Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

marno21

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was at Glaxosmithkline yesterday for a short collaboration discussion when the subject of Brexit came up. They make several tons of penicillin and other drugs a year for export but before they export them for sale they have to send them to Italy for further processing.

They said any sort of Brexit that puts tariffs or delays on exporting will cost the company 6 million a week for one plant alone. In other words if Brexit happens it will be rendered nonviable to operate in the UK. This is Glaxosmithkline, one of the biggest pharmaceutical plants in the world.

When you hear these kinds of stories it makes you wonder if the 4.5-7% hit to GDP predicted by the Bank of England this week in the event of a No Deal Brexit is a little on the conservative side.

steddyeddy

marno21 wrote: »

When you hear these kinds of stories it makes you wonder if the 4.5-7% hit to GDP predicted by the Bank of England this week in the event of a No Deal Brexit is a little on the conservative side.

You don't know the half of it. The UK is also without the European Medicines Agency. This means that there could be a delay in accepting legislation for new medicine and therefore a delay in getting new medication. A no deal Brexit is suicide for the UK.

cml387

I heard Sam Gylmah's interview on Radio 4 this morning.

He made a very well argued case for why he couldn't support May's deal.
Admittedly he was remainer, but his case was a persuasive one and his call for another referendum adds to the growing swell of opinion that it may be the only way out.

Regrettably I think he should stay away from his twitter feed for a few days though.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It fascinates me that some people are upset over the word 'wound'. What else would you try to do to a competitor (without harming yourself obviously) ?

As I said earlier: impoverishing the UK will hurt the EU.


Especially Ireland.


And yet you continue to pretend it is somehow justifiable.



The whole basis of trade is that it is not a zero sum competition: both sides win. The UK will be a major trading partner. We do not want them to fail or to hurt, we want them to prosper and buy our sh!t.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As I said earlier: impoverishing the UK will hurt the EU.


Especially Ireland.


And yet you continue to pretend it is somehow justifiable.



The whole basis of trade is that it is not a zero sum competition: both sides win. The UK will be a major trading partner. We do not want them to fail or to hurt, we want them to prosper and buy our sh!t.

Sure. At this stage I'm wondering if you are wilfully misunderstanding me. In the post you just quoted and in my earlier reply to you, I've made it abundantly clear that we should take advantage of the UK as long it doesn't harm us. I already gave an example - the Gallileo project.

steddyeddy

Of course we should take advantage of the UK if it doesn't harm us. I mean how much care have they shown towards Ireland and the peace process in Northern Ireland?

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. At this stage I'm wondering if you are wilfully misunderstanding me. In the post you just quoted and in my earlier reply to you, I've made it abundantly clear that we should take advantage of the UK as long it doesn't harm us. I already gave an example - the Gallileo project.

If you're referring to retaining money the UK has paid into the Galileo project that's all well and good but are you sure the EU can take up the slack if they exclude the UK from sensitive security matters thus loosing the services of GCHQ and the UK expertise in that field?

EdgeCase

Just think about this from an Irish point of view for a moment and a purely economic and self-interested one and forget the notions of neighbourly relations.

What has given anyone the impression that the British government, certainly as it is formed at the moment, would do anything in anyway to help Ireland's position?

They have attempted to use us as a pawn in negotiations and are willing to risk huge problems in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK even though they often forget that (it's Irish if it's causing problems.. it's British if they want it..) and also undermine decades of tireless work done by Irish and British governments and officials to stabilise that place.

Do you seriously think the Tories would be going out of their way to ensure a level playing field for little old Ireland or, do you think the more likely reality is they want a one-foot-in-one-foot-out agreement with the EU that would potentially dramatically undermine Ireland's FDI strategy ?

In some ways the worst case scenario for Ireland could actually be a ridiculously soft Brexit that turned the UK into an on-shore/off-shore tax and regulatory haven. That's precisely what the Tories were aiming for.
If the UK were to achieve that kind of scenario, they would do huge damage to Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and plenty of other attractors of FDI and business-friendly EU nations.

That's also why EFTA is loathed to take them in.

When you strip away the rhetoric, the UK is basically looking for a one-way relationship with the EU where it gets all the benefits but shirks all of the responsibility and refuses to corporate with harmonisation of anything designed to ensure a level playing field (i.e. 'red tape').

Ireland needs to look after its own interests here, and I think that is what we are doing. I don't really think you can trust the current generation of British politicians to have any particular interest in anything other than self-serving nationalism and we really do not come out well in that.

Also the talk of Ireland leaving with the UK is equally ludicrous.
What would we do? Become some kind of subservient afterthought that goes around begging for crumbs from its former ruler? We'd be straight back fo our 1950s which were absolutely not something that anyone should be looking back on with nostalgia. They were terrible!

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As I said earlier: impoverishing the UK will hurt the EU.


Especially Ireland.

And yet you continue to pretend it is somehow justifiable.

The whole basis of trade is that it is not a zero sum competition: both sides win. The UK will be a major trading partner. We do not want them to fail or to hurt, we want them to prosper and buy our sh!t.

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you're referring to retaining money the UK has paid into the Galileo project that's all well and good but are you sure the EU can take up the slack if they exclude the UK from sensitive security matters thus loosing the services of GCHQ and the UK expertise in that field?

The answer to both of these is that there are trade offs.
It isn't necessarily easy to make the comparisons and to for example put a monetary value on trade vs security.

Ireland and the rest of the EU have decided that the integrity of the EU would be at risk from too many concessions to the UK and that therefore negotiating a trade deal with the UK should not be at any cost.

Ireland loses in all scenarios and unfortunately it is mostly out of our hands.

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you're referring to retaining money the UK has paid into the Galileo project that's all well and good but are you sure the EU can take up the slack if they exclude the UK from sensitive security matters thus loosing the services of GCHQ and the UK expertise in that field?

That's the calculated risk. Personally, I think it's the EU flexing it's muscles and giving an example of what is to come.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. At this stage I'm wondering if you are wilfully misunderstanding me. In the post you just quoted and in my earlier reply to you, I've made it abundantly clear that we should take advantage of the UK as long it doesn't harm us.

I am not willfully misunderstanding you, you are saying two contradictory things: we should "wound" the UK, and we should not do anything that harms ourselves.



"Wounding" or "punishing" the UK will harm us so we should not do it.

Capt'n Midnight

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm re-watching the West Wing and they refer to dumping the bad news stories that aren't a big deal as dumping the garbage. This is what happening here. Remember when losing access to the Galileo project either wouldn't happen or would be such a outrage the it would be an international incident. Well now they are adopting the bender (of Futurama fame) attitude we'll build our own satellites and rockets with black jack and hookers

The only reason the UK is loosing access to encrypted features of Galileo is that the UK itself vetoed third party access.

We spent £1bn on Galileo and all we got was this lousy T-shirt

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It fascinates me that some people are upset over the word 'wound'. What else would you try to do to a competitor (without harming yourself obviously) ? When it comes to business, there is no sentiment.

Because (a) competition drives innovation; and (b) business is full of sentiment. Pop over to the Work & Jobs forum to see just how deeply sentiment affects business.

When you wound (or kill) your competition, you don't simply take over their market share, you open up your market to other competitors. If you want a natural analogy, "survival of the fittest" rarely depends on wounding the competitor. Most animal disputes are resolved through posturing and body-language alone.

The advantage for the species (or industrial sector, for the business equivalent) is that it maintains its access to the available resources (market) and collectively prevents its territory being colonised by an outsider.

But as I said before, Britain is not a competitor to the EU. It is a small island nation with diminishing influence in the world. Other states in a similar situation have chosen to align their objectives in a socio-economic union for mutual benefit. They compete non-destructively against each other within that union, and that competition raises the standard of their game when played against other coalitions.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's the calculated risk. Personally, I think it's the EU flexing it's muscles and giving an example of what is to come.

The EU flexing it's muscles will affect Ireland most in this scenario-cyber security and indeed defence which is currently provided by the UK in the mutual interest of both countries.

murphaph

RobMc59 wrote: »

Would it be a reasonable assumption that your brexit wishlist would be:1-the TM deal to go through.2-no deal brexit. 3-UK remain.
I ask this as UK remaining would be a blow to Ireland's ambitions in regards to picking up services and manufacturing in your opinion.

You really don't understand us. We would almost exclusively prefer for Brexit to be cancelled. If it must go ahead then we are no longer in the same club. Brexit does not and never did have the slightest consideration for Ireland. You can't expect Ireland to do anything but try to minimise the damage by "poaching" business from the UK. It's only fair.

Calina

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU flexing it's muscles will affect Ireland most in this scenario-cyber security and indeed defence which is currently provided by the UK in the mutual interest of both countries.

This sounds awfully like a threat. Or blackmail.

Or, the attitude of men I have known who tried to manufacture a situation where their employer couldn't afford to lose them.

They never were indispensable.

Plus to be frank, the UK is a textbook example of failure in cybersec right now.

murphaph

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you're referring to retaining money the UK has paid into the Galileo project that's all well and good but are you sure the EU can take up the slack if they exclude the UK from sensitive security matters thus loosing the services of GCHQ and the UK expertise in that field?

Brexit is lose-lose. The EU will just have to make do without GCHQ. The question however is given the economic damage Brexit will do to the UK economy, how effective can GCHQ remain in the future? This stuff costs money made in the real economy.

RobMc59

murphaph wrote: »

Brexit is lose-lose. The EU will just have to make do without GCHQ. The question however is given the economic damage Brexit will do to the UK economy, how effective can GCHQ remain in the future? This stuff costs money made in the real economy.

I believe mainland Europe has its own system-it's Ireland that will be hit hardest in this scenario along with the UK.

Folkstonian

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sure. At this stage I'm wondering if you are wilfully misunderstanding me. In the post you just quoted and in my earlier reply to you, I've made it abundantly clear that we should take advantage of the UK as long it doesn't harm us. I already gave an example - the Gallileo project.

Nobody is misinterpreting you. The adversarial nature of your language has gone far beyond anything I’ve seen from even the most ardent hard-Brexit supporting columnists/ commentators in the british press, which is really going some.

One minute you are saying that the EU need to cut Britain adrift regardless of a change in public opinion in the U.K., only to change your mind the same evening and state that a cancellation of Brexit is in everyone’s best interest. You are a regular contributor here but I have literally no idea what you actually think.

Folkstonian

steddyeddy wrote: »

Of course we should take advantage of the UK if it doesn't harm us. I mean how much care have they shown towards Ireland and the peace process in Northern Ireland?

Well, the government have stated that they will not put a hard border in place under any circumstances, for one thing.

blanch152

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, the government have stated that they will not put a hard border in place under any circumstances, for one thing.

Technically, as it is an external EU border, it will be the EU putting in place a hard border.

UsedToWait

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, the government have stated that they will not put a hard border in place under any circumstances, for one thing.

True
In other words, the British government have wilfully misrepresented the realpolitik of the implications of anything other than a soft-boiled Brexit, without a care for the potential repercussions on this perfidious isle.


edit: and this with the overwhelming 52-48 'will of the people'

prawnsambo

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, the government have stated that they will not put a hard border in place under any circumstances, for one thing.

They wanted to time-limit the backstop. That would end the open border as both jurisdictions would have to have border checks.

Professor Moriarty

Folkstonian wrote: »

Nobody is misinterpreting you. The adversarial nature of your language has gone far beyond anything I’ve seen from even the most ardent hard-Brexit supporting columnists/ commentators in the british press, which is really going some.

One minute you are saying that the EU need to cut Britain adrift regardless of a change in public opinion in the U.K., only to change your mind the same evening and state that a cancellation of Brexit is in everyone’s best interest. You are a regular contributor here but I have literally no idea what you actually think.

Where did I say they should be cut adrift regardless of a change in public opinion?

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the EU goes to war with the UK or that they punish Britain unnecessarily. Nor would I suggest destabilising the country. All of those actions would be self-defeating. Brexit should be seen by the EU as the existential threat that it is and also as an opportunity to hamstring a competitor wherever it is in their interest.

Once the UK exits the EU and the real talks begin I think the UK will start to understand just how much the EU will negotiate for its own side. I don't even think the EU will need to go out to harm the UK, all they need to do is stand their ground in the trade talks and it will seem like they are out to get the UK. It will not be the case I don't think, just normal trade talks.

Tell me how wrote: »

Virtually nonexistent threat at this point I suspect given that all major parties support upholding the democratic vote of the referendum.
But, there may be some fringe activists such as Tommy Robinson and his ilk who try to instigate some form of anarchy.

But, while there might be a non-existent threat at this point, the impact of Brexit on UK society has the potential to promote a much more agitated and divisive society.

(As an aside, if you asked me to predict whether the US or UK is closer to civil war, I'd go with the former given the influence of gun culture and the NRA to manipulate.)

I don't know if Tommy Robinson is concerned about Brexit, it doesn't involve Muslims so I doubt he is too concerned to fight it.

Anthracite

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, the government have stated that they will not put a hard border in place under any circumstances, for one thing.

But they know that by not facilitating NI staying in the single market, they will be forcing the ROI to put one there? There is no virtue or honour in that position.

I'd also be curious to see how long such a resolution would last when the WTO comes knocking and asks why the UK it isn't regulating its borders.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not willfully misunderstanding you, you are saying two contradictory things: we should "wound" the UK, and we should not do anything that harms ourselves.



"Wounding" or "punishing" the UK will harm us so we should not do it.

I never suggested they should be punished. That's your word. You are misunderstanding me. Anything that disadvantages your competitors without disadvantaging yourself is fine as far as I'm concerned.

Water John

Every gobdaw would start dumping excess production in the UK and the UK could do nothing about it, if it doesn't maintain its border.

Professor Moriarty

Anthracite wrote: »

But they know that by not facilitating NI staying in the single market, they will be forcing the ROI to put one there? There is no virtue or honour in that position.

I'd also be curious to see how long such a resolution would last when the WTO comes knocking and asks why the UK it isn't regulating its borders.

People should check out Jacob's views on this if they'd like to see what a threat looks like.

An Ciarraioch

Irish nurses being told they would have to apply for EU settled status, despite bilateral agreements:

http://twitter.com/irishinbritain/status/1068540231316635654