Brexit discussion thread III

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've ignored the economic component. Nobody chooses to rock a ship that is sailing smoothly. Ultimately, it comes back to the old adage of "It's the economy, stupid."

If the vote were held in the mid-noughties amidst the boom years, it would not have been an issue. Regarding ignorance, yeah that's there but the only remedy I can see is hard Brexit followed by some form of financial hardship that not even the red tops can spin to blame Brussels.

And to add to that there was the protest vote against the Conservatives as well. David Cameron was out in front for Remain, do you think it would have been easy for a Labour voter from the North to vote for him in effect? If he did win it would have only strengthened his hand to keep his austerity policies in place.

So the Leave vote was comprised of ignorant racists/xenophobes, those genuinely concerned about the EU integration and then a protest vote included. Now was this protest vote enough to swing the referendum? Who knows, but the proclamations that Brexit means leaving the single market and customs union and....is just hogwash. No-one knows what Brexit really means, the real goal should be the best deal for the UK. If that is EU-lite, then so be it.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

But elderly relatives and dependants, poorly skilled workers, people who don't have any language skills: these are not beneficial. These absorb resources from the rest of the economy, they don't generate them. Its misleading to pretend all migration is equal, and all migration is equally beneficial. Its not. A UCL study in 2013 (P27 and Table 5) determined that EEA migrants from 2001-2011 contributed roughly £22 billion to the UK economy. That was the only group of migrants that made a positive contribution: non-EEA migrants had taken out anywhere between £95-£114 billion from the UK economy. The media reaction was obviously to hype the EEA migrant contribution and ignore the non-EEA cost, which overwhelmed it.

Right but non-EEA immigration is completely controllable and always has been. Nothing to do with the EU. There was no reason at all that the Tories couldn't half the number and bask in the approval of the right-wing tabloid press.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

And to add to that there was the protest vote against the Conservatives as well. David Cameron was out in front for Remain, do you think it would have been easy for a Labour voter from the North to vote for him in effect? If he did win it would have only strengthened his hand to keep his austerity policies in place.

When Ted Heath pulled this trick in the seventies, he knew he could count on the Labour party to rally the In vote while his party squabbled amongst itself. In 2016, there was a lacklustre Remain campaign run by Tories for Tories and a Labour In campaign which was constantly hobbled by Jeremy Corbyn's office. I used to live in Northern England so I'm well aware of the economic disparty that exists between it and the more prosperous south.

Enzokk wrote: »

So the Leave vote was comprised of ignorant racists/xenophobes, those genuinely concerned about the EU integration and then a protest vote included. Now was this protest vote enough to swing the referendum? Who knows, but the proclamations that Brexit means leaving the single market and customs union and....is just hogwash. No-one knows what Brexit really means, the real goal should be the best deal for the UK. If that is EU-lite, then so be it.

I didn't say all Leavers were ignorant racists and xenophobes. They're there, sure but most people cited sovereignty as their primary concern as per the Lord Ashcroft polls I have linked to before.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but non-EEA immigration is completely controllable and always has been. Nothing to do with the EU. There was no reason at all that the Tories couldn't half the number and bask in the approval of the right-wing tabloid press.

I agree, but unfortunately Merkel chose to go on a solo run that allowed Brexiteers to paint the options as being between UK controlling its borders, and the EU not controlling its borders. Most obviously Farages 'Breaking Point' poster.

By placing the vote in that context, given the actual costs of migration to the UK, people aren't xenophobes or idiots to say "Nope".

The Remain side certainly never put together a positive narrative for the EU - if anything it doubled down on the globalisation angle the electorate was rejecting. While there is now talk of a 'Europe that protects' which I think is the right move, I don't think the UK government could ever embrace it: the UK has always pushed a global/liberal agenda at the EU. The very same reason it never addressed non-EEA migration despite being perfectly well able to do so, and likely enjoying wide support (and likely nipping Brexit in the bud) if they had done so. A Europe that protects is just not on their agenda.

Rjd2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but non-EEA immigration is completely controllable and always has been. Nothing to do with the EU. There was no reason at all that the Tories couldn't half the number and bask in the approval of the right-wing tabloid press.

.[/QUOTE]

Cameron had zero interest in tackling immigration that much, he talked tough on it now and then to keep those to the right of the party happy, but as Osborne has said in interviews most of the Cameron inner circle were pretty pro immigration. Heck Cameron attacked Labour once for trying to copy UKIP regarding it.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Damien Green has resigned:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/943582354462904320

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/943583084162830336

Obviously bad news for May as its a close friend and its pretty humiliating. However she did ask to resign so she clearly has some confidence in herself.

She could turn it into a slight win however, he is an incredibly bland uninspiring unremarkable man, the party is in desperate need of a reshuffle and promoting some less toxic people from the backbenches for there own future, as good as time as any.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

I agree, but unfortunately Merkel chose to go on a solo run that allowed Brexiteers to paint the options as being between UK controlling its borders, and the EU not controlling its borders. Most obviously Farages 'Breaking Point' poster.

By placing the vote in that context, given the actual costs of migration to the UK, people aren't xenophobes or idiots to say "Nope".

I get your point but the red tops have been rabble-rousing for some time now. You've cited a study from a legitimate institution which is fair enough. I know not all leavers are racists and xenophobes but people who hold views like that certainly exist and they're not citing studies from UCL to back up their point either.

Sand wrote: »

The Remain side certainly never put together a positive narrative for the EU - if anything it doubled down on the globalisation angle the electorate was rejecting. While there is now talk of a 'Europe that protects' which I think is the right move, I don't think the UK government could ever embrace it: the UK has always pushed a global/liberal agenda at the EU.

Yeah, I've said this before. They handed the whole area of immigration to Vote Leave and Leave.EU and instead focused on dull, uninspiring "Well, it's a necessary evil but something, something economy" which unsurprisingly failed to inspire anyone as far as I can tell. Tim Shpiman ends All Out War by expressing surprise that Remain won as much as 48%.

I'm quite convinced that Britain is now in a much weaker position in terms of going global and that's before you factor in the anti-globalization sentiment behind the Leave vote. I felt that the best way forward was the British reigning in any isolationist and statist tendencies of the French and the Germans. Now, we'll have settle for Emmanuel Macron on that front.

Gerry T

lawred2 wrote:

The EU has no minimum wage directive..

Sorry, I stand corrected, but they do have the working hrs directive. I heard Reese mog saying that should go!

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't say all Leavers were ignorant racists and xenophobes. They're there, sure but most people cited sovereignty as their primary concern as per the Lord Ashcroft polls I have linked to before.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to say that is what you said, I hope it didn't come across as that. I was just listing the factions that would have felt strongly to vote for Brexit. Just once again thinking how silly it is to try and force one type of Brexit when there are so many that can be chosen.

Christy42

Sand wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unfortunately, we're not entirely logical creatures and it certainly doesn't help than many proponents of immigration are also quite wealthy and live in areas far beyond the fiscal reach of many foreigners. Basically, the messanger matters as well as his/her message.

I don't think its a logical issue though, in that there is clearly right and wrong answers. There has been huge demographic change and upheaval in the UK over the past 50-60 years. Some will approve of that change, the vast majority as demonstrated by Brexit do not.

Part and parcel of globalisation I'm afraid. Countries, cultures and economies are becoming ever more intertwined. The EU has evolved into an attempt to manage this by investing in the economies of poorer members so that they can try to develop instead of just haemhorraging talent.

China is fully immersed in the globalisation process, but its not undergone anything like the demographic change the UK has over the same time period (94% Han in 1953, 92% Han in 2010). Same for Japan. Most of Africa (if not all of it), South America and so on.

Massive demographic change and open borders is not necessarily part of globalisation. Its a choice by UK and European policy makers, but it lacks democratic support. So you get reactions like Brexit, and increasingly anti-migration parties and governments gaining power across the EU: Austria for example, Hungary, Poland and so on.

It's been proven that immigration is beneficial. However, you can't just dump a load of people into a town or city and expect your tax take to increase. You need more housing, services and infrastructure to make the most of it and unfortunately, the British electorate has been opting for small state, "Leave it to the market" governments since Thatcher's day.

Some forms of immigration is beneficial: young, highly skilled workers with jobs to go to are clearly going to be an economic benefit. Since 1995, over a hundred thousand French entrepreneurs have moved to London to start and run their businesses in the UK. Clearly a benefit.

But elderly relatives and dependants, poorly skilled workers, people who don't have any language skills: these are not beneficial. These absorb resources from the rest of the economy, they don't generate them. Its misleading to pretend all migration is equal, and all migration is equally beneficial. Its not. A UCL study in 2013 (P27 and Table 5) determined that EEA migrants from 2001-2011 contributed roughly £22 billion to the UK economy. That was the only group of migrants that made a positive contribution: non-EEA migrants had taken out anywhere between £95-£114 billion from the UK economy. The media reaction was obviously to hype the EEA migrant contribution and ignore the non-EEA cost, which overwhelmed it.

The UK voters who don't see mass migration as the all singing all dancing success story are not necessarily illogical in their rejection of that mythologised success story. Obviously, rejection of EEA migration (which is a positive to the UK) is ironic, but UK political parties never offered the UK people a referendum on non-EEA migration. The entirety of Brexit was more a rejection of Westminster than it was Brussels. But the EU is likely to continue to be caught in the crossfire between angry electorates and governments which refuse to acknowledge those electorates.

Demographic change in the UK is not so much the recent globalisation trend as historical. It was always one of the richest countries in the world which is an attraction and it was a proper global power with territories across the world. This reinforced the image of the UK across the world, it increased the numbers of those thinking of England as opposed to say Japan.

For instance Ireland has never exactly had completely **** borders and did not have the same demographic change as it was not exactly an economic powerhouse till recently.

Sure border laws can have an effect but people will get in if they want to. If anyone wants to reverse the demographic changes in the UK the only way is to entirely tank the economy.

China/Japan are just not seen in the same light. They were not involved in imperialism in a world wide scale. For instance Japan would have a significant Korean segment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_Japan partially due to location and partially due to its own imperialism in the region.

Sure some of it is recent eastern European but much of the change is from former colonys.

joeysoap

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Damien Green has resigned:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/943582354462904320

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/943583084162830336

If (when)he gets the job Jacob Rees-Mogg won’t be a friend of the EU (Ireland)

Peregrinus

joeysoap wrote: »

What’s a default default position when it’s at home ?

It's a default position.

What May is trying to say, in her ham-fisted way, is that "full alignment" isn't the second and final commitment the UK has given in relation to the Irish border; it's the third and final commitment. The UK will:

- seek a trade deal with the EU which will deliver an open border; or

- failing that, seek agreement with the EU on "other measures" which will deliver an open border; or

- failing that, "maintain full alignment".

That just makes full alignment the default, not the default default. As we English-speaker know, the default is what happens when other options are ruled out, no matter how many other options have been considered.

But, yeah, this constant talking down of full alignment is (a) a bit worrying for us, and (b) a bit dangerous for the UK. It's worrying for us because it give the impression that the UK is regretting/trying to row back from the commitments it gave on the Irish border in the Joint Report which concluded Phase 1. And it's dangerous for the UK because of course, in phase 2, the commitments given in the Joint Report get translated into a legally binding Withdrawal Agreement. And the more the UK seems to be distancing itself from those commitments, the more certain it is that the EU will be paying particular attention to then need to enshrine those commitments in detail, specifically, and unambiguously, in the Withdrawal Agreement.

Peregrinus

joeysoap wrote: »

If (when)he gets the job Jacob Rees-Mogg won’t be a friend of the EU (Ireland)

He won't be much of a friend to Britain either, to be honest.

But I doubt that he will get the gig.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There's an interesting synopsis on this LSE blog of a meta study into why people voted Leave. Their conclusion was that:

"Crucially, a plurality accepted that Brexit would harm the economy, and probably their own finances as well. But most voters also felt that remaining in the EU would increase the risk of terrorism, harm Britain’s cultural life and erode sovereignty, while leaving the EU would mean less immigration. Identity concerns were already trumping economic self-interest." . . .

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fairness, I find very little to argue with in that position since it is not one arrived at through reason and already acknowledges the obvious costs. There really is very little point in addressing it via logical arguments or facts and figures.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, if you don't address erroneous beliefs and assumptions with logic and fact then you are complicit in the maintenance of irrational and untrue beliefs and assumptions. If no politicians or journalists were to challenge the likes of Johnson, Gove and Farage, then their lies would remain 'truths'. As Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."

But beliefs about the risk of terrorism, harm to cultural life and erosion of sovereignty aren’t addressed at all by arguments or “facts and figures” about future economic performance or about the economic or material consequences of Brexit. Nor can arguments like that show the beliefs to be erroneous, irrational or incorrect.

This cuts both ways, incidentally. There are many people who for reasons of identity, emotion, political conviction, etc are convinced remainers. They will embrace arguments which show EU membership to be economically advantageous, but they don’t really embrace those arguments because they are correct or because they think economic advantage is the ultimate good; they embrace these arguments because they support the view which, for other reasons, they hold and wish to continue to hold.

In so far as the Brexit vote is (on both sides) a vote about identity and belonging, it’s really not susceptible to being swayed by economic or material arguments. Viewed dispassionately, the economic arguments are in fact overwhelmingly supportive of continued EU membership, and the fact that they have not been successful in significantly shifting public opinion since the Brexit referendum tells us that for most people this is a matter of identity and belonging, not of material welfare. Views on this are only going to be changed by having conversations about what it is to be British, what it is to be European, what we fear and what we hope for, etc. And they are certainly not going to be changed by telling people that they hold “irrational and untrue beliefs and assumptions” that are inconsistent with “logic and fact”. That’s an approach calculated to entrench people’s views more than to change them.

Kermit.de.frog

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a default position.

What May is trying to say, in her ham-fisted way, is that "full alignment" isn't the second and final commitment the UK has given in relation to the Irish border; it's the third and final commitment. The UK will:

- seek a trade deal with the EU which will deliver an open border; or

- failing that, seek agreement with the EU on "other measures" which will deliver an open border; or

- failing that, "maintain full alignment".

That just makes full alignment the default, not the default default. As we English-speaker know, the default is what happens when other options are ruled out, no matter how many other options have been considered.

But, yeah, this constant talking down of full alignment is (a) a bit worrying for us, and (b) a bit dangerous for the UK. It's worrying for us because it give the impression that the UK is regretting/trying to row back from the commitments it gave on the Irish border in the Joint Report which concluded Phase 1. And it's dangerous for the UK because of course, in phase 2, the commitments given in the Joint Report get translated into a legally binding Withdrawal Agreement. And the more the UK seems to be distancing itself from those commitments, the more certain it is that the EU will be paying particular attention to then need to enshrine those commitments in detail, specifically, and unambiguously, in the Withdrawal Agreement.

So there is no way out. UK has to stay in single market and customs union (at the very least they have to abide by certain rules).

This is the most glorious achievement in Irish diplomacy I can recall. We have basically decided what UK trade policy is going to be. Extraordinary.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So there is no way out. UK has to stay in single market and customs union (at the very least they have to abide by certain rules).

This is the most glorious achievement in Irish diplomacy I can recall. We have basically decided what UK trade policy is going to be. Extraordinary.

I wouldn't put it in quite such absolute terms, and in any case the story is ongoing. But, yeah, thus far Iveagh House has played this very well indeed, and we are still on course for a good outcome (for Ireland). Of course, none of this would have happened if the EU hadn't made the Irish border a priority issue for phase 1 of the withdrawal discussions, but that in turn was the outcome of skillful work by the Dept of Foreign Affairs.

Basically, what has been acheived is that the Joint Report setting out the conclusions of phase 1 includes:

- A statement by the UK that it has given a "guarantee" that Brexit will not result in a hard border;

- A definition of "no hard border" as requiring, at a minimum, no physical border infrastructure and no border-related checks and controls;

- A statement that, if other measures to avert a hard border are not agreed in a trade deal or elsewhere, the UK will maintain "full alignment" with Single Market and Customs Union rules "which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement".

That default position sets a lower limit to the "open border" rules that might be contained in any trade or other agreement since, obviously, the EU has no incentive to agree to accept anything worse than the default.

The UK could still welsh on this, but the cost to them would be no Withdrawal Agreement, and probably no trade deal, and the enduring resentment and mistrust of the EU, which add up to a huge price to pay.

We've been assisted not only by the fact that the EU has been very receptive to our concerns, but also by the fact that the UK has been totally unprepared for Brexit. Right from day 1 they have been on the hind foot, making stuff up as they go along, and reacting to initiatives from the EU side. At no time have they looked like taking control, setting the pace, seizing the initiative. One of the consequences of this is that, when they adopted a conflicting set of "red lines", this opened up the opportunity for the EU to pick on the red lines that best suited them (and us) and accord them a high priority, which the UK could hardly object to. "No hard border" was one of these.

The task of ensuring that these commitments get embodied in the Withdrawal Agreement remains to be completed but, according to reports, it's well in hand. The EU is working on the first draft of the text of the Withdrawal Agreement and, as I have pointed out, the more the UK appears to talk down its border commitments, the more attention will be paid to the important task of nailing them firmly into the text of the Withdrawal Agreement.

There probably will be an attempt by the UK to argue that the class of SM/CU rules that support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy, etc, is quite narrow and that the text of the Withdrawal Agreement should reflect this. We will argue, naturally, that it is very broad (and we will be right). It's important for us to keep the Commission and the Council on side in this argument, but the prospects are good. There has been no gap between the Irish and EU positions to date, and attempt by the UK to identify and exploit what they perceive as different interests of different member states, so as to weaken the EU's stance, have all failed dismally.

Rjd2

joeysoap wrote: »

If (when)he gets the job Jacob Rees-Mogg won’t be a friend of the EU (Ireland)

greene was a remainer thus it will be a remainer who will get the job. She has been trying to mantain that balance since day one, no reason to stop it now.

She won't dare upset the remain element of the party by giving the job to such an ardent leaver.

I see the phase 1 result as a win win for Ireland.

Either we have effectively explained to the UK that the only way they can not put a hard border on the Island is by remaining within the singe market (with customs arrangements) and they have agreed and listened. A circumstance that is far more beneficial for us economically than what has been mooted.

Or we get to see the new British model for cooperation which manages to solve the contradictions. A plan which would surely be open to us to follow. And given the promised bemefits and the reduced costs guaranteed, we could see the UK trading arrangements as an experiment which could also be beneficial to us (longer term).

I make zero effort to ascribe probabilities to either of these circumstances. But phase1's wording leads me to see both as a win.

First Up

Rjd2 wrote: »

joeysoap wrote: »

If (when)he gets the job Jacob Rees-Mogg won’t be a friend of the EU (Ireland)

greene was a remainer thus it will be a remainer who will get the job. She has been trying to mantain that balance since day one, no reason to stop it now.

She won't dare upset the remain element of the party by giving the job to such an ardent leaver.

I'd be slow to make any prediction. The chaos within the Tory party is unprecedented and May is making it up as they go along.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't put it in quite such absolute terms, and in any case the story is ongoing. But, yeah, thus far Iveagh House has played this very well indeed, and we are still on course for a good outcome (for Ireland). Of course, none of this would have happened if the EU hadn't made the Irish border a priority issue for phase 1 of the withdrawal discussions, but that in turn was the outcome of skillful work by the Dept of Foreign Affairs.

Basically, what has been acheived is that the Joint Report setting out the conclusions of phase 1 includes:

- A statement by the UK that it has given a "guarantee" that Brexit will not result in a hard border;

- A definition of "no hard border" as requiring, at a minimum, no physical border infrastructure and no border-related checks and controls;

- A statement that, if other measures to avert a hard border are not agreed in a trade deal or elsewhere, the UK will maintain "full alignment" with Single Market and Customs Union rules "which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement".

That default position sets a lower limit to the "open border" rules that might be contained in any trade or other agreement since, obviously, the EU has no incentive to agree to accept anything worse than the default.

The UK could still welsh on this, but the cost to them would be no Withdrawal Agreement, and probably no trade deal, and the enduring resentment and mistrust of the EU, which add up to a huge price to pay.

We've been assisted not only by the fact that the EU has been very receptive to our concerns, but also by the fact that the UK has been totally unprepared for Brexit. Right from day 1 they have been on the hind foot, making stuff up as they go along, and reacting to initiatives from the EU side. At no time have they looked like taking control, setting the pace, seizing the initiative. One of the consequences of this is that, when they adopted a conflicting set of "red lines", this opened up the opportunity for the EU to pick on the red lines that best suited them (and us) and accord them a high priority, which the UK could hardly object to. "No hard border" was one of these.

The task of ensuring that these commitments get embodied in the Withdrawal Agreement remains to be completed but, according to reports, it's well in hand. The EU is working on the first draft of the text of the Withdrawal Agreement and, as I have pointed out, the more the UK appears to talk down its border commitments, the more attention will be paid to the important task of nailing them firmly into the text of the Withdrawal Agreement.

There probably will be an attempt by the UK to argue that the class of SM/CU rules that support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy, etc, is quite narrow and that the text of the Withdrawal Agreement should reflect this. We will argue, naturally, that it is very broad (and we will be right). It's important for us to keep the Commission and the Council on side in this argument, but the prospects are good. There has been no gap between the Irish and EU positions to date, and attempt by the UK to identify and exploit what they perceive as different interests of different member states, so as to weaken the EU's stance, have all failed dismally.

Even if the entire extent of cross border trade was agri food, you'd need controls to verify the goods were agri food! Any divergence means customs controls of some sort.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Even if the entire extent of cross border trade was agri food, you'd need controls to verify the goods were agri food! Any divergence means customs controls of some sort.

This is correct. If the UK commitments in the Joint Report mean what they say, then there has to be very substantial regulatory alignment across the Irish border in regard to virtually all traded goods and services. Any degree of divergence has to be so minimal that, basically, neither side is fussed enough about leakage across the border to actually do anything about it.

Iveagh House is proceeding on the basis that the UK's commitments do mean what they say, and should be restated in more detail in the Withdrawal Agreement. So are the Commission and the Council. Iveagh House's principal job is to ensure that the Commission and the Council resist any UK blandishments to depart from that position. But this will be the natural instinct of the Commission and the Council anyway. After all, if the UK commitments on the border do not mean what they say, then the UK commitments on the financial settlement and on citizens rights are equally unreliable. That is not a road down which the EU has any interest in going.

I am not really worried about the prospects of the EU softening its position on the Irish border. I am more worried that political weakness or instability at home might lead to the UK government being unable to deliver on the commitments that it has made. This is not a problem that we can fix for the UK; all we can do is try to make the price of failing to deliver so high for the UK that, domestic divisions notwithstanding, even if the present government disintegrates there will be a viable majority in the UK in favour of delivering on them.

flaneur

I've a horrible feeling that those commitments are meaningless sophistry that was aimed to just bounce the process onto phase 2. They're already renegotiating with themselves in London.

The EU's said it wants the commitments in a legal document and so far, that's not forthcoming.

Peregrinus

flaneur wrote: »

I've a horrible feeling that those commitments are meaningless sophistry that was aimed to just bounce the process onto phase 2. They're already renegotiating with themselves in London.

The EU's said it wants the commitments in a legal document and so far, that's not forthcoming.

The "legal document" is, and was always going to be, the Withdrawal Agreement, which will be a binding international treaty entering into force on 29 March 2019. Current timetable (set by the EU, naturally) is that it's to be negotiated and settled as between the EU and the UK by October 2018, leaving four or five months to get sign-off and ratification from all the relevant parties.

Currently, the EU is working on a first draft of the treaty, which will reflect the commitments that the parties have already agreed should be included, which are set out in the Joint Report.

There'd be no point, from the UK's perspective, in making the commitments as "meaningless sophistry . . . to just bounce the process onto phase 2". The only point in getting to phase 2 is that it moves you one step closer to the actual finished Withdrawal Agreement. if your secret intention is to denounce during phase 2 the commitments you've made in phase 1, obviously you've decided that you don't really want to conclude a Withdrawal Agreement. In which case, what was the point of progressing to phase 2 in the first place?

If, hypothetically, the UK had decided that no acceptable Withdrawal Agreement could be concluded, they wouldn't want to be seen to attempt to conclude one, but then fail to do so. And in particular they wouldn't want it to look as if the negotiations broke down because they made some commitments, but then went back on them. That would make it look like the UK government's fault that it has failed to achieve what it said it wanted to achieve. Politically, it would be wiser to declre up front that they don't want want a Withdrawal Agreement; that they think hard Brexit is best for for the UK, and so never make any commitments that they are later seen to renege on.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

We've been assisted not only by the fact that the EU has been very receptive to our concerns, but also by the fact that the UK has been totally unprepared for Brexit. Right from day 1 they have been on the hind foot, making stuff up as they go along, and reacting to initiatives from the EU side. At no time have they looked like taking control, setting the pace, seizing the initiative. One of the consequences of this is that, when they adopted a conflicting set of "red lines", this opened up the opportunity for the EU to pick on the red lines that best suited them (and us) and accord them a high priority, which the UK could hardly object to. "No hard border" was one of these.

I am wondering if anything would have changed if the UK was more prepared. Surely the only 2 options are either no deal, or one of the agreements already on offer. A more prepared UK would surely only have arrived at the point what they want earlier, but the end point would be the same. This is if the EU doesn't compromise on their rules.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

I am wondering if anything would have changed if the UK was more prepared. Surely the only 2 options are either no deal, or one of the agreements already on offer. A more prepared UK would surely only have arrived at the point what they want earlier, but the end point would be the same. This is if the EU doesn't compromise on their rules.

If they were more prepared, they would have adopted a different set of red lines that didn't conflict and that were based on clearer and more realistic thinking about what they wanted to achieve from Brexit and how they expected to achieve it. And if they were even more prepared than that, they would not only have a coherent set of red lines but also an outline of an EU/UK trading and legal relationship which would give effect to those red lines in practice, and which would be attractive to the EU.

It's not right to say that the only options are no deal, or one of the models already on offer. The models already on offer, remember, didn't all exist from the beginning of time; each was developed to meet a particular set of circumstances and a particular set of objectives. In theory, there's no reason why further models can't be developed to meet new circumstances and new objectives. But:

(A) It's not necessarily the case that a model can be developed for every set of circumstances and objectives - there are insoluble puzzles, and this could be one of them; and

(B) Developing a new model takes time, it takes realism and it takes clear thinking. The UK has already burned much of the time available to it faffing about with pointless elections and crowd-pleasing posturing, and they are no closer to coming up with a model than they were in June 2016. Nor are we seeing much evidence of realism or clear thinking. 18 months has passed; 9 months, more or less, remains. With the best will in the world, I doubt that it can be done from here. It has been left 'til too late.

Which I think is why, at this point, both sides are speaking in terms of taking existing models and tweaking them - "Canada plus", "Norway minus", etc. But none of the existing models come even remotely close to accommodating all of the UK's red lines, which means that at this stage the only option left to the UK is to adjust their red lines at one end, and tweak one of the existing models at the other, until the two can somehow be made to meet.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

I am wondering if anything would have changed if the UK was more prepared. Surely the only 2 options are either no deal, or one of the agreements already on offer. A more prepared UK would surely only have arrived at the point what they want earlier, but the end point would be the same. This is if the EU doesn't compromise on their rules.

Well for starters if they were more prepared there would not been a Brexit but leaving that aside you're making a common mistake; you assume they are ruled by intellect alone. The reality is most UK politicians have exceedingly poor understanding of EU (both remainers and brexiteers as shown in their failure to nail May on multiple occasions) and are acting more out of emotions rather than facts. For the Brexiteer faction it was expecting EU to bend over because of their glorious history, their sneakiness and skilled diplomacy to make it happen. For the Remainers it was never a possibility that people would protest vote anyway so why prepare for it?

Then when Brexit happened all those Brexiteers were not only caught with their pants down but now actually had to formulate a more extreme version to keep being on the (extreme) edge to constantly complain about EU and the immigration (where as if Brexit had failed they could have remained at their old positions of an EEA membership is all that's needed as constantly stated during the campaign for Brexit). All of this is purely on an emotional basis and not an intellectual one (only need to look at Boris statements to see exactly how grounded he is in facts vs. fiction).

Rjd2

First Up wrote: »

I'd be slow to make any prediction. The chaos within the Tory party is unprecedented and May is making it up as they go along.

She was confident enough to ask for his resignation, only way its not a remainer is if they find a soft leaver who happens to be a lass.

Peregrinus

Rjd2 wrote: »

She was confident enough to ask for his resignation . . .

I don't think that was "confidence"; I think it was "left with no choice".

Rjd2 wrote: »

. . . only way its not a remainer is if they find a soft leaver who happens to be a lass.

Strictly speaking he doesn't have to be replaced at all; there doesn't have to be a First Secretary of State, and quite frequently there isn't.

But he will be replaced, if only so as not to change the balance between hard and soft brexiters in the cabinet. He was in the post because he was a close political ally of May's, and his replacement will likely also be someone close to her.

Call me Al

I think this informed article by Tommy Gorman, wrt the NI and DUP angle, details that precise Brexit conundrum well.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/927625/
The DUP, having received assurances from Cameron that he'd carry a remain vote, felt comfortable to go down the Pro-brexit route.

There are obvious political ideological reasons for their approach. Always expecting they'd lose but could claim the title for the Union's best-boy in the class.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

But beliefs about the risk of terrorism, harm to cultural life and erosion of sovereignty aren’t addressed at all by arguments or “facts and figures” about future economic performance or about the economic or material consequences of Brexit. Nor can arguments like that show the beliefs to be erroneous, irrational or incorrect.

This cuts both ways, incidentally. There are many people who for reasons of identity, emotion, political conviction, etc are convinced remainers. They will embrace arguments which show EU membership to be economically advantageous, but they don’t really embrace those arguments because they are correct or because they think economic advantage is the ultimate good; they embrace these arguments because they support the view which, for other reasons, they hold and wish to continue to hold.

In so far as the Brexit vote is (on both sides) a vote about identity and belonging, it’s really not susceptible to being swayed by economic or material arguments. Viewed dispassionately, the economic arguments are in fact overwhelmingly supportive of continued EU membership, and the fact that they have not been successful in significantly shifting public opinion since the Brexit referendum tells us that for most people this is a matter of identity and belonging, not of material welfare. Views on this are only going to be changed by having conversations about what it is to be British, what it is to be European, what we fear and what we hope for, etc. And they are certainly not going to be changed by telling people that they hold “irrational and untrue beliefs and assumptions” that are inconsistent with “logic and fact”. That’s an approach calculated to entrench people’s views more than to change them.

In quoting my posts here, you make the incorrect assumption that my references to "logic and fact" pertained to economic matters only. Not at all. There are many ways in which the EU is beneficial regarding identity, culture and immigration. Indeed, I made exactly that point in a subsequent post about how Remain made a crucial mistake in not focussing on the positives of EU membership.

In that context, you are wrong when you assert that views on Brexit cannot be significantly shifted. A poll last week showed that 51% now want to stay in the EU whereas only 41% want to leave.

Blowfish

So, a bunch of the 'Sectoral Analysis' have been published by the Exiting the EU Committee here.

They are worth a read through, just to see how utterly inadequate they are for assisting the negotiating team when it comes to Brexit. All they give is a high level overview of various industries and that's about it.

LeinsterDub

Blowfish wrote: »

So, a bunch of the 'Sectoral Analysis' have been published by the Exiting the EU Committee here.

They are worth a read through, just to see how utterly inadequate they are for assisting the negotiating team when it comes to Brexit. All they give is a high level overview of various industries and that's about it.

I'm confused, honestly I am didn't DD say these didn't exist?

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm confused, honestly I am didn't DD say these didn't exist?

He lied.

Blowfish

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm confused, honestly I am didn't DD say these didn't exist?

He said Impact Assessments don't exist, which is true, if you read their 'Analysis', they don't say anything at all about what impact Brexit will have.

Professor Moriarty

Blowfish wrote: »

He said Impact Assessments don't exist, which is true, if you read their 'Analysis', they don't say anything at all about what impact Brexit will have.

Well, terms like 'mental reservation' and 'economic with the truth' spring to mind. Every time he said that sector analyses were being conducted, it was in the context of being questioned about the economic impact of Brexit. At best, he was being disingenuous.

Nate--IRL--

Just had a look at a few of them, they aren't exactly in depth are they? In fact, they read more like an idiots guide to each sector.

Nate

Blowfish

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Just had a look at a few of them, they aren't exactly in depth are they? In fact, they read more like an idiots guide to each sector.

Nate

I dunno, the aviation one includes such valuable information as:

the 'parts of an aircraft' include the "nose, fuselage, wings, engine nacelles and tail"

I'm sure information like that will come in incredibly useful during the negotiation...

Leroy42

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Just had a look at a few of them, they aren't exactly in depth are they? In fact, they read more like an idiots guide to each sector.

Nate

They are kind of like a secondary school project on different industries. Taking come stats etc from some reports.

What was the point of them all. Were the government not aware that the economy was made up of different sectors?

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

They are kind of like a secondary school project on different industries. Taking come stats etc from some reports.

What was the point of them all. Were the government not aware that the economy was made up of different sectors?

Excellent analogy!

murphaph

So the British government has no idea or projections about how Brexit will effect the economy given different scenarios. That's criminally negligent.

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

So the British government has no idea or projections about how Brexit will effect the economy given different scenarios. That's criminally negligent.

I genuinely see Tory behaviour in the context of Brexit as tantamount to traitorous.

Dont be at yourself

Had a look at the reports from a couple of sectors I'd work with, and they're very lightweight. Also interesting that they decided not to share views from the sectors themselves.

swampgas

murphaph wrote: »

So the British government has no idea or projections about how Brexit will effect the economy given different scenarios. That's criminally negligent.

I'll bet they have some idea all right, they just don't want to put it in writing in an official report. Because for those who campaigned for Brexit it's an admission of failure, and is (or should be!) quite an embarrassing position to be in.

You can bet that if there were any positive projections (and it looks like they went fishing for them, based on ambro25's experience) they wouldn't be hiding them.

Sooner or later they will have to face the music and admit that Brexit wasn't such a good idea, but for now they're doing their level best to save face. The reports are farcical but presumably less embarrassing than admitting the truth. If they had any integrity at all, or any sense of responsibility to the country, they wouldn't be doing this, but then again what would you expect from politicians who lied their heads off about how Brexit would pan out, just to advance their positions within their own party?

Leroy42

swampgas wrote: »

I'll bet they have some idea all right, they just don't want to put it in writing in an official report. Because for those who campaigned for Brexit it's an admission of failure, and is (or should be!) quite an embarrassing position to be in.

You can bet that if there were any positive projections (and it looks like they went fishing for them, based on ambro25's experience) they wouldn't be hiding them.

Sooner or later they will have to face the music and admit that Brexit wasn't such a good idea, but for now they're doing their level best to save face. The reports are farcical but presumably less embarrassing than admitting the truth. If they had any integrity at all, or any sense of responsibility to the country, they wouldn't be doing this, but then again what would you expect from politicians who lied their heads off about how Brexit would pan out, just to advance their positions within their own party?

I agree with the idea that they have some reports, and unless they are radically different that the vast majority of reports currently done, then they would be negative and they probably want to hold them back. 1) to keep the public in the dark and so avoid having to answer difficult questions, and 2) to try to avoid letting the EU know how much issues there are (although this falls down as it appears the EU are well aware of).

In terms of facing the music, I actually think they will never do that. If, as appears likely, Brexit as a negative impact then IMO they are building up to being able to blame the horrible EU negotiators, Leo, the DUP etc etc.

They will simply claim that any issues are due EU not negotiating properly and ignored the will of 17m people.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

In terms of facing the music, I actually think they will never do that. If, as appears likely, Brexit as a negative impact then IMO they are building up to being able to blame the horrible EU negotiators, Leo, the DUP etc etc.

They will simply claim that any issues are due EU not negotiating properly and ignored the will of 17m people.

Fair point - agreed. That's a far more likely outcome.

LeinsterDub

The EU is preparing to present Britain with a skeleton, Canada-style trade deal by the early summer if the UK is unable to clarify its demands and remains in “Brexit La-La land”, according to senior European officials.

Seems like the EU has to do the UK's homework now too.

They expected the first months of 2018 to involve some “unicorn slaughter” as Britain’s illusions were confronted.

This line is simply too good not to quote.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-prepares-canada-style-trade-deal-due-to-lack-of-clarity-over-uk-s-brexit-demands-1.3335092

demfad

Fishing happens in predominantly coastal towns apparently.

There has to be proper impact assessments somewhere.
I know this was redacted, but surely there are other documents.

If there are and they turn up indicting Brexit....

Water John

It will be interesting as to the fall out of the Russian spy being arrested in Kiev. He was at a, very high level and would have been in Downing St at the meeting with May.
If he was only feeding info or does he know a lot. Trump's friends might be worried too.

Enzokk

A few of the points that were in the reports released today,

https://twitter.com/RobertsDan/status/943881622839091200

What I found interesting in this link is the following quote:

And the City of London is warned that the damage from leaving the single market cannot be circumvented by relying on so-called equivalency rules.

“Equivalence would not support continued cross-border banking activity between the UK and EU,” says the report. “The European commission has said that the purpose of its equivalence regimes is not to open up international trade”.

Nody

demfad wrote: »

Fishing happens in predominantly coastal towns apparently.

There has to be proper impact assessments somewhere.
I know this was redacted, but surely there are other documents.

If there are and they turn up indicting Brexit....

I honestly think they spent the last 30 days writing this stuff up simply to have SOMETHING to release to claim they were not complete tools about the whole Brexit thing. The reason for nothing being in writing before is simply that in the usual boys clubs etc. they were assured by "professionals" that Brexit would really be a good thing for industry A, B and C so not to worry about it and hence they took them on their word as truth since they came from the right schools with the right connections (and bribes future job opportunities).

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

They are kind of like a secondary school project on different industries. Taking come stats etc from some reports.

They didn't even do a summation of the financial numbers they listed in the reports. Have they even decided which areas to prioritise ?

compare to this from over a year ago
http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2017/Documents/An_Exposure_Analysis_of_Sectors_of_the_Irish_Economy%20_final.pdf

or this from 24 Jun 2016 , the day after the Referendum
https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0624/797814-ireland-reax/