

The point here being that I feel like the EU has a grenade yet to throw, and that fundamentally undermines a key tenant many Brexiteers have lived by to date: that "No Deal" is their hole card. Maybe if they'd played the card last year it would have been advantageous from their perspective, but given the timelines at this stage I think they only lose if it becomes a reality.

I think it would cause massive shock in the EU as well (or maybe that should read Ireland). It will be seen as a failure on the part of the EU to get a deal with a big trader (not in the sense of blame just as a matter of fact). It will further cement the notion by some that the EU is failing.

It will create a massive hole in the EU budget and spending plans. It will create massive problems for any EU company trading with the UK, so we would see job losses etc. Certainly from on Irish POV the effects will be pretty severe.

I don't think the talks will collapse in June, if nothing else the EU has perfected the art of pushing things down the line. A fudge will be made, to try to protect about the very issues that are likely to happen. Possible even an extension on Art 50, with the knock-on extension on the transition. Of course that bring the UK into the next round of budget so they will probably end of paying.

It is far more advantageous for both sides for things to be postponed than a no deal scenario. We have already seen this. The EU had very clear objectives in Phase 1, none of them met, which is why we are still in this circular argument about the Phase 1 deal. It was sufficiently vague that the UK could argue that is doesn't really matter, yet at the same time prove that negotiations are on track.

Peregrinus

Collapse of talks does present a budgetary problem for the EU institutions, but it's a manageable one. (They have already done their sums on this.) There would be political blowback since, yes, it would be a failure to acheive something important, and it would also suggest frosty EU/UK relations for some time.

But for the UK it would be much, much worse. The UK state would be adversely affected in the sense that it's wholly unprepared for the customs, border, etc tasks that would be needed, and there would be chaos, confusion and unimplemented laws and policies. But the UK national economy would also be profoundly affected, and much more so than the EU economy. You'd have layoffs and business closures and downstream consequences and so on on a much larger scale than in the EU as a whole.

Ireland would also be very badly affected, since we still do quite a lot of trade with the UK, plus of course we'd have a hard border to police. It's possible that the economic effects would be even worse for us than for the UK. Unquestionably we'd be looking for some sort of support from the EU as the country most badly affected by Brexit.

But, while there would be great uncertainty and great disruption in the short term, there would also be a feeling that this state of affairs will not last. The EU can survive it, politically, but the UK cannot. The shock to the UK would be such that there would inevitably be a change of government, and the markets would expect that at some point the new UK government would be going back to the EU and saying, can we resume talking, please?

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, while there would be great uncertainty and great disruption in the short term, there would also be a feeling that this state of affairs will not last. The EU can survive it, politically, but the UK cannot. The shock to the UK would be such that there would inevitably be a change of government, and the markets would expect that at some point the new UK government would be going back to the EU and saying, can we resume talking, please?

On this specific point, I wonder what would be the impact on the British national psyche (assuming such a thing can be said to exist), should they end up being forced to crawl back to the table begging for forgiveness? (Not my view, but how it might be perceived.)

Regardless of the economic reality, I think many Brits would really resent the apparent national humiliation and loss of face and status, and might be inclined to dig their heels in for quite some time. How many people would need to feel this way to give the government of the day pause for thought? It might be far less than a majority, depending on the demographics and which MPs seats are at risk. I remain very pessimistic about a solution, I feel there is too much British ego and pride at stake for any kind of sensible solution.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think it would cause massive shock in the EU as well (or maybe that should read Ireland). It will be seen as a failure on the part of the EU to get a deal with a big trader (not in the sense of blame just as a matter of fact). It will further cement the notion by some that the EU is failing.

You mean the same EU that has signed multiple trade deals and opened discussions on multiple others to be expanded at the same time? Sorry but I think you overvalue the sense of blow back on it; anyone looking in can clearly see where the failure of the deal lies and it's not with EU who've been very open with their position from day 1 and I think Brexit has helped to accelerate the TD discussions to highlight the value of being an EU member.

It will create a massive hole in the EU budget and spending plans. It will create massive problems for any EU company trading with the UK, so we would see job losses etc. Certainly from on Irish POV the effects will be pretty severe.

It's 2 years contributions net or about 26 billion pounds; it is not a big hole in the budget that can easily be dealt with. The funny thing as well is that it's unlikely to cause problems with companies trading into UK for a while simply because of the chaos they will not be enforcing the rules; companies in UK trading to EU however will be getting punched in the gut over and over again when the start to see the work ahead of them.

I don't think the talks will collapse in June, if nothing else the EU has perfected the art of pushing things down the line. A fudge will be made, to try to protect about the very issues that are likely to happen. Possible even an extension on Art 50, with the knock-on extension on the transition. Of course that bring the UK into the next round of budget so they will probably end of paying.

The talks will halt in June; not collapse. May will come back with agreeing to the EU terms and we may end up with (yet another) extension for May to try to survive at home. I don't see EU extend article 50 simply because they want UK out of it all; the extension period possibly but only if UK pays up accordingly but at that point UK lost all their power in EU while EU keeps all the benefits. In essence UK becomes a vassal state having to implement everything EU decides but have no say in what or how those rules will look like and pay the full price for the pleasure.

It is far more advantageous for both sides for things to be postponed than a no deal scenario. We have already seen this. The EU had very clear objectives in Phase 1, none of them met, which is why we are still in this circular argument about the Phase 1 deal. It was sufficiently vague that the UK could argue that is doesn't really matter, yet at the same time prove that negotiations are on track.

EU met all their goals in phase 1; they got all the items they wanted as outlined from day 1 agreed and it's UK running around trying to fudge them afterwards. Phase 1 was about sufficient progress; that was achieved and now EU pushes UK to ratify and they panic.

Leroy42

The other issue you have is that how do people voice their wish to restart EU negotiations?

At the present time, both main parties are offering Brexit. The Labour party have tied themselves in knots trying to agree to Brexit but not and in a way have helped the continued lack of real debate.

Are people really going to turn on mass to the Lib Dems? The recent local elections didn't point to anything like that and (although I don't know one way or the other) the Lib Dems may not even have the ability to field the level of candidates required should such a possibility even exist.

The last 18 months or so have shown us that anyone trying to make the case that Brexit is not really all that great have been daubed traitors etc. The House of Lords is currently being smeared as undemocratic (which it is but the very same people had no problem with it even a few short years ago) and that to make it democratic would actually make the current problems that TM is facing worse (on the assumption that vote split would be the same).

So I have the feeling that regardless of the outcome of Brexit, regardless of the economic cost etc, the die is cast and the institutions such as the media (including the BBC) the main political parties etc will have to persuade the population that it is not the fault of Brexit but rather the fault of the EU, as otherwise would be to admit that they were wrong and they are to blame.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

The other issue you have is that how do people voice their wish to restart EU negotiations?

At the present time, both main parties are offering Brexit. The Labour party have tied themselves in knots trying to agree to Brexit but not and in a way have helped the continued lack of real debate.

Are people really going to turn on mass to the Lib Dems? The recent local elections didn't point to anything like that and (although I don't know one way or the other) the Lib Dems may not even have the ability to field the level of candidates required should such a possibility even exist.

The last 18 months or so have shown us that anyone trying to make the case that Brexit is not really all that great have been daubed traitors etc. The House of Lords is currently being smeared as undemocratic (which it is but the very same people had no problem with it even a few short years ago) and that to make it democratic would actually make the current problems that TM is facing worse (on the assumption that vote split would be the same).

So I have the feeling that regardless of the outcome of Brexit, regardless of the economic cost etc, the die is cast and the institutions such as the media (including the BBC) the main political parties etc will have to persuade the population that it is not the fault of Brexit but rather the fault of the EU, as otherwise would be to admit that they were wrong and they are to blame.

The possibility exists for the Remain leaning MPs from all parties form a National Gov as they did in WW II, and push through a reversal of Brexit. It would split the Tories for ever, and possibly split Labour. The Liberal Party ceased to exist in any meaningful way after WW II when Labour romped home in 1945.

No UK Gov has enjoyed over 50% of the popular vote since 1932, and even that was an exception, being the only one in the 20th century.

They would need to great rid of the FPTP system and replace it with the STV system. STV is perceived as complicated, but it is simple - vote in the order of your choice. How can that be complicated.

Leroy42

Exactly. The seismic shirt in so many aspects of the UK is very unlikely. A change to the electoral system itself? The birth of a new party that can actually achieve a majority?

Yes these things could happen, anything can happen, but it is highly unlikely. What we have seen over the past number of years, and particularly since the Brexit vote, is a number of key components of any democracy, namely political parties, media, being more concerned about their own survival than the best interests of the country or in the case of the media seeking to get to the truth and willing to ask the hard questions.

Think about what has gone on the last 18 months. Boris has continued to denounce his own PM, yet there is little calls for him to be fired.
Davies outright lied to the select committee about impact reports, it is treated as almost a joke.
Fox is never fully questioned about his claims to be able to deliver trade deals, has he ever negotiated even 1 before never mind multiple ones across a short time frame?
The Judiciary have been called traitors.
MP's questioning Brexit have been called traitors
The Lords have been threatened with disbandment if they continue to ask questions.
The continued existence of NI as part of the union has been talked about.
The leave side have been found to be in breach of election campaign rules and barely a murmur.
The claims of the Leave side have been shown, in the most part, to be complete fantasy and this is met with "the remain side were wrong" rather than question how and what it means.

It is clear that those sections that have committed to Brexit are prepared to cast of any and all ideals in order to achieve this aim. So if their aim turns out to be not what was promised then they are not going to accept that they got it wrong. Daniel Hannons recent article gives a good insight into the thinking. According to him, it is Labours fault, and the EU are being a bit tough to deal with.

sink

swampgas wrote: »

Regardless of the economic reality, I think many Brits would really resent the apparent national humiliation and loss of face and status, and might be inclined to dig their heels in for quite some time.

I disagree, I don't see any of the opposition taking that line and they will use the failure as a big stick to beat up the government. Feeling humiliated would require the public to accept to a small degree that they made a mistake. A competent opposition will transfer any humiliation onto the chief brexiteers and the PM. The majority of the voting public will be relieved to pretend like they never supported Bojo, Davis, Gove etc., and any failure is not their own but the incompetent governments. The National psyche will be able to pretend like they never believed in it in the first place and its all someone else's fault.

wes

sink wrote: »

I disagree, I don't see any of the opposition taking that line and they will use the failure as a big stick to beat up the government. Feeling humiliated would require the public to accept to a small degree that they made a mistake. A competent opposition will transfer any humiliation onto the chief brexiteers and the PM. The majority of the voting public will be relieved to pretend like they never supported Bojo, Davis, Gove etc., and any failure is not their own but the incompetent governments. The National psyche will be able to pretend like they never believed in it in the first place and its all someone else's fault.

Its unfortunate that people in democracies generally won't admit to screwing up and will instead blame politicians solely for the mess that was made. I think if people were to admit that the electorate are just as much to blame for the politicians that they elect.

EdgeCase

I disagree. Mature and sane electorates that aren’t whipped by tabloids do it all the time. Ireland has even managed to make pretty rational and well debated decisions on a number of recent issues.

It’s largely about the political and media environment. The UK is still a swirling mess of jingosism and lies, much like the US. They’ve been trolled on a massive scale.

wes

EdgeCase wrote: »

I disagree. Mature and sane electorates that aren’t whipped by tabloids do it all the time. Ireland has even managed to make pretty rational and well debated decisions on a number of recent issues.

Alas we seem to be the exception these days. Populism and Jingoism is spreading and so far we haven't had much of that here, but I wouldn't bank on that staying the same forever.

EdgeCase wrote: »

It’s largely about the political and media environment. The UK is still a swirling mess of jingosism and lies, much like the US. They’ve been trolled on a massive scale.

Good point, and I would add social media to that. Social media has acted as a radicalization engine the world over, empowering various reactionary groups, and even help promote genocide in a couple of cases (Myanmar and Iraq).

EdgeCase

The PR voting systems in Ireland and in most of Northern Europe seem to keep things a bit sane too though.

Ireland's version is particularly open, not being party list based, which I think has created a culture of consensus politics in the last few decades especially.

The UK is all about winner takes all, rather than proportionally and genuinely representative democracy. The result of that is you're seeing a wild swing of politics and the destabilisation of society - the government is only interested in its voter base and is ignoring almost half the population. The same is true of the US.

Narrow technical majorities and extreme politics. It's always a risk of those systems.

In both US and UK cases I think we are seeing the flaws in what are very simple 1st generation electoral systems that never evolved towards 20th century ideas of proportional representation that tends to be a part of most European systems that developed or were radically modernised after WWII or, in our case, upon independence.

PR-STV was specifically designed to avoid instability here with conflict between various factions.
In European examples, similar systems arose for similar reasons - left / right divides, ethnic or identity divides and need to develop modern consensus building.

The UK doesn't even have a federal parliament, so doesn't even adequately represent its constituent nations, never mind having proper proportionality.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

The other issue you have is that how do people voice their wish to restart EU negotiations?

Like this - One million students join calls for vote on Brexit deal ?

Student leaders said last night that they were planning action that would dwarf protests held in 2010 against the coalition government’s plans for student fees, and that they would not rest until they had been granted a say on their futures.

They argue in the letter to MPs that there are large numbers of young people – estimated at 1.4 million – who were too young to vote in the June 2016 EU referendum but who are now eligible to do so, and that this group deserves a say.

They also insist that promises made by the pro-Brexit groups during the campaign have not been kept and that only now, almost two years on from the narrow Leave vote, are most people beginning to understand what life outside the EU will look like.

Econ_

Tick tock...

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/996013411011088385

Sam Russell

EdgeCase wrote: »

The UK doesn't even have a federal parliament, so doesn't even adequately represent its constituent nations, never mind having proper proportionality.

They have a federal Gov, but do not have regional governments for the largest part of the population.

The English region has no regional parliament, and the regional assemblies of NI, Scotland and Wales have different levels of devolution. The Westminster Parliament considers itself the English Assembly, and wishes to prevent MPs from the other regions from voting on 'English' matters.

Following Brexit, they may well have their way if NI vote for a United Ireland and Scotland vote for independence.

EdgeCase

EdgeCase wrote: »

In both US and UK cases I think we are seeing the flaws in what are very simple 1st generation electoral systems that never evolved towards 20th century ideas of proportional representation that tends to be a part of most European systems that developed or were radically modernised after WWII or, in our case, upon independence.

PR-STV was introduced to this island by the British government in 1920 after Sinn Fein won so many seats in 1918. The British wanted the proposed Southern Ireland not to be dominated by SF so introduced PR-STV to split the vote somewhat.

EdgeCase

Deleted User wrote: »

PR-STV was introduced to this island by the British government in 1920 after Sinn Fein won so many seats in 1918. The British wanted the proposed Southern Ireland not to be dominated by SF so introduced PR-STV to split the vote somewhat.

It was introduced to prevent serious inter-community conflict and unrest by ensuring proportionality and minorities remained represented both protestant and catholic.

You'll get various spins on it from the point of view of 'it was watering down nationalism' ... I tend not to buy that based on reading of the actual origins and the problems it was trying to prevent and deal with.

There were quite a few attempts in Irish political structures to ensure minority representation, actually including the TCD seats in the Seanad, which were in part, to ensure protestant voices got heard in a catholic majority state at the time.

You also had rather 19th century progressive efforts towards inter community structures and secular state institutions like the Queen's Colleges (now UCC, NUIG and Queen's Belfast) which were established specifically to be non-religious so that they wouldn't exclude catholics or protestants, or have duplication of facilities and sectarian lines.

Not everything was about creating strife in this island, there was a lot of progressive thinking too.

The whole concept behind PR-STV here was part of an envisaged, non-partitioned Ireland that was going to incorporate all of the communities.

Partition and the creation of Northern Ireland changed that, but the voting system remained in place and has worked pretty well.

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have a federal Gov, but do not have regional governments for the largest part of the population.

The English region has no regional parliament, and the regional assemblies of NI, Scotland and Wales have different levels of devolution. The Westminster Parliament considers itself the English Assembly, and wishes to prevent MPs from the other regions from voting on 'English' matters.

Following Brexit, they may well have their way if NI vote for a United Ireland and Scotland vote for independence.

They've a unitary government with ad hoc and quite oddly constructed bits of devolution. It's not really comparable to a proper federal system.

Sam Russell

EdgeCase wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have a federal Gov, but do not have regional governments for the largest part of the population.

The English region has no regional parliament, and the regional assemblies of NI, Scotland and Wales have different levels of devolution. The Westminster Parliament considers itself the English Assembly, and wishes to prevent MPs from the other regions from voting on 'English' matters.

Following Brexit, they may well have their way if NI vote for a United Ireland and Scotland vote for independence.

They've a unitary government with ad hoc and quite oddly constructed bits of devolution. It's not really comparable to a proper federal system.

Well, it depends on how you categorise them.

They have local councils that have devolved powers - education and policing being two. They also raise taxes.

The Assemblies of NI Wales and Scotland are a little more than super county councils, with varying levels of autonomy.

Unfortunately, they did not bring idea of devolved Assemblies into the English regions, and if they did, then perhaps the pre-eminence of England within the UK might be reduced, along with the destructive emergence of English nationalism.

flatty

Sam Russell wrote: »

EdgeCase wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have a federal Gov, but do not have regional governments for the largest part of the population.

The English region has no regional parliament, and the regional assemblies of NI, Scotland and Wales have different levels of devolution. The Westminster Parliament considers itself the English Assembly, and wishes to prevent MPs from the other regions from voting on 'English' matters.

Following Brexit, they may well have their way if NI vote for a United Ireland and Scotland vote for independence.

They've a unitary government with ad hoc and quite oddly constructed bits of devolution. It's not really comparable to a proper federal system.

Well, it depends on how you categorise them.

They have local councils that have devolved powers - education and policing being two. They also raise taxes.

The Assemblies of NI Wales and Scotland are a little more than super county councils, with varying levels of autonomy.

Unfortunately, they did not bring idea of devolved Assemblies into the English regions, and if they did, then perhaps the pre-eminence of England within the UK might be reduced, along with the destructive emergence of English nationalism.

The Scots have only themselves to blame for that. There were a majority of greasy til fumblers sadly.