Brexit discussion thread IV

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1035083793617629184

As expected nothing has changed

I think this latest fuss just tells you the fevered state of the commentariat when deprived of real news over the summer break. What Barnier said yesterday was pretty much exactly the same, word for word, what he said at the beginning of August. Then, it was heralded as him politely trashing Chequers; now, it's hailed as signalling a move towards accepting Chequers.

All that's happened is that commentators have trawled his remarks looking for passages that might seem to confirm HMG's spin that they are pressing the EU to be more flexible and pragmatic and they expect a response. Then they take thoe paragraphs out of context and read things into them that they failed to read into them a month ago.

As LeinsterDub says, Barnier's position is what it was a month ago. Chequers is still dead. The EU will be creative and flexible in making a third-country deal with the UK, but it won't compromise the integrity of the Single Market.

kunst nugget

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think this latest fuss just tells you the fevered state of the commentariat when deprived of real news over the summer break. What Barnier said yesterday was pretty much exactly the same, word for word, what he said at the beginning of August. Then, it was heralded as him politely trashing Chequers; now, it's hailed as signalling a move towards accepting Chequers.

All that's happened is that commentators have trawled his remarks looking for passages that might seem to confirm HMG's spin that they are pressing the EU to be more flexible and pragmatic and they expect a response. Then they take thoe paragraphs out of context and read things into them that they failed to read into them a month ago.

As LeinsterDub says, Barnier's position is what it was a month ago. Chequers is still dead. The EU will be creative and flexible in making a third-country deal with the UK, but it won't compromise the integrity of the Single Market.

Maybe the media are realising how far they've pushed things to the edge of No Deal Crashout and the ramifications that would have and are starting to wind it in a bit with a new narrative for the uninformed to swallow. The EU's position hasn't changed but they'll spin it to make it look like it has.

Leroy42

But the reality is that there is simply no time, and TM does not have the authority, to develop a plan other than Chequers.

So in reality, the EU is faced with Chequers (or something better for the UK) or a no Deal. Was this the plan all along from the UK, to basically waste all the time and leave the EU with an effective ultimatum. Sounds crazy, but they probably realised soon enough that their demands were not going to be met, hence Davies not attending many meetings, there was simply nothing to discuss.

They want no border in NI but don't want to give anything up to get it, so what better way than simply sit on their hands, make a proposal they know won't fly (and which the party doesn't accept anyway) therefore leaving the EU staring at a cliff edge.

Its a high stakes poker game, but the way I see it many seem to think that No deal is actually a good idea (or at least selling the line) and that even if its not its the EU's fault.

Raab has certainly changed the tone of his language in the recent weeks. Now it is all about the EU needed to match the UK's drive and ambition and energy, them wanted 24/7 talks etc. Recall that only a few weeks ago Barnier was pushing for new talks and was rebuffed by the UK. My reading of this is that HMG is lining up that the EU failed to deliver and the UK had no option but to crash out, ie it is the EU's fault.

I know that reporting of Barnier remarks yesterday were of course overhyped in the UK press, but it wasn't just simply what he said, he was the wording he used. He made it very clear that the EU were open to deal unlike others. Now, posters have correctly pointed out that nothing has materially changed, but the timing (Raab was at the same time saying that a deal was very much on at the same time) strikes me a managed.

Inquitus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the reality is that there is simply no time, and TM does not have the authority, to develop a plan other than Chequers.

So in reality, the EU is faced with Chequers (or something better for the UK) or a no Deal. Was this the plan all along from the UK, to basically waste all the time and leave the EU with an effective ultimatum. Sounds crazy, but they probably realised soon enough that their demands were not going to be met, hence Davies not attending many meetings, there was simply nothing to discuss.

They want no border in NI but don't want to give anything up to get it, so what better way than simply sit on their hands, make a proposal they know won't fly (and which the party doesn't accept anyway) therefore leaving the EU staring at a cliff edge.

Its a high stakes poker game, but the way I see it many seem to think that No deal is actually a good idea (or at least selling the line) and that even if its not its the EU's fault.

Raab has certainly changed the tone of his language in the recent weeks. Now it is all about the EU needed to match the UK's drive and ambition and energy, them wanted 24/7 talks etc. Recall that only a few weeks ago Barnier was pushing for new talks and was rebuffed by the UK. My reading of this is that HMG is lining up that the EU failed to deliver and the UK had no option but to crash out, ie it is the EU's fault.

I know that reporting of Barnier remarks yesterday were of course overhyped in the UK press, but it wasn't just simply what he said, he was the wording he used. He made it very clear that the EU were open to deal unlike others. Now, posters have correctly pointed out that nothing has materially changed, but the timing (Raab was at the same time saying that a deal was very much on at the same time) strikes me a managed.

I think the EU is holding out in the hope that this causes a GE in the UK or gives the peoples vote enough momentum to become a political escape route for the UK. Either that or the UK is forced into a dramatic climbdown.

In reality the EU has very little room for concessions, they have to protect the single market.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the reality is that there is simply no time, and TM does not have the authority, to develop a plan other than Chequers.

Firstly, Chequers is not a plan for dealing with the EU at all, it has stuff in it which was dismissed as utterly impossible by the EU before it was written.

Chequers is a plan for keeping the Tories together in Government and May in #10 for the summer months.

Secondly, TM doesn't need to develop a plan - the EU have lots of plans already worked up. She just has to pick one of them.

In the end, it will come down to pick one or no deal, and while no deal will not be the end of the world, it will be the end of Conservative rule for at least a decade, the end of the United Kingdom and most importantly, the end of May's tenure in #10.

So it won't happen. The UK will cave, take a Canada+ deal with an NI exception and like it.

trellheim

Another View

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-eu-tell-uk-no-brexit-cherry-picking/a-45284510

Berlin and Brussels showed a united front on Wednesday delivering a single message to London: There will be no cherry-picking when it comes to the single market.

European Union's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier came to the German capital for talks with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, after which they appeared before a handful of cameras and reporters to offer similar statements.

"In the end, it will come down to the fact that we will resist the so-called cherry-picking," said Maas, following familiar declarations of sorrow that Britain had chosen to part ways, and that Germany, like all the other 27 remaining EU member states, wanted a close relationship with the UK in future.

However, both men remained optimistic that an agreement could be reached – that there would be no "disorganized Brexit." Barnier said a deal had been reached on a majority of the issues, while Maas professed that the "last big hurdle" was the question of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

"We are firmly convinced that the exit agreement must guarantee that Brexit must not lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland," said Maas. "It is important that this guarantee must be valid regardless of how the EU and Britain will shape its new relationship."

robindch

JRM explains that the UK might "destroy" Irish farmers:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1034601856532733952

prawnsambo

robindch wrote: »

JRM explains that the UK might "destroy" Irish farmers:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1034601856532733952

That's from June 2016, but I'm sure he still believes that. Meanwhile, the real world says that if he puts tariffs on Irish beef, all beef imports will carry the same tariffs or he'll crash into MFN rules.

Leroy42

robindch wrote: »

JRM explains that the UK might "destroy" Irish farmers:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1034601856532733952

Under WTO rules they would have to levy the same tariffs to everyone, so effectively the cost of beef to the consumer will increase.

He has also stated, in regards to avoiding massive queues in Dover etc, that the UK will operate open borders, so how exactly will they levy these tariffs?

He is absolutely right in that Brexit will cause massive problems for particularly the Agri sector in Ireland, but will do exactly the same for the UK and also have massive effects on many other sectors such as Car manufacturing as the EU will enter a trade war with the UK if they impose unfair tariffs on Irish beef.

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its a high stakes poker game, but the way I see it many seem to think that No deal is actually a good idea (or at least selling the line) and that even if its not its the EU's fault.

It seems to me it's only high stakes for one side. Or perhaps should I say only one side is gambling with their houses, car and savings

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It seems to me it's only high stakes for one side.

In particular, the idea that the EU is worried about who will get the blame for "no deal" is wrong. No-one outside the UK cares if the UK blame the EU for anything after they leave. May, Davis, Gove, Boris and Corbyn are, of course, worried about this, but Barnier and Juncker? Nope.

If Ireland have to force a no-deal exit because of the Border issue, the Irish public will certainly not blame the Irish side given the parade of DUP intransigence and Tory indifference and sometimes hostility we have seen.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: One-liner posts deleted.

breatheme

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It seems to me it's only high stakes for one side. Or perhaps should I say only one side is gambling with their houses, car and savings

Yes. Sadly, NI is the only reason the EU won't kick the UK to the curb. They would've done this a long time if Poland or Hungary were trying to leave and had the same terms as the UK. That's really the only thing that is at stake on our side.

The UK are indeed betting the house. After setting it on fire.

ArthurDayne

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its a high stakes poker game, but the way I see it many seem to think that No deal is actually a good idea (or at least selling the line) and that even if its not its the EU's fault.

It seems to me it's only high stakes for one side. Or perhaps should I say only one side is gambling with their houses, car and savings

Absolutely, if the Tories have been successful at anything (and in fairness this is more out of inevitability than design), it's that the "deal" itself has become the story.  It doesn't really seem to matter whether the outcome of the deal is damaging, or of course whether leaving the EU solves all or even any of the things that the Brussels Bureaucrats have traditionally been blamed for.  All that matters now is just getting a deal, and that will be dressed as a victory --- any negative fallout will be painted as being the result of EU intransigence and 'punishing Britain'.  Nobody is actually talking now about the impact of Brexit on the people who really matter (i.e. the ordinary citizen) -- all that matters is the c**k-measuring contest between Britain and its old imperial rivals.

Spook_ie

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's from June 2016, but I'm sure he still believes that. Meanwhile, the real world says that if he puts tariffs on Irish beef, all beef imports will carry the same tariffs or he'll crash into MFN rules.

But can you not differentiate between Irish Beef and Argentinian Beef, French Beef etc.? Many countries differentiated on British Beef when mad cow was all the rage

prawnsambo

Spook_ie wrote: »

But can you not differentiate between Irish Beef and Argentinian Beef, French Beef etc.? Many countries differentiated on British Beef when mad cow was all the rage

You can based on standards. Trade agreements also specify quality. So if there's a health issue, obviously you can refuse to take in the product. But you can't make this stuff up, there has to be a genuine health risk or risk of contamination in the case of live cattle exports.

breatheme

You can ban/limit purchases for sanitary reasons. They didn't actually increase the tariffs on British beef.

kunst nugget

Spook_ie wrote: »

But can you not differentiate between Irish Beef and Argentinian Beef, French Beef etc.? Many countries differentiated on British Beef when mad cow was all the rage

Well, you can just choose not to import British Beef if you have fears over its safety. Not really the same as putting a tariff on it.

CelticRambler

Peregrinus wrote: »

I would think [not?] very much. The proportion of UK domestic car sales which are made to "high-earning EU professionals" resident in the UK can't be that great.

It's doubtful that the decline in domestic sales is directly related to Brexit in that way. It's down to sluggish demand/low consumer confidence in the domestic economy generally. If you buy the view that that is due to Brexit uncertainty/fears then, yeah, there is an indirect connection there.

Is there a word missing from that first sentence?

Perhaps my use of the adjective "high-earning" was ill-advised; "gainfully employed" might have been better. When you consider that close to 10% of the UK's workforce is of EU-origin, and that the employment rate among UK-resident EU citizens (82%) is higher that that of the natives (76%), and that that 82% is probably more likely to be working in proper jobs (healthcare, education, construction) rather than zero-hours contracts, that's bound to be reflected in where discretionary spending enters the economy.

Similarly, where you have the healthcare, education and construction sectors reporting a dramatic decline in new EU-graduate registrations, and a loss of existing workers of EU origin, that's a heck of a lot of second-car owners disappearing from auto market.

While the individual percentages concerned by each aspect may be small - or even tiny! - the cumulative effect across the whole economy is almost certainly considerable. It'll take more than a few Nigerian or Botswanan families to make up the loss of an Anglo-Danish couple's spending if they've relocated to Copenhagen.

serfboard

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in reality, the EU is faced with Chequers (or something better for the UK) or a no Deal. Was this the plan all along from the UK, to basically waste all the time and leave the EU with an effective ultimatum. Sounds crazy, but they probably realised soon enough that their demands were not going to be met, hence Davies not attending many meetings, there was simply nothing to discuss.

They want no border in NI but don't want to give anything up to get it, so what better way than simply sit on their hands, make a proposal they know won't fly (and which the party doesn't accept anyway) therefore leaving the EU staring at a cliff edge.

Its a high stakes poker game, but the way I see it many seem to think that No deal is actually a good idea (or at least selling the line) and that even if its not its the EU's fault.

This is why a lot of talk recently is about an "accidental" crash-out - i.e. neither side wants the Brits to crash out, but due to the attitude that they are taking, this might happen accidentally.

This kind of stuff reminds me of the excellent documentary "The Fog Of War" featuring former (Kennedy-era) American Defence Secretary Robert McNamara. In the documentary he revisited things he did during his political career and how the wisdom of hindsight made him see things so much more clearly then at the time due to The Fog of (the Vietnam) War.

I see a lot of parallels between that time and (bad) decision-making and Brexit. The linked Wikipedia article has a summation from McNamara's book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam". I've re-phrased them here to feature Brexit and Britain instead of Vietnam.

Here's the lessons that the Brits should have learned ...

Robert McNamara/Wikipedia wrote:

We misjudged then - and we have since - the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries ... and we exaggerated the dangers.

We viewed the people and leaders of the EU in terms of our own experience ... We totally misjudged the political forces within the union.

Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the EU, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

We failed to adapt our tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

We failed to draw Parliament and the British people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons ... before we initiated the action.

After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course ... we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.

We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions ... At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political issues.

And here's one of his lessons for the EU:

We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to ... die for their beliefs and values.

Imreoir2

Inquitus wrote: »

In reality the EU has very little room for concessions, they have to protect the single market.

The problem with much of the commentary around Brexit seems to be that A: the process is being perceived as a negotiation between equals, and B: there is an assumption that there must be a deal and that there is some obligation on the EU to compromise significantly if necessary in order to make a deal happen.

The reality is that the UK is not even close to being an equal of the EU, it is vastly smaller in terms of GDP, population etc, it is simply in a different league. What we have seen to date is little more than the playing out of an unequal power relationship. We in this country have been on the losing side of such a power relationship for most of our history which is why suggestions that we should leave the EU along with the UK are so preposterous, in my opinion. The impact of a no-deal Brexit is also massively unequal, it would be a disaster for the UK, but merely a nuisance for the EU.

There is also no obligation at all for a deal to be agreed. The UK does not seem to register what being a third country really means. The UK has no reason to expect a closer or more favourable relationship with the EU after Brexit than Argentina or Japan has. Any deal will only be based on what is beneficial to both sides, not on what the UK wants or even desperately needs. If there is to be a close, or even unprecedented relationship between the EU and the UK, it is only because it is in the EU's interest for there to be such a relationship. If the price of such a relationship is the undermining of the single market, then the EU's interests rule that relationship out.

Havockk

Leroy42 wrote: »

He has also stated, in regards to avoiding massive queues in Dover etc, that the UK will operate open borders, so how exactly will they levy these tariffs?

Wait until he tries to sell that one to the anti-immigration lot.

flatty

Havockk wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

He has also stated, in regards to avoiding massive queues in Dover etc, that the UK will operate open borders, so how exactly will they levy these tariffs?

Wait until he tries to sell that one to the anti-immigration lot.

Be nice if they got the borders up before all the elderly scrotes in marbella decide to move back. I had the misfortune of being cornered by one recently who was back, it transpires for an operation. He had lived in marbella for 17 years. When I asked how his Spanish was, "don't need it, they all speak English"
I then enquired why he hadn't had his treatment in Spain. "don't trust any of em"

Imreoir2

robindch wrote: »

JRM explains that the UK might "destroy" Irish farmers:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1034601856532733952

If they put a tarriff on Irish beef they will have to put a tarriff on all beef coming in from outside the UK. The UK can't produce enough beef for domestic demand. Irish farmers will still be able to sell their beef to the UK, the tarriffs will only have the effect of making beef more expensive for UK consumers. Great plan.

Dymo

Looks like Europe is starting to fold, it not near March yet and the stories this week coming from Brussels seem to indicate that the EU is starting to bend over backwards to get to an agreement with the UK.

I get the feeling there is going to be a lot of concessions to the UK
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/france-ready-to-agree-close-eu-deal-with-uk-after-brexit-37266475.html

They did say this was one the UK tactics, see who would blink first.

kunst nugget

Dymo wrote: »

Looks like Europe is starting to fold, it not near March yet and the stories this week coming from Brussels seem to indicate that the EU is starting to bend over backwards to get to an agreement with the UK.

I get the feeling there is going to be a lot of concessions to the UK
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/france-ready-to-agree-close-eu-deal-with-uk-after-brexit-37266475.html

They did say this was one the UK tactics, see who would blink first.

There's nothing in that article about Brussels but Macron giving his opinion on what he might like to see. There's still 26 other countries in the EU.

LeinsterDub

Dymo wrote: »

Looks like Europe is starting to fold, it not near March yet and the stories this week coming from Brussels seem to indicate that the EU is starting to bend over backwards to get to an agreement with the UK.

I get the feeling there is going to be a lot of concessions to the UK
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/france-ready-to-agree-close-eu-deal-with-uk-after-brexit-37266475.html

They did say this was one the UK tactics, see who would blink first.

This two speed Europe idea has been around a while. I believe France have been the driver behind it. You can be sure that single market won't be risked in this idea. It also uses a mistranslated quote and talks of an alliance.

I'll wait for a creditable paper to report on this.

CelticRambler

Old news - he's just re-stating his opinion that there should be a two-speed Europe: an efficient, productive Eurozone core, and an outer ring of wannabees and half-hearted hangers-on. Brexit is irrelevant.

Bigus

From the guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/30/calm-down-barniers-words-were-not-a-brexit-deal-green-light


Calm down. Barnier's words were not a green light for Brexit deal
The EU negotiator’s remarks about an unprecedented partnership were nothing new

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Ireland have to force a no-deal exit because of the Border issue, the Irish public will certainly not blame the Irish side given the parade of DUP intransigence and Tory indifference and sometimes hostility we have seen.

Their politicians will blame it on us and our politicians will blame it on them. The border goes up regardless. Ultimately each side will have to take responsibility for their part.