Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

Phase 2 is going ahead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42368096

demfad

https://news.sky.com/story/eu-could-extend-talks-if-mps-reject-brexit-deal-11171251

Early phase 2 news:Cypriot PM indicates the EU would extend A50 deadline if the UK parliament votes to reject a deal.
He also feels that Brexit is heading towards full alignment even though the UK Govt is not saying so publicly at the moment.

Zubeneschamali

demfad wrote: »

Cypriot PM indicates the EU would extend A50 deadline if the UK parliament votes to reject a deal.

Makes sense.

flaneur

Phase 2 appears to be the new Phase 1 as they some seem to have agreed very much at all.

The trade deal won't be discussed until after 2019 when they've left the EU.

J Mysterio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Declan Lynch, of the Sindo, may be on to something with his theory that Brexit will never actually happen - May confirms that the UK will remain in Erasmus "at least until 2020":

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/941382579235753984

This was one of the things I felt was a massive loss. I did Erasmus and it was honestly the best year of my life. I also did it alongside a lovely girl from Manchester.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Phase 2 is going ahead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42368096

Just one little fly in the ointment apparently. The EU is insisting that the transition deal is agreed before full FTA talks can be concluded. This coincides with the EU's demand that there be cabinet unanimity by March 2018. Best of luck with that, Theresa.

Enzokk

Here is the link from the EU Council on moving to phase 2.

I find point 7 interesting,

The Union takes note that the United Kingdom has stated its intention to no longer participate
in the Customs Union and the Single Market after the end of the transition period, and the
European Council will calibrate its approach as regards trade and economic cooperation in the
light of this position so as to ensure a balance of rights and obligations, preserve a level
playing field, avoid upsetting existing relations with other third countries, and to respect all
other principles set out in its guidelines of 29 April 2017, in particular the need to preserve the
integrity and proper functioning of the Single Market.

So we will have another dynamic to the trade talks to consider. Not only will the NI border be a consideration along with the EU-UK relationship, but seeing that the UK wants to be a third country (as they have requested over and over) all other third countries will have a say if they feel the deal with the UK deal negatively affects them.

cml387

OK, is it just me or is there some massive disconnect between what the EU and UK believe is going to happen in Phase 2.

This seems to have always been (form the British pov) "Trade Talks", i.e the trade deal between the UK and EU.

From the EU side it seems to be that phase 2 is about agreeing a transition phase after March 2019 where the precise details of a UK/EU deal will be thrashed out.
Phase 2 is just about how closely aligned the UK and EU will be in this period.
The more aligned, the greater the access. And it may not be two years, more likely 3 to 4 years.

Is this right? Because I don't think it's coming across in Britain (although the BBC put it in pretty stark terms this morning).

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is the link from the EU Council on moving to phase 2.

I find point 7 interesting,




So we will have another dynamic to the trade talks to consider. Not only will the NI border be a consideration along with the EU-UK relationship, but seeing that the UK wants to be a third country (as they have requested over and over) all other third countries will have a say if they feel the deal with the UK deal negatively affects them.

The subtext is that we will use all means possible to ensure that your leaving the EU will be an example to other members as to what will happen if they try to leave. We will also extract as much payback as possible for the decades of insults and constant attempts to undermine the EU project. Finally, while we will want to continue exporting to you, we will ensure that our new competitor will be hamstrung for as long as possible.

Enzokk

flaneur wrote: »

Phase 2 appears to be the new Phase 1 as they some seem to have agreed very much at all.

The trade deal won't be discussed until after 2019 when they've left the EU.

I think a trade deal can be discussed, but a trade deal cannot be signed until the UK is a third country.

While an agreement on a future relationship can only be finalised
and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, the Union will be ready
to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions with the aim of identifying an overall
understanding of the framework for the future relationship, once additional guidelines have
been adopted to this effect

Zubeneschamali

flaneur wrote: »

The trade deal won't be discussed until after 2019 when they've left the EU.

I think that is a bit of a spoof - the trade deal itself won't be discussed and agreed until they leave, but they will certainly talk about the trade deal during phase 2, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get the form of the trade deal ready to be be discussed and agreed immediately after Brexit happens (like, within seconds).

Jaggo

recedite wrote: »

Its been a place that the unemployed of Ireland could always go to, and always entitled to the same opportunities and benefits as the natives under the CTA.

Weren't they also the first to give us a loan when we were bankrupt back in 2010?

While I agree with a lot of what you said there, the last bit is debatable. Other countries and the EU were already in discussions about the loan, it was coming, the UK just announced it first but paid over the money later.
The UK applied a higher rate to the loan then anyone else.
The UK have refused to allow us to paid it off early (refinancing with the private sector at a cheaper rate) as they see it as either leverage or profitable.

Finally you should note, much of our banking crisis was because Irish banks, BOI and AIB, were been undercut by companies like RBS and Halifax regulated from London. RBS and Halifax were using the terrible system of short term money market funding that destroyed the property market in the US. It was the introduction of the UK companies (and London's regulations) that broke the staid but safe Irish financial system and led to the property crash.

flutered

recedite wrote: »

Its been a place that the unemployed of Ireland could always go to, and always entitled to the same opportunities and benefits as the natives under the CTA.

Weren't they also the first to give us a loan when we were bankrupt back in 2010?

and the only lender who refused an early repayment, i believe

Jaggo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The subtext is that we will use all means possible to ensure that your leaving the EU will be an example to other members as to what will happen if they try to leave. We will also extract as much payback as possible for the decades of insults and constant attempts to undermine the EU project. Finally, while we will want to continue exporting to you, we will ensure that our new competitor will be hamstrung for as long as possible.

I don't think the EU are interested in either punishing the UK or getting any form of revenage. I don't think the EU cares enough. The UK is gone, grand, close the door after you. However regarding the negotiations, the UK are blundering around neither knowing the path nor the destination - it is very hard to negotiate with that.

The EU road map was clear from the start. 40 years of economic integration had to be undone, it couldn't be rushed.
The EU roadmap was quite simple. UK moves to the EEA for a number of years. EU and UK trash out a new limit trade deal based on UK red lines. UK exits EEA to new trade deal. A longer but more orderly exit, no cliff edges, very limited exit bill (the just would remove the UK from the budget), Ireland issue would be solved on the qt. Everything nice and neat, easy(ier) to arrange. The UK just had to know what the Single market did for the UK and the difficulties of leaving.

kingchess

All this talk about being good friends means nothing,Countries do not have friends -they have strategic interests.No Country will act against its own interests just to help out another Country.That is why Ireland should and will put our own strategic needs first.

flaneur

The EU doesn't particularly care, as long as it doesn't do any damage to the Eurozone or EU itself. It's a fairly logical position.

Where you'll get problems is where the UK starts to step on the toes of national politics. Bear in mind that some people in France and Germany will draw direct parallels between the current Tories' politics and the likes of Marine Le Pen and AfD, so there will be significant political interest in making sure this doesn't come across as a UK success story, even if that's looking fairly unlikely anyway.

You'll also get major issues if the UK tries to override or renegotiate things that may step on economic toes i.e. things like agricultural policies.

The UK could potentially reopen a lot of issues between the EU and itself that are status quo positions in the EU that have already been negotiated and settled years ago.

flaneur

Jaggo wrote: »

Finally you should note, much of our banking crisis was because Irish banks, BOI and AIB, were been undercut by companies like RBS and Halifax regulated from London. RBS and Halifax were using the terrible system of short term money market funding that destroyed the property market in the US. It was the introduction of the UK companies (and London's regulations) that broke the staid but safe Irish financial system and led to the property crash.

I think that's an aspect that's largely overlooked. The UK banks were amongst the most aggressive players here and in some cases jumped in quite late in the game and ended up burning through huge amounts of money and was largely the reason for the UK loan to Ireland. I don't think they really wanted to be picking up the pieces directly for RBS. A quick Google will find you the HBOS Halifax Ireland 'bankers' ads from just before the whole thing went bang.

It also shows the huge risk of letting financial services from a less regulated market into the EU post banking crash. It would be a crazy and dangerous move for the Eurozone.

kingchess wrote: »

All this talk about being good friends means nothing,Countries do not have friends -they have strategic interests.No Country will act against its own interests just to help out another Country.That is why Ireland should and will put our own strategic needs first.

I actually don't agree entirely with that. In a lot of cases there's solidarity for various reasons - proximity, history, similarity of culture, similarity of political systems etc etc.
That being said, I don't think we should be overly sentimental about the UK on this. The Tories have proven to be absolutely willing to throw anyone under the bus, including their own party members if necessary.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

The problem is that there are all kinds of emotive feelings about the European Union and the lofty European project that it is very upsetting to the more Euro-federalist types when someone says they want to chart a different course.

That 'problem' did not look like much of one, back in February 2016, did it?

What was the text again? Oh yeah: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom".

source (embedded at link).

That looks plenty rational and pragmatic to me, plainly acknowledging that the British nation wanted to chart a different course to the Euro-federalist ideal (I won't call it a project, considering the timespan associated with achieving anything remotely resembling a 'European federation') and, equally plainly, allowing it. By Statute no less.

Now then, what's it look to you? 'Rational, pragmatic and helpful', no?

An Ciarraioch

The Taoiseach states that the final Agreement will have to be approved by all EU parliaments - let's just hope that the end result isn't so close to a Treaty that it requires a referendum here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulcolgan/status/941669411861254144

steddyeddy

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is the link from the EU Council on moving to phase 2.

I find point 7 interesting,




So we will have another dynamic to the trade talks to consider. Not only will the NI border be a consideration along with the EU-UK relationship, but seeing that the UK wants to be a third country (as they have requested over and over) all other third countries will have a say if they feel the deal with the UK deal negatively affects them.

In other words they've not so much taken back control as actually transferred power of attorney to the DUP, other EU member states and other third countries. The future of the UK is dependent on what the aforementioned parties want it to be.

flaneur

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Taoiseach states that the final Agreement will have to be approved by all EU parliaments - let's just hope that the end result isn't so close to a Treaty that it requires a referendum here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulcolgan/status/941669411861254144

Well there's no harm in keeping a referendum in a big shiny box on the table, along with the freshly polished veto. No need to necessarily use them, but sure just keep them in a nice little backlit display case...

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think that is a bit of a spoof - the trade deal itself won't be discussed and agreed until they leave, but they will certainly talk about the trade deal during phase 2, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get the form of the trade deal ready to be be discussed and agreed immediately after Brexit happens (like, within seconds).

Bu agreed do you mean signed/done deal or the type of deal is agreed?
If they go for the Canada option that would be 7 years negotiating.

Jaggo

Jaggo wrote: »

While I agree with a lot of what you said there, the last bit is debatable. Other countries and the EU were already in discussions about the loan, it was coming, the UK just announced it first but paid over the money later.
The UK applied a higher rate to the loan then anyone else.
The UK have refused to allow us to paid it off early (refinancing with the private sector at a cheaper rate) as they see it as either leverage or profitable.

Someone should tell Paschal then https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ireland-will-not-pay-uk-loans-back-early-td3gtjfkz

The government will not bring forward the repayment of a £3.2 billion loan provided by Britain during the financial crisis because it is not in Ireland’s economic interests, according to the finance minister.

Paschal Donohoe said that repaying the loan, which formed part of the country’s €64 billion bailout, would cost Ireland money rather than result in a saving to the exchequer.

Jaggo wrote: »

Finally you should note, much of our banking crisis was because Irish banks, BOI and AIB, were been undercut by companies like RBS and Halifax regulated from London. RBS and Halifax were using the terrible system of short term money market funding that destroyed the property market in the US. It was the introduction of the UK companies (and London's regulations) that broke the staid but safe Irish financial system and led to the property crash.

what an absolute load of utter tosh.

it was London regulations that forced an Irish bank to lend millions to an irish property developer for an estate in Ireland that was never ever going to get sold.

I guess the hidden loans were due to London regulations as well.

Oh well, as far as bat**** crazy ideas for why the banking system failed, I guess it makes about as much sense as the one that claims the Germans made us do it. :rolleyes:

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

Someone should tell Paschal then https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ireland-will-not-pay-uk-loans-back-early-td3gtjfkz





what an absolute load of utter tosh.

it was London regulations that forced an Irish bank to lend millions to an irish property developer for an estate in Ireland that was never ever going to get sold.

I guess the hidden loans were due to London regulations as well.

Oh well, as far as bat**** crazy ideas for why the banking system failed, I guess it makes about as much sense as the one that claims the Germans made us do it. :rolleyes:

Appears your article is contrary the the actual facts.

Pascals wording in that was to safe relations to the British chancellor who refused the request .

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-early-repayment-of-3-2bn-to-uk-jwp7pdsf3

Philip Hammond agreed that Ireland could repay debts to the IMF, Sweden and Denmark early but not Britain

edited because i forgot to add this :rolleyes:

kowtow

Aegir wrote: »

Someone should tell Paschal then https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ireland-will-not-pay-uk-loans-back-early-td3gtjfkz





what an absolute load of utter tosh.

it was London regulations that forced an Irish bank to lend millions to an irish property developer for an estate in Ireland that was never ever going to get sold.

I guess the hidden loans were due to London regulations as well.

Oh well, as far as bat**** crazy ideas for why the banking system failed, I guess it makes about as much sense as the one that claims the Germans made us do it. :rolleyes:

The primary reason the Irish banking system failed as badly as it did on the back of a property bubble as extreme as ours was, is our unusual National trait of failing to see that every story has two sides. We were all - from the bank short money desks to the man on the street - uncritical buyers of both money and property, and when everyone is a buyer eventually there are no greater fools left to sell to.

There wasn't a man, woman, or child in the place unwilling to bet on a 30 year curve of irrational economic optimism using overnight Euros made cheap by the costs of German economic restructuring.

We may not like to admit it, but that is at the heart of it. It doesn't really matter who the banks were, they could have come from anywhere.

And judging by the way our media covers Trump, Brexit, etc. we haven't yet grown out of this mode of thinking. By October 2016 at least one radio station here was confidently predicting that there would be Euro/Sterling parity in time for Christmas shopping. A year later we are still waiting.

listermint

kowtow wrote: »

The primary reason the Irish banking system failed as badly as it did on the back of a property bubble as extreme as ours was, is our unusual National trait of failing to see that every story has two sides. We were all - from the bank short money desks to the man on the street - uncritical buyers of both money and property, and when everyone is a buyer eventually there are no greater fools left to sell to.

There wasn't a man, woman, or child in the place unwilling to bet on a 30 year curve of irrational economic optimism using overnight Euros made cheap by the costs of German economic restructuring.

We may not like to admit it, but that is at the heart of it. It doesn't really matter who the banks were, they could have come from anywhere.

And judging by the way our media covers Trump, Brexit, etc. we haven't yet grown out of this mode of thinking. By October 2016 at least one radio station here was confidently predicting that there would be Euro/Sterling parity in time for Christmas shopping. A year later we are still waiting.

What way of thinking ? I dont really get what point you are making here.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Appears your article is contrary the the actual facts.

Pascals wording in that was to safe relations to the British chancellor who refused the request .

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-early-repayment-of-3-2bn-to-uk-jwp7pdsf3

maybe you can provide a link to the "Actual Facts" then.

and I'll just leave this here

A spokesman for the finance department said Mr Donohoe welcomed the waiver and thanked Britain for the support and assistance it had provided at “a time of great uncertainty”, which had been key to Ireland’s recovery.

J Mysterio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Respectfully I disagree. I don't think the change in Varadkar's tone is helpful. I don't think Ireland has worked or discussed as closely with the British Government than it could have. Moreover, I don't think the Irish Government have really expressed an interest to work constructively with the UK. I find the tone that has come from Ireland to be unnecessarily adversarial. That's hugely disappointing to me.

Ireland should be coming alongside the UK in seeking the best possible arrangements for both countries. A constructive approach rather than an unhelpfully adversarial approach is required.

I think Ireland is only being a fair weather friend to the UK. The second the UK vote to leave the European Union Ireland decides that it isn't too much bothered with its relationship with the UK and suddenly decided that 26 other countries it isn't anywhere near as close to on any reasonable measure are suddenly its "best friends".

It's hard to take that kind of nonsense as anything other than meaningless posturing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK are the ones who unilaterally decided to leave, yet you think we should do all the work. You really are taking the piss SDG. To be honest, I dont know why posters continue to engage with you as, like the British government, you are either (a) not acting in good faith or (b) are to ignorant too understand the issues.

Thanks a million and other useless embellishments.

Yours sincerely,
J Mysterio Esquire.

kowtow

listermint wrote: »

What way of thinking ? I dont really get what point you are making here.

Mode of thinking - we tend to look for a popular consensus and we are quick to dismiss contrarian opinions. In my opinion we are quite binary in the way we look at things - we have a herd mentality.

Calina

kowtow wrote: »

There wasn't a man, woman, or child in the place unwilling to bet on a 30 year curve of irrational economic optimism using overnight Euros made cheap by the costs of German economic restructuring.

We may not like to admit it, but that is at the heart of it. It doesn't really matter who the banks were, they could have come from anywhere.

As a general note, I don't think the cause of the 2007 financial crisis is really germane to this thread but I want to make it clear that this is nonsense. A lot of people did not bet on the property bubble. I absolutely did not. I don't own property in Ireland and I flatly refused to buy property in Ireland. I'm Irish, I was born there and I lived there for well over 30 years. I emigrated because the property bubble inflated a second time. I know quite a few other people who did not buy property in the height of the madness so to state that there wasn't a man, woman, or child blah blah blah is a) nonsense but b) used as self justification by many people who did. We all partied.

The problem is we did not all party and it is wrong to say that we did.

That is the first point.

The second, more on topic point is anecdotally, I sat in a café in Luxembourg today listening to a British couple at the next table discussing Brexit. They are furious. They are absolutely against Brexit and are boycotting every company they know who is in favour of Brexit. They were particularly scathing about James Dyson. They will not set foot in Wetherspoons again and they are buying nothing from Next. I wonder what impact an orchestrated campaign like that might have if remain supporters were to implement it en masse.

With respect to relations between the UK and Ireland, UK needs friends and in that case it needs to start paying attention to supporting its friendships. Anyone who says the burden is on the EU or Ireland to do so is wrong.

ArmaniJeanss

Aegir wrote: »

Someone should tell Paschal then https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ireland-will-not-pay-uk-loans-back-early-td3gtjfkz

Aegir wrote: »

maybe you can provide a link to the "Actual Facts" then.

and I'll just leave this here

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0907/902980-imf-loan-repayments/

Minister Donohoe said he would not seek early repayment of a British bilateral bailout loan - worth €3.8 billion - as its fixed terms would not allow for any savings.
He said the loan from Britain had a provision which was similar to a "break clause". 
The Minister said it would not be in Ireland's economic interest to repay the loan early. 

Seems fairly clearcut that whilst we were able to pay back the IMFs loan early that our friends in the UK would have invoked a penalty clause on the loan which would have been more than the saving made by paying back early.

So 'they didn't let us pay back early' really does seem an accurate assessment but if you want to be on the winning side of the argument then 'they didn't prevent us paying back early at all, we decided not to because maths' is technically ok as well.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Seems fairly clearcut that whilst we were able to pay back the IMFs loan early that our friends in the UK would have invoked a penalty clause on the loan which would have been more than the saving made by paying back early.

So 'they didn't let us pay back early' really does seem an accurate assessment but if you want to be on the winning side of the argument then 'they didn't prevent us paying back early at all, we decided not to because maths' is technically ok as well.

ok then.

so his spokesperson just thanked the UK for the waiver because........

That article quite clearly states that

Minister Donohoe said he would not seek early repayment of a British bilateral bailout loan - worth €3.8 billion - as its fixed terms would not allow for any savings.

so he didn't even ask the question

recedite

We are now in a better economic environment, partly due to the reversal of EU policy on the concepts of quantitative easing and on the buying of govt. bonds by the ECB. So now we have access to much cheaper loans than we did back in 2010 when the UK lent us money at a very good rate (for the time). But if things had got worse for us, we would now be glad of the fixed terms attached to that loan.
Basically, you can't complain about a fixed rate loan as soon as the variable rate improves.

cml387 wrote: »

OK, is it just me or is there some massive disconnect between what the EU and UK believe is going to happen in Phase 2.

This seems to have always been (form the British pov) "Trade Talks", i.e the trade deal between the UK and EU.

From the EU side it seems to be that phase 2 is about agreeing a transition phase after March 2019 where the precise details of a UK/EU deal will be thrashed out.
Phase 2 is just about how closely aligned the UK and EU will be in this period.
The more aligned, the greater the access. And it may not be two years, more likely 3 to 4 years.

Is this right? Because I don't think it's coming across in Britain (although the BBC put it in pretty stark terms this morning).

Yes, I think there is some moving of the goal posts going on here.
Phase 2 is now apparently only concerned with

addressing transitional arrangements as well as the overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship the European Council

...and not with negotiating the trade deal itself.

But we already know after the results of Phase 1 that the EU has accepted at least a 2-year transitional period which is effectively a soft Brexit. The UK will comply with all EU regs, accept the rulings of the ECJ, but will not appoint EU officials or have a say in policy. Just like Norway.

So when Brexit happens in one year's time, soft Brexit kicks in (or just continues as now).
There does not appear to be any particular deadline for a possible hard Brexit, and perhaps there is a sense that nobody can predict the political situation that will pertain in either the UK or the EU in two or three years time, so why bother?
Everybody seems happy with the soft Brexit transition for the forseeable future.

ArmaniJeanss

Aegir wrote: »

so he didn't even ask the question

These things likely happen in the background. Our ministers get his assistants to contact Hammonds assistants to ask Hammond 'if we asked for it could the penalty clause be removed to allow us to pay back early' and the message comes back as a polite 'not possible at this time' down the chain.
So the question never gets officially asked.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

These things likely happen in the background. Our ministers get his assistants to contact Hammonds assistants to ask Hammond 'if we asked for it could the penalty clause be removed to allow us to pay back early' and the message comes back as a polite 'not possible at this time' down the chain.
So the question never gets officially asked.

so basically then, just as with Listermint you have no actual idea of how this all happened.

you're guessing.

An Ciarraioch

The unionist commentator, Newton Emerson, has shared this video on how NI residents with Irish citizenship would still be entitled to vote for MEPs post-Brexit - if Protestants were open to taking up the right to ensure representation in Strasbourg, couldn't imagine any complaints on this side of the Border:

https://vimeo.com/247237233

blanch152

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

These things likely happen in the background. Our ministers get his assistants to contact Hammonds assistants to ask Hammond 'if we asked for it could the penalty clause be removed to allow us to pay back early' and the message comes back as a polite 'not possible at this time' down the chain.
So the question never gets officially asked.

Do have any other examples of how these things happen in the background?

I think it is absolutely amazing that people are asking that Ireland be freed from a penalty clause that we agreed to willingly when we took out the loan. It is like all those people who stopped paying their mortgage asking to be gifted their house free just because.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

We are now in a better economic environment, partly due to the reversal of EU policy on the concepts of quantitative easing and on the buying of govt. bonds by the ECB. So now we have access to much cheaper loans than we did back in 2010 when the UK lent us money at a very good rate (for the time). But if things had got worse for us, we would now be glad of the fixed terms attached to that loan.
Basically, you can't complain about a fixed rate loan as soon as the variable rate improves.


Yes, I think there is some moving of the goal posts going on here.
Phase 2 is now apparently only concerned with ...and not with negotiating the trade deal itself.

But we already know after the results of Phase 1 that the EU has accepted at least a 2-year transitional period which is effectively a soft Brexit. The UK will comply with all EU regs, accept the rulings of the ECJ, but will not appoint EU officials or have a say in policy. Just like Norway.

So when Brexit happens in one year's time, soft Brexit kicks in (or just continues as now).
There does not appear to be any particular deadline for a possible hard Brexit, and perhaps there is a sense that nobody can predict the political situation that will pertain in either the UK or the EU in two or three years time, so why bother?
Everybody seems happy with the soft Brexit transition for the forseeable future.

Sure we signed the terns and have to abide by them. It still does not speak to the UK being our bffs and we should throw our lot in with them under the assumption they will be always have our best interests at heart.

May has said that they will try for the best deal for the UK. Varadkar will try for the best deal for Ireland. Turns out that puts us in agreement with the EU on a lot of stuff as we want to keep inside the single market more than we want free trade with the UK.

blanch152

Christy42 wrote: »

Sure we signed the terns and have to abide by them. It still does not speak to the UK being our bffs and we should throw our lot in with them under the assumption they will be always have our best interests at heart.

May has said that they will try for the best deal for the UK. Varadkar will try for the best deal for Ireland. Turns out that puts us in agreement with the EU on a lot of stuff as we want to keep inside the single market more than we want free trade with the UK.

Talk about looking a gifthorse in the mouth.

We couldn't get a penny from bondholders, most countries wouldn't lend us a cent, and people are whinging about the country that did give us a loan at a time of greatest need. We Irish really are an ungrateful lot.


P.S. I don't want to hear they owe us because of 800 years of oppression.

Jaggo

Aegir wrote: »

maybe you can provide a link to the "Actual Facts" then.

and I'll just leave this here

Sorry Aegir,

I may have been too forceful in the way I phrased my comments.
However:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/state-averts-200m-uk-penalty-amid-bailout-refinancing-1.3212780
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-pays-more-than-400m-in-interest-on-uk-bailout-loan-1.3053791

The UK was profiting from us when our country was on its knees, and we are unable to refinance the loan at cheaper rates because of penalty clauses in the bailout. We tried to pay it off and were told we would have to pay the financial penalties - as between friends.

On the banking side, I am not blaming the UK at all. There was a whole host of reasons mostly Irish that we had a property bubble. Indeed, there was a housing bubble in 1992-3(?) 1985, and 1975(?).

What made this crash disastrously different was: 100% mortgages; Interest only loans and short term funding rather then deposit based funding (by far the worst element). These all came from UK banking practices (the Northern Rock side of UK banking practice). If you remember Dave McWilliam's was a massive advocate of UK banks in Ireland, how they would revolutionise the Irish mortgage market, well they certainly did.

PS. This is compacting a long story into a short generalised one. I am not blaming anyone for this, Irish bankers would have jumped in on the game if they had thought of it too. Anglo Irish Bank actually did copy the Northern Rock funding model and started the real aggressive lending in Irish Banking. The Irish Central Bank could have ordered them to desist, but, as Anglo argued, if its ok in the UK why not here. It didn't work out well for anyone.

Christy42

blanch152 wrote: »

Talk about looking a gifthorse in the mouth.

We couldn't get a penny from bondholders, most countries wouldn't lend us a cent, and people are whinging about the country that did give us a loan at a time of greatest need. We Irish really are an ungrateful lot.


P.S. I don't want to hear they owe us because of 800 years of oppression.

We got plenty of loans. Yes they were the first but I hardly see how it makes them saints? How is it controversial to say Ireland should look after its own interests as opposed to risking our own economy because of the UK's choice? No one is giving out about the loan but we are pointing out it is was hardly because the UK always have our best interests at heart.

PS you brought up the 800 years here.

Pps. If a head brexit happens I am sure we could offer them a loan. Not too sure that the British would call it a gift though.

brickster69

blanch152 wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Sure we signed the terns and have to abide by them. It still does not speak to the UK being our bffs and we should throw our lot in with them under the assumption they will be always have our best interests at heart.

May has said that they will try for the best deal for the UK. Varadkar will try for the best deal for Ireland. Turns out that puts us in agreement with the EU on a lot of stuff as we want to keep inside the single market more than we want free trade with the UK.

Talk about looking a gifthorse in the mouth.

We couldn't get a penny from bondholders, most countries wouldn't lend us a cent, and people are whinging about the country that did give us a loan at a time of greatest need. We Irish really are an ungrateful lot.


P.S. I don't want to hear they owe us because of 800 years of oppression.

Do not forget it was paid for by the UK taxpayers, along with 9 Billion to the banks. Also a proportion of the IMF and EU stability fund which the UK also were shareholders in.
Next time Wonga.com

lawred2

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Last post for today.



The question was:


It is a loaded question. I don't believe the UK "isn't too much bothered" with these 27 countries. I explained tangibly how in my reply.



I agree that Brexit is the right course of action. I also agree that trying to regain as much control as possible is the right course of action.

My point was that actually, membership of a political union like the European Union isn't required in order to be a good friend to other countries. Ireland has a close relationship with the United States without having to be in a political union with it.

When the terms of that political union are unsuitable - then the UK is right to leave. I personally want to see it finished as soon as possible.

The problem is that there are all kinds of emotive feelings about the European Union and the lofty European project that it is very upsetting to the more Euro-federalist types when someone says they want to chart a different course.

A more rational, pragmatic attitude to the European Union would be helpful. It would mean that a nation could consider that they should be out without emotive feelings about it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I've read a lot of your wordy posts on this subject and with all due respect, beyond much rhetoric and empty platitudes I don't see a whole in the way of rational reasoning coming from you that would indicate reasoned support for Brexit. Personally I think you possess a fairly typical unionist mindset that can see only fault in other parties.

Could you list even a handful of practical, pragmatic and cool minded reasons for Brexit? Something beyond the usual 'taking back control' guff?

whatstherush

brickster69 wrote: »

Do not forget it was paid for by the UK taxpayers, along with 9 Billion to the banks. Also a proportion of the IMF and EU stability fund which the UK also were shareholders in.
Next time Wonga.com

What 9 Billion to banks are you referring too?

brickster69

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9813358/British-taxpayers-funded-Irelands-14bn-bail-out.html

lawred2

brickster69 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9813358/British-taxpayers-funded-Irelands-14bn-bail-out.html

Well that's disingenuous.

Those Banks were wholly owned subsidiaries of those UK Banks.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Talk about looking a gifthorse in the mouth.

We couldn't get a penny from bondholders, most countries wouldn't lend us a cent, and people are whinging about the country that did give us a loan at a time of greatest need. We Irish really are an ungrateful lot.


P.S. I don't want to hear they owe us because of 800 years of oppression.

Compare what Britain's done to us vs how the EU have benefitted us. If you want to take it one step for you could also say that Britain treats the Irish community in NI with complete disdain. They're just as Irish as us.

Anthracite

blanch152 wrote: »

Talk about looking a gifthorse in the mouth.

We couldn't get a penny from bondholders, most countries wouldn't lend us a cent, and people are whinging about the country that did give us a loan at a time of greatest need. We Irish really are an ungrateful lot.


P.S. I don't want to hear they owe us because of 800 years of oppression.

People aren't whinging about the UK lending us (with interest) some money. People are pointing out that it was not an act of charity.

Jaggo

Jaggo wrote: »

Sorry Aegir,

I may have been too forceful in the way I phrased my comments.
However:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/state-averts-200m-uk-penalty-amid-bailout-refinancing-1.3212780
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-pays-more-than-400m-in-interest-on-uk-bailout-loan-1.3053791

The UK was profiting from us when our country was on its knees, and we are unable to refinance the loan at cheaper rates because of penalty clauses in the bailout. We tried to pay it off and were told we would have to pay the financial penalties - as between friends.

you seem to think the UK had the odd €3.2bn stuffed away in an old mattress. The UK would have had to borrow this money and whatever terms it was borrowed on would have been passed on.

The UK didn't refuse to waive these, it most likely couldn't and I am sure that the Uk would dearly love a few billion in the bank right now. What it did do though, as one of the several lendors, was to agree that Ireland pays off its other debts first without touching this one, as that made more sense.

It wasn't entirely altruistic, the UK was very heavily exposed to the Irish banking crisis, not only did the UK government now own Ulsterbank and the billions of debt that had racked up on bogus property deals in Ireland, but Anglo, AIB and BoI were lending to Irish property developers to buy prestigious property in London. NAMA owned half of Bond Street, Canary Wharf Tower and Battersea power station at one point. there was a concern that a fire sale from NAMA would cause a major commercial property crash on the UK, so i would imagine this loan was to help prevent the need for that.

Jaggo wrote: »

On the banking side, I am not blaming the UK at all. There was a whole host of reasons mostly Irish that we had a property bubble. Indeed, there was a housing bubble in 1992-3(?) 1985, and 1975(?).

What made this crash disastrously different was: 100% mortgages; Interest only loans and short term funding rather then deposit based funding (by far the worst element). These all came from UK banking practices (the Northern Rock side of UK banking practice). If you remember Dave McWilliam's was a massive advocate of UK banks in Ireland, how they would revolutionise the Irish mortgage market, well they certainly did.

PS. This is compacting a long story into a short generalised one. I am not blaming anyone for this, Irish bankers would have jumped in on the game if they had thought of it too. Anglo Irish Bank actually did copy the Northern Rock funding model and started the real aggressive lending in Irish Banking. The Irish Central Bank could have ordered them to desist, but, as Anglo argued, if its ok in the UK why not here. It didn't work out well for anyone.

the banking crisis was caused by the banks over lending, or more essentially, it was a government who were taking 11% stamp duty on every property and were therefore thinking up more and more ways people could get in debt so they could continue to party. There is only one place the finger should be pointed in all this and remarkably, they could be power again in a couple of years.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

you seem to think the UK had the odd €3.2bn stuffed away in an old mattress. .

Brexit will cost them £400 billion in the next 15 years, apparently they have that handy enough.