Brexit discussion thread IV

Charles Babbage

Akrasia wrote: »

Its not the EU that's stopping the Brexiters from getting a deal, it's their own multitude of mutually contradictory 'red lines'

They haven' quite managed to agree among themselves

Econ__

Dymo wrote: »

Ok, so does that mean then that they get to control free movement of people, get to make there own trade agreements, no ECJ involvement and no more payments to the EU, and the have a FTA in place, plus we don't know what the extra +++ is yet.

Yes to all of this.

That looks like a huge win for the UK, I know they have to sort out the Border but Barnier is already softening on that.

No to all of this.

It's a terrible deal for the UK. They lose favourable access to the largest free trade area in the world which is right on their doorstep - for the privilege of getting screwed by Trump's USA and to do meaningless trade deals with Cuba and Bangladesh.

Barnier isn't softening on the border - he's softening on the nature of checks between NI and GB. Big difference.

Akrasia

Econ__ wrote: »

Given the UK's geographical location is tied down in Europe and many of its businesses rely on integrated trade with the EU - I would say it's a pretty bad deal.

Insert long lost Monty Python animation where Terry Gilliam cuts out the UK from the map and has it shuffle around the Atlantic before settling somewhere near Labrador

Capt'n Midnight

Econ__ wrote: »

She's a journalist - she collects information (often exclusive) and reports/writes about it.

Not all journalists are economically oriented - there are others in the BBC that carry out that role.

Two truisms on journalism that show just how badly Brexit has been covered in the UK.

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
― George Orwell


https://twitter.com/sheffjournalism/status/1018788640388984832



NI is set for 1% growth over the next three years, if there's a good deal.
UK tax revenue is down by £500m a week.
Economics is boring, but this is going to hurt those who aren't flush with cash.

Enzokk

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

What happens when they row back on what little obligations they have? Which court they be dragged to?

What usually happens to countries when that occurs? Either there is a mechanism in place to adjudicate and impose whatever action is required. If nothing like that exists and one country breaks their obligations on an agreement then why would the agreement continue? Why would other countries sign agreements with that country if they break agreements?

Econ__ wrote: »

She is an excellent journalist.

Gets a lot of subtle but important information out of various high level sources and communicates it well. Sometimes with Laura it's more important to listen to how she says things rather than what she says.

There's a fine line to tread when you're a journalist in her position - reporting accurately - but doing so while keeping your sources happy (so they don't stop feeding you info). It's a very difficult balancing act, and while she makes some mistakes which get magnified, on the whole she does an excellent job.

I would say she is okay. She did edit an answer from Corbyn in a negative way to slam his credentials on foreign policy. She had a story that she wanted to broadcast, she didn't get the answer from him she wanted so she edited an answer to appear that she got her story. That is not excellent journalism.

Also, if you have to listen how she says things and not the words, what does that even mean? So she is scared to report the truth so she will say what people want to hear but you have to listen out to how she says it? What if she has a cold and just sounds funny?

I understand what you are trying to say, I think. She is tied by the fact that her sources from the Conservatives will not give her stories if she reports the stories that they don't want to see. Again, I fail to see how this makes her an excellent journalist. Seems like she is just a mouthpiece for the government in that case as she is biased against the current opposition and she is trying to keep her sources happy. Again I see no reason to proclaim her work as excellent.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't underestimate the implications of the DUP feeling cheated and abandoned if a last minute deal was foisted on them. Nor the impact on Loyalism. The words in Foster's 'blood red' comment yesterday were carefully chosen. However much Brexiteers adhere to nationalistic ideology, they are mere children compared to diehard Loyalists.

This might have been true. But it's over. Ulster Loyalism is over. Sure you can can go on about your culture or how the Union with Britain is better than being in the same jurisdiction as the rest of the contiguous lump of earth you live on but it's all denial. It has been for a while

The problem with that part of Loyalism is that it always was in denial.

The Big House is gone. The Taigs have moved on.

And yet we still pander to them. They're not important. The DUP are irrelevant. Their hold on power is tenuous.

There's middle of the road unionists who are adrift. This is where our energy should go.

And we have been doing it... But let's start moving towards the centre more. F*** the DUP.

MrMusician18

Enzokk wrote: »

What usually happens to countries when that occurs? Either there is a mechanism in place to adjudicate and impose whatever action is required. If nothing like that exists and one country breaks their obligations on an agreement then why would the agreement continue? Why would other countries sign agreements with that country if they break agreements?





I would say she is okay. She did edit an answer from Corbyn in a negative way to slam his credentials on foreign policy. She had a story that she wanted to broadcast, she didn't get the answer from him she wanted so she edited an answer to appear that she got her story. That is not excellent journalism.

Also, if you have to listen how she says things and not the words, what does that even mean? So she is scared to report heo truth so she will say what people want to hear but you have to listen out to how she says it? What if she has a cold and just sounds funny?

I understand what you are trying to say, I think. She is tied by the fact that her sources from the Conservatives will not give her stories if she reports the stories that they don't want to see. Again, I fail to see how this makes her an excellent journalist. Seems like she is just a mouthpiece for the government in that case as she is biased against the current opposition and she is trying to keep her sources happy. Again I see no reason to proclaim her work as excellent.

The BBC coverage on Brexit really reminds me of the way certain quarters covered the Irish crash in 2008 - typically toeing the official line and not really giving attention to stores that needed to be told. The lack of journalism at the time was so lacking that we had to rely on the foreign media to keep us informed. The same is happening in the UK - the public are being left in the dark by the BBC and Laura K is a big part of this. That said she is not the worst of the political correspondents in the BBC news stable - that crown I think goes to Katia Adler - the Europe editor.

Katia constantly puts out the fantasy British government line that their policies/strategies are gaining traction on the commission when certainly up to now, it has not been the case. To a certain extent I can understand it, I imagine she's been frozen out and has few sources apart from British ones in the commission (who have now been sidelined).

If you listened and believed Katia you might have thought Chequers might fly -all the while the UK was being told it wouldn't since it was published practically. I think the blunt dismissal of Chequers at Salzberg was in no small part due to the British not getting the message, essentially believing their own reporting.

Christy42

Dymo wrote: »

Econ__ wrote: »

'Canada +++' does not include any common rule book for goods. It is a bog standard FTA like the EU has done with many third countries.

The UK took a step back from it because it's an agreement that guarantees the activation of the Irish backstop and thus placing a border down the Irish Sea.

Ok, so does that mean then that they get to control free movement of people, get to make there own trade agreements, no ECJ involvement and no more payments to the EU, and the have a FTA in place, plus we don't know what the extra +++ is yet.

That looks like a huge win for the UK, I know they have to sort out the Border but Barnier is already softening on that.

How is a deal offered to the UK 2 years ago a huge win?

The FTA does not include a financial passport and requires a certain standards of goods in any export (agricultural mostly). Thus it would require a sea border.

Enzokk

Christy42 wrote: »

How is a deal offered to the UK 2 years ago a huge win?

The FTA does not include a financial passport and requires a certain standards of goods in any export (agricultural mostly). Thus it would require a sea border.

Yes, I know Brexiteers will see this as a win but it really is not. When it was reported that the EU will offer the UK an unprecedented trade deal the UK press jumped on this as some sort of superior deal that they will get. It really wasn't. They will get a trade deal as other countries have, but due to their location relative to other countries there will be extras added to it. This is only natural as you wouldn't expect a trade deal with South Korea to include security matters like an EU arrest warrant to be included in the trade deal with the EU.

So the UK will get their snowflake trade deal only because they are the first country to leave the EU. This deal will be unique due to that reason not because they are the UK or the EU needs them, but because they have been integrated for 40 years and only a fool would want to cut all ties on 29 March 2019.

MrMusician18

Christy42 wrote: »

How is a deal offered to the UK 2 years ago a huge win?

The FTA does not include a financial passport and requires a certain standards of goods in any export (agricultural mostly). Thus it would require a sea border.

Something that's been on the table for two years is now being spun as a potential win by the hard brexiteers because they see their prize slipping away from them.

That simply really.

lawred2

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Something that's been on the table for two years is now being spun as a potential win by the hard brexiteers because they see their prize slipping away from them.

That simply really.

The frustrating thing will be watching on as most mainstream media outlets in the UK will dance and sign a merry tune to this. There will be a lineup of fawning sycophants ready and waiting to festoon these Tory clowns for what is really nothing short of abject failure.

kalych

lawred2 wrote:

The frustrating thing will be watching on as most mainstream media outlets in the UK will dance and sign a merry tune to this. There will be a lineup of fawning sycophants ready and waiting to festoon these Tory clowns for what is really nothing short of abject failure.

Isn't that how negotiating works? Both sides need to feel they're getting something out of it? Sure, if the UK voter was objective and had grasp of the facts they wouldn't have voted for Brexit to begin with.

swampgas

Hasn't a lot of the UK's behaviour been about the injured pride of a former imperial power?

A section of the British establishment, especially the old Etonians and others like them, have a serious sense of superiority, over other Brits and over everyone else in the world.

Being an equal partner in the EU goes against the grain - they consider themselves much better than the Germans or the French, and the idea that they should have to deal with the bloody Irish as equals gives them indigestion. A more equal and fair UK is anathema to them - they are superior to all the unwashed masses and they fully expect them to know their place. They truly believe they are the natural rulers of their country, of Europe, and of the world.

Despite traditionally being the party of big business, they are also the party of entitlement and arrogance. Their overweaning sense of their own importance is tripping them up, they are prepared to damage the economy in order to protect their fragile egos.

They are desperate to assert their natural superiority over the inferior nations of the EU. Hence all the shouting and insults, the horrible comparisons of democratic European countries and institutions with the Nazis and the USSR. They are so desperate to feel superior that they feel the need to denigrate their neighbours, to demean them, even to dehumanise them.

The UK doesn't need a trade deal, it needs a therapist.

mrbrianj

swampgas wrote: »

The UK doesn't need a trade deal, it needs a therapist.

:)After 600 pages we get to the truth!

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

The frustrating thing will be watching on as most mainstream media outlets in the UK will dance and sign a merry tune to this.

Frustrating? It's hilarious!

flatty

Econ__ wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

She's the economics editor.

She's the political editor.

Apologies, but it means she should dictate the content. She appears instead to read bland fluff off an autocue, at a time when she should have the courage to point out the realities that the political class are about to shove the UK, NI, and our own noses into.

kuro68k

There is no way they can get Canada+++ through parliament. The DUP won't accept it which is enough to destroy their majority, even if they get all the Tories to vote for it somehow.

Boris is bound to make a lunge for power soon too.

prawnsambo

kuro68k wrote: »

There is no way they can get Canada+++ through parliament. The DUP won't accept it which is enough to destroy their majority, even if they get all the Tories to vote for it somehow.

Boris is bound to make a lunge for power soon too.

Boris hasn't got the support.

murphaph

Does Canada+++ pass Starmer's six tests? (If lines are smudged a bit)

Enzokk

murphaph wrote: »

Does Canada+++ pass Starmer's six tests? (If lines are smudged a bit)

No it doesn't. What is weird is that those 6 tests are EU membership. I don't know what Jeremy Corbyn thought he signed up for by going with those 6 tests, but they could just as well support remaining in the EU with those 6 tests.

Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

I guess I could be hopeful and say that they are only trying to keep the leave voters onside by still insisting on leaving the EU, but I am not that hopeful.

farmchoice

at the very first round of negotiations barnier ( or possibly tusk) pointed out that there was no time to agree a comprehensive new FTA. that would take years and years, easily up to 10 years.
so he said the options were to use an existing off the shelf FTA, Norway, turkey, ukraine, canada, sout korea etc. there could be some slight changes or add on's to these so you could get canada+++ or whatever.


the logic to this was undeniable but from day one the UK completely ignored this in all public pronouncements. they knew it then and they know it now but it was never discussed anywhere.



the numerous uk red lines ruled out every existing trade deasl except canada and south korea. the border issue on the face of it ruled out canada and SK. so the only way to square the circle the UK had created was the backstop as agreed last december.



today not one single thing has changed except that many of those in the UK who said Canada was not anywhere near good enough for the UK (fox, david, johnson) have come to accept it as the only alternative to remain.

now what to do about Northern Ireland? the DUP are the fly in the ointment, no dup stranglehold on power no problem, they'll have to go.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Frustrating? It's hilarious!

It'll only be hilarious if its negative effects can be contained to the UK.

Not so funny if we all start to suffer for their ignorance, bigotry and stupidity

Econ__

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, I know Brexiteers will see this as a win but it really is not. When it was reported that the EU will offer the UK an unprecedented trade deal the UK press jumped on this as some sort of superior deal that they will get. It really wasn't. They will get a trade deal as other countries have, but due to their location relative to other countries there will be extras added to it. This is only natural as you wouldn't expect a trade deal with South Korea to include security matters like an EU arrest warrant to be included in the trade deal with the EU.

So the UK will get their snowflake trade deal only because they are the first country to leave the EU. This deal will be unique due to that reason not because they are the UK or the EU needs them, but because they have been integrated for 40 years and only a fool would want to cut all ties on 29 March 2019.

It will be worst than CETA because there will be a string of level playing field conditions attached - conditions that were not deemed necessary for a country that's far away like Canada.

Leroy42

You do have to feel somewhat sorry for the unionists in NI (which are not limited to only the DUP).

Brexit is a complete disaster for them (and of course the nationalist as well) both in terms of economics but, and more importantly to them, their sense of where they sit within the union.

The decision seems to be that either the UK will get a FTA with a NI backstop, effectively increasing the split with the mainland, or the UK will crash out and GB will blame NI for helping to create the mess. Lets face it, if it wasn't for NI (and Boris et al have alluded to this very point) a deal would be much easier.

Either way, the Unionists in NI cannot be seeing this as anything other than a negative, no matter which way it goes.

Econ__

kuro68k wrote: »

There is no way they can get Canada+++ through parliament. The DUP won't accept it which is enough to destroy their majority, even if they get all the Tories to vote for it somehow.

Boris is bound to make a lunge for power soon too.

They could conceivably get it through with some Labour votes to make up for the loss of the DUP by weaponising the threat of no deal.

lawred2

Econ__ wrote: »

They could conceivably get it through with some Labour votes to make up for the loss of the DUP by weaponising the threat of no deal.

And then the DUP would walk. Immediate election.

FrancieBrady

lawred2 wrote: »

And then the DUP would walk. Immediate election.

Won't May be cheered on as the triumphant EU beater by the media? She will be a shoe-in for majority government on that wave, would she not?

lawred2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Won't May be cheered on as the triumphant EU beater by the media? She will be a shoe-in for majority government on that wave, would she not?

Possibly. Labour are a joke. And a DUP free government would possibly encourage 'mainlanders' to vote in even greater Tory numbers.

Corbyn reminds me of a striker who has missed a sitter from under the crossbar with the keeper already rounded.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

No it doesn't. What is weird is that those 6 tests are EU membership. I don't know what Jeremy Corbyn thought he signed up for by going with those 6 tests, but they could just as well support remaining in the EU with those 6 tests.



I guess I could be hopeful and say that they are only trying to keep the leave voters onside by still insisting on leaving the EU, but I am not that hopeful.

In many ways, it boils down to the fact that it will be Corbyn who decides on a soft or hard Brexit and on May's future. She will come back with a Brexit deal that the ERG and DUP won't vote for. Corbyn then has a choice. Does he support the Brexit deal for the good of the country or does he seize the opportunity to stab May. If he does vote against then it's probably election time which will basically be a referendum on a soft or hard Brexit.

Akrasia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Won't May be cheered on as the triumphant EU beater by the media? She will be a shoe-in for majority government on that wave, would she not?

Such a victory to eventually fold and accept the deal that was on the table from day 1, a deal that is still much worse than what they currently have as members of the EU