Brexit Discussion Thread VI

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Therefore this could also have been done with trade to avoid a conflict of interest. The point had been made that trade talks could not have occurred because the UK would have been on both sides of the table. However it is possible to exclude one party when necessary.

Perhaps you missed this?

wiggle16 wrote: »

It would effectively mean that Britain would be allowed to negotiate a trade deal on its own terms before deciding whether or not to leave the EU (the referendum wasn't legally binding and Article 50 can be revoked) and itself sets a bad precedent should another country decide to leave. Cameron went to Brussels to get a deal prior to the referendum to convince the UK to stay. Discussing trade while still a member state would be the exact opposite of that. It would turn into the UK govt trying to make leaving the EU an attractive option.

That's also why the EU refused to discuss anything before Article 50 was invoked. It gives Britain an unfair advantage and would have turned Article 50 into something to threaten the EU with rather than being a part of the legal process.

Besides, they can't even work out the legal relationship they want with the EU as things stand, never mind a trade deal.

jochenstacker

theguzman wrote: »

They voted to Leave, and leave means leave not some half baked example. A hard Brexit is all but inevitable now I think. Ireland should just go and tell the EU we will not be enforcing a hard border since Partition is not something we will be encouraging. We should also be pushing hard for a United Ireland and shakedown the EU to pay for the whole thing.

Will Sir be eating these words with ketchup or mustard?

First Up

jochenstacker wrote: »

Will Sir be eating these words with ketchup or mustard?

I'd suggest Sauerkraut would be more appropriate.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves.


It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".

I know this discussion has moved on but like the UK has found out the EU is a rules based organisation. The rule states that trade talks will not commence until the country has left the EU via triggering article 50. This is what will happen.

The reasons for this is that the EU doesn't do trade deals with itself and while the UK is in the EU it will not happen. There is however the political declaration which will show the way forward towards a future trade deal.

Those are the rules and the EU will follow its own rules.

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, from the point of view of the UK, this might be attractive in two ways.

1. It complies at least with the letter of the 2016 vote. I think we here sometimes underestimate the weight this has in UK politics compared to referendums in this country.

2. It provides a bridge between total crash out and potential negotiated trade agreements with other countries. Sure these may be limited in scope while the UK is in the EEA, but better than nothing while better arrangements are sought.

It is correct though that they will have little or no say in EU legislation applied to the UK through the EEA. A small country like Norway won't have much say anyway so they are not losing much by not being in the EU. But the UK is a large country in the EU so influence will be lost.

The unfortunate thing for Ireland, in addition to undesired border checks, would be that the influence the UK had within the EU often worked in our favour. That would be lost.

The problems with that is that they have no control over immigration or trade deals. This is two very important aspects that was sold to people who voted leave and Theresa May has them as her red lines as well. Also, it is a worse deal for the UK than they have now which can be used to hammer the government that signs on to this with.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Correct. If there is no deal then there will be a hard border. This isn't news.

We may not want a hard border and our talks has always been about how we will not put up a hard border, the reality is that if it comes to this then we have no choice. I think everyone is aware of that but they don't want to be the one to be the first to say it out loud. I don't blame our politicians, do you want to be the one to break an international treaty?

theguzman wrote: »

They voted to Leave, and leave means leave not some half baked example. A hard Brexit is all but inevitable now I think. Ireland should just go and tell the EU we will not be enforcing a hard border since Partition is not something we will be encouraging. We should also be pushing hard for a United Ireland and shakedown the EU to pay for the whole thing.

If there is a hard Brexit the border will be one of many urgent problems we will need to deal with at the same time. It will be chaos but at least we will have the support of the EU to back us up. If we tell the EU we will not enforce the border then we will find ourselves on the outside which will be even worse than doing what we need with EU support.

The question I still have is will the UK really break the GFA when a solution is there for them to avoid doing that. Surely they could decide to still put the border in the Irish Sea instead of breaking an international treaty, then again that is more just wishful thinking on my side if the worst case scenario happens.

Mr.Nice Guy

Was watching BBC NI earlier where they had a report on the border near Cavan and one of the locals interviewed said Nigel Dodds' father Joe worked as a customs officer. Found this a surprise and turns out it's true. From the Belfast Telegraph:

His father, Joe, had served in the Army during the 1950s, seeing service in Korea and Kenya, as well as a number of other places. He then became a customs officer and later joined the UDR in 1970, around the same time as the family moved to Enniskillen.

So Dodds would know about customs more than most given his father's profession, yet just a few days ago was willing to stand over Arlene's recent comments that there had never been a hard border. Lamentable but not at all surprising.

RobMc59

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

A German politician was asked today on local German radio if he really felt that the British reports that the German economy would suffer badly after a no deal Brexit were true.......his answer was very simple and clear....

If they leave they have to do deals with the world which will take time and will not put them in a good position due to desperation to save their own economy.....Ireland, Germany, France etc. will all work together and get on, with or without the UK. The UK is not the EU...the EU is much bigger and stronger and we will stand together.

Leaving would be a disastrous event for the UK but will effect others-let`s hope the UK see sense.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/german-industry-staring-into-abyss-of-no-deal-brexit-bdi-idUSKCN1MT1AL

PhoenixParker

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Was watching BBC NI earlier where they had a report on the border near Cavan and one of the locals interviewed said Nigel Dodds' father Joe worked as a customs officer. Found this a surprise and turns out it's true. From the Belfast Telegraph:



So Dodds would know about customs more than most given his father's profession, yet just a few days ago was willing to stand over Arlene's recent comments that there had never been a hard border. Lamentable but not at all surprising.

I read something earlier that suggested one of the reasons the DUP are so pro a border is that customs posts were a well paid, low education position, reserved for Protestants. Their constituents suffered because of leave and they’d quite like their jobs back.

No idea if it’s true but your post reminded me of it.

fash

Phonehead wrote: »

So we are both standing up to the UK and co-operating with them at the same time. Amazing.

Love it! for real you should be a Government advisor.

Indeed- 900 years history of GB using its size to force Ireland to do what it wants- which only changed when Ireland was in the EU and the UK effectively not (much to the chagrin and upset of the UK) - and someone thinks that one on one the UK wouldn't act the way it has for 900 years.

Perhaps he would also like a genuine a-grade bridge which I currently have for sale.

Irishmale0399

RobMc59 wrote: »

Leaving would be a disastrous event for the UK but will effect others-let`s hope the UK see sense.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/german-industry-staring-into-abyss-of-no-deal-brexit-bdi-idUSKCN1MT1AL

The same group wrote in a German article with the Handelsblatt that exports to the UK went back by 2% last year, whereas German exports worldwide increased by 5%....so a 3% plus.

Aint bad in times of uncertainty worldwide.


Add to the UK based companies relocating to Germany/EU for example in the banking/telecommunications sector......at the end Germany/EU wins.

hotmail.com

Prince Philip's car crash will take the heat off Brexit for a day or two.

RobMc59

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

The same group wrote in a German article with the Handelsblatt that exports to the UK went back by 2% last year, whereas German exports worldwide increased by 5%....so a 3% plus.

Aint bad in times of uncertainty worldwide.


Add to the UK based companies relocating to Germany/EU for example in the banking/telecommunications sector......at the end Germany/EU wins.

Just my opinion but I`d say no one wins- we`ll probably all be worse off.

Strazdas

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

A German politician was asked today on local German radio if he really felt that the British reports that the German economy would suffer badly after a no deal Brexit were true.......his answer was very simple and clear....

If they leave they have to do deals with the world which will take time and will not put them in a good position due to desperation to save their own economy.....Ireland, Germany, France etc. will all work together and get on, with or without the UK. The UK is not the EU...the EU is much bigger and stronger and we will stand together.

The 2008 financial crash and subsequent bank bailouts of several EU states was 100 times worse an event than a No Deal Brexit. I get the impression that Brexiteers think the two events would be on a par (this is what they are being told by the Daily Telegraph).

Many of the EU27 would be barely impacted at all by Britain crashing out. It's only a few of the UK's closer neighbours like Ireland, Netherlands and Belgium that are more exposed.

First Up

RobMc59 wrote:

Just my opinion but I`d say no one wins- we`ll probably all be worse off.

Yep, no winners in this madness.

Anthracite

theguzman wrote: »

A customs union undermines economic sovereignty and imposes rules on the UK over which they have no input so they have to leave. It is easy for the Irish state to pull out of International treaties as required and if we had a proper Nationalist Govt here would be standing up to the UK and co-operating with the UK to get Brexit implemented on a mutually beneficial basis.

How would this idiotic proposal work? We cut ourselves out of a union of nearly half a billion to kowtow to our imperial masters?

What do we sell to the rest of the world once the EU service market is cut off? Potatoes?

Christ on a bike.

kippy

Strazdas wrote: »

The 2008 financial crash and subsequent bank bailouts of several EU states was 100 times worse an event than a No Deal Brexit. I get the impression that Brexiteers think the two events would be on a par (this is what they are being told by the Daily Telegraph).

Many of the EU27 would be barely impacted at all by Britain crashing out. It's only a few of the UK's closer neighbours like Ireland, Netherlands and Belgium that are more exposed.

I don't know how you can say that without seeing the thing play out over the next decade or so to be straight about it.

Every single state will be effected by Brexit, whether there is a deal or whether there is no deal - indeed every citizen of the EU will be effected, some more than others.

Irishmale0399

Strazdas wrote: »

The 2008 financial crash and subsequent bank bailouts of several EU states was 100 times worse an event than a No Deal Brexit. I get the impression that Brexiteers think the two events would be on a par (this is what they are being told by the Daily Telegraph).

Many of the EU27 would be barely impacted at all by Britain crashing out. It's only a few of the UK's closer neighbours like Ireland, Netherlands and Belgium that are more exposed.

Thats exactly it....they forget that the EU is stronger than the UK....they are no longer an empire.


I also assume that the EU27 will stand together and try to reduce any countries loss based on trade lost with the UK. However the UK should not forget in all this....they have more need for the EU27 than the other way around.

Capt'n Midnight

RobMc59 wrote: »

Just my opinion but I`d say no one wins- we`ll probably all be worse off.

Yes. No one wins.

We will be hit badly, but our economy is growing. So it's a years growth for us.

For other EU countries it's a lower impact but they have lower growth.

The UK economy is just ticking over so four or five years of recent growth gone, for NI it's a decade wiped out. But there's no reason to think growth will increase so they'll be going backwards.

bilston

Not sure if this has made onto the thread yet but a YouGov poll from yesterday gives Remain 56% and Leave 44%.

That's the biggest gap in favour I've seen for Remain yet. A few more of those, particularly if the 12 point gap increases and then the voices calling for a People's Vote will grow louder and louder.

Three options as I see it

1) Britain stays leaves the EU but stays in the Customs Union (under whatever description)

2) There is a No Deal Brexit

3) There is a 2nd Referendum

Irishmale0399

kippy wrote: »

I don't know how you can say that without seeing the thing play out over the next decade or so to be straight about it.

Every single state will be effected by Brexit, whether there is a deal or whether there is no deal - indeed every citizen of the EU will be effected, some more than others.

The question is very simple.....who needs who more???


Where do the UK plan to earn money in the future??? Where should the jobs come from???
If the EU says to them tomorrow...listen no trade deals. Is there something UK has that the EU needs or is there something that the other EU27 cannot produce or supply that the UK can???


Even the banking sector is slowly leaving London.....

Strazdas

kippy wrote: »

I don't know how you can say that without seeing the thing play out over the next decade or so to be straight about it.

Every single state will be effected by Brexit, whether there is a deal or whether there is no deal - indeed every citizen of the EU will be effected, some more than others.

Analysts and economists have the numbers for how interconnected each EU country is to the UK. Many in the east, central Europe and the south will barely be impacted at all. It's really only those in the north like Ireland, NL, Bel, Ger, Fra, Den and Swe that are more exposed to varying degrees.

Most reckon though that No Deal would be so catastrophic for the UK that it would have to return to the negotiating table within days or weeks to try and salvage something from the wreckage. The idea of Britain being in ten years of a No Deal set up is fantasy stuff being peddled by the English hard right.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

The problems with that is that they have no control over immigration or trade deals. This is two very important aspects that was sold to people who voted leave and Theresa May has them as her red lines as well. Also, it is a worse deal for the UK than they have now which can be used to hammer the government that signs on to this with.

The UK has complete control over immigration from India and China which isn't even in The Commonwealth.

And yet May who has a red line of 100,000 for immigration let in more than that from just those two countries.


The reality is the UK don't use the controls they claim to need.

prawnsambo

bilston wrote: »

Not sure if this has made onto the thread yet but a YouGov poll from yesterday gives Remain 56% and Leave 44%.

That's the biggest gap in favour I've seen for Remain yet. A few more of those, particularly if the 12 point gap increases and then the voices calling for a People's Vote will grow louder and louder.

Three options as I see it

1) Britain stays leaves the EU but stays in the Customs Union (under whatever description)

2) There is a No Deal Brexit

3) There is a 2nd Referendum

I know that looks like a good margin, but I don't think it's nearly wide enough for comfort. Until remain is well into the 60s to be honest. And that's just based on my feeling that the same old tripe would be served up and swallowed whole. My view for the last year has been that it's up to parliament, they have the tools and they can make the ballsy decision and stop the whole stupid thing.

Phonehead

RobMc59 wrote: »

Just my opinion but I`d say no one wins- we`ll probably all be worse off.

I don't think there has ever really been any major thinking from the EU side that there is a winner from Brexit. The puzzling thing I find, a hard Brexit is the UK shooting itself in the head while the EU takes a bullet to the leg. We could both agree to take a sprained ankle but it seems Britain doesn't want that option as it means agreeing to abide by EU standards etc.

bilston

I don't think Corbyn is handling this well at all.

On the on hand he tells May to drop her red lines with the EU. On the other he creates his own red line for talking to May...the irony...

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

I don't think Corbyn is handling this well at all.

On the on hand he tells May to drop her red lines with the EU. On the other he creates his own red line for talking to May...the irony...

He's playing a fairly old political game - he wants the Tories to go down in flames and knows he just has to wait, so he asks for something he knows May cannot give, in fairness to her.

bilston

prawnsambo wrote: »

I know that looks like a good margin, but I don't think it's nearly wide enough for comfort. Until remain is well into the 60s to be honest. And that's just based on my feeling that the same old tripe would be served up and swallowed whole. My view for the last year has been that it's up to parliament, they have the tools and they can make the ballsy decision and stop the whole stupid thing.

I agree that it would take more polls and probably a wider margin. But it's moving in the right direction (from my POV). Of course there isn't much time left.

I don't think as many people would fall for the Leavers campaign slogans in a second referendum though as did in 2016. But any campaign is going to be risky. Look at May in the UK GE in 2017. She was miles ahead of Labour going into the campaign and ended up needing the DUP to keep her in power.

kippy

Strazdas wrote: »

Analysts and economists have the numbers for how interconnected each EU country is to the UK. Many in the east, central Europe and the south will barely be impacted at all. It's really only those in the north like Ireland, NL, Bel, Ger, Fra, Den and Swe that are more exposed to varying degrees.

Most reckon though that No Deal would be so catastrophic for the UK that it would have to return to the negotiating table within days or weeks to try and salvage something from the wreckage. The idea of Britain being in ten years of a No Deal set up is fantasy stuff being peddled by the English hard right.

Simply stated, as an EU Citizen your legal rights fundamentally change when Brexit happens to varying degrees based on the deal that is or is not reached.
I am not saying that the EU need Britain more than Britain needs the EU, just that the impact of this effects every single citizens rights in a way that state bailouts etc didn't and they assumption that state bailouts were 100 times worse than this cannot be backed up for a number of years.
Brexit is not good for anyone.

Capt'n Midnight

News dump. #2

France millions on Brexit preparations.
You can feel any goodwill evaporating. The UK may have to stump up if there are revisions to the WA.
Which is worse politically , wasting money or having to fire lots of customs officers if the UK retract Brexit ?


Philips to close last UK manufacturing plant, putting 430 jobs at risk Obviously nothing to do with Brexit....

Lotus cars will now be made in China because Geely bought them a while back.

seamus

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

I also assume that the EU27 will stand together and try to reduce any countries loss based on trade lost with the UK. However the UK should not forget in all this....they have more need for the EU27 than the other way around.

Not only that, but the EU has trade deals with the rest of the planet...the UK does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_United_Kingdom

Leaving aside the mess that is "what if there is no deal" and it's impact on the UK exporting into the EU, look at the non-EU trading partners:

USA, Switzerland, China, UAE, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea.

Between them account for two-thirds of the UK's non-EU trade (just over one-third of the total).

How many of these have the UK negotiated a new trade deal with? None, as far as I can see.

So they drop out on 30th March, and suddenly exports to these countries fall under WTO rules, cost shoots up, and anyone currently importing from the UK gets worried. How long can they survive on the stock they have? 2 weeks? A month? How long will it take for my country to set up a trade deal and allow me to keep my supply chain moving?
Hong Kong and Saudi might move quickly. But the USA & China? No way.

So, they too will switch to a supplier outside of the UK.

No deal can't happen. It's suicide.

Strazdas

kippy wrote: »

Simply stated, as an EU Citizen your legal rights fundamentally change when Brexit happens to varying degrees based on the deal that is or is not reached.
I am not saying that the EU need Britain more than Britain needs the EU, just that the impact of this effects every single citizens rights in a way that state bailouts etc didn't and they assumption that state bailouts were 100 times worse than this cannot be backed up for a number of years.
Brexit is not good for anyone.

The 2008 crash and the subsequent bank bailouts for the likes of Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Cyprus were way more serious events than Brexit. Have a look around Europe......nobody is even discussing Brexit, it's relegated to page 10 or page 15 in most continental newspapers. Merkel has given many press conferences in the last six months where she hasn't even mentioned the UK when discussing the issues facing Germany.

The British right wing rags and the chancers who write for them are spinning it as some huge crisis that has all of Europe on tenterhooks and wondering what will happen next.