Brexit discussion thread IV

Infini

Imreoir2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ConorMcMorrow/status/1019332974167449601

It seems the EU is trying to make the backstop more acceptable to the UK. I doubt they will be able to make it acceptable to the UK without changing it substantivly. Maybe simply threading water from the EU while they wait for May's government to sink or swim?

Honestly I think it's not gonna make a difference at this point. The problem is May has no control and a parliment with too many idiots. The chickens are coming home to roost it seems and the Brits seem determimed to feck up majorly.

Capt'n Midnight

Word of warning. Popcorn can damage your gums. Let's be careful folks.


The Financial Times has this
Sterling starts to factor in possibility of Mad Max Brexit




Bank of England governor warns of interest rate cuts if UK crashes out of EU

He has previously said he would be prepared to cut borrowing costs to support jobs and the economy in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Lloyds Bank plans three EU subsidiaries after Brexit - sources








Just a reminder of what's waiting in the wings

Ex-UKIP councillor Stephen Searle guilty of murdering wife




The Lib Dems capturing the mood of the people :rolleyes:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44857689

The Liberal Democrats' chief whip says he "messed up" by allowing party leader Sir Vince Cable and his predecessor Tim Farron to skip Monday night's knife-edge vote on Brexit.
...

And chief whip Alistair Carmichael said he had expected the vote to be "lost by hundreds".

Boris Johnson under fire over clearance for newspaper column

Ex-ministers must refer new employment to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments before accepting it.

Tax rise needed to fund NHS spending boost, says watchdog

The OBR estimates that the UK would have had to make a contribution of £13.3bn to the EU budget in 2022-23 if it remained a member.

It said of that potential saving, £7.5bn would be absorbed by the withdrawal settlement payment expected for that year, "leaving £5.8bn to be spent on other things".

The OBR said that, in principle, it would cover slightly less than 30% of the cost of health package in that year.

"This does not take into account other calls on these potential savings, including commitments the government has already made on farm support, structural funds, science and access to regulatory bodies," it added.

https://www.ft.com/content/3eb00c46-5cf0-11e8-9334-2218e7146b04

... calling for the government to support the establishment of a Tees Valley free port — a large designated zone where goods can enter tariff-free, be processed or manufactured and re-exported.

WinnyThePoo

My brain is broken after reading that.

WoollyRedHat

The government of Britain is now led by the ERG party led by JRM. These are dangerous times for Britain, as they go ever close to the cliff edge.

This day may well go down in history as May could not help to appease those dangerous ideologues in her party to make the likelihood of no deal much more certain. Once the realities of Brexit hits home, with manufacturing hit hard and other vital industries shrinking, leading to big job losses and a big plunge on the average incomes, food shortages commence and the communities who were so reliant on EU begin to see what a hard Brexit really means, they will be to the streets, but it will be too late by then.

It's a tragic, down the rabbit hole world that Britain has fallen into.. ` The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day." It`s all dreadfully confusing indeed.

Trasna1

Imreoir2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ConorMcMorrow/status/1019332974167449601

It seems the EU is trying to make the backstop more acceptable to the UK. I doubt they will be able to make it acceptable to the UK without changing it substantivly. Maybe simply threading water from the EU while they wait for May's government to sink or swim?

I have to say Katia Adler's reporting from Brussels has been poor. She clearly constrained by the editorial policy of BBC news and doesn't enjoy the kind of access Tony Connolly has.

Did she even mention that the EU are ramping up the no deal preparation in the last few days?

Strazdas

Imreoir2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ConorMcMorrow/status/1019332974167449601

It seems the EU is trying to make the backstop more acceptable to the UK. I doubt they will be able to make it acceptable to the UK without changing it substantivly. Maybe simply threading water from the EU while they wait for May's government to sink or swim?

The Irish border is not necessarily even the main sticking point. May has already announced the UK is leaving the Single Market, Customs Union and ECJ and yet still wants to carrying on trading with the Single Market in a comprehensive manner.

If the Irish backstop was the only issue going on, that would be one thing, but even without it the UK is poles apart from the EU.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

The Irish border is not necessarily even the main sticking point. May has already announced the UK is leaving the Single Market, Customs Union and ECJ and yet still wants to carrying on trading with the Single Market in a comprehensive manner.

If the Irish backstop was the only issue going on, that would be one thing, but even without it the UK is poles apart from the EU.

It's shifted a bit recently, but for a long time the border issue was the main hold up. Given that we (Ireland) were opposed to deals that involved any sort of border with the North, it is ironic that we may be the ones building the hard border with the North.

J Mysterio

Fair play to Soubry here, passionately speaking out against the Brexiteers (video in article):

Tory MPs 'privately say loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs worth it for Brexit', Anna Soubry tells Parliament

'Nobody voted Leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth will take their job away from them'

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

It's shifted a bit recently, but for a long time the border issue was the main hold up. Given that we (Ireland) were opposed to deals that involved any sort of border with the North, it is ironic that we may be the ones building the hard border with the North.

The border might have been seen as a huge issue six months ago but May has introduced so many red lines that it is only one thing among many now. There is a whole load of stuff in that white paper the EU could never agree to. If the border was virtually the only sticking point, it could probably be sorted out, but there are dozens of sticking points in fact.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

The border might have been seen as a huge issue six months ago but May has introduced so many red lines that it is only one thing among many now. There is a whole load of stuff in that white paper the EU could never agree to. If the border was virtually the only sticking point, it could probably be sorted out, but there are dozens of sticking points in fact.

I think it was the belief that on the EU side that if the only acceptable position on the border was one that was completely frictionless and with no physical infrastructure, that this would force the UK into staying in the customs union.

Of course it could still be the case that the UK does cave, but that seems less and less likely. If, as seems probable now, the UK crashes out, this represents a failure not only on the UK but also on the EU side - a miscalculation.

I understand the reluctance of the EU not give full access to the single market while allowing the UK the ability to do trade deals outside. This would undermine the integrity of the single market with other countries demanding the same rights.

However it has to be remembered that the UK are within their rights to leave the EU, single market and customs union, and they have been fairly clear that that is what they intended to do from fairly early on.

But the EU position seems to be that anything short of staying in the customs union is unacceptable. It is either stay in the customs union or crash out. There is no middle road. The border issue was a good way of creating this dilemma. To me this is unreasonable except as a means of taking it out on a country for having the audacity to leave the EU's institutions. I would suggest that the only reason the EU are taking this approach is because the fallout will be concentrated in a small peripheral country of little value to the EU.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it was the belief that on the EU side that if the only acceptable position on the border was one that was completely frictionless and with no physical infrastructure, that this would force the UK into staying in the customs union.

Of course it could still be the case that the UK does cave, but that seems less and less likely. If, as seems probable now, the UK crashes out, this represents a failure not only on the UK but also on the EU side - a miscalculation.

I understand the reluctance of the EU not give full access to the single market while allowing the UK the ability to do trade deals outside. This would undermine the integrity of the single market with other countries demanding the same rights.

However it has to be remembered that the UK are within their rights to leave the EU, single market and customs union, and they have been fairly clear that that is what they intended to do from fairly early on.

But the EU position seems to be that anything short of staying in the customs union is unacceptable. It is either stay in the customs union or crash out. There is no middle road. The border issue was a good way of creating this dilemma. To me this is unreasonable except as a means of taking it out on a country for having the audacity to leave the EU's institutions. I would suggest that the only reason the EU are taking this approach is because the fallout will be concentrated in a small peripheral country of little value to the EU.

If there was a middle ground then why would anyone want to be in the EU?

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

It's shifted a bit recently, but for a long time the border issue was the main hold up. Given that we (Ireland) were opposed to deals that involved any sort of border with the North, it is ironic that we may be the ones building the hard border with the North.

Let me guess.. The UK saying no PM could ever agree to a border in the Irish Sea makes perfect sense, but likewise from the Irish government saying we couldn't sign off on a border with the North is nonsense?

Nothing ironic at all about putting up borders that respect WTO rules. Ireland is dealing with reality. Before long, we'll be hearing "Screw the WTO." in Parliament and people like yourself will say Ireland and the EU are somehow making the UK go full retard as punishment.

How exactly will you manage to pin this incompetency on foreigners? Poison in the water supply? Bribery? Prostitutes? Mind control devices? Anything but let the UK take full responsibility?

"In response to my good honorable friend, no, it's clear that voting to leave the EU meant to leave all institutions. For that reason, I believe no border and leaving the WTO is in line with the people's wishes."

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me guess.. The UK saying no PM could ever agree to a border in the Irish Sea makes perfect sense, but likewise from the Irish government saying we couldn't sign off on a border with the North is nonsense?

Except that when Ireland says we won't sign off on a border that might be less than perfect from our point of view, we end up with something much worse (again from our point of view).

Our position only makes sense if we believe that the UK will cave and retain membership of the customs union. Otherwise the strategy backfires and when it backfires it backfires on us, not most of the other EU member states. Hence the EU can take a strong line.

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If there was a middle ground then why would anyone want to be in the EU?

OK, so there's no middle ground. Then what is the purpose of the two year negotiating period that the UK are obliged to follow? Is it just a PR exercise?

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Except that when Ireland says we won't sign off on a border that might be less than perfect from our point of view, we end up with something much worse (again from our point of view).

Our position only makes sense if we believe that the UK will cave and retain membership of the customs union. Otherwise the strategy backfires and when it backfires it backfires on us, not most of the other EU member states. Hence the EU can take a strong line.

"Less than perfect" really means "Less than perfect and permanent".

What less than perfect solutions should we consider that works with the UK's red lines and doesn't undermine the EU?

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

"Less than perfect" really means "Less than perfect and permanent".

However in the event of a crash out, if we're honest, we have to admit that we have no idea how long the much harder border will last. We might hope that UK will opt to rejoin the customs union but we have hoped for a lot of things that did not happen.

And remember that the border is mainly an issue on the island of Ireland. Once the hard border is in place, in a very short space of time it will stop being a news item for most of the UK.

What less than perfect solutions should we consider that works with the UK's red lines and doesn't undermine the EU?

Well, I think there should have been more of an acceptance of the UKs position and more emphasis on the future trade relationship. We got sidetracked and now it looks likely we will pay for it both in terms of an economic hit as well as a harder border than we would have liked.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, I think there should have been more of an acceptance of the UKs position and more emphasis on the future trade relationship. We got sidetracked and now it looks likely we will pay for it both in terms of an economic hit as well as a harder border than we would have liked.

I asked for solutions. You have the entire hypothetical world to work with here.. Point out some solutions that could work with the UK's red lines and the EU's four freedoms etc.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked for solutions. You have the entire hypothetical world to work with here.. Point out some solutions that could work with the UK's red lines and the EU's four freedoms etc.

It is the purpose of negotiations to find that common ground. If we accept the UKs right to leave the customs union and we also accept the EU's four freedoms then talks must shift to trade. If a good trade relationship can be found with the UK, given that they their regulations, as EU members, currently align with the EU, then this minimizes both the economic hit to Ireland as well lessening the impact of the border.

What we have been doing, on the other hand, is trying to reverse the UK's decisions. If it succeeds, all well and good. If it fails, however, we have to accept some of the responsibility for its failure. By we, here, I mean Ireland.

Jim2007

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is the purpose of negotiations to find that common ground.

No it is about getting the best deal for your side. You don't negotiate with major trading blocks, you turn up, get to see what is on offer and decide if you want it or not. And if you are look you might get a few face saving concessions to make it more acceptable at home. This something the UK is going to have to get used to as it goes it alone.

Bit cynical wrote: »

What we have been doing, on the other hand, is trying to reverse the UK's decisions.

No, what we have been doing is taking them at their word, sticking to our principles and holding them to account for their actions.

Jim2007

Bit cynical wrote: »

OK, so there's no middle ground. Then what is the purpose of the two year negotiating period that the UK are obliged to follow? Is it just a PR exercise?

The UK is not obliged to follow it, they can walk away any time the choose. The EU on the other hand must stick to the treaty terms. As for a purpose, the UK seems to think it is about turning and demanding stuff that is not available to them as a third country. A PR exercise to show their voters the are trying one assumes.

Jim2007

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the EU position seems to be that anything short of staying in the customs union is unacceptable.

Nonsense. There is no reason why the EU should have to compromise on their principles, an Canada style trade deal has been on offer since the outset, but the UK have rejected it. You need to update your filter and let reality get in.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is the purpose of negotiations to find that common ground. If we accept the UKs right to leave the customs union and we also accept the EU's four freedoms then talks must shift to trade. If a good trade relationship can be found with the UK, given that they their regulations, as EU members, currently align with the EU, then this minimizes both the economic hit to Ireland as well lessening the impact of the border.

What we have been doing, on the other hand, is trying to reverse the UK's decisions. If it succeeds, all well and good. If it fails, however, we have to accept some of the responsibility for its failure. By we, here, I mean Ireland.

Do we really need to bring up the power point presentation again over what EU has offered? Based on UK's Red Lines which you say has to be respected EU offered a Canada+ FTA with zero tariffs on everything. UK outright rejected that as not being enough as it did not full free access to among other things service (not part of FTAs in general), access for them to all various EU institutions (which are limited to you guessed it, EU members only), access to EURPOL as a EU member, no legal oversight as all other EU countries has from ECJ etc.

Hence EU has offered UK exactly what they could offer that you say they should offer and UK rejected it stating they want all the benefits of being in EU while being allowed to not be in EU and anything less is bullying. Hence at this stage it's not a case of EU "offering more" or "demanding they are in the single market"; it's EU simply reiterating that they have red lines as well and UK has to choose which deal they want. UK are not going to get a deal with all the benefits crossing all EU red lines simply because they stomp their foot and scream bully. They have two options now on the table based on their own red lines; a full zero tariff FTA or WTO terms and UK is pushing for WTO terms via hard crash out. That is a UK choice on how the post brexit trading relationship is going to look like; not EU's decision.

devnull

Boris to make a formal statement to the house after PMQs this lunchtime.

Expected to be explosive and a challenge to the leadership of May.

Anything to avoid actually dealing with the issues at hand.

judeboy101

devnull wrote: »

Boris to make a formal statement to the house after PMQs this lunchtime.

Expected to be explosive and a challenge to the leadership of May.

Anything to avoid actually dealing with the issues at hand.

It'll be toothless, he's no Geoffrey Howe.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=geoffrey+howe&view=detail&mid=A973005BC03EBDEBD664A973005BC03EBDEBD664&FORM=VRRTAP

For the lazy, the zinger is 16:37 onwards.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it was the belief that on the EU side that if the only acceptable position on the border was one that was completely frictionless and with no physical infrastructure, that this would force the UK into staying in the customs union.

Of course it could still be the case that the UK does cave, but that seems less and less likely. If, as seems probable now, the UK crashes out, this represents a failure not only on the UK but also on the EU side - a miscalculation.

I understand the reluctance of the EU not give full access to the single market while allowing the UK the ability to do trade deals outside. This would undermine the integrity of the single market with other countries demanding the same rights.

However it has to be remembered that the UK are within their rights to leave the EU, single market and customs union, and they have been fairly clear that that is what they intended to do from fairly early on.

But the EU position seems to be that anything short of staying in the customs union is unacceptable. It is either stay in the customs union or crash out. There is no middle road. The border issue was a good way of creating this dilemma. To me this is unreasonable except as a means of taking it out on a country for having the audacity to leave the EU's institutions. I would suggest that the only reason the EU are taking this approach is because the fallout will be concentrated in a small peripheral country of little value to the EU.

I think you have been reading too many UK tabloids. The EU has not taken the position that it is either stay in the CU or crash out. The EU has a range of potential deals on offer, a Norway+ style deal, A Ukraine style deal, or a Ceanada style deal to name some of the main contenders. These deals require varing levels of compromise from the UK, the UK has ruled out all of these potential deals with its red lines.

The UK has the right to leave the EU, and to rule out all possible deals with the EU, but it is not the EU's fault if doing so harms the UK significantly.

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

It'll be toothless, he's no Geoffrey Howe.

Hes gonna have practiced all of 15 minutes in the mirror, expect stumbling, spluttering and repetition as he tries to remember what line hes reading from.


Of course in his eyes he will be on par with churchill

Enzokk

Trasna1 wrote: »

I have to say Katia Adler's reporting from Brussels has been poor. She clearly constrained by the editorial policy of BBC news and doesn't enjoy the kind of access Tony Connolly has.

Did she even mention that the EU are ramping up the no deal preparation in the last few days?

I stopped listening to the Brexitcast podcast a while ago, anyone know if they have changed their view that a deal will work because the EU always moves at the last moment?

J Mysterio wrote: »

Fair play to Soubry here, passionately speaking out against the Brexiteers (video in article):

Tory MPs 'privately say loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs worth it for Brexit', Anna Soubry tells Parliament

'Nobody voted Leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth will take their job away from them'

At least she is saying it. There are absolutely crickets from Labour, other than they will negotiate a deal with the EU that has it all. It was also weird seeing Labour supporters trying to remind people that she is a Tory when people applauded her performance on Monday night. Instead of focusing on those 4 Labour MP's that cost them the vote they were talking about her voting record and how she always votes for the party, when she voted against her party.

Yesterday all of a sudden there are calls for those Labour MP's to be deselected after they cost the party a possible general election. Maybe if they woke up on Monday and put the pressure on them instead of focusing on someone supporting their own party position it may have made a difference.

Leroy42

So Bit Cynical, on which of the 4 pillars should the EU give in to reach a deal, and what implications do you think that will have in terms of competition between the UK and the EU?

Enzokk

The links between the Russians and Brexit seems to grow. I think at the end of the day this will be revealed as one big operation by Russia to destabilize the EU and the USA. At the front and center of Brexit?

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019466439516934144

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019468422768414720

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019470371895103488

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019479054926442496

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019484836363472896

But still, surely we would not have politicians voting for less money and less jobs for their voters, would we?

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1019080862741204993

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

The links between the Russians and Brexit seems to grow. I think at the end of the day this will be revealed as one big operation by Russia to destabilize the EU and the USA. At the front and center of Brexit?

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019466439516934144

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019468422768414720

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019470371895103488

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019479054926442496

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1019484836363472896

But still, surely we would not have politicians voting for less money and less jobs for their voters, would we?

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1019080862741204993

No deal Brexit: 2,800,000 fewer jobs £158bn loss per year
Trade agreement Brexit (outside the single market): 1,750,000 fewer jobs £99bn loss per year
Soft Brexit (EEA & single market): 700,000 fewer jobs £39bn loss per year Remain in EU: No impact on jobs No £ loss per year

In the interests of balanced reporting, I have no doubt that these facts will be highlighted for Telegraph/Sun/Mail/Express readers. No doubt at all.