Brexit discussion thread IV

Fionn1952

The whole talk of SF and how they should be representing their constituents by taking a seat at Westminster going on here is quite bizarre. I really don't understand why people who are fully aware they were elected on an abstentionist platform think that this isn't representing those who voted for them.

Anyone care to explain the logic behind that thinking, or how it's anything but a betrayal of the majority of their voters/political suicide? Surely if Northern Nationalists wanted Westminster representation, they would've voted for SDLP etc?

Rjd2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The knives are out for her from her Brexiteer colleagues if tomorrow's paper headlines are anything to go by.

She genuinely should dare the Brexiters to "come and have a go if you think you are head enough" and be done with all there meaningless posturing.

The hard core leavers simply don't have the numbers or a person who can beat May at the moment and deep down know that..

Heck I think the less fanatical leavers such as Raab, Cleverly, and even Gove would back her in any leadership contest as they are quite content to bide their time.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The whole talk of SF and how they should be representing their constituents by taking a seat at Westminster going on here is quite bizarre. I really don't understand why people who are fully aware they were elected on an abstentionist platform think that this isn't representing those who voted for them.

Anyone care to explain the logic behind that thinking, or how it's anything but a betrayal of the majority of their voters/political suicide? Surely if Northern Nationalists wanted Westminster representation, they would've voted for SDLP etc?

I wouldn't put much store in it to be honest. It is the fear of what will happen to the south that motivates this not any new found concern for Irish people in the north.
The reality is that partition will cause cyclical problems until it ends. If the breakup of the UK ends it, so be it. The northern statelet has failed utterly and needs to be sorted, SF turning up to vote to mitigate/soften Brexit is just sticking a band aid on a gaping wound.

MBSnr

Deal agreed apparently...

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2304950/deal-agreed-german-leak/p1

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7488896/brexit-news-latest-deal-finalised-tomorrow-before-being-presented-to-british-government-next-week/

Pinch of salt required....

trellheim

Irish citizens do not have to apply for settled status.

https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eu-citizens-families

Water John

in the last few days you can see it coming down to finer points. A time limit on the backstop being one, the other being all of the UK remaining in the CU temporarily with NI in the SM.
If she has to ditch the DUP to get it over the line, she seems to have decided to have that option explored already, so she may act on it.
Doubt she forgets the situation she was put in previously with the EU by the DUP. She has her options prepared this time.

Shelga

Caught Farage on the Late Late- when he says, why does their have to be tarriffs between Ireland and the UK, presumably because that’s because we’re in the EU and they won’t be? Forgive my questions, but I think a lot of people don’t understand how international trade works, myself included.

If we left the EU too, which is obviously madness for a whole host of reasons, Farage’s argument is that we could then form a de facto customs arrangement with the UK, and have no hard border still. So why do any countries have any tarriffs on goods? It’s something I’ve never really understood but always been too embarrassed to put my hand up and ask!

Another reason why framing an issue of such enormous complexity as a simple in/out, to be decided by the people, was mind-bogglingly short-sighted and foolish.

Peregrinus

Shelga wrote: »

If we left the EU too, which is obviously madness for a whole host of reasons, Farage’s argument is that we could then form a de facto customs arrangement with the UK, and have no hard border still.

Well, this is nonsense. We were in an actual, not a de facto, customs union with the UK from 1973 until the early 1990s, but we had a hard border. It wasn't until the Single Market came along that the open border appeared. You need both.

Shelga wrote: »

So why do any countries have any tarriffs on goods? It’s something I’ve never really understood but always been too embarrassed to put my hand up and ask!

One reason, of course, is revenue; tariffs are taxes which go to the government.

Another reason is protection of domestic interests. The EU has a 10% tariff on vehicle, for example, without which European car manufacturing would be decimated by imports from countries with cheaper labour. That doesn't matter so much to Ireland, but EU dairy producers are similarly protected by tariffs on non-EU dairy produce; that matters hugely to us.

Junkyard Tom

It’s something I’ve never really understood but always been too embarrassed to put my hand up and ask!

I think most of us are learning as we go along too to be honest. There's a pretty good YouTube channel here that explains stuff like the customs union and single market.

Peregrinus wrote: »

One reason, of course, is revenue; tariffs are taxes which go to the government. Another reason is protection of domestic interests.

I guess domestic EU interests would also include strategic interests like food security and advanced technology, wouldn't it?

Rhineshark

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think most of us are learning as we go along too to be honest. There's a pretty good YouTube channel here that explains stuff like the customs union and single market.



I guess domestic EU interests would also include strategic interests like food security and advanced technology, wouldn't it?

It would albeit that is more a general concern across the various EU countries, as they tend to be tertiary economies and primary and even secondary production needs some protection from primary/secondary economies which can just swamp us until our domestic production gives up at which point we are dependant on being able to keep those imports flowing.

Countries would have their own specific interests in say, certain types of foodstuffs though. An interesting one is sugar. Most EU countries rely on sugar beet, which is protected. The UK and it's big processing company Tate & Lyle, for historical colonial reasons use sugar cane, which isn't. Geographical trademark protection is another - which the UK does benefit from in stuff like Cornish pasties, Scotch eggs, Scotch whiskey etc., as well as the more obvious French Champagne.

The US in particular does not approve of geographical trademarks so I guess the UK will see how that goes.

First Up

Rhineshark wrote:

Geographical trademark protection is another - which the UK does benefit from in stuff like Cornish pasties, Scotch eggs, Scotch whiskey etc., as well as the more obvious French Champagne.

Its not "French" champagne - its champagne from the champagne region. There are many French sparkling wines from other parts of the country but they are not champagne.

Shelga

Ok, I understand the protection of domestic industries reason. I suppose that’s why FTAs between the EU and third countries take so long to negotiate- because there are so many different types of goods and services and so many possible side effects to each one to consider?

But if the UK crashed out with no deal, why are they obliged to apply WTO rules and tarriffs? Why can’t they just say (in theory) we are going to have 0% tarriffs on everything going out of and coming into the country?

McGiver

Rhineshark wrote:

The US in particular does not approve of geographical trademarks so I guess the UK will see how that goes.

I guess that's because they have no geographical trademark

Rhineshark

First Up wrote: »

Its not "French" champagne - its champagne from the champagne region. There are many French sparkling wines from other parts of the country but they are not champagne.

Yes, but it is a French GI. Same as Cornish pasties are a UK geographical indicator despite many parts of the UK not being Cornwall. I was referencing it to EU countries rather than the specific location.

First Up

Rhineshark wrote:

Yes, but it is a French GI. Same as Cornish pasties are a UK geographical indicator despite many parts of the UK not being Cornwall. I was referencing it to EU countries rather than the specific location.

No, its a Champagne GI that happens to be French. The important bit is the region, not the country.

LuckyLloyd

The narrative here is Brussels saying to all who will listen that a deal has been done and holding the pen and paper in front of May and saying 'just come here and sign and it will all be over', thereby ramping up the pressure on May to sort out her internal difficulties. This can feed all sorts of perspectives, positive and negative from all sides - from 'EU bullies' to 'timid Theresa' to 'here comes the end game' yadda yadda, blah blah.

It's hard to tear through all of the nonsense to understand exactly what has been offered and agreed to in fine detail, but it seems to me that we remain on course for a polarised outcome - as many observers thought earlier in the year. The UK has not prepared for No Deal, but the outcome seems preferable to a significant portion of the Conservative's current arithmetic and that segment is either driven by blind ideology (DUP) or money (JRM) and therefore are unlikely to blink. That pressure is balanced by increasing consensus in polling that indicates a shift in public support away from Brexit in all its forms:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-polls-show-britain-wants-to-remain-in-eu-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

The current micro level reporting and speculation is the middle: what the EU's best offer is and whether May can get it through. I believe (and accept it's somewhat contrarian) that will prove to be the least relevant aspect ultimately. It will be important to remember what the EU were ultimately willing to offer, but I don't think May can carry it which leaves her either falling or essentially forcing a No Deal by refusing to continue the negotiations. Bizarrely, in all of this, I feel the prospect of the whole thing essentially being called off by general election, extension to A50 to facilitate a referendum, and a decisive second referendum have only been heightened by the events of the past two weeks. As counter intuitive as that may be.

There is quite the week of micro level reporting and speculation ahead though, and it will seem like things are moving more quickly than they are.

kuro68k

Davis is trying to destroy May again. Really seems like some of them are pushing hard for a general election.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45853384

Leroy42

Shelga wrote: »

Ok, I understand the protection of domestic industries reason. I suppose that’s why FTAs between the EU and third countries take so long to negotiate- because there are so many different types of goods and services and so many possible side effects to each one to consider?

But if the UK crashed out with no deal, why are they obliged to apply WTO rules and tarriffs? Why can’t they just say (in theory) we are going to have 0% tarriffs on everything going out of and coming into the country?

There is nothing to stop them doing just that. In fact a number of their politicians have stated that. But with no tariffs, still doesn't deal with standards. Tariffs have been shown to not be a very good instrument for dealing with trade. The real costs lay with the regulations and the paperwork and custom delays.

But if they open them up then what is to stop countries like the US flooding the UK market with low price chicken? And what about manufacturing? And exactly what will they have to bargain with when it comes to trying to negotiate future trade deals?

Rhineshark

First Up wrote: »

No, its a Champagne GI that happens to be French. The important bit is the region, not the country.

Yes, I know that but since I am speaking about geographical trademarks with specific reference to the country it benefits it makes sense to use the name of the country.

Not that it really matters but I had a reason for it, hence the usage.

First Up

Rhineshark wrote:

Yes, I know that but since I am speaking about geographical trademarks with specific reference to the country it benefits it makes sense to use the name of the country.

Except that it could be interpreted by some that any French sparkling wine could call itself Champagne, just by being French.

French bubbly from elsewhere has no more claim to the name than German Sekt, Spanish Cava or Italian Prosecco. The French bit is irrelevant at best and potentially misleading.

LuckyLloyd

kuro68k wrote: »

Davis is trying to destroy May again. Really seems like some of them are pushing hard for a general election.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45853384

He just wants to be PM, that’s all. It’s all she wants, all that Boris wants. This is their chance. Just getting into No.10 and having your portrait put on the wall and name in the history books is what drives these people. Corbyn is treated so harshly in the UK media precisely because his motivations are different and therefore harder to predict and understand.

The real kicker is that it doesn’t matter which of May / Davis / Johnson are PM right now, it’s an illusion that the ultimate offer from the EU would change depending on which of them was there.

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That pressure is balanced by increasing consensus in polling that indicates a shift in public support away from Brexit in all its forms:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-polls-show-britain-wants-to-remain-in-eu-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

I think it's quite depressing that opinion polls are roughly exactly where they were in May 2016 before the vote. I don't think it can really be considered a 'shift in public support away from Brexit'.
The voting/polling register will have lost 2 years of dead people (generally older who voted Brexit) and gained 2 years of people who were aged 15-18 back in 2016 and who we'd hope would veer towards remain, and yet at best there's only the most minor of moves.
The young have actually been disappointing to me - two years ago I'd have thought that the 2018 university campuses would see massive remain campaigns, possibly violent. But I'm not even sure there's any sort of campaigns going on.

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think it's quite depressing that opinion polls are roughly exactly where they were in May 2016 before the vote. I don't think it can really be considered a 'shift in public support away from Brexit'.
The voting/polling register will have lost 2 years of dead people (generally older who voted Brexit) and gained 2 years of people who were aged 15-18 back in 2016 and who we'd hope would veer towards remain, and yet at best there's only the most minor of moves.
The young have actually been disappointing to me - two years ago I'd have thought that the 2018 university campuses would see massive remain campaigns, possibly violent. But I'm not even sure there's any sort of campaigns going on.

That’s fair - I’m commenting on a movement from the actual election result and polling from winter 2016 but I take your point.

The young have been shouted down at every opportunity. There is clearly an aura of defeat amongst them - a sense of ‘I just want this to be over and done with’. There *should* be massive student mobilisation though, I completely agree. It is their short and medium term future being completely obliterated.

It is just another pallet on the pyre of UK societal discourse.

Lemming

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The young have actually been disappointing to me - two years ago I'd have thought that the 2018 university campuses would see massive remain campaigns, possibly violent. But I'm not even sure there's any sort of campaigns going on.

Whilst I can't speak for university campuses and the like, there have been, and are still campaigns being run against Brexit. The mainstream media have been utterly complicit in either not reporting on them, or making out any protests as being a "handful of protesters" when in actual fact it has been tens of thousands at any one protest of several running at the same time in different cities.

Roanmore

David Davies in the Sunday Times "Brexit panic has started on the Continent. Now we must drive a hard bargain".
Bloody hell, how deluded is he. Reading further articles and this is the guy they want to replace May in the interim.

Also, this carry on with the 48 letters to the 1922 Committee is a joke, 2 letters here, 3 letters there, all staged. They don't have the balls to call her out on their own.

ArmaniJeanss

Lemming wrote: »

Whilst I can't speak for university campuses and the like, there have been, and are still campaigns being run against Brexit. The mainstream media have been utterly complicit in either not reporting on them, or making out any protests as being a "handful of protesters" when in actual fact it has been tens of thousands at any one protest of several running at the same time in different cities.

Amongst the young I'd have hoped/expected to see a mobilisation so massive and disruptive that it couldn't be ignored, but that hasn't happened.

Perhaps that's the aura of defeat/acceptance LL refers to above.
Or maybe they don't actually see leaving as that big an event.

Enzokk

Roanmore wrote: »

David Davies in the Sunday Times "Brexit panic has started on the Continent. Now we must drive a hard bargain".
Bloody hell, how deluded is he. Reading further articles and this is the guy they want to replace May in the interim.

Also, this carry on with the 48 letters to the 1922 Committee is a joke, 2 letters here, 3 letters there, all staged. They don't have the balls to call her out on their own.

It's all a power play. They will have all sent their letters at the same time if they really wanted to get rid of the PM. What they are doing is putting the pressure on her, leaking that another letter has been sent to ensure she listens to them or face a leadership contest.

Seems that some Labour MPs are willing to vote with Theresa May and her deal. They seem to see it as a choice of the deal on the table or no-deal. Jeremy Corbyn will most likely oppose the deal as he sees it as his path to No.10.

Labour MPs reveal they are ready to rescue Theresa May's Brexit deal in Commons vote

Multiple Labour MPs have told The Independent they are prepared to support the Brexit agreement Theresa May hopes to bring back from Brussels, boosting the prime minister’s chances of forcing it through parliament.

The MPs include the first to state publicly that they will struggle to vote against a deal secured in Brussels if the alternative is a no-deal Brexit – even if, as expected, Jeremy Corbyn orders his party to oppose it.

They say that crashing out of the EU would be a disaster for their constituents, while also fearing a backlash from voters accusing them of blocking Brexit.

If this happens, firstly we should be happy as it is what we want. NI will be in the EU basically and if the UK diverges then NI will not. This is the deal we want.

At least it seems we have some sense from MPs, Damian Collins (Conservative) is looking for answers on why there has not been an investigation yet from the Met Police on the interference in the election and campaign funding.

MP demands Met police explain why Brexit inquiry dropped

A senior Conservative MP has demanded that Scotland Yard urgently explain why it has not opened a criminal investigation into three pro-Brexit campaigns that the Electoral Commission found had broken the law.

Damian Collins, chair of the Commons committee investigating the illegal use of data during the EU referendum, told the Observer he was concerned that the Metropolitan police had as yet failed to launch a formal investigation into potential crimes committed by pro-Leave groups before the 2016 referendum.

His intervention comes five months after the official election regulator ruled that criminal offences had been committed and the force was first handed a dossier containing evidence of the potential crimes.

On Thursday, the website Open Democracy reported that the Met had stalled the launch of a criminal investigation into the pro-Brexit campaigns citing “political sensitivities”.

I hope we will get an investigation and also on what is meant by political sensitivities. It could only be pressure from No.10 surely? Who else would try to stop this and would have the clout to do it?

20silkcut

Lemming wrote: »

Whilst I can't speak for university campuses and the like, there have been, and are still campaigns being run against Brexit. The mainstream media have been utterly complicit in either not reporting on them, or making out any protests as being a "handful of protesters" when in actual fact it has been tens of thousands at any one protest of several running at the same time in different cities.

Do you honestly think that to be the case?
It’s not exactly easy to hide tens of thousands people marching down a street in this day and age with social media and smart phones etc.

I buy the farmers weekly which is a magazine concerning British agriculture, a sector facing oblivion in a hard Brexit, and there is only the odd article here and there on brexit and most of them fairly neutral about it.
There should be a strong anti brexit movement in Britain at this stage and it is incredible that there isn’t.

Kermit.de.frog

Raab in Brussels for meeting with Barnier. Talks to go on in to the night.

UK wants a "review clause" for backstop.

They also want NI's time in single market to be time limited.

A time limit is not acceptable for the EU for obvious reasons. The EU will also want the final say on ending the backstop.

Not clear DUP agrees with any of this.

judeboy101

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Raab in Brussels for meeting with Barnier. Talks to go on in to the night.

UK wants a "review clause" for backstop.

They also want NI's time in single market to be time limited.

A time limit is not acceptable for the EU for obvious reasons. The EU will also want the final say on ending the backstop.

Not clear DUP agrees with any of this.

Now we find out how green Leo's britches are and if the EU will put the the needs of 4 million over the wants of 60 million