Brexit discussion thread III

Strazdas

EdgeCase wrote: »

We're living through (as observers if you're in Ireland) one of the most bizarre periods of modern political history.

The stable realities that we've taken for granted, certainly in the US and UK but in a few other places too, are being ripped up. Facts don't seem to matter anymore in those debates, just opinion and emotion, all supported by tabloids and online rumours.

I can't really see any positive outcome for the UK. The country is utterly rudderless. It's cutting off its own roots in business and trade, to the point that the Foreign Secretary allegedly said f*** business on Friday at a meeting.

At best, I think you're looking for a messy relationship with the rest of Europe for the foreseeable future and a major political problem to resolve in the UK itself, along with a declining economy as it struggles to try and reorientate itself towards unfamiliar and probably not very welcoming markets.

What made the UK a success story in recent decades has been a pro-business model. It's not telling business to f**k itself and attacking multinational companies who call bad political policies for what they are.

I think we're about to see a country implode under its own self-deluded hubris, egged on by a bunch of pot stirrers who just want to destroy 'the establishment', whatever that is.

Egged on by a deeply dysfunctional media. I don't think Brexit could happen in any other country (ie. the entire Brexit process) as the media would be far more responsible elsewhere and trying to do the best by the country. In the UK, you have the media being onboard the Brexit train or even driving it.

Spanish Eyes

After the Apocalypse they will probably need to change FPTP too.

Totally unrepresentative, yielding Ying or Yang every five years. In a country that size one would imagine that there are plenty of people who feel totally disenfranchised.

EdgeCase

Strazdas wrote: »

Egged on by a deeply dysfunctional media. I don't think Brexit could happen in any other country (ie. the entire Brexit process) as the media would be far more responsible elsewhere and trying to do the best by the country. In the UK, you have the media being onboard the Brexit train or even driving it.

To be honest, I'm not even sure that there's an agenda behind the media's approach other than they've a notion that they can increase sales by appealing to football hooligan type xenophobes.

They're treating Brexit as if it's England vs Germany at the World Cup or something.

It's a nasty game about identity politics and whipping up hate.

briany

Nody wrote: »

The only positive; and it's a stretch to call it that and assume it will happen is that the UK population finally clears the air with their London overlords and give them a kick in the gonads that will be remembered. Once "project fear" turns into reality and the street of milk & honey from the new trade deals are not coming they will hopefully sort out their parties on both sides of the divide. That will be a harsh period but the hope is the tempered steel coming out from it will be stronger for it and be ready to rejoin and push EU in the right direction again without the home spun lies to hold it back. But before that happens there is going to be both two and three runs of variations of nationlism as well to fail that will be painful for non Brits (or people considered not to be British enough by their standards).

I'm worried there's enough people for whom no amount of economic disaster would be bad enough to do a U-turn on Brexit e.g. the pro-Brexit people in positions of political power and/or financial solvency to be mostly insulated from its effects, and the people who voted for Brexit because they figured things couldn't get worse, or don't care how bad it will get so long as the UK comes out of the EU.

J Mysterio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

After the Apocalypse they will probably need to change FPTP too.

Totally unrepresentative, yielding Ying or Yang every five years. In a country that size one would imagine that there are plenty of people who feel totally disenfranchised.

Yes. The glorious British Parliamentary system that led to this disaster needs root and branch reform. No doubt about it.

Once it all goes to **** (which is basically now), I hope/ expect that there will be some new voices to emerge to challenge the status quo.

It just can't go on like this anyway, with a wobbly and deceitful PM stumbling from disaster to disaster, lying to parliament and being whipped along by caricatures of 19th century British imperialists.

The Tories will surely be unelectable after this debacle. Labour too as they just meekly and pathetically watched it happen. Greens/ Lib Dems are barely worth mentioning and I dont think there are many independents to speak of. UKIP/ BNP etc will hopefully be consigned to history - though some citizens may want to double down on them(!), risking a real rise of fascist sentiment in the UK.

So in terms of party politics, the various parties are essentially in disrepute. The system is sick also though, with parliamentary norms being abused and the efficacy of the system called into question. But the Nation - the UK itself - is fracturing and looks ready to break down. Scotland is certainly going to push for Independence and NI could well follow. The whole house of cards is very, very precarious right now.

Social unrest is a real possibility as it dawns on the population that they have followed the pied-MPers to oblivion. Job losses, tax hikes, inflation, underfundig of services, depression.

You could even see brain drain where the best and brightest may go elsewhere to improve their prospects.

ambro25

J Mysterio wrote: »

You could even see brain drain where the best and brightest may go elsewhere to improve their prospects.

The brain drain is well underway, and well documented, already. Brexodus has been a (n under-)reported fact since around early 2018, and UK university and job applications by 'foreign' (EU) brains have been in freefall since just as long.

I too see social unrest as a possibility in the short to medium term post-March 2019, particularly since police forces have already been trimmed to the bone awhile, with worsening prospects as to recruitment and resourcing. I'm not a 'prepper', nor lent to over-reaction, but I'm actually starting to contingency-plan how to get the (late 70s) M-i-L out of the place by end summer 2019, if developing circumstances called for it.

J Mysterio

ambro25 wrote: »

The brain drain is well underway, and well documented, already. Brexodus has been a (n under-)reported fact since around early 2018, and UK university and job applications by 'foreign' (EU) brains have been in freefall since just as long.

I was thinking indigenous brains as opposed to those foreign! But altogether, UK society will be/ is becoming less prosperous. If you knowingly harm your own economy to service some half baked ideal, those who can will opt out for better opportunities elsewhere.

ambro25

J Mysterio wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

The brain drain is well underway, and well documented, already. Brexodus has been a (n under-)reported fact since around early 2018, and UK university and job applications by 'foreign' (EU) brains have been in freefall since just as long.

I was thinking indigenous brains as opposed to those foreign! But altogether, UK society will be/ is becoming less prosperous.

I did get that, J Mysterio

The 'Brexodus' hashtag on Twitter is chock-full of dual-nationality couples (1 UK, 1 EU27), both who have already jetted off and who are prepping. Many Universities have also gone public about senior academics (including Brits) who have already departed for EU27 tenures and others who have resigned their chairs ready to do the same.

Given the 'state' of the UK MSM, we really shouldn't be surprised at all at the blackout about the issue. It's not really on-message. But it's happening alright. At scale, as well.

Leroy42

I simply cannot see how anything is going to change. Did anything change after the London riots?

There appears to be the perfect storm. A unrepresentative electoral system. Two parties lead by very poor leaders. Lack of critical reporting by the state media (BBC) and partisan reporting by the rest of the media. Lack of understanding by the wider voters of the workings of the state or how elections can play their part.

There won't be a single day when Brexit shows itself as a disaster, it will, as it has been so far, will be a continual series of cuts.

Look at the Airbus story. We have a government minister coming out today saying companies should keep their mouths shut. Fox saying that they are wrecking the chances of the government of getting a deal.

If the economy stagnates then it will be blamed on bad faith from the EU. Or that Trump is mad. Or they are better on their own anyway. Or project fear talked down the economy.

But they (the UK as a whole) have shown very little signs of being critically aware enough to be able to realise and accept the part they part in their own situation.

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

I'm worried there's enough people for whom no amount of economic disaster would be bad enough to do a U-turn on Brexit e.g. the pro-Brexit people in positions of political power and/or financial solvency to be mostly insulated from its effects, and the people who voted for Brexit because they figured things couldn't get worse, or don't care how bad it will get so long as the UK comes out of the EU.

You don't need to smash the radical, irrational element out of existence. It exists in every country. The problem is that the British political establishment has allowed itself to become beholden to this element. I am getting to the stage that I fear that only a disastrous no-deal Brexit will be enough of a shock to the UK system to embolden and anger the middle ground enough to shove the radical little Englanders back to the fringe where they belong.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I simply cannot see how anything is going to change. Did anything change after the London riots?

There appears to be the perfect storm. A unrepresentative electoral system. Two parties lead by very poor leaders. Lack of critical reporting by the state media (BBC) and partisan reporting by the rest of the media. Lack of understanding by the wider voters of the workings of the state or how elections can play their part.

There won't be a single day when Brexit shows itself as a disaster, it will, as it has been so far, will be a continual series of cuts.

Look at the Airbus story. We have a government minister coming out today saying companies should keep their mouths shut. Fox saying that they are wrecking the chances of the government of getting a deal.

If the economy stagnates then it will be blamed on bad faith from the EU. Or that Trump is mad. Or they are better on their own anyway. Or project fear talked down the economy.

But they (the UK as a whole) have shown very little signs of being critically aware enough to be able to realise and accept the part they part in their own situation.

If, as seems increasingly likely, there is a no deal Brexit, then you will have plenty of evidence on Brexit day of the disaster that Brexit will be. If they manage to throw some sort of deal together in time, then it wont be a disaster, but there will still be plenty of political ammo to throw at the brexiteers, like the customs border in the Irish sea.

McGiver

briany wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4w7W-rduZ8

JRM and Verhofstadt debating why or if the EU can ignore it's own rules surrounding the border.

A couple of links as to why the EU can give /never actually gave a bail out. As that features heavily from JRM

www.cnbc.com/amp/id/35327584
http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/177862-no-bail-out-clause-article-125-lisbon-treaty.html

Look at JRM, here. Slightly slouched in his big chair, fingers thatched, and a disdainful gaze. Age him by 40 years and you have Mr. Burns. He even has on a navy-coloured suit.

A sly arrogant sneering fox.

His reasoning is correct but he is being either ignorant or manipulative and so missing few very important points.

The EU can be flexible with the rules with its own member states, but not with third parties. UK is becoming a third party. By his logic, he should complain about the UK as well, because the UK had the most opt-outs of all the member states. Opt-outs can be considered as bending the rules, right. The EU is just saying that member states may get some flexibility, but the UK as a third party won't get anything as any other third parties. No more opt-outs.

His notion of "UK unilaterally won't put up a border" is absolutely insane and would be akin to an intentional sabotage in violation of the GFA and possibly WTO rules as well. He knows that the EU has to protect the single market and is just being provocative, his show is aimed more at domestic audience to get political points with hard-line Brexiteers rather than aimed at actually move the Brexit negotiations forward.

And finally - not putting up any border with the only land border the UK actually have? Take back control, right!

First Up

Maybe I'm in a minority but I'm long past caring what is going on in Westminster or Hackney or in the mind of the British electorate.

They are leaving; bye bye and hurry up. My energy is going into how Ireland minimises the damage and maximises the opportunities. We will do that by working with the 25 countries with whom we share membership and by finding ways to help our businesses do business with theirs.

Let the UK go fish.

Mezcita

Kind of used to Barnier's soundbites from when he gives press conferences. Interesting to get a few more thoughts on how he thinks it's going here:

Strazdas

EdgeCase wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not even sure that there's an agenda behind the media's approach other than they've a notion that they can increase sales by appealing to football hooligan type xenophobes.

They're treating Brexit as if it's England vs Germany at the World Cup or something.

It's a nasty game about identity politics and whipping up hate.

They seem to be trying to shape Brexit though, such as intimidating pro-Remain MPs whenever there is a vote coming up in the Commons and labelling them traitors. So they are not just rabble rousers or populists but see themselves as active players in the Brexit process, more akin to Breitbart or someone.

Charles Babbage

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Sorry but what do you mean? How is that a minimum turnout?

If you accept that 50% is OK with a 70% turnout then if 35% of the electorate vote (so 58% of a 60% turnout) then that is OK and the whole thing cannot be derailled by people boycotting.

LeinsterDub

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If you accept that 50% is OK with a 70% turnout then if 35% of the electorate vote (so 58% of a 60% turnout) then that is OK and the whole thing cannot be derailled by people boycotting.

Yes but we are taking about minimum turnouts so if you had set the minimum at 71% a fairly small boycott could render your example void as only 70% turned out.

I don't get your 58% of a 60 % thing?

EdgeCase

Strazdas wrote: »

They seem to be trying to shape Brexit though, such as intimidating pro-Remain MPs whenever there is a vote coming up in the Commons and labelling them traitors. So they are not just rabble rousers or populists but see themselves as active players in the Brexit process, more akin to Breitbart or someone.

They’re active players but what’s the motive beyond just simple xenophobia?

The tabloid media in the UK has always played this role and the other shapes of gutter press played similar games in the 19th century.

There’s a mixture of xenophobia, trolling and possibly conspiracy to achieve some kind of ideologically driven damage to the EU or a perceived world order.

I think you’re seeing a perfect storm (as decribed further up the thread) that also extends to this. It’s a coalition of forces that seem to want to do this for a whole load of reasons that don’t necessarily allign other than on that one objective.

The only people I can see actually benefiting are disaster capitalists and anyone with an agenda to undermine stability in Europe generally.

Trasna1

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Yes but we are taking about minimum turnouts so if you had set the minimum at 71% a fairly small boycott could render your example void as only 70% turned out.

I don't get your 58% of a 60 % thing?

Minimum turnouts are generally set quite low, like 40%. Brexit had a turnout in excess of 70%iirc, so trying to delegitimise the result in that basis isn't really valid. Indeed saying that the electorate were taken in by lies isn't valid either since the lies were called out several times during the campaign and the electorate chose not to listen.

The post referendum remain campaign really had lived in denial, by betting everything on overturning the result. It should have taken heed of the UKs long standing European policy, buy in and undermine or shape the result from the inside.

briany

McGiver wrote: »

A sly arrogant sneering fox.

His reasoning is correct but he is being either ignorant or manipulative and so missing few very important points.

I'll give it up to Mogg in the sense that he's very well-spoken and eloquent. It's easy to be charmed by his eccentric persona. But for people using phrases like "Can't clog the Mogg!", well firstly it's a phrase that the Sun would think twice about running with and secondly does Mogg truly care about the kind of commoner writing it?



He presents himself as an extremely traditional British politician - almost like one's concept of what British politicians were like 100 years ago. But with that comes the idea that, as that kind of politician, he doesn't consider himself the same as most of his constituents or truly understand their concerns. He's not your friend, and he's not trying to be. And with that comes the potential for Mogg to enact some really painful measures whenever he wins out in this House of Cards power game he's playing, because he's doing it more out of an aloof and detached sense of what is 'right' and not examining the social fallout.

Cookie_Monster

McGiver wrote: »

And finally - not putting up any border with the only land border the UK actually have? Take back control, right!

There'll be a land border at Gibraltar. Granted it's not the UK itself but it'll still be a relevant border to be enforced depending on the ultimate outcome.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just to reassure any EU citizens living in the UK about their rights.

Born in the Commonwealth ?
Lived in the UK for the last 60 years ?

British Passport Denied.

Nitpick: Hay was not born in the Commonwealth. He was born in Milford, which is in the Republic, after the Republic had left the Commonwealth.

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

A sly arrogant sneering fox.

His reasoning is correct but he is being either ignorant or manipulative and so missing few very important points.

I don't think it is in the slightest.. On a forum, he'd rightly be accused of whataboutery. What confuses me in that the WTO wasn't brought up to shut him up.

Nody

First Up wrote: »

Maybe I'm in a minority but I'm long past caring what is going on in Westminster or Hackney or in the mind of the British electorate.

They are leaving; bye bye and hurry up. My energy is going into how Ireland minimises the damage and maximises the opportunities. We will do that by working with the 25 countries with whom we share membership and by finding ways to help our businesses do business with theirs.

Let the UK go fish.

So which country are you kicking out (there's 27 countries left once UK leaves)?

Seriously though, I care on a "car crash level" what's going on in general and for my friends over there specifically. I already know a few of them are making plans to move to mainland but not all of them. Secondly the interest is because of all the anti EU parties out there (I'd say they exist in pretty much every country) and see how they fare after Brexit in general.

trellheim

With Arlene at the GAA yesterday and Charles/Camilla over, the charm offensive seems to be on ( from both sides - see Juncker/Barnier etc as well )

FrancieBrady

trellheim wrote: »

With Arlene at the GAA yesterday and Charles/Camilla over, the charm offensive seems to be on ( from both sides - see Juncker/Barnier etc as well )

I'd have no doubt the DUP have been told by the Tory's to soften their attitude to Dublin.

Enzokk

Here is an interesting story about polling and the effects it had on Brexit day. It raises some serious questions for Farage as well, but I doubt he cares as he probably made his money and more on the day. I always found it strange that he was so quick to declare a loss on the night. For someone campaigning his whole life for an outcome he did quickly claim to have lost.

Brexit’s Big Short: How Pollsters Helped Hedge Funds Beat the Crash

Roanmore

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is an interesting story about polling and the effects it had on Brexit day. It raises some serious questions for Farage as well, but I doubt he cares as he probably made his money and more on the day. I always found it strange that he was so quick to declare a loss on the night. For someone campaigning his whole life for an outcome he did quickly claim to have lost.

Brexit’s Big Short: How Pollsters Helped Hedge Funds Beat the Crash

Read it earlier, twice he conceded even though he had poll data suggesting the opposite.

EdgeCase

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd have no doubt the DUP have been told by the Tory's to soften their attitude to Dublin.

I actually suspect that the DUP is getting a serious amount of pressure to cop on from the NI farming and business communities.

The identity politics of Northern Ireland doesn't always tally very well with attitudes on the ground around practical issues.

When you look at opinion polling on most issues the DUP is very far away from the general consensus of opinion in NI and are increasingly becoming less and less aligned to political reality in the north. Take something like marriage equality. There's a solid >70% in favour of it, yet the DUP blocks. The same kind of things show through on the Irish language.

The majority of NI did not back Brexit. So, if planning a long term career she need to learn a lot about pragmatism and finding a sensible solution to this. She's supposed to be the First Minister (albeit in suspension) rather than just the leader of the DUP. To do that job successfully, she actually has to try to represent Northern Ireland, not just narrow party interests.

She's a choice here - be a real leader and go down in the history books as someone who brought NI together or, have a legacy as the woman who dragged NI back to the past, having bolted its lot to the worst and most incompetent British government in modern history.

I sincerely hope she’s deciding to be bigger than party politics and rise above small minded Tory nonsense.

Right now, by providing the Tories with support, the DUP is actually risking the dissolution of the Union. The hard brexiteers do not care about it and that is supported in polling. They want England out of the EU at all costs, and even if that means UK falls apart, they’re fine with that.

So ironically, the DUP are actually enabling a political movement that could bring about the end of the UK. You’re looking at a future with Scottish independence and NI cut adrift.

Logically speaking, the DUP should attempt to take the moral high ground. Stand up for their own regional economic future, peace and stability and pull the plug on the mess in England.

Charles Babbage

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Yes but we are taking about minimum turnouts so if you had set the minimum at 71% a fairly small boycott could render your example void as only 70% turned out.

I don't get your 58% of a 60 % thing?

Quite simply, a person should not be able to get more advantage by boycotting than by voting. So if a smaller proportion of people vote, but a large proportion of those who vote go one way that should still count.

LeinsterDub

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Quite simply, a person should not be able to get more advantage by boycotting than by voting. So if a smaller proportion of people vote, but a large proportion of those who vote go one way that should still count.

That's not how a minimum turn out works thought. Perhaps there is a system with this model but it's not a minimum turn out.

trellheim

I actually suspect that the DUP is getting a serious amount of pressure to cop on from the NI farming and business communities.

Yes this occurred to me as well. Agriculture is even bigger for them than it is for us due to the lack of diversification outside Belfast. Tony Connelly's excellent book outlines how much of the cross-border trade is agriculture related.

Memnoch

EdgeCase wrote: »

Logically speaking, the DUP should attempt to take the moral high ground. Stand up for their own regional economic future, peace and stability and pull the plug on the mess in England.

The DUP have control over the Northern Ireland government through the Tories. Thus they have control of the money coming into the country. They are too busy lining their pockets.

Whatever happens afterwards is irrelevant to those in this position right now as they will be laughing all the way to the bank. Just like the Tories who have no issue burning the UK to the ground. Perfectly matched bedfellows.

VinLieger

Gotta love all that sovereignty brexit will bring back


https://www.politicshome.com/news/world/united-states/news/96258/senior-us-republican-paul-ryan-warns-uk-%E2%80%98must-diverge-eu-rules

EdgeCase

Well, they seem to be under the deluded impression they can just get some kind of one-way UK-biased, ruled in London, trade deal with the USA. Not only would that be highly unlikely a normal US presidency, but this one is extremely hostile to trade deals and will insist on something biased the other way.

The US is basically having a trade war with *Canada* at the moment. The UK is pretty far down the agenda.

The UK gets to be a rule taker outside the EU, in any negotiation with a major power, it's not just the EU that will insist on compliance with regulations, the US and other big players certainly will too.

Grasp of realty isn't a strong point in Westminster at the moment.

Seth Brundle

The IMF are now in on the anti-British conspiracy...

Europe and Ireland must prepare for an influx of financial firms after Brexit, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said.

Christine Lagarde said the EU needed to enhance its regulatory and supervisory capacities to cope with the likely influx of firms from London’s financial district.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/lagarde-says-ireland-and-europe-must-be-ready-for-post-brexit-influx-of-financial-firms-1.3542818

WomanSkirtFan8

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The IMF are now in on the anti-British conspiracy...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/lagarde-says-ireland-and-europe-must-be-ready-for-post-brexit-influx-of-financial-firms-1.3542818

She's absolutely right in that. But I would have thought that that was a fairly obvious thing right from when the vote happened.

EdgeCase

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

She's absolutely right in that. But I would have thought that that was a fairly obvious thing right from when the vote happened.

Except to the deluded who see to think that they can be fully outside the EU, operate a totally different regulatory environment and somehow retain access to the EU financial services market, as if nothing's changed at all.

Apart from the fact it's ludicrous, it's also a proposal that would be very unfair on Wall Street, Hong Kong, Singapore and so on.

Why would London as an external financial centre be given preference over other financial centres for access to the lucrative EU market.

If I were in New York, I'd be pretty annoyed if that were the outcome.

They don't even seem to see that there's a bigger picture than just EU - UK relations in terms of how the EU itself trades with the world and how the UK's going to trade after Brexit.

KingNerolives

So when is this bloody white paper coming? Hopefully mentions something about agriculture

trellheim

She's absolutely right in that. But I would have thought that that was a fairly obvious thing right from when the vote happened

European Council meeting on brexit among other things tomorrow ; today was foreign ministers and defence. Lagarde was merely throwing a bit of petrol on for tomorrow

UK White paper was supposed to happen before tomorrow's EUCO but may flagged it as for July recently ; this really annoyed the other 27 as it meant they still have no clue what the UK wants out of all this

Seth Brundle

trellheim wrote: »

this really annoyed the other 27 as it meant they still have no clue what the UK wants out of all this

But sure the UK doesn't know what it wants!

Nody

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But sure the UK doesn't know what it wants!

No they know what they want; all the benefits of being in EU while allowed to ignore all laws and treaties of EU and being paid for graciously accepting the deal. The problem comes when minor things such as reality comes knocking on the door and they start to scrambling for the unicorns to save them...

PeadarCo

EdgeCase wrote:

They don't even seem to see that there's a bigger picture than just EU - UK relations in terms of how the EU itself trades with the world and how the UK's going to trade after Brexit.

To be fair most of the time they can't see beyond the internal tory war over Europe. Its the battle that kicked off the whole process that brought about Brexit. Until that is resolved and the one smoldering in the Labour Party I doubt you will see any coherent negotiation platform. Sooner or later with the Brexit deadline approaching a decision will have to be made.

Lemming

PeadarCo wrote: »

Sooner or later with the Brexit deadline approaching a decision will have to be made.

The question at that point will be whether it's the UK making a decision, or the very real prospect of having it made for them by a - rightly well and truly f*cked off - EU27 wanting rid of the whole debacle.

trellheim

The question at that point will be whether it's the UK making a decision, or the very real prospect of having it made for them by a - rightly well and truly f*cked off - EU27 wanting rid of the whole debacle.

This is somewhat of a misunderstanding. Clock is ticking. With no decision, UK is out in March 2019 without a deal. Quite a lot of people in the UK want this as it means no transition timeframe and no 39 billion payment.

Quite a lot of people in the UK DO want a deal - but its open warfare internally ; this suits the people who want straight out, so they are egging on the warfare ( ever thought the chaos is for a reason ? )

BTW no deal is currently the most plausible - no-one can see any set of options that works at the moment, and any kind of brokerage the USA might do to knock heads together is impossible given their toxic politics at the moment. No deal means IRL is up the creek.

Professor Moriarty

trellheim wrote: »

This is somewhat of a misunderstanding. Clock is ticking. With no decision, UK is out in March 2019 without a deal. Quite a lot of people in the UK want this as it means no transition timeframe and no 39 billion payment.

Quite a lot of people in the UK DO want a deal - but its open warfare internally ; this suits the people who want straight out, so they are egging on the warfare ( ever thought the chaos is for a reason ? )

BTW no deal is currently the most plausible - no-one can see any set of options that works at the moment, and any kind of brokerage the USA might do to knock heads together is impossible given their toxic politics at the moment. No deal means IRL is up the creek.

The current US administration is actively promoting the disintegration of the EU.

trellheim

The current US administration is actively promoting the disintegration of the EU

Indeed.

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The current US administration is actively promoting the disintegration of the EU.

I wonder where they got that idea from?

Imreoir2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The current US administration is actively promoting the disintegration of the EU.

Fortunately, the US administration seems to be disintegrating faster.

Capt'n Midnight

trellheim wrote: »

This is somewhat of a misunderstanding. Clock is ticking. With no decision, UK is out in March 2019 without a deal. Quite a lot of people in the UK want this as it means no transition timeframe and no 39 billion payment.

Quite a lot of people in the UK DO want a deal - but its open warfare internally ; this suits the people who want straight out, so they are egging on the warfare ( ever thought the chaos is for a reason ? )

BTW no deal is currently the most plausible - no-one can see any set of options that works at the moment, and any kind of brokerage the USA might do to knock heads together is impossible given their toxic politics at the moment. No deal means IRL is up the creek.

Brexit means we might not get
Economic report predicts 236,700 new jobs up to 2022 NI is only expected to get 9,500 new jobs by 2022. So no deal means NI is totally up the creek too as the DUP won't have control of the magic money tree. Bombardier depends on Airbus. Not to mention the costs of controlling the border. If we drop excise duty on fuel then the volume going north would eat into the NI tax take.



The €39Bn is for on-going stuff and bills and goodwill.

But it's less than a third of a percent of EU GDP. And they are risking half a trillion pounds of annual trade in goods with the EU, nevermind the services and financials. Not to mention that every else they to do a trade deal with demand better terms because of it. In short their diplomatic credit rating will take a hit.