Brexit discussion thread III

Christy42

Aegir wrote: »

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.



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.

Is it just me or has the entire debate changed over the last few pages? To be fair I don't think it is the same posters but it started off with people claiming that the UK only ever had our best interests at heart and we owe them lots (morally not financially). Now it is that the UK were not horrific to us which is a completely different bar and no one was arguing against.

FF did a lot of damage to be fair to them but to blame them and them alone for the entire recession is having a laugh. FF and Ireland did not create a world wide recession. Multiple countries were at fault for it and a load of large financial companies to boot. The finger needs to point a lot of ways.

An Ciarraioch

Tony Connelly is informed that practical implementation of the border agreement will be extremely difficult:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/941725491769118720

ancapailldorcha

brickster69 wrote: »

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

Please don't just dump links here. Links should be used to substantiate an opinion.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

The next time you post nonsense like this, you will receive a ban. No more please.

If anyone wants to discuss UK capital being used to bail out Irish banks further, please start a new thread as this one is about Brexit.

Thanks.

Samaris

At this point, I don't really care if Britain is our best bud or our worst enemy, Britain can and will offhandedly do catastrophic damage to our economy if they don't get their bloody acts together. As I've said before, I have English roots, friends, family and lived there for some years. I'm no Anglophobe. But Britain will have to sort out its own mess. Ireland's leaders' jobs are to minimise the inevitable damage as much as possible.

Who did what in 2008, 1992, 1973, 1953, whatever is not really relevant to the specific issue of how Ireland best gets through the next five or six years. For the record, I don't think hitching the country more to a sinking ship is the way to do it. The aircraft carrier of a continent over there, however, looks like a safer bet.

ancapailldorcha

Samaris wrote: »

At this point, I don't really care if Britain is our best bud or our worst enemy, Britain can and will offhandedly do catastrophic damage to our economy if they don't get their bloody acts together. As I've said before, I have English roots, friends, family and lived there for some years. I'm no Anglophobe. But Britain will have to sort out its own mess. Ireland's leaders' jobs are to minimise the inevitable damage as much as possible.

Who did what in 2008, 1992, 1973, 1953, whatever is not really relevant to the specific issue of how Ireland best gets through the next five or six years. For the record, I don't think hitching the country more to a sinking ship is the way to do it. The aircraft carrier of a continent over there, however, looks like a safer bet.

Not to be glib but I'm a damned side more concerned with the British economy given that I live here and work in science which is heavily dependent on the EU for both capital and staff.

I'd call myself an Anglophile. I enjoy immersing myself in English history, regularly visit museums, cathedrals and the like and when I lived near it, I was hiking around the South Downs on a near weekly basis.

I know people who are genuinely concerned about the ECJ infringing on British courts, currency restrictions and the erosion of competitive advantages (Irish corporation tax being a prime example). The problem is that these weren't the grounds the Leave campaign stood. They scaremongered, lied and did their best to exploit the very worst attitudes of British society to gain the result they wanted and now they have no intention of delivering whatsoever. Instead, I see regular concessions being made to Brussels with the only variable being how long May can hold out before crumbling.

It's been a long time since I lived in a poorer part of the UK so I might be disconnected but I am regularly exposed to the best elements of British society; global innovators, tolerance, opportunities, sense of fair play, etc... As time passes, Brexit seems to be more and more at odds with these values.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

At this point, I don't really care if Britain is our best bud or our worst enemy, Britain can and will offhandedly do catastrophic damage to our economy if they don't get their bloody acts together. As I've said before, I have English roots, friends, family and lived there for some years. I'm no Anglophobe. But Britain will have to sort out its own mess. Ireland's leaders' jobs are to minimise the inevitable damage as much as possible.

Who did what in 2008, 1992, 1973, 1953, whatever is not really relevant to the specific issue of how Ireland best gets through the next five or six years. For the record, I don't think hitching the country more to a sinking ship is the way to do it. The aircraft carrier of a continent over there, however, looks like a safer bet.

It really, terribly, unfortunately is this simple.

red sean

brickster69 wrote: »

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

The British media seem more concentrated on Ireland and trying to turn the public against Ireland than they are about Europe and the EU.

listermint

Seen mod warning removed reply to discussion

An Ciarraioch

Judging by Quentin Letts, Tory commentators know as little about Indian history as they do about Irish affairs:

https://mobile.twitter.com/thequentinletts/status/941754685425364997

Valmont

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you serious? It requires profound historical ignorance to believe that h high rates of Irish emigration arose because "the occupants of Leinster house couldn't help running things into the ground again". Irish emigration patterns were established and settled in the days of British rule, and that was when they were at their peak. How could anybody possibly not know this? And while it's obviously the case that the economic policy of successive Irish government was influential in determining how far and how fast Irish emigration would decline from its peak under British rule, the notion that it was the primary driver of that emigration is not one that you can really expect people to take seriously.

I said during the last century - we can't be blaming the English for the economic disasters that are sadly becoming an almost predictable occurrence for the Irish state.

Enzokk

I think it is extremely worrying, but not surprising, that David Davis spent an evening with the editor of the Daily Mail on the first day of the negotiations back in July. The chief negotiator spent more time with Paul Dacre than with Michel Barnier. I would be extremely worried by this. How much influence does The Daily Mail have over the Minister negotiating Brexit for the UK?

DAVID DAVIS WENT FOR DINNER WITH DAILY MAIL EDITOR AFTER BAILING EARLY ON FIRST ROUND OF BREXIT TALKS




The Conservative MP's that voted against the Government are receiving death threats. Seems that some people just didn't learn. Already there has been an MP killed for Brexit, but the rhetoric will continue from newspapers that label those that go against their (rich owners of said newspaper) interests as traitors or enemies of the people. It's a disgrace that this is happening, but I see nothing that will change this behaviour while you have flunkies in power willing to let these things slide.


Anna Soubry receives messages calling for her to be hanged as a traitor

Anna Soubry, one of the 11 Conservative MPs who defied government whips this week when the government suffered its first Commons defeat over Brexit, has received multiple messages saying she should be hanged as a traitor.

Messages received by Soubry’s office – usually seen first by her parliamentary staff – also feature abuse, with one Facebook message saying: “Go hang yourself slag.”

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, though for the past 26 years it has not been the only such place; there are currently 26 others. And none of those 26 is currently going through the process of trying to disengage itself from engagements like this.

I'd be very optimistic that the rights of Irish citizens in the UK under the Ireland Act and the Common Travel Area would survive the UK's current bout of small-mindedness. But I wouldn't take it absolutely for granted. After all, a few years ago I would have said that the UK would never do anything that threatened the closure of the Irish border and imperilled the Good Friday Agreement, and yet here we are.

There are a couple of small differences for Irish people between going to the UK and gong to other EU states.
As pointed out earlier in the thread, EU freedom of movement is more about freedom for workers. An Irish person who was still unemployed six months after moving to another MS and with no sign of getting a job could be kicked out. Not happening in the UK though.
That person's difficulty in getting work might lie in the language barrier, or in some lack of recognition of their qualification. Again, not happening in the UK.

As for historic Irish/British rights attached to the CTA and other historic agreements, those rights were established by mutual consent in the days when we we able to deal directly with the UK.

Now we rely on the EU negotiator to make deals between the EU (which we are included in) and the UK .

So even though both the UK and Ireland might have the "intent" to continue with historic rights, it is outside our control. The EU will ultimately have a decisive influence on how the EU border with the UK is managed, and what rights the Irish living in the UK will have.

wes

Enzokk wrote: »

Anna Soubry receives messages calling for her to be hanged as a traitor

The daily mail and other far right newspapers in the UK, are imo basically inciting violence at this point. They are not imo newspapers, but rather propaganda and yellow journalism masquerading as newspapers.

The fascist language being deliberately used by the likes of the daily mail and the sun is dangerous. They are profiting from hatred. If people are hurt or killed, they ignore it, or spin it.

flaneur

red sean wrote: »

The British media seem more concentrated on Ireland and trying to turn the public against Ireland than they are about Europe and the EU.

I don't quite get the point of this article
Edit: which incidentally was written in 2013!!

British banks behaved abysmally in Ireland and lashed money into a known bubble. Ireland didn't make them do that. They did it entirely voluntarily and with great enthusiasm.

If the UK wanted to let RBS and HBOS go bang, that was entirely up to them. It was a bailout to two badly run banks, not Ireland.

I think they're just in "blame foreigners" mode.

We could equally turn around and say that a number of poorly regulated British banks aggressively contributed to a massive property bubble here.

Honestly starting to get totally fed up with this to the point that I'm actually avoiding going to the UK at present as the environment just seems totally toxic.

flaneur

What I don't understand is why peoole would claim to be journalists are behaving more like political lobbyists and agitators. There’s a long tradition of British tabloids operating more like purely political actors.

When you think about it, over here we have SIPO already investigating lobby groups in the run up to a referendum. Whether or not you ageee with the lobby groups that they’re investigating is irrelevant. However, they are trying to ensure that we don’t end up with a toxic, externally funded campaign and that we don’t get trolled. At least lobby groups are visibly lobby groups. We don’t have a situation where a large part of the media will just aggressively attach itself to a political cause and whip up anger towards anyone who disagrees.

Meanwhile in the UK you’d a referendum run and a general election run with utterly unaccountable political actors dressed up as newspapers.

I don’t really accept that this is just freedom of the press. The British tabloid press is a bizarre example of where media can be turned into a Trojan horse element of a political campaign.

No journalist, at least with any scruples, ethics or integrity should be calling for people to vote a particular way or backing a political agenda. You don't have to be entirely neutral but, you do have to explore both sides of an argument and be able to stick to using real facts.

The British tabloid also are a form of "filter bubble" that has existed long before the internet. People over there often read only one tabloid with a very strongly politically biased pont of view. It's not that it's just a bit left or a bit right - they’re basically political rags without any balance at all in many cases. If that’s you’re media world, you will start to buy into it and assume it’s correct, just like all those people being sucked into internet bubbles. The UK was 100 years ahead on this curve.

The UK (and all countries) need to be a lot more careful about things like concentration of media ownership and also I think forcing some of these organisations to be a lot more transparent about their accounts.

All I see when I look over there is a government taking its lead from Tabloids.

An Ciarraioch

Tommie Gorman has a useful article on the DUP's relationships with both London and Dublin in recent years - it certainly seems as though Kenny was best able to handle them:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/1215/927625-gorman-dup/

An Ciarraioch

Philip Hammond confirms that SM and CU rules will be maintained during the transition phase:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/16/brexit-uk-will-retain-eu-rules-during-transition-says-hammond

ancapailldorcha

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Philip Hammond confirms that SM and CU rules will be maintained during the transition phase:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/16/brexit-uk-will-retain-eu-rules-during-transition-says-hammond

Also, freedom of movement will basically have to be maintained for 5 years after the referendum:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/941636263416823808

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Also, freedom of movement will basically have to be maintained for 5 years after the referendum:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/941636263416823808

I can see the dust settling and this transition period being extended for another 5 years until the older Brexiteers are dead and opinion polls confirm that younger people are ready to ask to rejoin, Euro, Schengen and all.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

I can see the dust settling and this transition period being extended for another 5 years until the older Brexiteers are dead and opinion polls confirm that younger people are ready to ask to rejoin, Euro, Schengen and all.

Good afternoon!

I'm just wondering how on earth you manage to see there being an enthusiastic desire to join either the Euro or Schengen in the next 5 years never mind rejoining the EU.

The UK benefited from having its own fiscal policy during the economic crisis yet you think the UK will want to hand over that to Euro-federalism.

The UK electorate voted to leave the EU largely on the basis of immigration and you think they will want to hand control of their borders completely to Euro-federalism.

Completely bonkers! Each to their own though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm just wondering how on earth you manage to see there being an enthusiastic desire to join either the Euro or Schengen in the next 5 years never mind rejoining the EU.

Because there is no, zero benefit to Brexit and huge costs.

Eventually, the voting public will notice that it has all been a horrible mistake.

The question is how soon, and how many hundreds of billions of pounds will have been wasted before that.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'm just wondering how on earth you manage to see there being an enthusiastic desire to join either the Euro or Schengen in the next 5 years never mind rejoining the EU.

The UK benefited from having its own fiscal policy during the economic crisis yet you think the UK will want to hand over that to Euro-federalism.

The UK electorate voted to leave the EU largely on the basis of immigration and you think they will want to hand control of their borders completely to Euro-federalism.

Completely bonkers! Each to their own though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Ignoring your typical strawman and forgetting about Schengen and the Euro, think about it. Brexit has been only negative so far. I'd ask you to prove me wrong but you still haven't proven that EU membership wasn't working for the UK nor have you substantiated your claim that most remain voters are Euro-federalists.

There hasn't been a single positive. All David Davis and Theresa May have done is make concessions to Brussels, that's it. If this continues then sorting out the trade deal should be no problem at all given that they can just let Barnier decide everything and then sign on the dotted line.

If the British public wanted to cede as much control to Brussels as the Daily Mail caricature depicts it already has then well done. Mission accomplished though that's the only thing Brexit seems to have resolved.

flaneur

I think there will be a realisation that this was a mistake but I also think that is past the point of no return. They'll have no desire to revisit this in the UK political arena and I don't think the EU wants to experience this again either.

There'll likely be some kind of future move towards a sane trading relationship, and probably a very close one, but I think the Brexiteers need to try this and see what it really means before that realisation dawns.

murphaph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because there is no, zero benefit to Brexit and huge costs.

Eventually, the voting public will notice that it has all been a horrible mistake.

The question is how soon, and how many hundreds of billions of pounds will have been wasted before that.

Yup and if they realise too late (likely) then they have no chance of getting their special treatment restored upon re-entry so it'll be a UK inside Schengen and having adopted the Euro and of course with no rebate.

That's all Brexit will deliver long term.

ancapailldorcha

flaneur wrote: »

I think there will be a realisation that this was a mistake but I also think that is past the point of no return. They'll have no desire to revisit this in the UK political arena and I don't think the EU wants to experience this again either.

There'll likely be some kind of future move towards a sane trading relationship, and probably a very close one, but I think the Brexiteers need to try this and see what it really means before that realisation dawns.

Unfortunately, I think you are correct. The thing with ideological crusades is that they tend to eschew evidence and logic in favor of zeal and fanaticism. Until tangible damage is done, the average Brexit voter isn't going to come to their senses though in fairness, it'll take serious economic damage to make the Northern English, Welsh and Scottish Brexit voters to even notice given the inequality that exists between them and the Southeast of England.

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ignoring your typical strawman and forgetting about Schengen and the Euro, think about it. Brexit has been only negative so far. I'd ask you to prove me wrong but you still haven't proven that EU membership wasn't working for the UK nor have you substantiated your claim that most remain voters are Euro-federalists.

There hasn't been a single positive. All David Davis and Theresa May have done is make concessions to Brussels, that's it. If this continues then sorting out the trade deal should be no problem at all given that they can just let Barnier decide everything and then sign on the dotted line.

If the British public wanted to cede as much control to Brussels as the Daily Mail caricature depicts it already has then well done. Mission accomplished though that's the only thing Brexit seems to have resolved.

Yeah it's beyond irony to think that a member state of such influence could be reduced to a supplicant rule taker through this ridiculous Brexit debacle.

Of course the blame will be laid at the door of treacherous remainers and if only the UK had walked out the day after the referendum all would be well.

flaneur

The problem is when tangible, self inflicted damage does almost inevitably happen - an economic shock, they'll likely whip up a conspiracy theory and blame the EU for "punishing" them by not allowing unfettered market access to a former member that refuses to accept any responsibility, solidarity and won't play by the agreed rules.

So I think this could easily rumble on past 2020.

My prediction is you'll have a far less well off UK that spends the best part of the next decade being bitter and angry with the world until it eventually snaps out of it.

I don't see that reality check or snapping out of it happening rapidly at all.

You really don't know what you've got 'till it's gone...

Igotadose

flaneur wrote: »

My prediction is you'll have a far less well off UK that spends the best part of the next decade being bitter and angry with the world until it eventually snaps out of it.

Sorry, don't agree. They'll be bitter and angry, and worse off, sure, but as the UK tries to become more and more like the US, the 'corporate anesthesia' provided to the masses through electronic geegaws, social media tripping and entertainment spectaculars will increase its hold and move the society on to complacency and ignorance, through self-esteem stroking like in the US. If Trump was what America was becoming (I firmly believe it is), Brexit is the start of what the UK's becoming.

The younger generation is screwed so badly by Brexit, with no options either; how different will UK millenials be than US ones? The one thing that saves them (I think) is the lack of massive student loans, and availability of health care for reasonable prices if not out and out free. So, youth can take risks and move on if necessary. But, with Brexit and the tightening of Tory/Corporate controls over society, that'll lessen.

Good read on the plight facing US millenials: http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millennials/

A bit hard to read with all the animations, but the same themes in the US are everywhere - unaffordable housing, no prospects, debt. Under Brexit I can really see the "Dickensian future" described in place for the UK. It didn't have to happen, but this is Cameron's cross to bear forever, a referendum was a stupid idea.

Nody

I'll have to agree with Solo honestly; my time line still stands from earlier which is UK needs at least a decade outside EU before a party will consider bringing up the idea of rejoining (and said party is likely to fail on the platform). Only a second party under a energized leader some 15+ years out taking over a party that got curb stomped will be able to lead a successful campaign on rejoining. It will be a bit of Obama movement over it all with positive promises of change, growth etc. vs. an existing government that's gotten stuck in it's ways.

The overall timeline for the first decade of properly leaving (as in not during this extension) would be something along the lines of:
Year 1 - 3 - Promise of the new FTAs to save us all; it will be worth it
Year 4 - 7 - The other party in power to "show how it should be done" with some "tough on immigration in our FTAs" and possibly some further raising of tariffs etc. to protect domestic production which fails in the end; around now the investments plan have dried up and and any investments will be hailed as proof of UK's competitiveness
Year 8 - 10 - Yea it kicked us in the shin but it was worth it to regain our regulatory freedom and besides the FTA with USA and China gives us cheap food that meets our new lower standards anyway; expect another FTA or two to come through to further lower standards to be signed; London as one of the top global financial centers have been greatly diluted and Frankfurt is starting to appear as the place to be
Year 11 - forward; anyone bringing up rejoining EU will get the whole traitor spiel and be seen as not nationalistic enough

flaneur

Would the EU ever gave them back though?

I would just see if the UK rejoined it would be 20 years to Brexit 2.0.

Maybe they’re just not politically compatible with the idea of solidarity with other countries and they don’t really seem to consider themselves to be part of the European family at all. It’s possibly just the end of an era for them and you’ll see an isolated Britain emerge and one that will now probably have to face its history and demons head-on as it tries to cut deals with badly treated former colonies, without the EU to act as proxy. It will also have to deal with things like regulation itself and historically it hasn’t been all that wonderful at it. The UK history is one of extreme boom-bust cycles.

It’ll be investing to watch and I’m glad Ireland’s probably going to be relative sheltered from all of the political mayhem that may ensure over the years ahead.

Nody

flaneur wrote: »

Would the EU ever gave them back though?

I would just see if the UK rejoined it would be 20 years to Brexit 2.0.

Brexit was supported mostly on the older scale on age and lower end on education. Once the pain flows through the older generation will have died out and suffered a quality loss while the younger uneducated generation will have seen immigration as something that was always there. Hence the possibility to stir a second Brexit would be harder with the current topics as well as the politicians would need to sell it as a positive to join EU (and UK would most likely end up getting quite a few projects started due to the lower growth etc. as well to provide a boost in work & economy).

flaneur

There wouldn’t really be an incentive to rejoin though. It will be far more difficult than it was in the early 1970s and you’d be looking at adopting EU systems in full, without opt outs.

I still think this is it really for the UK as an EU member. Bridges burnt.

I could see maybe an association with the EU but never a member, unless something really dramatically changes.

kowtow

Nody wrote: »

I'll have to agree with Solo honestly; my time line still stands from earlier which is UK needs at least a decade outside EU before a party will consider bringing up the idea of rejoining (and said party is likely to fail on the platform). Only a second party under a energized leader some 15+ years out taking over a party that got curb stomped will be able to lead a successful campaign on rejoining. It will be a bit of Obama movement over it all with positive promises of change, growth etc. vs. an existing government that's gotten stuck in it's ways.

The overall timeline for the first decade of properly leaving (as in not during this extension) would be something along the lines of:
Year 1 - 3 - Promise of the new FTAs to save us all; it will be worth it
Year 4 - 7 - The other party in power to "show how it should be done" with some "tough on immigration in our FTAs" and possibly some further raising of tariffs etc. to protect domestic production which fails in the end; around now the investments plan have dried up and and any investments will be hailed as proof of UK's competitiveness
Year 8 - 10 - Yea it kicked us in the shin but it was worth it to regain our regulatory freedom and besides the FTA with USA and China gives us cheap food that meets our new lower standards anyway; expect another FTA or two to come through to further lower standards to be signed; London as one of the top global financial centers have been greatly diluted and Frankfurt is starting to appear as the place to be
Year 11 - forward; anyone bringing up rejoining EU will get the whole traitor spiel and be seen as not nationalistic enough

I think you are probably right about that for a timeline.

But ten years, or fifteen years, is surely likely to see significant changes within the EU itself.

Whichever way one feels about Brexit, it is - in my opinion anyway - beyond doubt that in order to function properly the Eurozone is going to see much more integration. Whether or not Ireland cares to believe it, individual nations will end up with a lot less control over things like tax policy, and once tax policy is ceded to a central treasury the balance really has changed between "pooled sovereignty" and a federal state with certain regional governmental functions ceded back to what were once individual states. I cannot think of any example of a fiat currency in history which has functioned without political control resting at the center, and I am certainly not alone in this.

Leaving aside one's own views about whether such a state is desirable, there must be a sensible case to be made that a decade from now we will see a two speed Europe developing, with a core and a periphery, and that the core states will in effect have become part of a perpetual union. One of the interesting aspects of the Brexit process today is what it tells us about how difficult, if not impossible, a Euro state would find it to invoke Article 50 voluntarily.

This picture of what Europe is likely to be in a decade is something we don't often see discussed on this thread which I think is a pity. If there is one good argument for the UK remaining (in my opinion) it would have been to lead the separation of the outer rim from the inner core - it might even be that Brexit still has a role to play in catalysing that process, although I doubt that the UK itself has sufficient political capital to influence things even if - as perhaps it might - it ends up back in that outer rim one day.

This thread is unquestionably dominated by posters who are happy with the functioning of the EU, by and large, and would want to keep Ireland at the heart of it but I would be interested to hear people's views on what things will look like in the future - will we have red lines (on taxation, for example) and will those be enough to stop European integration in it's tracks? Will we, alternatively, perhaps choose a position outside the core integrated states and what impact will this have vis-a-ve the Euro? Does Brexit - whatever form it eventually takes - make a two speed Europe more or less likely?

flaneur

I think you could see a smaller quasi-federal Eurozone core and a loose legacy of the current EU with various semi detached members.

At this stage, I think Ireland is more aligned with the EU core. We’ve changed a lot too over the last 30+ years.

It’s possible the UK might fit into something on the edge of that eventually.

J Mysterio

There's been some fantastic discussion here over the last year or two. I've actually found it the best resource for Brexit news and related discussion available.

I think as Irish people - given our proximity to and relationship with Britain - we are uniquely positioned to understand the issues and contexts.

J Mysterio

I found this site which seems to be a good resource. It is about myths profligated about the EU, much by UK tabloids.

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

I can see the dust settling and this transition period being extended for another 5 years until the older Brexiteers are dead and opinion polls confirm that younger people are ready to ask to rejoin, Euro, Schengen and all.

I tend to agree, but I think it will be Scotland that rejoins, and perhaps some move to a united Ireland, not necessarily a single entity but maybe some devolved NI setup, with significant powers devolved.

I think that England and Wales will soldier on in foreign fields still chasing that mythical FTA beast that evades capture. Remember, Japan was a major economy until it had its 'lost' decade - and is no longer considered an economic wonder economy.

Water John

David Jones back with more nonsense. Anyone going through a transition period in any agreement has to keep the status quo during it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/16/brexit-uk-will-retain-eu-rules-during-transition-says-hammond

Nody

Remain has now taken a 10 percent point lead over leave in the latest survey; funnily enough the big swing is not coming from those who actually voted but the once who did not

“However, readers should note that digging deeper into the data reveals that this shift has come predominantly from those who did not actually vote in the 2016 referendum, with around nine in ten Leave and Remain voters still unchanged in their view.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

I'm just wondering how on earth you manage to see there being an enthusiastic desire to join either the Euro or Schengen in the next 5 years never mind rejoining the EU.

Simple really, the UK has prospered being a member of the EU, a leading member at the top table with extra privileges. Without the EU, looking at the performance of the current govt, the UK would be a limping shadow of its historical past. This is part of brexit and I find it sad to watch a leading country of the world having to re-adjust to the reality of where their current standing in world powers is.
Truth is each super power, through history, has had a rise and fall, the Romans and Greeks went through this. The UK is currently on a trailing edge, maybe brexit will reverse that. History will tell. But I doubt it.
To my mind, while business converges, integrates, finds synergies, the UK builds barriers, borders and restrictions. The UK as a country is taking a polar direction to business, driven by a select minority really. In 12 months time when the truth of what brexit means is laid out I would like to see does the leave side get the majority...I would greatly doubt it.
Do I have to back up my opinion with hard facts, statistics...not in the slights. Solo you've not done that so my ramblings have just as much conviction.

My last post asked for one reason why we would consider the UK a friend. I was looking for someone to show how under UK rule we had investment in something like agriculture, education or housing. But any "friendly" opinions like the bail out loan at large interest rates and penalty clauses were quickly debunked for what they were....self serving and opertunistic...not very friendly.
In a nutshell, people in the UK will soon see the reality of brexit, when they do they'll clamber to stay in. Hopefully they do but I would think their top table, privilege position will be traded for a back of the class room position.

Creol1

Nody wrote: »

Remain has now taken a 10 percent point lead over leave in the latest survey; funnily enough the big swing is not coming from those who actually voted but the once who did not

If they didn't vote last time, it's a safe bet they're not going to vote in any numbers if there were a second referendum (which there won't be), seeing as the original referendum had the highest turnout in a national vote for a long time, at around 70%.

flatty

Creol1 wrote: »

If they didn't vote last time, it's a safe bet they're not going to vote in any numbers if there were a second referendum (which there won't be), seeing as the original referendum had the highest turnout in a national vote for a long time, at around 70%.

I actually know four people who wanted to remain, but didn't bother voting as they presumed it was a done deal. They now bitterly regret it. That's just me ,and people I have spoken to about it. I'm not sure how a remote would pan out. I think with an honest government presenting stark facts beforehand, remain would win. I suspect the brexit voters were more fervent in their hatred, but I doubt we will ever know in truth.

blanch152

kowtow wrote: »

I think you are probably right about that for a timeline.

But ten years, or fifteen years, is surely likely to see significant changes within the EU itself.

Whichever way one feels about Brexit, it is - in my opinion anyway - beyond doubt that in order to function properly the Eurozone is going to see much more integration. Whether or not Ireland cares to believe it, individual nations will end up with a lot less control over things like tax policy, and once tax policy is ceded to a central treasury the balance really has changed between "pooled sovereignty" and a federal state with certain regional governmental functions ceded back to what were once individual states. I cannot think of any example of a fiat currency in history which has functioned without political control resting at the center, and I am certainly not alone in this.

Leaving aside one's own views about whether such a state is desirable, there must be a sensible case to be made that a decade from now we will see a two speed Europe developing, with a core and a periphery, and that the core states will in effect have become part of a perpetual union. One of the interesting aspects of the Brexit process today is what it tells us about how difficult, if not impossible, a Euro state would find it to invoke Article 50 voluntarily.

This picture of what Europe is likely to be in a decade is something we don't often see discussed on this thread which I think is a pity. If there is one good argument for the UK remaining (in my opinion) it would have been to lead the separation of the outer rim from the inner core - it might even be that Brexit still has a role to play in catalysing that process, although I doubt that the UK itself has sufficient political capital to influence things even if - as perhaps it might - it ends up back in that outer rim one day.

This thread is unquestionably dominated by posters who are happy with the functioning of the EU, by and large, and would want to keep Ireland at the heart of it but I would be interested to hear people's views on what things will look like in the future - will we have red lines (on taxation, for example) and will those be enough to stop European integration in it's tracks? Will we, alternatively, perhaps choose a position outside the core integrated states and what impact will this have vis-a-ve the Euro? Does Brexit - whatever form it eventually takes - make a two speed Europe more or less likely?

Good questions.

The key for Ireland will be the trade-offs. If european integration means harmonisation of corporate taxation, and this leads to jobs leaving Ireland, maintaining european integration would then require subsidisation of the periphery like Ireland.

J Mysterio

Damning editorial in the Guardian today. Couldn't agree more with it.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

I'll have to agree with Solo honestly; my time line still stands from earlier which is UK needs at least a decade outside EU before a party will consider bringing up the idea of rejoining (and said party is likely to fail on the platform). Only a second party under a energized leader some 15+ years out taking over a party that got curb stomped will be able to lead a successful campaign on rejoining. It will be a bit of Obama movement over it all with positive promises of change, growth etc. vs. an existing government that's gotten stuck in it's ways.

The overall timeline for the first decade of properly leaving (as in not during this extension) would be something along the lines of:
Year 1 - 3 - Promise of the new FTAs to save us all; it will be worth it
Year 4 - 7 - The other party in power to "show how it should be done" with some "tough on immigration in our FTAs" and possibly some further raising of tariffs etc. to protect domestic production which fails in the end; around now the investments plan have dried up and and any investments will be hailed as proof of UK's competitiveness
Year 8 - 10 - Yea it kicked us in the shin but it was worth it to regain our regulatory freedom and besides the FTA with USA and China gives us cheap food that meets our new lower standards anyway; expect another FTA or two to come through to further lower standards to be signed; London as one of the top global financial centers have been greatly diluted and Frankfurt is starting to appear as the place to be
Year 11 - forward; anyone bringing up rejoining EU will get the whole traitor spiel and be seen as not nationalistic enough

Good evening!

Admittedly - I don't think the UK will rejoin the EU at all. It isn't suited to the bloc, and it is a hindrance to the bloc doing what it wants to do. What are the benefits of Britain rejoining the European Union after regaining more control? At the present time I can't see a meaningful reason as to why the UK would rejoin.

To get the UK to rejoin - the campaign needs to be about presenting a positive case for Britain's membership rather than going for project fear round two. People are beyond tired of listening to highly speculative doomsday prophecies and to be honest - most people just want to get this done with so that Britain can set its own course for how it wants to be run from parliament in Westminster rather than from Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Admittedly - I don't think the UK will rejoin the EU at all. It isn't suited to the bloc, and it is a hindrance to the bloc doing what it wants to do. What are the benefits of Britain rejoining the European Union after regaining more control? At the present time I can't see a meaningful reason as to why the UK would rejoin.

To get the UK to rejoin - the campaign needs to be about presenting a positive case for Britain's membership rather than going for project fear round two. People are beyond tired of listening to highly speculative doomsday prophecies and to be honest - most people just want to get this done with so that Britain can set its own course for how it wants to be run from parliament in Westminster rather than from Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Project fear will be confirmed as project reality by then. Parliament tried to assert itself this week and the Tory MPs involved are now receiving death threats. It's disgraceful what's going on there.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

What are the benefits of Britain rejoining the European Union after regaining more control?

A 5 to 10 per cent boost in GDP.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Admittedly - I don't think the UK will rejoin the EU at all. It isn't suited to the bloc, and it is a hindrance to the bloc doing what it wants to do. What are the benefits of Britain rejoining the European Union after regaining more control? At the present time I can't see a meaningful reason as to why the UK would rejoin.

To get the UK to rejoin - the campaign needs to be about presenting a positive case for Britain's membership rather than going for project fear round two. People are beyond tired of listening to highly speculative doomsday prophecies and to be honest - most people just want to get this done with so that Britain can set its own course for how it wants to be run from parliament in Westminster rather than from Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Ah control the great bastion of all things anti EU that you prescribe to.

Yet you still can't really pin point what control you don't have today they your feckless government can't actually implement with the powers they have currently. Which are vast btw.

Terrible governance really, it's still intriguing what improvement in governance will materialize with all this new 'control'


I'd love some elaboration on your part outside of torigraph headlines

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Admittedly - I don't think the UK will rejoin the EU at all. It isn't suited to the bloc, and it is a hindrance to the bloc doing what it wants to do. What are the benefits of Britain rejoining the European Union after regaining more control? At the present time I can't see a meaningful reason as to why the UK would rejoin.

To get the UK to rejoin - the campaign needs to be about presenting a positive case for Britain's membership rather than going for project fear round two. People are beyond tired of listening to highly speculative doomsday prophecies and to be honest - most people just want to get this done with so that Britain can set its own course for how it wants to be run from parliament in Westminster rather than from Brussels.

For someone that complains about project fear, you do like your campaign slogans from the Leave campaign. That is a campaign you have admitted to promoting falsehoods during the campaign as well. It has been asked many times and you have not been able to answer the question at all so its no use asking you about how or what Brussels is controlling that the UK desperately needs to take control of. Other than that racism one that is.


In any case, Boris Johnson has been out and about again and it seems the battle for what Brexit the cabinet wants, will now be sorted in the next few weeks. We know that Phillip Hammond wants as soft a Brexit as you can have, seeing as he has to pay the bills. Boris on the other hand is out to make up the EU trade with trade from other countries.

Failure to ditch EU law would make the United Kingdom a “vassal state,” Johnson said in an interview to be published on Sunday. The government must aim to “maximise the benefits of Brexit” by getting divergence from the bloc’s rules so that it could do “proper free trade deals” with other countries.

Johnson warns UK cannot become 'vassal state' of EU

So if Boris was in charge there would be a hard border. There is no way to have divergence from EU trade rules and to have no border. I guess no one has asked him how this would work in reality, or the answer would have been the special words, "strong and special trade deal", which would be followed by, "we will get our cake and we will eat it because we are Great Brittain."

In contrast to Boris, Citi Bank thinks there are only 2 options. There is EU single market membership, or there is a hard border. The below quote is talking about single market membership as one of the options.

In practice, however, Citi says this option "is not a likely outcome":

"First, because the level of mutual confidence required to dismantle (or in the Brexit case avoid raising) new borders is typically insufficient, in almost all circumstances and between any countries, in all sectors that carry significant risks with regard to financial stability, public health (e.g. medicine), or any other topic to which public opinion is sensitive. It is partly for that precise reason that the EU created a single market in the first place so that mutual confidence can be internalised in common institutions."

Put simply, the EU can't trust the UK not to erect a border in the future when it comes to critical services such as financial services and healthcare. This is precisely why the single market was created in the first place.

Theresa May has also committed to leaving the single market and described leaving the European Court of Justice — which governs the free-trade area — as a "red line" in negotiations on which she is unwilling to compromise. This makes the first option even more unlikely.

Regarding the second option, the bank has the following opinion,

Citi said:

"The UK-EU discussion is an extraordinary (literally) situation of two parties negotiating a trade agreement in the context of divergence of legislation and regulation. The whole rationale of leaving the EU is for the UK to recover its ability to enact legislation separate from that of the EU.

"By contrast, almost every trade agreement ever negotiated has been in the context of convergence of legislation, regulation and enforcement. It is that convergence that typically legitimises, and stabilises, mutual recognition."

Even if the UK could initially agree a free-trade deal on the basis of alignment, that would in Citi's view become "fundamentally unstable" as the UK diverged and writes out key aspects of EU law.

So even if a bespoke trade deal is struck, it will not hold if the UK doesn't retain membership of the single market.

CITI: The UK only has two options left in Brexit negotiations

So Citi Bank is sure there will be a hard Brexit because the UK wants control. This precise call for control will cause the UK to further move away from the EU as they will make their own laws that will lead to further divergence from EU regulations. This will cause friction for the EU and will have to lead to less trade with the UK.

This is getting silly now. Honestly anyone still advocating for Brexit without realising the realities, hard border either between Ireland and NI or NI and the UK or EU membership in all but name, is deluded.

We still have the following in play:

• EU membership without being a member
• Hard border on the island
• Border between NI and the UK
• Collapse of UK government before christmas

The first option is basically what has been agreed to already, where the UK has said it wants to guarantee there will be no border and they will maintain regulatory alignment to ensure there will be no border. This, however, has not been agreed to by all members of the UK cabinet and will be fought by the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. This is tied to the collapse of the UK Government as they could resign and make trouble for Theresa May.

The second and third point will need to be sorted out with the current cabinet to see where the majority opinion lies and what they actually want. Those option are still on the table, but with Theresa May having made her deal with the DUP she is boxed in there as well. She has basically promised the DUP there will be no border between NI and the UK. She has made a commitment that there will be no border between Ireland the NI but she has committed to leaving the single market and the customs union. Those things are not compatible and something will have to give.

If she doesn't reach consensus with her cabinet, and I cannot see how, she will lose some members and it will cause a crisis. We could look at a new election in February or even January. She will either lose the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove if they go for EU membership in all but name, or she will lose her chancellor if they go for a hard Brexit.

This is not control, this is a mess. And we haven't even got to the hard part yet, the actual trade talks with the EU. They have warned the UK it will get tougher from now on.

murphaph

listermint wrote: »

Ah control the great bastion of all things anti EU that you prescribe to.

Yet you still can't really pin point what control you don't have today they your feckless government can't actually implement with the powers they have currently. Which are vast btw.

Terrible governance really, it's still intriguing what improvement in governance will materialize with all this new 'control'


I'd love some elaboration on your part outside of torigraph headlines

It all comes down to this...the English who voted for this cluster... (mostly) think they are naturally superior to the other silly countries in Europe that were mostly occupied during WWII. Britain has never suffered that ignominy but Brexit will be it. Pride comes before a fall as they say.