Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Speaking of no deal, I was chatting to the chap I know in DoIT last night. He's fairly convinced that no deal wouldn't be the disaster that the newspapers are predicting. He reckons that a lot of preparations have been made to limit the damage by the government. Of course, this comes with the Minford plan of abolishing tariffs which would mean sacrificing British manufacturing and agriculture. Can't see the Tory voting farmers of the Home Counties being too keen on that to say nothing of their subsidies that Michael Gove promised would be maintained for a few more years yet. I'm not sure what would happen regarding the customs checks at the border. Apparently, WTO rules regulate customs but do not necessitate them.

If the UK unilaterally abolishes tariffs and regulatory standards for imports from the whole world, then the WTO is fine with the UK not collecting tariffs or checking for regulatory compliance at the border. But, as ypu point out, that would be hugely controversial in the UK and hugely painful for the UK. And, as VinLieger points out, doesn't solve the "bottleneck" problem; that would requiire reciprocal action by the EU which, plainly, won't happen.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course May will be received cordially, they won't embarrass her

She pulled the same stunt at Salzburg, lined up her Cabinet behind the Chequers agreement, headed off to the summit promising the UK media great things, and was utterly humiliated.

But she seems to be a slow learner - she is about to be humiliated again.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In the short term the UK is replicating EU regulations.

That's not enough to avoid the problem. The UK must commit to replicating EU regulations, and must participate in the EU enforcement system, in order to avoid border checks on goods imported to the EU from the UK. In a no-pdeal situation it doesn't intend to do either of these things.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In the short term the UK is replicating EU regulations. As regards customs and checks, I don't know.

If it happens, we'll just have to hope that enough has been stockpiled.

In the short term they are yes IF they get a deal but once they are outside the EU under a No Deal scenario that doesn't matter, they are then no longer subject by EU Law to those EU regulations or penalties for not abiding by them so the EU has to check everything.

prawnsambo

otnomart wrote: »

OK this is the first time I see someone spelling out what the EU could trade with the backstop:

"Speaking late Tuesday to broadcaster Deutsche Welle, Manfred Weber, the favorite to succeed Juncker after this year's European parliamentary election, said that if May seeks to reopen negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement, then “everything is reopened ... We talk again about Gibraltar, we talk again about the fisheries policies, we talk again about how much Great Britain must pay when they are leaving the EU."

So something for Spain and/or France, or more money for everybody.

Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/guy-verhofstadt-brexit-no-deal-breakthrough-depends-on-future-relationship/

He's basically saying be careful what you wish for.

It's amazing how far through the looking glass we've gone here. The backstop was a UK proposal, made so that they could get on with the meaty business of trade talks. Which of course aren't part of the withdrawal negotiations, but yet that's all they talked about.

And the much reviled divorce bill that they are threatening to withold is on a repayment schedule that ends in 2060.

Theresa May talks to Juncker at 11am, who tells her that there will be no re-negotiation on the basis of the Brady amendment and she goes into the HoC and votes for said amendment. Bizarre stuff.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She pulled the same stunt at Salzburg, lined up her Cabinet behind the Chequers agreement, headed off to the summit promising the UK media great things, and was utterly humiliated.

But she seems to be a slow learner - she is about to be humiliated again.

She is humiliated already, as is the entire UK political system, but it has been done cordially. Firm and implacable statements from the EU and Dublin.
If there is no major breaking of the ranks today we will have another few weeks of time wasting and rhetoric from the UK and then it gets down to the nub of this - are you brave enough to go it alone UK?

Macy0161

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

More than once Digby Jones agreed with Fiona Mitchell that the Brady ammendment had no substance.

And Maitlis did tackle Jones on the old NHS bus thing.

With anything people will hear what they want to hear in any debate.

He agreed with her after she said it. Up to then he was calling it a good day for May, and part of his logic was that the Brady Motion gave her something to go to the EU with iirc. I don't think Fiona Mitchell was allowed time to expand, but got more time than the 2nd referendum campaigner at least.

seamus

So May goes to Brussels today and back to Westminster tomorrow to reveal the "news" that there's no change to the WA*. Then what? Does Parliament sit on their hands until mid-February to have an "official" vote on an unchanged agreement? Or will they try to do something else?

Currency markets are a little jittery. Sterling saw a small weakening after last night's fiasco, traders are worried that without a solid declaration that "no deal" is off the table, crashing out is a real possibility. I don't think anyone on this forum would have ever said that "no deal" is impossible, but I think markets and UK-based commentators have always been more bullish, certain that a country wouldn't commit obvious economic suicide.

There is some growing disquiet about NI's position in all of this. UK commentators (English in particular) suggesting that it's time to throw NI under the bus for the good of Great Britain.

I wonder will Westminster eventually counter-offer with a cross-party agreement to put a border in the Irish Sea? The DUP won't go for it, but Labour and the Tories would; they'll get their Brexit without a backstop. Of course, I say "Under the Bus", when such a deal would in fact be throwing NI out of the bus's path and saving it.

*There's a very good chance she'll come back with "reassurances" on the backstop, which amount to exactly the assurances they have right now and have been given in several different configurations of words

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

I don't think anyone on this forum would have ever said that "no deal" is impossible, but I think markets and UK-based commentators have always been more bullish, certain that a country wouldn't commit obvious economic suicide.

I might have said it is impossible, but what I mean is it is not possible long term.

They could do it on March 29th, crash out with No Deal, but it wouldn't be sustainable. They'd need emergency food and medical aid within 2 months.

Maybe the UN could deliver it in those white trucks, with blue berets from India to protect the aid workers.

Gwanoman

Neither of the 2 votes that made it over the line last night in the House of Commons were higher than 52%. But somehow it is a mandate to go forward... Delusional

Hurrache

Edwina Curry coming up on Pat Kenny now for anyone who thinks they may benefit from a bit of raised blood pressure this morning.

prawnsambo

For those who missed it, here's Johnson being EUsplained by Beth Rigby

"Just as she rides off on her unicorn to Brussels, the reality check landed on my phone"

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I might have said it is impossible, but what I mean is it is not possible long term.

They could do it on March 29th, crash out with No Deal, but it wouldn't be sustainable. They'd need emergency food and medical aid within 2 months.

Maybe the UN could deliver it in those white trucks, with blue berets from India to protect the aid workers.

That is the thing though, even if they crash out, they have to have some sort of trading arrangement with the EU and will have to come back to the table.

Whether that is as a stronger entity or weaker depends on your outlook. To my mind it is as a much much weaker and diminished entity, with possibly a rearguard action to keep the UK itself together going on in the background or applying more pressure to them getting a deal.

Essentially, the border will have to be sorted one way or another. Now or in the near future...it isn't going away.

Fr Tod Umptious

Macy0161 wrote: »

He agreed with her after she said it. Up to then he was calling it a good day for May, and part of his logic was that the Brady Motion gave her something to go to the EU with iirc. I don't think Fiona Mitchell was allowed time to expand, but got more time than the 2nd referendum campaigner at least.

But remember it's the BBC, Jones is a leaver and the audience is Britain which voted to leave.

What else do people expect.

He called it a good day for May in the context of it being better than yesterday or the day before, he prefaced his statement with that.

Leroy42

Wasn't there a second vote yesterday that essentially said that the HoC was against a No Deal (I think it was non binding).

So TM is going to go to the EU armed with this lack of a plan, and the EU already know that she has only two realistic options left, a deal (of whatever variety) or delay/revoke A50.

So surely the EU will simply just stonewall. All the pressure is on TM. Why is yesterday being voiced as a win for the UK (by the UK it must be said!)

Borderhopper

Just listening to Edwina Curry in newstalk. Life will carry on, will make no difference. Is she delusional?

Fr Tod Umptious

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wasn't there a second vote yesterday that essentially said that the HoC was against a No Deal (I think it was non binding).

So TM is going to go to the EU armed with this lack of a plan, and the EU already know that she has only two realistic options left, a deal (of whatever variety) or delay/revoke A50.

So surely the EU will simply just stonewall. All the pressure is on TM. Why is yesterday being voiced as a win for the UK (by the UK it must be said!)

I think it's being voiced as a win for May, in the sense that she has her party on board, rather than a win for the UK

First Up

They are united inasmuch as May has just joined the rest of the passengers in the lifeboat or the garden shed, depending on which analogy you prefer.

Fr Tod Umptious

First Up wrote: »

They are united inasmuch as May has just joined the rest of the passengers in the lifeboat.

Yes that's a good way of putting it.

j8wk2feszrnpao

prawnsambo wrote: »

"Just as she rides off on her unicorn to Brussels, the reality check landed on my phone"

The levels of delusions within Britain's politicians, yet the anger within Brexiteers is towards EU officials (for whom there is no re-negotiation, a position they've been totally consistent with).

boggerman1

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to Edwina Curry in newstalk. Life will carry on, will make no difference. Is she delusional?

Edwina curry and John major.that answers the question about her being delusional.her English arrogance is a sight to behold.

Hurrache

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to Edwina Curry in newstalk. Life will carry on, will make no difference. Is she delusional?

Trying to insist that the negotiations are not about trust, but practicalities.

She has always been a few steps removed from the reality of Brexit when on radio, pretty much all propaganda.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to Edwina Curry in newstalk. Life will carry on, will make no difference. Is she delusional?

Is she relevant?
She had an affair with John Major some time ago and went into the jungle. She has nothing of value to add.

Dyr

Now that theyve voted ro rule out a no deal brexit, how do they intend to enforce it? Mad stuff

Fr Tod Umptious

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to Edwina Curry in newstalk. Life will carry on, will make no difference. Is she delusional?

But are we not saying the same thing here with regards to a no deal ?

Brit- bashing seems to be the order of the day, and not without reason, but has anyone here given serious thought to the implications of a no deal Brexit ?

I would not mind a bit of guidance myself from government or other agency.

Questions like this for example. I have an Ulster Bank account, it's a UK based company, should I switch to an Irish bank ?

Leroy42

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Is she relevant?
She had an affair with John Major some time ago and went into the jungle. She has nothing of value to add.

She is relevant in that she has a clear understanding of the inner workings and thinking of the Tory party. (in an overall sense at least)

She was a high level politician and so knows about the reality behind the scenes that the public see, the horsetrading, the back biting etc.

It is important to hear the other side, to see where they are coming from. The constant refrain that the UK will come to its senses is not based on the reality of what we know of the Troy party and she gives it a very clear voice.

It is also easy to dismiss the likes of Johnson, JRM etc as outliers within the Tory party, but Edwina (whom I think voted remain) is very much of the view that whatever suits the Tory party is the best option and that people like JRM are not the outliers we think they are.

Hurrache

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Brit- bashing seems to be the order of the day, and not without reason, but has anyone here given serious thought to the implications of a no deal Brexit ?

The Brits are hoisting themselves by their own petard, repeatedly.

There's no "Brit bashing" for the sake of it, people are pointing out the factually correct monumentally stupidity and delusion within the parliament and elements of the media.

You'll have seen on this thread many times people pointing out the affect no deal will have on Ireland.

Here's some more Brit bashing for you.
https://twitter.com/lecho/status/1090270568513818625

Hurrache

They haven't magically come up with a plan since yesterday.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1090529759585624064

Leroy42

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But are we not saying the same thing here with regards to a no deal ?

Brit- bashing seems to be the order of the day, and not without reason, but has anyone here given serious thought to the implications of a no deal Brexit ?

I would not mind a bit of guidance myself from government or other agency.

Questions like this for example. I have an Ulster Bank account, it's a UK based company, should I switch to an Irish bank ?

Just on this, it is the one criticism I have of the government in relation to Brexit. They have been far to slow to publicly state the actual implications of a no deal. They should be out telling people the answers to the basic questions. What happens to UK based pensions, bank accounts. What about holidays booked through the UK. What is going to happen in regards to planned holiday to France through Eurotunnel.

IMO, people need to start being told of the practical outcome of a non deal so that we can start to prepare. They seem to have hitched their horse completely to getting a deal and seem unwilling or unable to be able to countenance anything else

Hurrache

Leroy42 wrote: »

What happens to UK based pensions, bank accounts. What about holidays booked through the UK. What is going to happen in regards to planned holiday to France through Eurotunnel.

The Financial Services providing such products would have already made appropriate plans for such eventuality.

There's no much out government can do or say about the Eurotunnel though.