Brexit discussion thread IV

Infini

Angry bird wrote: »

Delay and procrastinate, this is what the Tories are interested in. They cannot deliver on the promises Brexit so they're angling for a no deal, blame the EU and pick up the pieces from there. To actually make a decision would rip the party in half. And as we see, Labour are not much different. Tail wagging the dog is how they view Ireland and that darn border.

Difference though is that if they don't make a decision they WILL be eviscerated for it at home when talks collapse. The whole blame the EU rhetoric isn't gonna work once enough people push the real questions to failure into the mainstream where the Brexiteers wont be able to hide anymore.

I honestly think the reckoning for all of these failed politics will come home to roost in the next 3 weeks and well know pretty fast if Hard Brexit becomes a certainty.

Enzokk

An interesting twitter exchange between MP Daniel Kawczynski and another user. I say exchange it is more a tweet from the MP and a comprehensive reply where he is shown to be liberal with the truth (he lied) and he did not respond to that as yet.

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1043476090914852864

Eve today with the internet where statements can be fact checked almost immediately we see politicians trying to spread misinformation to the people.

TLDR: He complains about the EU protectionist racket that means you have substandard products from the EU or raises prices due to tariffs for products from outside the EU. Other products on the shelve is then shown from outside the EU and they are almost all of them on 0% tariffs due to agreements with the EU.

So he makes 2 statement and both of them are false. That in an impressive tweet.

Skelet0n

Can anyone answer, what happens if the U.K. does just decide to back out of it? Surely there must be a huge amount of European time and money gone into preparing for this, who foots the bill?

BonnieSituation

Skelet0n wrote: »

Can anyone answer, what happens if the U.K. does just decide to back out of it? Surely there must be a huge amount of European time and money gone into preparing for this, who foots the bill?

That's one of those future problems that we can concern ourselves with if it occurs. The status quo would remain, but I'd doubt there's gonna be any bill for the UK to foot.

However their well of goodwill is long since dried up so they will likely be treated with contempt for a long time to come.

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

An interesting twitter exchange between MP Daniel Kawczynski and another user. I say exchange it is more a tweet from the MP and a comprehensive reply where he is shown to be liberal with the truth (he lied) and he did not respond to that as yet.

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1043476090914852864

Eve today with the internet where statements can be fact checked almost immediately we see politicians trying to spread misinformation to the people.

TLDR: He complains about the EU protectionist racket that means you have substandard products from the EU or raises prices due to tariffs for products from outside the EU. Other products on the shelve is then shown from outside the EU and they are almost all of them on 0% tariffs due to agreements with the EU.

So he makes 2 statement and both of them are false. That in an impressive tweet.

I still find it fascinating when I see those with clearly non Anglo-names resort to the bull plop.

It blows my mind seeing an O'Farrell or Patel or a Kawczynski being anti-EU.

Peregrinus

Skelet0n wrote: »

Can anyone answer, what happens if the U.K. does just decide to back out of it? Surely there must be a huge amount of European time and money gone into preparing for this, who foots the bill?

The EU does. They were always going to, whether or not the process resulted in a withdrawal agreement. And likewise the UK bears its cost of the negotiation process, regardless of outcome.

That's pretty much how all negotiations processes work, really.

Harika

Skelet0n wrote: »

Can anyone answer, what happens if the U.K. does just decide to back out of it? Surely there must be a huge amount of European time and money gone into preparing for this, who foots the bill?

It was already announced that someone will be accountable for the costs accumulated. But this will depend if UK can simply travel to Brussels and take the letter back or if all members have to agree to the withdrawal. This is up for discussion. UK experts says yes, EU says no. In latter situation, the brit bonus could be gone, UK could have to adopt the Euro, forced to join Schengen and so on. This could get really nasty.

BonnieSituation

Also, normally I try to keep up with the thread every day but I ended up quite behind there last week (40 or so mobile pages) so it was great catching up with the debate yesterday since I was out of the loop.

Well done all.

Thargor

Enzokk wrote: »

An interesting twitter exchange between MP Daniel Kawczynski and another user. I say exchange it is more a tweet from the MP and a comprehensive reply where he is shown to be liberal with the truth (he lied) and he did not respond to that as yet.

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1043476090914852864

Eve today with the internet where statements can be fact checked almost immediately we see politicians trying to spread misinformation to the people.

TLDR: He complains about the EU protectionist racket that means you have substandard products from the EU or raises prices due to tariffs for products from outside the EU. Other products on the shelve is then shown from outside the EU and they are almost all of them on 0% tariffs due to agreements with the EU.

So he makes 2 statement and both of them are false. That in an impressive tweet.

Ha he's getting chewed out in the comments, doubt he cares though.

lawred2

Enzokk wrote: »

An interesting twitter exchange between MP Daniel Kawczynski and another user. I say exchange it is more a tweet from the MP and a comprehensive reply where he is shown to be liberal with the truth (he lied) and he did not respond to that as yet.

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1043476090914852864

Eve today with the internet where statements can be fact checked almost immediately we see politicians trying to spread misinformation to the people.

TLDR: He complains about the EU protectionist racket that means you have substandard products from the EU or raises prices due to tariffs for products from outside the EU. Other products on the shelve is then shown from outside the EU and they are almost all of them on 0% tariffs due to agreements with the EU.

So he makes 2 statement and both of them are false. That in an impressive tweet.

That's just depressing

Either abjectly ignorant or a traitorous liar.

Either way not exactly what one should consider as parliamentary material. But then what is parliamentary material? Two of the largest economies in the world have senseless charlatans at the helm.

flatty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Skelet0n wrote: »

Can anyone answer, what happens if the U.K. does just decide to back out of it? Surely there must be a huge amount of European time and money gone into preparing for this, who foots the bill?

That's one of those future problems that we can concern ourselves with if it occurs. The status quo would remain, but I'd doubt there's gonna be any bill for the UK to foot.

However their well of goodwill is long since dried up so they will likely be treated with contempt for a long time to come.

They won't. May and her ilk will. If a new set of politicians came in and apologised for their predecessors, they'd be forgiven quickly (though with a slightly wary eye). The sins of the father and all that.

flatty

Thargor wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

An interesting twitter exchange between MP Daniel Kawczynski and another user. I say exchange it is more a tweet from the MP and a comprehensive reply where he is shown to be liberal with the truth (he lied) and he did not respond to that as yet.

https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1043476090914852864

Eve today with the internet where statements can be fact checked almost immediately we see politicians trying to spread misinformation to the people.

TLDR: He complains about the EU protectionist racket that means you have substandard products from the EU or raises prices due to tariffs for products from outside the EU. Other products on the shelve is then shown from outside the EU and they are almost all of them on 0% tariffs due to agreements with the EU.

So he makes 2 statement and both of them are false. That in an impressive tweet.

Ha he's getting chewed out in the comments, doubt he cares though.

The first rebuffer has a lovely manner about him.

Sam Russell

Skelet0n wrote: »

Can anyone answer, what happens if the U.K. does just decide to back out of it? Surely there must be a huge amount of European time and money gone into preparing for this, who foots the bill?

I reckon the Dept for Exiting the EU costs a billion a year to run (if that is the right word). The EU costs might be a lot less, but not zero. The UK costs are higher because it was a thrown together dept that was basically chasing round in circles and had a high churn rate.

The EU side was diverted from other tasks.

Each pays its own costs, but remembers.

lawred2

An even funnier thing about that tweet is many of those supplier nations for fruit as listed in the replies have recently 'agreed' to a trade deal with the UK at a cost to the UK of £4Bn.

But that one was a 'win' for HMG apparently..

listermint

Sam Russell wrote: »

I reckon the Dept for Exiting the EU costs a billion a year to run (if that is the right word). The EU costs might be a lot less, but not zero. The UK costs are higher because it was a thrown together dept that was basically chasing round in circles and had a high churn rate.

The EU side was diverted from other tasks.

Each pays its own costs, but remembers.

In some ways you cant look at it as wasted cost, its money invested in research training and knowledge to deal with this in future. It could be deemed war games for want of a better term as it also pans off into defence mechanisms for subversion by foreign powers in EU affairs.

I wouldnt see it as wasted effort. Nor should the EU

Enzokk

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I still find it fascinating when I see those with clearly non Anglo-names resort to the bull plop.

It blows my mind seeing an O'Farrell or Patel or a Kawczynski being anti-EU.

Mr Kawczynski was born in Poland and moved to the UK aged 7 with his parents. I don't know if he is vehemently for Brexit or just a bit peeved about the EU "protectionist racket", but seeing as he support the leadership bid of Rees Mogg he mustn't like his parents countrymen as he will gladly run away from them.

But don't worry, Nigel Farage has had his say and he will be able to deliver a trade deal for the UK with the EU. He hasn't yet so he does not have details because the government hasn't spoken to him, but he will deliver it. When asked for details he had this to say,

“I would love a simple free trade, Alastair, friendship and free trade with our neighbours,” Farage responded.

“It’s very simple actually, provided we get to a situation where we make our own laws in our own parliament and have our own courts.”

Farage: I could deliver the government a ‘simple’ trade deal

Someone should tell Nigel his thoughts on the UK making their own laws and having their own parliament has already been debunked, but liars will lie.

Also, I read this very sad story about a girl who passed away due to a food allergy.

Pret a Manger and BA face questions over girl’s allergy death on plane

The interesting part of the article, and heartbreaking for me was this,

Sesame is one of 14 allergens that EU regulations stipulate must be listed in pre-packaged food products made off the premises.

But, as with other fast-food providers such as Itsu, Pod and Benugo that prepare their food every day in their own shop kitchens, Pret products do not have to be individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information. The “loophole” is supposed to free small, independent sandwich shops and cafe chains from onerous regulations.

It will be interesting to see what comes from this inquest. They will look at the packaging and hopefully a situation like this will not happen again. It does look like there were rules to prevent it, but it was watered down.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

I reckon the Dept for Exiting the EU costs a billion a year to run (if that is the right word) . . .

Nothing like so much. Staff costs in 2017-18 were GBP 33.9 million. That includes contract workers, etc as well as permanent staff. Other costs were GBP 23.0 million. A big chunk of that is premises, IT, that kind of thing. Total operating expenditure, GBP 57 million, or close enough.

Course, that's just DExEU. There's a unit in the Cabinet Office also working on this project, plus some work being done in virtually every other government department. Still, it doesn't add up to anything like a billion. Couple of hundred million, tops.

But that's just the cost to the government. This is dwarfed by the cost to the country. The UK government's own modelling is that GDP in 2018 is 1.3% smaller than it would have been, but for Brexit. That's a cost to the country of about 26 billion in 2018.

And the same would be true on the other side. Whatever the cost to the EU Commission and its staff of dealing with Brexit, the economic cost to the people of the Union is higher by orders of magnitude.

Imreoir2

Skelet0n wrote: »

Can anyone answer, what happens if the U.K. does just decide to back out of it? Surely there must be a huge amount of European time and money gone into preparing for this, who foots the bill?

That's an open question at the moment. The person who wrote Artical 50 says that it can be unilaterally withdrawn at any time. The EU position is that it can only be withdrawn with the consent of all parties, ie the EU would need to agree to allow it be withdrawn at this stage. The ECJ is hearing a case on the issue and will make a ruling at some stage.

Angry bird

Infini wrote: »

Difference though is that if they don't make a decision they WILL be eviscerated for it at home when talks collapse. The whole blame the EU rhetoric isn't gonna work once enough people push the real questions to failure into the mainstream where the Brexiteers wont be able to hide anymore.

I honestly think the reckoning for all of these failed politics will come home to roost in the next 3 weeks and well know pretty fast if Hard Brexit becomes a certainty.

Obviously it's all in the realm of speculation as to what happens and yet to date, pretending they can cherry pick and not have FOM or a border, is the constant theme. Decades of UK media blaming the EU has laid the ground work. From here it looks bewildering and yet the train ploughs on with the buffers in sight. It's not logical but all things Brexit have in effect paralysed effective opposition to a hard Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I still find it fascinating when I see those with clearly non Anglo-names resort to the bull plop.

It blows my mind seeing an O'Farrell or Patel or a Kawczynski being anti-EU.

They're simply pulling the ladder up behind them.

Akrasia

The EU needs to come out and say definitively that Article 50 can be withdrawn at any point prior to March 29 2019 or later if an extension is agreed for the purpose of holding a referendum.

If they don't, the brexit side will be able to ramp up uncertainty and say that brexit is the only option because its too late to back out now, so they might as well play hard ball to get the very best deal possible, even if this risks no deal.

If they do, it will allow the remain side in UK politics to keep pointing out the negative effects of leaving the EU while promoting the alternative of pretending that this whole thing never happened, and it will also make the EU look like we are being fair and reasonable and not punishing them but supporting them if they want to return back from the cold.

Leroy42

if the EU came out and said that Art 50 could be withdrawn there would be an outcry that the EU were trying to bully the UK into staying.

The EU cannot control what is going on in the UK, it is not their responsibility to try to manage the media and government information services in the UK.

Professor Moriarty

I heard the Shadow Minister for NI, Stephen Pound, on Pat Kenny this morning. This is essentially what he had to say about the impact of Brexit on the island of Ireland:

“If you look at the border, 302 miles long, if you think that a camera up a pole can actually provide a border security alert – that will become a target. If you have a target, you have to defend the target. If you have a defender, you have to have someone to actually protect the defender. Before you know where you are, you’ve got uniformed UK Border Agency or customs officers on the border. If you do that – and I’m not being hysterical about this – then the peace process is finished, the minute you have uniformed troops on that border. If the peace process is finished, then peace on the island of Ireland is under huge threat."

As for the Swedish/Norway border as a model:

“The Swedish/Norway border closes at 10 o’clock at night, and there are more crossing points between Monaghan and Northern Ireland than there are between the whole of Sweden and Norway.”

Imreoir2

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU needs to come out and say definitively that Article 50 can be withdrawn at any point prior to March 29 2019 or later if an extension is agreed for the purpose of holding a referendum.

If they don't, the brexit side will be able to ramp up uncertainty and say that brexit is the only option because its too late to back out now, so they might as well play hard ball to get the very best deal possible, even if this risks no deal.

If they do, it will allow the remain side in UK politics to keep pointing out the negative effects of leaving the EU while promoting the alternative of pretending that this whole thing never happened, and it will also make the EU look like we are being fair and reasonable and not punishing them but supporting them if they want to return back from the cold.

The EU has already said that Art 50 can be withdrawn with agreement from all sides. If the EU were to allow the UK to unilaterally withdraw Art 50 then it would create a moral hazzard wherby any populist leader could promise to leave the EU, trigger Artical 50, blind their domestic politics for 2 years and back out at the last minute having lost nothing.

Countries could threaten to leave the EU to gain leverage in negioations on other issues, binding the EU to negioatiate a withdrawl treaty for two years, without ever having to actually leave. It could be very destabelising. If the UK asks to withdraw Artical 50, the request would be granted but I don't think they should be allowed to withdraw it themselves any time they want.

Leroy42

I think the UK would be allowed, but I also think the EU would then insert an additional clause to prevent it being done in the future.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the UK would be allowed, but I also think the EU would then insert an additional clause to prevent it being done in the future.

It's possible that changing the Lisbon treaty would require a round of ratifications by national parliaments. If so, there's no way the EU is going to spend political capital on that simply for the UK's sake when it is currently showing no maturity or clarity on what it wants.

Enzokk

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU needs to come out and say definitively that Article 50 can be withdrawn at any point prior to March 29 2019 or later if an extension is agreed for the purpose of holding a referendum.

If they don't, the brexit side will be able to ramp up uncertainty and say that brexit is the only option because its too late to back out now, so they might as well play hard ball to get the very best deal possible, even if this risks no deal.

If they do, it will allow the remain side in UK politics to keep pointing out the negative effects of leaving the EU while promoting the alternative of pretending that this whole thing never happened, and it will also make the EU look like we are being fair and reasonable and not punishing them but supporting them if they want to return back from the cold.

Leroy42 wrote: »

if the EU came out and said that Art 50 could be withdrawn there would be an outcry that the EU were trying to bully the UK into staying.

The EU cannot control what is going on in the UK, it is not their responsibility to try to manage the media and government information services in the UK.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU has already said that Art 50 can be withdrawn with agreement from all sides. If the EU were to allow the UK to unilaterally withdraw Art 50 then it would create a moral hazzard wherby any populist leader could promise to leave the EU, trigger Artical 50, blind their domestic politics for 2 years and back out at the last minute having lost nothing.

Countries could threaten to leave the EU to gain leverage in negioations on other issues, binding the EU to negioatiate a withdrawl treaty for two years, without ever having to actually leave. It could be very destabelising. If the UK asks to withdraw Artical 50, the request would be granted but I don't think they should be allowed to withdraw it themselves any time they want.

The court case on whether article 50 can be withdrawn by the UK alone is going to the ECJ for a ruling. If they rule that it can be done by the UK alone I would expect if the EU is wary of the way it is written and the ruling is about how it is written then they will try to change the ruling. At the moment we have had communication that it can be withdrawn but only with all EU members agreeing.

A legal action to establish whether the UK can unilaterally stop Brexit has been referred to the European court of justice by the court of session in Edinburgh.

The case was brought by a cross-party group of six Scottish MPs, MEPs and MSPs, who want the ECJ to offer a definitive ruling on whether the UK can halt the article 50 process without needing the approval of all other 27 EU member states.

Legal action to revoke article 50 referred to European court of justice

Edited to add: I want to clarify, if the EU is not happy with the ECJ ruling they could either challenge the ruling or change the article, whatever the procedure for that.

Water John

Plus a Referendum here, if you want to change Lisbon Treaty.

joeysoap

Water John wrote: »

Plus a Referendum here, if you want to change Lisbon Treaty.

I don’t think we are the only one.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They're simply pulling the ladder up behind them.

Oh aye. Just like our 50-60 somethings here. But that's another days work.