Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Capt'n Midnight

Bit cynical wrote: »

I agree with you however if the EU were to grant an extension, it would not be in order to help the UK it would be because some countries will be quite badly effected by a disorderly exit.

The EU have already announced some unilateral stuff to allow EU citizens and companies to adjust to a Hard Brexit.

Unilateral. No deals with the UK. Solely granted by the EU and can be retracted without notice when no longer needed.


So yes there is a managed Hard Brexit. But it's managed by the EU.

prawnsambo

20silkcut wrote: »

Tariffs take money off the customer and give to the exchequer?

No money is actually lost to the importing country. It’s just a tax designed to cut sales of the imported item? Does that decline in sales not cost the exporting country in the long run, if they don’t replace their markets. There probably is a significant cost implied in changing markets also.
Retaliatory tariffs obviously level up the situation. But the end result is a loss of wealth on both sides?

Yes, that's a possibility. The point i'm making is that there's a fundamental misunderstanding of who actually pays the tariff. How it balances out depends on how much the importing country depends on the goods and whether or not there's a cheaper source (and that includes shipping and other costs).

Trump notoriously said that China would be paying the tariffs he imposed. This is the head wrecking level of understanding I'm talking about.

Hurrache

Leroy42 wrote: »

Coveney is far more open to getting rid of the backstop than the 'less moderate' Varadkar

And Coveney knocks that on the head.
https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1086968338717335558?s=19

Seems their plan B is to just flat out lie. Faisal just destroys Raab in his thread below.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1086921072333725696?s=19

Dyr

Necro wrote: »

The way I see it, it would take a second Scottish referendum and them leaving the union, rejoining the EU and actually beginning to thrive again before a UI is even conceivable tbh.

There's a whole lot that needs to happen before we can start to think of that in my opinion.

I always chuckle when I see people attempting to put a list of prerequisites on a border poll in the hope they can long finger it to oblivion.

Events have a habit of unfolding quite quickly once in motion, as Irish history (and Brexit) has shown

road_high

If Raab really believes all that ****e about No Deal why is he still discussing deals? Surely if that’s the best option that you’re going to thrive under, you’d be well on your way to getting that underway ASAP. Not wasting time discussing with those evil EU bureaucrats

prawnsambo

Bambi wrote: »

I always chuckle when I see people attempting to put a list of prerequisites on a border poll in the hope they can long finger it to oblivion.

Events have a habit of unfolding quite quickly once in motion, as Irish history (and Brexit) has shown

It's coming out as the top option in polls considering a hard brexit. Back in 2016 there was 26% support for a UI. Early 2018 it hit 42%, September 2018 52% and in early December it was 60% if a hard brexit. So yes, it's only going one way. Which is why I find the DUP attitude unfathomable.

Beechwoodspark

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's coming out as the top option in polls considering a hard brexit. Back in 2016 there was 26% support for a UI. Early 2018 it hit 42%, September 2018 52% and in early December it was 60% if a hard brexit. So yes, it's only going one way. Which is why I find the DUP attitude unfathomable.

I suspect the dup would relish the GFA falling apart and the old divisions coming back with a vengeance.

EdgeCase

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There would only be a loss in wealth on both sides if neither had a third option.

For most of what the UK exports there is an alternative in the EU or in countries the EU has a free trade agreement with. ( Except Jet engines, but they have very long contracts so not directly comparable )

The UK won't have as many alternatives.
The only way to get fresh food from outside the EU/EFTA would be to fly it in, or back to the bad old days of long-distance live exports.

The US is going "America First" tariffs.
The EU has clout. A UK needing a trade deal doesn't.

I'd agree. Tariffing imports is all fine and well when you're a large mixed economy like the US or EU. Very few places are in that position and the UK is a massive importer.

If they start tariffing things if just means inflation and it's worse in the context of a country that has a now weakened currency and significantly less spending power.

It's the nationalist economics of a bygone era that won't work in a modern hyper connected economy.

I mean it didn't even work in 1920s Ireland when Dev tried it and our economy was a hell of a lot simpler and the world wasn't remotely as interconnected. Supply chains certainly weren't. Even in that context it was an absolute disaster of a policy. If you bring that into modern terms and also scale it up to the UK level of trade ... It's unthinkable!

It's an unprecedented set of circumstances in modern times. I don't think we've ever seen a country try to drastically economically isolate like this before.

I can only hope they're going to be a lot more pragmatic by 29 March.

Hurrache

A bit of movement from the EU today towards a solution to break the UK impasse. Not sure anyone will be left alive afterwards though.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1086975258069008385?s=19

bob mcbob

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Why, because I pointed out that Scotland is overrepresented in the House of Commons?

I think the OP made the point that Scotland was being ignored. You said that was not the case due to your narrow definition.
I merely pointed out that ignoring (and re-writing) an agreed Scottish devolution settlement is much more important than counting how many constituents it takes to elect an MP.

Maybe you disagree?

EdgeCase

Hurrache wrote: »

A bit of movement from the EU today towards a solution to break the UK impasse. Not sure anyone will be left alive afterwards though.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1086975258069008385?s=19

I wonder if the Queen still has authority to use the Tower... ?

I'm actually starting to think she needs to make a speech and actually shame them into coming up with a sensible solution.

I'm not a fan of the concept of monarchy but someone needs to snap them back to pragmatism. It's something I think a presidential address might be used for here if something similarly crazy were to happen, but I have my doubts that the Queen has the backbone to actually stand up and overstep the line a bit and actually call for some sanity. She's just far too constitutionally polite.

All she needs to do is stand up and say that the House of Commons needs to start thinking about the future of the country and not narrow mindedly thinking only of their political parties and careers.

There's been no big picture leadership from within the House, and it would be a useful function for her to play. I just don't see it happening though as she is really only a highly overpaid figurehead / mascot really. This crisis is underlining that.

Sam Russell

EdgeCase wrote: »

I wonder if the Queen still has authority to use the Tower... ?

I'm actually starting to think she needs to make a speech and actually shame them into coming up with a sensible solution.

Actually, Prince Charles could do that. He has been inappropriately out-spoken in the past, and is not so restrained constitutionally as the Monarch, but presumably will be the monarch one day and so his words would carry some weight.

The Queen never admonished Loyalists from forcing their way down the 'Queen's Highway' when it was clearly not wanted and was a source of grave civil unrest. I'm sure a few words from her would have made those Loyalists toe her line and desist from such unwanted action in her name. But she never did.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

How would granting an extension deal with that, rather than simply put it back? Time is not, has not, been the problem.

At every stage the UK has been dragged into any position. The only reason they agreed to the December Deal was because the EU refused to move to stage 2. Once the UK felt they had got movement they simply ignored the agreement.

May has wasted that last 6 weeks on a pointless postponement of the vote. She wasted months on the Chequers deal, which as soon as it emerged was written off by everyone.

TM is still continuing with the position that only she knows best and any compromise must come for others "for the sake of the nation".

Moving the A50 deadline will only give the UK the room to put off any decision for even longer.

I do think there is a willingness for a deal in the UK. Yes, I think a request by TM would be refused but remember that TM is most likely to be gone by the time any extension is called for.


An extension would give both sides an opportunity to completely rethink their approach.

Necro

Bambi wrote: »

I always chuckle when I see people attempting to put a list of prerequisites on a border poll in the hope they can long finger it to oblivion.

Events have a habit of unfolding quite quickly once in motion, as Irish history (and Brexit) has shown

Confused as to why you're quoting me. I merely don't think that a UI is as simple as FrancieBrady believes. If it happens that's great and all, but I'm merely putting forward the argument that it's not quite as simple as a border poll and *poof* we have a UI.

Thargor

What a complete and utter joke this lad is:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1086921072333725696

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually, Prince Charles could do that. He has been inappropriately out-spoken in the past, and is not so restrained constitutionally as the Monarch, but presumably will be the monarch one day and so his words would carry some weight.

Constitutionally, Prince Charles can do nothing.

However, a declaration by the Queen would carry a lot of weight. But as she is supposed to favour leaving her words would probably be along the lines of

You voted for a Referendum to be held to decide whether to leave the EU or to remain. The voters chose to leave and so the country is obligated to leave. If any legislation is sent to me which is designed to break your promise I will refuse to give my assent. Now do what you bound yourself to do without further delay.

Alternatively, she could prorogue Parliament.

Bit cynical

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Queen never admonished Loyalists from forcing their way down the 'Queen's Highway' when it was clearly not wanted and was a source of grave civil unrest. I'm sure a few words from her would have made those Loyalists toe her line and desist from such unwanted action in her name. But she never did.

I don't think Loyalists are necessarily fans of the UK Queen as a person, so her personal opinions would carry little weight, but rather they are loyal, in their view, to the institution of the UK monarchy. In any case, the convention is for the Queen not to voice political opinions.

Capt'n Midnight

Hurrache wrote: »

A bit of movement from the EU today towards a solution to break the UK impasse. Not sure anyone will be left alive afterwards though.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1086975258069008385?s=19

He's not to first to suggest that. Must have been watching UK television.

Can't remember which program but someone said to lock them up like choosing a pope and wait for the white smoke.

Sam Russell

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Constitutionally, Prince Charles can do nothing.

I never suggested he would have a constitutional backing for any opinion expressed, just that it would carry weight with the popular press, but not necessarily be popular with that press.

He could express a wish that TM's deal would be the best that can be achieved, and should be approved by parliament.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think Loyalists are necessarily fans of the UK Queen as a person, so her personal opinions would carry little weight, but rather they are loyal, in their view, to the institution of the UK monarchy. In any case, the convention is for the Queen not to voice political opinions.

It was often said that Loyalists were more loyal to the half-crown than the Crown.

Capt'n Midnight

Bit cynical wrote: »

I do think there is a willingness for a deal in the UK. Yes, I think a request by TM would be refused but remember that TM is most likely to be gone by the time any extension is called for.


An extension would give both sides an opportunity to completely rethink their approach.

When you say both sides do you mean

UK vs EU

or within the government - Tory vs DUP

or Leave vs Remain

or Tory vs Tory

or Labour vs Labour


And of all of those the EU are going by their initial reply to Article 50 and negotiating rules published at the time and have shown some compromises with allowing special status for NI, and allowing the full country to stay in the CU during the withdrawal phase where the real negotiations will begin.




Remember too that while May may feel bound by an promise on a limited backstop her successors probably won't. Which is why the backstop can't be time limited. Also May has promised to step down at the next election so not a lot of time and besides Labour would like to have a GE tomorrow.

I can easily imagine May's successor
If you had a contract, it was with him. And it died with him.
- Pappagallo , Mad Max 2

road_high

Thargor wrote: »

What a complete and utter joke this lad is:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1086921072333725696

Funny, wasn’t he the Brexit Minister for about 5 days there recently? It’s amazing when he was there he didn't manage to get all he wanted then.

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

I do think there is a willingness for a deal in the UK. Yes, I think a request by TM would be refused but remember that TM is most likely to be gone by the time any extension is called for.


An extension would give both sides an opportunity to completely rethink their approach.

The EU aren't going to change their approach. The EU have been extremely open with the UK. Do you recall the chart with all the options available to the UK and what it would mean

judeboy101

EdgeCase wrote: »

I wonder if the Queen still has authority to use the Tower... ?

I'm actually starting to think she needs to make a speech and actually shame them into coming up with a sensible solution.

I'm not a fan of the concept of monarchy but someone needs to snap them back to pragmatism. It's something I think a presidential address might be used for here if something similarly crazy were to happen, but I have my doubts that the Queen has the backbone to actually stand up and overstep the line a bit and actually call for some sanity. She's just far too constitutionally polite.

All she needs to do is stand up and say that the House of Commons needs to start thinking about the future of the country and not narrow mindedly thinking only of their political parties and careers.

There's been no big picture leadership from within the House, and it would be a useful function for her to play. I just don't see it happening though as she is really only a highly overpaid figurehead / mascot really. This crisis is underlining that.

Considering her husband got away with a road traffic offence (driving no seat belt on public road) while Joe public would have a fine, doesn't give her much street cred the moment.

Akrasia

Raab claiming that a private members bill that binds the government is 'undemocratic' is pathetic given that the government are only in power because they used a billion pounds of public money to bribe the DUP into signing a confidence and supply agreement.

Mr.Wemmick

The breadth of their ignorance is really laid bare by Brexit. We know, those of us who spend a lot of time in the UK, that years of constantly dismantling essential services across communities and relentless austerity has weakened the country on so many levels. Weak knowledge and skills with poor standards in education over time results in much of the claptrap we hear from many MPs about how things will and should work. It’d be rather laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.

Clearly they can’t handle brexit, not in any way, shape or form.

One word: undeliverable. How long this circus will go on for is anyone’s guess.

ancapailldorcha

Below standard posts deleted.

Capt'n Midnight

Have the Scottish Conservatives delivered anything for Scotland since the election apart from Ruth's baby ?

May needs them. And has practically ignored them while fawning to the DUP and "ERG". The DUP have extracted money and concessions but the Scottish Tory Party have done what exactly ?

If there is a GE or Indyref2 they could be toast.

ancapailldorcha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Have the Scottish Conservatives delivered anything for Scotland since the election apart from Ruth's baby ?

May needs them. And has practically ignored them while fawning to the DUP and "ERG". The DUP have extracted money and concessions but the Scottish Tory Party have done what exactly ?

If there is a GE or Indyref2 they could be toast.

In fairness, they're not in government in Holyrood.

I'm not really sure how Ruth Davidson can countenance being a Tory in the current situation they're in to be honest. That said, both major parties are opposed to IndyRef2. Labour need the Scottish votes if the SNP slip up any further while no Tory wants to preside over the breakup of the United Kingdom despite Brexit being highly likely to be the catalyst for just that.

Nody

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Have the Scottish Conservatives delivered anything for Scotland since the election apart from Ruth's baby ?

May needs them. And has practically ignored them while fawning to the DUP and "ERG". The DUP have extracted money and concessions but the Scottish Tory Party have done what exactly ?

If there is a GE or Indyref2 they could be toast.

Far from an expert but from what I've seen their promise was basically Brexit = tons of new fishing rights for you guys which won them votes. The problem is of course that Brexit will do sod all of that exactly as the NHS bus and the existing problems will not be fixed. Hence I'd expect them to lose significant number of their seats in the next election again but May don't care because it's not an issue today.