Brexit discussion thread IV

Water John

Nothing wrong with the figures. One does sometimes get outliers in polling. A few more polls will show the trend if it's real. Its 52-39, I presume 9% Don't Know. What Ref are you comparing to. You cannot directly measure one to the other, even though their is some connection.

flutered

kunst nugget wrote: »

He's totally for Brexit, he's a Bennite through and through.

but can 60's socialism live/work in the 21st century, i recon it cannot

flutered

kunst nugget wrote: »

And then put in costly socialist policies when the Treasury haven't got a pot to piss in after the financial fallout of a crash out Brexit. How long would it take the UK to recover from that?

corbyn may well be taking instruction from the imf

prawnsambo

flutered wrote: »

but can 60's socialism live/work in the 21st century, i recon it cannot

No. Manufacturing and trade have moved on massively, to the point that it's nearly impossible to separate product from service. The answer to the trading problems that brexit will cause is for as close to complete a removal of the UK from supply chains as possible. That's the word that's going around import/export circles right now.

Capt'n Midnight

flatty wrote: »

I think sterling, having circled the drain for an impressively long time, has started its spiral down.

I saw on the new that the FTSE was up 1% , my first thought was Sterling's down. And it was.

Changes in the FTSE aren't news unless Serling is moving in the same direction.

Sterling is what Brent Crude is priced in so there's that. The UK economy even though it isn't growing is still big and relatively rich.

CelticRambler

An opinion piece in the Guardian links to this (apparently) impartial evaluation [34-page PDF] of what they term a chaotic Brexit - the kind of no-deal Brexit that will inevitably require a slew of hasty deals to keep the lights on and the wheels turning.

Relevant to some earlier discussion on here is this paragraph:

It is important to note that avoiding no deal does not require a treaty on the future relationship. The only legally binding text that is needed now is the Withdrawal Agreement, covering ‘separation issues’ – citizens’ rights, the financial settlement (or divorce bill) and Northern Ireland. This will be accompanied by a ‘political declaration’ on the future relationship which, by definition, cannot bind either side. Indeed, given the near certainty of continued upheaval in British politics, the EU27 would be demonstrating a degree of naiveté, not so far in evidence, were they to assume that Theresa May was likely to be in a position to deliver on any promises she makes in such a declaration.

and this:

So this is the government’s catch-22: there is little prospect of a majority in Parliament to sign what looks like a blank cheque; and yet the more specific any deal is, the more likely it is to infuriate either the ‘clean’ or the ‘soft’ Brexit camp. All of which makes it hard at present to see a clear route to a withdrawal agreement which would command a majority within the House of Commons.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the december agreement was supposed to be a framework for a future detailed agreement . . .

No. It was an agreement about what would go into the Withdrawal Agreement. The agreement on a future relationship is a separate matter which won’t happen until after withdrawal.

This is explicit in para 46:

The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. They are made and must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and United Kingdom

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is not supposed to contain things that are not feasible. Otherwise, the parties should not have agreed to them. Taken as a whole, the document implies that whatever regulatory alignment there is going to be must apply to the UK as a whole.

Again, no. The language just quoted is explicit that the commitments and principles to avoid a hard border are “specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland”, and that they don’t predetermine the result of the future discussions on the EU/UK relationship. That’s certainly not consistent with an “implication” that the no-hard-border arrangements would extend across the whole of the UK.

Arguments that the no-hard-border arrangements can extend to the whole of the UK mainly rest on para 50:

In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

However note that para 50, in marked contrast to the rest of the Joint Report, only contains commitments by the UK. The UK will ensure no new regulatory barriers; the UK will ensure unfettered access for NI businesses to the UK internal market. How the UK does this is, obviously, up to the UK, but the paragraph plainly contemplates a solution which the UK will deliver unilaterally.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the december agreement was supposed to be a framework for a future detailed agreement. It is not supposed to contain things that are not feasible. Otherwise, the parties should not have agreed to them. Taken as a whole, the document implies that whatever regulatory alignment there is going to be must apply to the UK as a whole.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It was an agreement about what would go into the Withdrawal Agreement. The agreement on a future relationship is a separate matter which won’t happen until after withdrawal.

No, I am aware that there is a further agreement on a future relationship but that is not what I was referring to in my quote above. I meant that the december joint statement was as you say an agreement about what would go into the (future) withdrawal agreement. By future I meant that the detailed withdrawal agreement did not exist at that time.

My point essentially was that this joint statement must contain items that are capable of being fleshed out. It is not enough, therefore, to say that that is for the UK to sort out this or that statement; the statements themselves must be consistant and not lead to impossibilities.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

No, I am aware that there is a further agreement on a future relationship but that is not what I was referring to in my quote above. I meant that the december joint statement was as you say an agreement about what would go into the (future) withdrawal agreement. By future I meant that the detailed withdrawal agreement did not exist at that time.

Noted. Thanks for the clarification.

Bit cynical wrote: »

My point essentially was that this joint statement must contain items that are capable of being fleshed out. It is not enough, therefore, to say that that is for the UK to sort out this or that statement; the statements themselves must be consistant and not lead to impossibilities.

The Joint Report itself frequently says which party will sort out/flesh out/develop various provisions. For example, in para 49 says that it's the UK's inention to secure an open border " through the overall EU-UK relationship" and that, should this not be possible, it's the United Kingdom that will "propose specific solutions" (i.e. the famous technological solution).

What this form of words indicates, I think, is that the UK wants these provisions in because it believes that the border can be kept open through the overall EU-UK relations or, failing that, through technological solutions. The EU doesn't commit commit itself to this view, but is happy to let the UK have a crack. But it requires the backstop as an insurance against the possibility that, in the event, the EU's scepticism turns out to be justified.

That's the background against which it can be said that it's the UK's responsiblity to take forward these particular matters.

As for things being consistent and feasible, yes, I agree. But I think, in this instance, that's more of a limitation on the UK than it is on the EU. The UK has to propose an overall EU/UK relationhip, or "specific solutions", or methods of delivering its para 50 promise, which are (a) consistent with everything else in the Joint Report, and (b) practically feasible. Presumably it believed, when it signed the report, that it could do that; otherwise it should not have taken on these commitments. And now it's in the position that it must do that, or forfeit a withdrawal agreement.

Let's suppose there is in fact no border solution which will satisfy all the requirements and prinicples set out in the withdrawal agreement. If that's the case, there will be no withdrawal agreement unless the EU and the UK can agree on which requirements/principles will be compromised or sacrificed.

You're arguing, I think, that the compromise should be to allow the Art. 49 backstop to extend to the whole of the UK - effectively, for the EU to concede on para 46. That would infuriate the ultra-Brexiters and might not be politically acceptable in the UK, but let's park that for now; the first question is not whether it's acceptable to Jacob Rees-Mogg, but whether it's acceptable to the EU. And the answer is no, it isn't, because it's the very evil that paragraph 46 was put in to avert. If the EU wanted para 46 last December, what has changed now that they should decide they don't want it? Their relative bargaining position as against the UK is, if anything, even stronger than it was then.

No, a cold hard look at the strategic situation tells us that, if there are compomises to be made here, they are mostly going to have to be made by the UK. The EU would be perfectly happy for the UK to compromise by softening the para 50 promise to the DUP, for example. (Yes, that would create domestic problems for HMG, but it wouldn't bother the EU.) Or for the UK to compromise by re-imagining "full regulatory alignment" as CU+SM membership, in which case extension to the whole of the UK would become possible. Or no doubt we could imagine a range of other compromises the UK could make.

As already acknowledged, and as you will rush to point out, all of them would face domestic opposition in the UK, and there is no guarantee that HMG could get them through Parliament, or even survive if it tried to. But that's equally true of HMG's current position. That's a risk which attends every possible solution of the border conundrum - indeed, every possible version of Brexit - so, from the EU's point of view, it's not a factor which would lead them to prefer one variant over another. There's no guarantee that HMG can deliver any withdrawal agreement that it commits to, but if they are going to fail then, from the EU's position, it is preferable that they at least fail to deliver a withdrawal agreement whose terms were acceptable. That at least provides a starting position for renewed negotiations with the next UK government, following the inevitable general election.

LeinsterDub

flutered wrote: »

but can 60's socialism live/work in the 21st century, i recon it cannot

It couldn't even live in the 60`s hence why the IMF was required by the early 70's

Bigus

I was watching Brexit Debate on BBC 2 last night , with various contributors and seemingly less fervent Brexiteers than has been the case to now .

I'd say the level of realisation of what Brexit really is about, has almost but not quiet reached the understanding of where this thread started over 2 years ago, and this includes MPs future MPs, business leaders etc although very female weighted for whatever reason.

They've a long way to go and I suspect autumn positions will come thick and fast with daily radical changes .
A lot of UK heavyweights seem to think 40bn sterling , is an awful lot of money that this can be withheld to change world history, idiots.
Just one other new point that I heard was that the UK leaving is currently the equivalent ( I don't know if this refers to economy's or numbers of people) to the "smallest 19 Nations leaving " the EU , if true economically than when they come back in the future it might be more like 9 small nations joining the way no deal might shrink the UK ecomomy.
At least they've moved on from German car manufacturers pulling the strings , to save them from a no deal happening.

EdgeCase

Of course they don’t. The British government has given the civil service an impossible task that’s entirely about politics, jingosim, appeasing tabloids and is totally impractical and undeliverable.

Then they keep changing their vague positions, there’s no clear plan at all, yet they expect this to be delivered by March 2019.

Everyone with any sense knows this is undeliverable and will be a car crash. I feel sorry for the civil service people lumbered with this degree of idiocy to deal with. They have to deliver government policy and that policy is coming from a government who are willing to ignore all expert advice, all practicalities and reality to deliver some kind of fantasy.

When reality and fantasy finally collide in March, the civil service are the ones who’ll have to attempt to keep the lights on and the country somehow functioning despite or all of these ludicrous political decisions.

I would say morale is on the floor. It’s a horrible position to put anyone in.

I don’t think history will be very kind to this batch of U.K. politicians. It’s probably the most irresponsible parliament that has ever sat in those benches. Im specifically saying oaelowknt took rather than government, as the opposition is absolutely complicit in this too.

EdgeCase

Bigus wrote: »

I w
A lot of UK heavyweights seem to think 40bn sterling , is an awful lot of money that this can be withheld to change world history, idiots .

I’ve been amazed at that myself. I’ve seen a few stories (not all about Brexit) where they seem to have absolutely no sense of scale of finances.
One example being a story being presented at good news where something like £150 million was being allocated to address a major problem with road maintenance and potholes. The reporter was going on like as if this was fantastic and loads of money. They seemed to have no idea that in a country of 67 million or so, that was ludicrously small. It would be a boost for one Irish county’s budget, but a drop in the ocean for the UK.

Likewise they seem to think that the EU is tiny. 40 billion is something like the price of a cappuccino per head per year for the EU 27 and when you jiggle a few fiscal things around it’s probably less.

It’s almosr like they’ve absolutely no concept of scale.

prawnsambo

EdgeCase wrote: »

I’ve been amazed at that myself. I’ve seen a few stories (not all about Brexit) where they seem to have absolutely no sense of scale of finances.
One example being a story being presented at good news where something like £150 million was being allocated to address a major problem with road maintenance and potholes. The reporter was going on like as if this was fantastic and loads of money. They seemed to have no idea that in a country of 67 million or so, that was ludicrously small. It would be a boost for one Irish county’s budget, but a drop in the ocean for the UK.

Likewise they seem to think that the EU is tiny. 40 billion is something like the price of a cappuccino per head per year for the EU 27 and when you jiggle a few fiscal things around it’s probably less.

It’s almosr like they’ve absolutely no concept of scale.

There is that element to it. But the main issue is how it's being portrayed in the media as some sort of "get out" payment that the EU are levying as a kind of exit bill. The 'divorce bill' phraseology has a lot to do with it.

Leroy42

No sure about the accuracy of doing a poll like this, but the independent.co.uk have a lead story today of

2.6 million Leave voters have abandoned support for Brexit since referendum, major new study finds

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-millions-leave-voters-best-for-britain-no-deal-theresa-may-conservative-government-a8521346.html

I say I'm not sure because I no details (save for what is in the article) about the methodology, but that is almost besides the point.

This line caught my eye;

In total, it concluded that 2.6 million Leave voters have switched their support to Remain, while 970,000 have moved the other way – a net gain for the pro-EU side of 1.6 million.

Now, I can just about understand how some people (though not 17.4m) were fooled during the campaign. Remain did a really poor job for example. But what possible reason could anyone have to actually switch from remain to leave? It baffles me. There has been nothing in the last 18 months that would give any reason to make that switch.

It is simply because they buy into the idea that EU is bullying them?

Dymo

Water John wrote: »

Who conducted the poll, ie the polling co and the questions asked are important. If it's a reputable polling co, then they will have done a correct sample and their questions will be unbiased. Who commissioned the poll then would not be revelent.

Poles can be very misleading, a day before the referendum there it was 55% remain 45% leave.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

. . . But what possible reason could anyone have to actually switch from remain to leave? It baffles me. There has been nothing in the last 18 months that would give any reason to make that switch.

It is simply because they buy into the idea that EU is bullying them?

I too find it puzzling. All I can think is that it's out of some misguided sense of "fairness" - that the Leavers won the referendum and fairness requires that Brexit now be delivered.

Or it could be a sense of exhaustion - we've thrashed this out for years, we've finally made a decision, I don't like the decision but my dislike is eclipsed by my relief at the fact that it has been made, and I certainly don't want to reopen the question.

Or, for many, some combination of the two feelings.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now, I can just about understand how some people (though not 17.4m) were fooled during the campaign. Remain did a really poor job for example. But what possible reason could anyone have to actually switch from remain to leave? It baffles me. There has been nothing in the last 18 months that would give any reason to make that switch.

It is simply because they buy into the idea that EU is bullying them?

That's probably a factor since that's how it's being reported in the press. I often find it instructive to read the comments in Telegraph articles where the 'bullying' narrative usually gets into full flow. It was therefore amusing to see the comments when the lead articles were reporting Barnier's speech as a partial 'cave in'. Then the narrative switched to "We have them now, lets roger them senselesss" or words to that effect.

There is another factor though. The relentless "It's a democratic decision, you have to get behind it now" narrative has also caused those who originally voted to remain to view their loss as akin to their party losing a GE and being expected to support their new government.

And finally just brexit 'fatigue'. It's been relentless and people are tired of trying to sort through the lies from the facts and now just want to 'get on with it'.

J Mysterio

The 'get on with it' factor is huge (and totally ridiculous).

'Keep calm and carry on' has come back with a vengeance. Where it was once neccesary to get through tough times, it's now the totem for a large scale abdication of citizens responsibility for the future of the country.

trellheim

Spectator blog - so right wing but judge for yourself

Author looks at mood music post JRM and Barnier yesterday

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/has-david-davis-triumphed-in-the-battle-for-brexit/

David Davis may have won. What do I mean? Well I am hearing from multiple sources that the only trade deal the EU’s lead negotiator Michel Barnier will countenance is Davis’s cherished Free Trade Agreement, what he called Canada Plus, rather than any version of May’s Chequers plan.


Here for example is the debrief of an MP on the Brexit select committee chaired by Hilary Benn, who met Barnier yesterday in Brussels:

“Remarkable how dismissive Barnier was of the two central pillars of Chequers – customs and common rule book for goods. It’s not a matter of how it will fare in Parliament. It won’t be agreed by the EU. We are back to Canada-style FTA”.

The Brexiters on the select committee are ecstatic; the Remainers are in abject despair. And to be clear, Barnier was not putting on a special act for British MPs. I am hearing exactly the same about him from Brussels and EU sources.

Now when he was Brexit secretary, Davis came in for a lot of stick, not least from his own ministerial and civil-servant colleagues, for not being ambitious or diligent enough when negotiating with Barnier – and, in the end, May and her senior Whitehall adviser on Brexit, Olly Robbins, went round the back of him and came up with their own Brexit plan. Which prompted David to quit. But for more than two years he told me a Canada-style arrangement was the only realistic proposition. And it looks as though he was right.

Another well-placed source sees what is happening as an extraordinary but powerful alliance between the EU purists and zealots represented by Barnier and the Tories’ True Brexiters of Davis, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and the European Research Group.

May will say she is no longer negotiating with Barnier, that he matters little these days, and that the future trading relationship will be decided by Merkel, Macron and other EU government heads. But will they really trample wholesale on the views and reservations of their own mandated negotiator, Barnier? And can she simultaneously pretend both that Barnier’s views and those of perhaps 100 of her MPs simply don’t matter?

So as pretty much every Tory MP who is not on May’s payroll will tell you, Chequers is dead. Which means that if May too isn’t to find her career as PM terminated along with it, she may have to resurrect Davis’s Canada plus – which, funnily enough, was her preferred plan, outlined at Lancaster House, at the start of 2017

Leroy42

But how does a Canada + avoid a hard border in NI?

prawnsambo

trellheim wrote: »

Spectator blog - so right wing but judge for yourself

Author looks at mood music post JRM and Barnier yesterday

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/has-david-davis-triumphed-in-the-battle-for-brexit/

He seems unable to understand that Barnier's position is what the 27 EU heads of state have agreed. Is this the same old 'divide and rule' nonsense back in another form?

trellheim

Chequers has proved intolerable to everyone - May must set her sights on a Canada-plus deal with the EU

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/29/chequers-has-proved-intolerable-everyone-may-must-set-sights/

That article is penned by Nick Timothy, who was (and is) TM's biggest fan and chief of staff until he got her to call the 2017 GE and famously lost the Tories a huge bunch of seats to Labour ( and was immediately fired). Hasnt stopped his twitter love-in feed tho'. (But if he is penning that article then something is happening .... )

https://fullfact.org/europe/brexit-trade-deals-norway-canada-options/

( link compares Norway and Canada deals).

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how does a Canada + avoid a hard border in NI?

It doesn't. The buzz in London - or certain circles in London, at any rate, is that the likely end state is Canada + for GB, with a backstop for NI on more-or-less the EU terms.

Spook_ie

J Mysterio wrote: »

The 'get on with it' factor is huge (and totally ridiculous).

'Keep calm and carry on' has come back with a vengeance. Where it was once neccesary to get through tough times, it's now the totem for a large scale abdication of citizens responsibility for the future of the country.

And it's likely to be needed again, let 'em get on with it, you never know what we might decide ourselves in 10 years time after a possible Migration Crisis, Russian Aggression Crisis, Eurozone Crisis, Tradewar with USA Crisis etc.

trellheim

The buzz in London - or certain circles in London, at any rate, is that the likely end state is Canada + for GB, with a backstop for NI on more-or-less the EU terms.

but they are mutually incompatible unless someone moves a red line .... Given the DUP and their happy agreement to everything put in front of them I have to tell you I am a teensy bit concerned (/s, of course).

J Mysterio

My Dad sent this to me this morning :pac:

Spook_ie

Interesting aspect from Sky Economist
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-welcome-to-the-post-economic-world-11489842

I do feel that sometimes people are besotted with figures as if they are the only thing that matters

prawnsambo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting aspect from Sky Economist
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-welcome-to-the-post-economic-world-11489842

I do feel that sometimes people are besotted with figures as if they are the only thing that matters

He kind of blew his argument in the first paragraph though. It's only the economy when the economy is in a nosedive. That's where the phrase originated, and it's no less true now than it was back when it was first coined. People don't get excited about possible future economic problems when they're currently doing fine. I recently had an exchange on twitter with a guy in the UK who's company is doing fine to the point of paying bonuses on the back of increasing exports to China and the USA. It was a polite exchange that suddenly stopped when I pointed out that a hard brexit would mean all the tariff regimes his imports and exports were currently subject to would end on 29th March.

Enzokk

The musings of Robert Peston (which was taken from his Facebook page) is just an interpretation of where things could go. The problem is that unless Theresa May breaks her alliance with the DUP it will not work. Either that or she throws the GFA under the bus. There are no easy choices if she decides to let go of Chequers or even if she resigns and either Johnson, Rees-Mogg or Davis takes over. They will face the same problems.

Nothing has changed from the General Election. Theresa May is in the pocket of the DUP, who for some reason want a border and hard Brexit. She has more MPs that support a soft Brexit than hard Brexit in her party, but not enough to get it through. Labour will not help her get a soft Brexit through in case it works out and she gets to take the credit and win the next election on that achievement. She can get a hard Brexit through with the support of the DUP and some Labour rebels because those same MPs who favour a soft Brexit also want to keep their seats so they will not topple the government and will vote with the party.

Labour meanwhile have a majority support for cancelling Brexit. Their members would probably agree with this sentiment if they held a referendum in the party as well. Their leader though wants to leave the EU so he can implement his own policies without interference of EU rules. So Labour seem to be neck and neck with the Tories in the polls due to this. If the cult leader were to change his view he would probably poll around 50% but he is sticking to script and is alienating moderate Tory voters who would vote Labour in the next election to better their lives as his vision does exactly the same as the current government.

The Lib Dems favour no Brexit, but you cannot trust them because Nick Clegg sold his party's soul to Cameron for his chance in government and broke all of his promises. He broke his party and should be maligned along with Cameron as the enabler of austerity that had a big influence in the Brexit referendum (people weren't happy with the status quo as they were suffering, and the status quo was membership of the EU) so now his party is nothing more than a sideshow and has no influence at all. In any case they already stated that they would not go into government with Labour but would consider a coalition with the Conservatives again, so there is that as well.

To add to the depressing state that is the UK politics at the moment, UKIP is experiencing a surge once again as it looks to all those that just want to leave the EU even if it means they have to eat garbage on the street until they die of exposure as long as there is no more immigration or rules from the EU that they have to follow. Interestingly this support is from the Conservatives more than from Labour so basically the UKIP vote is just the hard right Conservative party.

And here we sit, our fate tied to the UK and this is what we are faced with. A bunch of incompetent politicians running the show.