Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread IV

1179180182184185331

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    Harika wrote: »
    Someone on twitter checked those and the statistics institute quoted never asked any of those questions with the exception of the corbyn one. The raw files are on their home page

    That got picked up wrong by their Twitter, it was last month's and they've not published the data.

    Take a look at Deltapoll (@DeltapollUK): https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK?s=09

    I'm a bit - if not yet dubious - certainly curious regarding these guys. They're using some new methods involving emotional responses in voting (or something) and have an odd selection of polls.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,306 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Dymo wrote: »
    The British people can trust this Government to honour the referendum result and get the best deal possible.

    Let's break this down, shall we.

    The first part of this statement is that the current government will "honor the referendum result". What does this mean? All the ballot said was leaving the EU. It said nothing about Euratom, the ECJ, EU regulation, freedom of movement, the Northern Irish border or the customs union among countless other examples. This statement is effectively meaningless because a binary referendum on a spectacularly complex issue is a terrible idea.

    Then there's this "best deal possible bit". The best possible deal means an inferior trading relationship with the UK's most important trading partner and export market. There was nothing stopping the UK from trying to enhance trade with non-EU countries before the referendum so the argument that trade with the rest of the world is going to result in a land of milk and honey is hogwash.

    If you have any sort of sign or evidence that this is going well, do please share it.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,061 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Dymo wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe there is going to be a new vote, The UK Government has already struck down a Final Referendum vote.

    The main point being, in last year’s General Election, over 80% of people then voted for parties committing to respecting the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected.

    Completely meaningless. If we took that to its logical conclusion, it would tell us 80% of people are in favour of the UK leaving the EU in March (which nobody would believe for a moment).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,579 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Jim2007 wrote: »
    It does not work like that. The EU is a rule based organisation and mainland European politicians will stick to the rules. Furthermore this is an agreement with a third country not an agreement between member states, that means that 38 regional and national parliaments must accept it, this can't be done in a late night shift at the end. This has been pointed out again and again to the UK, but they have chosen to ignore it.

    If this comes down to the wire then, the only option on the table for the UK will be a standard Canadian style deal.
    And, even then, only if the UK accepts the Irish backstop.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    Jim2007 wrote: »
    If this comes down to the wire then, the only option on the table for the UK will be a standard Canadian style deal.
    This won't be acceptable to Ireland since, in order for the UK to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, it has to have fully left the EU. Then the negotiations will take time. This means the establishment of a hard border in Ireland which Ireland opposes.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    This won't be acceptable to Ireland since, in order for the UK to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, it has to have fully left the EU. Then the negotiations will take time. This means the establishment of a hard border in Ireland which Ireland opposes.
    Eh, The UK opposes it as well. That's assuming they support the legislation that Parliament passed into law at the end of June of course. The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 10 specifically.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,579 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Eh, The UK opposes it as well. That's assuming they support the legislation that Parliament passed into law at the end of June of course. The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 10 specifically.
    The UK has always opposed a hard border in Ireland. It's one of May's earliest red lines, and I think the only one to be expressed as a "guarantee". Much of the language about the Irish border in the December 2017 Joint Report is a direct lift from the UK's position paper of August 2017.

    The Brexiter trope that the "no hard border' requirement is an outrageous imposition by fiendish Eurocrats determined to find an excuse to stop Brexit is just one more in a long line of reality-denying fictions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭Dymo


    Let's break this down, shall we.


    If you have any sort of sign or evidence that this is going well, do please share it.

    I never said it was going well, you can show as much evidence as you want about the state of affairs but this is the thinking from the UK government.

    Here is the full response on the 1st of August from the Department for Exiting the European Union. And their thoughts on having a second referendum.

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729?reveal_response=yes


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,306 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Dymo wrote: »
    I never said it was going well, you can show as much evidence as you want about the state of affairs but this is the thinking from the UK government.

    Here is the full response on the 1st of August from the Department for Exiting the European Union. And their thoughts on having a second referendum.

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223729?reveal_response=yes

    I never said that you did. I was simply wondering if you had noticed something positive about the current state of Brexit worth mentioning is all.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭EdgeCase


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The UK has always opposed a hard border in Ireland. It's one of May's earliest red lines, and I think the only one to be expressed as a "guarantee". Much of the language about the Irish border in the December 2017 Joint Report is a direct lift from the UK's position paper of August 2017.

    The Brexiter trope that the "no hard border' requirement is an outrageous imposition by fiendish Eurocrats determined to find an excuse to stop Brexit is just one more in a long line of reality-denying fictions.

    It's a bit like saying you're fundamentally committed to being a vegetarian and then chowing down on a side of bacon, while continuing to tweet about your absolute commitment to vegan diets and animal welfare.

    The UK Government has a lot of things it wants and promises, but has absolutely no practical notion of how it can achieve any of them.

    The pre-Brexit campaign also promised what was effectively a hard Brexit and a perfect trade relationship, on pretty much unchanged terms, with the EU that would be negotiated over a cup of tea and sandwiches in 20 minutes.

    It also promised massively increased global trade, yet has provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the UK can achieve any of this on its own. It's got far less leverage to play hardball on trade deals than it had as an EU member with a huge market to use as leverage.

    Not only that but they created a completely false dichotomy between EU trade and Global trade when in fact, within the EU they already had both and had a far better ability to negotiate with trade partners around the world as a very major EU member.

    Sadly, a whole range of players in the UK, including most of the current government have told giant whoppers and have believed their own hype and are now in the rather embarrassing position of being forced to actually deliver the impossible.

    They've effectively told massive lies to the electorate and will have to make hard choices and let people down, with the inevitable backlash be it from Brexiteers, the business community, the City of London, Northern Ireland, the health service, you name it. They are in deep, deep ....

    The lies have caught up with them!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,948 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Good "how to leave" process graphic retweet https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1031455389009764352

    shows the absolutely awful timeline.

    Edit : 141 days to brexit from today - thats how bad things are


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,306 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    A problem with that tweet is that May doesn't just have to get a deal by the end of March next year. She has to get it and have it ratified by both houses of Parliament. Meanwhile, the same has to happen with national and regional Parliaments in Europe. Remember the Walloons and CETA?

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭Dymo


    trellheim wrote: »

    shows the absolutely awful timeline.

    Edit : 141 days to brexit from today - thats how bad things are

    At the moment it's still in negotiation and I guess it can only be seen as a "Not going well" but the standout thing about this is there is a timeline and there is a date by when things have to be agreed.

    Other negotiations with other trading blocs can break down and both parties can walk away for 6 months and comeback.

    But when is the midnight hour for Brexit? ...and then it has to be agreed in Parliament.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,948 ✭✭✭trellheim


    At the moment it's still in negotiation and I guess it can only be seen as a "Not going well"
    thats rose coloured for sure.

    it suits a lot of people to crash out. Inertia therefore directs this as the easiest course as all others require change - therefore we are 'no deal'


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    trellheim wrote: »
    thats rose coloured for sure.

    it suits a lot of people to crash out. Inertia therefore directs this as the easiest course as all others require change - therefore we are 'no deal'
    The narrative has definitely changed from "A deal will be easy" through "No deal is better than a bad deal" all the way to the current "No deal, just get us out".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,579 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    trellheim wrote: »
    thats rose coloured for sure.

    it suits a lot of people to crash out. Inertia therefore directs this as the easiest course as all others require change - therefore we are 'no deal'
    I think it suits a lot of people to pretend to be open to crashing out, but it suits every few people if the UK actually crashes out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,710 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    IDS gave an interview where he states that WTO is not a no deal, just a different type of deal!

    But what got me was he was dicsussing the WTO, and called it a rules based organisation. Rules set by who? I though the whole point of Brexit was taking back control, yet joining an even bigger club


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Eh, The UK opposes it as well. That's assuming they support the legislation that Parliament passed into law at the end of June of course. The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 10 specifically.
    But the UK had to put that there in order for talks to progress and this only applies if a deal goes ahead. Remember that before that they were talking about ways that electronic measures could be used to minimise the impact of the border - rejected by the EU.

    The problem for Ireland with a Canada style deal is that it will result in a harder border than May's initial proposal and there will be a period while the negotiations on a Canada style deal are going ahead where no trade relationship other than base WTO rules would apply. Again this would be opposed by us in Ireland.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭Nate--IRL--


    So whatever happens there will be a border?

    Nate


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,579 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    So whatever happens there will be a border?

    Nate
    No. There'll be no hard border if the UK makes a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. That will provide for a transitional period, during which there will be no hard border, plus it will provide a backstop under which, regardless of what happens after the transitional agreement, there will be no hard border in Ireland.

    If the UK doesn't make a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, there will a no hard border from 29 March 2019.

    It's by no means certain that the UK will make a Withdrawal Agreement, but there are a number of factors in favour

    - Both parties want a WA.

    - It's very, very much in the interests of both parties that there should be a WA.

    - The parties are still negotiating to conclude a WA.\

    - The text of a WA is about 80% settled.

    So I wouldn't write it off yet. Sure, there are significant domestic difficulties in the UK over which we (the EU) have little control. They could cause the collapse of the process and, if they do, we need to know what the position will be, where we will stand and how we will face it. Hence all the current focus on "no deal". But the bigger strategic factors all suggest that there should be a deal, and if the UK constitution can, in the end, operate so that country is put before party, there will be a deal. Fingers crossed.

    I should add that, even if there's no deal, there'll be a deal later. No deal is bad for the EU, very bad for Ireland but catastrophic for the UK, and after a crash-out Brexit the UK's bargaining position vis-a-vis the EU will be even weaker than it now is. At some point the UK has to come to some kind of deal with the EU. Even if they crash out, they'll be back - probably after an early change of government - asking to negotiate a deal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭Dymo


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    The narrative has definitely changed from "A deal will be easy" through "No deal is better than a bad deal" all the way to the current "No deal, just get us out".

    To
    "NO such thing as NO DEAL' Iain Duncan Smith makes BRILLIANT point about Remainers' latest scare tactics"

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1005715/brexit-news-latest-UK-no-deal-WTO-Iain-Duncan-Smith


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    IDS gave an interview where he states that WTO is not a no deal, just a different type of deal!

    But what got me was he was dicsussing the WTO, and called it a rules based organisation. Rules set by who? I though the whole point of Brexit was taking back control, yet joining an even bigger club

    James O'Brien on LBC made the point that the two questions that should be put to Brexiteers on the WTO, in the context of the arguments made against membership of the EU, are: - "Who elected the head of the WTO?", and "When did the people vote to join that organisation?".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Dymo wrote: »
    IDS isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. But specifically his premise is that crashing out without a deal, is still a deal because WTO y'know.

    Yes. Indeed. But there's actually a reason why no country in the world trades on WTO terms only.

    And I now have to have a shower because you linked to the Express. :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,710 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    IDS isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. But specifically his premise is that crashing out without a deal, is still a deal because WTO y'know.

    Yes. Indeed. But there's actually a reason why no country in the world trades on WTO terms only.

    And I now have to have a shower because you linked to the Express. :(

    But one of the points is that IDS is continually wheeled out and given ample airtime to spout this nonsense.

    And nobody ever brings up his complete and utter shambles of Universal credit which should, of itself, be enough to discredit pretty much anything else he wants to talk about unless he can categorically prove he is right.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,808 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    IDS isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. But specifically his premise is that crashing out without a deal, is still a deal because WTO y'know.

    Except, if there is no WA, there is no transition agreement. No TA, then there is a crash out, and if there is a crash out, it could mean there is no WTO deal as he uk is not currently a member on their own account.

    As you say, not the sharpest knife.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,710 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Except, if there is no WA, there is no transition agreement. No TA, then there is a crash out, and if there is a crash out, it could mean there is no WTO deal as he uk is not currently a member on their own account.

    As you say, not the sharpest knife.

    The UK is currently a member, but operates under the collective bargaining of the EU. They simply become a single member again after Brexit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    I thought they can't just become WTO members by default. For starters don't they need to sort out quotas with the EU, and last time I checked, aren't the quotas that they agreed with the EU in certain areas for food being disputed by countries like Australia and New Zealand?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    Except, if there is no WA, there is no transition agreement. No TA, then there is a crash out, and if there is a crash out, it could mean there is no WTO deal as he uk is not currently a member on their own account.

    As you say, not the sharpest knife.

    Tecnically the UK is a member of the WTO in its own right. The issue is that they do not have any schedual on tarrifs or agreed quotas on goods. These in general take years to negioate and even then other members of the WTO can veto them. If there is no deal, the UK will presumably be able to trade to some extent on day one, but wont be able to trade regularly and advantageously for years.

    On tarrifs, the UK can drop its tarrifs to zero and this should see prices in the shops go down for the average Brit (at least on those items that manage to clear the ports). The big problem is that droping tarrifs to zero will hugely damage their domestic manafacturers who produce for the domestic market. At the same time, other countries will not drop their tarrifs, and where the UK currently has tarrif free trade, the tarrifs will go up on day one. This will crucify domestic manafacturers that produce for export.

    This is all great, if you happen to have an interest in exporting to the UK, or the capital to hoover up assets that will be devalued in the UK after Brexit. If you happen to be a factory worker in the UK though, start worrying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    Tecnically the UK is a member of the WTO in its own right. The issue is that they do not have any schedual on tarrifs or agreed quotas on goods. These in general take years to negioate and even then other members of the WTO can veto them. If there is no deal, the UK will presumably be able to trade to some extent on day one, but wont be able to trade regularly and advantageously for years.

    On tarrifs, the UK can drop its tarrifs to zero and this should see prices in the shops go down for the average Brit (at least on those items that manage to clear the ports). The big problem is that droping tarrifs to zero will hugely damage their domestic manafacturers who produce for the domestic market. At the same time, other countries will not drop their tarrifs, and where the UK currently has tarrif free trade, the tarrifs will go up on day one. This will crucify domestic manafacturers that produce for export.

    This is all great, if you happen to have an interest in exporting to the UK, or the capital to hoover up assets that will be devalued in the UK after Brexit. If you happen to be a factory worker in the UK though, start worrying.
    There are a number of issues here. Firstly, if they can't agree a schedule they fall back on base WTO tariff rules. If they drop tariffs to zero for their main imports, they then have to do the same with every other country in the world for the same products. Absolutely no protection of their own industries or indeed quality. And of course making unilateral changes to tariff structures will undoubtedly hurt somebody somewhere and make agreeing a schedule even more difficult.

    Caught between a rock and a hard place. I don't think anyone would be able to predict their economic future if that were to happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    There are a number of issues here. Firstly, if they can't agree a schedule they fall back on base WTO tariff rules. If they drop tariffs to zero for their main imports, they then have to do the same with every other country in the world for the same products. Absolutely no protection of their own industries or indeed quality. And of course making unilateral changes to tariff structures will undoubtedly hurt somebody somewhere and make agreeing a schedule even more difficult.

    Not to forget that if the UK unilaterally drops it's obligatory tariff controls, there is absolutely zero incentive for any other country in the world to do a trade deal with them; why should they? They get to charge the UK an arm & a leg for access to their markets all the while enjoying unfettered, unrestricted access in return at zero cost.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement