Brexit discussion thread IV

fash

Europe only cares about the WA- and less about the future relationship.
The UK cares about the future relationship because it means backstop or not and what it "gets" for the payment of existing obligations.
This allows a second referendum (with sufficient time to run it properly and motivated companies and trade unions), avoids the accusation that you are asking the people to get the "right" answer on brexit and gives a mandate for whichever form of brexit is voted for afterwards. Hard for brexiters to argue against that "will of the people".

Trasna1

Leroy42 wrote: »

Given that the NI border issue seems to be a major sticking point, and with time quickly running out and little, it appears, hope of a solution to the NI impasse, the only deal I can see happening at this stage will be one that it does not deal with the NI border (ie end with a hard border) or allows a soft border but without other conditions (FOM etc)

It is certainly on that basis that the Tory party are having their debate, since they will not accept a backstop.

But given that the above were to be true, what should the Irish government do in such a situation. I ask this because the debate in the UK media seems to all be about what deal the UK parliament is willing to accept, but there seems to be an almost ignorance that quite apart for the UK there are a further 27 parliaments that also need to agree.

I cannot see the Irish government surrendering or allowing a fudge on the border - the strategic risk is just too great.

If the issue is fudged or ignored Ireland will almost certainly be faced with a dilemma - defacto ejection from the SM or be forced to concede on policy. One could guarantee that the target would be on the back of the corporation tax policy.

BlitzKrieg

I honestly think we've more effort discussing Brexit then some Brexiteers

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/1039472978126417920/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1039472978126417920&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Fblog%2Flive%2F2018%2Fsep%2F11%2Flabour-would-introduce-biggest-extension-of-workers-rights-uk-has-ever-seen-as-mcdonnell-politics-live

thats just pathetic

full faq pdf: https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/World-Trade-Deal-pocket-guide.pdf

BlitzKrieg

It seems the big push for a brexiteers alternative to Brexit got axed over the weekend so all we get is this document which is mostly nonsense of them saying "no" over and over.


ffs

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Given that the NI border issue seems to be a major sticking point, and with time quickly running out and little, it appears, hope of a solution to the NI impasse, the only deal I can see happening at this stage will be one that it does not deal with the NI border (ie end with a hard border) or allows a soft border but without other conditions (FOM etc)

It is certainly on that basis that the Tory party are having their debate, since they will not accept a backstop.

But given that the above were to be true, what should the Irish government do in such a situation. I ask this because the debate in the UK media seems to all be about what deal the UK parliament is willing to accept, but there seems to be an almost ignorance that quite apart for the UK there are a further 27 parliaments that also need to agree.

It will almost certainly never come up. The EU has stated clearly on many occasions that it will not agree to any deal that does not have a backstop that is satisfactory to the Irish government.

Barnier hardly speaks publicly these days without adding in a reminder about the backstop. The EU could do a last minute volte-face on the issue, but why should they? It would cause far more problems for them than a no-deal Brexit.

The point many people seem to miss is that the backstop is not just the EU sticking by us, it is also in the EU's own interest. If the EU were to agree a deal with no backstop and still commit to no hard border in Ireland in the future relationship, they would be over a barrel in the trade talks as they would have to give the UK a sweetheart deal allowing them access to the single market to avoid a hard border. It would make the whole thing that much harder for the EU. The backstop is not just good for Ireland.

Leroy42

I suppose I am asking in it in the context to how the debate is currently being undertaken in the UK. IMO, the agreement of the EU is almost taken for granted, that the only issue is the timing of the ratification of any deal. As such, once Barnier and May agree a deal, the only obstacle left is the UK Parliament.

I don't see it like that. The 27 still have a major say, and whilst I think many will simply opt for whatever the deal is, countries like Ireland have a decision to make. It will be akin to the pressure that May has felt, either accept the only deal on offer or face a crash out and thus a hard border.

Of course it will all be framed in that the deal is merely a starting point and that negotiations will continue with respect to the future relationship.

I agree, that any concessions by the EU will only make the problem worse in the long run.

flatty

I wonder whether the eu big hitters have looked at the British "leadership", sighed gently, and decided that someone needs to be an adult in the room.
Despite being uk based, with a share in a UK based business, I honestly think they the UK should be allowed to crash out with no deal. It is the only thing that might resolve their inner turmoil in the medium term. Anything else is just going to be a running sore.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I suppose I am asking in it in the context to how the debate is currently being undertaken in the UK. IMO, the agreement of the EU is almost taken for granted, that the only issue is the timing of the ratification of any deal. As such, once Barnier and May agree a deal, the only obstacle left is the UK Parliament.

I don't see it like that. The 27 still have a major say, and whilst I think many will simply opt for whatever the deal is, countries like Ireland have a decision to make. It will be akin to the pressure that May has felt, either accept the only deal on offer or face a crash out and thus a hard border.

Of course it will all be framed in that the deal is merely a starting point and that negotiations will continue with respect to the future relationship.

I agree, that any concessions by the EU will only make the problem worse in the long run.

I am confident that the team around Barnier, and Barnier himself is in close contact with the governments of the 27 and will not put forward a deal to a summit of the European Council if it is not acceptable, especially around key issues like the backstop. Ireland will have a choice to make, but if the choice is that the deal available is unacceptable then this will be brought to Barniers attention before he signs off on such a deal and will thus never get as far as being proposed to the Council for acceptance or the EU parliament and member states for ratification.

I would be very surprised indeed if we are put in a situation where member states would have to reject the deal during the ratification process because of a key issue like the backstop.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I suppose I am asking in it in the context to how the debate is currently being undertaken in the UK. IMO, the agreement of the EU is almost taken for granted, that the only issue is the timing of the ratification of any deal. As such, once Barnier and May agree a deal, the only obstacle left is the UK Parliament.

I don't see it like that. The 27 still have a major say, and whilst I think many will simply opt for whatever the deal is, countries like Ireland have a decision to make. It will be akin to the pressure that May has felt, either accept the only deal on offer or face a crash out and thus a hard border.

There's a big difference, though, between Barnier's and May's strategic situation.

Barnier has been given a clear negotiating mandate by the Council, one he is happy with. As the talks have continued, the mandate has been tweaked a bit a couple of times, but always after consultation between Barnier, the Commission and the Council, and Barnier has always been happy to work within it. He has remained squarely within the negotiating guidelines. He can be reasonably confident that any agreement he concludes will be ratified by the EU-27 and the Parliament. He has a good idea of what they will ratify, and he won't conclude one he doesn't think they will ratify.

Of course, the situation can change, and individual countries can change their position, so take nothing completely for granted. But, by-and-large, Barnier has clear instructions, and a good idea of what will be acceptable and what won't.

May, by contrast, has no clue. There is no majority in the UK Parliament for any form of Brexit and whatever deal she signs will have more MPs opposing it than supporting it. She is crucially dependent on some MPs voting for it even though it's not what they want, on the basis that the alternative is not what they want, but no-deal.

When commentators implicitly treat the ratification of any deal by the EU-27 as a given, what they really mean is the position of the EU-27 is well-understood, and no deal will be signed unless it is one that the EU-27 are likely to ratify. Thus if a deal is signed, it very probably will be ratified on the EU side. It's only UK ratification that will be in any doubt.

Water John

It needs to be over the line, realistically by early Dec. There is 6/8 weeks to go. Yes the pressure is now ramping up and real divisions will break into the open in the UK. Ultimately the responsibility is with every MP. The Tories esp cannot hide behind the coattails of TM or anyone else.

Imreoir2

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a big difference, though, between Barnier's and May's strategic situation.

Barnier has been given a clear negotiating mandate by the Council, one he is happy with. As the talks have continued, the mandate has been tweaked a bit a couple of times, but always after consultation between Barnier, the Commission and the Council, and Barnier has always been happy to work within it. He has remained squarely within the negotiating guidelines. He can be reasonably confident that any agreement he concludes will be ratified by the EU-27 and the Parliament. He has a good idea of what they will ratify, and he won't conclude one he doesn't think they will ratify.

Of course, the situation can change, and individual countries can change their position, so take nothing completely for granted. But, by-and-large, Barnier has clear instructions, and a good idea of what will be acceptable and what won't.

May, by contrast, has no clue. There is no majority in the UK Parliament for any form of Brexit and whatever deal she signs will have more MPs opposing it than supporting it. She is crucially dependent on some MPs voting for it even though it's not what they want, on the basis that the alternative is not what they want, but no-deal.

When commentators implicitly treat the ratification of any deal by the EU-27 as a given, what they really mean is the position of the EU-27 is well-understood, and no deal will be signed unless it is one that the EU-27 are likely to ratify. Thus if a deal is signed, it very probably will be ratified on the EU side. It's only UK ratification that will be in any doubt.

Very good summary of the situation. It is just another example of the imbalence between the two sides. For the EU, there is no chance of them doing a deal that is likely to be rejected during the ratification process, for the UK the only hope they have for a deal is if there is a reasonable chance of it being rejected during their ratification process.

An Ciarraioch

One positive development today, at least, as the European Parliament votes to maintain regional funding for NI, regardless of the final outcome:

https://mobile.twitter.com/EPinIreland/status/1039476035996270592

flutered

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It will almost certainly never come up. The EU has stated clearly on many occasions that it will not agree to any deal that does not have a backstop that is satisfactory to the Irish government.

Barnier hardly speaks publicly these days without adding in a reminder about the backstop. The EU could do a last minute volte-face on the issue, but why should they? It would cause far more problems for them than a no-deal Brexit.

The point many people seem to miss is that the backstop is not just the EU sticking by us, it is also in the EU's own interest. If the EU were to agree a deal with no backstop and still commit to no hard border in Ireland in the future relationship, they would be over a barrel in the trade talks as they would have to give the UK a sweetheart deal allowing them access to the single market to avoid a hard border. It would make the whole thing that much harder for the EU. The backstop is not just good for Ireland.

one has also to bear in mind the the uk has been heavily fined for allowing cheap chineese tat to enter the uk, whats to stop them allowing more in unless their hands are tied

Working class heroes

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

One positive development today, at least, as the European Parliament votes to maintain regional funding for NI, regardless of the final outcome:

https://mobile.twitter.com/EPinIreland/status/1039476035996270592

Would this have been expected?
Was there any indication that funding would be halted?

brickster69

" [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Since 1995, more than €1.5 billion has been spent with the dual aim of promoting cohesion between communities involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland, as well as economic and social stability, especially in disadvantaged, rural and border areas. "[/font]
LOL, it costs the GB 9 Billion / Year for Ireland net after reciepts.

EdgeCase

Working class heroes wrote: »

Would this have been expected?
Was there any indication that funding would be halted?

It would have been assumed that regional funding would become unavailable as Northern Ireland would be a constituent part of a non-EU country after March 29th.

Bear in mind however, this is only a non-legislative resolution.

Working class heroes

EdgeCase wrote: »

It would have been assumed that regional funding would become unavailable as Northern Ireland would be a constituent part of a non-EU country after March 29th.

That was my thinking as well.
Could be viewed as a message to the good people of N. Ireland. We’ll look after you!

Zubeneschamali

brickster69 wrote: »

LOL, it costs the GB 9 Billion / Year for Ireland net after reciepts.

They have never really shown their homework on these figures.

brickster69

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

LOL, it costs the GB 9 Billion / Year for Ireland net after reciepts.

They have never really shown their homework on these figures.

Go on then ?

Enzokk

A couple of links as a reply to the paper and the press release that Jacob Rees Mogg has been behind today.

Debunking the paper championed by Jacob Rees Mogg claiming a no-deal Brexit would boost the economy

The Brexit debate deserves so much better than Economists for Free Trade’s latest offering. Their paper, championed by Jacob Rees-Mogg, tries to make the case for leaving the EU without a deal and trading under World Trade Organization rules.

And here is Ian Dunt's take on it all. He does not hold back.

The garbled nonsense of Jacob Rees-Mogg's new press release

The Economists for Free Trade are a ragtag bunch of Brexit-supporting eccentrics whose primary function is to make all other economists feel better about their life choices. Their latest press release, which comes with a Jacob Rees-Mogg stamp of approval, is a masterclass in babbling nonsense. It is designed to promote their new report on why Britain would be fine if it fell off the cliff-edge in March next year, contrary to the findings of every credible independent body in economics or indeed any industry body.

It is hard to find a single accurate sentence in the entire thing. It is so full of legal, economic and logical misunderstanding that it is genuinely easier to highlight the sections of it which are true. However, that would also be less fun, so let's stick with the traditional methodology.

He obviously doesn't hold those responsible for the paper in high regard by this quote.

"If the EU insisted on slapping WTO tariffs on British exports," the paper scowls, like a schoolboy pretending to be James Bond, "the overall effect would amount to a staggering £13 billion a year boost to UK revenues."

The EU is not "insisting" anything. It has no choice. The WTO non-discrimination provision means that you must apply your tariffs equally outside of a trade deal. The authors either know this and are liars, or they don't and are idiots.

An Ciarraioch

brickster69 wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

LOL, it costs the GB 9 Billion / Year for Ireland net after reciepts.

They have never really shown their homework on these figures.

Go on then ?

The most detailed recent analysis suggests €7.5 billion (£6.75 billion at current exchange rates) is closer to the mark:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/

Capt'n Midnight

brickster69 wrote: »

Go on then ?

The costs of NI depend on how you measure it. NI would cost us less than the UK currently spends because some expenditures like those for nuclear weapons just disappear. Also the expected growth in foreign investment will help too, and a bit of the old EU funding wouldn't go amiss either.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/

three different possible values for the deficit; €11.3bn if you include all of the allocated expenditures, €5.7bn if you include none of the allocated values, and €7.6bn if you include public sector debt and “other” allocations, but exclude EU expenditures, Defence & international spending, and consumption of fixed capital.

Capt'n Midnight

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I honestly think we've more effort discussing Brexit then some Brexiteer
...

thats just pathetic

full faq pdf: https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/World-Trade-Deal-pocket-guide.pdf

That's some right delusional stuff there.

22. What about market access for services in general?
As there never has been an EU ‘single market’ for services, there is
not much to lose.
- See Bank of England notes on Passporting



23. But, won’t we be the economic losers relative to the EU?
No, to the contrary.
- Ignoring the double negative, the UK has lost 2.1% of growth already.



24. If we leave the EU “without a deal” won’t this bring chaos
across a broad front of daily activities?
No. Having no trade deal is not the same as having no agreements
on a wide range of non-trade areas where there have to be
arrangements.

- Repeat after me, Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
There don't have to be arrangements and wishing doesn't make it so.

Leroy42

Looks like the UK have been caught trying to go around the rules again.

Firstly, this shows that dispute all the bluff and bluster the UK are very much aware of the problems a no deal brexit will create. Including aviation, which of course the very idea was mocked by the likes of IDS.

Second, it shows how desperate they are if they are willing to go this route, surely they knew the risk that the EU would f8nd out.

Barnier confronts Raab over discovery of Brexit no-deal letters to EU27

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/11/uk-should-remain-eus-closest-ally-after-brexit-may-tells-cabinet?

brickster69

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

LOL, it costs the GB 9 Billion / Year for Ireland net after reciepts.

They have never really shown their homework on these figures.

Go on then ?

The most detailed recent analysis suggests €7.5 billion (£6.75 billion at current exchange rates) is closer to the mark:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/

Ok it's possible i don't know. Roughly it would mean in order  t[font=Georgia, serif]o maintain public services at their current levels within a united Ireland would require all-Ireland income taxes to increase by 45%.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Roughly it would also create a 15% hole in the EU budget notwithstanding  other liabilities.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Aside from these things is the big problem of a no deal Brexit affecting Financial markets. [/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]In the case of a crash out Brexit (aside from UK pain)[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]a. Probably a recession for most Northern European States[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]b. A huge knock on effect to the value of  EU Sovereign debt bonds. Of which the ECB has been the only buyer through QE  at inflated prices. Due to the EU assigning these as " Non Risk " it is the responsibilty of the whole Eurozone banks if these fail. For the last 6 months most private institutions have been offloading these " junk bonds " but no the ECB keep buying them.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]WTF is going to happen once the ECB stop buying ?????????????[/font]

[font=Georgia, serif]  [/font]

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looks like the UK have been caught trying to go around the rules again.

Firstly, this shows that dispute all the bluff and bluster the UK are very much aware of the problems a no deal brexit will create. Including aviation, which of course the very idea was mocked by the likes of IDS.

Second, it shows how desperate they are if they are willing to go this route, surely they knew the risk that the EU would f8nd out.

Barnier confronts Raab over discovery of Brexit no-deal letters to EU27

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/11/uk-should-remain-eus-closest-ally-after-brexit-may-tells-cabinet?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

That is not even getting around the rules; That's Davis Davis level of stupid of "I'm going to Berlin to sign a FTA"; even if a country would want to make such a deal under EU law they can not and even if signed it would not be recognised. Yet they still try to somehow pretend it will be possible and that "breaking up the unity" would somehow mean they will all go and vote for a better UK deal (ALL needs to approve it so how is setting up infighting about it going to help again?).

Water John

It indicates a Transport Minister knowing he is up the creek without a paddle come the 20th March.

Capt'n Midnight

brickster69 wrote: »

Ok it's possible i don't know. Roughly it would mean in order to maintain public services at their current levels within a united Ireland would require all-Ireland income taxes to increase by 45%.
Roughly it would also create a 15% hole in the EU budget notwithstanding other liabilities.
Aside from these things is the big problem of a no deal Brexit affecting Financial markets.
In the case of a crash out Brexit (aside from UK pain)
a. Probably a recession for most Northern European States
b. A huge knock on effect to the value of EU Sovereign debt bonds. Of which the ECB has been the only buyer through QE at inflated prices. Due to the EU assigning these as " Non Risk " it is the responsibilty of the whole Eurozone banks if these fail. For the last 6 months most private institutions have been offloading these " junk bonds " but no the ECB keep buying them.
WTF is going to happen once the ECB stop buying ?????????????

It's more than possible , its doable.

Like buying a house or taking over a company you do it on credit but it's backed by the new asset and pay it off over time. NI wouldn't be cheap but the bank bailouts weren't either. Last year government revenue was €58.376 Bn if you include the €3.4 from AIB. And there's still the €13Bn in escrow from Apple. Add in EU funding too and remember as NI is poorer than we are our EU contributions will drop. The USA might even throw us a few quid.

So I'm going to dispute that 45% increase in Income Tax,.

NI exports more than it imports.
It's a place where "I'm British but my cows are Irish" is not unheard of. Pragmatic.

A bit of Celtic tiger and the books would be balanced.

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

Ok it's possible i don't know. Roughly it would mean in order to maintain public services at their current levels within a united Ireland would require all-Ireland income taxes to increase by 45%.

It's interesting that the economic crash from 2009 - 2012 which caused a budget defecit which was greater than the cost of maintining NI as is, in some years 2 to 5 times greater, did not require such convulsions in the income tax rate.

I would gently suggest that you are talking through your hat.

Anthracite

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's interesting that the economic crash from 2009 - 2012 which caused a budget defecit which was greater than the cost of maintining NI as is, in some years 2 to 5 times greater, did not require such convulsions in the income tax rate.

I would gently suggest that you are talking through your hat.

There's also the possibility that the NI economy, which has languished in the toilet since the 1960s, would rapidly grow under the more enlightened government that has seen the ROI match and then overtake Britain in economic terms in the last 3 decades.

The economic decline of NI is staggering. 100 years ago, Belfast had a bigger population than Dublin, and its population has halved since the 1960s. We know that NI is at best a mere annoyance for Britain, and the evidence is in the way the British establishment has let it wither on the vine.