Brexit discussion thread IV

An Ciarraioch

Superb Matthew O'Toole article in the Irish Times on the DUP and Brexit:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/unionists-didn-t-know-how-good-they-had-it-before-brexit-1.3587116?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true

McGiver

Rhineshark wrote: »

By their GDP (2016) it should be 17b/yr. They get a rebate of 3.9b, so paying 13.1b. Then there is about 4.5b reinvested into the UK so was working out at 8.6b/yr over the last budgetary period.

UK's net contribution is just 2% of its budget. For Germany it's about 4%. First of all difference in population, second the rebate and third UK's budget is 2.2 bigger than Germany's.

Rhineshark wrote: »

This is quite interesting. Europarl needs more attention as an interesting and user-friendly resource. That voting tool linked somewhere upthread was from Europe too. (And it clears up a lot of the wild red herrings that the anti-EU brigade hurl, the annoying technical ones where you're pretty damn sure they're wrong and have read why they are but can't currently remember enough of the minutiae to argue it. )

I did post the Council voting calculator, found it very helpful. In general, I find EU resources, including the Commission's (which is a bit more technical), way better than Irish government's resources. And then talk about undemocratic and unelected nonsense. Transparency with the help of the websites such as these is very important for progressing democracy.

listermint

Nody wrote: »

Only need to read the comments below the Indy article on Austrian beef import to see that; in regards to Australia shipping in cheap hormone treated beef etc. The response?

• I'm a vegetarian; I don't care, next!
• Just put the origin of the food and let people decide
• I've tried Austrian beef and it's far superior to EU beef!
• There's no proof hormone treated beef is bad anyway
• Etc.

These aren't real comments , some of them of course are but that's minority.

There's an information war going on those bot comments are Intended to trigger posters who may be on the fence or wavering and obviously confirm the bias of existing right wingers.

It's a war , it's not even subtle and the UK has done and is doing nothing to defend it.

Anyone who thinks there is real Britons behind most of those comments hasn't a breeze .

McGiver

Deleted User wrote: »

Just out of interest, while I'm pretty sure the majority of posters here know the £350 million a week number was hilariously misleading does anyone have a handy link to what the figure is once the rebates, farm subsidies and other EU funding into the UK is taken off?

Gross 350m, after rebate 250m, net 110m/week.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-send-350m-week-brussels

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Graph from the Economist of the likely effects on GDP over 5 years form a no deal scenario

...

Jebus, its really annoying that Ireland are going to have to pay such a high price for this.

"Scots have mixed feelings about global warming, because we can sit on the top of our mountains and watch the English drown."
- Frankie Boyle.

Except here the UK can't threaten us with "we're taking you with us"


The difference is that Ireland grew by 7.2% last year and is expecting 4% growth for the next few years.

The UK has had little growth since the vote, apart from once-off boost on exports caused by sterling dropping,in effect subsidised by a fall in living standard by workers.

Compared to 34 other economies it's dropped 2% growth and tax revenues are down £440m a week from where they should be and NI is close to recession.

Capt'n Midnight

McGiver wrote: »

Gross 350m, after rebate 250m, net 110m/week.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-send-350m-week-brussels

And that's before you factor in the £440m a week in lost tax revenue.

brickster69

Peregrinus wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Yeah sort of. For example someone mentioned the UK Brexit vote was based on population. Which of course England has by far the largest population and so the decision was based on that combined population vote.
Exact same thing with the EU veto system on the withdrawal deal. You could have 20 countries voting against something, but if the other has 65% of the combined EU population then that is the result.

This is wrong.  For a qualified majority in the Council two tests must be met.

First, the proposal must have the support of 55% or more of the member states, with each member state having one vote, regardless of population.  In some cases, including this one, the support of 72% of the member states voting is required.  On the Brexit withdrawal agreement, obviously, Ireland will have 1 vote out of 27, which is much more than 1%.  Given the 72% requirement, Ireland has 12.5% of the voting strength required to block agreement.

Secondly, the proposal must have the support of countries representing 65% of the population.  Ireland has about 1% of the population of the EU-27, but that translates to 3% of what is needed for a blocking minority.

But, as previously pointed out, the question of a veto is unlikely to arise.  Both the Council and the Commission would have to alter their positions radically before a situation might arise in which Ireland would wish to block a withdrawal agreement, and there is no sign of this happening.  Even the UK government seems to have abandoned any hope that it will.

You are missing the point. For the vote to get approved or rejected it is down to the % of the population to accept or reject any vote. If you take out the UK then if  Germany, France, Italy & Spain for example vote in this instance, they would win.
The voting % next to Ireland is 0.93% of the population without the UK.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN#page=108

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1026493270359076865

Leroy42

Based in the poll, surely even those that what Brexit, 52%, must be calling for the postponement of any deal? This is a one shot thing, if TM gets it wrong it will impact the UK (and the EU) but many years to come.

If so many people are so unhappy with how she and her government are doing, why are there not more people calling for at the very least a delay?

lawred2

That poll is hilarious.. it peaks when May went all guns blazing and triggered article 50 with absolutely zero plans in place beyond 'Brexit means Brexit'...

It was that unnecessarily rushed and ill advised move by an ill prepared UK government that has them in the total mess that they are in now.

But just being Billy Bigballs sticking two fingers up to Europe triggering article 50 was enough to have 55% of those polled happy out.

Leroy42

Yes triggering A50 was clearly a mistake, but in reality they have had ample time to come up with something resembling a plan since then.

I get the feeling that TM was talked into triggering A50 by the likes of Boris and Davies and Fox because they knew that the longer it was delayed the more the real position would start to emerge. I am not for a second absolving TM of the blame, it was her decision, but I do think people saw her newness and desire to be seen as decisive and used that to their advantage.

SO triggering A50 was a mistake, but so has everything since then. If they hadn't triggered A50 does anybody really think TM would have settled on a position at this stage?

briany

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They could start by throwing up those big blue signs that say "EU funded" all over the place.

Was that the point of those signs in the first place? Like, for people to notice it and go, "Oh, the EU funded this.....The EU's helping build infrastructure in my country, therefore I like the EU."?

Water John

Yes that was the point. To link actual things happening at local level to the greater project or theme that is the EU.

briany

Does anyone remember the Iraqi Minister of Information, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf? He was the guy telling news outlets that the Americans were running scared even while American tanks were within earshot.

You can imagine similar scenes with Farage talking to the BBC in March 2019, in the event of a crash-out. Talking about how wonderfully everything is going while a food bank riot is going on in the background. A glorious time for the United Kingdom, even as it burns, figuratively and literally.

Leroy42

There won't be food bank riots in March 2019 or any time soon after. Any effects of Brexit, as stated by JRM, will be slow and take years to be fully acknowledged. HE didn't say the 50 years thing out of hand, he meant that even the negative effects can't be blamed on Brexit as the time will be too long.

You only have to witness what is happening in the UK at the moment to see how this will play out. The NHS is already struggling for nurses as EU citizens return home. Next summer the fruit won't be picked in the fields as it should. Manufacturing contracts will start to run down and the extra costs associated with being outside of the EU will mean that UK car plants will lose out on next gen vehicle production to EU based facilities. But that could be anywhere between 5 and 10 years done the line.

CoL will continue to move HQ jobs away from London. No point having two functional offices. So the key dealers etc will stay, in London, the FTSE will still be important, but the associated jobs will move to whatever the EU base is.

Agriculture will find it starved off from the EU market. So they are forced to locate other markets, markets which operate under less stringent regulations. So the UK will either be forced to drop standards (and thus lose even the chance to trade with the EU) or lose out in terms of competition. The double whammy is that in order to get access to other markets then need to open theirs to cheaper competition. In addition, there are no EU grants for unsold stuff or holding land, so farmers are forced to dump product on the market, dropping the price further.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but its Sunday evening and you probably get the gist of my point.

It just that those peddling the idea of a Day 1 disaster are only giving ammunition to the Brexit side for claiming anything they say is false.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

There won't be food bank riots in March 2019 or any time soon after. Any effects of Brexit, as stated by JRM, will be slow and take years to be fully acknowledged. HE didn't say the 50 years thing out of hand, he meant that even the negative effects can't be blamed on Brexit as the time will be too long.

You only have to witness what is happening in the UK at the moment to see how this will play out. The NHS is already struggling for nurses as EU citizens return home. Next summer the fruit won't be picked in the fields as it should. Manufacturing contracts will start to run down and the extra costs associated with being outside of the EU will mean that UK car plants will lose out on next gen vehicle production to EU based facilities. But that could be anywhere between 5 and 10 years done the line.

CoL will continue to move HQ jobs away from London. No point having two functional offices. So the key dealers etc will stay, in London, the FTSE will still be important, but the associated jobs will move to whatever the EU base is.

Agriculture will find it starved off from the EU market. So they are forced to locate other markets, markets which operate under less stringent regulations. So the UK will either be forced to drop standards (and thus lose even the chance to trade with the EU) or lose out in terms of competition. The double whammy is that in order to get access to other markets then need to open theirs to cheaper competition. In addition, there are no EU grants for unsold stuff or holding land, so farmers are forced to dump product on the market, dropping the price further.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but its Sunday evening and you probably get the gist of my point.

It just that those peddling the idea of a Day 1 disaster are only giving ammunition to the Brexit side for claiming anything they say is false.

Are things like the Open Skies agreements suddenly becoming null and void on Brexit day fear-mongering about a hard no-deal Brexit? It seems to me that the effects of so much air traffic being suddenly grounded will indeed be rapidly felt. But maybe there's a workaround for all that.

Those who have real concerns about what happens in a no-deal scenario could try a more softly-softly approach, but for some Brexiteers there appears to be two modes of response - didn't hear or won't listen.

But even if it's not as bad as all that, there's still the point that even if were, Farage & co. wouldn't admit it. Even if they did, they wouldn't accept blame. We know who they'd be pointing the finger at.

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

Are things like the Open Skies agreements suddenly becoming null and void on Brexit day fear-mongering about a hard no-deal Brexit? It seems to me that the effects of so much air traffic being suddenly grounded will indeed be rapidly felt. But maybe there's a workaround for all that.

Those who have real concerns about what happens in a no-deal scenario could try a more softly-softly approach, but for some Brexiteers there appears to be two modes of response - didn't hear or won't listen.

But even if it's not as bad as all that, there's still the point that even if were, Farage & co. wouldn't admit it. Even if they did, they wouldn't accept blame. We know who they'd be pointing the finger at.

In the event of no withdrawl treaty by March, there will be pressure on all sides to start work on ad-hoc agreements on an issue by issue basis to mitigate the worst effects of Brexit. I am not sure how that will go as neither side wants to go into detail on the posibilities at this stage, and on the EU side issues like grounding flights from the UK is a tangible threat that can be used to soften the UK position.

If no-deal happens, we should have couple of months lead in when it is clear to everyone that we are heading for no-deal. I think it is not unlikely that this time will be used to reach some key emergency agreements on a limited number of issues like keeping flights going, and perhaps mutual recognition of citizen's rights (no one wants to deport millions of people) if there is a no deal Brexit. I have heard that the Commission is working on a package of measures to mitigate the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the EU, though there is little detail on these measures to date.

I think it is unlikely that we will find ourselves with absoutely no agreement on anything in April, though the limited agreements that we will have will only be in those areas the EU deems to be important to its interests.

Sand

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes triggering A50 was clearly a mistake, but in reality they have had ample time to come up with something resembling a plan since then.

I get the feeling that TM was talked into triggering A50 by the likes of Boris and Davies and Fox because they knew that the longer it was delayed the more the real position would start to emerge. I am not for a second absolving TM of the blame, it was her decision, but I do think people saw her newness and desire to be seen as decisive and used that to their advantage.

SO triggering A50 was a mistake, but so has everything since then. If they hadn't triggered A50 does anybody really think TM would have settled on a position at this stage?

It was a mistake for the British perhaps, but it was the best outcome for everyone else. The British could have 10 years and never reach agreement on what form Brexit should take. They are hopelessly divided. Far better for us that they triggered A50 so there is an end to this madness rather than stringing us along for a decade or more.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

It was a mistake for the British perhaps, but it was the best outcome for everyone else. The British could have 10 years and never reach agreement on what form Brexit should take. They are hopelessly divided. Far better for us that they triggered A50 so there is an end to this madness rather than stringing us along for a decade or more.

I don't think that triggering Article 50 was a mistake. The mistake was holding a facile binary referendum on a complex issue in the midst of significant economic stagnation and upheaval simply to placate a faction in the Conservative party that hates the EU because reasons.

Where we are currently is the only logical outcome of such a monumentally stupid ploy by David Cameron. You are right, though in that triggering Article 50 allows the British to get on with extricating themselves from the EU and all its bodies while allowing the EU27 to start planning accordingly.

Strazdas

lawred2 wrote: »

That poll is hilarious.. it peaks when May went all guns blazing and triggered article 50 with absolutely zero plans in place beyond 'Brexit means Brexit'...

It was that unnecessarily rushed and ill advised move by an ill prepared UK government that has them in the total mess that they are in now.

But just being Billy Bigballs sticking two fingers up to Europe triggering article 50 was enough to have 55% of those polled happy out.

Indicates how the UK press was fully in command at this point and dictating the agenda to the Brexit faithful.

A responsible media would have been warning their readership of the dangers of triggering A50 without a plan. Those toxic lying rags though were demanding it be triggered in a frenzy of patriotic fervour.

Trasna1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"Scots have mixed feelings about global warming, because we can sit on the top of our mountains and watch the English drown."
- Frankie Boyle.

Except here the UK can't threaten us with "we're taking you with us"


The difference is that Ireland grew by 7.2% last year and is expecting 4% growth for the next few years.

The UK has had little growth since the vote, apart from once-off boost on exports caused by sterling dropping,in effect subsidised by a fall in living standard by workers.

Compared to 34 other economies it's dropped 2% growth and tax revenues are down £440m a week from where they should be and NI is close to recession.

Irish people need to stop quoting Irish GDP as a sign of strength in the Irish economy - it's a distorted and unreliable figure, divorced from the reality of the real Irish economy.

Growth in GNI* is much more modest.

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

You are missing the point. For the vote to get approved or rejected it is down to the % of the population to accept or reject any vote. If you take out the UK then if  Germany, France, Italy & Spain for example vote in this instance, they would win.
The voting % next to Ireland is 0.93% of the population without the UK.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN#page=108

Again, brickster, from the top:

For a proposal to be approved in the Council of Ministers by a qualified majority, two tests have to be passed.

First, the votes in support of the proposal must represent (in this case) at least 72% of the participating member states (on a one-state, one-vote basis). Ther will be 27 participating member states in this vote; at least 20 states must support it, or the resolution will not pass. Any 8 states can block it. Population is irrelevant here.

Secondly, the votes in support of the proposal must be from states which include at least 65% of the total population of the participating member states.

In round figures, the EU-27 have a combined population of 446 million. 65% of that is 290 million. Germany, France, Italy and Spain between them have a population of 257 million.

So your claim fails both tests. German, France, Italy and Spain are not 20 participating member states; they are four. And the do not represent 65% of the population of the EU-27, but 57%. They can't pass either of the two tests, never mind both.

The whole point about the qualified majority rule is that it's designed to give smaller member states a voting strength which is disproportionate to their population. The big four can't railroad through a measure on which they are all agreed. Despite their large populations, even acting together they need to secure the support of another 16 member states. The smallest 8 member states (which does not include Ireland, by the way) could block this deal, despite having between them just 3% of the population of the EU-27.

Jim2007

Imreoir2 wrote: »

In the event of no withdrawl treaty by March, there will be pressure on all sides to start work on ad-hoc agreements on an issue by issue basis to mitigate the worst effects of Brexit.

This will not happen because it would amount to the UK getting around the negotiations.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

emergency agreements on a limited number of issues like keeping flights going

This is not within the EU's remit, it is simply a reality of A50. Their qualifications are no longer recognised world wide, they will not be insured etc....

The EU can't wave a magic wand and make everything OK as you seem to think.

Jim2007

Leroy42 wrote: »

There won't be food bank riots in March 2019 or any time soon after.

There will be food shortages in the UK even before March 2019. The weather has already seen to that. That combined with the lack of labour to handle the autumn harvest makes it almost a certainty. We already experienced a mini version of it last winter, with certain salads etc being in short supply, due to weather conditions in southern Europe. This time round the UK will not have so much to fall back on in terms of it's own harvest.

Peregrinus

Jim2007 wrote: »

This will not happen because it would amount to the UK getting around the negotiations.



This is not within the EU's remit, it is simply a reality of A50. Their qualifications are no longer recognised world wide, they will not be insured etc....

The EU can't wave a magic wand and make everything OK as you seem to think.

No, it will happen.

People keep drawing the parallel with the Y2k bug 18 years ago. Idiot Brexiters point out that disaster did not unfold on 1 January 2000; thererfore, they reason, there was no problem. Sane people, however, understand that disaster did not unfold because (a) there was a problem, (b) the problem was recognised and (c) an awful lot of people did an awful lot of work to deal with the problem.

The same will happen if it becomes clear that the UK will exit on 29 March next with no Withdrawal Agreement. The EU already has people working on what can be done to ameliorate the consequences of that and, I think, even the massively incompetent British government has some people working on that. In a crash-out Brexit there'll be no withdrawal agreement but, realistically, there will be a clutch of cobbled-together, narrowly-focussed agreements to avert some of the more catastrophic outcomes that would otherwise ensue.

On planes, for example, I think there probably will be a UK/EU agreement for the UK to participate in the European Aviation Space (and submit itself to the regulatory regime, and accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ for that purpose, etc, etc). It may be time-limited, until the UK can make other arrangements. The EU will offer it because they don't actually want to cut the UK off from air connections with the rest of the world, and the UK will accept it because they have no choice (and because the US will want them to, and brave, independent, sovereign, post-Brexit UK cannot risk displeasing Uncle Donald). I'd be quite surprised if, even after a crash-out Brexit on 29 March, British planes were not still flying to other countries on 30 March.

There's a limit, of course, to what such agreements can achieve. Brexiters should not rely on them to protect the UK from the consequences of a crash-out, which will still be massively disruptive and hugely damaging. But the effect of pointing to the direr implications of crash-out Brexit is to encourage people to plan to do what they can to avoid those implications. And in some cases there is stuff that can be done.

breatheme

The EFTA countries are members of the EASA (but without voting rights). Something similar could be achieved.

Speaking of which, I realised the other day that pretty much every developed country in Europe is tied in some way to the Single Market, and they all accept Free Movement of People. The UK pretty much wants to be the one developed country in Europe with no Freedom of Movement.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Jim2007 wrote: »

This will not happen because it would amount to the UK getting around the negotiations.



This is not within the EU's remit, it is simply a reality of A50. Their qualifications are no longer recognised world wide, they will not be insured etc....

The EU can't wave a magic wand and make everything OK as you seem to think.

No, it will happen.

People keep drawing the parallel with the Y2k bug 18 years ago. Idiot Brexiters point out that disaster did not unfold on 1 January 2000; thererfore, they reason, there was no problem. Sane people, however, understand that disaster did not unfold because (a) there was a problem, (b) the problem was recognised and (c) an awful lot of people did an awful lot of work to deal with the problem.

The same will happen if it becomes clear that the UK will exit on 29 March next with no Withdrawal Agreement. The EU already has people working on what can be done to ameliorate the consequences of that and, I think, even the massively incompetent British government has some people working on that. In a crash-out Brexit there'll be no withdrawal agreement but, realistically, there will be a clutch of cobbled-together, narrowly-focussed agreements to avert some of the more catastrophic outcomes that would otherwise ensue.

On planes, for example, I think there probably will be a UK/EU agreement for the UK to participate in the European Aviation Space (and submit itself to the regulatory regime, and accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ for that purpose, etc, etc). It may be time-limited, until the UK can make other arrangements. The EU will offer it because they don't actually want to cut the UK off from air connections with the rest of the world, and the UK will accept it because they have no choice (and because the US will want them to, and brave, independent, sovereign, post-Brexit UK cannot risk displeasing Uncle Donald). I'd be quite surprised if, even after a crash-out Brexit on 29 March, British planes were not still flying to other countries on 30 March.

There's a limit, of course, to what such agreements can achieve. Brexiters should not rely on them to protect the UK from the consequences of a crash-out, which will still be massively disruptive and hugely damaging. But the effect of pointing to the direr implications of crash-out Brexit is to encourage people to plan to do what they can to avoid those implications. And in some cases there is stuff that can be done.

Flights to and from the UK and over other EU countries will continue. What may change are the rights of UK airlines to operate within the EU. So EasyJet can fly from Gatwick to Alicante but not from Frankfurt to Alicante.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Flights to and from the UK and over other EU countries will continue. What may change are the rights of UK airlines to operate within the EU. So EasyJet can fly from Gatwick to Alicante but not from Frankfurt to Alicante.

No. Currently UK relies on EU certification of aircraft, licensing of pilots, to fly to third countries. In a complete crash-out Brexit with no deal of any kind, UK aircraft would lack certification, and UK pilots would lack licensing, needed to fly to any third country, EUL or non-EU. They'd have no insurance cover, and no airline will fly without insurance and, even if they were willing to fly, few if any countries would allow an uncertificated aircraft, or an unlicensed pilot, to land.

The business of not being able to undertake intra-EU flights is a different matter, and has to do with the ownership of airlines - are they EU-owned or not? - not certification or licensing.

Note: Aircraft/pilots from other countries could still fly to/from the UK (unless the UK decided in a fit of retaliatory pique to ban them, but that's unlikely) so the UK wouldn't be completely cut off. But it would still be an intolerable situation for the UK govt.

Nody

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I have heard that the Commission is working on a package of measures to mitigate the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the EU, though there is little detail on these measures to date.

Actually several pieces of it is already out there but they are not announced loudly (but due to rules still needs to be published); they include among other things the possibility for companies to change the certification country out of UK into a European one (this is normally illegal) etc. to ensure the impact on EU business is minimized. However they will have no qualms about throwing UK under the bus with a crash out scenario; they will only act to ensure EU gets minimal disruption and if that happens to help UK so be it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Note: Aircraft/pilots from other countries could still fly to/from the UK (unless the UK decided in a fit of retaliatory pique to ban them, but that's unlikely) so the UK wouldn't be completely cut off. But it would still be an intolerable situation for the UK govt.

Well they could in theory fly there the problem is once they wish to lift off from an airport with non certified air controllers, non certified engineers who's done maintenance on the air plane with a load that has not been checked according to the required security & safety standards meeting EU requirements... In short they would most likely a) lack insurance cover and b) landing at any EU airport would be treated as a high risk manoeuvrer and c) the plane would require a full check afterwards. The reason being all their international recognitions are done through the EU body and they would need new bilateral country agreements on the topic which most countries are not going to have ready on day 1 of crash out most likely.

zapitastas

Jim2007 wrote: »

There will be food shortages in the UK even before March 2019. The weather has already seen to that. That combined with the lack of labour to handle the autumn harvest makes it almost a certainty. We already experienced a mini version of it last winter, with certain salads etc being in short supply, due to weather conditions in southern Europe. This time round the UK will not have so much to fall back on in terms of it's own harvest.

If only they get get Ireland to leave with them and return to the 19th century set up where it becomes their breadbasket again