Brexit discussion thread III

Skedaddle

It's very hard to know to be perfectly honest as you're looking at unmanipulated public opinion, and calm pragmatism at the moment. The pro-Brexit tabloids could whip up tremendous hatred towards the EU if they see things rolling towards remain.

I think it would be worth having a second referendum on the basis that the facts weren't very well communicated or understood the first time around, but I certainly wouldn't be overly confident of a major shift of the result. If anything, British opinion polling is showing that it's not reading the public very well. The Tories have twice assumed they'd win a poll - the recent general election and Brexit being a cakewalk for remain. On both occasions their internal polling information was very wide of the mark.

I could be wrong, but I think reading English (and it is English rather than Scottish or Northern Irish) public opinion via the lens of an Irish telescope is probably not giving us a very clear picture either. We don't tend to have a sense of the British rust belt towns in the north of England because Irish connections tend to be to in more dynamic and economically prosperous and open minded cities like London, Manchester, even Liverpool, etc etc and they're largely areas that voted heavily towards remain.

I think in a rerun you will inevitably get a serious rise or English nationalism coming to the fore again.

listermint

Skedaddle wrote: »

It's very hard to know to be perfectly honest as you're looking at unmanipulated public opinion, and calm pragmatism at the moment. The pro-Brexit tabloids could whip up tremendous hatred towards the EU if they see things rolling towards remain.

I think it would be worth having a second referendum on the basis that the facts weren't very well communicated or understood the first time around, but I certainly wouldn't be overly confident of a major shift of the result. If anything, British opinion polling is showing that it's not reading the public very well. The Tories have twice assumed they'd win a poll - the recent general election and Brexit being a cakewalk for remain. On both occasions their internal polling information was very wide of the mark.

I could be wrong, but I think reading English (and it is English rather than Scottish or Northern Irish) public opinion via the lens of an Irish telescope is probably not giving us a very clear picture either. We don't tend to have a sense of the British rust belt towns in the north of England because Irish connections tend to be to in more dynamic and economically prosperous and open minded cities like London, Manchester, even Liverpool, etc etc and they're largely areas that voted heavily towards remain.

I think in a rerun you will inevitably get a serious rise or English nationalism coming to the fore again.

Not really not. I have good friends who are living and working in university towns and there is a huge anger amongst academia and the student population to this debacle specifically in a loss of European research funding and the open access to Europe as a whole


I think a second referendum would force a strong backlash from this sector . The youth

Skedaddle

It's hard to call though. I think it would be worth doing on the basis that the original referendum was incredibly badly run and full of unchallenged distortions.

They really need to have a proper referendum commission to referee it. We have learnt a lot about how not to run referenda here in Ireland over the years and I think they could do with adopting some of the same systems we have developed over the decades as one of the few countries that runs regular referenda and also one that's in many ways culturally very close to them.

Sam Russell

listermint wrote: »

Not really not. I have good friends who are living and working in university towns and there is a huge anger amongst academia and the student population to this debacle specifically in a loss of European research funding and the open access to Europe as a whole


I think a second referendum would force a strong backlash from this sector . The youth

I think what we in Ireland miss is the attitude of the demographic that is, for want of a better description, descended from those who emigrated from the Indian sub-continent. These are a distinct demographic that are, in the most part, separate from the general population, and have their own community leaders, and their own political aims.

It has been suggested that they campaigned for Leave so that the EU migrants would be displaced by immigrants from their own origins. Not sure how much credence to put into that view but it would be enough to sway the vote if true.

Skedaddle

It's more than that actually, I know people from Indian backgrounds who see their link to the UK as far closer and more relevant than the EU migrants.

The Indian, Pakistani and many other commonwealth / former colonies' relationships with the UK is very, very complex, not unlike Irish feelings about the UK in many ways. On the one hand they were our oppressors, on the other we're connected in very complex ways, but a lot of people of commonwealth backgrounds feel they've a lot more legitimate right to be in the UK both because of connection and also even because the UK owes them solidarity for having screwed over and colonised their / their ancestors' countries, yet they're often treated far, far worse than EU nationals when it comes to immigration policies.

I think Irish people should very easily be able to understand exactly how someone from India would feel about the UK.

It's a lot more than just about jobs and competition from the EU.

Strazdas

Skedaddle wrote: »

It's very hard to know to be perfectly honest as you're looking at unmanipulated public opinion, and calm pragmatism at the moment. The pro-Brexit tabloids could whip up tremendous hatred towards the EU if they see things rolling towards remain.

I think it would be worth having a second referendum on the basis that the facts weren't very well communicated or understood the first time around, but I certainly wouldn't be overly confident of a major shift of the result. If anything, British opinion polling is showing that it's not reading the public very well. The Tories have twice assumed they'd win a poll - the recent general election and Brexit being a cakewalk for remain. On both occasions their internal polling information was very wide of the mark.

I could be wrong, but I think reading English (and it is English rather than Scottish or Northern Irish) public opinion via the lens of an Irish telescope is probably not giving us a very clear picture either. We don't tend to have a sense of the British rust belt towns in the north of England because Irish connections tend to be to in more dynamic and economically prosperous and open minded cities like London, Manchester, even Liverpool, etc etc and they're largely areas that voted heavily towards remain.

I think in a rerun you will inevitably get a serious rise or English nationalism coming to the fore again.

Problem with a second referendum is that there are still a lot of toxic elements at work such as Farage, Rees-Mogg and the tabloids. Things could get really nasty and ugly, maybe considerably worse than the first one.

It looks a bit of a lose-lose situation for the UK no matter what they do, their country is bitterly divided on Brexit (it would be easier to put right if there weren't such deep divisions).

ancapailldorcha

Strazdas wrote: »

Problem with a second referendum is that there are still a lot of toxic elements at work such as Farage, Rees-Mogg and the tabloids. Things could get really nasty and ugly, maybe considerably worse than the first one.

It looks a bit of a lose-lose situation for the UK no matter what they do, their country is bitterly divided on Brexit (it would be easier to put right if there weren't such deep divisions).

There are but I think the Brexit bubble has popped and they know it. Otherwise, this "Enemies of the people" nonsense wouldn't still be happening. The populists know that this thing was ushered in by the slimmest of margins and are fully aware that it will almost certainly sink if the people are asked if they're happy with how the Conservatives have handled it.

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

It has been suggested that they campaigned for Leave so that the EU migrants would be displaced by immigrants from their own origins. Not sure how much credence to put into that view but it would be enough to sway the vote if true.

No, what you heard is pretty much accurate in that representatives of the UK Asian restaurateur organisation (I can't recall the exact title but it most definitely represented restaurant/food business interests) pushed for Brexit amongst their respective ethnic communities on the premise that it would mean more visas for them, their staff, and their families because all those EU workers would be sent packing. Just a pity that nobody mentioned to them that the nationalists don't particularly want them around either.

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are but I think the Brexit bubble has popped and they know it. Otherwise, this "Enemies of the people" nonsense wouldn't still be happening. The populists know that this thing was ushered in by the slimmest of margins and are fully aware that it will almost certainly sink if the people are asked if they're happy with how the Conservatives have handled it.

The shrill crescendo has been rising since Brexit vote day +1; you'd swear they'd lost or something the way in which they carry on ....

It speaks volumes as to their mindset and I can only describe it as the kid who can't believe their luck that everyone has bought their dumb lie as to why they're holding sweeties that just so happen to match the description and volume stolen from the shop next door and how they'd best run for it before everyone figures out they were lying and has a chance to stop them.

Capt'n Midnight

Lemming wrote: »

No, what you heard is pretty much accurate in that representatives of the UK Asian restaurateur organisation (I can't recall the exact title but it most definitely represented restaurant/food business interests) pushed for Brexit amongst their respective ethnic communities on the premise that it would mean more visas for them, their staff, and their families because all those EU workers would be sent packing. Just a pity that nobody mentioned to them that the nationalists don't particularly want them around either.

The economic difference is that people from the EU are more likely go home while those from Asia are more likely to stay when they retire. Minimum wage means you are reliant on state pension and public services.

It's another Brexit cost, but it won't show up for a generation.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The economic difference is that people from the EU are more likely go home while those from Asia are more likely to stay when they retire. Minimum wage means you are reliant on state pension and public services.

It's another Brexit cost, but it won't show up for a generation.

It is not pensions. They will bring family and dependents that will require significant support, particularly health and education. This will be noticed in the NHS costs that will only grow as the population gets older.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is not pensions. They will bring family and dependents that will require significant support, particularly health and education. This will be noticed in the NHS costs that will only grow as the population gets older.

That statement is at odds with the data that shows that immigrants (regardless of where they come from) are net economic contributors to their host nation. It makes sense - most migrants are people who move because they want to have a better quality of life, and when they get where they're going, they put more into their adopted community than they take out. That's just as valid for Black Africans in France and Brown Indians in England as it is for White Europeans in America.

So ultimately, things like NHS nursing and paramedic shortages will be corrected, while the costs of pensions and health care for older people will grow in the UK at about the same rate as it will in every other Western economy.

ancapailldorcha

CelticRambler wrote: »

That statement is at odds with the data that shows that immigrants (regardless of where they come from) are net economic contributors to their host nation. It makes sense - most migrants are people who move because they want to have a better quality of life, and when they get where they're going, they put more into their adopted community than they take out. That's just as valid for Black Africans in France and Brown Indians in England as it is for White Europeans in America.

So ultimately, things like NHS nursing and paramedic shortages will be corrected, while the costs of pensions and health care for older people will grow in the UK at about the same rate as it will in every other Western economy.

It's a slight tangent but I'm failing to see how the NHS model can survive without being completely overhauled. Importing mostly young people who are often educated to degree level certainly helps in the short term but those people age and if they can't afford a place to settle down in then they'll eventually add to the problem posed by the needs of an aging population. Brexit just accelerates this.

ancapailldorcha

An excerpt from Matthew Parris' column from The Times which I think quite accurately surmises the current state of affairs within the government:

https://twitter.com/tds153/status/959713772066738177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepoke.co.uk%2F2018%2F02%2F04%2Fthis-brexit-column-went-viral-nails-brilliantly%2F

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

That statement is at odds with the data that shows that immigrants (regardless of where they come from) are net economic contributors to their host nation. It makes sense - most migrants are people who move because they want to have a better quality of life, and when they get where they're going, they put more into their adopted community than they take out. That's just as valid for Black Africans in France and Brown Indians in England as it is for White Europeans in America.

So ultimately, things like NHS nursing and paramedic shortages will be corrected, while the costs of pensions and health care for older people will grow in the UK at about the same rate as it will in every other Western economy.

If you are talking about the head of household, then yes this is true. So Syrians that make it out of Syria to safety in Europe will be net contributors. But the Asians that are already in the UK will be bringing dependants, family and relatives that are not not contributors because they are too young or too old or not skilled. It is these that are the drain on health and education.

Why have the UK been unable to stop immigration from outside the EU?

Nody

EU has now put up all 25 preparation notices linked from one page for their various areas here. They try to clarifiy for all stakeholders what happens on March 30th next year or as per their own words:

On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom notified the European Council of its intention to leave the European Union. Unless a ratified withdrawal agreement establishes another date or the European Council, in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union and in agreement with the United Kingdom, unanimously decides that the Treaties cease to apply at a later date, all Union primary and secondary law will cease to apply to the United Kingdom from 30 March 2019, 00:00h (CET) ('the withdrawal date'). The United Kingdom will then become a third country. These notices, which aim at preparing citizens and stakeholders for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, set out the consequences in a range of policy areas.

Hence if anyone has questions on what will happen in a certain area there's most likely a paper spelling it out black and white short of UK either a) reverses Brexit or b) pulls out a magical rainbow out of their behind and get a trade deal EU has said they will not sign. These are the same papers that May was so upset EU issued as a side note.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

the Asians that are already in the UK will be bringing dependants, family and relatives that are not not contributors because they are too young or too old or not skilled. It is these that are the drain on health and education.

That sounds like Trumps anti-DACA nonsense. :P You can't just bring any dependents you want into the UK. If you're entitled to permanent residency, you can apply for a visa for some or all of your relatives, but there are several conditions that have to be fulfilled, not least economic independence.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a slight tangent but I'm failing to see how the NHS model can survive without being completely overhauled. Importing mostly young people who are often educated to degree level certainly helps in the short term but those people age and if they can't afford a place to settle down in then they'll eventually add to the problem posed by the needs of an aging population. Brexit just accelerates this.

I disagree! The NHS lurches from crisis to crisis (not much different to the HSE in Ireland, and the much-lauded French system is essentially bankrupt) So yes, the NHS needs to be completely overhauled; but no, Brexit won't really make any significant difference as the underlying problems go way beyond how much nurses or consultants are paid, or what country they come from.

However, in the event of a hard Brexit, it's entirely possible that Brave New Britain's future trade deals will be coupled with American style "direct to the consumer" advertising and sale of medicines and procedures, eventually reducing the NHS to the standard of the US's decrepit public health service.

Capt'n Midnight

CelticRambler wrote: »

I disagree! The NHS lurches from crisis to crisis (not much different to the HSE in Ireland, and the much-lauded French system is essentially bankrupt) So yes, the NHS needs to be completely overhauled; but no, Brexit won't really make any significant difference as the underlying problems go way beyond how much nurses or consultants are paid, or what country they come from.

However, in the event of a hard Brexit, it's entirely possible that Brave New Britain's future trade deals will be coupled with American style "direct to the consumer" advertising and sale of medicines and procedures, eventually reducing the NHS to the standard of the US's decrepit public health service.

If the UK economy is down 8% then NHS funding will be down by a lot more. Also foreign workers will be more expensive if Sterling falls further.


And yes privatising the NHS, but not those exact words of course, is a dream for a fair few in the Tory part. Think of how much money could be given back in tax cuts to top earners.

The thin edge of the wedge.
Theresa May suggests UK health services could be part of US trade deal

Enzokk

CelticRambler wrote: »

That statement is at odds with the data that shows that immigrants (regardless of where they come from) are net economic contributors to their host nation. It makes sense - most migrants are people who move because they want to have a better quality of life, and when they get where they're going, they put more into their adopted community than they take out. That's just as valid for Black Africans in France and Brown Indians in England as it is for White Europeans in America.

So ultimately, things like NHS nursing and paramedic shortages will be corrected, while the costs of pensions and health care for older people will grow in the UK at about the same rate as it will in every other Western economy.

Seems that when it comes to calculating the impact of EEA and non-EEA immigration on public finances the result depends on how you calculate the figures. But it seems that many studies seem to agree with the premise that immigration from the EU is a net contributor while immigration from outside the EEA costs the tax payer money. This is because EU immigration is younger and less likely to settle and cost the state pension and childcare costs in most cases.

How immigrants affect public finances

More recent studies have tried to estimate the impact of groups from different parts of the world and over longer periods of time rather than single years. These have found that the net fiscal impact of European immigrants overall is more likely to be positive, while that of non-European migrants overall is more likely to be negative.

Sand

The idea that migrants are always and in all scenarios positive for the country they arrive into is one of the enduring myths of our time. The ironic thing for the UK is that Brexit cuts off the UK's easy access to positive EU migrants, while maintaining (and potentially even increasing) non-EU migrants who overall are not positive contributors to the UK.

LeinsterDub

Sand wrote: »

The idea that migrants are always and in all scenarios positive for the country they arrive into is one of the enduring myths of our time. The ironic thing for the UK is that Brexit cuts off the UK's easy access to positive EU migrants, while maintaining (and potentially even increasing) non-EU migrants who overall are not positive contributors to the UK.

Who is promoting this myth I've certainly never seen it? I mean nothing in life is universally positive and migrants like all large samples of people will include both positive and negative

CelticRambler

Enzokk wrote: »

But it seems that many studies seem to agree with the premise that immigration from the EU is a net contributor while immigration from outside the EEA costs the tax payer money. This is because EU immigration is younger and less likely to settle and cost the state pension and childcare costs in most cases.

How immigrants affect public finances

Or not! From the link:

the total fiscal impact of non-EEA migrants for this period was estimated at -£118 billion ... The corresponding value for the UK-born population during the same period was a net fiscal cost of -£591 billion, meaning that over the whole period there wasn’t a big difference between the contributions of immigrants and the UK-born population on a per capita basis.

so even the "worst" kind of immigrant is no worse than your average native. :cool:

In any case, Theresa May seems determined to ensure that the damage already done to Britain's reputation, as a country that welcomes hard-working Europeans, is perpetuated; while hundreds of Middle Eastern migrants have arrived in Calais this week, having got it into their heads that she's offered them free passage to the Sceptred Isle. :rolleyes:

Sand

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Who is promoting this myth I've certainly never seen it? I mean nothing in life is universally positive and migrants like all large samples of people will include both positive and negative

It was claimed on 3 or 4 posts up on this page and picked up by the post above mine.

CelticRambler wrote: »

That statement is at odds with the data that shows that immigrants (regardless of where they come from) are net economic contributors to their host nation.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are but I think the Brexit bubble has popped and they know it. Otherwise, this "Enemies of the people" nonsense wouldn't still be happening. The populists know that this thing was ushered in by the slimmest of margins and are fully aware that it will almost certainly sink if the people are asked if they're happy with how the Conservatives have handled it.

They could still go for a "stab in the back" myth though, just as the Nazis did in the 1930s ie. "Brexit would have been a big success but for Gina Miller / High Court judges / the civil service / bitter remoaners etc".

ancapailldorcha

In any case, non-EU migration was always under British control. Why it was allowed to remain at nearly 200,000 net is beyond me.

Anthracite

Sand wrote: »

The idea that migrants are always and in all scenarios positive for the country they arrive into is one of the enduring myths of our time.

What does this have to do with the post you quoted?

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In any case, non-EU migration was always under British control. Why it was allowed to remain at nearly 200,000 net is beyond me.

Yes, its unclear why the Tories publicly trumpeted about reducing net migration to some figure and yet did nothing concrete on the migration they absolutely could control. Playing to the gallery, they made a public issue from it and they lost control of it in Brexit.

The Tory party in particular and the British political-media class in general are showing themselves to be extremely incompetent. May is awful, and yet she may survive indefinitely because there is no one, absolutely no one better than her capable of mounting a leadership challenge.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Yes, its unclear why the Tories publicly trumpeted about reducing net migration to some figure and yet did nothing concrete on the migration they absolutely could control. Playing to the gallery, they made a public issue from it and they lost control of it in Brexit.

I don't know... Trying to satisfy their own hard right or something. The sort of people who'll moan a lot but won't actually vote for anyone else when push comes to shove. We've been over the net benefit/loss thing before but I wonder if it's people coming over for work and then inviting family members who themselves don't work and claim benefits of some nature which causes the net loss.

Sand wrote: »

The Tory party in particular and the British political-media class in general are showing themselves to be extremely incompetent. May is awful, and yet she may survive indefinitely because there is no one, absolutely no one better than her capable of mounting a leadership challenge.

I get the impression she sees it as her duty. She's certainly no ideologue. She has no interest in pushing "unfettered free markets" as she calls them. She seems to want to expand the state to help people at the lower end of society. I somewhat respect her in this regard. However, having Nick Timothy and Ben Gummer write the manifesto last year with the likes of Jeremy Hunt having no idea what was in it was catastrophic.

Look at the other options. Johnson's organisation was a shambles when he was launching his bid, Leadsom will forever be the woman who believes she was better suited for the job based on the fact that she had reproduced, Rees-Mogg is a relic of a thankfully bygone era, Gove is the man who gifted us that line about experts, Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond are both remainers which would only infuriate the hard right of the party while Jeremy Hunt is nearly universally despised over his running of the NHS.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

Yes, its unclear why the Tories publicly trumpeted about reducing net migration to some figure and yet did nothing concrete on the migration they absolutely could control. Playing to the gallery, they made a public issue from it and they lost control of it in Brexit.

The Tory party in particular and the British political-media class in general are showing themselves to be extremely incompetent. May is awful, and yet she may survive indefinitely because there is no one, absolutely no one better than her capable of mounting a leadership challenge.

Actually, the Tories and their press are doing an excellent job of continuing to deceive the British people. They are in power for eight years and are currently at 42% in the polls which is the highest they've been since June.

LeinsterDub

Sand wrote: »

It was claimed on 3 or 4 posts up on this page and picked up by the post above mine.

CelticRambler posted evidence that migrants are net economic contributers you've built a strawman claiming he said migrants are universally positive.

Sand

LeinsterDub wrote: »

CelticRambler posted evidence that migrants are net economic contributers you've built a strawman claiming he said migrants are universally positive.

Can you point me to the evidence that CR posted? I genuinely do not see it, whereas the evidence that has been posted shows the contrary. What I do see is a common assertion that immigrants, wherever they are from, are net contributors to their host nation, and that this true in France, America and the UK. If there was any caveat or limitation in that assertion, I missed it. I don't think I've been unfair at all.

Anthracite

Sand wrote: »

Can you point me to the evidence that CR posted? I genuinely do not see it, whereas the evidence that has been posted shows the contrary. What I do see is a common assertion that immigrants, wherever they are from, are net contributors to their host nation, and that this true in France, America and the UK. If there was any caveat or limitation in that assertion, I missed it. I don't think I've been unfair at all.

He posted that "immigrants are a net positive". You interpreted that as "every immigrant is a positive".

Enzokk

CelticRambler wrote: »

Or not! From the link:

so even the "worst" kind of immigrant is no worse than your average native. :cool:

In any case, Theresa May seems determined to ensure that the damage already done to Britain's reputation, as a country that welcomes hard-working Europeans, is perpetuated; while hundreds of Middle Eastern migrants have arrived in Calais this week, having got it into their heads that she's offered them free passage to the Sceptred Isle. :rolleyes:

As the link also notes the impact of immigration will show different results on how the figures are calculated. What is shown is that mainly EU immigration is better for the UK tax takes than non-EU immigration. There are different reasons for this that is nuanced, but the theory that all immigration is good for the UK or that EU immigration is bad and other immigration is good is I think debunked.

catrionanic

I find it puzzling that the British media are seemingly yet to question how Teresa May can openly rule out membership of any customs union, whilst having committed to no hard border in Phase 1. I haven’t heard it mentioned even once that to leave the CU and SM, she will have to renege on her Phase 1 commitments?

Water John

Perhaps it's the most blatant, but there are a whole lot on conundrums they have not faced up to. They are running out of time to obfuscate, anymore.

Zubeneschamali

catrionanic wrote: »

I find it puzzling that the British media are seemingly yet to question how Teresa May can openly rule out membership of any customs union, whilst having committed to no hard border in Phase 1.

They are all still pretending that the Phase 1 guarantee was only a backstop in case of no cake/eat it deal, and that they are going to get the full cake.

Enzokk

There will be another fudge from the UK Government in that they will not be in the custom union but will have a customs arrangement with the EU. It will look like a customs union, but it will not be though. The EU will give the UK just enough to sell it but it will be a sell out because that is the situation the UK find itself in.

LeinsterDub

Sand wrote: »

Can you point me to the evidence that CR posted? I genuinely do not see it, whereas the evidence that has been posted shows the contrary. What I do see is a common assertion that immigrants, wherever they are from, are net contributors to their host nation, and that this true in France, America and the UK. If there was any caveat or limitation in that assertion, I missed it. I don't think I've been unfair at all.

Here you go make up your own mind http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

There will be another fudge from the UK Government in that they will not be in the custom union but will have a customs arrangement with the EU. It will look like a customs union, but it will not be though. The EU will give the UK just enough to sell it but it will be a sell out because that is the situation the UK find itself in.

Theresa May categorically ruled that out in her statement last night though. Downing Street said the UK would not be part of 'the' customs union, nor 'a' customs union after Brexit.

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

Theresa May categorically ruled that out in her statement last night though. Downing Street said the UK would not be part of 'the' customs union, nor 'a' customs union after Brexit.

Doesn't this mean that there must be a hard border? How does this tie in with the agreement on phase 1?

Harika

Strazdas wrote: »

Theresa May categorically ruled that out in her statement last night though. Downing Street said the UK would not be part of 'the' customs union, nor 'a' customs union after Brexit.

That's why they will call it trade partnership or "Friends will trade as friends" or anything else to avoid the term custom union. :pac:

Zubeneschamali

Harika wrote: »

That's why they will call it trade partnership or "Friends will trade as friends" or anything else to avoid the term custom union. :pac:

I suggest they call it a Free Cake union. Then the Brexiteers get a win. "Hah! The EU said we could not have our cake, but here is the Cake Union!"

Strazdas

Harika wrote: »

That's why they will call it trade partnership or "Friends will trade as friends" or anything else to avoid the term custom union. :pac:

Why would the EU go along with such a ridiculous arrangement though? Keeping hard Brexiteers happy is not their problem.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Doesn't this mean that there must be a hard border? How does this tie in with the agreement on phase 1?

It certainly sounds that way, I've no idea how a hard border can be avoided.

First Up

Enzokk wrote: »

There will be another fudge from the UK Government in that they will not be in the custom union but will have a customs arrangement with the EU. It will look like a customs union, but it will not be though. The EU will give the UK just enough to sell it but it will be a sell out because that is the situation the UK find itself in.

The EU doesn't have to help the UK sell anything - and won't.

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

Why would the EU go along with such a ridiculous arrangement though? Keeping hard Brexiteers happy is not their problem.

The EU just cares about what's in the deal, not what the deal is called in the UK.

Harika

Strazdas wrote: »

Why would the EU go along with such a ridiculous arrangement though? Keeping hard Brexiteers happy is not their problem.

- To keep TM in office
- To keep trade going

joeysoap

But the EU will have to balance any ‘arrangement ‘with a view to keeping the EU intact and not a queue forming for the exit doors.

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU just cares about what's in the deal, not what the deal is called in the UK.

It's not as simple as that. They cannot just sign up to some ad hoc thing that has been drawn up by hard Brexiteers. The Single Market has hard and fast rules and everything has to be done by the book and through formal treaties - they don't do "informal arrangements".

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. They cannot just sign up to some ad hoc thing that has been drawn up by hard Brexiteers.

The point is that it can be a customs union as long as it doesn't say "Customs Union" on the box. And the EU absolutely does do customs unions.

May has categorically ruled out anything called a customs union. So the EU offers them a bespoke UK only "Cake union", which is just the customs union with a new label. Everyone is happy.