Brexit discussion thread IV

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

But it won't be EU officials who decide. Even if the UK came to its senses and asked it to be reversed, it would need 27 governments to agree and there is literally no knowing what conditions they - or the Commission and Parliament - would impose.

A50 set a procedure in motion. It also triggered a chain reaction as governments, agencies, banks, businesses and logistics companies looked to build the post- Brexit EU. That work is well advanced and nobody I talk to across Europe is giving a second thought to the UK's situation or inconveniencing themselves in the slightest over them.

The genie isn't just out of the bottle; he is building a nice new house for himself and he ain't getting back in.

I don't think they would impose any to be honest. The UK is one of the EU's wealthiest members, an important destination for Eastern European youngsters, a key component of Europe's defence strategy and a major science, engineering and research hub.

Oh yes they will. The UK has been a pain in the ass far more often than it has been a constructive member and this Brexit lunacy - and the crap that preceded it - has taken up time and energy that could have been much better used.

If they want to pull out of Brexit, they will be required to do some things that make it virtually impossible they would try this again. That could include joining the Euro for starters.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

Oh yes they will. The UK has been a pain in the ass far more often than it has been a constructive member and this Brexit lunacy - and the crap that preceded it - has taken up time and energy that could have been much better used.

If they want to pull out of Brexit, they will be required to do some things that make it virtually impossible they would try this again. That could include joining the Euro for starters.

However the EU strategy has been to try to engineer a reversal of A50 from the beginning.

flutered

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it has not happened. The UK is still a full member of the EU.


It will happen next march unless the UK does something about it.


Given the damage Brexit will do in the UK, they certainly should do something to stop it. Given the damage it will do to the EU, they should certainly allow the UK to change their minds.


The fact that a minority of grumpy Little Englanders will be unhappy if it is stopped pales in comparison to the economic and social destruction Brexit will cause. It's not as if any voters are going to be happy with the reality anyhow.

the main problem is, their has been a concentred effort in some quarters for britan to exit, they have the upper hand via they own the media

Igotadose

Very interesting data from politico.eu about wheremigrants are born (inside or outside EU), and how well people in EU guess (badly) what % of their society comes from where.

UK: Estimate 21% of migrants come from outside EU. Actual percentage: 8.3. Total % of migrants: 13.3%

Ireland: 17.2 estimate, 3.9 actual. Total % migrants: 16.4%

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-migration-refugees-where-migrants-are/

flutered

breatheme wrote: »

If the UK came back they'd probably not get their opt-outs... which might even be good for the EU in the (very) long run.

did they loose them by posting article50

J Mysterio

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the EU strategy has been to try to engineer a reversal of A50 from the beginning.

I really don't think that's the case. Can you demonstrate how they have went about this? As far as I can see, the EU fully accept the UK intends to leave the EU, they are just trying to minimise the damage as the UK implodes.

flutered

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK, when it can be bothered has done a huge amount of good in Europe. The single market is perhaps the best example of this. Germany doesn't want to lead Europe. The UK provided a good check on Franco-German ambitions and reassured the Eastern states on that front. Too much power in one place is never a good thing. The UK has also reigned in the EU on its protectionist tendencies.

The UK leaving is definitely worse for it than the EU but it's good for neither. There are very good reasons why senior EU officials have said time and time again that Brexit is reversible.

i believe that britan di nothing for europe, that it was a drain on eu development, looking for opt out, their own way in many things, what about their desire to have turkey has a full member

An Ciarraioch

Igotadose wrote: »

Very interesting data from politico.eu about wheremigrants are born (inside or outside EU), and how well people in EU guess (badly) what % of their society comes from where.

UK: Estimate 21% of migrants come from outside EU. Actual percentage: 8.3. Total % of migrants: 13.3%

Ireland: 17.2 estimate, 3.9 actual. Total % migrants: 16.4%

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-migration-refugees-where-migrants-are/

And of the actual 3.9%, would imagine a good portion are returning emigrants from the USA.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Oh yes they will. The UK has been a pain in the ass far more often than it has been a constructive member and this Brexit lunacy - and the crap that preceded it - has taken up time and energy that could have been much better used.

If they want to pull out of Brexit, they will be required to do some things that make it virtually impossible they would try this again. That could include joining the Euro for starters.

However the EU strategy has been to try to engineer a reversal of A50 from the beginning.

If the EU had been interested in preventing A50 in the first place, Cameron wouldn't have been sent back to London with his head under his arm when he tried to opt out of half the obligations of the Single Market.

The EU's strategy has been - and is - to ensure the integrity of the most successful political and economic experiment in history. The only bit of the strategy aimed at getting a reversal of A50 is pointing out the obvious.

Bit cynical

J Mysterio wrote: »

I really don't think that's the case. Can you demonstrate how they have went about this? As far as I can see, the EU fully accept the UK intends to leave the EU, they are just trying to minimise the damage as the UK implodes.

I was probably a bit narrow in my view of the EU goal in negotiations. Reversal of A50 would be the ideal goal. Failing that, keeping the UK in as many EU structures and institutions as possible, e.g., customs union, single market.

What I don't think the EU have been trying to do is minimise the damage to the EU in the situation where the UK has chosen to leave those institutions but rather to keep them in those structures.

There's obviously no public document that states this but I think it can be inferred from the EU's actions as opposed to their words. For example, refusal to discuss trade until phase 1 of the talks have completed and placing unsolvable problems in phase 1. How, for instance, is there to be no border infrastructure with the North while at the same time the UK leaving the customs union?

In other words, the strategy has been to get the UK to back down in some way from its stated position.

Now I've no moral problem with this; the world is a tough place and countries and organisations protect their interests. It is a high risk strategy though and depends on an estimation of the UKs resolve. If this estimation is wrong, then it is the wrong strategy.

Ireland's position, for example, is that there should be no deal unless there's no border infrastructure. That is fine if the UK can be made to back down on leaving the customs union (for that is the only solution) but we need to accept that it has failed if the UK does not back down and therefore Ireland needs to bear some of the responsibility for the problems we experience in the event of a full crash-out brexit.

J Mysterio

The Bank of England has raised interest rates above 0.5 per cent for the first time since March 2009, taking the base rate to 0.75 per cent.

The monetary policy committee voted unanimously, 9-0, to raise the rate by 0.25 percentage points, and said future increases are “likely to be at a gradual pace and to a limited extent”.

The MPC added that it “continues to recognise that the economic outlook could be influenced significantly by the response of households, businesses and financial markets to developments related to the process of EU withdrawal”.

1 GBP = 1.12 Euro at the moment. It should be at parity at least. I expect things to get drastically worse.

fash

First Up wrote: »

If the EU had been interested in preventing A50 in the first place, Cameron wouldn't have been sent back to London with his head under his arm when he tried to opt out of half the obligations of the Single Market.

The EU's strategy has been - and is - to ensure the integrity of the most successful political and economic experiment in history. The only bit of the strategy aimed at getting a reversal of A50 is pointing out the obvious.

I believe Cameron got almost everything he asked for ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35471117 ).
What exactly did he not get that was important?

Leroy42

I don't understand why they are increasing rates, with so much uncertainty in the air at the moment it strikes me as really odd.

Not Brexit related I know and from what I've read it seems to be mainly based on the fear of rising wages as they get closer to full employment. Still seems an odd one to me (admittedly far from an expert on these issues)

First Up

Bit cynical wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

I really don't think that's the case. Can you demonstrate how they have went about this? As far as I can see, the EU fully accept the UK intends to leave the EU, they are just trying to minimise the damage as the UK implodes.

I was probably a bit narrow in my view of the EU goal in negotiations. Reversal of A50 would be the ideal goal. Failing that, keeping the UK in as many EU structures and institutions as possible, e.g., customs union, single market.

What I don't think the EU have been trying to do is minimise the damage to the EU in the situation where the UK has chosen to leave those institutions but rather to keep them in those structures.

There's obviously no public document that states this but I think it can be inferred from the EU's actions as opposed to their words. For example, refusal to discuss trade until phase 1 of the talks have completed and placing unsolvable problems in phase 1. How, for instance, is there to be no border infrastructure with the North while at the same time the UK leaving the customs union?

In other words, the strategy has been to get the UK to back down in some way from its stated position.

Now I've no moral problem with this; the world is a tough place and countries and organisations protect their interests. It is a high risk strategy though and depends on an estimation of the UKs resolve. If this estimation is wrong, then it is the wrong strategy.

Ireland's position, for example, is that there should be no deal unless there's no border infrastructure. That is fine if the UK can be made to back down on leaving the customs union (for that is the only solution) but we need to accept that it has failed if the UK does not back down and therefore Ireland needs to bear some of the responsibility for the problems we experience in the event of a full crash-out brexit.

The EU hasn't "failed" to keep the UK in the SM or CU. That door is open to them on terms similar to those given to the non EU countries that are members. You think they should give the UK a better deal?

If problems are "unsolvable", then whats the point of ignoring them or pretending they don't exist? How does that help?

The UK has adopted several mutually exclusive and contradictory positions. None of those was imposed by the EU.

An Ciarraioch

First Up wrote: »

The EU hasn't "failed" to keep the UK in the SM or CU. That door is open to them on terms similar to those given to the non EU countries that are members. You think they should give the UK a better deal?

If problems are "unsolvable", then whats the point of ignoring them or pretending they don't exist? How does that help?

The UK has adopted several mutually exclusive and contradictory positions. None of those was imposed by the EU.

Indeed - the famous Barnier Slide outlines the available options perfectly.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

The EU's strategy has been - and is - to ensure the integrity of the most successful political and economic experiment in history. The only bit of the strategy aimed at getting a reversal of A50 is pointing out the obvious.

We should never forget this. It's better than the alternative.

Never forget where it came from.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Indeed - the famous Barnier Slide outlines the available options perfectly.

I love that slide.

First Up

fash wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If the EU had been interested in preventing A50 in the first place, Cameron wouldn't have been sent back to London with his head under his arm when he tried to opt out of half the obligations of the Single Market.

The EU's strategy has been - and is - to ensure the integrity of the most successful political and economic experiment in history. The only bit of the strategy aimed at getting a reversal of A50 is pointing out the obvious.

I believe Cameron got almost everything he asked for ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35471117 ).
What exactly did he not get that was important?

But he didn't ask for what the UKIP lobby wanted because he knew he wouldn't get it.
The stuff on benefits and sending money home was a fudge. Farage and Co were baying for a ban on free movement.

He was told in no uncertain terms that the EU was going no further in keeping him in his job or his government in office.

brickster69

"And ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum that I promised and that I will deliver. You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
 This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision. So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave… …would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay… …I say think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum."

David Cameron, 2015

Water John

Not many seem to have thought of their children and grandchildren. Its the seniors who took this over the edge.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

But he didn't ask for what the UKIP lobby wanted because he knew he wouldn't get it.
The stuff on benefits and sending money home was a fudge. Farage and Co were baying for a ban on free movement.

He was told in no uncertain terms that the EU was going no further in keeping him in his job or his government in office.

His mistake was to go looking for concessions in the first place. He should have come out swinging for the EU and against UKIP - listing all the things that the EU has done well - the single market, the customs union, EHIC card, roaming charges, work-time directive, free movement for UK citizens, plus plus plus. He should have also mentioned the rebate and the other opt outs.

Instead he went with a shopping list and came back empty-handed. How could he win after that? He should have limited expectations, instead he left an open goal - 'is that all you got?'

First Up

Sam Russell wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

But he didn't ask for what the UKIP lobby wanted because he knew he wouldn't get it.
The stuff on benefits and sending money home was a fudge. Farage and Co were baying for a ban on free movement.

He was told in no uncertain terms that the EU was going no further in keeping him in his job or his government in office.

His mistake was to go looking for concessions in the first place. He should have come out swinging for the EU and against UKIP - listing all the things that the EU has done well - the single market, the customs union, EHIC card, roaming charges, work-time directive, free movement for UK citizens, plus plus plus. He should have also mentioned the rebate and the other opt outs.

Instead he went with a shopping list and came back empty-handed. How could he win after that? He should have limited expectations, instead he left an open goal - 'is that all you got?'

Thatcher wouldn't be a favourite of many around here (I assume) but she was a major force in driving the Single Market. She would have crushed Farage and his kind like the insect he is and that would have been that.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

The EU hasn't "failed" to keep the UK in the SM or CU. That door is open to them on terms similar to those given to the non EU countries that are members. You think they should give the UK a better deal?

What the EU did, I am suggesting, is make sure these are essentially the only options other than no deal with the hope that the UK would take one of the first two.

If problems are "unsolvable", then whats the point of ignoring them or pretending they don't exist? How does that help?

I'm not sure what your point is here. I don't think having no border infrastructure in the North is compatible with the UK leaving the CU. Even if the UK did not erect infrastructure, the EU would have Ireland do so. Yet politically it is not realistic to expect the UK to stay in the CU and lose the ability to do independent trade deals.

The UK leaving the EU is their choice. But our insistence on no deal if there's going to be border infrastructure is our choice.

If the result these two choices is no deal then we and not just the UK bear responsibility for the result. This, I think will be the attitude of other EU countries should we decide to look for financial aid: "you guys wanted zero border infrastructure or no deal. You got what you wanted".

The UK has adopted several mutually exclusive and contradictory positions. None of those was imposed by the EU.

I think on the border issue, they have been fairly consistent. They recognize that there will be some infrastructure but want to make it as unobtrusive as possible. I'm not sure our uncompromising stance on this will work in our favour. Do you think it will?

Water John

Looks like there is some agreement between the Tories and the EU, with the Tories offering to tie future Govn'ts,(hint Corbyn) from subsidising industries.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/02/uk-brexit-team-seeks-to-exploit-eu-concern-on-corbyns-state-aid-plans

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Looks like there is some agreement between the Tories and the EU, with the Tories offering to tie future Govn'ts,(hint Corbyn) from subsidising industries.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/02/uk-brexit-team-seeks-to-exploit-eu-concern-on-corbyns-state-aid-plans

Like I keep posting, there's ways to fudge state subsidies to keep jobs if thats that goal rather than scoring political points.

It's only an issue if you put principles before EVERYTHING, even knudges that work.


"It sounds great in practice but how will it work in theory?"
- Garret FitzGerald

PeadarCo

Bit cynical wrote:

I think on the border issue, they have been fairly consistent. They recognize that there will be some infrastructure but want to make it as unobtrusive as possible. I'm not sure our uncompromising stance on this will work in our favour. Do you think it will?

The the UKs statement on the border is essentially meaningless. You either have a soft border or a hard border with the relevant infrastructure. It's very simple. The technology for a hard border without infrastructure does not exist and when you start looking at how it would have to work( analyse all of what's in a truck that's moving at 80-100km/hr in a couple of hundred meters and assess if everything has already been declared to customs, is in line with EU rules) it probably will not exist in the next decade if not more and definitely not before March next year. Or put simply to believe the UK statement on the border they would have to be able to show a working demonstration of the system now.

The Irish stance isn't uncompromising it just reflects the reality of the situation. There is the option for the Irish government is accept a hard border as part of the deal. But that would not go down well politically. I also don't see the benefit to the UK or Ireland the benefit for creating new targets for criminals/terrorists. Look at the recent attack on Gerry Adams, there is a still a level of ongoing terrorism in Northern Ireland.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The EU hasn't "failed" to keep the UK in the SM or CU. That door is open to them on terms similar to those given to the non EU countries that are members. You think they should give the UK a better deal?

What the EU did, I am suggesting, is make sure these are essentially the only options other than no deal with the hope that the UK would take one of the first two.

If problems are "unsolvable", then whats the point of ignoring them or pretending they don't exist? How does that help?

I'm not sure what your point is here. I don't think having no border infrastructure in the North is compatible with the UK leaving the CU. Even if the UK did not erect infrastructure, the EU would have Ireland do so. Yet politically it is not realistic to expect the UK to stay in the CU and lose the ability to do independent trade deals.

The UK leaving the EU is their choice. But our insistence on no deal if there's going to be border infrastructure is our choice.

If the result these two choices is no deal then we and not just the UK bear responsibility for the result. This, I think will be the attitude of other EU countries should we decide to look for financial aid: "you guys wanted zero border infrastructure or no deal. You got what you wanted".

The UK has adopted several mutually exclusive and contradictory positions. None of those was imposed by the EU.

I think on the border issue, they have been fairly consistent. They recognize that there will be some infrastructure but want to make it as unobtrusive as possible. I'm not sure our uncompromising stance on this will work in our favour. Do you think it will?

The UK has a range of options; SM, CU, EEA, a bilateral trade agreement or WTO terms. Nobody is forcing them which to take. Their rejection of SM/CU is ideoligical, not financial.

They have been asked how they intend to honour the terms of the Belfast Agreement. So far they have failed to do so.

I am pretty sure there will be a UK/EU border in Ireland, with local traffic moving smoothly and commercial traffic under some control. The EU has thousands of kilometers of borders and thats how they all operate. It does result in some delays but life goes on.

The UK will not be able to use Ireland and the Irish border has either hostages or bargaining chips.

imokyrok

The more I read about the chaos about to it with a No deal Brexit the more worried I become for us in Ireland.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/27/this-is-what-no-deal-brexit-actually-looks-like
And
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/thirty-six-things-that-will-happen-if-britain-crashes-out-of-europe-with-no-deal
And
https://youtu.be/Sx4AF-3Rd44

Water John

The fact that Gove doesn't fancy a, no deal scenario, would signal to me that, it won't happen.

Bit cynical

PeadarCo wrote: »

The the UKs statement on the border is essentially meaningless. You either have a soft border or a hard border with the relevant infrastructure. It's very simple. The technology for a hard border without infrastructure does not exist and when you start looking at how it would have to work( analyse all of what's in a truck that's moving at 80-100km/hr in a couple of hundred meters and assess if everything has already been declared to customs, is in line with EU rules) it probably will not exist in the next decade if not more and definitely not before March next year. Or put simply to believe the UK statement on the border they would have to be able to show a working demonstration of the system now.

I don't think a hard border without any sort infrastructure is what was proposed. But I agree with you that implementing such a system would be difficult for both sides. But it would not be a return to the sort of border that used to exist. We're much more likely to get that sort of border if there's no deal.

I think the main point is that while the UK make their choices, we also have choices. The UK have to live by the consequences of their choices and we also have to live by ours.

If Ireland's position is no border or no deal and much harder border + economic consequences, then we have to accept our part if the latter occurs. We miscalculated. We did not judge the situation correctly. We gambled and lost.

Capt'n Midnight

PeadarCo wrote: »

The the UKs statement on the border is essentially meaningless. You either have a soft border or a hard border with the relevant infrastructure. It's very simple. The technology for a hard border without infrastructure does not exist

Even if the technology existed only 2 out of 133 UK government projects are on track. And there's only 239 days left.

In case you were wondering the ONLY projects currently in Green are
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721978/IPA_Annual_Report_2018__2_.pdf - page 24
* To manage the delivery of a Search and Rescue Helicopter contract - First time in green since 2013
* PSBP Private Finance to rebuild schools - First time in green since 2015

All of rest need intervention , and some are Brexit related.

Not only does the technology not exits ,The UK have also ruled out new cameras. Because magic ?


The NI economy is expected to take a 12% hit in the event of a hard Brexit.
Smuggling is in the blood there. Hundreds of crossing, thousands of JCB's, hundreds of millions to be made through smuggling ? And remember there was smuggling when they had 27,000 troops deployed. A full third of the current size of the British Army, including those deployed in Europe and Middle East.