Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

So it may come down to either Leinster House gives in or Westminster gives in.

A no-deal crash out in March would be absolutely and immediately catastrophic for the UK. They cannot do it, and any threat to do it is an empty threat.

So we know they must give in, just like they gave in last December on this very same issue.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A no-deal crash out in March would be absolutely and immediately catastrophic for the UK. They cannot do it, and any threat to do it is an empty threat.

So we know they must give in, just like they gave in last December on this very same issue.

well.... they pretended at least

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A no-deal crash out in March would be absolutely and immediately catastrophic for the UK. They cannot do it, and any threat to do it is an empty threat.

So we know they must give in, just like they gave in last December on this very same issue.

They would never choose a no-deal Brexit. But such is the incompetence and dysfunction that characterises Westminster at the moment, they could arrive there without choosing to.

The problem is that no-deal crash-out is the default; they don't have to choose it in order to get it. They'll get it unless they affirmatively choose something else. Which requires enough of them to agree on the something else, and that something else to be acceptable to the EU.

Somebody has to blink, and choose what they regard as second-best. Nobody wants to blink first, and that always creates the risk that nobody will blink at all.

And, to be clear, I'm not talking here about negotiations between the UK and the EU. Somebody has to blink in the negotiations the UK is having with itself.

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, of course.The UK cannot exit with no deal in March, they need a transition period and at a minimum a free trade agreement with the EU.

So we call their bluff.

But it won't come to that - the EU has been very clear (to borrow a phrase) that the backstop is in green text already - it is agreed, it is not time limited, and it is going in the Withdrawal Agreement if there is one.

+1

Ireland should absolutely stand our ground and we would be perfectly within our rights both legally and morally to demand that both the EU an the UK respect the agreement we arrived at in December which was a pre-condition for moving on with the WA talks.

While a No deal crash out would be bad for Ireland in the short term, it will be much much worse for the UK, and it would put a red hot poker up their arse to get back to the table with the EU and agree to CU and Single market for NI at the least.

The UK will have absolutely no bargaining power if they crash out. They have no bargaining power now either other than the possibility of calling the whole thing off and getting back to the way things were before without sanction.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A no-deal crash out in March would be absolutely and immediately catastrophic for the UK. They cannot do it, and any threat to do it is an empty threat.

So we know they must give in, just like they gave in last December on this very same issue.

I agree.

However, should they crash out, the problems on the NI border will be trivial to the chaos in the port of Dover, the lorry park on the M2 and M20, and eventually the M25. It will cause the shut down of the car assembly plants and many other JIT industries and commercial undertakings - like supermarkets.

I think sense will prevail - even if it takes a few months of chaos.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A no-deal crash out in March would be absolutely and immediately catastrophic for the UK. They cannot do it, and any threat to do it is an empty threat.

Im any sane debate it would be an empty threat, but I really think there are plenty of voters and MPs that have convinced themselves that the EU is the root cause of all their problems and as such getting out of it anyway you can is the least worst option.

Many seem to have accepted that there will be a hit economically, for the short term, but that the advantages outweight any losses.

On that basis, why would they not opt for a crash out? They seem to be of the opinion that a crash out is no more than simply not being a member of the club, that everything else will continue as before.

Now, whether that group is enough to bring it about it the question.

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

well.... they pretended at least

They gave a written commitment to get to the next phase.

If this was a real red line and they would really prefer a no deal brexit to the backstop, they would have told us to get stuffed last December.

Now they have to sign up to a Withdrawal Agreement with that agreed text in it to get to the next phase.

They will huff and puff with the last minute phone calls and drama just like December, and then sign.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

Technically, we can't veto a Withdrawal Agreement. On the EU side, a WA requires approval by (a) a simple majority in the Parliament, and (b) a qualified majority in the Council. Ireland on its own cannot block a qualified majority; we would need support from other states.

However any future relationship treaty will require unanimity, so I suppose in theory we could say that if the WA is concluded over our protests and fails to deliver an open border, we will veto any subsequent FRT.

But, as Zub has said, it won't come to that. We are where we because the EU has adopted and held to the stance it did. And it didn't adopt that stance out of a desire to be nice to us. There are two factors at work.

1. At heart, the EU is fundamentally a peace project. So defending the GFA and the peace process is absolutely in line with how the EU sees itself and what it is all about.

2. Ireland is only a small state but, then, most of the members states are only small states. The Brexit negotiations are a situation above all others in which the EU has an interest in demonstrating to small states the merits of being part of a greater Union. If you accept that for the the EU the Brexit negotiations are a harm minimisation exercise, then absolutely the last thing the EU will want to do is conduct those negotiations in a way which suggest that the concerns and needs of small states will be thrown overboard if it suits the interests majority. If the UK had actively tried to engineer a situation in which the EU was motivated to stick by Ireland, they could not have done a better job.

Will the UK be excluded from those votes? Or included by deign of the fact that they are still members of the EU?

Or does article 50 preclude the leaving nation from partaking in those votes?

Presume such a situation can't arise that (a) a simple majority in the Parliament, and (b) a qualified majority in the Council could exist for a deal even with the UK voting against in both cases?

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They gave a written commitment to get to the next phase.

If this was a real red line and they would really prefer a no deal brexit to the backstop, they would have told us to get stuffed last December.

Now they have to sign up to a Withdrawal Agreement with that agreed text in it to get to the next phase.

They will huff and puff with the last minute phone calls and drama just like December, and then sign.

But Johnson has stated, and TM seems to be of the same opinion, that whatever they agreed to in December was not what they thought it was. Whether that was simply to move the process on (which I think it was) or due to them really not understanding it is open but it is clear that the UK do not consider the December agreement as anything other than a position at the time.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

They would never choose a no-deal Brexit. But such is the incompetence and dysfunction that characterises Westminster at the moment, they could arrive there without choosing to.

The problem is that no-deal crash-out is the default; they don't have to choose it in order to get it. They'll get it unless they affirmatively choose something else. Which requires enough of them to agree on the something else, and that something else to be acceptable to the EU.

Somebody has to blink, and choose what they regard as second-best. Nobody wants to blink first, and that always creates the risk that nobody will blink at all.

And, to be clear, I'm not talking here about negotiations between the UK and the EU. Somebody has to blink in the negotiations the UK is having with itself.

Their logic has always been idiotic
'We don't want a 'no deal', but we have to keep 'no deal' as an option on the negotiating table so we can get a good deal'

That's fine in a normal negotiation where there is the default option of calling off the deal and going back to the way things were before. In this case, the no deal isn't the status quo, it's a threat of economic suicide.

It's up there with someone in a divorce proceedings threatening to kill himself if his partner doesn't agree to his unreasonable demands despite him being the one who wants to end the marriage because he wants to have a threesome with Bolivia and Turkmenistan.

Threatening self harm in a negotiation doesn't work. The EU would be more harmed by giving into the UKs demands than by rejecting them, therefore, the UK have two choices, to back down, or to go down in a blaze of hubris like the petulant, now homeless child who ran away after he didn't get is own way thinking 'this'll show them' as he eats rotten vegetables from a skip outside Aldi to survive.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They gave a written commitment to get to the next phase.

If this was a real red line and they would really prefer a no deal brexit to the backstop, they would have told us to get stuffed last December.

Now they have to sign up to a Withdrawal Agreement with that agreed text in it to get to the next phase.

They will huff and puff with the last minute phone calls and drama just like December, and then sign.

Hope so because life is hard enough without such bloody minded needless nonsense making things more difficult for no appreciable macro gains for anyone..

I say macro because I'm sure there will be plenty disaster capitalists enjoying a myriad of micro gains aplenty..

But the majority of us will just be plain worse off.

Imreoir2

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. At heart, the EU is fundamentally a peace project. So defending the GFA and the peace process is absolutely in line with how the EU sees itself and what it is all about.

2. Ireland is only a small state but, then, most of the members states are only small states. The Brexit negotiations are a situation above all others in which the EU has an interest in demonstrating to small states the merits of being part of a greater Union. If you accept that for the the EU the Brexit negotiations are a harm minimisation exercise, then absolutely the last thing the EU will want to do is conduct those negotiations in a way which suggest that the concerns and needs of small states will be thrown overboard if it suits the interests majority. If the UK had actively tried to engineer a situation in which the EU was motivated to stick by Ireland, they could not have done a better job.

Add to that the reality that the backstop will have a significant impact on the future trade relationship talks. If there is no backstop, and the prevention of a hard border rests on those talks, then the UK has a hostage it can use in those negiotiations. If the backstop is already legally in place, then the UK is essentially over a barrel, having to accept whatever they can get.

Seth Brundle

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Johnson has stated, and TM seems to be of the same opinion, that whatever they agreed to in December was not what they thought it was. Whether that was simply to move the process on (which I think it was) or due to them really not understanding it is open but it is clear that the UK do not consider the December agreement as anything other than a position at the time.

I think they know exactly what the December agreement was but didn't have the foresight to see what would happen. Once they agreed to the backstop (and needed the support of the DUP), this situation was always going to happen.
Now that it has happened and they are up against the wall they are reaching for the flimsiest excuse to wriggle out of it.
It's showing their clambour for Brexit to be even more pathetic than we all previously thought!

joe40

Akrasia wrote: »

Their logic has always been idiotic
'We don't want a 'no deal', but we have to keep 'no deal' as an option on the negotiating table so we can get a good deal'

That's fine in a normal negotiation where there is the default option of calling off the deal and going back to the way things were before. In this case, the no deal isn't the status quo, it's a threat of economic suicide.

It's up there with someone in a divorce proceedings threatening to kill himself if his partner doesn't agree to his unreasonable demands despite him being the one who wants to end the marriage because he wants to have a threesome with Bolivia and Turkmenistan.

Threatening self harm in a negotiation doesn't work. The EU would be more harmed by giving into the UKs demands than by rejecting them, therefore, the UK have two choices, to back down, or to go down in a blaze of hubris like the petulant, now homeless child who ran away after he didn't get is own way thinking 'this'll show them' as he eats rotten vegetables from a skip outside Aldi to survive.

I really hope you are right, and what you say makes perfect sense.
I would worry that the hardline Tories, Mogg, Johnston et al, have enough private wealth and resources to insulate them from economic harm.
The DUP are coming from a "no surrender" ideological position that is very hard to deal with. (not actually representative of NI population, not even all the unionists)

It is this combination of old privilege, harking back to an age of empire, and ideological dinosaurs in the North that has me worried. The fact that both of these groups have disproportionate influence is worrying.

If the EU was dealing with a pragmatic UK government, there would be a mutually beneficial deal. But then again a pragmatic UK government would never have called this referendum.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Many seem to have accepted that there will be a hit economically, for the short term, but that the advantages outweight any losses. On that basis, why would they not opt for a crash out?

It is easy to say "short term economic hit", but civil servants are explaining to the PM right now: no food in the shops. No medicines on the shelves. Flights grounded. Factories shuttered, mass layoffs of manufacturing workers. 30 mile tailbacks into Dover where the port has collapsed. Eu citizens queueing to escape the chaos at all ports, including critical NHS staff from cleaners through porters, nurses, doctors and consultants. Nuclear reactors shutting down - power shortages, brownouts, cuts.

Rationing. Food aid. Rioting. Looting. Baton charges. Mounted police riding down civilians in the streets. Live ammunition used at Westminster.

I remember the miners strike, the poll tax riots, the IMF being called in: this will be worse than all of them combined. Nothing like it has been seen in the UK since World War II.

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is easy to say "short term economic hit", but civil servants are explaining to the PM right now: no food in the shops. No medicines on the shelves. Flights grounded. Factories shuttered, mass layoffs of manufacturing workers. 30 mile tailbacks into Dover where the port has collapsed. Eu citizens queueing to escape the chaos at all ports, including critical NHS staff from cleaners through porters, nurses, doctors and consultants. Nuclear reactors shutting down - power shortages, brownouts, cuts.

Rationing. Food aid. Rioting. Looting. Baton charges. Mounted police riding down civilians in the streets. Live ammunition used at Westminster.

I remember the miners strike, the poll tax riots, the IMF being called in: this will be worse than all of them combined. Nothing like it has been seen in the UK since World War II.

You paint a comforting picture. :eek:


You forgot to add Scottish independence and NI descending into chaos.

Mezcita

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is easy to say "short term economic hit", but civil servants are explaining to the PM right now: no food in the shops. No medicines on the shelves. Flights grounded. Factories shuttered, mass layoffs of manufacturing workers. 30 mile tailbacks into Dover where the port has collapsed. Eu citizens queueing to escape the chaos at all ports, including critical NHS staff from cleaners through porters, nurses, doctors and consultants. Nuclear reactors shutting down - power shortages, brownouts, cuts.

Rationing. Food aid. Rioting. Looting. Baton charges. Mounted police riding down civilians in the streets. Live ammunition used at Westminster.

I remember the miners strike, the poll tax riots, the IMF being called in: this will be worse than all of them combined. Nothing like it has been seen in the UK since World War II.

But yet despite them being ever so close to the cliff 1 GBP is now worth €1.14 and that's something which I can't get my head around. It was worth €1.11 a month ago.

The markets obviously don't think that the UK will no deal despite the fact that it appears more likely than ever. Any currency traders in here?

LuckyLloyd

barry181091 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/divided-britain-study-finds-huge-chasm-in-attitudes

This is just sad

Completely unsurprising but terrible nonetheless. British society is circling the drain.

Zubeneschamali

Mezcita wrote: »

The markets obviously don't think that the UK will no deal despite the fact that it appears more likely than ever. Any currency traders in here?

To my litany of disasters earlier, add: sterling collapses, emergency currency controls to stop a flood of capital fleeing the country, bank runs, stock market chaos.

This will happen before Brexit day just as soon as the market realizes no deal is coming.

Sterling tanking could actually be the thing which forces the Government to do a deal.

LuckyLloyd

Yeah I don’t think Sterling’s current rate prices in a No Deal scenario

Seth Brundle

Only saw this now: Simon Carswell tags along with a trucker from NI to see how simple their life is currently...

Brexit, the truck driver and 20 tonnes of frozen chicken
To truly understand Brexit, haul €60,000 worth of food from Northern Ireland to England via Dublin
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/brexit-the-truck-driver-and-20-tonnes-of-frozen-chicken-1.3660279

Mc Love

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is easy to say "short term economic hit", but civil servants are explaining to the PM right now: no food in the shops. No medicines on the shelves. Flights grounded. Factories shuttered, mass layoffs of manufacturing workers. 30 mile tailbacks into Dover where the port has collapsed. Eu citizens queueing to escape the chaos at all ports, including critical NHS staff from cleaners through porters, nurses, doctors and consultants. Nuclear reactors shutting down - power shortages, brownouts, cuts.

Rationing. Food aid. Rioting. Looting. Baton charges. Mounted police riding down civilians in the streets. Live ammunition used at Westminster.

I remember the miners strike, the poll tax riots, the IMF being called in: this will be worse than all of them combined. Nothing like it has been seen in the UK since World War II.

Except the civil servants arent, according to a friend of mine, who was working on Brexit, who told me that the funds have been pulled from it, and most of the funding for it was coming from the EU :eek:

Mezcita

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To my litany of disasters earlier, add: sterling collapses, emergency currency controls to stop a flood of capital fleeing the country, bank runs, stock market chaos.

This will happen before Brexit day just as soon as the market realizes no deal is coming.

Sterling tanking could actually be the thing which forces the Government to do a deal.

Possibly best suited for the Gambling forum but shouldn't we all therefore be shorting Sterling? Meaning, the vast majority of us in here seem to think that the UK is about to drive off the cliff. The markets think otherwise from the current look of it.

Kind of reminds me of Brexit's odds of actually happening a few weeks before the vote. They got that wrong...

prawnsambo

Mezcita wrote: »

Possibly best suited for the Gambling forum but shouldn't we all therefore be shorting Sterling? Meaning, the vast majority of us in here seem to think that the UK is about to drive off the cliff. The markets think otherwise from the current look of it.

Kind of reminds me of Brexit's odds of actually happening a few weeks before the vote. They got that wrong...

The majority of the currency market is short-term. If you watch it carefully, it's like a herd of sheep waking up every morning and being startled by the tree that has always been there. It settles down after a while, but a headline can startle it all over again.

So until there is no other outcome than a hard brexit, sterling will gradually slide with occasional hiccups as somebody says something that when looked at in the right light from the corner of their eye may look something like a reprieve. Rinse and repeat.

Hurrache

Coveney getting a lot of phrase both sides of the sea over on his Radio 4 interview this morning, with Humphry's getting a lot of criticism, including by BBC employees.

His interview starts around 2:10:00 in this link, and his correction of Humphry on the already signed backstop at 2:14:00
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qks

Winters

From listening to an interview with a pro Brexit UK citizen who was defiant in the face of a possible breakup of the United Kingdom it reminds me of the existence of Yugoslavia as an example of a country that went through such drastic economical and political change amid a nationalistic crisis before it's breakup in 1992.

When can we start referring to the UK as Ukayslavia?

joe40

This is from an article in the Guardian today.
The brave new world of trade deals for the Brits, when the Americans will force lower food standards on them.


The letter from Trump’s trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, was sent to Orrin Hatch, the chair of the Senate finance committee, House speaker, Paul Ryan, and Democratic House and Senate leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, along with similar letters on starting trade talks with Japan and the EU.
“We are committed to concluding these negotiations with timely and substantive results for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses,” Lighthizer said, a hint that the US would expect a wide-ranging deal to cover controversial agriculture products.

The UK international trade secretary, Liam Fox, has said the British public will not accept the diluting of animal welfare standards, though Trump’s commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, has said a US-UK trade deal hinges on scrapping EU food standards regulations, including on chlorinated chicken.

Hermy

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think sense will prevail - even if it takes a few months of chaos.

I think this is what fascinates me about Brexit - that there's the potential for sense not to prevail.

Angry bird

Winters wrote: »

From listening to an interview with a pro Brexit UK citizen who was defiant in the face of a possible breakup of the United Kingdom it reminds me of the existence of Yugoslavia as an example of a country that went through such drastic economical and political change amid a nationalistic crisis before it's breakup in 1992.

When can we start referring to the UK as Ukayslavia?

KEW. Kingdom of England and Wales, pretty dull really. A no deal will see Scotland, then NI hitting the exits and finally an end to centuries of playing the triumphalist orange card.

Leroy42

John Major, a previous PM and leader of the Tories (although according to some Tories is akin to Corbyn) made a speech recently of which part was carried in the Guardian.

It covered Brexit and how, in his opinion, it was a terrible idea and would lead to reduction in peoples prospects and prosperity.

One interesting angle was that of the relationship with the US. HE stated that the US were very power focused. My reading of that was that the US are only interested in something if there is a benefit to them. Thus the special relationship with the UK, whilst grounded in a shared history, shared language and similar cultures, is driven by what the UK can offer to the US. The UK, as a leading member of the EU, gave the US a voice within the EU.

This will now be lost due to Brexit. The assumption from Brexiteers is that the shared culture etc is enough to continue the relationship, whilst Major is saying that the US will refocus itself onto a new partner to enable it to continue to have influence.

Although, I suppose if one is a true brexiteer then this is actually a good thing as clearly it takes control back from the US.