Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

The German chancellor (I think it was but it was stated as Merkels right hand man) stated in a C4 interview from Davos yesterday that he would be very open to an extension without any preconditions in order to avoid No Deal.

Whilst other countries might well have a gripe, is this really the hill they are going to die on? For what? Why would the likes of Hungary etc invite the wrath of Germany etc on such a nothing (to them at least) issue?

Hmm. the mood music to date from the EU has been that they will only offer an extension if Britain intends to accept May's deal, a softer Brextit, a GE or a second referendum. I'm not sure that a simple No Deal would suffice. Remember that the EU spent a tortuous two years negotiating the WA during which many concessions were made to Britain. But all of this is in a state of flux.

Wrt other countries vetoing an extension, indeed it would incur the wrath of Germany but countries like Italy are already behaving in a very bolshie way. I'd be surprised if such a country threw in a veto for selfish political reasons, but I wouldn't be shocked.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think she can call you not matter where you move!

I think she's more concerned about my right to live and work here as opposed to being able to phone me.

listermint

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Their goal is to walk away though. Rees-Mogg and co aren't daft enough to think they'll get a better deal hence the current foot-stamping rhetoric about going it alone.

On another note, I now have to deal with my Mum ringing me regularly asking me what the story is and I have no idea what to say to her. I'm seriously considering emigrating now.

you wont be the first nor the last to consider it. Most assumed common sense would kick in at this point.

Adamcp898

Leo upping the ante today by pointing out that a no-deal exit does indeed mean a hard border, but that in turn means infrastructure and uniforms which in the past has meant violence.

In a worst-case scenario, a hard border could “involve people in uniform and it may involve the need, for example, for cameras, physical infrastructure, possibly a police presence, or an army presence to back it up,” Varadkar said in a Bloomberg Television interview at the World Economic Forum on Friday. “The problem with that in the context of Irish politics and history is those things become targets.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-24/airbus-calls-brexit-process-a-disgrace-threatens-to-leave-u-k

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

Breitbart UK, Cambridge Analytica and advocate for Britain leaving on WTO terms gets an absolute mauling when actually questioned on why Britain should move to WTO rules.

WTF British media hasn't been asking these people these questions before is shameful
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1088725166266429440?s=19

His wiki entry was subsequently amended
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1088748628582248449?s=19

At least he admitted it but it might be one of the first times that I've seen one of these snake oil salesmen pushed beyond their bluster...

Too late now obviously

First Up

Adamcp898 wrote:

Leo upping the ante today by pointing out that a no-deal exit does indeed mean a hard border, but that in turn means infrastructure and uniforms which in the past has meant violence.

He said it "could" in a worst case scenario. I'm pretty certain it won't and so is the Revenue Commission according to their CEO

lawred2

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Leo upping the ante today by pointing out that a no-deal exit does indeed mean a hard border, but that in turn means infrastructure and uniforms which in the past has meant violence.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-24/airbus-calls-brexit-process-a-disgrace-threatens-to-leave-u-k

He's doing the right thing here - in front of a global audience - it's clear for all to see that it is the reckless actions of Britain that will result in hard borders

No amount of British bleating will see any blame at Ireland's or the EU's door.

Professor Moriarty

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Leo upping the ante today by pointing out that a no-deal exit does indeed mean a hard border, but that in turn means infrastructure and uniforms which in the past has meant violence.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-24/airbus-calls-brexit-process-a-disgrace-threatens-to-leave-u-k

He's spot on. The Labour shadow Secretary of State for NI, Tony Llyod, said exactly the same thing. As did former PMs Cameron, Blair and Major.

Macy0161

Leroy42 wrote: »

So great, lets use the 39bn which we have agreed we owe as a bargaining chip, but what if they call our bluff. When we walk away do we really think that that is the end of it? That the EU won't come looking for the money either through international arbitration or as a starting point to any FTA?

It'd surely be the starting point of any post no deal FTA negotiations.

Leroy42

Not only the starting point, I reckon it would be the only point until agreed.

Why would the EU enter into trade talks with a country that just defaulter on their obligations?

LuckyLloyd

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Was debunked by Wednesday afternoon but no correction from the Indo!

I can only conclude that the Indo's political editors are desperate for some sort of drama on the Irish political scene and are unnerved by the continuance of the confidence and supply deal. They've been trying their damndest to make it look like the government are under pressure from the EU on Brexit this week.

I accept we're in unfamiliar times - that Varadkar met with all opposition leaders to discuss the details directly would have been unimaginable under Kenny or previous governments. But I think most of us are delighted that our political parties are standing together on a matter of national importance. If it cuts down on political drama that's absolutely fine by me!!

Adamcp898

First Up wrote: »

He said it "could" in a worst case scenario. I'm pretty certain it won't and so is the Revenue Commission according to their CEO

lawred2 wrote: »

He's doing the right thing here - in front of a global audience - it's clear for all to see that it is the reckless actions of Britain that will result in hard borders

No amount of British bleating will see any blame at Ireland's or the EU's door.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He's spot on. The Labour shadow Secretary of State for NI, Tony Llyod, said exactly the same thing. As did former PMs Cameron, Blair and Major.

It's a completely fair albeit explicit reminder, particularly to the international audience but also for some MP's too I daresay, that a hard border in the context of NI isn't simply about ensuring the correct rate of VAT has been paid.

Shelga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think she's more concerned about my right to live and work here as opposed to being able to phone me.

Are you Irish? You’ll be able to live and work there no matter what, then, right?

For me though, that wasn’t the point. I decided to come home from the UK after nearly 6 years there, around the time of the referendum. It wasn’t the main reason, but the country is headed in a very ugly direction.

Are you in academia? Do you have any idea of what the impact to funding might be?

MrMusician18

If a no deal Brexit causes food shortages here, who will get the blame? Our government, the UK or the EU?

I suppose initially the UK will take the blame, but will it then mutate into a major domestic crisis would depend I guess on how long it goes on for?


If we are no further on, would panic buying start to set in at the end of February?

Skelet0n

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If a no deal Brexit causes food shortages here, who will get the blame? Our government, the UK or the EU?

I suppose initially the UK will take the blame, but will it then mutate into a major domestic crisis would depend I guess on how long it goes on for?


If we are no further on, would panic buying start to set in at the end of February?

There won’t be food shortages. There might be certain food shortages eg those that have a production step in the U.K. but in general we produce far more food than we need.

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

Are you Irish? You’ll be able to live and work there no matter what, then, right?

For me though, that wasn’t the point. I decided to come home from the UK after nearly 6 years there, around the time of the referendum. It wasn’t the main reason, but the country is headed in a very ugly direction.

Are you in academia? Do you have any idea of what the impact to funding might be?

Yep. Fully Irish. I don't really know about my own personal right to remain. The Common Travel Area, as I learned in Tony Connelly's Brexit & Ireland, doesn't actually exist beyond a litany of vague references in the two countries' legislation and bilateral agreements. There is no bilateral CTA treaty.

I thought the same. I work in a very niche area though which kept me here. But, yes. I did feel that the UK had voted not just for economic disaster but also for an uglier, lesser version of itself. I was toying with applying for citizenship before the referendum but now I simply wouldn't waste the money.

I work in cancer research. There hasn't really been a Brexodus yet. A few EU nationals (there are A LOT of those in the life sciences) at work have gone home. A few more with expiring contracts have opted to seek employment on the continent.

As regards funding, there are whole areas which are solely funded by the EU. TB research for example is entirely funded by the EU according to a researcher in the field I know. Sure, it's theoretically possible that the UK could use its membership dues here but that seems unlikely given the promises that have been made to farmers, not to mention the NHS. I can't see the same level being maintained that this, along with European expertise is crucial to the UK staying one of the world's leaders in research and both of these have been undermined by Brexit. Take a gander and any leading research institution's principal investigators page and see how many Anglo-Saxon names are there for a good idea of the scale of the problem Brexit poses.

LeinsterDub

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If a no deal Brexit causes food shortages here, who will get the blame? Our government, the UK or the EU?

I suppose initially the UK will take the blame, but will it then mutate into a major domestic crisis would depend I guess on how long it goes on for?


If we are no further on, would panic buying start to set in at the end of February?

We may have shortages for certain products . But we will not have food shortages. We produce far more food than we consume and we are still members for the EU so our supply chains will adjust.

MrMusician18

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We may have shortages for certain products . But we will not have food shortages. We produce far more food that we consume and we are still members for the EU so our supply chains will adjust.

The central bank has said there will be food shortages of certain foodstuffs. While we produce more food than we consume, Man cannot live on beef and dairy alone. Bread and tea supplies are likely to be limited in a no deal scenario.

A period of adjustment could take weeks to months to resolve, and I suspect the public's patience will run out after a matter of days (patience was thin after last year's snow) Who gets the blame will be interesting...

10000maniacs

What always happens coming up to a deadline is countries with skin in the game or vested interests start to put severe pressure on the protagonists and cracks begin to emerge. Lithuania and Poland got in the first digs at the backstop, and I expect The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain to chime in as the deadline gets closer. What they don't realize is that while the UK doesn't know what it wants, getting rid of the backstop is not going to secure the deal.
Basically the only solution Britain's Parliament would agree to is full customs and free trade alignment without any of the obligations. This is basically the Labour line too. The sooner everybody realizes that and let them roll off the cliff the better.

Leroy42

Of course some people will blame the government, but they will blame them no matter what.

What the government shoudl be doing is getting these alternative supply line ready (I'm not saying they have or haven't) to minimise the effects.

Once people don't solely listen to the Indo then I think the majority will, for a time, see this for what it is, the UK to blame. If handled correctly, ie new supply lines are integrated etc, then this could actually be seen as a positive for the EU as we can see that due to the EU we no longer need to rely on the UK. Particularly since the UK have been shown to not care one bit about Ireland.

Hurrache

10000maniacs wrote: »

I expect The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain to chime in as the deadline gets closer. What they don't realize is that while the UK doesn't know what it wants, getting rid of the backstop is not going to secure the deal.

Why do you think, firstly, that those 3 countries will chime in, particularly as the Netherlands have said the opposite on more than one occasion.

This public smackdown on the British government by the Dutch PM was only yesterday (and this is the shortened clip)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=374232

And secondly, why do you think that they don't understand that the backstop is not the issue, when publicly at Davos yesterday the former PM of Finland said that the backstop is not the real issue in the British government.

The EU aren't stupid, they know what's what.

Leroy42

The fundamental flaw in all this talk of EU possible getting rid of the backstop, is that the very reason for it is to try to avoid a hard border, and a hard border is the default postion of the EU. There is no non EU, but geographically connnected country, with no hard border with the EU. So the backstop was always a compromise from the EU to try to deal with the uniqueness of NI.

But that attempt has been thrown back in the faces of the EU, not only thrown back but used as a stick to beat the EU with. Even at this point, when the ERG and so many others have expressed their complete objection to the backstop, they have provided nothing to avoid the situation whereby the EU either needs to apply it laws (ie a border) or for the sake of a leaving country wipe out those laws.

Whilst the UK may see this as really important to it, the EU also sees the integrity of the SM as massively important. I cannot see a situation whereby the EU are simply going to ditch the entire basis for the EU because the UK don't like the reality they have voted for.

ancapailldorcha

The other thing I don't understand is the sheer lack of long term self-interest in the Conservative party.

I mean, if the UK crashes out on a no-deal Brexit, employers & capital will leave en masse. It won't be a Mad Max-style dystopia but it will make for a severe recession and the Conservatives will be holding the bag. They triggered the referendum, they made no plans for a Leave win and they voted down the deal that Theresa May secured from Brussels. The soundbytes of Labour overspending and opening the gates to Eastern European migrants will pale by comparison, never mind the Lib Dems and tuition fees.

The Conservative party bears the entirety of the responsibility for this and the electorate, especially its younger segments who can't afford the basic necessities their parents could know this. They face being electorally irrelevant for a generation and few if any seem to realize and/or care.

10000maniacs

Hurrache wrote: »

Why do you think, firstly, that those 3 countries will chime in, particularly as the Netherlands have said the opposite on more than one occasion.

And secondly, that they don't understand that the backstop is not the issue, when publicly at Davos yesterday the former PM of Finland said that the backstop is not the real issue in the British government.

The EU aren't stupid, they know what's what.

You are reading what I said incorrectly. The British know that the backstop is an issue, but whenever they give this as the reason why Mays deal is a bad deal, it is basically hyperbole on their part. And if the backstop was taken out, May's deal would still be rejected.

Hurrache

10000maniacs wrote: »

You are reading what I said incorrectly. The British know that the backstop is an issue, but whenever they give this as the reason why Mays deal is a bad deal, it is basically hyperbole on their part. And if the backstop was taken out, May's deal would still be rejected.

Ah yes, I took up that line wrong.

Leroy42

Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really.

The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work.

That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality.

Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem

farmchoice

Leroy42 wrote: »

Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really.

The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work.

That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality.

Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem

i believe there is a lot to this. brexit is a bad bad idea and whatever deal they get this is going to become very apparent very soon.
the brexiteers are then going to get the blame in a very big way.
the brexiteers can now see this ( i think a lot of them are so intellectually lacking they truly did not realize all the consequences of their actions) and what to save face and need a bogey man to use.

if it wasn't the backstop it would be something else. they only picked the backstop because the dup were on the scene and were prepared to go to war over the backstop because it really did mean something to them.

the arch brexiteers could not give a damn about NI backstop or no backstop.

LuckyLloyd

Leroy42 wrote: »

Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really.

The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work.

That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality.

Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem

Sir Ivan Rogers makes the same point at the outset of his speech from earlier this week at UCL. Essentially Brexit breaks down once they have to define what Brexit they want. They all seem to know what they don't want (well, at a high level) but there is an impossibility of being able to unite for a specific Brexit vision. And that's why we've reached No Deal as serious policy suggestion: it is the best way to kick the can as a Brexiteer right now.

I think the EU are smart enough to realise this, hence my belief that an extension or renegotiation are extremely unlikely outcomes from here.

Inquitus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The other thing I don't understand is the sheer lack of long term self-interest in the Conservative party.

I mean, if the UK crashes out on a no-deal Brexit, employers & capital will leave en masse. It won't be a Mad Max-style dystopia but it will make for a severe recession and the Conservatives will be holding the bag. They triggered the referendum, they made no plans for a Leave win and they voted down the deal that Theresa May secured from Brussels. The soundbytes of Labour overspending and opening the gates to Eastern European migrants will pale by comparison, never mind the Lib Dems and tuition fees.

The Conservative party bears the entirety of the responsibility for this and the electorate, especially its younger segments who can't afford the basic necessities their parents could know this. They face being electorally irrelevant for a generation and few if any seem to realize and/or care.

I get the feeling that given the disaster that Brexit is, and has been, for 2 years, they feel emboldened by the fact this hasn't translated into any meaningful change in the Polls. It may be arrogance, but I think they assume no matter what they do they have a good chance of keeping #10 regardless, with Corbyn at the helm of Labour.

Leroy42

Also, I should have added, voted against something is far easier to defend that voting for something. The default in crash out, if that happens every MP, well apart from the ERG and a few others, will stating that they never wanted a crash out and never voted for it. It happened despite their efforts.

So as such a vote against TM deal was a win-win. Win in that they get to say they voted against a terrible deal from a UK perspective vs what they currently have, and win as it means they can't be accused of voting for anything and thus it not their fault.

Not only are we seeing a complete lack of leadership in the UK, we are also seeing a complete lack of integrity across the entire political system.