Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Capt'n Midnight

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.

You seem to be forgetting that the UK has shown no such consideration to us at any point.

Excluding the border, has there been any UK coverage of what a Hard Brexit would do to us economically ?

It's all been "they need us more than we need them". Suggestions that we should exit the EU too show close to zero knowledge of how different we are to them in many ways.



Yes it would benefit us in the short term through trade to give the UK what they want. But anyone familiar with UK history knows that paying the Dane-geld or a policy of Appeasement or the EU granting them concessions means you haven't sorted the problem. You've kicked the can. And Once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a bigger can



I still say we should adopt a policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction" if they continue on a course that would devastate us.

If it's win-win great. But make it extremely clear that as a matter of national security that we will veto any option that hurts us even if the veto hurts us too.

Zubeneschamali

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting that the UK has shown no such consideration to us at any point.

I am not "forgetting" that. It is entirely irrelevant.


The UK is quite entitled to leave under A50. I think it is a supremely stupid and self destructive idea, but they are quite entitled to do it under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.


The EUs interest is not in stopping them, and not in "wounding" them for doing something the EU does not want them to do. The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not "forgetting" that. It is entirely irrelevant.


The UK is quite entitled to leave under A50. I think it is a supremely stupid and self destructive idea, but they are quite entitled to do it under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.


The EUs interest is not in stopping them, and not in "wounding" them for doing something the EU does not want them to do. The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible.

The EU very much has an interest in stopping them but they can't prevent Brexit. The EU should ensure that when they leave they are worse off than when they were in the EU. Which will happen naturally under the terms of the current deal or a hard Brexit. It is in the EU's interest to ensure that the UK doesn't have its cake and eat it.

Nate--IRL--

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

..................The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible.

And if circumstances dictate that this happens at the UKs expense so be it. Ireland should seek every advantage in the national interest.

Nate

Capt'n Midnight

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK is quite entitled to leave under A50. I think it is a supremely stupid and self destructive idea, but they are quite entitled to do it under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.


The EUs interest is not in stopping them, and not in "wounding" them for doing something the EU does not want them to do. The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible.

Absolutely, but you can't fix stupid.

The UK has several options.

Remain - is the preferred option for everyone in the EU 27 , most MP's , and half the country, and half the countries.

May's Deal - the can is kicked, the UK looses all opt outs. And they still have to negotiate a deal that's got to get through 37 Vetoes

Existing off the shelf Deal given to third party - May's deal is better than them. Really. ( Switzerland and Norway are introductory offers and aren't available to existing customers)

No Deal - Disaster capitalists benefit. And 52% of the electorate go 'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not "forgetting" that. It is entirely irrelevant.


The UK is quite entitled to leave under A50. I think it is a supremely stupid and self destructive idea, but they are quite entitled to do it under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.


The EUs interest is not in stopping them, and not in "wounding" them for doing something the EU does not want them to do. The EUs interest (and mine, and yours) is to make sure that if the UK leaves, the impact to trade and our bank balances is as small as possible.

The EU very much has an interest in stopping them but they can't prevent Brexit. The EU should ensure that when they leave they are worse off than when they were in the EU. Which will happen naturally under the terms of the current deal or a hard Brexit. It is in the EU's interest to ensure that the UK doesn't have its cake and eat it.

The EU is not a debating society and Brexit is not about proving who is right and who is wrong. Nor is it anyone's intention or in anyone's interest that the UK is impoverished.

The EU is a voluntary arrangement and its only focus (and responsibility) is the interests of its members. The UK has chosen to forfeit the benefits of membership, in exchange for a marginal increase in autonomy (in a world in which autonomy is becoming ever less useful.) But that's its entitlement and it is not the EU's problem where it goes from here.

There is nobody in the EU that I talk to (and I talk to a lot) who talks about punishing the UK. They do however talk a lot about how the EU best uses the situation to the benefit of the 27 member states.

An Ciarraioch

Remain on 55% in the latest YouGov poll:

http://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1068987728971345920

flatty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed, which is why not inflicting self-harm would be important. An example of what I'm talking about is the Gallileo row. The EU naturally intends to kick the UK out and is refusing to refund funds that Britain contributed. Nothing personal, just business. As a prime example of how many in Britain view the EU, here is The Sun's comment on the matter:

"THE EU’s repugnant arrogance in excluding us from the Galileo security satellite should open even Remainers’ eyes. Brussels is prepared to endanger millions to teach Brexit Britain a lesson.Last year there was outrage at the merest hint of us using our security strength as a bargaining chip, even as the Government ruled it out.German-backed EU bureaucrats are doing far worse.So be it. We are Europe’s main security power. They have much to lose.Theresa May is demanding back the £1billion we put into this system.But that is chicken feed next to our £39billion divorce bill. She must insist not a penny is paid until we are reinstated in Galileo and a trade deal is signed.We were naive to imagine Brussels would be a friendly partner after Brexit.Its powerful bureaucrats are now nakedly and dangerously hostile."

I can't believe you are quoting The Sun as gospel. Sweet Lord. Its some kind of modern day godwinism

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

The EU is not a debating society and Brexit is not about proving who is right and who is wrong. Nor is it anyone's intention or in anyone's interest that the UK is impoverished.

The EU is a voluntary arrangement and its only focus (and responsibility) is the interests of its members. The UK has chosen to forfeit the benefits of membership, in exchange for a marginal increase in autonomy (in a world in which autonomy is becoming ever less useful.) But that's its entitlement and it is not the EU's problem where it goes from here.

There is nobody in the EU that I talk to (and I talk to a lot) who talks about punishing the UK. They do however talk a lot about how the EU best uses the situation to the benefit of the 27 member states.

Indeed. It is an act of national self-harm that is regrettable but the EU must now maximise all opportunities and diminish all threats that the situation offers to ensure EU cohesion and to protect trade.

Professor Moriarty

flatty wrote: »

I can't believe you are quoting The Sun as gospel. Sweet Lord. Its some kind of modern day godwinism

Unfortunately, many Sun, Telegraph and Express readers see these papers as their bible. The oped pieces are the gospel.

Water John

I think the MOS and Telegraph are urging readers to support TM's Deal.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

I think the MOS and Telegraph are urging readers to support TM's Deal.

I dunno. Most of the Telegraph opeds are very anti May and are pushing for renegotiation. The MOS was always relatively pro soft Brexit.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is in the EU's interest to ensure that the UK doesn't have its cake and eat it.

The whole point of that metaphor is that it is not possible to have cake and eat it, because after you eat it, it is gone.


This is not the EU being cruel to the UK, it is not a political strategy - it is a simple fact.

RobMc59

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole point of that metaphor is that it is not possible to have cake and eat it, because after you eat it, it is gone.


This is not the EU being cruel to the UK, it is not a political strategy - it is a simple fact.

Quoting the EU line is all well and good but its not best for Ireland-all sources predict a hard Brexit will actually damage Ireland more than the UK-perhaps the EU see that as acceptable collateral damage

Nody

RobMc59 wrote: »

Quoting the EU line is all well and good but its not best for Ireland-all sources predict a hard Brexit will actually damage Ireland more than the UK-perhaps the EU see that as acceptable collateral damage

Care to back that claim up because I can find no sources to back up that claim and since you claim all sources do so... Let's take for example the IMF who says UK is worse of (4% loss for UK on WTO terms, 3.9 for Ireland which is the closest I've found). Or how about the Irish central bank who concludes a 0.3 to 0.8% loss for every 1% GDP loss in the UK. Oh and not best for Ireland? I'd suggest you go check out where UK exports are going to and what's a major driver in non EU companies to set up shop in Ireland...

And this is before the simple fact that EU is a rule based organization (unlike UK who takes laws and rules as recommendations at best). Take the Galileo project for example; UK pushed for and agreed to the rules that no third party country can get full access to it. Now they are whining like children outside a candy store that they will not get to have full access to the system after leaving after having previously pushed for those exact rules that they are now complaining about. That is not punishing UK for leaving; it's a direct consequence of UK's decision to leave and was clearly outlined from day 1. It's like I'd go up to my boss and telling them I'm resigning but I expect you to keep paying me my salary because you've done so in the past.

Calina

RobMc59 wrote: »

Quoting the EU line is all well and good but its not best for Ireland-all sources predict a hard Brexit will actually damage Ireland more than the UK-perhaps the EU see that as acceptable collateral damage

It is the UK we have to thank for this calamity whatever the impact on Ireland. The UK voted for Brexit.

No sources predict a hard Brexit will damage aireland more than the Uak. IIRC correctly, NI suffers more in the case of a hard Brexit than the rest of the UK.

If the UK wants to be seen as a good neighbour, a good approach would be acknowledgement of the impact of its decision on its close neighbours and mitigating for it.

The UK sees Ireland as collateral damage to be ignored except as a bargaining chip. The UK has an agreement which it appears to hate because the EU did not see Ireland as collateral damage but as a member whose interests should be protected. The UK's behaviour has been predicated on the idea the EU would hang Ireland out to dry because that is what the UK itself would do.

But responsibility for a hard Brexit lies with the UK and any damage siffered by Ireland, the UK is responsible for.

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

Quoting the EU line is all well and good but its not best for Ireland-all sources predict a hard Brexit will actually damage Ireland more than the UK-perhaps the EU see that as acceptable collateral damage

If this was true, how can you come onto an Irish discussion site and be amazed when posters are upset and angry at the UK? How can you seriously post that there is an echo chamber when the country and the people living here will suffer due to a decision they haven't made, a decision that was made where the side that "won" broke spending rules and where lies were told repeatedly to help win the vote and nobody seems to care?

How can you be amazed that some of us see the only way for the UK to come to its senses is for it to feel the pain of their decision when we are going to be as severely affected?

Then we come on to the fact that we could be talking about people dying in the streets again. The PSNI has warned there is a real risk of a return to the past if Brexit has all those bad consequences everyone is seeing.

So I actually think the discussion on here has been quite calm and rational. We already have people in the UK talking about civil war and riots if they don't get their way. Ireland will be harmed when we did nothing to cause this harm to ourselves. At least during the GFC we shared some of the blame for letting ourselves open to the consequences of the pain that was suffered. But here we are just a bystander to a tantrum that has turned violent.

Ok, rant over. If the UK plan during the talks is to hope the EU will not let Ireland be harmed if they absolutely gut themselves then you are out of luck. We will try to get the best deal we can for ourselves, which is if the UK isn't in the SM and CU is that NI is in both. I think we have come pretty close to that in the WA.

Make no mistake that we aren't somehow aware on here of the damage that could be caused to Ireland. Why do you think we keep posting about how stupid this whole thing is? Funny that people see that as looking down on the people of the UK or somehow looking to deprive them of their democratic right to decide for themselves on the future of their country. But when there is a real chance we will hurt due to their decision, please be careful not to come over as all righteous about us not having a balanced discussion on this thread.

Rhineshark

RobMc59 wrote: »

Quoting the EU line is all well and good but its not best for Ireland-all sources predict a hard Brexit will actually damage Ireland more than the UK-perhaps the EU see that as acceptable collateral damage

No, they don't.

Most sources reckon that Ireland will take a bad hit if the UK does. We all know this. No, it is not likely to be a worse hit. We're not dumping all our trade arrangements in the Thames. And we have been preparing and divesting from the UK.

So having started on a ...well, it is not true at least, that does rather undermine the spiteful comment about how this imaginary worse-than-UK-damage is acceptable collateral to the EU. (Why do you even think that works anymore?)

Basically, everything you said there is incorrect or based on an incorrect assumption.

And sticking with the EU line that the EU are sticking with as the Irish line may not, ultimately, be Good for RoI (very little about this rolling ****show is) but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

RobMc59

Rhineshark wrote: »

No, they don't.

Most sources reckon that Ireland will take a bad hit if the UK does. We all know this. No, it is not likely to be a worse hit. We're not dumping all our trade arrangements in the Thames. And we have been preparing and divesting from the UK.

So having started on a ...well, it is not true at least, that does rather undermine the spiteful comment about how this imaginary worse-than-UK-damage is acceptable collateral to the EU. (Why do you even think that works anymore?)

Basically, everything you said there is incorrect or based on an incorrect assumption.

And sticking with the EU line that the EU are sticking with as the Irish line may not, ultimately, be Good for RoI (very little about this rolling ****show is) but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

Ì googled 'brexit effect on Ireland 2018'.
Pointing this out isn't having a pop at Ireland-the UK is on a path to self destruction with a no deal brexit.
There is a definite hierarchy within the EU and the big decisions always seem to conveniently suit the big 2 (formerly big 3)the backstop suits them the most as it stops the UK in its tracks and discourages others which is expectable-can you see any reason why the UK would want a hard border?-Ireland is concerned about the possible effects of Brexit on the close relationship with the UK but that also works both ways-why would that relationship change if the UK wasn't in the EU without a backstop?-it's also in the UK interest to have this close relationship.
I want the UK to remain in the EU and using the same formula as some other posters I want it because the UK will return as of the 'big 3'-if you think the EU doesn't have a hierarchy maybe you need to look again.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Quoting the EU line is all well and good but its not best for Ireland-all sources predict a hard Brexit will actually damage Ireland more than the UK-perhaps the EU see that as acceptable collateral damage

A hard Brexit will be extremely damaging to Ireland, though probably not quite as damaging to us as to the UK. But, yeah, the two of us would be much more severely impacted than any other country.

But it's stupid to blame the EU for this. The EU does not want a hard Brexit, and is not manoeuvring to get one. Advocates for hard Brexit are all in the UK, and if the WA is rejected in the UK it will likely be because it is not hard enough. The Irish backstop is objectionable to Brexiters because it prevents them from having a Brexit as hard as they would like.

It makes no sense to say that we could avoid a hard Brexit if the EU relaxes its line sufficiently to allow the UK to have a WA that will give them a hard Brexit.

Zubeneschamali

RobMc59 wrote: »

can you see any reason why the UK would want a hard border?

Yes, of course I can.


One of the big benefits of Brexit is supposed to be Britain making a tonne of money by making new trade deals with countries outside the EU.


They can't do that and leave their borders wide open.


So for this benefit of Brexit to kick in , they either need a customs border in Ireland, or leave NI in the Single Market and have a customs border down the Irish Sea.


And May has been clear, very clear, that a customs border in the Irish Sea would undermine the Union and she won't have it.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's stupid to blame the EU for this. The EU does not want a hard Brexit, and is not manoeuvring to get one. Advocates for hard Brexit are all in the UK,[...]

Well not entirely in the UK. There have been posts on this forum, for example, advocating a hard brexit on the basis that economic shock might be what the UK needs in order to learn.

First Up

RobMc59 wrote: »

Rhineshark wrote: »

No, they don't.

Most sources reckon that Ireland will take a bad hit if the UK does. We all know this. No, it is not likely to be a worse hit. We're not dumping all our trade arrangements in the Thames. And we have been preparing and divesting from the UK.

So having started on a ...well, it is not true at least, that does rather undermine the spiteful comment about how this imaginary worse-than-UK-damage is acceptable collateral to the EU. (Why do you even think that works anymore?)

Basically, everything you said there is incorrect or based on an incorrect assumption.

And sticking with the EU line that the EU are sticking with as the Irish line may not, ultimately, be Good for RoI (very little about this rolling ****show is) but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

Ì googled 'brexit effect on Ireland 2018'.
Pointing this out isn't having a pop at Ireland-the UK is on a path to self destruction with a no deal brexit.
There is a definite hierarchy within the EU and the big decisions always seem to conveniently suit the big 2 (formerly big 3)the backstop suits them the most as it stops the UK in its tracks and discourages others which is expectable-can you see any reason why the UK would want a hard border?-Ireland is concerned about the possible effects of Brexit on the close relationship with the UK but that also works both ways-why would that relationship change if the UK wasn't in the EU without a backstop?-it's also in the UK interest to have this close relationship.
I want the UK to remain in the EU and using the same formula as some other posters I want it because the UK will return as of the 'big 3'-if you think the EU doesn't have a hierarchy maybe you need to look again.

Hierarchy, as in the big countries tend to have more influence than the small ones because they make a greater contribution?

Well, welcome to planet Earth; its reassuring to know that you have a firm grasp of the blindingly obvious.

However that is not at all the same as the big ones dominating or exploiting the small ones and if you know anything about how the EU works (which you clearly don't) you would know that it is the exact opposite.

Calina

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well not entirely in the UK. There have been posts on this forum, for example, advocating a hard brexit on the basis that economic shock might be what the UK needs in order to learn.

TBF that is in the context of abysmal negotiation and ongoing cake policy in the UK.

20silkcut

First Up wrote: »

Hierarchy, as in the big countries tend to have more influence than the small ones because they make a greater contribution?

Well, welcome to planet Earth; its reassuring to know that you have a firm grasp of the blindingly obvious.

However that is not at all the same as the big ones dominating or exploiting the small ones and if you know anything about how the EU works (which you clearly don't) you would know that it is the exact opposite.

A quick glance at British history would demonstrate why that is a difficult concept for them to understand.

Calina

RobMc59 wrote: »

can you see any reason why the UK would want a hard border?-

I seem to recall "We want control of our borders" being a rationale for Brexit.

That includes the border landside of NI or don't you understand what the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is?

Professor Moriarty

This morning, Starmer outlined how a second referendum would come about. Assuming May loses the vote, Labour will put down a motion of no confidence. If May loses they will push for a GE. If May wins, they will push for a second referendum. What is very interesting is that he believes that No Deal should not be an option in the referendum. Even though a recent poll found that 30% of voters want a hard Brexit.

As for the supply and confidence agreement, the DUP will vote with Labour to force publication of the AG's legal opinion. If that happens and goes through, May will have lost whatever credibility and authority she has left.

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

Ì googled 'brexit effect on Ireland 2018'.
Pointing this out isn't having a pop at Ireland-the UK is on a path to self destruction with a no deal brexit.
There is a definite hierarchy within the EU and the big decisions always seem to conveniently suit the big 2 (formerly big 3)the backstop suits them the most as it stops the UK in its tracks and discourages others which is expectable-can you see any reason why the UK would want a hard border?-Ireland is concerned about the possible effects of Brexit on the close relationship with the UK but that also works both ways-why would that relationship change if the UK wasn't in the EU without a backstop?-it's also in the UK interest to have this close relationship.
I want the UK to remain in the EU and using the same formula as some other posters I want it because the UK will return as of the 'big 3'-if you think the EU doesn't have a hierarchy maybe you need to look again.

There really is no need for the EU to go hard in the negotiations so far with the UK, by leaving they are showing other nations that if you decide to be part of the biggest single market in the world with all its rules, once you decide to leave it there will only be a downside to it. There is nothing they needed to do to show other countries it is a bad idea, it was obvious from the start it would be an act of self harm to do this. It is crazy that Cameron even thought this was a good idea to propose a referendum. He should never have mooted the idea but here we are.

I have to ask, what big decisions was in favour of Germany and France and the UK that was not in favour of the other EU nations? How is the backstop better for the "big 2" and not for Ireland or the Netherlands or Belgium who has a bigger amount of their exports as a percentage to the UK?

Just for reference, Ireland exports about 11% of our exports to the UK (excluding NI), the Netherlands about 9% of their exports to the UK, Belgium about 7%. France exports about 7% as well and Germany about 5%. All from Wikipedia (I know, but there are references to where they received their inform from)

Here is a website that has a handy map that shows the UK imports and exports around the world.

Who does the UK trade with?
Explore the UK's trade relationships through interactive maps, charts and analysis.

RobMc59

20silkcut wrote: »

A quick glance at British history would demonstrate why that is a difficult concept for them to understand.

On the contrary,the UK does understand the concept of hierarchy-imo it's better for the UK to remain in the EU-if you really think the larger nations don't call the shots that's your opinion but I disagree.

Enzokk

Just to pivot back to the upcoming vote, I don't know what to make of this other than no-one seems to know what is happening right now in the UK.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1068957826620551168

So Robert Peston has it on good authority that she will lose the vote by "nearly 400" yet she is keeping calm and carrying on.

I think the BBC reporter Chris Mason had it about right,