Brexit discussion thread IV

Capt'n Midnight

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Honestly, how in the name of god could Boris Johnson actually get elected. In his speech he's talking about the British success in manufacturing toblerone stands for Dubai and prosecuting the authors of chequers under fourteenth century laws. It's absurd. What a dithering idiot, and it says a lot about the state of the Tory party and Theresa May that he's actually a powerful force.

Safe seat, FPTP.

Uxbridge has been Tory since 1885 apart when a time when it went Labour in 1945, like most of the country just after WWII, and 1966.

An inanimate carbon rod could probably win that seat.

Beechwoodspark

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Safe seat, FPTP.

Uxbridge has been Tory since 1885 apart when a time when it went Labour in 1945, like most of the country just after WWII, and 1966.

An inanimate carbon rod could probably win that seat.

Sizeable amount of ppl in England think Boris is absolutely fantastic and very smart. He has a good line in banter I will give him that. He should go into stand up

A Dub in Glasgo

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sizeable amount of ppl in England think Boris is absolutely fantastic and very smart

Including my wifes aunty who moved from Dublin to SE England 40 years ago... she think Johnston is brilliant. She likes Farage as well so she is plainly a nutter

Kermit.de.frog

If that is the DUP's stance it's either UK general erection or no deal.

Will May feel that her only chance of a deal is to go to the polls?

Infini

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If that is the DUP's stance it's either UK general election or no deal.

Will May feel that her only chance of a deal is to go to the polls?

Honestly I think the chances of a snap November Election are becoming more certain by the day. At least if there is one the DUP are finished in terms of having any power in Westminster. I'll say the October Summit coming to a total failure to agree will trigger some serious contingency plans and another significant slide on the pound as October has been floated as a last resort with no November meeting happening if the October meeting isnt positive and the UK agrees to the backstop. A certain no deal scenario is likely to bring down this incompetent government I only wish it would happen sooner rather than later when time is short to avert the worst of the damage.

As for Arlene thinking the GFA isnt sacrosant, she's an utter fool, her party's incompetence and stupidity WILL bite them in the ass down the line at some point and they've only been able to punch above their weight only because they exploited the political situation in Westminster. 20 Years of peace and prosperity being threatened by dope's who shouldnt be allowed manage a bloody county council yet alone a province/country.

Roger_007

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If that is the DUP's stance it's either UK general erection or no deal.

Will May feel that her only chance of a deal is to go to the polls?

A general erection would be interesting, I assume it will shown be on the porn channels.

Infini

Roger_007 wrote: »

A general erection would be interesting, I assume it will shown be on the porn channels.

Uh-oh just noticed that now! :eek:

Imreoir2

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is true. They are completely nuts. British farming cannot supply the UK market as it stands. Which means that there will be imports. However the Tories are talking up zero tariffs and lower standards which will hit the farming industry hard. The WTO people have been running projections on how long the British agri-food sector will last post-hardbrexit and can't model anything above two years. With a zero tariff, nobody will be in a rush to do trade deals. Why would you?

This assumes there are zero tarrifs, if the UK does introduce tarrifs then farmers can put their prices well up and still be competitive against food coming in. It could be a bonanza for farmers, but terrible for the consumer who would be shafted.

prawnsambo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

This assumes there are zero tarrifs, if the UK does introduce tarrifs then farmers can put their prices well up and still be competitive against food coming in. It could be a bonanza for farmers, but terrible for the consumer who would be shafted.

The Tories don't give a phuck for the agri-food sector. Farming is a tiny proportion of GDP. We can't presume anything about what they say, but the zero tariff thing has been widely trumpeted.

Imreoir2

prawnsambo wrote: »

The Tories don't give a phuck for the agri-food sector. Farming is a tiny proportion of GDP. We can't presume anything about what they say, but the zero tariff thing has been widely trumpeted.

It has, from the backbenches, but the UK government's current proposal is that tarriffs will be implemented. Despite the harm this will cause UK consumers, this is the obvious thing to do, zero tarriffs would make it extremely dificult to do trade deals as other countries can apply tarriffs to your exports while importing to the UK tarriff free, thats better than a free trade deal for other countries.

prawnsambo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It has, from the backbenches, but the UK government's current proposal is that tarriffs will be implemented. Despite the harm this will cause UK consumers, this is the obvious thing to do, zero tarriffs would make it extremely dificult to do trade deals as other countries can apply tarriffs to your exports while importing to the UK tarriff free, thats better than a free trade deal for other countries.

They have to agree their schedule of tariffs and quotas with the WTO first. And that's proving difficult. NZ, Oz, USA and (chuckle) Argentina, to name a few, have already objected. Without that, they default to base tariffs. That should be fun.

Christy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If that is the DUP's stance it's either UK general erection or no deal.

Will May feel that her only chance of a deal is to go to the polls?

It would actually make some of it democratic.

Voting on vague leave is one thing but if the parties had actual thoughts on the deal it might give the people a serious say.

Rain Ascending

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This twitter thread might help us understand the GFA a bit more, just reading it myself.

twitter.com/IRLPatricia

It's a well-written thread, touching on how EU membership is central to the GFA. In the actual treaty, the EU is not mentioned all that much, but Tony Connelly's book "Brexit and Ireland" has a fascinating passage describing a mapping exercise done in September of last year, examining how EU law impacts the operation of the Strand 2 North-South Implementation Bodies:

"For each policy area we looked at," says one Task Force official, "we went through the relevant body of EU law. We then looked at what happens if this law no longer applies on one side of the border." It soon became clear. "From day one of this mapping exercise, we identified that regulatory divergence ... was the biggest single risk to its continuation."

He then goes on to give a few examples in the area of health.

Interestingly, EU, Irish, and British officials were involved in this mapping exercise.

So while EU membership is not given as a legal requirement for the GFA, it is critically important to the practical implementation of Strand 2. Indeed, the issue of border physical infrastructure (as important as it is to border communities) only scratches the surface of the challenge Brexit gives to the GFA. Focusing just on that infrastructure, a favourite preoccupation of many Brexiteers with their hand-waving about technology solutions, misses the bigger point: the Single Market made cross-border life (not just cross-border trade) much more seamless and easy to facilitate with little fuss.

Nationalists didn't feel the border as much.

Unionists didn't see huge accommodations to achieve that.

Win-win.

Which brings us back to the point that the Patricia Mac Bride twitter thread (as highlighted by Junkyard Tom above) is making. I really miss John Hume's voice in all this -- if I recall correctly this was a central plank to his strategy in the peace process -- his views would carry weight with at least some segments of the British media.

Peregrinus

For those who like conspiracy theories, there's one set out in this Twitter thread from Jonathan Mills, accountant and finance guy.

It's different from the one we looked at yesterday, which argued that the UK plan all along has been to crash out with no deal. The gist of it is:

1. The UK government plan is to get a deal, but at the last minute.

2. The deal they intend to get is secret from the public, because it favours the government, not the public. It involves the competences taken back from the EU being vested not in voters, or in Parliament, or in the devolved assemblies, but in Ministers in the Westminster government.

3. Because it's a last-minute deal, it won't get adequate scrutiny in the UK. What scrutiny it does get will focus on things like the backstop and the divorce payment, but these are distractions. The real deal is the powers being given to Ministers.

4. This involves significant constitutional change in the UK, and it will be permanent, because (a) this process has been so exhausting and all-consuming for voters that nobody will desire to re-open any deal with the EU for at least a generation, and (b) the deal will greatly increase the power of the executive, so those in power at any time will never want to re-open it.

20silkcut

badtoro wrote: »

Enzokk - from what I see, farmers over there are salivating at the prospect of no deal. Right or wrong they seem to believe fortress Britain will be fed by they and they alone. That competitive foreign products will be tarriffed off the shelves, a weak pound will work in their favour to export, regulations will be non existent. They seem particularly happy at the notion of ridding themselves of Irish beef & dairy, and fcuking with other Irish agricultural products that may use Britain as a land bridge to Europe.

I seriously would not rely on British farming to do a deal.

I agree with other posters saying a no deal outcome is what's going to end up happening. I see much angry frothing, and expectant salivating of such on UK forums I used to participate on. Not just the farming industry, but other (large and established) hobby sites that draw people from all kinds of backgrounds.

Ireland is gambling at serious peril if it's not in the end of advanced no deal planning. I would also agree, optics be damned, physical infrastructure should be well under way by now.

There could be an opportunity in that for the revival of the Irish sugar beet industry. Most of our sugar comes from Britain and I regularly see British sugar Lorrys on the road. Such a scenario would finish British Agri food exports.

20silkcut

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It has, from the backbenches, but the UK government's current proposal is that tarriffs will be implemented. Despite the harm this will cause UK consumers, this is the obvious thing to do, zero tarriffs would make it extremely dificult to do trade deals as other countries can apply tarriffs to your exports while importing to the UK tarriff free, thats better than a free trade deal for other countries.

It worked for Hong Kong.

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

It worked for Hong Kong.

It works for a number of city states, because city states don't produce a lot of goods, and therefore don't export a lot of goods, and therefore are not adversely affected by other countries' tariffs on goods. So they have no great interest in getting other countries to reduce tariffs.

But countries which export any significant amount of goods do not unilaterally abolish their own tariffs, thereby surrendering leverage that they may have to bargain for the reciprocal reduction of tariffs by other countries. That would be insane.

20silkcut

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sizeable amount of ppl in England think Boris is absolutely fantastic and very smart. He has a good line in banter I will give him that. He should go into stand up

Himself and JRM etc are reminiscent from an Irish perspective of Churchill, Disraeli, maybe even lord John Russell and just about as ignorant of and a friend of Ireland as them.
They stir emotions about Britain that I thought were a thing of the past and ancient history .
It really highlights the fault in the human species that a sizable chunk of people can be dazzled by the likes of a Boris Johnson.

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

It works for a number of city states, because city states don't produce a lot of goods, and therefore don't export a lot of goods, and therefore are not adversely affected by other countries' tariffs on goods. So they have no great interest in getting other countries to reduce tariffs.

But countries which export any significant amount of goods do not unilaterally abolish their own tariffs, thereby surrendering leverage that they may have to bargain for the reciprocal reduction of tariffs by other countries. That would be insane.

They did effectively jettison their farming industry when they repealed the corn laws. And it did not work out too bad for them after that. They have form for taking insane brexit like decisions. Many of the tories are still living in and hankering for the 1870’s.

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

They did effectively jettison their farming industry when they repealed the corn laws. And it did not work out too bad for them after that. They have form for taking insane decisions. Many of the tories are still living in and hankering for the 1870’s.

The only advocate for unilateral tariff abolition by the UK who has actually attempted to model what it would involve, Prof. Patrick Minford, concedes that it would mean an end not only to UK farming but also to UK manufacturing. This may be acceptable to a small groups of half-wit Tory ideologues but it is certainly not acceptable to the electorate, and if considerations of the national interest hold little weight with the present junta in the UK, the desire not to suffer the electoral equivalent of being strung up from a lamppost will dissuade them from following this course of action.

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only advocate for unilateral tariff abolition by the UK who has actually attempted to model what it would involve, Prof. Patrick Minford, concedes that it would mean an end not only to UK farming but also to UK manufacturing. This may be acceptable to a small groups of half-wit Tory ideologues but it is certainly not acceptable to the electorate, and if considerations of the national interest hold little weight with the present junta in the UK, the desire not to suffer the electoral equivalent of being strung up from a lamppost will dissuade them from following this course of action.

The really incredible thing for me is the lack of a ground swell of public opinion in Britain against brexit.
As mentioned earlier in the thread it has changed by a mere 1 per centage point since June 2016. Despite all the appalling vistas that have been revealed.
A second referendum has failed to gain any serious traction also.
Are British people really indifferent to hollowing out of their manufacturing industries and agri food exports etc ?
It seems so. History shows us that nationalism trumps economics. It has led people down insane paths in the past.
The surprise is that this surge of nationalism has come from such a standing start from a period of nationalist inertia.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

For those who like conspiracy theories, there's one set out in this Twitter thread from Jonathan Mills, accountant and finance guy.

It's different from the one we looked at yesterday, which argued that the UK plan all along has been to crash out with no deal. The gist of it is:

1. The UK government plan is to get a deal, but at the last minute.

2. The deal they intend to get is secret from the public, because it favours the government, not the public. It involves the competences taken back from the EU being vested not in voters, or in Parliament, or in the devolved assemblies, but in Ministers in the Westminster government.

3. Because it's a last-minute deal, it won't get adequate scrutiny in the UK. What scrutiny it does get will focus on things like the backstop and the divorce payment, but these are distractions. The real deal is the powers being given to Ministers.

4. This involves significant constitutional change in the UK, and it will be permanent, because (a) this process has been so exhausting and all-consuming for voters that nobody will desire to re-open any deal with the EU for at least a generation, and (b) the deal will greatly increase the power of the executive, so those in power at any time will never want to re-open it.

This theory seems more plausible than the previous one. I have found this interesting article about the Henry 8th laws and how it would work with Brexit. Those laws would be very much what the twitter thread is about. Giving ministers more power. There does seem to be one snag though.

Concerns remain over how ‘Henry VIII powers’ will affect Brexit

Repeal bill includes plans to allow government to change law without consulting MPs

The snag comes in where the courts in the UK had a case before where they struck down changes made without parliament consent.

Has any government ever tried that?
Yes, and very recently. In September 2013 Chris Grayling, then justice minister, wanted to introduce a UK residency test for access to civil legal aid by using a Henry VIII clause. A challenge went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in July 2016 that while the relevant act gave Mr Grayling the power to “vary or omit” the services for which legal aid was available, he had no power to determine who could and could not get access to those services. 

The Supreme Court also said it was “well established that, unlike statutes, the lawfulness of statutory instruments . . . can be challenged in court”. 

So judges will keep an eye on any despotic tendencies . . . 
It is not fair on the government to accuse it of wanting to turn Brexit Britain into Tudor Britain. It has set out limits on the use of Henry VIII powers in the repeal bill — no new taxes or tax rises, no new criminal offences, no repeal of the Human Rights Act. 

The courts will also act as a check on Henry VIII clauses. In the legal aid case, for example, the Supreme Court hammered home the point by stating it was “upholding the supremacy of parliament over the executive”. 

According to Mr Greenberg, even if a statutory instrument gives ministers broad powers, the courts have established that they will apply limitations — and the broader the power, the more likely the courts are to intervene to ensure that the intention of the law in question is not being altered or undermined.

McGiver

20silkcut wrote:

It worked for Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a city state on an tiny island and a port. The same goes for Singapore. Wrong analogies.

20silkcut

McGiver wrote: »

Hong Kong is a city state on an tiny island and a port. The same goes for Singapore. Wrong analogies.

Obviously they are different but remember Hong Kong was a British creation . Free trade economists always glorified the Hong Kong model which no doubt empowered the British overlords in their own heads in the background .
Also Britain is very different to most other EU countries. Huge swathes of Britain are post industrial and it’s farming industry is tiny and really lacks any political clout in comparison to farming in France and Germany
It is a very urban country. If foreign owned or indigenous manufacturing ups sticks and leaves I don’t think it will have the effect on public opinion that some think it will. And obviously it’s not. Economic devastation has been part of the British landscape for much of the last 50 years outside London and the south east.
Also it’s most successful period historically was when it adopted a laissez faire economic policy. In my opinion this is what drives Tory ideology they are trying to recapture the days of pax Britannia and a sizable chunk of the population are buying into it.

Nody

Infini wrote: »

Honestly I think the chances of a snap November Election are becoming more certain by the day.

I highly doubt this because all tories know they would lose and lose badly at the moment. Combine that with May "I will do anything to stay in power" attitude and there is no way an election will be called. May rather burn UK down with a no deal if needed if it means remaining in power and the tories (well Boris et al) will push for a leadership change on the back of the crash out and push new elections to 2020 instead to give them a chance to recover.

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

I highly doubt this because all tories know they would lose and lose badly at the moment. Combine that with May "I will do anything to stay in power" attitude and there is no way an election will be called. May rather burn UK down with a no deal if needed if it means remaining in power and the tories (well Boris et al) will push for a leadership change on the back of the crash out and push new elections to 2020 instead to give them a chance to recover.

The problem is that it's currently impossible for Parliament to ratify what will be the single most important piece of legislation for decades. Labour won't vote for it and neither will the ERG or the Conservative pro-EU rebels as they want mutually exclusive things so the government will inevitable fail and that's before we even touch the idea of 27+ national parliaments needing to ratify it.

flatty

20silkcut wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only advocate for unilateral tariff abolition by the UK who has actually attempted to model what it would involve, Prof. Patrick Minford, concedes that it would mean an end not only to UK farming but also to UK manufacturing. This may be acceptable to a small groups of half-wit Tory ideologues but it is certainly not acceptable to the electorate, and if considerations of the national interest hold little weight with the present junta in the UK, the desire not to suffer the electoral equivalent of being strung up from a lamppost will dissuade them from following this course of action.

The really incredible thing for me is the lack of a ground swell of public opinion in Britain against brexit.
As mentioned earlier in the thread it has changed by a mere 1 per centage point since June 2016. Despite all the appalling vistas that have been revealed.
A second referendum has failed to gain any serious traction also.
Are British people really indifferent to hollowing out of their manufacturing industries and agri food exports etc ?
It seems so. History shows us that nationalism trumps economics. It has led people down insane paths in the past.
The surprise is that this surge of nationalism has come from such a standing start from a period of nationalist inertia.

I would honestly read little into those polls. By and large the pro remain group are the young and the working middle class. The working middle class generally don't answer the phone anymore to an unrecognised number due to the plague of cold calling, and avoid on street pollsters like the plague. They also rarely answer the phone at all in the evening. I am certain there is such a large population bias that these polls are meaningless.

badtoro

Imreoir2 wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is true. They are completely nuts. British farming cannot supply the UK market as it stands. Which means that there will be imports. However the Tories are talking up zero tariffs and lower standards which will hit the farming industry hard. The WTO people have been running projections on how long the British agri-food sector will last post-hardbrexit and can't model anything above two years. With a zero tariff, nobody will be in a rush to do trade deals. Why would you?

This assumes there are zero tarrifs, if the UK does introduce tarrifs then farmers can put their prices well up and still be competitive against food coming in. It could be a bonanza for farmers, but terrible for the consumer who would be shafted.

Farming is, in the main, a primary industry producing often perishable commodities. Farmers would be known as price takers, not price setters - that's more in the gift of contracts between processors and retailers. You can google info on dairy processors setting prices, selling of grains, grid prices in meat factories etc.

In truth farmers have little control on this pricing, at least in this country. There is much infighting not just within the industry but within sectors as each farm is in such an individual position (land quality, system, sector, weather, soil type, location, level of payments, off farm income?, spouse working?, young family, empty nest etc.). This prevents actions such as withholding commodities from the processors to put up price. Anyway, once an animal is factory ready, or the farm slows grass growth (will be very varied on location) extra costs will be incurred by animals that shoild have been moved on. Other commodities then may be perishible, so do you dump milk or let veg rot in the field?

It gets complicated.

This is not to say they won't experience price increases but policy will very much have an influence on whether British farming has a long term feast or famine.

trellheim

Arlene on Twitter being asked if no gb/ni border meant abortion as well

Inquitus

20silkcut wrote: »

The really incredible thing for me is the lack of a ground swell of public opinion in Britain against brexit.
As mentioned earlier in the thread it has changed by a mere 1 per centage point since June 2016. Despite all the appalling vistas that have been revealed.

This is because a large swathe of the press is not reporting the truth, if you only read the Telegraph, Mail and/or Express, you'd think Brexit was wonderful too!