Brexit discussion thread III

flutered

Water John wrote: »

If the financial markets go hostile, the journalists will have questions and proof, that spoofers cannot explain away.
If journalists, and you still have BBC, ITV and Sky, will smell and chase, blood.

to me the bbc seem to be pro brexit in recent times

Water John

Possibly the BBC still trying to be even handed, when it's beyond that time. ITV certainly a lot more skeptical.

Sam Russell

flutered wrote: »

to me the bbc seem to be pro brexit in recent times

I think you mean in the last four years.

Skedaddle

An interesting piece on 'rules of origin':

https://www.politico.eu/article/localization-barrier-risks-to-spoil-britains-free-trade-hopes/

Trade deals usually require that goods being exported originate largely (to a certain %) in the country that is claiming to be the exporter. So in many cases UK exports wouldn't classify as UK exports at all if they were largely built from imported components, whereas the EU (being huge and diverse) can use siploers from all across the Union.

Effectively it would mean experts from say Japan into the UK might be tarrif free, while UK exports to Japan might fall foul of being classified as not UK products at all.

You'd also have to ask what % of UK exports are just transiting the UK eg where it's being used as a distribution centre into the EU market.

It's yet another example of something they didn't think about.

Water John

Another way to interpret the media is see how many papers gave prominence to the Brexit keynote speech by Boris. A total of one, The Express.

Zubeneschamali

flutered wrote: »

to me the bbc seem to be pro brexit in recent times

Yes, starting after the referendum, they changed their tone so that Brexit became sensible and people talking about it became serious.

Professor Moriarty

The unions are beginning to get involved as the Brexiteers float the idea that deregulation after Brexit will make Britain great again. Pity they weren't heard much before now.

Skedaddle

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, starting after the referendum, they changed their tone so that Brexit became sensible and people talking about it became serious.

Group think. We had it here when a large cohort of the media and general public genuinely believed the housing market and economy was built on solid rock and couldn't go wrong, despite various economists constantly warning of a major disaster ahead.

They were still saying the same thing on the day the IMF arrived.

It's even worse in the UK as they're treating anyone opposed as some kind of contemptuous heretic.

flutered

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you mean in the last four years.

since the referendum, they are asking no questions of the pro brexit guests, never ask the right questions of the remainder guest, they are constantly been refered to in the uk as the brexit broadacasting corporation

Zubeneschamali

flutered wrote: »

since the referendum, they are asking no questions of the pro brexit guests, never ask the right questions of the remainder guest, they are constantly been refered to in the uk as the brexit broadacasting corporation

I think they see themselves in the same boat as the Remainer Tories: they know it's a bad idea, they know the costs, but The People Have Spoken, and now they must do the best they can with the brief they have been handed.

Leonard Hofstadter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think they see themselves in the same boat as the Remainer Tories: they know it's a bad idea, they know the costs, but The People Have Spoken, and now they must do the best they can with the brief they have been handed.

It's funny ye should critise the BBC for being too biased towards Leave; prominent Leave advocates have consistently and repeatedly criticised them for saying things like 'despite Brexit' (whenever there is a good news / less bad news than we expected story).

The BBC is generally considered to have a bias towards Labour and anything else deemed to be 'left wing' by those on the right in the UK, despite the fact that Andrew Neil (Daily Politics presenter) is a Leave Advocate - indeed Liam Fox wrote a letter to Tony Hall complaining about said 'bias' and other Leavers have attacked the BBC on-air for (amongst other things) 'talking the country down' and asking them to be more 'patriotic' (as Andrea Leadsom once said to them).

ancapailldorcha

captainspeed wrote: »

It's funny ye should critise the BBC for being too biased towards Leave; prominent Leave advocates have consistently and repeatedly criticised them for saying things like 'despite Brexit' (whenever there is a good news / less bad news than we expected story).

The BBC is generally considered to have a bias towards Labour and anything else deemed to be 'left wing' by those on the right in the UK, despite the fact that Andrew Neil (Daily Politics presenter) is a Leave Advocate - indeed Liam Fox wrote a letter to Tony Hall complaining about said 'bias' and other Leavers have attacked the BBC on-air for (amongst other things) 'talking the country down' and asking them to be more 'patriotic' (as Andrea Leadsom once said to them).

There does seem to be something of a revolving door between the BBC and the Conservative party.

The BBC seemed to be obsessed with treating both sides equally during the referendum campaigns. You'd have someone like George Osborne or an oft-derided expert presenting a projections based on a Leave vote and then a prominent Leaver with "biased, liberal elite" or something similarly insightful.

Skedaddle

Well, I suppose it doesn't want to be privatised. Just saying...
Not that anyone would ever threaten the editorial independence of the BBC.

J Mysterio

Skedaddle wrote: »

I've given up on even trying to apply logic to this. It's pretty clear that Brexit is nothing to do with economic arguments about trade. It's about an old imperial power that feels humiliated by its role as a middle sized country that's part of a club of small and middle sized countries.

It's chasing a past where it was relevant, yet that's impossible to return to and those chasing this past are largely engaged in a complete fantasy. They don't even seem to realise that they never really had "free trade" with the empire, they conquered a whole load of countries that had to fight for freedom and in many cases will see the UK begging for trade deals as a great opportunity to rub their noses in its very inglorious history. Even the friendly former colonies like Canada seem to think they've gone mad.

They're also vastly overestimating the US "special relationship". Why would the USA give them a deal like EU membership? They can also absolutely brother getting a deal like they're asking the EU for : full market access without regulatory burden. They'd be laughed out of the office if they asked for that!

They'll, in all likelihood, get an America First trade deal which will see them with probably about as much market access as they already have, only with forced deregulation of British agriculture and so on. They might get nothing at all as Trump is busy ripping up trade deals with Canada, their closest and friendliest neighbour.

The whole thing is barking mad and there's no arguing with Brexiteers. They hate the EU and that's pretty much their entire argument. Even when you pick away at it, most of them can't even explain why they hate it. They just do. It's just a gut feeling about a dislike of pooling sovereignty or sharing power, probably coupled with having nothing but contempt for pretty much all neighbouring countries.

The economic reality is a world dominated by the US and China with the EU very much holding its own because of the scale it has created. The UK now goes out on its own to be bounced baroins between those genuinely huge economies. It's also not a resource rich place like Australia or Canada nor is a major tech and manufacturing powerhouse like Japan. It's a trading economy that's just turned it's back on the deepest trade agreements it will ever have.

Top post.

Whats starting to worry me is another global financial crisis. I wonder can it be avoided (contained to the UK like quarantine) given that the banks should now be well prepared for Britain exploding into flames...

Inquitus

Skedaddle wrote: »

An interesting piece on 'rules of origin':

https://www.politico.eu/article/localization-barrier-risks-to-spoil-britains-free-trade-hopes/

Trade deals usually require that goods being exported originate largely (to a certain %) in the country that is claiming to be the exporter. So in many cases UK exports wouldn't classify as UK exports at all if they were largely built from imported components, whereas the EU (being huge and diverse) can use siploers from all across the Union.

Effectively it would mean experts from say Japan into the UK might be tarrif free, while UK exports to Japan might fall foul of being classified as not UK products at all.

You'd also have to ask what % of UK exports are just transiting the UK eg where it's being used as a distribution centre into the EU market.

It's yet another example of something they didn't think about.

They will be completely shafted by COO rules, they are part of an integrated EU Supply Chain, if they leave the EU and have to meet a 55% British COO rule to avoid tarriffs, in a lot of cases they will have no chance. They do not have the factories or skills required to manufacture a lot of these components in the UK, and should they try and start, it will cost them a fortune to set it up, and likely cost a lot more than sourcing them from the EU does.

They have no idea what they are doing, where they are going, or what the future will look like, it is a perfect storm of weak political leadership, a divided country and no clue. Hopefully at some point common sense prevails, the UK is an Island, the cost of bringing things in and sending them out again is higher as a result, the EU is the market on their doorstep, they are never going to be as competitive trying to sell to Australia, China, India, the US or New Zealand.

Skedaddle

The only thing I would say is that year's a long time in politics, and an even longer time when you're in a minority government and a country that's so deeply divided on an issue like this. They still have to get to midnight on 30 March 2019, so that they can be out of the EU before April Fools' Day 2019, giving them one day to collect themselves in between.

With the speed that things are happening at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK Government has collapsed long before then.

Currently 4 / 1 odds on a general election this year.

captainspeed

captainspeed wrote: »

It's funny ye should critise the BBC for being too biased towards Leave; prominent Leave advocates have consistently and repeatedly criticised them for saying things like 'despite Brexit' (whenever there is a good news / less bad news than we expected story).

The BBC is generally considered to have a bias towards Labour and anything else deemed to be 'left wing' by those on the right in the UK, despite the fact that Andrew Neil (Daily Politics presenter) is a Leave Advocate - indeed Liam Fox wrote a letter to Tony Hall complaining about said 'bias' and other Leavers have attacked the BBC on-air for (amongst other things) 'talking the country down' and asking them to be more 'patriotic' (as Andrea Leadsom once said to them).

Leave complain they are biased towards remain, remain claim the BBC is pro brexit, Labour call them a Tory mouthpiece, Tories complain they are pro labour.

It probably means they are doing their job.

Enzokk

Aegir wrote: »

Leave complain they are biased towards remain, remain claim the BBC is pro brexit, Labour call them a Tory mouthpiece, Tories complain they are pro labour.

It probably means they are doing their job.

I don't think they are biased one way or the other, but it should be pointed out that there are a lot of their senior staff and presenters that have ties with the Conservatives. This includes Andrew Neil and former political editor Nick Robertson. Then there is the current political editor Laura Kuenssberg who was found to have breached impartiality rules of the BBC on a report about Jeremy Corbyn.

At the same time Andrew Marr is more liberal in his views and it seems that he thinks that the culture at the BBC is more liberal due to the staff being younger and having a lot of ethnic minorities as well.

Who really knows if they are biased. I am sure individuals may be but as a whole they do try and be impartial, even if it is to the detriment of the quality of reporting.

Capt'n Midnight

Skedaddle wrote: »

They're also vastly overestimating the US "special relationship". Why would the USA give them a deal like EU membership?

Look at how the US has treated Canada and Mexico in NAFTA.

The special relationship with the UK ended a long time ago. During WWII the UK gave the US war winning technology. (Radar, jet engines, atomic bomb etc. ) The US technology transfer back the UK pretty much stopped even before the war was won. (To get US atomic bombs the UK had to develop and demonstrate they could make them independently. The French use their own. )

Yes the US gave the UK a post war loan , but it required the UK to leave the gold standard with all that entailed, including massively inflating the cost of paying back the loan.

There is no special relationship worth talking about.

CrabRevolution

I find it strange how the UK pin so much hope on a deal with the US.Even ignoring the fact it'd need to be negotiated and agreed in the shortest timeframe in history, why would the US give such a sweet deal?

Donald Trump's presidential campaign wasn't that unusual when it came to talking about the USA's perceived enemies. His talk of punishing Iran, China, Syria, North Korea etc. was little different to what any Republican candidate would say.

What made his campaign so different (and what the UK should worry about) was how he promised to treat the allies of the USA. He promised that America's allies and trade partners would be made to fall in line and do business on America's terms once he was president. He blamed all the major American trade partners and allies saying they've taken advantage of the USA, and that all future trade deals would have the cards heavily stacked towards the USA.

In a sense you can't blame him. He's accountable to the US public so can try to give them every advantage possible. But it just makes the UKs cosying up the USA in the hope of any sort of deal all the more bizarre.

Surely the USA in its current climate with its current head of state is the last country on earth you'd be begging for a trade deal with?

Peregrinus

Couple of interesting article in the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times (may be paywalled) on the Irish dimension of Brexit.

Points from the WSJ:

- Remarkable that Boris Johnson’s speech completely ignored Ireland (“aguably Britain’s biggest foreign-policy challenge”)

- Some in the UK have accused Veradkar of naivety, overplaying his hand. But his approach has delivered spectacular results.

- The UK assumed that other EU states would pressure Ireland to drop its demand for a frictionless border. The opposite happened, and it was London that had to back down and commit to full regulatory alignment, unless and until other arrangements are found.

- Dublin is now demanding that the UK make good on these commitments. Dublin is careful not to say that NI must remain in the customs union and the single market, but Irish officials make it clear that something very close is required.

- The key issue is how far Dublin can count on continuing EU support. So far this has remained robust, and may even be hardening. France in particular is providing strong support, The integrity of the SM and the CU must not be undermined. The UK must provide clarity on its future relationshiop with the EU and must not be allowed to defer hard choices until after it has left. France is using the Irish issue as a lever to compel the UK to provide clarity.

The FT article is slightly different. It also make the point that Boris ignored the border issue, which it describes as “utterly intractable” because of May’s conflicting commitments. It adds the Cabinet has failed to agree on an approach to the border and that, “in what seems an act of desperation” May is now looking to Varadkar for ideas.

Then it comes out with this slightly weird suggestion:

“At some point, Mr Varadkar will have to decide whether he will stand firm on his demand for full regulatory alignment between north and south. If he sticks to his guns, UK ministers will then have to decide how to respond.”

Spoiler alert: Of course Varadkar will stick to his guns. Getting a guarantee of no hard border, and full regulatory alignment in default of any other agreement, written into the Phase 1 agreement as a precondition to an exit deal was a considerable coup. Why would Varadkar give that up now?

I think what the FT meant to say is: “UK Ministers have to decide how to live up to the commitments they have made on the Irish border”. There really isn’t any question about whether they’re going to have to live up to them.

The implication, I think, in the FT’s reading of the situation is that Varadkar might back down, rather than risk the UK walking away from its commitments, which would inevitably lead to a no-deal Brexit, and a hard border. The implication is that the UK would jump off a cliff rather than honour its commitments.

That strikes me as unlikely, frankly. But even if the EU thought that the UK would do that, how should it react? It’s impossible to do business with a partner that makes a commitment one day and reneges on it the next; there is simply no point in seeking to make any deal with such a partner, and it would be madness to make any kind of concession in order to secure agreement, since the value of any agreement with someone who feels free to abandon agreements is doubtful. So if the UK does say “release us from our open border commitment, or it’s a no-deal Brexit” the answer from the EU has to be that it’s a no-deal Brexit.

NY2018

Aegir wrote: »

Leave complain they are biased towards remain, remain claim the BBC is pro brexit, Labour call them a Tory mouthpiece, Tories complain they are pro labour.

It probably means they are doing their job.

I hear this argument repeatedly trotted out to defend the BBC. It's faulty as it assumes that the complaints from each side are equally valid.

They're not.

All remainers are hardly saints, but for the most part they have rational arguments and make logical points.

The overwhelming majority of Brexiteers are either liars or intellectually challenged. The press releases and stories generated by these lot follow suit; the stories are blatant and obvious propaganda. The BBC simply reports these stories exactly how the Brexiteers want them to be reported. A truly independent news media would highlight the many obvious contradictions/lies within these stories. The BBC do not do this, or at least they do not do it nearly enough.

Skedaddle

It's actually getting beyond incredible how the UK commentators seem to not realise that the EU acts as a single entity on these kinds of trade and external relations issues, and that Ireland in this instance IS THE EU.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Then it comes out with this slightly weird suggestion:

“At some point, Mr Varadkar will have to decide whether he will stand firm on his demand for full regulatory alignment between north and south. If he sticks to his guns, UK ministers will then have to decide how to respond.”

Is that to be interpreted as a sort of veiled threat and that there's an implication that the UK could somehow respond with economic consequences specifically for Ireland?

Do they not comprehend that they cannot single Ireland out for any different treatment. If it attempted to say make it difficult for Irish businesses to trade into or through the UK, it would effectively be taking trade sanctions against the EU and would be facing an automatic reciprocal arrangement!

interlocked

Ladies and gentlemen

The Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom amongst other verbal ejaculations actually uttered this during his recent speech

"Sometimes these economic anxieties are intensified by the other fears – about identity or security – so that hitherto recondite concepts like the single market or the customs union acquire unexpected emotive power."

For the non Etonians (or bull****ter speechwriters amongst you) recondite means obscure or arcane.

So we have the occupant of one of the most senior offices of state publicly trying to demonstrate intellect and ignorance in the one sentence and failing miserably in both.

One of the most contemptible creatures to have occupied public office in the UK and that's saying something.

NY2018

Peregrinus wrote: »

The implication, I think, in the FT’s reading of the situation is that Varadkar might back down, rather than risk the UK walking away from its commitments, which would inevitably lead to a no-deal Brexit, and a hard border. The implication is that the UK would jump off a cliff rather than honour its commitments.

That strikes me as unlikely, frankly. But even if the EU thought that the UK would do that, how should it react?

I see it this way;

The UK won't walk away without a deal under any circumstance because they actually can't. They do not have the plans for infrastructure/vast quantity of employees needed for custom controls & rules of origins checks to continue trading with the EU under WTO rules. And nor do they have the capacity (or will) to do so by March 2019. The EU (and Ireland) know this. The UK are boxed into a corner here and everybody knows it.

But if this scenario were to somehow occur, I think the overnight impact would be so damaging and chaotic that the UK would end up back inside the EU before the year ended.

Peregrinus

Skedaddle wrote: »

Is that to be interpreted as a sort of veiled threat and that there's an implication that the UK could somehow respond with economic consequences specifically for Ireland?

No, I don't think it is. This is the journalist speaking, remember, not some inside source. It's just a restatement of the dilemma that the UK has created for itself. If called upon to honour its phase 1 commitments in relation to the border, UK ministers must decide whether the UK will:

(a) keep the whole of the UK in regulatory alignment, thus compromising their object of leaving the SM and the CU; or

(b) keep just NI in regulatory alignment and introduce a quasi-border between NI and GB, thus seriously pissing off the DUP; or

(c) repudiate its phase 1 commitments, thus guaranteeing a no-deal brexit.

Each of these has a significant downside for the Tory government (and two of them would be very bad for the UK, if anybody in Downing St is still thinking about that). The only "with one bound he was free!" ending to this story for the Tories is if the EU releases them from their phase 1 border commitments. Since the whole brexit project has been built on wishful thinking from day 1, it's maybe not surprising that some of them still cherish hopes in this direction, and I think possibly the journalist may have sipped just a little of this particular kool-aid.

An Claidheamh

Skedaddle wrote: »

It's actually getting beyond incredible how the UK commentators seem to not realise that the EU acts as a single entity on these kinds of trade and external relations issues, and that Ireland in this instance IS THE EU.



Is that to be interpreted as a sort of veiled threat and that there's an implication that the UK could somehow respond with economic consequences specifically for Ireland?

Do they not comprehend that they cannot single Ireland out for any different treatment. If it attempted to say make it difficult for Irish businesses to trade into or through the UK, it would effectively be taking trade sanctions against the EU and would be facing an automatic reciprocal arrangement!

There seems to be a number of veiled threats by Brexiteers.

The problem is they're all stupid.

1) Brexit will hurt Irish economy "more" - firstly it won't, secondly why would the Brits expect us to support their nonsense if they're going to damage our economy?

2) Europe will break up.....any day.....any day now..... Same as above.

3) Hard border - firstly it's not what their unionist allies want, not what Irish people want and if they know what's good for them, not what the British army and state want.

4) As you said, "punish us"? With what exactly? How?
The EU should and would retaliate. This British action would of course be broadcast everywhere.

They have no cards to play, only a suicide bomb approach whereby they're threatening us that they'll damage .....themselves ...if we don't comply.

Brexiteers. They're all talk.

Peregrinus

NY2018 wrote: »

I see it this way;

The UK won't walk away without a deal under any circumstance because they actually can't. They do not have the plans for infrastructure/vast quantity of employees needed for custom controls & rules of origins checks to continue trading with the EU under WTO rules. And nor do they have the capacity (or will) to do so by March 2019. The EU (and Ireland) know this. The UK are boxed into a corner here and everybody knows it.

As I see it, the UK lack of preparedness for a no-deal Brexit isn't an accident or mistake that now ties their hands; its the outcome of the fact that, rhetoric aside, they have never seriously contemplated a no-deal Brexit. It would be disastrous. They know this.

They pretend to be willing to walk away because, basically, if they are believed that should strengthen their negotiating hand. They used to say that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but the truth is that they cannot imagine a deal so bad that that it would be worse than no deal.

Still, this strategy could backfire. When they started it, they were still woefully ignorant and believed that a somewhat cakeist Brexit was attainable, so they would get a deal which was at least modestly cakeist. It now becomes apparent that no cakeist deal is likely, so they deal they are going to have to accept is a deal which those who take "no deal is better than a bad deal" seriously would regard as a bad deal. So the wheels could still come off this strategy quite badly if, despite what they intend, they are forced by the Tory brexity minority to embrace the no-deal Brexit that they never seriously contemplated embracing.

NY2018 wrote: »

But if this scenario were to somehow occur, I think the overnight impact would be so damaging and chaotic that the UK would end up back inside the EU before the year ended.

I don't know that we'd want a damaged and chaotic UK (with a vocal, furious and betrayed Brexit element in the political establishment) back in the EU within a year. I think we might encourage them to join the EEA and the Customs Union and let things settle down for 5 or 10 years or so, and then decide whether they want to make a wholehearted commitment to the Union.

NY2018

Peregrinus wrote: »

As I see it, the UK lack of preparedness for a no-deal Brexit isn't an accident or mistake that now ties their hands; its the outcome of the fact that, rhetoric aside, they have never seriously contemplated a no-deal Brexit. It would be disastrous. They know this.

They pretend to be wiling to walk away because, basically, if they are believed that should strengthen their negotiating hand. They have always said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but the truth is that they cannot imagine a deal so bad that that it would be worse than no deal.

Still, this strategy could backfire. When they started it, they were still woefully ignorant and believed that a somewhat cakeist Brexit was attainable, so they would get a deal which was at least modestly cakeist. It now becomes apparent that no cakeist deal is likely, so they deal they are going to have to accept is a deal which those who take "no deal is better than a bad deal" seriously would regard as a bad deal. So the wheels could still come off this strategy quite badly if, despite what they intend, they are forced by the Tory brexity minority to embrace the no-deal Brexit that they never seriously contemplated embracing.


I don't know that we'd want a damaged and chaotic UK (with a vocal, furious and betrayed Brexit element in the political establishment) back in the EU within a year. I think we might encourage them to join the EEA and the Customs Union and let things settle down for 5 or 10 years or so, and then decide whether they want to make a wholehearted commitment to the Union.

Exactly, you put it much better than I did.

You might have noticed the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' mantra has significantly subsided lately. In fact, I haven't heard that line of phrase coming from the UK govt in months.

A Canada style deal (ie. a bad deal) is on the table and that is perfectly acceptable to the hard Brexiteers (confirmed by Rees-Mogg et all) so I think no deal is pretty much fully off the table. The no deal bluff strategy is all but dead, or so it seems to me.


Reality is already beginning to hit home as crunch time nears, facts are becoming clearer and the public is infinitely more informed about what exactly they are walking into. The Remain camp has become much stronger and more vocal in recent weeks which has put the Brexiteers on edge. I can only see this momentum continuing to build and as it does it will increase the likelihood of parliament voting down the inevitable bad deal that May will come back with. And that is the point that the real drama will unfold.

Bigus

What I haven't seen mentioned ,or discussed here or in he UK is that any disastrous hard border in NI/Eire will be replicated in Dover / Calais Hull/Amsterdam, Heathrow/Frankfurt , or any number of UK/EU interfaces.
So a bad solution for Ireland will be exponentially worse for the UK as it will have to be replicated numerous times .

In other words the Irish problem is only highlighting specifics in advance,that the Brexiters can't avoid, and that are going to be an issue everywhere for the EU/UK interface , no wonder the EU is backing us hard , it's like the early warning system.
As poster said above Ireland = EU

Peregrinus

NY2018 wrote: »

You might have noticed the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' mantra has significantly subsided lately. In fact, I haven't heard that line of phrase coming from the UK govt in months.

A Canada style deal (ie. a bad deal) is on the table and that is perfectly acceptable to the hard Brexiteers (confirmed by Rees-Mogg et all) so I think no deal is pretty much fully off the table. The no deal bluff strategy is all but dead, or so it seems to me.

We need to distinguish between two deals here:

There's your Brexit deal, which deals with the consequences of the UK leaving the EU and will address such matters as rights of UK citizens in the EU, rights of EU citizens in the UK, UK financial contribution to settlement of its membership affairs, Irish border, the transitional period, continuing UK participation (or not) in the European Aviation Space, security co-operation, etc, etc. Any Brexit deal must enter into force on 29 March 2019 (unless Brexit is deferred, but nobody wants that, so let's ignore it).

Then there's your future trade deal between the UK and the EU. That won't enter into force until some time after 29 March 2019, and almost certainly won't be negotiated until some time after that date. I think in an ideal world it would be negotiated and agreed in time to enter into force on the day that the transitional period ends, which is expected to be 31 December 2020 but there is no guarantee that this will be achieved. On Brexit Day, 29 March 2019, we won't know what kind of future trade deal might be agreed; at best we'll have some broad ideas of the parameters within which any trade deal must fall.

Right. When people talk about a Canada-type deal or a Norway-type deal or whatever, they're talking about the future trade deal.

But when people talk about a no-deal Brexit, they don't mean a Brexit with no future trade deal; they mean a Brexit with no Brexit deal. And there'll be no Brexit deal if the UK welches on the agreements it has already made with respect to financial contributions, EU citizens and the Irish border; those are agreements about what will be in the Brexit deal. (There'll also be no Brexit deal if the UK and the EU fail to reach agreement on the other issues being discussed in phase 2, which include the details of the implementation period.) Jacob Rees-Mogg's willingness to accept a Canada-style trade deal is irrelevant here. He can accept all the trade deals he likes, but that won't lessen the impact of there being no Brexit deal.

SFAIK the Jacob Rees-Moggs of this world are still saying that a no-deal Brexit is preferable if the Brexit deal on offer is bad enough. It remains to be seen whether a Brexit deal which requires full regulatory alignment for the UK, or full regulatory alignment for NI, would count as "bad enough" in their eyes. But, yes, so far as the government is concerned, the "no deal is better than a bad deal" slogan was quietly taken out behind the barn and shot round about last September.

Peregrinus

Bigus wrote: »

What I haven't seen mentioned ,or discussed here or in he UK is that any disastrous hard border in NI/Eire will be replicated in Dover / Calais Hull/Amsterdam, Heathrow/Frankfurt , or any number of UK/EU interfaces.
So a bad solution for Ireland will be exponentially worse for the UK as it will have to be replicated numerous times .

In other words the Irish problem is only highlighting specifics in advance,that the Brexiters can't avoid, and that are going to be an issue everywhere for the EU/UK interface , no wonder the EU is backing us hard , it's like the early warning system.
As poster said above Ireland = EU

Yes, but it's a particularly acute problem in Ireland because of the political and geographical context.

On the political side, border controls at Dover don't imperil the Good Friday Agreement, and they are not likely to bombed by disaffected Republicans.

On the geographic side, there's already a natural border at Dover - La Manche - which means that the societies and economies of southern England and northern France are nothing like as thoroughly and seamlessly integrated as the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Thus a hard border in Ireland is going to be vastly more disruptive of lives and destructive of wealth - on both sides - than a hard border in the Channel ports.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

Leave complain they are biased towards remain, remain claim the BBC is pro brexit, Labour call them a Tory mouthpiece, Tories complain they are pro labour.

Sure, but that is not what we have been saying. We have been saying they changed their tone on Brexit after the referendum.

That they were anti-Brexit before the referendum (along with Labour and the Conservatives) and now they are pro-Brexit (along with Labour and the Conservatives).

They are doing their jobs if you mean telling everyone that it's all OK throughout.

Call me Al

NY2018 wrote: »

I see it this way;

The UK won't walk away without a deal under any circumstance because they actually can't. They do not have the plans for infrastructure/vast quantity of employees needed for custom controls & rules of origins checks to continue trading with the EU under WTO rules. And nor do they have the capacity (or will) to do so by March 2019. The EU (and Ireland) know this. The UK are boxed into a corner here and everybody knows it.

But if this scenario were to somehow occur, I think the overnight impact would be so damaging and chaotic that the UK would end up back inside the EU before the year ended.

I would agree with this perspective.

We are hearing a lot of talk, squabbling, and waffle about the desire of many Tories for a hard brexit wrapped in a "They need us more than we need them rule Britannia" type of rhetoric.
But their actions (and lack of same in many instances) speak louder. They have signed up and committed in phase 1 to a soft brexit. They've promised sum moon and stars to the UK car manufacturers. Have they committed resources to bulking up border control, regulations etc ?
They want a customs union, and they know that. They just don't want it being called the Customs Union. If that means the EU has to give them some sort of fudge to save face with their brexit means brexit electorate then they'll take it and run.

The devil is in the detail wrt what the fudge will be but be prepared to see it being sold in the headlines as the UK bringing EU to its knees.They will attempt to use us as a pawn as the Irish question is the only trump card they have in their hand.

Peregrinus

Call me Al wrote: »

. . . The devil is in the detail wrt what the fudge will be but be prepared to see it being sold in the headlines as the UK bringing EU to its knees.They will attempt to use us as a pawn as the Irish question is the only trump card they have in their hand.

The Irish question is not a trump car in the UK's hand. Since December, it has pretty much been a trump card in the EU's hand, and at the moment they are playing it fairly strongly.

Re: BBC

I actually don't see them as biased at all. They actually have suspended disbelief in an effort to prove unbias and that might indeed be a worse outcome.

They are so pointed at being impartial, and afraid of being accused of partisanship (by both sides of any and all debates!) that they are at times afraid to interject or question appropriately.

This is obvious (imo) when you see the second order effects of this, which is the BBC FactCheck which comes out post egregious statements in an effort to correct the misinformation that they avoided doing so 'Live'.

However, as the Daily Mail have long known and profited from, the ratio of readers of the original piece : readers of the correction is enormous.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but it's a particularly acute problem in Ireland because of the political and geographical context.

On the political side, border controls at Dover don't imperil the Good Friday Agreement, and they are not likely to bombed by disaffected Republicans.

On the geographic side, there's already a natural border at Dover - La Manche - which means that the societies and economies of southern England and northern France are nothing like as thoroughly and seamlessly integrated as the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Thus a hard border in Ireland is going to be vastly more disruptive of lives and destructive of wealth - on both sides - than a hard border in the Channel ports.

I think that a 'no deal Brexit' might mean a hard border in Ireland, but that cannot be put in place overnight. However, Dover can be closed overnight - as can be flights to EU airports. So a 'no deal' means M2 becomes a lorry park, perhaps back as far as the M25, and the car industry stops dead in its tracks.

We can turn a blind eye to cross border traffic avoiding a few rudimentary customs posts at Dundalk etc., but Dover closed for 48 hrs would be a catastrophe, requiring urgent solutions, that is if the closed airports and the crowds of disgruntled travellers do not become more urgent.

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that a 'no deal Brexit' might mean a hard border in Ireland, but that cannot be put in place overnight. However, Dover can be closed overnight - as can be flights to EU airports. So a 'no deal' means M2 becomes a lorry park, perhaps back as far as the M25, and the car industry stops dead in its tracks.

We can turn a blind eye to cross border traffic avoiding a few rudimentary customs posts at Dundalk etc., but Dover closed for 48 hrs would be a catastrophe, requiring urgent solutions, that is if the closed airports and the crowds of disgruntled travellers do not become more urgent.

It sounds amazing.

NY2018

Deleted User wrote: »

Re: BBC

I actually don't see them as biased at all. They actually have suspended disbelief in an effort to prove unbias and that might indeed be a worse outcome.

They are so pointed at being impartial, and afraid of being accused of partisanship (by both sides of any and all debates!) that they are at times afraid to interject or question appropriately.

This is obvious (imo) when you see the second order effects of this, which is the BBC FactCheck which comes out post egregious statements in an effort to correct the misinformation that they avoided doing so 'Live'.

However, as the Daily Mail have long known and profited from, the ratio of readers of the original piece: readers of the correction is enormous.

Alastair Campbell has written a good blog on the topic. He makes a pretty convincing case that the BBC have been behaving in a clear pro-Brexit manner.

And this is before the BBC's economics editor came under huge pressure and had to change a headline after having referred to the EU as a 'corpse' in a recent headline.


https://alastaircampbell.org/2018/02/what-the-hell-is-going-on-at-the-bbc-another-great-institution-being-harmed-by-brexit/

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AT THE BBC? ANOTHER GREAT INSTITUTION BEING HARMED BY BREXIT



Yesterday the Daily Telegraph led on a ‘story’, part penned by Theresa May’s former right-hand man Nick Timothy, that billionaire George Soros was at the heart of a ‘secret plot’ to reverse the EU referendum.

Anyone who follows politics even vaguely is aware that Mr Soros is a supporter of the UK staying in the EU, and a backer of the Best for Britain campaign, one of the myriad groups resisting Brexit. It is not a secret. It is not even a plot, given what they do and say is all out there. But it is of course all of a piece with the view among newspapers that all that matters is impact, and getting talked about on telly, radio and social media (if you can get a bit of a thing going about anti-Semitism, even better); and all of a piece with the fact that the hard right newspapers no longer make any effort to separate news and comment, but operate more as propaganda mouthpieces for whichever tax exiles happen to owe them.

So that the Telegraph led on such a ‘story’, pleasing to their Channel Island owners, is not really a surprise. What is shocking, however, is how the BBC, the moment the paper dropped, allowed its own agenda to be driven by this ‘story.’ The morning news bulletins could have come from the same pen that wrote the Telegraph ‘story.’ On and on it churned through the day …

Meanwhile, to give you a few snapshots of other news on the Brexit front …

A delegation of Japanese political and business leaders delivered a blunt message, privately to Theresa May, publicly to the media outside Number 10, that Japanese investors would withdraw from the UK if we lost free access to EU markets (just as we Project Fear People had said they would when we were being defeated by Project Lies in the worst campaign of recent times.)
The ministers tasked since June 2016 with agreeing a Cabinet Brexit strategy met once more to agree the Cabinet Brexit strategy, and agreed that they still couldn’t agree on one, and therefore decided that they would need to defer the strategy agreement until a Chequers away day some time down the track.
It emerged that far from Brexit cutting down red tape, there will be plenty more, not least that UK car and lorry drivers heading to the Continent may need new licenses and registration certificates.
A UK government negotiating paper revealed that our ‘Brexit means Brexit’ Prime Minister will in fact be asking other governments to consider us still be part of the EU, even after we have left, so that we can still be covered by hundreds of international treaties.
An EU negotiating paper revealed ‘Brussels,’ as 27 independent sovereign states are now called by the BBC and the Brextremists, believes Northern Ireland must stay in the single market even after Brexit as the only way of avoiding the hard border the UK, Ireland and the EU as a whole insist must not return.
Any one of those stories is what I would call significant, interesting, newsworthy. They barely figured across the BBC outlets this morning. Eventually Ireland’s European affairs minister Helen McEntee was interviewed on the Today programme (showing that Ireland has deputy ministers way better and more articulate than our top ranking ones), but I would like you to consider what prominence would have been given by the BBC to the following stories, had they been available.

– Japanese business leaders today told Theresa May they were looking forward to doing a post-Brexit trade deal, and guaranteed to maintain investment in the UK. ‘That’s a lead,’ shouts Humphrys.

– Ministers today set out the agreement they have reached over their strategy for Phase 2 of the Brexit talks. ‘Oh, I think that should be the lead,’ argues Nick Robinson.

– The government has assured British lorry drivers there will be no change in their ability to drive across Europe after the UK leaves the EU. ‘That’s the lead,’ says Sarah Sands. ‘Much more focused on people not process.’

– Theresa May has insisted the UK will still be covered by hundreds of international treaties despite leaving the EU. ‘Let’s make that the 810 slot.’

– EU leaders have said they are confident the UK can leave the single market without the need for the return of a hard border between the North and the Republic of Ireland. ‘Get Laura lined up for a two-way.’

I think we can safely say they would have been higher up the news agenda, not spiked as most of the real Brexit stories were yesterday.

The BBC has always had a problem in allowing the loudest newspapers to set its agenda. We see it in the review of the papers too. The Mail, the Telegraph and the Sun almost always dominate. When the Mirror gets a mention, it is ‘Labour-supporting,’ the Guardian is ‘left-leaning.’ Why no such labels for the hard right papers, Mr and Mrs Beeb policy directors?

And this is, I can tell from experience, a policy. They have decided that Brexit means Brexit, and the coverage must reflect that. Hence – see the letter from editor Matt Kelly to director general Tony Hall yesterday – the New European has had literally zero mentions on BBC paper reviews since its birth in the wake of the referendum. Sky and commercial radio take a totally different approach.

We see something similar in the way that every discussion or panel programme has to have a Brextremist voice. Just has Nigel Farage has appeared on Question Time more than anyone apart from David Dimbleby, so today it would seem no Brexit package can be prepared without Jacob Rees-Mogg being on it, and if not him, one of the Brextremists he is able to co-ordinate at public expense through the so-called European Reform Group.

They are entitled to exploit whatever media opportunities present themselves. But the BBC is not entitled to make it so easy for them. The sad truth is that their fear of government over the license fee and their over compensation for attacks on them as ‘the liberal metropolitan elite’ by the right-wing press has hard wired Brextremism into their news gathering and reporting DNA.

They should not for one moment think that their pandering to these people will help them in the long run. It won’t. The hard right now pushing their hard right Brexit have the BBC in their sights every bit as much as the NHS that ‘Doctor’ Liam Fox and Co want to hand over to his American friends.

The BBC comforts itself by saying as they get attacked from all sides, they must be just about getting it right. Nonsense. They get attacked by the Brextremists because the right has always known, back to the Tebbit era, that bullying and intimidation works. They are getting attacked from the other side of the argument because it is so blindingly obvious they are not covering the most important issue of our time in a balanced and serious way fitting of the – till now – greatest brand in world broadcasting.

It sounds terrifying for us currently in Britain though...

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

- The UK assumed that other EU states would pressure Ireland to drop its demand for a frictionless border. The opposite happened, and it was London that had to back down and commit to full regulatory alignment, unless and until other arrangements are found.

- The key issue is how far Dublin can count on continuing EU support. So far this has remained robust, and may even be hardening. France in particular is providing strong support, The integrity of the SM and the CU must not be undermined. The UK must provide clarity on its future relationshiop with the EU and must not be allowed to defer hard choices until after it has left. France is using the Irish issue as a lever to compel the UK to provide clarity.

This is a "future hangs in the balance" situation for the EU as much as it is for the UK.

If the EU makes Ireland a sacrificial lamb to keep the UK in the market, then they may as well start pulling down the shutters now. The smaller countries are a key component of the EU, without them all you have is a trading bloc of 4 or 5 large countries whose goods still have to pass through border checks.

If the EU is seen to be willing to put the interests of malcontents above those of solid members, then it would create significant unrest among the other small countries, who will consider their own campaigns to leave on the basis that the EU is all about the interests of Germany and France, and not the entire union.

Instead, the EU will stand by Ireland in the same way that Ireland would stand by Cork or Donegal if there was an argument about borders and imports.

To a certain extent the EU also needs the UK to sh1t or get off the pot. The UK has been given a free ride in the EU for a long time. Because it's a big country, native english, a good ally. And being a former empire it has lofty ideas about itself and a fragile ego about its importance in the world. So it's been treated with kid gloves.
But the EU is at the point now where it needs to drop the hangers-on, like the UK, no matter how big an economy they may be. Otherwise it can abandon any ideas of scaling up or integrating tighter.

Which creates this rather funny paradox for Brexiters;

If the UK were to get special treatment in Brexit, it would actually confirm what the Brexiters have been saying; that the EU is a vehicle for the Germans and French to bleed everyone else dry for their benefit.

If the UK doesn't get a favourable outcome, they will play this as "punishment" from the Germans and French for daring to leave. When in reality it's the exact opposite - it's EU economies sacrificing what is clearly a large trading partner for the longer-term benefit of stronger unity and co-operation.

Skedaddle

It's also short term gain (well slightly smoothing things over for a while) for long term risks and hostility.

LuckyLloyd

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/919706/Brexit-EU-punishment-clause-trade-deal-Theresa-May-Michel-Barnier

As expected, the EU has been first to blink. I'm confused, what has the EU backed down on over the last week?

Presumably related to this:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/919230/Brexit-news-uk-transition-period-EU-laws-punishment-clause

seamus

Well, it's the express. It's fake news. Someone in the EU has suggested that a piece of draft text be reworded and the express hail this as a "major U-turn". When even the loudest isolationists are struggling to find things to justify their viewpoint, it's clear that the UK is completely lost in these negotiations.

Look at what's listed under the tag "European Union" for them:
https://www.express.co.uk/latest/european-union

Basically all nationalist, anti-EU nonsense.

Infini

I would hold my breath on anything coming from the express or any of those low bar media outlets. They generally reek of distortion and untruths.

Tropheus

If you were to believe The Mail and Express, the sole reason for the EUs existence is to impose restrictions on the UK to stop it becoming a world dominating trading power house. BTW, they also believe that the EU is run solely by Germany. Oh, and it's about to crumble any day now.

A little piece of me dies every time I browse through the reader comments on such articles. Leaving trolls aside, there are some people who are unbelievably naive and don't understand the world outside their own town, never mind their country.

BonnieSituation

Tropheus wrote: »

If you were to believe The Mail and Express, the sole reason for the EUs existence is to impose restrictions on the UK to stop it becoming a world dominating trading power house. BTW, they also believe that the EU is run solely by Germany. Oh, and it's about to crumble any day now.

A little piece of me dies every time I browse through the reader comments on such articles. Leaving trolls aside, there are some people who are unbelievably naive and don't understand the world outside their own town, never mind their country.

Two gems:

The bully boys of the EU and their supporters here should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. Good job us Brexiteers are above that nonsense and will still allow them to sell twice as much to us as we do to them after we leave. How lucky they are.

Britain has 50 percent of the eu financial services. What good is that if you can’t get any money. Prevent passporting your financial service supply is screwed. How good is your cognac then. Your eu’s lack of respect has been noticed. We’ve been the best Europeans this last two centuries. You will remember brexit and your intransigence. Stopping the planes, you complete bunch of incompetents.

Infini

All I can think of when I hear that braindead nationalistic garbage is "Pride before the fall".

LuckyLloyd

I should have added the disclaimer: I know its nonsense. I've just become fascinated by actually reading the press in the UK, particularly the pro Brexit sections of the media. I always knew they were pushing a nationalist agenda over the past few years but it was only after Brexit passed that I became an avid reader. It truly is fascinating and it serves to explain how we've got here.

NY2018

seamus wrote: »

This is a "future hangs in the balance" situation for the EU as much as it is for the UK.

If the EU makes Ireland a sacrificial lamb to keep the UK in the market, then they may as well start pulling down the shutters now.

I’m unsure what you mean here.

It is my understanding that if the EU were to give the UK special treatment, ie. a good free trade deal and access to single market that this would hugely benefit Ireland. I’m not sure how we’d be a sacrificial lamb in such a scenario (aside from paying a higher amount into EU budget to compensate for UK discontinued contribution)

It would be a political disaster for the EU as a whole, which is why it should not and will not happen, but it would be hugely beneficial to Ireland as we would maintain frictionless trade with our biggest trading partner.

I’m unsure how you could characterise us as a sacrificial lamb in such a scenario.