Brexit discussion thread III

seamus

Aegir wrote: »

generally, when entering a negotiation, you have meetings to work out your strategy. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that they invoked article 50, 10 months ago.

Their negotiation strategy should have been finalised 11 months ago.

This is like agreeing to build a house and then calling your architect to start designing a house, while standing on the site, a week after you were supposed to break ground.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The big deal is that they invoked article 50, 10 months ago.

Their negotiation strategy should have been finalised 11 months ago.

This is like agreeing to build a house and then calling your architect to start designing a house, while standing on the site, a week after you were supposed to break ground.

And having an unmeetable deadline after which funding is cut off.

LeinsterDub

Deleted User wrote: »

And having an unmeetable deadline after which funding is cut off.

And to further beat this particular analogy to death. The house you're building will be simultaneously be in Galway and Dublin , the plot is in Spain and the house with be a detached , semi-d terrace bungalow with 3 floors.

Water John

As some one mentioned yesterday, Schrodinger's cat. Both dead and alive, at the same time. Now that's a feat, and the Tory version of Brexit looks similar.

Nody

Water John wrote: »

As some one mentioned yesterday, Schrodinger's cat. Both dead and alive, at the same time. Now that's a feat, and the Tory version of Brexit looks similar.

It is not really a feat though; it's simply in an unknown state by being in both at the same time due to no one confirming it either way. The Tory Brexit plan was always the same as well; it was cake and eat it, until EU kept having the nasty habit of calling them to confirm their actual status. The only problem is that it should not take EU to call out that BS politics but the opposition or at the very least the media but they are all apparently to stupid or in bed with the idea to do so.

ancapailldorcha

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I remember a few weeks ago I was all "this has to be it" when it came to the madness emanating from London. I didn't truly believe it, but I don't have the brain capacity to work out just how stupid the Brits can get.

And here we are... I mean it's a daily sham and still it's being masked as something positive.

This is GUBU territory.

I wouldn't let these clowns run a tap, never mind a country.

Ditch the name calling please.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, he can nationalize the crap out of industries without regard to EU rules...

What rules prevent nationalization? I think the Dutch state owned rail company has won contracts to run services in the UK. What about EDF and the millions it takes out of the UK for french tax payers?

I am not saying nationalize everything, because any business run badly by either the state or a private individual can be run at a loss. But I am interested why nationalization is bad in the UK?

Aegir wrote: »

what is an "Influential source in Dublin"?

Very poor reporting there from the Times

Has there been any news from the talks within the cabinet to try and find a united path on where to go with Brexit? As far as I can see they are still trying to figure out what they want from Brexit.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

But a Corbyn government alone can go way further than EU law would allow; don't forget that. He can then also ensure to select contracts based on what he thinks is best for the Unions and his party rather then being tied to EU law about cheapest cost etc. and can add on the bacon for his Unions that got him elected to power (both in party and government).

So basically burn down the house to rebuild it how you would like it?

CelticRambler

Seems like the DUP are drinking from the Tories' magic juice bottle:

From the Belfast Telegraph

DUP MEP Diana Dodds, responding to Mr Barnier's comments, said: "“Mr Barnier’s warning of customs controls is out of step with the three approaches set out in December’s phase one Joint Report between the UK and Brussels. That agreement makes it clear that the integrity of the UK must be preserved as our nation leaves the single market and customs union.

"Everyone has committed to avoiding a hard border and the UK has said it will not impose physical infrastructure at the border. It seems it is only the EU that is brandishing the threat of customs controls.

And proud Irish passport holder, Ian Paisley, obviously has the same hymn-sheet.

Ian Paisley says EU officials should build a hard border themselves if they are insistent Northern Ireland remaining in the customs union is the only way to maintain the "frictionless" operations.

https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/961930181278609408

D'you think anyone has told the Little Englanders that the DUP plans to "take back control" by not having a border ... ?

Skedaddle

Well, I suppose we can start dumping EU subsidised agricultural products over the border straight away then?

Skedaddle

Enzokk wrote: »

What rules prevent nationalization? I think the Dutch state owned rail company has won contracts to run services in the UK. What about EDF and the millions it takes out of the UK for french tax payers?

I am not saying nationalize everything, because any business run badly by either the state or a private individual can be run at a loss. But I am interested why nationalization is bad in the UK?




Has there been any news from the talks within the cabinet to try and find a united path on where to go with Brexit? As far as I can see they are still trying to figure out what they want from Brexit.

Well, if you start seizing multinational companies' assets, or unilaterally ripping up contracts, you better be prepared to start liking turnips, as it would put the UK outside the global market and effectively render it somewhere that nobody would ever invest in public infrastructural projects again.

I'm not in favour of privatisation of those kinds of assets, but if you want to go down the road of public-private-partnership (PPP) type models, which have worked very well around Europe, or you want to get big investors on board for major infrastructure or social projects, you'd be really frightening them off.

Even France makes plenty of use of PPP funding, and historically, it's consistently far to the left of the UK.

The British government and the major opposition party are really doing a lot to frighten off would be investment and FDI and even domestic investors at the moment. There's no stability of policy and the entire regulatory framework is being torn to shreds.

I would be interested to see if there are projects already dropping off the agenda at the moment because of this chaos. You should start seeing evidence of that in the coming months as the timelines for many big projects is quite long.

demfad

Aegir wrote: »

generally, when entering a negotiation, you have meetings to work out your strategy. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that deep into the Brexit negotiations a weak British government does not have a unified position on what Brexit actually means. This is true on such fundamental questions as leaving the SM/CU or not. What type of transition/how long. This is quite a big deal. You must know this?

Enzokk

Skedaddle wrote: »

Well, if you start seizing multinational companies' assets, or unilaterally ripping up contracts, you better be prepared to start liking turnips, as it would put the UK outside the global market and effectively render it somewhere that nobody would ever invest in public infrastructural projects again.

I'm not in favour of privatisation of those kinds of assets, but if you want to go down the road of public-private-partnership (PPP) type models, which have worked very well around Europe, or you want to get big investors on board for major infrastructure or social projects, you'd be really frightening them off.

Even France makes plenty of use of PPP funding, and historically, it's consistently far to the left of the UK.

The British government and the major opposition party are really doing a lot to frighten off would be investment and FDI and even domestic investors at the moment. There's no stability of policy and the entire regulatory framework is being torn to shreds.

I would be interested to see if there are projects already dropping off the agenda at the moment because of this chaos. You should start seeing evidence of that in the coming months as the timelines for many big projects is quite long.

I have no idea if Corbyn wants to go into private companies and take their assets from them, but in the example of the East Coast Rail contract where the franchisee just reneged on £3bn of payments they should have made in the next few years, surely it makes sense to have those tenders returned to state operators use if private companies cannot fulfill their obligations?

How about those same companies that just said they will not pay the exchequer the money they owe from the contract they won for that bid, they get to bid on other government contracts as well. This seems a broken system to me and this is why there is an appeal to Corbyn. Yes it is populist, but its because the people are seeing the way state run operators are able to work in other countries and prices are reasonable, but in the UK where the sale of those assets to private companies were hailed as the future, it seems to only end in pain for the consumer/tax payer.

Sam Russell

Skedaddle wrote: »

I would be interested to see if there are projects already dropping off the agenda at the moment because of this chaos. You should start seeing evidence of that in the coming months as the timelines for many big projects is quite long.

I think Carillion had a few major projects that look like running into a little difficulty. I think no-one wants to bail them out.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

There are however a few major issues with a Norway deal. First of all the UK would still pay as much to EU (Norway pays as much per head as UK does currently) which ruins the dreams of money for NHS which was a big driver. Second UK would get basically no say in the rules to be implemented (they would be "consulted") which reduces even further the whole "taking back control" spiel of Brexiteers since they will be dictated EU laws basically. Third Norway had a very specific reason to want to stay out of the EU rules which UK does not really; so the benefit is what exactly? And fourth and final to join such a deal (i.e. remain in EEA only) would require Norway etc. to agree to it and they are unlikely to want such a big player in there distorting the power in the group.

Also Norway allows full freedom of movement but doesn't get passporting rights for services.

A Norway deal pretty much gives the UK less say in Europe in return for freedom to limit fishing to the six countries they've already said they'd allow to continue to fish there.

Skedaddle

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think Carillion had a few major projects that look like running into a little difficulty. I think no-one wants to bail them out.

That's largely because of extremely poorly constructed privatisation arrangements that were more about Tory free-market-above-all-else dogma, rather than trying to maximise the bang-for-buck to the public purse.

You can use private money quite successfully in a public system, the way the UK has tended to do it has been a pretty crude sell-off approach that makes the assumption that private = good and public = bad, which simply isn't the case.

However, I don't think we're going to solve the UK's long-standing political philosophical divides in a thread on Brexit.
I'm just glad that PR-STV in Ireland has tended to lead us towards a far more pragmatic kind of political outlook that isn't bogged down in dogma about economic philosophy or stuff like Brexit. You can see how Ireland became progressively more pragmatic as the possibility of single-party rule shrank away in the later parts of the 20th century.

I also think that's where Ireland and the UK part company in the EU - We're very used to dealing with compromise politics and building consensus, they're all about winner-takes-all, grab the ball and run off the field with it.

demfad

demfad wrote: »

Twitter finally accepts that the Russian Trolls from the Internet Research Agency interfered in the EU referendum. They have started their pitch small, tiny compared to other studies, but this tends to rise over time (7 in November) also as the US 2016 election examples have shown. Cyber influence campaigns need direction, materials, human resources and these do not occur without orders from the Kremlin.
In limiting their investigation to just the Internet Research Agency, Twitter missed that it is only one troll farm of a much larger disinformation ecosystem in St. Petersburg. Others include, Glavset an alleged successor of the Internet Research Agency.
The FBI is investigating connections between Russian social media actors and the big data company Cambridge Analytica. CA were also seemingly involved in all 5 'Leave' campaigns, the official 'Vote Leave' campaign paying CA's sister company AggregateIQ £3.9m out of the £7 million available to the campaign.
Aaron Banks is also a person of interest in the FBI investigation and is being investigated by the UK electoral commission over the source of the £12 million funds he donated to Brexit.
Nigel Farage called reporters from das Bild 'hysterical' when they asked him about a leak that he was also a person of interest of the FBI. However, he has not denied the claim or that he has hired a legal team to defend him.
More recently, Glenn Simpson has made a direct allegation under oath to the US congress that Farage handed Julian Assange a data stick in the Ecuadorian Embassy. (Hurry up Mueller!)

From the author of 'Alternative War'.

Farage and Banks have already been interviewed by agents as part of the Mueller investigation:

Farage and his partner Arron Banks are substantively linked to Russia through a number of direct and indirect routes, not least with them constantly appearing front and centre in the Russia collusion web surrounding troubled President Donald Trump's White House administration.

Their campaign group is being investigated by both the ICO and the Electoral Commission in the UK and Farage remains a person of interest to the FBI in the Mueller inquiry, under which key Leave.EU figures have been interviewed by agents.

Read more at:https://www.byline.com/column/67/article/2044

Capt'n Midnight

In lighter news.

The EU is considering not doing the setting the clocks back and forth for summer and winter time.


*Waits for UK overreaction*

Dampsquid

So the DUP/Tories are saying that they don't want a hard border for goods and services but they do want one for people.

CelticRambler

I'm hearing Trump's voice when I read this:

May told her ministers that they should be aiming for a deal that had never been done before, rather than looking to replicate the EU’s arrangements with Canada or Norway, and they should win widespread support for the settlement, the official said.

So not Switzerland, not Norway, not Canada? Definitely not EU, probably not any EU-Rest-of-the-world style arrangement because they've obviously all been done before. What does that leave? What kind of a deal hasn't been done before?

Water John

Think some of these have been watching, The Wizard of Oz.
Really are walking into a wall. All they will have, is to say it's, someone else's fault.

Leonard Hofstadter

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm hearing Trump's voice when I read this:


So not Switzerland, not Norway, not Canada? Definitely not EU, probably not any EU-Rest-of-the-world style arrangement because they've obviously all been done before. What does that leave? What kind of a deal hasn't been done before?

So they're still in cake and eat it territory then. That's not going to happen at all, otherwise we might as well all leave the EU. Being in the EU has got to be better than not being in it.

Sam Russell

captainspeed wrote: »

So they're still in cake and eat it territory then. That's not going to happen at all, otherwise we might as well all leave the EU. Being in the EU has got to be better than not being in it.

Particularly that the UK are leaving. No more special deals and rebates and opt-outs and red tops screaming about bent bananas and Left Hand threads.

Great place to be.

CelticRambler

Also from Bloomberg, a little bit of economic fact (I know, I know, true Brexiteers don't dabble in facts, but still ...) :

Now that Europe is leading the developed world in growth, productivity and job creation after the euro gained 14.2 percent last year — the most among 16 major currencies and the strongest appreciation since 2003 — Greece is the biggest beneficiary and Britain is the new sick man of Europe.

It's also unprecedented for the British currency to lose so much confidence in foreign exchange that it resembles the emerging-market zloty in daily trading — an ironic footnote to the hostility against Polish immigrants that helped propel Brexit.

For a party that repeatedly boasts about being ready to sign big, beautiful trade deals with the rest of the world once they're free of their EU shackles, they seem particularly determined to reject the idea that "the markets hate uncertainty".

Capt'n Midnight

Dampsquid wrote: »

So the DUP/Tories are saying that they don't want a hard border for goods and services but they do want one for people.

Since day one.

And the EU reaction has been "the four freedoms are a package deal" since long before that.


It's an ideology thing, most of our EU cousins have this thing about wars and big neighbours and Never Ever going back there because some things are way more important than money and that goes back to at least 9 May 1950, while the UK is about making short term profits.


The irony is all the economic projections show the UK won't be making a profit.

Junkyard Tom

Well it's started:



And was probably expected by the EU.

First Up

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Well it's started:



And was probably expected by the EU.

Probably? Since day 1 mate.

mickoneill31

First Up wrote: »

Probably? Since day 1 mate.

Not just by the EU. It's probably been commented on this thread since day one about how leaving the single market + leaving the customs union = customs checks.

The UK have spoke of magical technological solutions to this but I haven't seen anything coming out of that.

I was listening to a new podcast during the week where they discussed this. The podcast is called Cakeism. Worth having a look for if you're into it.
The stupidity of the British position would be funny, if it wasn't our border they were messing up.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

nope. it was poor reporting. If they have a source, quote the source rather than just give a non descriptive excuse of a source. It is Daily Mail esque standard of reporting that normally the Times wouldn't engage in.

No, I don't think so. It's not as though they are breaking some hot news story that anyone is going to deny. If you do that, the credibility of your source is in issue and, if you can name the source, you should.

But the claim here is that “It’s hard to negotiate with the British government because the British government is effectively still negotiating with itself”. That's not news; it's commentary on well-known facts. And it's a comment that has been offered many times before. All that the IT report tells us is that the Irish government is now briefing journalists along these lines, which is a way for the the Irish government to signal its impatience with the British, and also to signal that it's on side with Barnier's team, who are taking the same line. We don't need to know the name of the source to evaluate that story, and the story would not be stronger or more credible if the source were named.

If the source were named, and if the name were an Irish government figure, the UK government would have to react publicly. For whatever reason, Ireland doesn't want to push the UK government to do that. Therefore, they brief, but unattributably. The newspaper reports that - any newspaper would. The fact that such a briefing is being given on an unattributable basis is newsworthy.

First Up

mickoneill31 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Probably? Since day 1 mate.

Not just by the EU. It's probably been commented on this thread since day one about how leaving the single market + leaving the customs union = customs checks.

The UK have spoke of magical technological solutions to this but I haven't seen anything coming out of that.

I was listening to a new podcast during the week where they discussed this. The podcast is called Cakeism. Worth having a look for if you're into it.
The stupidity of the British position would be funny, if it wasn't our border they were messing up.

The term used in Brussels is "Trojanism" - using the Irish border as a "Trojan Horse" - to oblige the EU to give the whole UK a soft a deal.

Peregrinus

Or, alternatively, using the Irish border as a Trojan horse to compel the UK government to accept a higher degree of alignment with the EU than it otherwise would.

The UK, remember, wants an open border in Ireland. So does the DUP. This is one of the reasons why the UK's aspirations are considered to be inconsistent.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, alternatively, using the Irish border as a Trojan horse to compel the UK government to accept a higher degree of alignment with the EU than it otherwise would.

The UK, remember, wants an open border in Ireland. So does the DUP. This is one of the reasons why the UK's aspirations are considered to be inconsistent.

I wouldn't be at all confident about either. The Irish border doesn't rank very high in the priorities of your average Brexiteer Tory and I doubt many would accept it as a reason not to "take back control".

Similarly the DUP's primary motivation is being in the UK and not being linked to the ROI. Whatever about lip service to the GFA, they will back a hard border if push comes to shove.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

I wouldn't be at all confident about either. The Irish border doesn't rank very high in the priorities of your average Brexiteer Tory and I doubt many would accept it as a reason not to "take back control".

Similarly the DUP's primary motivation is being in the UK and not being linked to the ROI. Whatever about lip service to the GFA, they will back a hard border if push comes to shove.

So will most southerners if the alternative is us leaving the EU and the integrity of our European single market has to take priority.

What a shocking state of affairs.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I wouldn't be at all confident about either. The Irish border doesn't rank very high in the priorities of your average Brexiteer Tory and I doubt many would accept it as a reason not to "take back control".

Similarly the DUP's primary motivation is being in the UK and not being linked to the ROI. Whatever about lip service to the GFA, they will back a hard border if push comes to shove.

So will most southerners if the alternative is us leaving the EU and the integrity of our European single market has to take priority.

What a shocking state of affairs.

Yes, its a case picking the least worst option for everyone.

At least Ireland and the EU are coming at it with clarity and unanimity. The UK is all over the place.

CelticRambler

First Up wrote: »

The Irish border doesn't rank very high in the priorities of your average Brexiteer Tory and I doubt many would accept it as a reason not to "take back control".

I would really like to see some (meaningful) surveys of the English/Brexiteer population on this point. As you say, there's little evidence to suggest that most of them have any realistic idea of how NI fits into the UK (or not!) and why it's probably the biggest obstacle to achieving their dream of a Fortress Britain.

Leroy42

Based on the current positions it would appear that either the UK accept some form of CU, and thus failing in 'taking back control' in the way it was lauded, or see NI leave the union.

They can't have both given the existence of the GFA. It seems to me that the GFA was completely overlooked in the discussion.

So the real question is which of the two options do the Tory Brexiteers favour more?

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

Based on the current positions it would appear that either the UK accept some form of CU, and thus failing in 'taking back control' in the way it was lauded, or see NI leave the union.

They can't have both given the existence of the GFA. It seems to me that the GFA was completely overlooked in the discussion.

So the real question is which of the two options do the Tory Brexiteers favour more?

The pre-referendum discussion focused quasi-exclusively on immigration and the perceived primacy of EU law and institutions over everything British.

The GFA was overlooked to the same extent as anything and everything else which did not dovetail (in simplespeak, being the level of pre-referendum debates) within the 2 headlines above: wholly.

As to which option Tory Brexiteers favour more, insofar as NI is concerned, they're open about it, and I would not be surprised if they secretly wished for a united Ireland outcome to solve their statutory quandary. But for now, the IE/NI border issue still has some use (in terms of political leverage) for them.

Skedaddle

What the DUP don't quite understand is your average little Englander sees them as "foreign" and Irish. It's just being seen as a major stumbling block to their glorious hard Brexit.

Most people have no concept of Irish history, have idea what the Orange Order is and vaguely remember Ian Paisley ranting and raving on the telly years ago. That's pretty much where it ends.

I recently had someone from London asking me if the DUP opposed to gay marriage because they were so Catholic.

Most people simply don't pay any attention to NI at all.

Your well educated, politically aware Guardian reader type may well know about it, but the average person who has fully bought into the tabloid lines on Brexit probably doesn't even know where NI is it will see it solely in reference to the troubles having blown things up in England.

Lemming

Skedaddle wrote: »

What the DUP don't quite understand is your average little Englander sees them as "foreign" and Irish. It's just being seen as a major stubling block to their glorious hard Brexit.

Just to add some weight to this; most people I have encountered in my near decade living & working in the larger Yorkshire area will ask if I'm Irish. Then they'll ask if that's north or south. Or something very similar to that effect; in that order. The important point to note is, as Skedaddle has said above, being viewed first and foremost as not British, but Irish.

ambro25

Just a quick post to lend my anecdotal/hearsay evidence of 2 decades spent in England's provinces, in support to Skedaddle's and Lemming's posts above, and on which I base my belief -per my earlier post- that mainland Tory Brexiteers would sooner NI became the RoI's multi-€bn problem, than England's the "UK" 's.

Basically, you really get the impression that NI is a ball-and-chain to them, save for its current Parliamentary use (10 votes) and its role of main bar (border) to throw into the EU's wheel spokes. Both, with an early-ish expiry date.

Leonard Hofstadter

Lemming wrote: »

Skedaddle wrote: »

What the DUP don't quite understand is your average little Englander sees them as "foreign" and Irish. It's just being seen as a major stubling block to their glorious hard Brexit.

Just to add some weight to this; most people I have encountered in my near decade living & working in the larger Yorkshire area will ask if I'm Irish. Then they'll ask if that's north or south. Or something very similar to that effect; in that order. The important point to note is, as Skedaddle has said above, being viewed first and foremost as not British, but Irish.

Was exactly the same for me - we're all considered to be 'Irish' over there regardless of which side of the border we're from. I've lost count of how many times I was asked if I was from 'Northern Ireland' or 'Southern Ireland' whenever I said I was from Ireland. The North just doesn't feature except for bad news, it might as well be in the other side of the world as far as they're concerned.

CelticRambler

ambro25 wrote: »

mainland Tory Brexiteers would sooner NI became the RoI's multi-€bn problem, than England's the "UK" 's.

Basically, you really get the impression that NI is a ball-and-chain to them, save for its current Parliamentary use (10 votes) and its role of main bar (border) to throw into the EU's wheel spokes.

From what I've seen of the Brexiteers' interviews, I don't think they're capable of that much joined-up thinking!

Much has been written about NI being a Trojan Horse, sent by the Brits into the EU's camp. I see it more the other way around: that the EU will use NI to back the Tories into a corner.

Everyone - including the DUP - appears to be in agreement that a border on the island of Ireland is going to be unworkable in the context of the UK exiting the CU/SM. Most rational people accept that a United Ireland is not on the cards at this time, but the EU has stated that there'd be no objection to NI (re)joining/remaining in the EU as part of a United Ireland. The logical arrangement, therefore, is special status or NI.

Because the Little Englanders have no particular feelings for Ireland and the Irish (orange or green), EU negotiators can allow the Tories to faff about for several months to come, until the time for the Westminster vote comes into sight. I think we'll hear infrequent but regular references to the Irish problem (like over this last week) to help prepare the ground for an eleventh-hour deal.

If that deal doesn't keep the UK as a whole in line with EU rules & regs, then I believe the EU will say: right, in that case you can accept special status for NI and a border in the Irish Sea, or we'll add x billion a year to your membership fees, to cover the costs of monitoring our side of the border you insist on having.

If that choice is taken to Westminster (or a UK referendum), it won't need a big red bus to persuade the majority to leave the Irish to fend for themselves.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

mainland Tory Brexiteers would sooner NI became the RoI's multi-€bn problem, than England's the "UK" 's.

Basically, you really get the impression that NI is a ball-and-chain to them, save for its current Parliamentary use (10 votes) and its role of main bar (border) to throw into the EU's wheel spokes.

From what I've seen of the Brexiteers' interviews, I don't think they're capable of that much joined-up thinking!

Much has been written about NI being a Trojan Horse, sent by the Brits into the EU's camp. I see it more the other way around: that the EU will use NI to back the Tories into a corner.

Everyone - including the DUP - appears to be in agreement that a border on the island of Ireland is going to be unworkable in the context of the UK exiting the CU/SM. Most rational people accept that a United Ireland is not on the cards at this time, but the EU has stated that there'd be no objection to NI (re)joining/remaining in the EU as part of a United Ireland. The logical arrangement, therefore, is special status or NI.

Because the Little Englanders have no particular feelings for Ireland and the Irish (orange or green), EU negotiators can allow the Tories to faff about for several months to come, until the time for the Westminster vote comes into sight. I think we'll hear infrequent but regular references to the Irish problem (like over this last week) to help prepare the ground for an eleventh-hour deal.

If that deal doesn't keep the UK as a whole in line with EU rules & regs, then I believe the EU will say: right, in that case you can accept special status for NI and a border in the Irish Sea, or we'll add x billion a year to your membership fees, to cover the costs of monitoring our side of the border you insist on having.

If that choice is taken to Westminster (or a UK referendum), it won't need a big red bus to persuade the majority to leave the Irish to fend for themselves.

Membership fees of what?

Water John

This is a quote from The Guardian. It sets out a series of speeches, over the next two weeks, finalising with a speech by TM the following week.

'May will attempt to deal with the accusations of indecision by making her long-awaited speech on her Brexit plans in three weeks’ time. She will deliver it after senior ministers set out Britain’s “road to Brexit” in a series of keynote speeches, beginning this week with Boris Johnson, who will attempt to make the case for a “liberal Brexit” designed to reassure Remain voters, followed by an address by May on security co-operation. Brexit secretary David Davis and trade secretary Liam Fox will also give speeches, but chancellor Philip Hammond and home secretary Amber Rudd – the leading advocates of a soft Brexit – have not been included. David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister who campaigned for Remain, will give an address.

May’s allies said the speech would reveal more about the degree to which she wants Britain to diverge from EU rules. The speech will take place after senior ministers gather for an away day in Chequers, the prime minister’s country retreat, to hammer out a position they can all accept.'

That all in a piece outlining how donors like John Hall are very unhappy with her leadership.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/10/theresa-may-faces-revolt-from-top-tory-donors-sir-john-hall

CelticRambler

First Up wrote: »

Membership fees of what?

Whatever EU-access package they sign up to, similar to Norway's.

Leroy42

Yes, more speeches. That has been the problem, too few speeches!

Suffice it to say, going on previous, that no sooner will said speech be given that some Tory will come out explaining thats not really the position at all and everything is as it was, but progress is definitely being made.

Water John

I think the EU will call it, once this round of speeches is over. There will be no more ducking and diving, for that's gone on too long and tried any reasonable person's patience.
As can be seen this week, they are already tightening the noose. Barnier outlining what the commitments they made last Dec actually means in practical terms of implementation.

Infini

Its pretty obvious what the UK goverment comprose of pretty much when it comes to Brexit: Idiocy, Incompetence, Uttery stupidy and a total Denial of Reality. They cant come up with a plan because the truth is they have no coherent plan. They're utterly paralysed and too busy fighting among themselves wasting time and this year will become the reckoning for them. Come next month if they haven't got any serious plan or way foward the main buisnesses will activate contingencys and people will be basically expecting a Hard Brexit.

This will only end 2 ways: Either they abandon this whole thing because "Brexit is Bolloxed" or they drive themselves off the cliff and suffer all the recession and we all basically say "we told you so".

What I still wonder though is if theres a Hard Brexit will the Scots bug out of this and what will happen to NI?

Capt'n Midnight

Infini wrote: »

What I still wonder though is if theres a Hard Brexit will the Scots bug out of this and what will happen to NI?

I still reckon that an independent Scotland would be a good fit for EFTA. So not getting automatic EU membership isn't a biggie as they could transition from EFTA to EU candidate easily.

Of course there'd be a border issue ...



For NI a hard border and lower GDP as well as lower funds from Westminster (look at ANY economic projections that have real numbers) means a border poll is more likely.

Skedaddle

From what I've read of the forecasts that were leaked they were pretty limited too. So the impact on GDP could be far more dramatic. They seem to have just focused on the non-tarrif barriers and the potential tariff barriers and did not really get into modelling what might happen in the event of a large number of companies deciding to relocate from the UK, or other scenarios like a dramatic collapse of the currency or other complex macroeconomic effects.

In general the models they used were pretty simplistic, which isn't surprising given the short time they had available to come up with multiple reports and the lack of any kind of clarity on policy from the UK Government, which makes modelling extremely hard.

This is the same problem that's facing businesses, without any certainty on where the UK is headed or what's likely to happen, it's inevitably going to damage investment.