Brexit discussion thread III

Nody

captainspeed wrote: »

Also, given the arrogance of the UK and their willingness to abandon things their Prime Minster signed, how can they be trusted?

The solution I've seen mentioned around this is a guillotine clause; it's similar in the setup of what's with Switzerland. Hence if they break any part of the agreement the whole deal goes with it meaning they can't try to "only" break a few things and get away with losing that; no they lose everything on a breach no matter what part they break.

Peregrinus

captainspeed wrote: »

Well as long as it doesn't involve them having their cake and eating it then yes (and it might help solve some of the border issues for us), but remember that countries like the Ukraine submit to ECJ rulings.

So if Britain wants an association agreement with the EU, they'd want to ditch their red lines, otherwise it's still cakeism by the UK.

I think the idea is that the Association Agreement will be the fig-leaf behind which the UK conceals a high degree of compromising of its red lines.

Nody wrote: »

The solution I've seen mentioned around this is a guillotine clause; it's similar in the setup of what's with Switzerland. Hence if they break any part of the agreement the whole deal goes with it meaning they can't try to "only" break a few things and get away with losing that; no they lose everything on a breach no matter what part they break.

From the EU side, this would be one of the attractions of the Association Agreement - it's a package, and if the UK defaults on one element, or wants or needs to renegotiate it, the whole thing is on the table.

Akrasia

Enzokk wrote: »

This is why my sympathy is low at the moment. Those jobs will be hard to replace and it will leave families in trouble, but seeing as more than 100 000 people indirectly benefit from Airbus in the UK and most of those would be around the areas where their plants are located it would stand to reason that most people will feel a positive effect from Airbus. Even if the chipper doesn't have any direct involvement with Airbus in the area, if one Airbus employee buys his food from there he benefits. Still people thought and still think they should just get on with it.

These are high paying high skilled jobs so the multiplier effect is even higher than the likes of poundland going out of business. These 14k workers would be buying new cars, taking nice holidays, sending their kids to expensive after school activities, volunteering in the community themselves... Losing jobs in the aerospace industry is a disaster for these areas.

EdgeCase

Losing those kinds of jobs is also a creator of long term unemployment. Many of the people in them, while highly skilled, tend to not have transferable skills for the kinds of jobs that exist in the British economy.

You could be looking at causing a major problem for that whole region.

ameathdub

Does anyone believe the Tories have a masterplan that they will suddenly unveil - or will this depressing situation carry on endlessly. They seem to have no understanding of the sensitivities of the Irish border for sure and many of the Pro Brexit Tories seem now to show outright hostility to Ireland. Such a sad change and the bitterness and division may get worse as these horrible negotiations carry on. I just hope that the general UK public do not feel alienated from Ireland and the rest of Europe. I truly believe that if they had a chance for a rethink the result would be different now.

Leroy42

Master Plan? No, it certainly appears not. They seem to oscillate between different plans. There was the two path approach which was much argued by the Cabinet (Max Fac and NCU) after which both were dismissed by the EU (Well they were dismissed even before that as not meeting the agreed outcomes).

now they want an association membership, or do they? Who knows. They are going to get a deal, but want to be able to simply walk away.

The Irish problem, as central as it is to us, isn't even the main point. You could argue that they are at least thinking about that.

What strikes me is how utterly unprepared they are in all other aspects. Recall the Davies spent weeks trying to stop the publication of sectoral reports, only to have to admit that no such reports were even done save for some bland generalised "What is Fishing" type reports. Is there any reason that either reports have been completed and if so have they been taken into consideration? I don't get that impression.

So I think Ireland is being used as a scapegoat by the UK, and will continue to be, as the reason Brexit was a mess. And it certainly is playing a large part. But even removing that issue, nobody has come out and explained how the likes of Dover will be able to cope (save for doing no checks at all. And seemingly nobody has an issue with the likely scenario of those currently in French asylum seeker camps simply coming over to the UK since there will be no checks!

It appears that none of this is considered, every new item appears as a complete shock to the ministers. They have no idea how much all the new systems are going to costs, still prattling on about the saving from the EU contribution but never saying what additional spend there will be.

Fox has been able to give no indication of what all these new trade deals will be worth, how quickly he will get them and what the costs to the state will be to help the UK economy shift away from its traditional markets and enter new ones.

The lack of any information if staggering

Zubeneschamali

ameathdub wrote: »

Does anyone believe the Tories have a masterplan that they will suddenly unveil - or will this depressing situation carry on endlessly.

I think it is pretty clear that May's plan is to do whatever it takes to stay in #10 for another 24 hours.

Eventually, this will run up against the real deadline: Brexit day.

swampgas

It does expose just how fact-free British politics has become. Within the UK there is so much blatant propoganda, and outright lying, which is not being properly challenged by the press or even by the opposition. The UK Government have been avoiding uncomfortable and politically damaging truths for years, and are now backed into a corner. They have, perhaps, two unappealing options:

- Bite the bullet. Admit that the UK has no leverage, that Brexit was a mistake.
Try to mend bridges with the EU and avoid economic hardship.
This would be hugely humiliating for the current government, nationally and internationally.

- Play for time. Stiff upper lip, keep calm and carry on, and hope that it will work out somehow.
Then crash out of the EU in April 2019.

My money is on the second option.

joeysoap

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You don't even need to smuggle or launder

Cross-border fuel trade is worth €230m annually to the Exchequer as thousands of motorists from the North avail of cheaper petrol and diesel in the Republic. That's 2% of our overall carbon emissions. Which we could be fined for under Koyoto.

Coal down here has a €20 a tonne carbon tax while up north it doesn't, and our VAT is 13.5% while up there it's only 5%

Is that not balanced a bit by us border residents (me) buying our home heating oil in the north?

But I take your point, much the same as new factories , call centres, data centres etc adding to the carbon footprint,

And not forgetting Dublin airport attracting European travelers using the US pre clearance, adding to the massive growth AL are/have embarked on.

farmchoice

PERFIDIOUS ALBION....


they are up to something I'm convinced of it. there is no way, no way, they could be this disorganized, incompetent and reckless. whilst this may not be the greatest crop of British politicians ever, far from it, they are all functioning adults who have all gone past the equivalent of 6th class.


i think they all know quite well how disastrous a hard Brexit will be but the reality is the people voted for ''it'', maybe not this ''it'' maybe they didn't know what ''it'' but if they try and abandon ''it'' for the good of the same people who voted for ''it'' they are creating grave political instability and worse again harming their own chances of re-election.



May and her cabinet have a grand plan, all this in fighting and prevarication is part of it, i think its an attempt to not so much wrong foot the EU ( who were well warned of the kind of tactics the Brits would use by our good selves) as to cause such confusion and uncertainty in the uk its self so that a last minute deal will be able to be got through with something approaching consensus support in the commons.



corbyn will go for this not because he is anti eu ( although he may well be)but because he knows if he was in power he would be dealing with the exact same mess, he is banking on may taking the flack.



The north is in one way a very useful foil for may and her cabinet, its keeping a lot of people in the UK from asking a lot of hard questions about a lot of other things.


this is all just an opinion based on little more then a deep suspicion of any english politician playing the fool.

Seth Brundle

Bertie says "Boris Johnson is a ‘buffoon’ who will ‘ruin’ Ireland"
Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile!
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/boris-johnson-is-a-buffoon-who-will-ruin-ireland-bertie-ahern-1.3540025

Enzokk

The replies to the Airbus story is out and it seems the regular suspects are dismissing the threat from Airbus because it is a EU company that has received subsidies from EU government. Again they forget to mention that the UK participated in those "subsidies" and actually is still receiving money from their RLI investments in some Airbus projects.

Airbus is a private company that needs to make profit for their shareholders. Some of their shareholders are EU countries, but their are many more private investors out there who want their investment to make money. If Brexit will cost Airbus money they will move production to other countries to negate those extra costs. This is not rocket science and the fact we are still discussing stories that were published before the vote is a sad indictment of the situation we find ourselves in.

Leroy42

FarmChoice, I have had that thinking too, and that it all part of some grand plan to get a deal done and give no room for others to block it.

But, in doing that they would have annoyed the EU, Ireland, many of their own MP's, the Lords, the courts, the civil service, the media, the union itself and many many voters.

But it also puts at risk many of the current ministers. Why would someone like Fox be going on which something like, this, or Boris.

And surely part of this plan could not have involved Boris openly challenging May?

And to what end? If they really believe that they have to lie to get some sort of deal through, it must be n the basis that to do otherwise would be worse. So surely the better option is to simply explain that

trellheim

Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Share this contribution
Further to the question of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), Michel Barnier has said this week that the United Kingdom could not remain in the European arrest warrant system post Brexit. What plans does the Secretary of State have to meet this concern, and to address the issue of the 300 additional PSNI officers for which there will be a vital need post Brexit?

Karen Bradley
Share this contribution
As I have said, I discussed this matter with the Chief Constable this morning. We need to make sure that there are arrangements in place so that the way in which the arrest warrant has operated, very successfully, in Northern Ireland can continue.

( as expected. Cant see how the UK can do this without ECJ overwatch)

From NI Questions just before PMQs in the commons https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-20/debates/B46C0FB7-2347-43F4-A9BF-514B8E9CFCC9/SecuritySituation

listermint

The headline shown in the Times is pure comedy gold,

see top and sub headlines for effect

https://twitter.com/johnamcgowan/status/1010129584023580672

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

( as expected. Cant see how the UK can do this without ECJ overwatch)

From NI Questions just before PMQs in the commons https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-20/debates/B46C0FB7-2347-43F4-A9BF-514B8E9CFCC9/SecuritySituation

This is why I really don't think they have a plan.

Basically she said that they need to puts things in place, which was the answer to the question of 'what things are you going to put in place'.

Now on what basis could withholding this sort of information be advisable. At the very least it is going to have criminals thinking that things could be about to get much easier.

EdgeCase

I think this is part of the problem though. Everyone assumed they must be up to something and they have a cunning plan of some sort that's yet to be announced. The reality is I think they've bought their own hype and aren't really able to step back from the precipice anymore.

The markets haven't turned on them because there's still some kind of hope that there's some method to this madness or that they'll suddenly reverse Brexit.

The UK has an amazing ability to erase its recent history. It has had a good run in terms of economic growth and political stability, really going back to the end of the Thatcher era.

Before that, the UK saw regular violent protests - Miners Strikes, Poll tax riots etc etc.. Many of those would put some of the recent French stuff into perspective as minor.

If you go back to the 1970s the country was driven into the ground financially and was the first developed economy to ever request an IMF bailout.

It also spent decades with huge inflation rates and currency issues.

And they also completely disown the Northern Ireland conflict, which bubbled on as one of the most violent conflicts in post war Europe. Somehow that's just pushed aside as if it's something that happened in the Republic of Ireland. It didn't. It happened in the UK and under UK rule.

They're imagining some golden age that never really existed. Or, maybe it did, but it was in about 1992-2008 when you'd that "cool Britannia" era and also for a brief period in the late 50s and into the 1960s.

I see only two possible outcomes.

1. They somehow dial back Brexit and either cancel it or end up in some kind of EEA deal. If that happens, we've business as usual and it will just be "oh do you remember Brexit?" in a few years time.

2. This bluster and nonsense continues and the time runs out and they exit in a chaotic mess. That will lead to something more like the 1970s all over again with a rather painful economic adjustment that could last 10+ years and probably political chaos and riots and all fo those things as the economy contracts and convulses and they try to hold the Government to its promises and the populist tabloids just switch from goading the Government to leave to attacking them for austerity.

Right now, I'm still thinking it's going to blindly wander into option 2 and that's something we need to be as fully prepared for as we can be.

trellheim

If the Airbus warning doesn't scare them - nothing will - but I just cant see a deal that keeps them in the EU that will be voted through in the Commons.

EdgeCase

I think fundamentally they don't understand how good they have it at the moment. The EU is taken utterly for granted. Like many boring things ... plumbing, wiring, house foundations, etc etc.

What worries me is that they don't seem to comprehend that that one of the fundamental pillars of the EU is creating a seamless, open, totally fair, transparent, huge single market where internal barriers to trade are completely removed.

That ideal is at the core of everything the EU does. It's not a self-centred bilateral agreement between countries. They pooled sovereignty. They threw their lot in together across a whole load of areas. I quite honestly think that the idea that you can strip it down to a purely economic arrangement is impossible and actually quite an oversimplification of what the relationships are.

From my point of view, the UK Tory mode of thinking has always been that the EU is only about the money and the market and nothing else. They approached it more like a bilateral trade deal than a deeper relationship as many of the other core members have.

I think Ireland's relationship with Europe isn't as complicated as we didn't have a big imperial ego and we have largely embraced multilateralism and have been extremely good at working our way through networking the hell out of the EU in a way that I think is quite similar to many of the smaller member states.

The UK simply isn't going to get that kind of solidarity and connectivity from any bilateral trade deal. It will always be about two countries with vested interests opening trade for self-interested reasons. The EU has been a lot more than that.

At this stage, I am just sick of them. They're going around and around and around in circles. Their politics is utterly toxic, nasty and negative all the time and has very strong similarities to Trump, the League in Italy and Marine Le Pen in France.

I don't think the EU's perfect. It's very much a work in progress and you can influence how it develops but I would rather have that vision of trying to build something that's about building something positive that's bigger and better than the sum of its parts.
How the hell the EU is being painted as some kind of evil monster is beyond me.

It's messy, it's sometimes dysfunctional and it doesn't always work as planned but, it's genuinely been far more positive than negative over its lifetime.

I wish the UK luck, but I don't think they'll ever have the kind of relationship that they've enjoyed from 1973 until now with any bilateral trade partner.

It was a more like a marriage than a trade agreement, but you can get divorced anytime. It's not Ireland in the 1960s.

It's just a pity that Northern Ireland's left caught in the middle of it. Although, that's also something for the people of Northern Ireland to decide at a time of their choosing. Nobody else can decide their future for them. That's fundamentally enshrined in the GFA and I assume will be respected, including by the UK.

funkey_monkey

I live in NI and voted remain.
The EU is far from perfect and it does need its wings clipped a bit. However, I'm not sure that brexit is the wisest decision made.

I'm unhappy that such a massive change can be carried through with a simple 50+1 majority. These things (and I include Irish unity) should require some greater margin.

The Tories are a complete mess. I would not be against leaving if there was some order to it, but this is beyond ridiculous. Leaving is one thing. Leaving in these conditions is something else though.

Whether Airbus do leave or not, I don't know. If they do it will be gradual. I suspect that there will be a slight reduction in numbers and then it will taper off. The problem Airbus have is that the skill base location is fixed and it will take a long time to develop a new site with the same capability. By the time they do, I expect things to have stabilised politically and economically (to some extent).

LeinsterDub

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm unhappy that such a massive change can be carried through with a simple 50+1 majority. These things (and I include Irish unity) should require some greater margin.

Where do you draw the line on this thinking ? Should the Repealing the 8th required a super majority , equal marriage, approving the GFA ?

Leroy42

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I live in NI and voted remain.
The EU is far from perfect and it does need its wings clipped a bit. However, I'm not sure that brexit is the wisest decision made.

I'm unhappy that such a massive change can be carried through with a simple 50+1 majority. These things (and I include Irish unity) should require some greater margin.

The Tories are a complete mess. I would not be against leaving if there was some order to it, but this is beyond ridiculous. Leaving is one thing. Leaving in these conditions is something else though.

Whether Airbus do leave or not, I don't know. If they do it will be gradual. I suspect that there will be a slight reduction in numbers and then it will taper off. The problem Airbus have is that the skill base location is fixed and it will take a long time to develop a new site with the same capability. By the time they do, I expect things to have stabilised politically and economically (to some extent).

The problem with that sort of thinking is the reverse side of it. If Airbus start to move, though it may be gradual, the UK will find it very hard to get them back. The skills will disappear and no other companies will then feel the skills are there to locate to the UK (it is part of the argument that some are saying Airbus can't move to China).

And that could be the real legacy of Brexit. This notion, sold erroneously by the Remain side, that it will come crashing down on Day 1 was never realistic. It was always going to be a slow drip, drip. Companies won't leave enmass, they just won't re-invest. When looking to cut jobs the UK may be 1st on the list rather than last. When setting up HQ, UK is far less attractive than before.

The other thing I would say is why are you, and plenty of people like, not out protesting about this. AS you say, even Farage is out stating this, Brexit might have been a good idea but not the way the Tories are messing it up. Yet the 48% are just so passive. Its like the UK is simply accepting their faith. Why are there not marches in NI demanding that the DUP listen to what the majority in NI actually voted for. That the DUP should, at the very least, demanding the softest of soft Brexits.

funkey_monkey

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Where do you draw the line on this thinking ? Should the Repealing the 8th required a super majority , equal marriage, approving the GFA ?

Repealing the 8th only directly affects a subset of females - similar with marriage. So a straightforward 50+1 there for me.
GFA affect everyone so I would say margin for it.

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

This turned brexit into a protest vote. Not by all, but maybe enough to swing it to remain.

FrancieBrady

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Repealing the 8th only directly affects a subset of females - similar with marriage. So a straightforward 50+1 there for me.
GFA affect everyone so I would say margin for it.

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

This turned brexit into a protest vote. Not by all, but maybe enough to swing it to remain.

Had it gone the other way, Leave voters would have been complaining about 2 per cent keeping then in the carnage of the EU.

You have to accept a majority decision, you can't start qualifying it because you happen to think this is carnage.
Leave seem to think things are grand.

Panrich

If this is not a watershed moment, then it's curtains for anything other than a hard Brexit. I would expect other companies (those that not afraid or less vulnerable to a public backlash), to follow the lead set by Airbus and come out in strong terms over the next few weeks. I can guarantee that these CEOs talk among themselves and the Airbus statement is surely going to be followed by others to see if they can talk the Tories away from the edge of the cliff.

The way that the Tories behaved on the meaningful vote the other day felt like it brought no deal closer as the manouevres to ensure Davis and May could not be challenged on their strategy screams hardball.

Business leaders will have seen that, and are probably extremely alarmed that the prospects of a deal that they can work with, seems to be receding. They have been very patient with the lack of clarity up to now, but the dam might be about to break on that front now.

Leroy42

Its not about protesting the result of the vote, its about protesting that the Brexit that was campaigned for is not being delivered.

Sure 52% voted for Brexit, but did they vote for this mess of a Brexit. They were promised £350per week for the NHS, that is now off the table.

NI certainly didn't vote for this, and whilst they as part of the Uk need to accept the majority, they should also be looking to reduce the impact. It seems on the whole people are simply prepared to wait and see, despite the fact that everything they have seen so far shows the Tories haven't a rashers

listermint

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I live in NI and voted remain.
The EU is far from perfect and it does need its wings clipped a bit. However, I'm not sure that brexit is the wisest decision made.

I'm unhappy that such a massive change can be carried through with a simple 50+1 majority. These things (and I include Irish unity) should require some greater margin.

The Tories are a complete mess. I would not be against leaving if there was some order to it, but this is beyond ridiculous. Leaving is one thing. Leaving in these conditions is something else though.

Whether Airbus do leave or not, I don't know. If they do it will be gradual. I suspect that there will be a slight reduction in numbers and then it will taper off. The problem Airbus have is that the skill base location is fixed and it will take a long time to develop a new site with the same capability. By the time they do, I expect things to have stabilised politically and economically (to some extent).

Voted remain, but would not be against leaving if there was order to it ?

Why!

There to date has been no demonstrable benefit, to anyone, except for private vulture funds who will pick over the carcasses.

I really dont even understand that sentiment at all......

Leroy42

There an interview with the ex head of the banking Federation of London or some such group. Anyway, he said that few companies will announce anything, for fear of being labeling anti-UK or whatever. But many banks have already started to move quietly by setting up new operations (in Dublin etc) and starting the process. So they are preparing.

Whether it is a fast move or a drip drip move they are ready.

funkey_monkey

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Had it gone the other way, Leave voters would have been complaining about 2 per cent keeping then in the carnage of the EU.

You have to accept a majority decision, you can't start qualifying it because you happen to think this is carnage.
Leave seem to think things are grand.

Farage stated

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

funkey_monkey

listermint wrote: »

Voted remain, but would not be against leaving if there was order to it ?

Why!

The 'majority' voted out. If that is the will of the people then so be it. That is democracy.
However, no-one, and that includes Farage himself, thinks the way the Tories are going about this can be anything other than a disaster.

I would be okay with leaving if there was a clear majority for leaving and it was correctly handled. It's okay to be in the minority at times.

However, this is a mess, partial protest vote, partial brexit vote and a disaster at the discussion table.

FrancieBrady

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Farage stated


Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Farage is going to be the Oracle on administering a democracy?

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

(...) The other thing I would say is why are you, and plenty of people like, not out protesting about this. AS you say, even Farage is out stating this, Brexit might have been a good idea but not the way the Tories are messing it up. Yet the 48% are just so passive. Its like the UK is simply accepting their faith. Why are there not marches in NI demanding that the DUP listen to what the majority in NI actually voted for. That the DUP should, at the very least, demanding the softest of soft Brexits.

It’s a question with merit, but ultimately pointless: this is just not the U.K. mindset, whether generally as a point of social observation, or topically in good part due to a general lack of factual knowledge about “what the EU has ever done for Joe Average over the past 45 years”.

As typified by the current majority sentiment in the U.K., shared between voters of both camps as assessed by polls quoted not so long ago, that the average Brit wants the process to just “get on”.

After witnessing the sentiment on the street (at the time) about the Article 50 letter, the Gina Miller legal challenge and the Supreme Court decision, I kind of always knew that the Brits were simply too ignorant (of the *real* significances of these events), too apathetic, and likely both at once, for a popular groundswell to develop against Brexit, early enough to matter politically.

That there still aren’t millions-heavy matches every single week, after the (by now-) years-worth of reporting about the utter incompetence of May’s government, is vindication aplenty - for me at least.

For us, this aspect of the whole issue went a long way towards deciding to brexode sooner rather than later.

On that topic, I wouldn’t trust the ‘simple and cheap’ residency solution that they just mooted yesterday, so far as I could throw it. And even less, that they’d honour its results in case of a no-deal Brexit: 3m people is too juicy a negotiation chip to throw away just like that, before or after March 2019.

seamus

One of the things from the Airbus statement, that I hadn't considered:

the current planned transition (which ends in December 2020) is too short for the EU and UK Governments to agree the outstanding issues, and too short for Airbus to implement the required changes with its extensive supply chain. In this scenario, Airbus would carefully monitor any new investments in the UK and refrain from extending the UK suppliers/partners base.

Service businesses can tear down a shop and set up in another location in a matter of weeks, days even.
Manufacturing can't. It can take years for the processes and supply chains to become fully established. Plants can have lead-in times of years where they're fully staffed and operational, but not producing anything yet.

I imagine Airbus are not alone here; there's a good chance that once Brexit becomes reality - regardless of whether it's no-deal or transitionary - that these businesses will have to make a call and just start the relocation process because they can't afford to wait around to see if the UK government manages to cobble together any good deals.

ambro25

seamus wrote: »

One of the things from the Airbus statement, that I hadn't considered:

the current planned transition (which ends in December 2020) is too short for the EU and UK Governments to agree the outstanding issues, and too short for Airbus to implement the required changes with its extensive supply chain. In this scenario, Airbus would carefully monitor any new investments in the UK and refrain from extending the UK suppliers/partners base.

Service businesses can tear down a shop and set up in another location in a matter of weeks, days even.
Manufacturing can't. It can take years for the processes and supply chains to become fully established. Plants can have lead-in times of years where they're fully staffed and operational, but not producing anything yet.

I imagine Airbus are not alone here; there's a good chance that once Brexit becomes reality - regardless of whether it's no-deal or transitionary - that these businesses will have to make a call and just start the relocation process because they can't afford to wait around to see if the UK government manages to cobble together any good deals.

Not all can, and certainly not regulated ones (think financial and legal in need of local regulatory licensing/approval). Usually these types of service providers are not the least profitable either.

As for Airbus, for all it’s recent noises, I’m quietly confident that it has long started scoping out and vetting EU27 suppliers as ready-replacements for U.K. suppliers, the same as many other manufacturers-assemblers in other fields, for minimal impact to the baseline come 2019-2020. But as already posted in here (and mentioned by ever more people in talks & interviews) it’s not PR-friendly to say it out loud. So they don’t.

A remain-minded poster with whom I have been exchanging about Brexit since before the referendum on another, UK-based forum, works in logistics planning services. Since 2016, he’s been mentioning in his posts, anecdotally but regularly over the period, being off his feet with work on his clients’ contingency planning. And mentioned some clients starting to act out contingency plans since January ‘18. They’re big, but not Airbus/Nissan household-name big.

LeinsterDub

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

It's democracy of course it's correct. I wouldn't be apposed to a new poll in light of all the facts that have emerged since triggering A50. Perhaps people should learn to vote on the issue at hand and not use it as a proxy vote to give the government the 2 fingers

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Repealing the 8th only directly affects a subset of females - similar with marriage. So a straightforward 50+1 there for me.
GFA affect everyone so I would say margin for it.

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

This turned brexit into a protest vote. Not by all, but maybe enough to swing it to remain.

Had it gone the other way, Leave voters would have been complaining about 2 per cent keeping then in the carnage of the EU.

You have to accept a majority decision, you can't start qualifying it because you happen to think this is carnage.
Leave seem to think things are grand.

The referendum was an advisory one and the result was therefore advice, not a binding decision. And, the whole point of advice is that it one of a range of factors to be considered by the ultimate decision maker.

A country can never hold advisory referenda if the results must be treated as binding.

The Leave side certainly never accepted the results of the 75 advisory referendum as being binding at the time or since.

KingNerolives

Zero progress on the agricultural industry post brexit. It's not just business owners that need to plan, it's farmers too!

An Ciarraioch

39% of Survation respondents have a "limited understanding" of the Irish border issue, 19% have heard nothing about it!

http://survation.com/brexit-vote-two-years-on-survation-for-good-morning-britain/

Nody

seamus wrote: »

One of the things from the Airbus statement, that I hadn't considered:
Service businesses can tear down a shop and set up in another location in a matter of weeks, days even.
Manufacturing can't. It can take years for the processes and supply chains to become fully established. Plants can have lead-in times of years where they're fully staffed and operational, but not producing anything yet.

I imagine Airbus are not alone here; there's a good chance that once Brexit becomes reality - regardless of whether it's no-deal or transitionary - that these businesses will have to make a call and just start the relocation process because they can't afford to wait around to see if the UK government manages to cobble together any good deals.

Sorry but this is not how things work; I work in a world wide manufacturing company where JIT is normal. We would normally have about 4h of supply / storage capacity in our 24/7 factories and we've dealt with multiple outages/peaks for various reasons. Here is the way things are likely to play out.

First of all JIT will still be in place but it will be JIT with middle storage. Hence normally you'd go supplier - factory in your tight JIT timelines. Now instead it goes supplier - storage unit - factory. Same thing for outputs; due to the waiting times you'll go factory - storage unit - customer. This allows you to still run your normal processes more or less but that storage unit is not for free. Not only do you need to ship stuff there, store it etc. but due to the variability you need X days of supply + margin in space. If the queues start to build up on shipping out (more likely side) that space will grow and grow etc. and that is where the cost builds up rapidly. Temporary storage is not cheap and you're unlikely to commit to permanent storage for 15+ years due to not being competitive in the first place (there's a reason we all went JIT after all). You'd also look for a local supplier for what ever you'd leave behind (if any; depends on the company and factory after all) but the biggest pain will be the outbound leg for sure.

Hence that's your back up plan now in place and you can run that for a year+ depending on the business margins while working out how and where to relocate the business. The relocation process will also most likely be on a line by line basis but you can move a full line and have it up and running for most things inc. cars in a year with good project management as long as the building is there. The problem for UK is once those relocation plans start they are not stopping because they will have committed by then (and most likely received grants for moving their stuff to the region) and those commitments will be done over a year in advance of the actual announcements of the move.

FrancieBrady

View wrote: »

The referendum was an advisory one and the result was therefore advice, not a binding decision. And, the whole point of advice is that it one of a range of factors to be considered by the ultimate decision maker.

A country can never hold advisory referenda if the results must be treated as binding.

The Leave side certainly never accepted the results of the 75 advisory referendum as being binding at the time or since.

Democratically, there is no onus to 'accept' the result of a referendum other than abiding by the result.
There is nothing hindering lobbying and campaigning to change.
As we see the Scots are free to seek a fresh Indy referendum while remaining in the UK.

BonnieSituation

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Repealing the 8th only directly affects a subset of females - similar with marriage. So a straightforward 50+1 there for me.
GFA affect everyone so I would say margin for it.

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

This turned brexit into a protest vote. Not by all, but maybe enough to swing it to remain.

By the same token as the 8th only affected women physiologically then they should have been the ones to vote for it.

Nonsense.

Re unity the GFA states that it's 50%+1 and the we voted for it (amendment to Arts 2 and 3) on that basis.

To change the agreement now would require another referendum. Imagine that hassle and row.

By the time it comes to the point of a border poll happening I would be confident that we'll bring that extra 10% along.

Things like the Leave vote are okay to have as qualifying majority voting "if" you state that at the beginning. You can't just wish it was after the fact.

Similar if Scotland had gone the other way in 2014. You can't complain that the rules were too loose.

Leroy42

Shouldn't Ireland be going all out to get the manufacturing off the UK? Close enough to the UK market and the same laws/language and many of the top workers will be happy to relocate to a close neighbour.

Or is that simply not viable for Ireland Inc?

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

View wrote: »

The referendum was an advisory one and the result was therefore advice, not a binding decision. And, the whole point of advice is that it one of a range of factors to be considered by the ultimate decision maker.

A country can never hold advisory referenda if the results must be treated as binding.

The Leave side certainly never accepted the results of the 75 advisory referendum as being binding at the time or since.

Democratically, there is no onus to 'accept' the result of a referendum other than abiding by the result.
There is nothing hindering lobbying and campaigning to change.
As we see the Scots are free to seek a fresh Indy referendum while remaining in the UK.

And again, an advisory referendum results in advice which the ultimate decision maker is free to consider in conjunction with every other piece of advice they receive. The ultimate decision maker gets to decide which piece (or pieces) it chooses to follow.

Accepting the result of an advisory referendum is not the same as deciding to act on the advice from that referendum.

That should be especially true in the case of the Brexit one in which there are several serious allegations concerning breaches of the electoral laws.

Rhineshark

After the fact is too late to question what majority should be required, but I agree that 50+1 is asking for trouble when it is something that will fundamentally change the entire governing system of a country, upend it's economy or otherwise make a truly drastic change.

Brexit and GFA should, in my opinion, be higher majorities. There is too much risk of a close margin result and a deeply divided electorate. Britain appears paralysed, although I'm not convinced that that is alone down to the close result, but the divisions and resentment that have sprung up are going to take a long time to fade. Brexit should never have been a referendum, that was almost criminally stupid.

Too late now for Brexit and if the rules are enshrined as they are for GFA than so be it (50+1 makes a bit more sense there, although I'd be nervous of a very close result).

It is different for smaller questions, including SSM and abortion. Neither a Yes nor a No was going to rip the country apart, as glad as I am that both won.

Anthracite

BMW now warning about their future in the UK, as predicted upthread. I wonder how many more will follow?

Enzokk

Anthracite wrote: »

BMW now warning about their future in the UK, as predicted upthread. I wonder how many more will follow?

They must also be EU mouthpieces like Airbus is, right?

sink

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but this is not how things work; I work in a world wide manufacturing company where JIT is normal. We would normally have about 4h of supply / storage capacity in our 24/7 factories and we've dealt with multiple outages/peaks for various reasons. Here is the way things are likely to play out.

First of all JIT will still be in place but it will be JIT with middle storage. Hence normally you'd go supplier - factory in your tight JIT timelines. Now instead it goes supplier - storage unit - factory. Same thing for outputs; due to the waiting times you'll go factory - storage unit - customer. This allows you to still run your normal processes more or less but that storage unit is not for free. Not only do you need to ship stuff there, store it etc. but due to the variability you need X days of supply + margin in space. If the queues start to build up on shipping out (more likely side) that space will grow and grow etc. and that is where the cost builds up rapidly. Temporary storage is not cheap and you're unlikely to commit to permanent storage for 15+ years due to not being competitive in the first place (there's a reason we all went JIT after all). You'd also look for a local supplier for what ever you'd leave behind (if any; depends on the company and factory after all) but the biggest pain will be the outbound leg for sure.

Hence that's your back up plan now in place and you can run that for a year+ depending on the business margins while working out how and where to relocate the business. The relocation process will also most likely be on a line by line basis but you can move a full line and have it up and running for most things inc. cars in a year with good project management as long as the building is there. The problem for UK is once those relocation plans start they are not stopping because they will have committed by then (and most likely received grants for moving their stuff to the region) and those commitments will be done over a year in advance of the actual announcements of the move.

Not only that but they also have to consider EASA certification. I'm not sure how it will work but I know that UK issued certificates will no longer be recognised by EASA without an agreement. Will UK suppliers have to send their produce to the EU for certification and then back to Airbus assembly in the UK and then on to the EU for final assembly? It's a mess.

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Shouldn't Ireland be going all out to get the manufacturing off the UK? Close enough to the UK market and the same laws/language and many of the top workers will be happy to relocate to a close neighbour.

Or is that simply not viable for Ireland Inc?

No skills in manufacturing per say. We are too far away from the continent for just in time deliveries and our sea crossings can be very weather affected and finally we are at 6% unemployment . 5% is considered full employment

EdgeCase

Enzokk wrote: »

They must also be EU mouthpieces like Airbus is, right?

Sadly, the current trend is that if someone doesn't like the facts or they don't suit a particular internal mental model of how the world works, you claim they're a conspiracy or falsehood.

It's a growing problem not only across politics, but it's the same weird mentality that is seeing things like a rise of belief that the earth's flat, antivaxers, people who think climate change is a con job, that NASA is hiding aliens, etc etc etc..

Conspiracy theories bred by the ability to concentrate those who believe them into online communities that turn into filter bubbles and echo chambers and before long you've got people who've got an entirely 'alternative' set of facts (to reference Trump's spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway).

Basically, if the facts don't suit your dogma - scream HERACY!!!!

We're starting to slip back to problems that we thought we had left far behind us in an era of scientific reasoning, knowledge, and ability to probe facts. It's now an era of vast amounts of information and no way of sorting or ranking it.

Junkyard Tom

funkey_monkey wrote: »

The problem Airbus have is that the skill base location is fixed and it will take a long time to develop a new site with the same capability.

Germany, France, Italy and Spain all have well established aerospace industries who'd be only to pleased with the business. It would be in Europe's strategic interests to locate any manufacturing migrating from Britain in Italy, Spain or indeed Greece.