Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Professor Moriarty

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.

If that's true, he should be sacked immediately by TM. Better inside the tent though.

Leroy42

bob mcbob wrote: »

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.

The reports coming out of the cabinet meeting yesterday, mostly lost in the fact that nobody actually resigned, was that they had no policy going forward. They wouldn't accept, couldn't accept, the EU proposal but had literally nothing in terms of a position themselves.

So TM is going to go to Brussels and try to get other leaders on board. What is she going to say when they ask her the obvious question of how she intends to actually get any deal through.

An Ciarraioch

The Aussies damn the prospects of a UK trade deal with faint praise:

https://threader.app/thread/1052458691629338626

Hurrache

bob mcbob wrote: »

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.

He actually flew out without her say so in order to undermine her?

briany

Can someone chime in on this scenario, please.

Let's say the UK gets no deal. But let's also say that they commit to this idea of no border, as Mogg has suggested. Literally no (tangible) border, just like it is today.

Will they have a border at the Port of Dover? If yes, does that mean that the UK would be proposing to treat two routes from the same trading jurisdiction wholly differently? Does that have a leg to stand on, legally? I know the WTO has its Favoured Nations rule, but that's dealing with different nations/trading entities, not two routes from the same one.

Depending on how chaotic getting goods through the continental-facing ports turns out to be, could we get to a weird scenario where it's actually cheaper and less hassle simply to ship freight to Ireland and then move it into NI and on to Britain. Or, in fact, just ship it directly to Northern Ireland, if there's to be no border?

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Aussies damn the prospects of a UK trade deal with faint praise:

https://threader.app/thread/1052458691629338626

Essentially, this paper sees the UK as a wounded animal to be treated with caution and exploited. It's a cold shower for any British person reading it.

Hurrache

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Aussies damn the prospects of a UK trade deal with faint praise:

https://threader.app/thread/1052458691629338626

All the cards are in the hands of Australia.

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Aussies damn the prospects of a UK trade deal with faint praise:

https://threader.app/thread/1052458691629338626

Ouch

Imreoir2

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.

If there is no deal, then the UK has nothing. They will be on their own and will have to beg other countries to agree something quick to overcome the worst effects, but it will be chaos regardless.

If there is a deal, then while legally speaking the treaties no longer apply to the UK, both the EU and the UK will have agreed to act as if they did still apply and in terms of trade both the EU and UK will expect other third countries to respect that and continue on trading with the UK as if nothing has happened. Some third countries might not want to do that, but I don't think there is much expectation that anyone who has a trade deal with the EU is going to want to annoy the EU over a small technicality when it is more beneficial for them to go along with it. Especially if the EU makes it clear that it continues to consider the UK as part of its customs territory during the transition period and any tarrifs imposed on the UK are a breach of the trade deal as far as the EU is concerned. It could happen, but probably wont.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is she going to say when they ask her the obvious question of how she intends to actually get any deal through.

Most likely some long winded version of nothing. Which will mean that the November summit will not be formally agreed and will be relegated to "this date maybe, IF there is a good reason to hold it at all", and probably a further anouncment that the EU is stepping up no-deal preperatation.

Imreoir2

Hurrache wrote: »

All the cards are in the hands of Australia.

Yeah, let one of the big guys like the EU or the US knock the stuffing out of them because they are desperate, and when they have shown just how weak they are, we can demand the same terms.

Panrich

The French have published their emergency legislation details for a no deal Brexit.

https://twitter.com/kimwillsher1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1052469712343486465&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Fblog%2Flive%2F2018%2Foct%2F17%2Fbrexit-eu-summit-may-pmqs-corbyn-blair-heseltine-and-clegg-urge-eu-leaders-to-extend-article-50-to-allow-2nd-referendum-politics-live%3Fpage%3Dwith%253Ablock-5bc72735e4b0dfdbdb80e8d6

Looks like Visas and checks on all lorries for a start. Pressure is ramping up at this stage.

The actual document in French

http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html

joe40

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

LeinsterDub

joe40 wrote: »

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

DUP : Fear of a United Ireland
Brexiter : Rule Britannia, Dunkirk Spirt

kuro68k

joe40 wrote: »

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

Some people will get rich from this. It's good for them.

Some people will see a soft ethnic cleansing as Johnny Foreigner leaves.

All the others are just deluded idiots.

J Mysterio

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Similarly my earliest memory of crossing the border was the car being surrounded at one of the check points by armed soldiers and my dad pointing out the snipers up in a bluff, and this was around the early to mid-1990's. And that wasn't even the high point of the troubles. I don't think anyone who experienced what the border actually was would be so flippant as to say the issues can be solved by technological solutions or that it's all in the past. Giving my age away a small bit, but I remember in fifth class we were talking about the IRA break in the cease fire around 97/98 in the bloody playground, and this was down in west Munster. Omagh was a particularly vivid memory as we had recently gotten cable so it was non stop on the TV. My younger brothers don't have those memories and I always hoped that the fact that the GFA had at the very least meant that kids in the republic wouldn't have to worry about such things. There are three years between me and the next sibling, and they don't have any such memories.

The house next door to us was used to house Catholics from the North who had to flee due to the violence up there. The last family had a young girl who came into our class in fourth class. She introduced herself by saying she was from Belfast and they had moved down because the previous month a firebomb had been thrown through the sitting room window in the middle of the night. I'm absolutely disgusted with how the UK has been handling this, they're so flippant about the very legitimate concerns and worries people, on both sides of the border, Protestants, Catholics, Republicans, and Unionists (bar the DUP) have about a renewed border.

The offie down the road from me is run by a family who fled NI in the troubles, after their father was killed.

When I lived in Cork, I attended a football group run by a guy whos family had also fled the violence.

Plenty of examples, but thanks for sharing it.

Leroy42

joe40 wrote: »

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

Because they are betting that the EU won't ever let it get to that point. They firmly believe that the EU needs them more and as such will work something out.

Raab 1st no deal document release included so many instances of a stated no deal with most issues work out even on a temporary nature. Of course planes will continue to fly. Of course medicines will continue to be traded. Of course other countries will simply transpose the current EU trade deals into the UK.

Why not. They are a massive market and everyone will need them.

Nody

joe40 wrote: »

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

Not much to be devils advocate about to be honest; their positions are basically this:

Brexiteers - Two versions
1) Vulture capitalists who'll make a ton of money (or their friends will and they get a kick back as a "consultant" or "director" etc. down the line) from the chaos. They will personally not be that impacted and will mitigate it with buying a permanent residency in another EU country if needed. The more chaos the better for them while "sticking it to the man" as their voters wanted them to even if it is utterly stupid.

2) We want hard crash out, no really, seriously trust us, btw can we make those deals on the side? This is the larger part and are the likes of ERG group etc. When they talk about "no deal" they don't mean "no no deal"; what they mean is "Not the deal you propose but we'll strike multiple small side deals in the areas we need instead such as airplanes etc. but not a big deal overall with to much EU control". There is an obvious cross over here with group 1 as well to a certain extent but their version of "no deal" is basically that we don't have a big deal but tons of smaller deals with something similar to a Canada++ model but with no big deal. The idea being EU will be so desperate that UK can get away with more due to it (yea, no comment on that one). This group would include the likes of Dyson's founder who thinks he can get away with ****tier products due to lower standards after Brexit but still insists he should get as much money as now in form of EU support but from the UK government instead for example.

Now DUP are even easier. In DUPs world there is only one thing that matters and that's being British. The fact that the rest of UK don't see them as Brits and most of the time could not care about the ass end of the country does not matter to them. They are blue blooded Brits and God Save the Queen. To them if UK had a nuclear strike flagged in advance by Russia they would demand Putin nuke them as well so they don't need to feel different. They got such an inferiority complex that anything, and that means literally speaking ANYTHING, that's different from UK is an affront that needs to be fixed (except of course for things such as gay marriage and abortion but those are not talked about publically because "look we're British and proud about it damn it" now stop talking about the stuff). Hence for DUP they would rather see NI burn down around them as long as it's the same fire as is raging in the UK no matter the cost locally "because it's worth it to be British".

pH

joe40 wrote: »

Am I missing something but is there any way that a no deal exit would not be an absolute disaster for the UK, basically what is the best case scenario for them in that event.

Also why do the brexiteers and especially DUP nor realise this.
They talk about "no deal" as if will be an inconvenience that has to be managed, as opposed to a catastrophe.

Anyone want a go at playing devils advocate for them? Purely hypothetically

Obviously as has been said ad-infinitum no deal is better than a bad deal. The EU could for example demand 50 Billion a year, offer a terrible imbalanced trade deal, enforce ECJ jurisdiction etc.

It would seem obvious that for the UK, remaining in the custom union/single market without any of the influence of being in the EU is an almost suicidal (economy wise move), because more than actual tariffs the EU is very keen of protecting its markets with 'regulations' and entering into a treaty that commits you to obey rules that will obviously created to disadvantage you is economic madness.

On the NI border, the Irish position seems deeply hypocritical, however inflammatory border checks would be, it would seem obvious that the equivalent checks between the UK and NI would be equally inflammatory to the 'other side' up there.

It also seems deeply suspicious. I could see good arguments why Irish products can continue to travel up north (and vice versa) but it doesn't seem obvious why the 'backstop' seems to have to include opening the NI market to German cars, french wines instead of just RoI produce.

It also isn't clear why these checks are needed. Are there tax implications, if the 'backstop' was put into action could ASDA still run supermarkets in NI, can UK phone operators offer services etc.

Who will be doing these checks? EU employees, what powers will they have? If ASDA wants to import baked beans into NI and there is a tarif on UK goods entering the EU then who exactly is that tariff paid to?

Sand

The kindest interpretation of the 'no deal' advocates are that they do not see it as an end state. Their absolute objective is to exit the EU, and they are deeply suspicious of any deal with keeps the UK entangled with the EU and its structures. They want a hard-break that cannot be easily reversed by a change of government.

So they prefer 'no deal' which gives a clearcut, irreversible Brexit over a deal which leaves the UK in the EU environment, and which might be plausibly reversed in a few years. They're willing to absorb any amount of economic pain to achieve an aim they see as more important than GDP growth.

Of course, they're not alone. Labour and JC want 10 Downing Street so badly that they too are willing to accept 'no deal' to achieve that. A disastrous economic fallout could even be seen as beneficial, as it offers the opportunity of exploiting the chaos to completely change the UK.

In the UK right now, there is several groups which are prioritising non-economic goals over and beyond economic performance. Given the doctrine of Clinton, Blair, Brown and Obama has been that economic performance is all that matters, its revolutionary. But its best observed from a distance.

BonnieSituation

prawnsambo wrote: »

You paint a comforting picture. :eek:


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

I'm okay with the first part of that.

Nody

pH wrote: »

It also seems deeply suspicious. I could see good arguments why Irish products can continue to travel up north (and vice versa) but it doesn't seem obvious why the 'backstop' seems to have to include opening the NI market to German cars, french wines instead of just RoI produce.

Because doing so would require border controls to check what's in the actual truck at the border; hence the need for NI to be in the single market to avoid checks at the border between Ireland & NI by ensuring any goods imported to the single market can go into NI. By your proposal of only RoI products you'd need to check every truck to see if they contain non RoI products or not (because there is no way to know without checking) as well as any goods leaving Ireland to check it does not contain NI products.

It also isn't clear why these checks are needed. Are there tax implications, if the 'backstop' was put into action could ASDA still run supermarkets in NI, can UK phone operators offer services etc.

Because NI as part of the single market their sea border becomes a third party border for the single market which requires exactly the same controls as any other third party border to the single market. The single market border is either between Ireland and NI or NI and mainland UK but there will always be such a border. Why? Because any imports to the single market has to go through very strict controls (quality, conformity to EU regulation, labelling, qouta limitations etc.) and as it's coming from a third country (which UK becomes) the same controls has to be done as for if it came from Peru, China or Russia. All third party countries have to be treated equally under WTO terms; ergo no exceptions possible for UK.

Who will be doing these checks? EU employees, what powers will they have? If ASDA wants to import baked beans into NI and there is a tarif on UK goods entering the EU then who exactly is that tariff paid to?

Depends on the controls in general but there are no EU employees at any border; there are local staff trained to a certain standard by the local government. Now Ireland may suplement this to NI at the start but strictly speaking it's a UK requirment to ensure people are trained and ready. The duty question however is to EU; all countries pay it in to EU's budget but often do some offsetting in practice (i.e. EU don't pay us 20 million in funding for X and we offset that with not paying 20 million of duties to EU's budget and move the money directly over to X instead of paying them to EU first).

J Mysterio

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.

To cover themselves on this issue, and placate the DUP and ERG, they had to choose between being sneaky or ignorant. They chose ignorant.

Mc Love

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qks Coveney on Radio4 this morning, from 2hr 10mins in, and things get heated from 2:18 onwards.

Sand

I thought Coveney did well. Coveney stated Ireland's objective is to avoid any disturbance to peace and stability on the island of Ireland. The presenter made some stupid comment to the effect of 'The GFA is in the past, many people in NI want to remain in the UK, and you have to respect that above all else'.

I would think, no, not above all else.

mrbrianj

A lot of focus is on what happens in the UK, stuff going north etc.

Remember its a 2 way street - do we want chlorinated chicken, hormone beef, cheap nasty products flooding our shops and putting our argi companies out of business - not to mention how we deal with the influx of non EU (non refugee) migrants - there will be a lot of NI/UK people looking for jobs post brexit.

Dytalus

Sand wrote: »

I thought Coveney did well. Coveney stated Ireland's objective is to avoid any disturbance to peace and stability on the island of Ireland. The presenter made some stupid comment to the effect of 'The GFA is in the past, many people in NI want to remain in the UK, and you have to respect that above all else'.

I would think, no, not above all else.

I can't listen to it at the moment, but the arrogance of that comment infuriates me. I've seen more and more of this "how dare those uppity Irish not let us walk all over them" sentiment coming out of Britain in the wake of Brexit.

Can't decide whether I want to listen to the broadcast now to see how Coveney did, or avoid it in case I have an aneurysm if this is the type of tripe being said.

pH

Nody wrote: »

Because doing so would require border controls to check what's in the actual truck at the border; hence the need for NI to be in the single market to avoid checks at the border between Ireland & NI by ensuring any goods imported to the single market can go into NI. By your proposal of only RoI products you'd need to check every truck to see if they contain non RoI products or not (because there is no way to know without checking) as well as any goods leaving Ireland to check it does not contain NI products.

At least now the situation is clear, Ireland (as an EU member) is insisting that NI remain fully for all time (well at least until 'that' vote) remain fully in both the customs union and single market.

Therefore there are 3 options (presuming Brexit goes ahead, the 4th is remaing in the EU)

1) The UK get some kind of Canada like trade deal, NI is split off and remains in the customs union and single market.
2) All of the UK remains in the single market and customs union (but not the EU)
3) No deal is possible.

Of these, I think given the current players (3) is most likely, and I feel abandoning Brexit is more likely than (1) or (2). I hope I'm proved wrong.

One other thing, I haven't heard anything about on UK or Irish news is can the UK actually split NI out like this? I presume it would mean new legislation in Westminster, but is it constitutionally possible, could the DUP fight it in the UK courts?

MrMusician18

Mc Love wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000qks Coveney on Radio4 this morning, from 2hr 10mins in, and things get heated from 2:18 onwards.

It's about time someone took on Humphries

pH

mrbrianj wrote: »

A lot of focus is on what happens in the UK, stuff going north etc.

Remember its a 2 way street - do we want chlorinated chicken, hormone beef, cheap nasty products flooding our shops and putting our argi companies out of business - not to mention how we deal with the influx of non EU (non refugee) migrants - there will be a lot of NI/UK people looking for jobs post brexit.

I think the idea is all this stuff is stopped at the NI/UK sea border. The other side is trickier, we always had the 'free travel area' even before the EU, I think it just got wrapped up in EU rights somewhere along the way, but it may still exist in both country's legislation. People born in NI have an absolute constitutional right to live and work in the south, and UK citizens have had these rights too for many years pre-EU (as could Irish people work and live in the UK)