Brexit discussion thread III

interlocked

Here's a quote that should put the shivers up anyone in NI. Bascially the 12% drop in growth projected by the Treasury for NI in the event of a Hard Brexit did not take into account the effects of a hard border

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-guardian/20180208/281479276869009

The DUP's endorsement of Brexit is the equivalent of a death cult. It defies all logic.

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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.

The prime minister will need to be very careful here. Not only will a hard border hurt the most, but if a border is imposed between Ireland and NI and Scotland sees this is possible practically then it will only hasten Scotland voting for independence if the economic projections are anywhere near accurate.

The real problem for Theresa May is the DUP. With her haste to stay in power after the election she has tied herself to them. Now they hold the power against her and she will have to be aware of the pressure they will apply not to have a Irish Sea border. That could only mean a hard border within Ireland which will be so precarious for keeping a United Kingdom instead of just a Waled and England. Then again those are the two nations that voted to leave the EU so if they, in the end, are the two that are tied together but out of the EU it would be just what their voters wanted.

Alan_P

On the point of British ignorance about Ireland :- I was in a Southampton taxi last week. We established I was Irish, and he presented me with a definite grievance. He's going to a stag night in Dublin in April, and his mates are telling him he'll need to change sterling to euros. He didn't understand how that works at all, why is it a different currency ?

On the substantive issues, the UK side seems to be completely ignoring the fact that the EU is defined by sovereign treaties : - cakeism requires treaty changes, which are impossible by April 2019.

Water John

The same guy, probably holidays in Spain.

Capt'n Midnight

Alan_P wrote: »

On the point of British ignorance about Ireland :- I was in a Southampton taxi last week. We established I was Irish, and he presented me with a definite grievance. He's going to a stag night in Dublin in April, and his mates are telling him he'll need to change sterling to euros. He didn't understand how that works at all, why is it a different currency ?

You should have explained that while his sterling is accepted north of the border, he'd still have to change any UK sterling he got while there in a bank when he came home.

It's a confusing concept to explain to Europeans.
Different parts of the UK have different money that isn't accepted as legal tender in other parts of the same country, and it can also get different exchange rates in Bureau de Change.

Lemming

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You should have explained that while his sterling is accepted north of the border, he'd still have to change any UK sterling he got while there in a bank when he came home.

It's a confusing concept to explain to Europeans.
Different parts of the UK have different money that isn't accepted as legal tender in other parts of the same country

That is not true. In order to issue sterling it either has to be backed by the BoE, or bought from the BoE (in the case of an Irish bank issuing sterling notes), in either case meaning that it is legal tender anywhere in the UK.

What you WILL find is rank ignorance from time to time as people look at a - for example Scottish - note in London with great confusion, for the simple reason of never having seen such a note before. I have used Irish issued sterling, N.I. issued sterling, and Scottish sterling notes in England. Sometimes receiving hesitant looks. I have received similar when looking at N.I. or Irish issued sterling in Scotland too, so it's not just an English thing.

Nate--IRL--

What is the difference between Irish issued and NI issued sterling?

Nate

Skedaddle

It's a bizzare system. I'm not aware of any other country that allows commercial banks to issue promissory notes as if they're currency. How do they even control against fraud and counterfeiting with umpteen different version of promissory notes in circulation and people getting the hump when they're refused?

I can fully understand why someone would refuse an unrecognised bank note. There's literally no way of knowing someone didn't print it themselves.

Also why is the UK central bank the Bank of England. It would be like the Bank of New York issuing the US$ and having random other banks issuing de facto currencies. It's absolutely weird and a reminent of a bygone age.

It's also saying a lot about the UK that centuries after the Acts of Union, they couldn't create a UK Central bank and were unable to part with the idea of the Bank of England. Actually in some ways it sums up everything about why the UK's dysfunctional when it comes to identify and why it can't really understand the EU. Their own systems never really understood the concept of pooling identity and sovereignty. It's always been the English establishment "and some other stuff - Scotland, Walss, NI, "up North", the colonies, etc etc"

So naturally enough, that aspect of English/British psyche sees the EU as a German, French or "Brussels" power grab or a desire to control them as ruler, because that's now they see the world. It's an old fashioned Game of Thrones power battle and they can't really get their heads around friendly cooperation or solidarity between neighbours. They only seem that recognise competition.

Really Interested

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

What is the difference between Irish issued and NI issued sterling?

Nate

Well neither Ireland or Northern Ireland issue sterling. Banks in NI can and do have bank notes which are printed with their logos etc.

http://www.banknotenews.com/files/2a312f14c7ac94c879366fa95c292cda-2619.php[URL][/url]

Capt'n Midnight

Lemming wrote: »

What you WILL find is rank ignorance from time to time as people look at a - for example Scottish - note in London with great confusion, for the simple reason of never having seen such a note before.

Like I sad it isn't accepted as legal tender.

My experience has been that Scottish money is more widely accepted than NI money in England, but you can exchange it for the local currency in any bank.

Capt'n Midnight

Strong and stable.

Is there dissent in the ranks ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43023051

Pro-European Conservative MPs could join forces with Labour to block the kind of Brexit Theresa May wants, a Tory rebel has warned the PM.

Really Interested

https://www.scotbanks.org.uk/asset/2240884F-CCF0-4A7A-A1C5EAC4E6C96468/

What is the legal position regarding Scottish and Northern Ireland banknotes?
Banknotes issued by the authorised banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are legal currency and can be accepted throughout the United Kingdom. They are authorised and approved by the UK Parliament, a position that was established by legislation as long ago as 1845 and has
been reinforced more recently by Part 6 of the Banking Act 2009.


It is funny when shops in England are presented with NI or Scottish bank notes. But to be fair if not used to them they look weird.

Lemming

Really Interested wrote: »

Well neither Ireland or Northern Ireland issue sterling. Banks in NI can and do have bank notes which are printed with their logos etc.

http://www.banknotenews.com/files/2a312f14c7ac94c879366fa95c292cda-2619.php[URL][/url]

Irish banks can issue sterling, but not in the sense that Clydesdale bank or Bank of Scotland issue sterling. "Issue" is perhaps a bit of a confusing term to use here but I can't really think of anything better to use. You can get Bank of Ireland sterling notes (they're really obvious when you see them because you wont see them very often ... ). But it's not a promissory note like UK banks would have license to issue; it'll have been purchased from the BoE or some such in advance or on demand.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Like I sad it isn't accepted as legal tender.

Legal tender is still legal whether you believe that to be the case or not. That you (the cashier in the local chippy in back-water former pit village) can't tell and have stopped short of accusing a customer of handling counterfeit notes doesn't make those notes any less legal. Deeply infuriating when it happens, yes; not legal tender, no.

Really Interested wrote: »

It is funny when shops in England are presented with NI or Scottish bank notes. But to be fair if not used to them they look weird.

It's no different to being pulled over in backwater America for speeding or a tail-light or whatever by some local sheriff, and upon producing your Irish drivers license in all its paper glory, they refuse to believe it's real and threaten to rip it up (to follow the experience of a former workmate) because to their mind it should have been in credit-card form. It's a simple case of never having seen the like of whatever-it-is before. Iv'e had it happen back home in Dublin a few times whenever new Euro notes get introduced every six (??) years or whatever the timeframe is.

Sam Russell

Skedaddle wrote: »

It's a bizzare system. I'm not aware of any other country that allows commercial banks to issue promissory notes as if they're currency. How do they even control against fraud and counterfeiting with umpteen different version of promissory notes in circulation and people getting the hump when they're refused?

I can fully understand why someone would refuse an unrecognised bank note. There's literally no way of knowing someone didn't print it themselves.

Also why is the UK central bank the Bank of England. It would be like the Bank of New York issuing the US$ and having random other banks issuing de facto currencies. It's absolutely weird and a reminent of a bygone age.

It's also saying a lot about the UK that centuries after the Acts of Union, they couldn't create a UK Central bank and were unable to part with the idea of the Bank of England. Actually in some ways it sums up everything about why the UK's dysfunctional when it comes to identify and why it can't really understand the EU. Their own systems never really understood the concept of pooling identity and sovereignty. It's always been the English establishment "and some other stuff - Scotland, Walss, NI, "up North", the colonies, etc etc"

So naturally enough, that aspect of English/British psyche sees the EU as a German, French or "Brussels" power grab or a desire to control them as ruler, because that's now they see the world. It's an old fashioned Game of Thrones power battle and they can't really get their heads around friendly cooperation or solidarity between neighbours. They only seem that recognise competition.

This permeates the whole of English life. The English is the default in everything: Queen of England; Church of England; Bank of England; etc. etc.

There is no name on the stamps (unlike every other country in the world), they have devolved assemblies in Scotland Ni and Wales but not England. The UK Parliament considers itself the English Parliament (or at least the English MPs do) and want it to be the English devolved assembly (see West Lothian Question).

The UK is also one of the few countries not to have a national football team. England and NI both use the National Anthem (God save the ... etc.) as their team anthem where Wales and Scotland have their own songs.

No wonder they have identity problems.

Skedaddle

It's funny when you consider that banknotes issues from an Irish ATM or an Irish credit or debit card can be used across the Eurozone without any issue whatsoever. Yet try spending Northern Bank or First Trust notes from a Belfast ATM in London and see how far you get.

The best one I've had was a UK company asking me if I wanted to pay Irish Euro, Sterling or German Euro.

It was £450 or Irish Euro 540 or German Euro €500

So I opted for the German Euro price. The guy didn't seem to realise they were just giving Irish customers a terrible price in € because we'll pay it and it was just a simple market differentiation rip off exercise.

Really Interested

Lemming wrote: »

Irish banks can issue sterling, but not in the sense that Clydesdale bank or Bank of Scotland issue sterling. "Issue" is perhaps a bit of a confusing term to use here but I can't really think of anything better to use. You can get Bank of Ireland sterling notes (they're really obvious when you see them because you wont see them very often ... ). But it's not a promissory note like UK banks would have license to issue; it'll have been purchased from the BoE or some such in advance or on demand.



Legal tender is still legal whether you believe that to be the case or not. That you (the cashier in the local chippy in back-water former pit village) can't tell and have stopped short of accusing a customer of handling counterfeit notes doesn't make those notes any less legal. Deeply infuriating when it happens, yes; not legal tender, no.




It's no different to being pulled over in backwater America for speeding or a tail-light or whatever by some local sheriff, and upon producing your Irish drivers license in all its paper glory, they refuse to believe it's real and threaten to rip it up (to follow the experience of a former workmate) because to their mind it should have been in credit-card form. It's a simple case of never having seen the like of whatever-it-is before. Iv'e had it happen back home in Dublin a few times whenever new Euro notes get introduced every six (??) years or whatever the timeframe is.

From the link posted earlier

“Apart from the Bank of England, which banks in the UK are authorised to issue banknotes?
Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland are authorised to issue their own notes in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, the authorised banks are: Bank of Ireland, Danske Bank (formerly known as Northern Bank), First Trust Bank, and Ulster Bank.”

That is Bank of Ireland as regulated in the UK. So any sterling bank notes carrying BoI logo are allowed by UK statute. I would think Bank of Ireland branch in Dublin would not usually have their own notes but of course if request I assume could supply them. But it is Bank of Ireland UK which prints the notes.

I would not expect a US cop to know that in the past Ireland issued paper licences, not really the same as a shop keeper in London not being comfortable with a note that says sterling and is back by UK statute, but I do understand why a person who has never seen such a note might be weary.

Enzokk

I was wondering how UK politicians could go ahead and vote for a Brexit that they know will damage the economy. I think I have an answer, they actually don't care about the facts and just want to Brexit, come what may.

https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/962629144637997056

Seems this discussion is around the NI and EU border. One of the solutions is a Canada and UK border but when pointed out that trucks are stopped, all trucks, the answer is a flippant, "ya da ya da".

Seems to me we are heading towards stops at the EU and UK borders. The realisation that it is impossible to have a Brexit and also frictionless trade has dawned and now solutions are being looked at. We have to brace ourselves for some tricky times ahead. While we have stops at the borders we may just as well see passport checks as well. Once you decide to have stops it adds very little to bring back that control that is craved by Brexiteers when it comes to immigration.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

This permeates the whole of English life. The English is the default in everything: Queen of England; Church of England; Bank of England; etc. etc.

err no, the Church of England is the default chruch in England only, not Wales, Scotland or Ireland. Similarly Queen Elizabeth II is QEI in Scotland.

The bank of England is the default because it essentially bailed out Scotland when they lost their money on the Darien Scheme.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK is also one of the few countries not to have a national football team. England and NI both use the National Anthem (God save the ... etc.) as their team anthem where Wales and Scotland have their own songs.

No wonder they have identity problems.

I think you are confusing an identity problem with your own lack of understanding of the UK. Something which is not uncommon in Ireland.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK is also one of the few countries not to have a national football team. England and NI both use the National Anthem (God save the ... etc.) as their team anthem where Wales and Scotland have their own songs.

No wonder they have identity problems.

I think you are confusing an identity problem with your own lack of understanding of the UK. Something which is not uncommon in Ireland.

I cannot think of another country that does not have a national team.

A while ago, when Blatter was being cited for corruption, he was accused by an English FA type of giving FIFA accreditation to 'countries that were not even members of the UN' not realising the England, Scotland Wales and NI are all accredited to FIFA but are not members of the UN. Such ignorance is rampant and is quite common in England, centre of the known world, inventors extraordinaire, and font of civilization.

They do have many good points but self delusion is not a good point.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

.



I think you are confusing an identity problem with your own lack of understanding of the UK. Something which is not uncommon in Ireland.

But you've been given a few pages of examples of problems with Identity in the UK it's a dichotomy.

I think you will find the facts in the last few pages indicate that people are quite versed in understanding of the UK.

Something that is not uncommon in posters whom take offense when information doesn't suit a desired narrative

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I cannot think of another country that does not have a national team.

A while ago, when Blatter was being cited for corruption, he was accused by an English FA type of giving FIFA accreditation to 'countries that were not even members of the UN' not realising the England, Scotland Wales and NI are all accredited to FIFA but are not members of the UN. Such ignorance is rampant and is quite common in England, centre of the known world, inventors extraordinaire, and font of civilization.

They do have many good points but self delusion is not a good point.

Aah, so you don’t actually have a point, just more soap boxing to show your own dislike.

Now then, when you say England are you talking about England England, or the England you get the ferry to?

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

Aah, so you don’t actually have a point, just more soap boxing to show your own dislike.

Now then, when you say England are you talking about England England, or the England you get the ferry to?

I know exactly what I am talking about. The England you get the ferry ti is actually Wales.

It is not just Tory MPs who display unbelievable levels of ignorance about Ireland, the EU, or the World outside their island. There are plenty of examples if you talk to the natives.

Dutch people are not impressed with those that refer to their country as Holland.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Can we get back on topic please.

ancapailldorcha

An excellent article from The Economist about something we don't hear much about, the deals the EU has with third countries.

A snippet:

If British businesses are not exactly banging down the door to preserve these deals, says Allie Renison of the Institute of Directors, a business lobby group, it is partly because they think that the British government should prioritise its deal with the EU. Some sectors are concerned about particular deals beyond that. Carmakers, for example, rely on sending car parts to and from Turkey under the customs union, and saw their exports to South Korea more than triple in value in the five years after the deal was applied in 2011. Chemicals exporters, which account for a little under 10% of exports to the EU’s partners, are keen to keep Britain’s arrangements with Switzerland and South Korea.

No process will be as straightforward as simply replacing references to the EU with ones to Britain. The arrangements Britain wants to translate refer to European law and European content requirements. Negotiating partners will justifiably grumble if they find themselves having to adhere to two sets of standards, or if their car parts get hit with new tariffs because finished cars no longer contain enough content from the deal’s co-signatories.

Skedaddle

Well they were spun lies about a simple choice between international trade or EU trade, when in reality we all already have both.

The EU gets to have its cake (a huge internal market) and eat it (the international market via trade deals.)

The UK will just be left with a very small cake, maybe a plain scone of some sort.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

An excellent article from The Economist about something we don't hear much about, the deals the EU has with third countries.

About that cyan coloured circle for Turkey ?

Turkey is in the EU customs union for most goods so it's EU deals and rules and tariffs for third parties.


Note that the lack of free movement means that the UK can look forward to this sort of stuff at the borders.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-queues-dover-border-travel-turkey-warning-chaos-a8079011.html

Turkish lorry drivers have protested at queues of anything between 4 km and 17 km (10.5 miles) at Bulgarian checkpoints, forcing them to wait up to 30 hours to get through.

Each driver requires an export declaration, invoices for the products they are carrying, insurance certificates and a transport permit for each EU nation they will drive through.

Only 3% of the UK exports to Turkey are in the agrifood sector which is outside the CU. http://exportbritain.org.uk/market-snapshots/turkey.html

UK exports /inputs to Turkey
https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/gbr/tur/show/2016/
https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/gbr/tur/show/2016/



And what about teaming up with Turkey do get an EU deal for both on services ?
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/opinion/understanding-trexit-what-brexit-means-for-turkey/

Whereas the British services industry is dominated by financial services, which would not necessarily require free movement of people (perhaps the gravest concern for Brexiteers), Turkish interests lie mainly in sectors such as construction, logistics, tourism, air-transport, and other cross-border trade in services that do rely on the free movement of people.

The EU has to sign a deal with the UK before Turkey can , I'm not sure how the transition period affects this , but it's another mess to sort out before the UK can do a post-Brexit deal with Turkey.



And apart from the obvious political situation there's this.
Arming Turkey Breaks U.K. Arms Export Laws,



Turkey can't give the UK the same deal because their hands are tied by WTO and EU rules.

Even if the parties agree on keeping the EU’s main framework on origin rules with Euro-Med countries, for instance, Turkey must still meet the value-added criteria in its automotive exports to Britain (currently 40% of the value of components used in the final product must originate in the exporting country) or the double transformation requirement in its clothing exports (the final apparel must be manufactured from yarn, not from imported fabric). Currently, automotive (23%), and apparel (14%) constitute more than a third of Turkish exports to Britain and preferential origin requirements under an FTA would definitely impede the current flow of trade.

Long story short
Every trade deal the UK needs to do will be different, regardless of how much the UK wants to grandfather in the terms enjoyed as part of the EU.

Peregrinus

Really Interested wrote: »

https://www.scotbanks.org.uk/asset/2240884F-CCF0-4A7A-A1C5EAC4E6C96468/

What is the legal position regarding Scottish and Northern Ireland banknotes?
Banknotes issued by the authorised banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are legal currency and can be accepted throughout the United Kingdom. They are authorised and approved by the UK Parliament, a position that was established by legislation as long ago as 1845 and has
been reinforced more recently by Part 6 of the Banking Act 2009.


It is funny when shops in England are presented with NI or Scottish bank notes. But to be fair if not used to them they look weird.

Scottish and Irish banknotes are authorised throughout the UK, but they are not legal tender in any part of the UK. If they were legal tender, people would be obliged to accept them in settlement of debts. As it is, a creditor can accept them or not, as he chooses.

Bank of England notes are authorised throughout the UK, but they are legal tender only in England and Wales.

The result is that there are no legal tender banknotes in Scotland or Northern Ireland. This isn't a problem in practice, since notes issued by the local banks are freely accepted in each country, and Bank of England notes are accepted in both countries.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Every trade deal the UK needs to do will be different, regardless of how much the UK wants to grandfather in the terms enjoyed as part of the EU.

As with every other aspect of Brexit, the UK government has handled this one with its usual combination of finesse and aplomb. Back in October, the then trade minister Lord Price claimed that every country with an EU free-trade agreement had agreed to roll it over to apply to the UK after Brexit. A couple of days later, David Davis clarified this for the benefit of a parliamentary committee, while simultaneously distancing himself from the claim, by saying that " “all the big ones have said — and this is second-hand from Liam Fox, of course — they are interested” in rolling over their EU deals. Being interested in doing something is not quite the same as agreeing to do it. And then Liam Fox, presumably not wanted to be left in the pooh by Davis, clarified it a bit more: "“We haven’t had an indication from any of them that they don’t want to get bilateral access . . . it’s not quite as simple as rolling them over."

So, "they've all agreed to roll over" rapidly became "none of them have actually refused to talk to us yet, but there'll be no rolling over". And now we're told, by international trade minister Greg Hands, as reported in the Economist, that the position is that of the 70 nations with which the government had held discussions, none had any interest in erecting new trade barriers.

Progress on this one seems to be going backwards.

Zubeneschamali

The Times today reports:

Key EU migrant scheme may not be ready before Brexit
Work to register EU citizens has barely begun

Leroy42

I have been trying to work out what the plan behind the UK is. Many have made the point that they seem ill-prepared, ill-informed and totally unable to agree on a starting position. However, the likes of Aegir have argued the opposite, and this ties in with what the UK government are saying. That they are ready and prepared but are unwilling to negotiate in public, don't want to give any info to the EU, and that by telling parliament what the plan is they reduce their ability to deliver said plan.

IMO, having looked at the reports etc (which I fully acknowledge cannot be the complete picture) it seems to be very much the former.

But I wanted to try and tease out the latter position. What would the benefit of such an apparently chaotic period be? For starters, May has come under increase pressure and her standing has been noticeably reducing even within her own party. That seems like a very high risk to take for her personally and at this point anything short of a major win will be seen, rightly or wrongly, as at least partially at her feet. There are very few examples of politicians willing to sacrifice themselves in such a way, so I struggle to see this as correct.

Second, the EU seems to be very much on top of the brief of what Brexit entails and how it will effect both EU and the UK. So to claim that letting the EU know what the UK would give them an upper hand seems somewhat fanciful.

By then I get to the crux of it. The final positions are pretty clear in overall terms. Hard, soft or none. None is ruled out, so it appears we have two options. (and the various shades of gray that the details will reveal). The only plan I can think of is akin to Trump and NK. Make the other side think you are crazy enough to do the one thing that would be the worst option for all involved and plan that the other side (the EU in this case) will blink first and simply do something to avoid the worst case scenario.

It is the only sense that I can make out of any of it. That the UK have gone on this 'act totally crazy and incompetent' plan so that the EU will do the work for them and they will get a better beal due to the fear they have instilled in the EU of what an out of control UK will do outside of the EU.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is the only sense that I can make out of any of it. That the UK have gone on this 'act totally crazy and incompetent' plan so that the EU will do the work for them and they will get a better beal due to the dear they have instilled in the EU of what an out of control UK will do outside of the EU.

Except the EU will impose sanctions on the UK if they try any of the daft stuff they are talking about. No trucks, no planes, no food, no nothing. Our ferries will spend more time at sea.

Quotes from other posts above.

'It's their border so they must police it' - Ian Paisley Jr. in a tweet.

'Do you know what you are talking about?' 'I'm the Minister for trade!' 'I know - that's what worries me!' BBC interviewer.

With such nonsense - there cannot come sense.

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

Except the EU will impose sanctions on the UK if they try any of the daft stuff they are talking about. No trucks, no planes, no food, no nothing. Our ferries will spend more time at sea.

Quotes from other posts above.

'It's their border so they must police it' - Ian Paisley Jr. in a tweet.

'Do you know what you are talking about?' 'I'm the Minister for trade!' 'I know - that's what worries me!' BBC interviewer.

With such nonsense - there cannot come sense.

But isn't that part of the brinkmanship? Will the EU really start grounding planes and stopping trucks? Fine for a day or two but the outroar but everyone to sort something out will be massive. And it won't just affect UK citizens.

I am not saying that I agree with this approach, but it does tie into the narrative that this is the UK against the EU and the UK must fight back against the tyranny and punishment of the EU.

Do the EU really want the UK to drop out without any deal in March 19, and face a hard brexit? That will cause massive headaches and hardship for a sizeable amount of the EU (most notably and directly Ireland)

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do the EU really want the UK to drop out without any deal in March 19, and face a hard brexit? That will cause massive headaches and hardship for a sizeable amount of the EU (most notably and directly Ireland)

no, of course they don't. Of course there are many on here who want that for one reason, or another, but put simply, the UK is the EU's largest single trading partner and a deal is in everyone's interests.

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

no, of course they don't. Of course there are many on here who want that for one reason, or another, but put simply, the UK is the EU's largest single trading partner and a deal is in everyone's interests.

Ironically, it is the UK who has been the bully in this negotiation and the EU have to (and seemingly are) preparing to stand up to them. 'No you can't have everything for nothing' and 'no, we wont compromise the inregrity of the EU for you'.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't that part of the brinkmanship? Will the EU really start grounding planes and stopping trucks? Fine for a day or two but the outroar but everyone to sort something out will be massive. And it won't just affect UK citizens.

Legally they have to or they open themselves up to being sued to WTO by every other country outside of EU for failing to treat them equally as third party country. Keep in mind this is only affecting UK trucks & planes; EU trucks & planes can still fly and drive into UK willy nilly as before. So it's not a case of that all planes will stop flying to the UK; only that UK planes owned by UK legal entity are not allowed to fly into EU (which is why you have all these UK airlines setting up EU based companies to keep flying).

I am not saying that I agree with this approach, but it does tie into the narrative that this is the UK against the EU and the UK must fight back against the tyranny and punishment of the EU.

It's not punishment to treat UK equally as any other third party country; that's simply following the letter of the law in regards to WTO. This is the part UK does not appear to get; being a third party country has consequences that are part of the terms agreed by all WTO members not least that you can't discriminate among them without a written deal in place.

Do the EU really want the UK to drop out without any deal in March 19, and face a hard brexit? That will cause massive headaches and hardship for a sizeable amount of the EU (most notably and directly Ireland)

EU don't want UK to leave full stop but as has been put by Brussels if UK op for a hard brexit they are not going to scramble to soften their landing but rather look at cutting the parachute cords. The hard brexiteers think EU will scramble to sign a ton of mini deals instead of one big one at the last minute in such a scenario and they are going to be in for a very nasty surprise when EU says no, feck off and live with what you done instead. While it will hurt EU there's no reason for EU to soften the blow in UK for what is very much self inflicted damage; esp. after two years of them wasting everyone's time.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

no, of course they don't. Of course there are many on here who want that for one reason, or another, but put simply, the UK is the EU's largest single trading partner and a deal is in everyone's interests.

The problem with that approach is, 1) the damaging effect it has, and will continue to have on May herself (and I don't think for a second that she is doing it out of some "For Queen and Country" morality), and second it will cause considerable dissatisfaction from the EU with the UK (Barnier gave a glimpse of it last week) will could have serious consequences both for any future trading arrangements but also in terms of making arrangements with third party countries who will, quite rightly, see the UK as a dishonest and manipulative partner.

The other problem is that the likes of Boris and Rees-Mogg actually want a hard brexit and as such anything less will be seen (with the Express and DailyMail etc) as a complete climbdown by May, morsoe as it will be seen as a last minute climbdown. May would want to get pretty much everything for that scenario to work in her favour.

The final complication is NI. The DUP have already stated that they do not wish to be treated as any different to the rest of the UK, yet the GFA places significant problems with that approach. Only a UK wide soft border would allow this and as such May will be seen as not delivering.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

no, of course they don't. Of course there are many on here who want that for one reason, or another, but put simply, the UK is the EU's largest single trading partner and a deal is in everyone's interests.

Only cakeists believe that the EU will buckle. The EU will take the pain of an exit without a deal if the alternative is allowing the 'Have cake and eat it' line to prevail. And I would believe the EU will be quite ruthless - sanctions will last more than a few days if imposed.

The facilities required for a hard border (in Ireland or France) do not exist now, and will not exist in March 2019 - or in March 2021. A hard Brexit will be hard on everyone - particularly the UK.

Skedaddle

I don't think it's really a case of the EU being 'ruthless' but rather that it simply has a much bigger picture to look at and is playing a very long game. It isn't moved by the whims of domestic politics in the UK, or the British tabloids.

The EU has to protect the integrity of concept of an integrated Europe and the economic and political security and stability of its members. The UK has made open threats to the very concept of the EU existing at all and is seemingly aligned to Trump, Putin and various ultra-right wing parties in other member states e.g. Marine Le Pen, Wilders and so on.

What the UK commentators aren't really seeing is that a lot of people and most of the EU member states governments see the EU as a huge achievement for peace and economic stability in Europe and a reaction to the chaos that brought about WWII and the Cold War. It's a concept of regional solidarity that's not going to be allowed to be flushed down the toilet by nationalist turmoil in the UK and I think the issue that the UK will find is more that it's become very hostile to that ideal of an integrated, prosperous, stable Europe and has thrown all sorts of spanners into the works over the last few years. That's where you'll find the EU will reach the limit of what it's prepared to compromise on. There's a point where the stability risk being posed by the UK outweighs any short-term economic gains to facilitating this kind of chaos.
So, I think when push comes to shove, the UK may have accidentally united Europe, against it.

The big issue that the EU faces is to keep Europe relevant as a region and to counterbalance chaos coming from the US, possible threats from a growing authoritarian superpower in China over the coming years, a disgruntled Russia throwing rocks at it every so often, chaos in the middle-east etc etc.
The UK deciding to have a nationalistic nervous breakdown wasn't really something anyone wanted to be dealing with.

Also, with the Irish border situation, the interpretation that I am seeing and hearing from people in Brussels is that they fear the UK is trying to bully Ireland out of the EU. That's quite literally what UKIP, aspects of the DUP and some of the Tory Brexiteers are doing with stuff like proposing Irexit and so on. That's where I think you'll see the EU back Ireland rather heavily on anything to do with this. It's not about to see a member-state bullied and bashed out of the union by a 3rd party.

Peregrinus

It’s been a while since the UK pretended that they had a plan which it was disadvantageous to reveal too soon. Whatever about the tactical merit of not revealing your plan before negotiations start, it’s positively harmful not to reveal you plan after negotiations start. Negotiations started many months ago. And the UK isat this stage quite open about the fact that it doesn’t have a secret plan, or indeed any plan at all; this week a cabinet sub-committee met to try to develop a plan. (It was not successful.)

When the “don’t want to show our hand too soon” line ceased to be credible with respect to the UK’s plan, it was used instead with respect to the UK’s situation, information and analysis. We all recall David Davis insisting that the UK had extensive Brexit impact assessments covering every sector of the economy, but he wouldn’t realease them because show, hand, etc. Then parliament ordered him to release them, and it turned out they weren’t really impact assessments at all, as Davis himself conceded. The secret data that he boasted of did not exist.

So, yeah, at this stage the “mustn’t show our hand” line has no credibility at all. Nobody takes it seriously and the UK government has stopped offering it in any context.

I’m taken with Leroy’s suggestion that the UK’s strategy is to let the EU think they will jump off a cliff into a lake of burning kerosene, in the hope that the EU blinks first because it is afraid of being splashed, but I don’t buy it. The EU can take the UK jumping off a cliff better than the UK can. The EU will not blink first, as must by now be clear.

I think the simpler explanation is the correct one; the UK doesn’t have a plan because they can’t come up with one. The policy of Brexit is forced on them by the referendum outcome. A majority of the British political establishment, on both Labour and Tory sides, does not believe that a beneficial Brexit is possible, but cannot say so. The minority who do insist its possible are unable either to explain satisfactorily why they believe this, or to convince the majority. How, in these circumstances, is it possible to come up with a plan that will hold together long enough even to be offered to the EU in negotiations? As Aegir rightly says, a deal is in everybody's interests, but if the UK will not make a deal there's not a lot the EU can do about it.

So the UK will go on doing what they have consistently done from the start; let the EU do all the planning and take all the initiatives and, effectively, identify the Brexit that must result from the UK's stance. Then, when Brexit is the expected calamity, they’ll try to escape responsibility by saying that this is the Brexit that the EU crafted.

Zubeneschamali

Taking Leroy42's hypothetical - if the UK really does have a secret Brexit plan, and the seeming shambles of policy so far is part of that plan, what could the plan be?

I think we can rule out a Norway or Canada deal - they could have had either one for the asking, no point at all in pretending to be in chaos.

Likewise, they must really intend to leave the Single Market, they could have stayed without objections, and surely know the conditions.

The Customs Union is the only one I think might be flexible. It is possible that they have been aiming from the start for a Customs Union type deal with the EU, and all of the madness has been intended to get the EU to sigh with relief and let them fudge the fact that they don't want to call it a customs union to keep the brexiteers happy.

But it seems a very elaborate performance when a simple statement would have done: "The UK is leaving the EU, and since control of migration is the #1 reason, we are also leaving the Single Market. To keep trade as frictionless as possible, we propose to stay in the Customs Union."

EU response: "OK, sign here."

So no, I do not think it is plausible that they have simply been putting out fake and conflicting signals to disguise their end goal, if a CU by another name is that goal.

Which suggests that if there is a secret goal, it is some cake-ist impossible thing like Single Market access for goods and services without free movement, and they think acting mad will convince the EU that they have to be given the deal or they will really jump.

Then the question would be if they have a fall-back plan when that one is ruled out.

All in all, I think it is more likely that what we see happening is not a facade hiding a cunning plan, and they don't know what they want. Some sort of CU deal is the best match for what they already agreed in phase 1, if that is to be given any weight.

J Mysterio

There clearly is no credible plan, and supposing that there is some plan is giving credit when its not deserved.

The UK has done nothing to warrant such speculation. If anything, they have shown that their country is in upheaval and disorder. They dont know what they want as a nation and the government cant articulate what they want either, mostly as the Tories - staffed with incompetents - are riven with division and led by a weak leader.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Only cakeists believe that the EU will buckle. The EU will take the pain of an exit without a deal if the alternative is allowing the 'Have cake and eat it' line to prevail. And I would believe the EU will be quite ruthless - sanctions will last more than a few days if imposed.

The facilities required for a hard border (in Ireland or France) do not exist now, and will not exist in March 2019 - or in March 2021. A hard Brexit will be hard on everyone - particularly the UK.

what's a "Cakeist"?

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

what's a "Cakeist"?

A deluded Little Englander Tory who believes they can have their cake and eat it with regard to Brexit.

Water John

A cakeist, is a person who believes what Boris Johnson, says.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

what's a "Cakeist"?

Someone who believes they can have their cake and eat it.

For example, someone who thinks the UK can leave the EU, control EU immigration and stop paying the EU money but still have the same access to the single market they have today.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Someone who believes they can have their cake and eat it.

For example, someone who thinks the UK can leave the EU, control EU immigration and stop paying the EU money but still have the same access to the single market they have today.

so is this an official name, or just a bit of pathetic name calling?

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

so is this an official name, or just a bit of pathetic name calling?

Probably shorthand.

Water John

It isn't pathetic name calling. It's just shorthand for what Boris Johnson said.
Watch out to see does he repeat it, in his Tory position speech on Brexit, which I think is tomorrow.

Chips Lovell

Aegir wrote: »

so is this an official name, or just a bit of pathetic name calling?

If you've a problem with a post, report it. Don't derail the thread like this.

Thanks

demfad

Aegir wrote: »

so is this an official name, or just a bit of pathetic name calling?

In terms of a deal it means having the benefits of the Norway model but the obligations of the Canada model.

So benefits of the single market and CU while not paying for it, able to make external trade deals and not being under the juristiction of the ECJ.

Poltically it is not possible for the EU to deliver this. Legally it may not be possible either. There is a clause in these FTAs that if other 3rd countries get better conditions that those conditions get applied to the FTA.

So Canada, Japan, S. Korea (and everyone else) have to have their cake and eat it also.

That is the delusion of cakeism.