Brexit discussion thread III

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't the Uk voting to leave EU not the more important point. The UK should be free to leave if they wish. Nationalists in NI are still part of the UK, whether they like that or not.

But again, if it comes down to a choice between border with ROI or the UK staying in the EU then I really don't see what option any UK government has given that Brexit was voted for.

There's the rub. Under current circumstances, many Nationalists are content to accept the status quo. You may believe that they are British. The vast majority see themselves as Irish. If Britain chooses to move the goalposts significantly then they will feel very aggrieved. And rightly so. It's not their problem to fix, it's the Tories problem. They won't and shouldn't have their legitimate concerns hand waved away.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't the Uk voting to leave EU not the more important point. The UK should be free to leave if they wish.

They are free to leave.

But they signed up to the GFA before they took this notion to leave. If that is a problem, it is their problem.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't the Uk voting to leave EU not the more important point. The UK should be free to leave if they wish.

Yes, we all know that. They just have to tie up some loose ends first, and while you might not realise that, they certainly do.

Sam Russell

joeysoap wrote: »

If you have a border with NI ( a UK EU border, not an Ireland UK border) then you automatically have queues of trucks in Dover etc. I’d guess they want to avoid this and NI is they way out. But just not yet.

If they have a border in the Irish sea, they also have queues at Dover. The queues at Dover are the result of leaving the SM and CU, whenever that happens.

There is already a border on the Irish sea for agriculture and related material/products.

The 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' does not mean anything that has been agreed so far will be revisited. At the end of negotiations, it will be 'sign or walk away'. In other words - deal or no deal.

Mezcita

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, we all know that. They just have to tie up some loose ends first, and while you might not realise that, they certainly do.

Tick. Tock.

Think the EU will turn the screw in June. This lack of action has been going on for months now.

trellheim

When I see pictures on twitter of Barnier meeting people from the locale, I expect movement in some way fairly soon !

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

At the end of negotiations, it will be 'sign or walk away'. In other words - deal or no deal.

Yes, and the more time the UK waste, the less time they get to prepare for No Deal.

I think this is deliberate from May - she will bluff until the last minute, cave, and dare the Brexiteers to rebel and cause a no-deal Brexit.

Because silly as they are, they know that would be a catastrophe on a scale not seen since the 1930s.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and the more time the UK waste, the less time they get to prepare for No Deal.

I think this is deliberate from May - she will bluff until the last minute, cave, and dare the Brexiteers to rebel and cause a no-deal Brexit.

Because silly as they are, they know that would be a catastrophe on a scale not seen since the 1930s.

I think they had a torrid time in 1940.

Mezcita

Mezcita wrote: »

Tick. Tock.

Think the EU will turn the screw in June. This lack of action has been going on for months now.

The last two weeks has made me think it's going to be a hard Brexit.

For the UK, staying in the customs union removes their ability to do proper trade deals around the world, so that's a non-starter politically. Dropping Brexit won't happen either.

A hard border will go up and they will put their fingers in their ears and scream "THE EU AND THE IRISH DID THIS." while crumbling from the inside trying to create all their new regulatory agencies and work on trade deals around the world.

At least they'll have that 32m pound from fisheries to dry their eyes with.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

For the UK, staying in the customs union removes their ability to do proper trade deals around the world, so that's a non-starter politically.

Those deals are theoretical and somewhere off in the future. The sudden drop off the cliff into a depression at a hard brexit will get more and more real the closer they get to the edge.

They will not jump.

Leroy42

JRM was on LBC call in and the Van criver that was on James O'Brien recently rang in t ask about the problems with the non frictionless border.

JRM firstly attempted to say it was an isolated incident (although there no no indication what it was) and when the driver asked what was going to be in place to reduce the delays & costs, JRM simply went on about some White Paper and that Dover would need to step up to the plate.

in other words, he doesn't have a plan to deal with it, that is up to others to deal with.

So they have no plan to deal with the near 20bn of extra costs that is being placed on UK business, not to mention the cost in time.

Of course the radio host didn't actually question him on it, simply let him off with these banal summaries.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they had a torrid time in 1940.

They were bailed out by the IMF in 1976.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think they had a torrid time in 1940.

They were bailed out by the IMF in 1976.

The threat in 1940 was existential. 1976 was financial. 1940 cost them the remains of their empire, sold to pay the USA for arms, and ships, and food.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Those deals are theoretical and somewhere off in the future. The sudden drop off the cliff into a depression at a hard brexit will get more and more real the closer they get to the edge.

They will not jump.

They don't have to jump; 30th March they are hard brexiting if they don't sign a deal. A deal which the parliament needs to sign off on along with all other EU states (which puts the deadline around October in reality). What kind of deal do you think May will have in October to present to parliament that will go through? Instead she'll try to weedle something else out all the while the timer ticks down and it will be to late before she realizes. If it is not by October EU is highly unlikely to be able to approve it in time which would mean EU has to approve extending the time and seeing how UK has treated the negotiations to date why would they? I mean let's be honest here; UK has lacked a position, information and generally been asking for all benefits and no downsides from day 1 without understanding why that does not work. Why extend the pain?

Any form of Brexit is bad but from an EU perspective it would be better to have UK crash out hard and come around rejoining than another decade of Brexiteers trying to delay any and all policies. It would also work as an excellent discouragement for other countries leaving (crass as that may be) and note for example that Italy's both EU hating parties did not include leaving EU in their government plan for example.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

The threat in 1940 was existential. 1976 was financial. 1940 cost them the remains of their empire, sold to pay the USA for arms, and ships, and food.

Yeah, obviously that was a serious existential threat. But the point being made was that Brexit would be the worst financial/economic disaster since 1932. 1976 was a serious financial/economic meltdown too. Would a hard Brexit be as bad or worse? Possibly.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

What kind of deal do you think May will have in October to present to parliament that will go through?.

The deal the EU hand her and say sign or else.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah, obviously that was a serious existential threat. But the point being made was that Brexit would be the worst financial/economic disaster since 1932. 1976 was a serious financial/economic meltdown too. Would a hard Brexit be as bad or worse? Possibly.

Brexit could cost them Scotland and NI. Perhaps that would be a welcome achievement for the Little Englanders.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Brexit could cost them Scotland and NI. Perhaps that would be a welcome achievement for the Little Englanders.

It is very obviously about England now though they pay lip service to the UK ideal. The likes of Rees Mogg don't give a crap about NI and would cast it adrift in a heartbeat if it suited England.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is very obviously about England now though they pay lip service to the UK ideal. The likes of Rees Mogg don't give a crap about NI and would cast it adrift in a heartbeat if it suited England.

NI costs them a similar amount as they claimed the EU costs, but with no economic benefit to the UK. I think they would be delighted if they could think of how to rid themselves of it.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

NI costs them a similar amount as they claimed the EU costs, but with no economic benefit to the UK. I think they would be delighted if they could think of how to rid themselves of it.

The sentiment will change radically after the next election when the Tories are no longer in thrall to the DUP. NI adds nothing to Englishness or England other than a reminder of a glorious but long-dead empire. English MPs being asked to vote for budget cuts will ask why they are subsidising NI. Furthermore, many in the Tory party will remember how a Tory PM was humiliated by the DUP before Christmas.

Chips Lovell

Some posts and replies deleted. Less of the Brit bashing please. Serious posts only.

Thanks

Gerry T

Sam Russell wrote:

NI costs them a similar amount as they claimed the EU costs, but with no economic benefit to the UK. I think they would be delighted if they could think of how to rid themselves of it.

Did this not come up earlier in the thread and it was shown that NI is actually a nett contributor as part of the UK. I appreciate they have a larger than usual percentage of people employed in civil service and they get a fair share of EU grants, but their not the sink hole you might think

flutered

Gerry T wrote: »

Did this not come up earlier in the thread and it was shown that NI is actually a nett contributor as part of the UK. I appreciate they have a larger than usual percentage of people employed in civil service and they get a fair share of EU grants, but their not the sink hole you might think

quite correct, when one takes the military budget etc away from n.i. costs decrease

flutered

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The GFA was a carefully constructed agreement that allowed both sides to claim 'victory', i.e. a win/win. Anything that deconstructs the GFA will be seen as a win/lose situation. Creating a hard border is a serious slap in the face for Nationalists in NI. It's the equivalent of telling Unionists that there will be a border down the Irish Sea.

when it comes to it, it will be one or the other

flutered

joeysoap wrote: »

If you have a border with NI ( a UK EU border, not an Ireland UK border) then you automatically have queues of trucks in Dover etc. I’d guess they want to avoid this and NI is they way out. But just not yet.

i have read on some uk fourms claims that brexit is a giuse by both the usa and the uk to disingerate the eu, firstly by other countrys following the uk's exit, or using the irish border to flush the eu with $chite goods

CelticRambler

flutered wrote: »

i have read on some uk fourms claims that brexit is a giuse by both the usa and the uk to disingerate the eu, firstly by other countrys following the uk's exit, or using the irish border to flush the eu with $chite goods

Jeeez, sounds like they're desperate for some justification other than simple Conservative stupidity! :rolleyes: Well, as the only EU country currently sanctioned for flooding the EU with substandard (Chinese) crap is the UK, the EU will be better able to (take back) control once Brexit is enacted.

Sam Russell

Gerry T wrote: »

Did this not come up earlier in the thread and it was shown that NI is actually a nett contributor as part of the UK. I appreciate they have a larger than usual percentage of people employed in civil service and they get a fair share of EU grants, but their not the sink hole you might think

I have failed to find figures on this.

Last March, a budget of £12 billion was passed for NI. What was the breakdown of this? Does that figure include EU money? Does it include VAT and TAX receipts? Is inclusive of Capex, or is it just salaries for all their many public servants? How much is taken into UK figures?

It is very hard to get real figures on the NI economy as some is included in UK wide figures.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

JRM was on LBC call in and the Van criver that was on James O'Brien recently rang in t ask about the problems with the non frictionless border.

JRM firstly attempted to say it was an isolated incident (although there no no indication what it was) and when the driver asked what was going to be in place to reduce the delays & costs, JRM simply went on about some White Paper and that Dover would need to step up to the plate.

in other words, he doesn't have a plan to deal with it, that is up to others to deal with.

So they have no plan to deal with the near 20bn of extra costs that is being placed on UK business, not to mention the cost in time.

Of course the radio host didn't actually question him on it, simply let him off with these banal summaries.

Here is the link to that call,

The Moment Van Driver Who Went Viral Takes On Jacob Rees-Mogg On Customs Union

The radio host, Nick Ferrari, seems to be in favour of Brexit. Why would he cause trouble for JRM?

Nick Ferrari: The fall in sterling is a price worth paying for Brexit

Anthracite

UK agricultural standards already on the slide?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk

How big a leap is it from this to other US food unnovations?

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

The last two weeks has made me think it's going to be a hard Brexit.
...
At least they'll have that 32m pound from fisheries to dry their eyes with.

Like I posted earlier , they'd make far more by enforcing the existing rules. Anyone who thinks the foreign compaines who control most of the UK fishing quotas will be sent packing needs to realise that the govt has been letting them break rules about quotas and by-catch to.
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-20/fears-uk-fishing-industry-losing-out-on-230-million-and-2-700-jobs-itv-news-learns/

Analysis of the data leaked to ITV News suggests that if 32 of the most economically active vessels in the UK fleet had landed a minimum of 50% of their catch in the UK it would add an additional £235 million in economic activity in the sector through upstream and downstream activity.

This is pretty much repeated on every aspect of Brexit.

The inane mantra of "We'll be better off if we take back control" compared to the reality that they'd get the same result or better if they bothered to exercise the control they already have.

Look at Italy or Hungry or Poland for economics or migrants or immigration. You don't need to leave the EU to raise these issues. But the UK called it's own bluff and now the EU has other real worries that need to be sorted now. So less time to deal with the UK throwing the toys out of the pram.

The UK crashes out in 303 days 22 hours unless a deal is struck and there is zero chance of that until they face reality.

Gerry T

Sam Russell wrote:

I have failed to find figures on this.

I can remember a post on this thread but it's so long ago it would be very difficult to find.

Sam Russell wrote:

Last March, a budget of £12 billion was passed for NI. What was the breakdown of this? Does that figure include EU money? Does it include VAT and TAX receipts? Is inclusive of Capex, or is it just salaries for all their many public servants? How much is taken into UK figures?

Hopefully the person that posted reads and shows the detail. But with the way the English have been conducting themselves through brexit, no matter what information they produced it would have to be viewed with some level of scepticism.

Capt'n Midnight

EdgeCase wrote: »

This notion that the EU “needs” the City of London is utterly diluted thinking.

Like all things Brexit the UK sides don't even know what they want. So far it's all "cake and eat it" with very little evidence that anyone has a prepared plan-b in case they can't get their wish list.


Bank of England and UK finance ministry divided over city regulation after Brexit

Peregrinus

flutered wrote: »

when it comes to it, it will be one or the other

It will be one or other if the UK sticks to the red lines that Teresa May adopted seven months after the referendum.

Of course, the UK doesn't have to stick to them. The referendum result doesn't mandate them, if only because they weren't enunciated until seven months later. Nor are they the obvious, inevitable consequence of the referendum vote; if they were, it wouldn't have taken seven months to realise that. It's a choice made by the British government.

It's a choice that can be revisited. It's a choice that should be revisited, given that it threatens great harm to the UK.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I have failed to find figures on this.

Last March, a budget of £12 billion was passed for NI. What was the breakdown of this? Does that figure include EU money? Does it include VAT and TAX receipts? Is inclusive of Capex, or is it just salaries for all their many public servants? How much is taken into UK figures?

It is very hard to get real figures on the NI economy as some is included in UK wide figures.

Gerry T wrote: »

Hopefully the person that posted reads and shows the detail. But with the way the English have been conducting themselves through brexit, no matter what information they produced it would have to be viewed with some level of scepticism.

The official budget publication is just a list of department expenditure limits. There is no income statement.

Is there an equivalent statement of source of funds? If there is no total NI tax and VAT totals, how can anyone state what the subsidy is to NI?

Is the cost of the army in NI centralised with the UK? What other costs are centralised?

I suspect that the £12 billion budget does not include all expenditure for NI, and so it is difficult to come to any conclusion re subsidy.

LeinsterDub

A campaign to secure a second Brexit referendum within a year and save the UK from “immense damage” is to be launched in days, the philanthropist and financier George Soros has announced......

In a speech on Tuesday ahead of the launch of the Best for Britain campaign – said to have already attracted millions of pounds in donations – Soros suggested to an audience in Paris that changing the minds of Britons would be in keeping with “revolutionary times”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soros-drastic-action-needed-for-eurozone-to-survive
This is big news but of course for some the name Soros is poison and indicative of a leftist plot. Without grass roots and cross party support I can't see this being accepted by the British people.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

The official budget publication is just a list of department expenditure limits. There is no income statement.

Is there an equivalent statement of source of funds? If there is no total NI tax and VAT totals, how can anyone state what the subsidy is to NI?

Is the cost of the army in NI centralised with the UK? What other costs are centralised?

I suspect that the £12 billion budget does not include all expenditure for NI, and so it is difficult to come to any conclusion re subsidy.

It's an accounting exercise which, like a lot of accounting exercises, can be useful in illuminating reality and, on the other, can be manipulated to produce the result you want.

Figures for income tax on income earned by NI residents, VAT on transactions effected in NI, etc, can of course be compiled.

Equally, some government expenditure can clearly be linked to NI - welfare payments to NI residents, cost of NHS services provide in NI, spending by NI government departments and local governments, etc, etc.

But there are other expenditures not so easily linked to NI. It's a tiny example, but e.g. how much of the UK's expenditure on maintaining its network of embassates and consulates, and their staff, should be attributed to NI? How much of the UK's defence budget? There's a big chunk of "national" expenditure like this. I think the accounting practice is to apportion it between the various parts of the UK pro rata to their respective GDPs. So, yes, a chunk of the UK's expenditure on all these things is counted as spending in or for the benefit of NI. But the truth is that if NI were not part of the UK, the UK's expenditure on most of these things would fall only fractionally or, in many cases, not at all. So if NI joined the Republic, this is not an expenditure that the Republic would have to take on.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soros-drastic-action-needed-for-eurozone-to-survive
This is big news but of course for some the name Soros is poison and indicative of a leftist plot. Without grass roots and cross party support I can't see this being accepted by the British people.

Plus, of course, a second Brexit referendum "within a year" is too late. The referendum has to be held early enough to allow the Art 50 notice to be revoked (if that's what the referndum outcome mandates, and the EU is agreeable) before the end of March 2019.

Leroy42

They don't need a second ref, it won't achieve anything like a decisive win for either side so it won't change much.

MP's are elected to parliament to carry out the wishes of the people, with the caveat that those wishes must represent the best course of action for the nation has a whole (obviously there is lots of grey in this but overall it covers it).

This problem was created by Cameron looking to the people to dig him out a problem that he was to scared to fight, with the consequences we now face. For the MP's to now turn again to the people to try to give them a way out is a dereliction of duty.

Those MP's that favour to return in the EU must fight to get the message across to all the MP's that this is in fact a terrible act of self harm, which many MPs seem to be of the view they can little do to effect given the ref.

The UK needs strong leadership to lay out the key facts to the public, to dispense with the soundbites and the internal party pitch battles and lay out to the UK public exactly what Brexit means, more that simply Brexit means Brexit.

Lay out the expected impact. Year 1, Year 2, effect on services, effect on taxes etc etc. Sure there may be a brilliant free trade future ahead but this is what the next few years are going to look like. If May states that then continues on, or cancels Brexit, then at least she will have shown that she made the decision, and not continue to use the excuse that she is simply doing what the people told her to do.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is the link to that call,

The Moment Van Driver Who Went Viral Takes On Jacob Rees-Mogg On Customs Union

The radio host, Nick Ferrari, seems to be in favour of Brexit. Why would he cause trouble for JRM?

Nick Ferrari: The fall in sterling is a price worth paying for Brexit

That guy has no sense. Typical brexiteer. You can see him being all pompous and righteous on Sky's terrible 'the debate'.

Would have been better if they had the original host on that the van driver spoke to.

Lemming

J Mysterio wrote: »

Would have been better if they had the original host on that the van driver spoke to.

That would be James O'Brien. If you find his shows on youtube regards Brexit, there are some absolute face-palming clangers to behold.

Mtx

Farm subsidies will face huge drops, very worrying for agriculture in general.

Capt'n Midnight

Mtx wrote: »

Farm subsidies will face huge drops, very worrying for agriculture in general.

Grove had already promised they'd match EU subsidies , but strings attached for environental stuff.

So yeah, farm subsidies will face huge drops..

ancapailldorcha

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/george-soros-drastic-action-needed-for-eurozone-to-survive
This is big news but of course for some the name Soros is poison and indicative of a leftist plot. Without grass roots and cross party support I can't see this being accepted by the British people.

While I'm glad that Soros is putting money behind this (though I'd prefer that dodgy companies and foreign capital withdrew from British democracy), it in many ways exemplifies the belief held by many people of lower class backgrounds that the system is rigged against them. A foreigner putting millions of pounds up in support of thwarting the referendum result is unlikely to make much progress.

Ultimately, Britain's elites need to find some way of connecting with the public so that they can communicate that Brexit is a disaster and needs to be averted. I am reading Anthony Barnett's The Lure of Greatness: England's Brexit & America's Trump which is proving illuminating so far. I'd only considered the cause of Brexit through the narrow spectrum of the last few years but trust in Anglo-Saxon and American elites has been steadily ebbing since the Iraq War, the financial crash, the trebling of tuition fees, etc culminating in as vote against the elite as much as anything else.

Lemming wrote: »

That would be James O'Brien. If you find his shows on youtube regards Brexit, there are some absolute face-palming clangers to behold.

There most certainly are but unless some way of reaching these people is found and soon then we're still heading for the cliff edge.

An Ciarraioch

Interesting map produced by Stormont highlighting the sheer multiplicity of Border crossings:

EdgeCase

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Grove had already promised they'd match EU subsidies , but strings attached for environental stuff.

So yeah, farm subsidies will face huge drops..

I’d they do a trade deal with most countries they may find those subsidies are a big problem. The EU gets away with it due to the scale of its market and other countries wanting access.

CelticRambler

Is it selective reporting (or reading!) or is the EU engaged in it's own campaign to tell the British public just exactly what it means to be a "third country" - not EFTA or EEA or Norway ++ or Canada lite, but really out on their own? Another article on the "pay for a say" future for the UK - UK may get poorer access than Israel to EU science scheme - includes the quote “The view from Brussels is that leaving the EU is the UK’s choice, it is their choice to be South Korea...”


And what's bothering the EU in all of this? The UK's history of not being in control when given responsibility:

The UK is seeking an agreement to continue the flow of data between it and the rest of Europe, but a recent report on the country’s handling of personal information held on the Schengen Information System, designed to monitor the flow of people around Europe, has damaged that case.

An official paper, dated 18 May 2018 and seen by the Guardian, reveals that despite a 2015 evaluation finding serious deficiencies with the UK’s handling of personal data, a follow-up visit in 2017 had discovered that a range of recommendations had not been implemented.

The report notes that the EU’s inspectors had found that “very serious deficiencies in the legal, operational and technical implementation of SIS by the UK subsist”.

Among the issues that caused concern was the discovery that UK officials had been copying personal data and sharing it with US contractors working for its immigration services and the border police.

Mtx

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Mtx wrote: »

Farm subsidies will face huge drops, very worrying for agriculture in general.

Grove had already promised they'd match EU subsidies , but strings attached for environental stuff.

So yeah, farm subsidies will face huge drops..

Do you have an article for this ? I don't believe he said they will match EU subs. Subsidy levels will be matched up until 2022 although.

RobertKK

Channel 4 have a good program on now: Carry On Brussels: Inside the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Mtx wrote: »

Do you have an article for this ? I don't believe he said they will match EU subs. Subsidy levels will be matched up until 2022 although.

Or March 2024 depending on who you believe. If you believe.

"matched" but with lots of "environment" conditions so I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that , just like most other things , there'll be cutbacks.


https://www.ft.com/content/b2178b12-f0aa-11e7-ac08-07c3086a2625

Edit of course much of the UK's enviromental laws come from the EU so YMMV on this new greener UK farming
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/farmland-could-be-turned-into-meadows-post-brexit-says-michael-gove

McGiver

Leroy42 wrote: »

Lay out the expected impact. Year 1, Year 2, effect on services, effect on taxes etc etc. Sure there may be a brilliant free trade future ahead but this is what the next few years are going to look like. If May states that then continues on, or cancels Brexit, then at least she will have shown that she made the decision, and not continue to use the excuse that she is simply doing what the people told her to do.

This looks more and more unlikely as the days and week pass. Regardless who will sit in No 10, be it May, JRM, Bojo, any other Tory or even Corbyn.