Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Zubeneschamali

Mezcita wrote: »

Possibly best suited for the Gambling forum but shouldn't we all therefore be shorting Sterling?

Well, no, because the UK are not going to try a no-deal Brexit, they are bluffing.

Which is why sterling is holding up.

Zubeneschamali

Angry bird wrote: »

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.

The 1707 Act of Union united the Kingdom of England with the Kingdom of Scotland. Wales doesn't count.

lawred2

Angry bird wrote: »

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.

Wales will not come into the reckoning

Infini

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, because the UK are not going to try a no-deal Brexit, they are bluffing.

Which is why sterling is holding up.

Bluff only works when your opponent thinks they have something to use against them. The UK only has the ability to wreck its own country with its current tactics. Its an inconvenience to the EU, its annoying and aggrivating to Ireland for reopening a pandoras box of problems up the North but its potentially Existencial to the UK as this foolhardy apporach could ultimately end their country as we know it.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, because the UK are not going to try a no-deal Brexit, they are bluffing.

Which is why sterling is holding up.

They may well be bluffing, but how are they going to get themselves out of the hole?

They have allowed this narrative that anything less than a full Brexit is somehow a direct attack on democracy. That any attempt to deal with the NI issue is in effect an attack on the UK itself. They have stood by whilst a rouwdy press calls out anyone who dares to even question Brexit. Ex PM's are being labeled almost traitors for even pointing out some of the issues.

TM has made so many promises to so many people that it is hard to see how she can find a way out. But even if she does, there only needs to be a relatively small rump of MPs to vote down any deal and it ends up as No Deal.

So what may have started as posturing and bluff has a very real chance of being almost inevitable at this stage.

farmchoice

Hurrache wrote: »

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

that was very good from coveney, im no FG supporter but i really think the government and covneney in particular are doing a stellar job. honorable mention to FF as well for not trying to upset the apple cart.

joe40

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, because the UK are not going to try a no-deal Brexit, they are bluffing.

Which is why sterling is holding up.

Are you the type of person who is usually right, because I really hope you are:)

That is mostly for my own selfish reason, sterling collapse is really hurting.

ancapailldorcha

farmchoice wrote: »

that was very good from coveney, im no FG supporter but i really think the government and covneney in particular are doing a stellar job. honorable mention to FF as well for not trying to upset the apple cart.

Indeed. It must be nice to live somewhere where the two main parties put the welfare of the nation ahead of their own agendas and warring factions.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Indeed. It must be nice to live somewhere where the two main parties put the welfare of the nation ahead of their own agendas and warring factions.

Well, lets not get carried away.

Neither party have covered themselves with glory in the past. Maybe that has chanced, but I really doubt it.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

They may well be bluffing, but how are they going to get themselves out of the hole?.

Bluff right up to the real deadline (maybe Christmas?) and then May announces victory with a Withdrawal agreement and a Future relationship sketched as Canada++ with NI backstop.

Dare the ERG/DUP to vote against it and cause no-deal armageddon.

ERG bottle it. If DUP vote against, Labour Blairites help May pass it as the other option is too terrible to contemplate.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, lets not get carried away.

Neither party have covered themselves with glory in the past. Maybe that has chanced, but I really doubt it.

I should have added that these are exceptional circumstances. The Tories have gone from trying to convince people that Brexit will enrich the nation to telling us that we'll survive while Labour just idles around waiting to get into No. 10 instead of acting like an opposition.

mrbrianj

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, because the UK are not going to try a no-deal Brexit, they are bluffing.

Which is why sterling is holding up.

Thats what sane people expect alright. The problems start with some in the UK government actually wanting a no deal walk away and the rest wanting a deal that will put the EU 27 at a competitive disadvantage - which the EU cant accept.

The easiest thing for the UK and EU26 - is to enforce a border IN Ireland and cut the EU / IRL citizens in NI adrift along with the GFA - the defacto leaders in the North are actually campaigning for this!

That delivers the Brexit the Tories want (crazy and all as that is) and allows the EU to move on and settle markets and deal with the UK as a 3rd country.

Its not a pretty picture for Ireland - trade wise we are lost which ever way Brexit goes - but at this stage there does not seem to be a solution that works for both sides that allows an acceptable outcome for Ireland / NI.

Sam Russell

I would like a clarification.

If all the treaties fall on 29th March 2019, then what laws or treaties govern the UK status after that date? Does the ECJ still decide all legal matters? Are countries that have a FTA with the EU obliged to continue to consider that those FTAs still aply to the UK as if they were still members of the EU and not a third country? How does certification for things like aviation continue?

In other words, business as usual after 29th of March 2019 until the transition period expires.

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

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

Was that the actual show presenter who was so outrageously biased? It sounded more like some Brexiteer guest than an anchor?

Either way a knowledgeable, eloquent and politely forceful presentation by Simon Coveney.

An Ciarraioch

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would like a clarification.

If all the treaties fall on 29th March 2019, then what laws or treaties govern the UK status after that date? Does the ECJ still decide all legal matters? Are countries that have a FTA with the EU obliged to continue to consider that those FTAs still aply to the UK as if they were still members of the EU and not a third country? How does certification for things like aviation continue?

In other words, business as usual after 29th of March 2019 until the transition period expires.

The transition period only kicks in, of course, if there is a deal - if the treaties lapse, it's straight to WTO status.

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

Was that the actual show presenter who was so outrageously biased? It sounded more like some Brexiteer guest than an anchor?

Yeah, he was the presenter. Coveney handled him well. I understand as someone hosting a debate you should give the other view of things, but he was a bit mad when he asked Coveney should he not take into account the opinions of Johnson and the likes.

briany

mrbrianj wrote: »

Thats what sane people expect alright. The problems start with some in the UK government actually wanting a no deal walk away and the rest wanting a deal that will put the EU 27 at a competitive disadvantage - which the EU cant accept.

The easiest thing for the UK and EU26 - is to enforce a border IN Ireland and cut the EU / IRL citizens in NI adrift along with the GFA - the defacto leaders in the North are actually campaigning for this!

That delivers the Brexit the Tories want (crazy and all as that is) and allows the EU to move on and settle markets and deal with the UK as a 3rd country.

Its not a pretty picture for Ireland - trade wise we are lost which ever way Brexit goes - but at this stage there does not seem to be a solution that works for both sides that allows an acceptable outcome for Ireland / NI.

Disregarding the GFA as flagrantly as that will make any future peace agreements in the North not worth the paper they're written on as there will be an unwritten clause of, "....if it becomes inconvenient for one or more signing parties to uphold...."

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would like a clarification.

If all the treaties fall on 29th March 2019, then what laws or treaties govern the UK status after that date? Does the ECJ still decide all legal matters? Are countries that have a FTA with the EU obliged to continue to consider that those FTAs still aply to the UK as if they were still members of the EU and not a third country? How does certification for things like aviation continue?

In other words, business as usual after 29th of March 2019 until the transition period expires.

No. The transition period is being claimed to be business as usual, but it is not legally the case. In effect, the UK leaves the EU on the 29th, and thus is no longer party to the agreements that the EU have with 3rd countries.

It is the expectation, that many countries will accept the transitional nature and go along with this, but it is not a certainty. The likes of Japan, for example, might very well want to renegotiate the recent trade deal with the EU on the basis that a very large market within the EU is no longer part of it (I do not know if UK leaving was part of the deal).

On the other side, Japan has no trade deal with the UK on the 29th. You can bet that any goodwill by these countries will be deemed to have a cost which the UK will have to pay at some stage.

In the event of a no deal, then all bets are off and the EU will not even be asking 3rd countries to carry over the trade deals. That, again, doesn't mean they won't.

Winters

For all this talk about the backstop hopefully never being needed as the FTA will avoid the need for the border, am I right to say that that a FTA will only resolve the border issue IF the UK stays in the CU and SM?

To put it simply, are the UK's only options:

A. The Norway model (to stay in the CU & SM) or
B. The Canada deal plus hard land or sea border.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

No. The transition period is being claimed to be business as usual, but it is not legally the case. In effect, the UK leaves the EU on the 29th, and thus is no longer party to the agreements that the EU have with 3rd countries.

It is the expectation, that many countries will accept the transitional nature and go along with this, but it is not a certainty. The likes of Japan, for example, might very well want to renegotiate the recent trade deal with the EU on the basis that a very large market within the EU is no longer part of it (I do not know if UK leaving was part of the deal).

On the other side, Japan has no trade deal with the UK on the 29th. You can bet that any goodwill by these countries will be deemed to have a cost which the UK will have to pay at some stage.

In the event of a no deal, then all bets are off and the EU will not even be asking 3rd countries to carry over the trade deals. That, again, doesn't mean they won't.

That was my understanding, but the talk all appears to assume business as usual.

Also, the backstop will always be there because unless and until the UK replaces all the SM and CU requirement for NI with equivalent conditions, and if they do, it precludes the trade deals they see as their salvation.

mrbrianj

briany wrote: »

Disregarding the GFA as flagrantly as that will make any future peace agreements in the North not worth the paper they're written on as there will be an unwritten clause of, "....if it becomes inconvenient for one or more signing parties to uphold...."

Yes, its totally crazy the soundings coming from some members of the UK government and the DUP.

On the BBC NI political show (nolan) a DUP MP even laughed when he expanded the party line that they were against any hard border with the 'EU will make the republic put a border up on their side'!

The EU are fighting hard for the GFA against what seems like the UK just not understanding or caring about the implications.

_Puma_

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would like a clarification.

If all the treaties fall on 29th March 2019, then what laws or treaties govern the UK status after that date? Does the ECJ still decide all legal matters? Are countries that have a FTA with the EU obliged to continue to consider that those FTAs still aply to the UK as if they were still members of the EU and not a third country? How does certification for things like aviation continue?

In other words, business as usual after 29th of March 2019 until the transition period expires.

No Transition without a deal. EU diplomats meeting this evening to prepare for a EU no deal summit in November. Leo answers question in the dail this morning that the government is moving to the next stage in planning for No deal outcome.

An extension of the transition sounds like its the last movement by the EU negotiation team and if accepted by TM the summit will be pushed out. The backstop is agreed in negotiations by both sides and what is agreed will not be unpicked no matter how much rhetoric comes out of the UK media and Brexit lobby. Theresa May knows this. She will likely bluff up to the November summit but all bets are off what happens after that.

bob mcbob

There was an interesting story in the Times yesterday which explained a bit of what is happening with what passes for a government.

TM is negotiating everything with the EU thru her civil servant Olly Robbins. The cabinet knows what is going on as much as people on here.

Apparently on Sunday, Raab found out that TM was going to agree to all EU demands. That is why he fly to Brussels on Sunday to tell Barnier that what TM was agreeing to was not the British governments position.

Dysfunctional does not begin to describe the Tory party at present. More like a bunch of drunks at closing time trying to work out what to do next.

lawred2

bob mcbob wrote: »

There was an interesting story in the Times yesterday which explained a bit of what is happening with what passes for a government.

TM is negotiating everything with the EU thru her civil servant Olly Robbins. The cabinet knows what is going on as much as people on here.

Apparently on Sunday, Raab found out that TM was going to agree to all EU demands. That is why he fly to Brussels on Sunday to tell Barnier that what TM was agreeing to was not the British governments position.

Dysfunctional does not begin to describe the Tory party at present. More like a bunch of drunks at closing time trying to work out what to do next.

Well if that's the case - who is actually setting the government's position?

That would be a sackable offence in almost every democratic parliament in the western world.

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

That would be a sackable offence in almost every democratic parliament in the western world.

I don't buy it - more likely Raab went to make sure the EU don't tell everyone that the UK is folding until some choreographed "win" for May can be organized.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't buy it - more likely Raab went to make sure the EU don't tell everyone that the UK is folding until some choreographed "win" for May can be organized.

hard to imagine that that wouldn't have been leaked by now...

An Ciarraioch

Howlin appears to have backtracked significantly on yesterday's comments - he now accepts that the national governments weren't reneging on commitments, and merely states that some in the PES asked him whether the backstop had to be included in the WA, before he informed them that it did.

Sand

Winters wrote: »

For all this talk about the backstop hopefully never being needed as the FTA will avoid the need for the border, am I right to say that that a FTA will only resolve the border issue IF the UK stays in the CU and SM?

To put it simply, are the UK's only options:

A. The Norway model (to stay in the CU & SM) or
B. The Canada deal plus hard land or sea border.

The Norway model is actually a bit of a misnomer. Norway is one of 3 EFTA countries participating in the EEA, and the EEA is fairly modular and flexible in a way EU membership is not. It can be tailored to each member's own requirements. Liechtenstein for example has a bar on freedom of movement, while retaining membership of the single market: a core UK objective.

So when we say Norway model, it disguises that there could have been a 'UK model' negotiated, which was bespoke to the UK's own needs. The UK ruled it out early on due to their foolish red lines. And I don't think it is on offer now, given all the mistrust and anger sown by the UK's behaviour over the last 2 years.

farmchoice

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Howlin appears to have backtracked significantly on yesterday's comments - he now accepts that the national governments weren't reneging on commitments, and merely states that some in the PES asked him whether the backstop had to be included in the WA, before he informed them that it did.

brendan howlin made an absolute fool of himself yesterday, either he is one of the only politicians in Ireland who hasn't got a clue about whats going on or he pulled this stunt for a bit of attention.

bob mcbob

lawred2 wrote: »

Well if that's the case - who is actually setting the government's position?

That would be a sackable offence in almost every democratic parliament in the western world.

Nobody - it was stated that there is no agreed government position.

There were quotes from an anonymous current cabinet ministers outwardly loyal to TM who described the situation as chaos.