Brexit discussion thread IV

Leroy42

There is also the No deal option. There is a difference between hard brexit and no deal.

Hard Brexit is that they leave the EU, SM, Cu and all the instituations. But they have a plan going forward in terms of trade agreement. They would have a transition period.

No deal means they crash out.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is also the No deal option. There is a difference between hard brexit and no deal.

Hard Brexit is that they leave the EU, SM, Cu and all the instituations. But they have a plan going forward in terms of trade agreement. They would have a transition period.

No deal means they crash out.

No, Hard Brexit is crash out. Anything else is Brexit really. The UK's stated desire for Brexit involves leaving the EU, SM and CU.

No deal = Hard Brexit.
'Customs Arrangement' etc = Soft Brexit.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

No, Hard Brexit is crash out. Anything else is Brexit really. The UK's stated desire for Brexit involves leaving the EU, SM and CU.

No deal = Hard Brexit.
'Customs Arrangement' etc = Soft Brexit.

Well, there's not much value in squabbling over terms, but I think the conventional understanding is:

Soft Brexit - transition to a relationship involving EEA membership, Customs Union membership, or both, or some equally close relationship. ("The Norway Option")

Hard Brexit - transition to a more distant relationship; no Customs union or single market participation, but a trade agreement ("The Canada Option")

Crash-out Brexit. Flounce out without a withdrawal agreement. No transition period. Dispute with EU over settlement of outstanding membership commitments. General chaos over flights, transport links, status of citizens in one another's jurisdictions. etc. Obviously, no prospect of a trade deal of any kind.

Leroy42

It seems after yesterdays Barniers rejection of the main parts of the WP, the EU is starting to take the gloves off

It will be “impossible” for MEPs to approve the Brexit withdrawal agreement without an acceptable backstop included, Mr Verhofstadt added.

Ramping up his rhetoric, he said: “Any suggestion that the UK Government will renege on the commitments it has already made only risk to undermine trust and sabotage negotiations.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/995074/Brexit-news-Guy-Verhofstadt-Theresa-May-White-Paper-UK-EU-negotiation

judeboy101

The smart money is on an extension to A50, how the ERG react, knowing the promise of "freedom" by march is now gone, that will be the interesting bit.

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems after yesterdays Barniers rejection of the main parts of the WP, the EU is starting to take the gloves off

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/995074/Brexit-news-Guy-Verhofstadt-Theresa-May-White-Paper-UK-EU-negotiation

theexpress.co.uk wrote:

Ramping up his rhetoric...

the irony

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

The smart money is on an extension to A50, how the ERG react, knowing the promise of "freedom" by march is now gone, that will be the interesting bit.

Liam Fox has warned Theresa May that extending Brexit negotiations would be a "complete betrayal" of Brexit voters, telling Business Insider that the prime minister should commit to instead leaving the European Union with no deal.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/liam-fox-interview-no-deal-brexit-extending-article-50-betrayal-theresa-may-2018-7

Liam Fox says no

judeboy101

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://uk.businessinsider.com/liam-fox-interview-no-deal-brexit-extending-article-50-betrayal-theresa-may-2018-7

Liam Fox says no

If foxy didn't leave after chequers he will do as he is told. He's having great fun building up those frequent flyer miles.

An Ciarraioch

For the first time in a YouGov poll, a narrow majority now favours a second referendum:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1022619531938816001

ancapailldorcha

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

For the first time in a YouGov poll, a narrow majority now favours a second referendum:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1022619531938816001/photo/1

Fingers crossed that the pressure continues to build over Parliament's summer recess.

Hurrache

This gave me a laugh, Brexiter on Sky News panel said it was a good idea to leave the single market, gets himself into a knot when asked why.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1022782569673355265

Trasna1

What good will a second referendum do unless the result is an overwhelming win for one side (which is unlikely).
A narrow win for remain that keeps them in will just have the UK constantly blocking and causing issues for the other 27 - particularly so if you have bitter leavers in a ruling Tory party in charge.
Brexit has to happen, the question is whether the form is in or out of the EEA and CU.

Akrasia

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fingers crossed that the pressure continues to build over Parliament's summer recess.

Hopefully they'll see sense.
In a few years time all the EU countries will be in the pub chatting to Britain reminiscing about the time she almost married that insane guy with all the guns and pet dobermans who is in prison now, and wasn't it lucky that she cancelled the engagement after the invitations had already been sent out.

mouldybags

Hurrache wrote: »

This gave me a laugh, Brexiter on Sky News panel said it was a good idea to leave the single market, gets himself into a knot when asked why.

Tbf, it's a good a reason as any of the rest of them have come up with.

"I would leave the single market because it's not the be all and end all"

Akrasia

Trasna1 wrote: »

What good will a second referendum do unless the result is an overwhelming win for one side (which is unlikely).
A narrow win for remain that keeps them in will just have the UK constantly blocking and causing issues for the other 27 - particularly so if you have bitter leavers in a ruling Tory party in charge.
Brexit has to happen, the question is whether the form is in or out of the EEA and CU.

I would be confident that a 2nd referendum, which would take part after an extended period of A50 negotiations and which will be a referendum on the deal that May has actually agreed with the UK would pass with a strong mandate to stay
In the first referendum the leave campaign was all rhetoric about the UK being allowed to leave with full access to the free market and no financial obligations, and immediate access to FTAs with other countries outside the EU.

The first referendum was aspirational, people voted to 'make britain great again'

A 2nd referendum would be on whether to accept the inevitably awful deal they get from the EU (if the red lines are respected) or something close to a Brexit in Name Only in which case they'd be no better off, and lose all influence over decision making in the EU.

Some people would still vote no to spite the 'remoaners' but the majority will recognise that voting to leave is a vote to be poorer and less secure with fewer options.

I also envisage a much tighter reigns on how social media is used to distort facts in a 2nd referendum, similar to how political ads from certain parties were banned from social media during our abortion referendum.

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

A narrow win for remain that keeps them in will just have the UK constantly blocking and causing issues for the other 27

aka The Good Old Days.

J Mysterio

judeboy101 wrote: »

The smart money is on an extension to A50, how the ERG react, knowing the promise of "freedom" by march is now gone, that will be the interesting bit.

I don't see it in the EU's interest to extend the negotiations. Equally, it wouldn't go down well in the UK - despite it potentially being a lifeline - and May and co. have committed to the leave date.

That's not to say it won't happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

BlitzKrieg

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

aka The Good Old Days.

If anything the UK would be more toothless if they reverted back to the old day. Outside of the Council of Ministers their influence will be tanked post brexit. Especially if brexiteers take out their anger on the 2nd referendum via the european election and brexit candidates win across the board for the UK, it would pretty much guarantee the UK having no input at parliament. Their Commissioner will probably be equally sidelined and until the UK sorts out it's domestic woes the Prime minister will have no influence in the Council.

Leroy42

The only real argument that the leave side would have is to basically claim that TM, and all those that were in the cabinet with her, had made a complete horlicks of Brexit.

So straight away the likes of Boris, Gove and Davies are sidelined. If they tried to argue in favour of Leave the only questions put to them would need to be why they had made just a mess of it? What would they do differently?

That Brexit can still result in all the great things previously claimed, if only they could get Boris or JRM or Trump in charge. But by doing that they are effectively admitting that the Tories are useless, it will certainly split the party.

Any rerun would be undertaken knowing exactly what the EU position was. So they couldn't argue that it would be the easiest deal in history. They couldn't argue that the EU will buckle because BMW will demand it. As it will have been shown to be false.

But one major problem is that remain haven't given any convincing arguments over how things are actually going to be better. Simply arguing that things won't be worse is not likely to get you votes if people think that things are pretty bleak as it is. And how this will deal with the issues that lead to Leave in the first place.

An Ciarraioch

A Fermanagh bakery is building a factory in Cavan to ensure access to EU markets after Brexit:

http://www.thejournal.ie/cavan-bakery-brexit-4151560-Jul2018/

Of course, as Tony Connelly's book highlights, companies on both sides of the Border will be seeking to Brexit-proof themselves, as various dairy co-ops have cross-Border supply chains, and the well-known duck brand Silver Hill have operations in both Monaghan and Tyrone.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trasna1 wrote: »

A narrow win for remain that keeps them in will just have the UK constantly blocking and causing issues for the other 27

aka The Good Old Days.

Nope. It would almost certainly mean that the U.K. couldn’t agree to any changes - be they good or bad - were they to stay on.

There is a section in Tony Blair’s memoirs where he describe the response he got in the HoC after European Council meetings. Anytime it was futile or disastrous meeting, he received a hero’s welcome. Anytime he secured agreements that advanced the UK’s interests, he was greeted with hostility and jeering.

That mentality has if anything strengthened not reduced since his time and would be worse after a cancelled Brexit.

Econ__

Trasna1 wrote: »

What good will a second referendum do unless the result is an overwhelming win for one side (which is unlikely).
A narrow win for remain that keeps them in will just have the UK constantly blocking and causing issues for the other 27 - particularly so if you have bitter leavers in a ruling Tory party in charge.
Brexit has to happen, the question is whether the form is in or out of the EEA and CU.

If remain won in a 2nd referendum - there would be absolutely no appetite from the public (including many of those who want to leave the EU) to go through the grueling Article 50 process again, particularly any time soon.

Couple this with the fact that the natural shifting of demographics in the UK means that support for Brexit is only going one way, and that's down.


In the unlikely event of a 2nd referendum and a remain win, I'd be pretty confident it would bury the European question in the UK for an awful long time.

Infini

A second referendum would also be a way of damage control. Stop the rot now in the economy and then focus on reforms and taking on the elements that led them into such a mess in the first place like the parts of the media pushing outright lies and the fact that leave cheated the 1st time.

Trasna1

Econ__ wrote: »

If remain won in a 2nd referendum - there would be absolutely no appetite from the public (including many of those who want to leave the EU) to go through the grueling Article 50 process again, particularly any time soon.

Couple this with the fact that the natural shifting of demographics in the UK means that support for Brexit is only going one way, and that's down.


In the unlikely event of a 2nd referendum and a remain win, I'd be pretty confident it would bury the European question in the UK for an awful long time.

The public wouldn't be asked again but you'd be guaranteed a lot more eurosceptic politicians being sent from the UK to EU Parliament. Then if and when the Tories are back in power you'll have an emboldened eurosceptic wing intent on causing division in the union.

The UK is better off in an outer orbit, for both it's own and the EUs sake - doing it's own thing politically.

You really need a strong majority of the population and body politic wanting and believing in the project to achieve things. A population where half that feels trapped and resentful are not going to make great partners.

An Ciarraioch

A somewhat curious piece by Tim Garton-Ash on Brexit, referring for the potential for a "Weimar Britain", even though he himself admits the likelihood of an authoritarian regime in the UK is practically zero, nor would the economic decline reach the same extent. He's strongest when calling for co-operation on security and analysing the international political scene, but ends weakly by stating individual members need a deal more than the UK does.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/eu-brexit-weimar-britain

All the more surprising, given Garton-Ash is most famous for his series of articles leading up to and following German unification, which was probably the last event of similar significance to affect an EU member.

An Ciarraioch

Good old Guy Verhofstadt!

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1022783471847174144

Imreoir2

J Mysterio wrote: »

No, Hard Brexit is crash out. Anything else is Brexit really. The UK's stated desire for Brexit involves leaving the EU, SM and CU.

No deal = Hard Brexit.
'Customs Arrangement' etc = Soft Brexit.

This is how those terms seem to be used today, go back to when Art 50 was triggered though and the idea of a no-deal Brexit was not even discussed seriously.
A soft Brexit was staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, a hard Brexit was leaving one or the other of them, or both, as that would raise the posibility of a hard border.

The idea of what a soft brexit is, has shifted considerably over the last 18 months.

Econ__

Trasna1 wrote: »

The public wouldn't be asked again but you'd be guaranteed a lot more eurosceptic politicians being sent from the UK to EU Parliament. Then if and when the Tories are back in power you'll have an emboldened eurosceptic wing intent on causing division in the union.

The UK is better off in an outer orbit, for both it's own and the EUs sake - doing it's own thing politically.

You really need a strong majority of the population and body politic wanting and believing in the project to achieve things. A population where half that feels trapped and resentful are not going to make great partners.

A large and active pro EU movement has been created in the UK since the Brexit vote - I think this might act as a counter balance to the Euroskeptics that previously walked into the European parliament. I might be wrong on that - just a thought.

Trasna1

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A somewhat curious piece by Tim Garton-Ash on Brexit, referring for the potential for a "Weimar Britain", even though he himself admits the likelihood of an authoritarian regime in the UK is practically zero, nor would the economic decline reach the same extent. He's strongest when calling for co-operation on security and analysing the international political scene, but ends weakly by stating individual members need a deal more than the UK does.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/eu-brexit-weimar-britain

All the more surprising, given Garton-Ash is most famous for his series of articles leading up to and following German unification, which was probably the last event of similar significance to affect an EU member.

That's a poorly argued piece. He acknowledges the headline is purely for the purpose for attention grabbing. The UK isn't being destroyed by war and millions of it's men won't be slaughtered in it's trenches. The idea of a Weimar Britain - a totally failed stateis ridiculous.

He points to Galileo as a case where a concession could be made. For all his writing, he doesn't see the strategy - the EU gives nothing for free. Access to Galileo will be traded to win a greater concession from the UK

EdgeCase

It's hugely problematic to try to put Brexit into the context of previous historical economic disasters as there is no real precedent for this.

The European Union is almost an entirely novel concept and it exists in an era of intensely interconnected technology, supply chains and markets. It's also politically very different from entities that came about due to force, conquest or coercion. It's an entirely voluntary union, and as the UK is finding out, nobody's going to try and stop you leaving, but there are costs involved in breaking all of those links.

Frankly, I have no idea what the UK is trying to do. It looks like someone's trying to sell the idea of 19th century Britain in a 21st century globalised, deeply interconnected world. That is just doomed to failure as it simply incompatible with reality.

Even what they are continuously blabbering on about is completely self-contradicting ; all this waffle and spin about a 'global Britain' - whatever that is? The UK (to give the country its all-inclusive name) is highly globalised already and it never has been a dichotomy between European and Global trade. The EU has been a huge benefit to its members in negotiating global trade deals and gives them the comfort and security of a huge quasi-domestic market to trade in in the event of any issues with global trade. That's precisely why Trump's threats are relatively inconsequential to the EU in reality, but in a similar situation, the UK on its own would be forced to do an unfavourable deal.

The whole thing is utter madness. There's no other way of putting it.

The very fact that there are reasonable people and sane media commentators actually having a discussion about hoarding food and essentials in the UK, in 2018 - one of the most developed countries in the world in one of the world's most peaceful, stable, wealthiest and most highly developed regions is just beyond comprehension.

All I could say is the UK is being lead by irresponsible morons who will not be remembered well for this. They could easily cause serious and long-term damage.

All I can see is tribalism, idiotic dogma and a total lack of intelligence or pragmatism coming from Britain at the moment. It really is that bad.

It's depressing to think that a cabal of jingoists could potentially destroy what had grown into a modern, stable, wealthy, socially progressive modern democracy and damage decades of bridge building with neighbours.

Also from an Irish perspective, we lose a stable and pragmatic neighbour, probably for decades to come.