Brexit discussion thread IV

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is only obvious if you happen to listen to experts or the civil service.

To the likes of JRM, IDS and Boris it isn't obvious at all. In fact, as the Tory MP said on Sky News yesterday, there will be £2,300 pa savings per family from lower food and clothing prices once they leave the EU.

Sterling is going to fall that much :eek:



:pac:


Time to drag out this again.
UK shafting EU steel producers over a fiver.

Thing is the UK was an EU steel producer too :rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/12/sajid-javid-uk-blocked-higher-eu-steel-tariffs-fearing-shoe-price-rises

The UK blocked tougher EU trade rules to help the steel industry partly because it could have raised the price of shoes for British shoppers, Sajid Javid has said.

The business secretary argued the UK opposed scrapping the so-called lesser duty rule as it would have “cost British shoppers dear”, including an extra £130m a year on the price of footwear – the equivalent of about £4.80 for each household.

A number of EU countries have been trying to get the rule lifted, as it would allow higher tariffs to be imposed on cut-price Chinese steel being dumped on the world market.

An Ciarraioch

Peter Foster analyses the knock-on impact on UK MEPs if Article 50 is extended past the Euros:

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1021422831199031297

Capt'n Midnight

flutered wrote: »

they have people going to most eu countrys this week, in an effort to side step barnier, they now see him as the devil articulate

Two can play that game. Leo is in Croatia today and

Tomorrow in Bucharest, Mr Varadkar will meet the president and prime minister of Romania.

On Wednesday, Mr Varadkar will visit one of the most prestigious cultural institutions in the world, the Venice Biennale, which has been curated this year by two Irish architects Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara.

He will then travel to Rome to meet new Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte on Thursday.

jm08

kowtow wrote: »

I get your point and you are right, it is what it is covering up which matters. For vegetables this is true too.. because it reduces the amount of control that has to be exercised in soils and in washing soils off in the field, just as in the US it permits different treatments at slaughter primarily rather than in the poultry house.

If you take Campylobacter related gastroenteritis as an indicator of the health of chicken as sold to the population, which I think is a fair if rough approach, then actually countries like Germany and Denmark seem to have up to three times the incidence at present as the United States does regardless of the claims we make for higher food standards. Interestingly Canada is double the US - I wonder if they have chlorine washing there?

Think the real problem with US food is the use of hormones. There are something like 18 substances perfectly legal in the US that are banned in the EU. Some other practices I didn't like was the feeding of chicken **** to cattle.



Rolling Stone did an expose on it here.

https://www.rollingstone.com/interactive/feature-belly-beast-meat-factory-farms-animal-activists/

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well the forecasts are that Ireland will lose about 4% of its GDP over the ten years after Brexit. Assuming there's some truth to that, would you care to provide a figure for the sort of compensation we'll see from the EU?

My own view is that the EU27 will have a lot of private sympathy for Ireland but that it won't translate into money. Part of the problem will be that Ireland never officially voiced concern at the EU's strategy as it was ongoing. We fully backed the strategy that there could be no deal unless the Irish border issue was fully resolved. Only then could trade discussions begin. But the UK leaving the customs union meant that a fully open border was impossible. Therefore no trade discussions were possible.

I have sympathy for our Government in this. Once the EU decided to make the border a red line issue, what could Varadkar do but support it? To do otherwise would be to seem as if he did not care about the Irish border even though the strategy nevertheless put the border itself at much greater risk. Of course Varadkar can say that if the strategy fails, then the UK are to blame for exercising their right to leave the EU and its institutions, not Ireland's policy.


But having said all this, I still think it is likely that there will be some sort of capitulation on the UK side. This is what our strategy depends on for its success. Like I said, this will take the form of the UK leaving the customs union but staying in the EEA.

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, I don't think the EU will be in a position to support Ireland in terms of money, if anything all member states will have to contribute more to plug the hole the UK left in the EU budget.

You are framing the backstop as if it was an EU ploy that the government had no choice but to go along with. This is not true, the backstop is Irish government policy that they spent a huge effort getting into the EU position. It seems clear to me that the government has choosen to persue an open border, either through a backstop, or failing that, unification with NI. A hard border by agreement has been firmly ruled out.

brickster69

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The EU is in such a financial mess it does not know what to do. Italy is fooked, Greece will default otr need more funds. Where is the money going to come from ?[/font]

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

I think diametrically opposite.

Because unity of the EU27 has been the EU’s steadiest line throughout the UK’s Brexit experiment, and nothing would undermine that argument and ideology -and vindicate the hardline Leavers- more than what you suggest.

Politically, the EU simply can’t afford not to help Ireland.

What have they done to help Italy and Greece with the refugee crisis?

Ireland is a wealthy country in EU terms, a fast growing economy (at least until March 19!).

I think there may be some funds made to get a border up and running quickly, certainly I would expect that experts from other border countries to be brought in to help oversee the implementation etc, but longer term or money for loss of the economy? Don't see that happening?

Will our farmers be given additional subsidies to deal with the loss in trade? I doubt it.

That looks dangerously like a diversion attempt, which I wouldn't expect from you

About the refugee crisis, they've (eventually, and late in the day) knocked heads together and are now coming up with at least embryonic solutions. It's a start.

The 3 main issues hampering an 'EU' solution have been, and remain

(1) no EU army [EDIT: and navy, topically] as such, able to police the Med in a centralised and (better) coordinated manner;

(2) importantly (and ironically in a 'Brexit context') no statutory prerogatives at EU level in relation to non-EU immigration (it's not an area of pooled sovereignty); and

(3) of course, due to (2), no pre-existing budget lines in the EU budget to devote to EU measures, so accounts fudging required for whatever 'EU'-badged measures get agreed.

I trust you can appreciate why 'the EU' has not solved the refugee crisis yet, given these issues, and why it's a long and difficult process.

For the rest, i.e. what the EU will actually do to help the RoI, that's a bit too specific for me yet, I'm afraid: your crystal ball may well be as good as mine for answers to your hypotheses.

ArmaniJeanss

kowtow wrote: »

I get your point and you are right, it is what it is covering up which matters. For vegetables this is true too.. because it reduces the amount of control that has to be exercised in soils and in washing soils off in the field, just as in the US it permits different treatments at slaughter primarily rather than in the poultry house.

If you take Campylobacter related gastroenteritis as an indicator of the health of chicken as sold to the population, which I think is a fair if rough approach, then actually countries like Germany and Denmark seem to have up to three times the incidence at present as the United States does regardless of the claims we make for higher food standards. Interestingly Canada is double the US - I wonder if they have chlorine washing there?

Or maybe its a sign of nothing more than that when you get a bit of an initially worrying tummy bug in Canada, Germany or Denmark you can very quickly get analysed and treated as part of a 'free' socialist health care system.
Whereas in the USA the lower-class uninsured eater of the dodgy cheap chicken may hold off on treatment for a lot longer to see if their bodies immune system can cure it themselves after a horrible few days on the toilet, and ultimately some of those who do go for treatment may end up being cured via educated guesswork by some dedicated pro-bono doctor rather than an expensive lab report.

Infini

brickster69 wrote: »

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The EU is in such a financial mess it does not know what to do. Italy is fooked, Greece will default otr need more funds. Where is the money going to come from ?[/font]

Err Italy ain't screwed yet, needing reform yeah but they aint sinking atm. As for Greece they're exiting their bailout finally with growth.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You are framing the backstop as if it was an EU ploy that the government had no choice but to go along with.

This is not true, the backstop is Irish government policy that they spent a huge effort getting into the EU position. It seems clear to me that the government has choosen to persue an open border, either through a backstop, or failing that, unification with NI. A hard border by agreement has been firmly ruled out.

Assuming that's true, is there much evidence that the EU were resisting these great efforts you say were being made by Ireland?

A hard border by agreement has been firmly ruled out.

However the current policy may lead to an even harder border due to lack of agreement. Is that what we want?

I can see why the EU as an institution may choose this approach in order to protect what it sees as its theoretical integrity. Because the damage if there's a failure in negotiations can be contained in a small area. In EU jargon this is known as firewalling.

PeadarCo

Bit cynical wrote:

However the current policy may lead to an even harder border due to lack of agreement. Is that what we want?

Ultimately yes. Personally I'd take a hard border over a deal that damages the integrity of the EU.

The choice for Ireland and it's nothing that hasn't been apparent since the Brexit vote. If the UK leaves the single market and customs Union and single market Ireland either takes a hard border or leaves the EU with the UK. Given Ireland won't be leaving the UK anytime soon a hard border is highly probable. Will people in the Republic care, not enough to leave the EU I'd say. Look at the complaints about people shopping in Newry a few years ago. For all the demands of the EU to put in place a hard border there will also be a huge demand from Irish businesses if you have products and services being sold in the country that don't have to meet Irish and EU law for start.

brickster69

Greece owes 320 Billion Euro 
Italy owes 500 Billion Euro

It is impossible for them to repay. They are bankrupt and all the EU can do is give them more cash to survive or the whole thing collapses.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Assuming that's true, is there much evidence that the EU were resisting these great efforts you say were being made by Ireland?

It was not a question of resistance from the EU. It was clearly identified here in the aftermath of the Brexit vote that ensuring that the EU, and the governments of the other member states understood the context of the the settelment in the North would be vital for Ireland. Before all of this happened, there was not a deep understanding in the EU or other member states of the special status of NI and the reasons that any kind of border infastructure would undermine a fragile peace there.

Whenever dificulties over the border were mentioned, Brexiteers were confidently predicting that when push came to shove, the EU would force Ireland to accept whatever deal the UK agreed with the EU. This was not always as far fetched as it seems now. Getting the Irish position in front of the EU and the other member states, getting Irish priorities on the shortlist of crucial issues in the talks, getting unaminious support from the EU Brexit Task Force and the governments of the other 26 for the Irish position, was a huge win for the Irish Government. That political victory may have been Enda's finest acheivement as Taoiseach. It may seem obvious now that the EU would support Ireland in all this, but it was far from obvious from the start.

However the current policy may lead to an even harder border due to lack of agreement. Is that what we want?

Of course we don't want a hard border, that's why we will not allow any deal that does not have a backstop that ensures there will be no hard border.

Irish government policy is not leading to a hard border. That lies squarly at the feet of the UK Government. If they cannot agree a backstop despite the fact that this will lead to no deal, and all the damage that will cause to their country, then there is nothing that that Irish government can do to prevent a hard border.

I can see why the EU as an institution may choose this approach in order to protect what it sees as its theoretical integrity. Because the damage if there's a failure in negotiations can be contained in a small area. In EU jargon this is known as firewalling.

There is nothing theoretical about the damage that would be caused to Europe if the European Project was unwonud by a bad deal with the UK. The EU is vital to out future, we cannot allow a deal that would undermine the future of the EU.

Water John

You could use the same logic about the US, massive debt and getting worse under Trump. The reality is that state debt is rolled over on the never, never.

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

Greece owes 320 Billion Euro 
Italy owes 500 Billion Euro

It is impossible for them to repay. They are bankrupt and all the EU can do is give them more cash to survive or the whole thing collapses.

If that is your argument then the UK must also be bankrupt, they owe over 2 Trillion and their national debt per citizen is heigher than Greece.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It was not a question of resistance from the EU. It was clearly identified here in the aftermath of the Brexit vote that ensuring that the EU, and the governments of the other member states understood the context of the the settelment in the North would be vital for Ireland. Before all of this happened, there was not a deep understanding in the EU or other member states of the special status of NI and the reasons that any kind of border infastructure would undermine a fragile peace there.

Whenever dificulties over the border were mentioned, Brexiteers were confidently predicting that when push came to shove, the EU would force Ireland to accept whatever deal the UK agreed with the EU. This was not always as far fetched as it seems now. Getting the Irish position in front of the EU and the other member states, getting Irish priorities on the shortlist of crucial issues in the talks, getting unaminious support from the EU Brexit Task Force and the governments of the other 26 for the Irish position, was a huge win for the Irish Government. That political victory may have been Enda's finest acheivement as Taoiseach. It may seem obvious now that the EU would support Ireland in all this, but it was far from obvious from the start.

I don't buy the idea that the Irish Government had to fight to prevent a deal that involved a border and that therefore getting agreement is a huge victory. Like I said, if this were the case, one would reasonably expect evidence of resistance, either at the EU institutional level or among the member states, resistance that the Irish Government successfully overcame. No doubt, the Taoiseach voiced concerns about the border, but I don't think Ireland's interests were served in the way the EU used this concern to hold up talks in other areas. But at this stage we could not back out.

Of course we don't want a hard border, that's why we will not allow any deal that does not have a backstop that ensures there will be no hard border.

However, it was never reasonable to expect the UK to agree to a backstop that involved separating Northern Ireland from the UK for trade purposes.

Irish government policy is not leading to a hard border. That lies squarly at the feet of the UK Government. If they cannot agree a backstop despite the fact that this will lead to no deal, and all the damage that will cause to their country, then there is nothing that that Irish government can do to prevent a hard border.

This is the line I expect the our Government to take if the talks fail. "It is the UKs fault. All we did was put forward proposals that it was not realistic for them to agree to. We now get a hard border but at least it is not a hard border by agreement."

There is nothing theoretical about the damage that would be caused to Europe if the European Project was unwonud by a bad deal with the UK. The EU is vital to out future, we cannot allow a deal that would undermine the future of the EU.

Like I said in an earlier post, what would have served Ireland's interest would have been to recognize early on that the UK is exercising its right to leave the customs union and move straight away to issues of trade with the UK as a third country with a view to having something in place by the end of the two year period. This would not have undermined the EU's integrity and would minimize the border and impact on Ireland's economy.

Leroy42

So Bit Cynical, after we gave in on borders, at what point would you call stop on the UK demands for a deal?

At what point does the issue become the UKs issue to solve since they are changing things?

youreadthat

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, every red top and TV channel from SKY to the BBC will be blaming the EU for punishing the UK for valiantly standing up for themselves - that's where the anger will be directed.

I would not fancy having a foreign accent in the UK in April/May next year.

You guys need to stop reading the Irish Times and the Guardian, you're getting hysterical. I live in the heart of Tory England and there's a good smack of foreigners even here and the picture you paint is so far removed from reality, you may as well be talking about a topic on Nigeria you've never read about for all the accuracy you possess.

EdgeCase

jm08 wrote: »

Think the real problem with US food is the use of hormones. There are something like 18 substances perfectly legal in the US that are banned in the EU. Some other practices I didn't like was the feeding of chicken **** to cattle.



Rolling Stone did an expose on it here.

https://www.rollingstone.com/interactive/feature-belly-beast-meat-factory-farms-animal-activists/

That's not really 'farming' it's more like some kind of dystopian hell.

I'm pretty sure the Tories are going to find themselves up against VERY aggressive animal rights campaigns if they try to foist this kind of food on the UK public, and that is precisely what Trump is trying to force acceptance of.

murphaph

youreadthat wrote: »

You guys need to stop reading the Irish Times and the Guardian, you're getting hysterical. I live in the heart of Tory England and there's a good smack of foreigners even here and the picture you paint is so far removed from reality, you may as well be talking about a topic on Nigeria you've never read about for all the accuracy you possess.

Things haven't turned sour yet. The UK is no stranger to civil unrest and a protest can quickly turn into a riot with looting and that could set off a chain reaction of panic looting. I believe if shops begin to run low it will quickly escalate.

I hope to Christ I'm wrong asI have friends and family in England and it would be naïve to believe Ireland would escape unscathed as we hang at the end of many UK supply chains.

listermint

youreadthat wrote: »

You guys need to stop reading the Irish Times and the Guardian, you're getting hysterical. I live in the heart of Tory England and there's a good smack of foreigners even here and the picture you paint is so far removed from reality, you may as well be talking about a topic on Nigeria you've never read about for all the accuracy you possess.

I think you'll find the thread is packed with people who lived in Tory land as you put it.many of them have either left the UK or are thinking about it.

Come back to this thread same time next year.

We will see who understands or doesn't understand the subject matter.

lawred2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If that is your argument then the UK must also be bankrupt, they owe over 2 Trillion and their national debt per citizen is heigher than Greece.

Not sure what this 500 billion is is in reference to Italy? It's not the national debt anyway. Italy's national debt is nearly €2.5 trillion..

An Ciarraioch

Unless Britain is planning to leave the Council of Europe, it can't 're-introduce the death penalty:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1021479392210563079

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Unless Britain is planning to leave the Council of Europe, it can't 're-introduce the death penalty:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1021479392210563079

Really scraping the barrel for reasons to support Brexit with that.

BonnieSituation

What more can you say to that? Wow.

brickster69

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Greece owes 320 Billion Euro 
Italy owes 500 Billion Euro

It is impossible for them to repay. They are bankrupt and all the EU can do is give them more cash to survive or the whole thing collapses.

UK owes 1900 billion euro, what's your point again? Cherrypicking figures out of air does without context does little to further discussion

Point is UK can afford to make the debt payments and 75% of the debt is owed back to the UK itself. Added to that, the assets of the UK are greater than it's debt which in effect makes it solvent.
If you take for example Italy. The only buyer of Italian bonds are the ECB, no one else will touch them as they  are toxic.

Capt'n Midnight

brickster69 wrote: »

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The EU is in such a financial mess it does not know what to do. Italy is fooked, Greece will default otr need more funds. Where is the money going to come from ?[/font]

Would this be the same EU that just fined Goole €4.34 billion ? :pac:

Facebook could be next. And besides it's only petty cash for multinationals.



Italy is doing fine. Huge debt. But most of it is domestic. And a large black market so the numbers look worse than they are.

Greece, yeah. At least they are out of the worst of it.



For some paying 0.1% of GPD into an organisation that allows you to sell to half a billion of the worlds richest consumers makes sense. For others it's the warm fuzzy feeling of being able to sleep at night knowing you don't have to worry about Mother Russia pulling the plug on your economy. WWII and Yugoslavia are within living memory.

An opinion poll suggested that most people down here would be OK with shelling out €9Bn to support NI after reunification. Some things are worth a few quid extra.

brickster69

lawred2 wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If that is your argument then the UK must also be bankrupt, they owe over 2 Trillion and their national debt per citizen is heigher than Greece.

Not sure what this 500 billion is is in reference to Italy? It's not the national debt anyway. Italy's national debt is nearly €2.5 trillion..

Apologies, i was quoting what it owes EU banks.

Enzokk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Scotland's press seems to be already blaming the Tories and the DUP

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16369923.iain-macwhirter-no-deal-brexit-would-mean-no-more-uk/?ref=fbshr

I don't think anyone but a tiny minority will be able to blame the EU without being demolished by the facts.
Last weeks shennanigans in parliament were widely documented.

The interesting thing to follow for me is the support for the Scottish Conservatives. They have supported their English counterparts and voted with the government by voting against the Chequers white paper (just think about that again, the government voted against itself). This despite their leader and they themselves supporting remain in the referendum. How will this play out with the voters in Scotland? My guess is those MP's should enjoy Westminster while they can, they will not be going back.

Trasna1 wrote: »

I'm not sure what was actually said, but if it's as reported, it was a silly thing for Leo to come out with. If the UK decides to go back on what was agreed, then a full customs border will be required. Ireland will be obliged to put it up on our side.

The alternative is effectively be drawn into SM and CU with the UK with the border at our ports, putting Ireland outside the EU in all but name.

I will take a border with NI any day of the week over and above all of the island being brought back into London's orbit. NI will come around eventually.

It won't be the hardest though - the EU-Russia one will remain harder, since tha controls people too.

I find it strange that he came out with that pronouncement. I can find very little reason why he would say it as surely he should know in the case of a no-deal Brexit all bets are off.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are they looking to keep services out of the deal? One of the problems with the white paper, as I understand it, is that whilst the UK has agreed to A customs union for goods, they are kept services out which the EU cannot agree to (or won't).

Bearing in mind that the city of London is such a powerhouse at the moment, what is so terrible about services with the EU?

Barnier addressed it with his speech the other day, although I am not sure if it was with his speech or in answering a question. I could be wrong but the UK wants to be outside EU regulations with services because they could then basically sell services to the EU that they have obtained from other countries. They could then basically undercut the EU, or something like that.

bilston

I was just thinking that if there is no deal and a hard border is required who is actually going to build it?

The British don't want it and the Irish don't want it, so irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations the infrastructute may never be put in place.