Brexit Discussion Thread VI

J Mysterio

Varadkar was interviewed by Shona Murray for Euronews. He spoke well. Clear, considered, logical and fair...

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Polish government appears to be acting like a thorn in Ireland's side.

Thankfully they don't have much credibility with the EU as a government.

Meh. The Poles have form here, making statements now and then that seen to offer encouragement to Brexity types in the UK, but then studiously looking at teh floor when the issue is raised in the European Council and the Brits llok pleadingly at them. The UK would be foolish to expect any meaningful follow-through from the Poles here.

And I don't think the Polish psoition here is driven by animus towards Ireland. As far as the Poles are concerned, the big Brexit issue is the 900,000 Poles who live and work in the UK, the remittances they send back to Poland (which are considerable) and the continued ability of Poles to move to and work in the UK. This dwarfs any feelings they may have about extraditions from Ireland.

MrMusician18

Ray Bassett has an article in the Telegraph advocating again for an Irish exit from the EU.

I don't really understand what this guys game is. A former diplomat whose position couldn't be further away from a long standing government policy? Is he just a troll? An agitator? Or did someone in DFA piss in his cornflakes? Or something else?

I wonder how his former colleagues in the DFA would describe him (off the record of course)

fash

Folkstonian wrote: »

Sorry, you misunderstand. I don’t blame those two characters for the negotiations. I think they are awful and unbearable and are one of many reasons as to why leave won the referendum.

No obligation on the EU to offer Britain a good deal? Absolutely. But no reason to think that offering a selection of terrible deals will lead to anything but chaos and probably a no deal exit, either.

Sorry- I just don't accept that. There was certainly an opportunity at the start to take the opportunity to remake the EU into some Richard-North style "flexit-y" "junior and senior EU membership" - by reaching across the HOC to build a consensus between remainers and leavers and going to the EU to say "look guys, sorry about that Cameron fellow but now we've a problem here but maybe also an opportunity"

May herself and only herself squandered that opportunity with her red lines and approach to the HOC.

From her red lines, almost everything else grew - seriously, objectively what is wrong with the WA?

I assume you agree that the settlement of citizens' rights is uncontroversial.
I assume the payment +/- €10 billion is uncontroversial.
I assume you also agree that given UK lack of agreement, the political statement as to the future as well as the concept of a transition period (if not the duration) are also uncontroversial.
That only leaves the backstop - how would you propose to fix it?
I think it is fair enough to argue that it should have dealt with later as part of the final agreement - with only general principles or rough reassurances given at this point as to the direction of play - and of course had a "close to Europe" solution been sought, no backstop would have been required . But the problem on that is that once the UK accepted it otherwise and especially once the UK/Gove (pretty much the very next day) said "ha, ha fingers crossed"- the backstop was going to be nailed down tight.

Again, sorry but from my perspective that is almost entirely due to. the UK government incompetence, untrustworthiness and bad faith.

I can understand you having a general sympathy for the UK but I see almost no scope to blame the EU - although I would be really interested in hearing your view.

MPFGLB

The former Greek finance minster was correct in his assessment that the first major error Mrs May made was to trigger article 50 without any knowledge or understanding of the issues and complexities of the EU. The second error was to negotiate a deal in isolation from The HoC , which she could have taken with her and then to agree a deal without testing it in parliament and then further delay it without any serious plan to win around the people that would vote against it

But the latest move is to me the utmost in delusion and defies logic. Mrs May who said her deal was the only one the EU would accept, several times in the last months before its vote, now has got a mandate from HoC to go back to EU to renegotiate it ! And the negotiation would be on one part of the deal, the backstop, which she herself negotiated for and which many MPs who voted against her deal did not name it as their major concern in rejecting her deal. The likes of Johnson and Rees Mogg are now happy with the deal if the backstop can be renegotiated? Yet only a few weeks ago they didn’t like any part of the deal. And the backstop is just a guarantee if UK & EU cannot come to any other arrangement re the NI border and does not come into play till Dec 2020…Plenty time to renegotiate an alternative yet they want an alternative in 58 days based on what ??technology and good will ? Yet they don’t trust that they and the EU can come to an alternative in the 20 months till Dec 2020 ??

If you look at all this and think how it all defies logic in getting a solution you wonder how stupid are these people until you think again that this is not about the agreement anymore or even the EU .. This is a serious of manoeuvres by politician in Westminster to throw the other guy under the bus and come out smelling of roses themselves…Johnson can shift blame to EU ,May can prove that she only worked for the will of the people and then the will of parliament , Rees Mogg can get his No Deal as time will have run out . And Crobyn too has nothing to lose in letting the time run out and if he holds on to his Customs Union policy he can demonstrate how he had a solution to avoid a hard Brexit

My contempt for them is limitless They are stupid on the detail and the complexity but they are not stupid on the postering.. Meanwhile the ordinary people will suffer. I think the EU will stand firm and not shift because they will not jeopardise the integrity of the common market. and quite frankly emphasis on the backstop by the UK government is just a device. When you look at what else one can do it’s a pretty decent proposal given the constraints and if they work on a solution to 2020 it may never be used.

fash

Enzokk wrote: »

I wish he was asked about the 900 jobs from the EMA. Surely you cannot blame that on the uncertainty of Brexit. The EMA was never going to stay in the UK once they triggered article 50.

She should also have attacked the "uncertainty" claim as regards companies leaving - it's not "uncertainty" - it's preparation based on a likely event - a no deal or hard brexit. It's not a case of "is this going to go left or right - both are equal and the same" - it is " how deep is this hole and where is the bottom".

Calina

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Polish government appears to be acting like a thorn in Ireland's side.

Thankfully they don't have much credibility with the EU as a government.

High Court referred a question to the CJEU querying the safety of extradition to Poland in light of judicial reforms in Poland which could indicate no separation of powers between the judiciary and the government.

It was not welcomed by the current government in Poland. Worth knowing that the current Polish government did not support the continuation of Donald Tusk's mandate either albeit for internal Polish reasons.

I often feel that English language coverage of European news is inadequate as it happens and our editors could do with covering European news as our news too.

Calina

Peregrinus wrote: »

Meh. The Poles have form here, making statements now and then that seen to offer encouragement to Brexity types in the UK, but then studiously looking at teh floor when the issue is raised in the European Council and the Brits llok pleadingly at them. The UK would be foolish to expect any meaningful follow-through from the Poles here.

And I don't think the Polish psoition here is driven by animus towards Ireland. As far as the Poles are concerned, the big Brexit issue is the 900,000 Poles who live and work in the UK, the remittances they send back to Poland (which are considerable) and the continued ability of Poles to move to and work in the UK. This dwarfs any feelings they may have about extraditions from Ireland.

Interesting point: I was part of the 1990s wave of emigration out of Ireland but considerable numbers came back from about 1998 onwards with modified social views and experience of how certain things could be done better. I felt that the changes the returning emigrants brought probably had an additional role to play on the changing face of Ireland.

I wonder if the same would happen in Poland and how that would affect political landscape and voting intentions there. In particular, I wonder if PiS really want a million back who lived in the UK and might have some strong ideas about what they expect from their country...

Calina

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Side note, proximity of EMA to Dublin used to be an advantage for locating those kinds of pharma staff there too. Going to an EMA seminar could be a day trip if you flew into London City airport. So, not great for us either.

London City is sort of special as airports go but I think Amsterdam is daytrippable from Dublin. I dont know where EMA is relative to the airport but iirc the earliest DUBAMS should make this possible. There is an early out of ORK too. In a way AMS might be better for Ireland.

Peregrinus

Calina wrote: »

London City is sort of special as airports go but I think Amsterdam is daytrippable from Dublin. I dont know where EMA is relative to the airport but iirc the earliest DUBAMS should make this possible. There is an early out of ORK too. In a way AMS might be better for Ireland.

EMA is in Sloterdijk. It's only about 15 minutes from Schiphol by train, and there's a frequent service.

The main problem, though, is that DUB-AMS takes about 1 hr 45 mins, as opposed to 40 mins to LHR. And of course there are many fewer flights each day, so between the more limited schedule and the extra flight time in each direction, a day trip to AMS, while doable, involves a lot more travelling time, and a lot less meeting/interaction time, than going to London.

Calina

Folkstonian wrote: »

Yes, I think so.
I think they are abrasive and hugely dislikesble (and disliked, in reality)
Leaving aside whether you think that’s right or not, do you disagree that dislike for the individuals at the top of the pyramid in Europe didn’t play any part in the outcome?

Actually Juncker is charming. I have seen him in real life, posing for pictures with tourists who recognise him. Verhofstadt spent a long time as PM in Belgium and was demonstrably better at his job there than May is currently at hers.

The UK population in general pays limited heed to the European Parliament. I suspect the only MEP most of them have heard of is Nigel Farage. So I doubt they knew who Verhofstadt was at the time. He is not the president of the EP btw. In any case he was not the president of the EP at the time and he still isn't.

UK coverage and discussion of Juncker tends to be by default negative. IIRC the UK government didn't want him. Since a lot of UK media coverage of politics tends to be confrontational and tribal, and not a careful reflection of how things are, I am not surprised.

If I had to pick key contributors to the outcome of the UK referendum, it would be as follows:

1) the mess being made of UK state education
2) the UK media in general but with special regard for their tendency to generate outrage where they can by promoting them and us.
3) UK government policy, especially Tory policies

Peregrinus

Calina wrote: »

Interesting point: I was part of the 1990s wave of emigration out of Ireland but considerable numbers came back from about 1998 onwards with modified social views and experience of how certain things could be done better. I felt that the changes the returning emigrants brought probably had an additional role to play on the changing face of Ireland.

I wonder if the same would happen in Poland and how that would affect political landscape and voting intentions there. In particular, I wonder if PiS really want a million back who lived in the UK and might have some strong ideas about what they expect from their country...

They get that anyway. Young Poles (just like young Irish people in the 1990s) have a high propensity to return to Poland if the economy where they are takes a downturn, or if the Polish economy takes an upturn. I don't know how much social changes in Ireland in the 90s were driven by returning emigrants - having stayed in Ireland throughout, I think the shift was mainly domestically driven - but, whatever that influence is, the Poles are already experiencing it, and will continue to, regardless of Brexit.

The other point is that while Poles are very visible in the UK, there are larger Polish communities in France and Germany, and with Germany in particular movement back and forth is even easier and more frequent.

I don't think the Polish government would be concerned about the social or cultural impact of Poles who have lived in the UK returning to Poland. But I think they would be concerned about a large movement back from the UK, becuse of the possible economic dislocation, and perhaps also political stresses, if that group felt aggreived, felt they had been victimised or expelled or otherwise badly treated, etc, etc.

Calina

Peregrinus wrote: »

EMA is in Sloterdijk. It's only about 15 minutes from Schiphol by train, and there's a frequent service.

The main problem, though, is that DUB-AMS takes about 1 hr 45 mins, as opposed to 40 mins to LHR. And of course there are many fewer flights each day, so between the more limited schedule and the extra flight time in each direction, a day trip to AMS, while doable, involves a lot more travelling time, and a lot less meeting/interaction time, than going to London.

Yes ish but the transfer from LHR to EMA was not short. Poster specified London City. which especially made the daytrip possible. LHR possibly less so.

Peregrinus

Folkstonian wrote: »

I’m becoming sick of this whole process. Sick of the EU pretending it has offered Britain a fair deal at any stage. You can’t put three lumps of **** in front of someone and condemn them for not choosing any of them.

EEA - garbage, absolutely no say over the rules Britain would have to adhere to.

Back down and remain - garbage, really scares me because it will cause so many people to disengage from politics for many, many years. I don’t foresee violence, just people justifiably asking what the point of participation in democracy is.
Sick of the EU acting like it has to shoulder literally none of the responsibility for the vote to leave.

May’s deal - garbage. basically letting Europe annex part of the UK. Obviously, obviously, this was going to cause loads of sodding grief.

Well, hold on.

The EEA’s not garbage. It’s an existing and long-established organisation in which a number of successful democratic states participate to their own satisfaction and benefit. And, crucially, it represents a set of compromises that were developed for countries that were internally divided over the merit of EU membership, that seek to take account of, and address, the concerns of both sides on that divide. If it’s not suitable for the UK, that may be because of a political culture which decries consensus-building and fosters winner-takes-all adversity, which finds the notion of seeking buy-in from the losing side in a referendum or election simply bizarre. But we can’t blame the EU for the deficiencies of British political culture.

Similarly, reversing the decision and remaining is not garbage, provided it’s done in a democratic fashion. The essence of democracy is that public affairs are always subject to democratic review and revision. People who, when confronted with this, ask “what the point of participation in democracy is” are indicating that the don’t really get democracy. If you think the purpose of a referendum is to put a decision beyond further review, then you basically think the point of participating in democracy is so that you won’t have to participate in democracy any more. If that’s a widely held view in the UK, that’s really worrying for the long-term health of UK democracy. And it’s certainly not a view that should be indulged or encouraged.

And as for May’s deal “basically letting Europe annexe part of the UK”, that’s just hysteria. People who come from countries that actually have been annexed can spot the difference, and they are unimpressed by the attempt to hijack their experience of invasion and colonisation in support of Little Englanderism. There may be a case to be made against the backstop, but it needs to be a better case than this.

Putting two of these points together, what the Brexit referendum showed was that the UK is deeply divided over EU membership and, indeed, over the wider question of relations with Europe, and the point of participating in politics is to address those divisions, to manage them and hopefully to make some progress towards healing them through seeking common ground and working to build consensus. Leave supporters, or at least the leadership of the Leave campaign, have missed their opportunity to do this, both because they saw the referendum as the end of a process rather than the start, and because they failed to recognise that an enduring answer to the European question requires more than 52% support for an ill-defined goal expressed in negative terms.

Folkstonian wrote: »

But my god, the likes of Juncker and Verhofstadt have shown themselves up to be insufferable twats. Europe can see fit to compromise when they want to. Look at the Swiss deal, look at Norway. Huge compromises. For Britain, because they have got the arse at the shock decision to leave, it’s just the take it or leave it off the shelf aforementioned lumps of ****.

Surely the compromises for Norway are the very same compromises that you denounce as “garbage” further up in this post?

And the suggestion that the EU won’t compromise for the UK is demonstrably false. The draft Withdrawal Agreement, the backstop and the Political Declaration are a set of compromises specifically crafted to take account of the “red lines” unilaterally set by the UK before negotiations began.

And far from insisting that the UK should take an off-the-shelf solution, the EU has repeatedly asked the UK to specify what it wants. The continuing inability of the UK to do so reflects the fact that there is no agreement in the UK, or even in the Leave camp, as to what Brexit is for . They can’t design their own Brexit; they have left it to the EU to do that; and now they complain that the EU has been unable to design the Brexit that they themselves were, and as we have seen this week still are, unable to design. Parliament is demanding “alternative arrangements”, but evidently thinks it’s someone else’s job to come up with the alternative.

Leavers were responsible for delivering Brexit. They never accepted that responsibility. The Leave movement is a sinking ship that you should not join, Folkstonian.

spacecoyote

eagle eye wrote: »

The UK are not going to run back to Europe quickly.
They will look at making deals outside if the EU. They'll offer deals to other countries to try and place themselves in a more powerful position fir renegotiation. There is a trade war coming if there is a hard Brexit and you'll be foolish to underestimate the UK.

I may have some of these numbers slightly wrong as I'm quoting from memory from listening to a guy on JO'B who had previously worked in international trade.

There are 194 members of the UN
Of those the UN classifies 35 members as advanced economies
Of those 28 are EU members
Then taking out the UK that leaves 6 advanced economies with whom the UK can negotiate trade deals
The bottom 50 economies are already entitled to tariff free trade

So the pool of places they can do big trade deals with & get to that position of power is pretty small

Also, the GDP of the entire continent of Africa is around 2.1tn. The GDP of France is around 2.5tn. So they won't be gaining significantly there.

Plus the UK is predominantly a service industry. Generally speaking, most of the developing world is not desperate to import service industries.

As I mentioned at the start, some of my numbers may be out by a small number, but you get the picture I'm trying to illustrate

prawnsambo

spacecoyote wrote: »

I may have some of these numbers slightly wrong as I'm quoting from memory from listening to a guy on JO'B who had previously worked in international trade.

There are 194 members of the UN
Of those the UN classifies 35 members as advanced economies
Of those 28 are EU members
Then taking out the UK that leaves 6 advanced economies with whom the UK can negotiate trade deals
The bottom 50 economies are already entitled to tariff free trade

So the pool of places they can do big trade deals with & get to that position of power is pretty small

Also, the GDP of the entire continent of Africa is around 2.1tn. The GDP of France is around 2.5tn. So they won't be gaining significantly there.

Plus the UK is predominantly a service industry. Generally speaking, most of the developing world is not desperate to import service industries.

As I mentioned at the start, some of my numbers may be out by a small number, but you get the picture I'm trying to illustrate

You're actually pretty much spot on there. The guy you're thinking of is Jason Hunter who was a former trade negotiator. He seems to be full time working on stopping brexit now. He started off doing a vlog called 3 blokes in a pub with Graham Hughes and Ciaran Donovan.

nice_guy80

spacecoyote wrote: »

I may have some of these numbers slightly wrong as I'm quoting from memory from listening to a guy on JO'B who had previously worked in international trade.

There are 194 members of the UN
Of those the UN classifies 35 members as advanced economies
Of those 28 are EU members
Then taking out the UK that leaves 6 advanced economies with whom the UK can negotiate trade deals
The bottom 50 economies are already entitled to tariff free trade

So the pool of places they can do big trade deals with & get to that position of power is pretty small

Also, the GDP of the entire continent of Africa is around 2.1tn. The GDP of France is around 2.5tn. So they won't be gaining significantly there.

Plus the UK is predominantly a service industry. Generally speaking, most of the developing world is not desperate to import service industries.

As I mentioned at the start, some of my numbers may be out by a small number, but you get the picture I'm trying to illustrate

Brexiteers think that the Commonwealth countries will trade more with them
Belize and Botswana don't exactly have much trading power

prawnsambo

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Brexiteers think that the Commonwealth countries will trade more with them
Belize and Botswana don't exactly have much trading power

It's kind of ironic that the commonwealth countries actually are in no hurry to trade with Britain as they were pretty much abandoned by the UK when they joined the common market. THey have since went off and forged trade alliances of their own and are quite happy as they are now.

Enzokk

fash wrote: »

She should also have attacked the "uncertainty" claim as regards companies leaving - it's not "uncertainty" - it's preparation based on a likely event - a no deal or hard brexit. It's not a case of "is this going to go left or right - both are equal and the same" - it is " how deep is this hole and where is the bottom".

I think she was caught trying to focus on his claim and was trying to get past his semantics and utter refusal to confront reality. I think she was more flabbergasted at his arrogance that even in the face of evidence she showed him that he doubled down. She could have talked him through what deal would have meant no job losses in his opinion and trying to see if it could be a reality, but he seemed so drunk on the kool aid I don't think she could have done much better.


I see that Corbyn has met with May for the first time to discuss Brexit. Great to see it finally happen, too bad it is less than 60 days before Brexit though.

Labour and No 10 at odds over May-Corbyn customs union talk

Ether side is disputing what happened which is not great. Labour is saying May was open to listening, Downing Street refuted this by saying she is staying the course.

Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May met to discuss the Brexit crisis for the first time this year, in a summit where the two sides disagreed afterwards about whether the prime minister was willing to soften her opposition to a customs union.

A spokesman for the Labour leader said shortly after the meeting broke up that May had shown a “serious engagement in the detail” of Corbyn’s proposal for a customs union with the European Union after Brexit.

A few minutes later, Downing Street responded by saying that while May had asked Corbyn questions she had not shifted her underlying position. Sources said she had told the Labour leader that the UK must be free to sign its own trade deals.

I found interesting in the article as well that May is sending some of her ministers to Trade Unions to try and reassure them on workers rights. I can foresee a position where the government says that their position is that the UK will not contemplate lowering working standards and that they have been a leader of for the past X number of years when in private she has plans already drawn up to do exactly that.

Peregrinus

spacecoyote wrote: »

I may have some of these numbers slightly wrong as I'm quoting from memory from listening to a guy on JO'B who had previously worked in international trade.

There are 194 members of the UN
Of those the UN classifies 35 members as advanced economies
Of those 28 are EU members
Then taking out the UK that leaves 6 advanced economies with whom the UK can negotiate trade deals
The bottom 50 economies are already entitled to tariff free trade

So the pool of places they can do big trade deals with & get to that position of power is pretty small

It's slightly worse than that. Of the non-EU developed economies, three (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland) are in the Single Market, so the Uk will be shredding its existing trading relationship with them too.

Another - Canada - has just entered into a free trade deal with the EU, but of course the UK falls out of that too when it Brexits.

There are just four developed economies with which the UK doesn't currently have a close trading relationship that is is about to shred - Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. An EU trade deal with Japan has just been concluded; Australia and New Zealand are negotiating deals with the EU and have made it clear that they accord a higher priority to an EU deal than to any UK deal.

That just leaves the UK to the tender care of President Trump, when it comes to making a sweet, sweet deal that stands any chance of being better than what they could get as an EU member. Good luck with that.

Beechwoodspark

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Ray Bassett has an article in the Telegraph advocating again for an Irish exit from the EU.

I don't really understand what this guys game is. A former diplomat whose position couldn't be further away from a long standing government policy? Is he just a troll? An agitator? Or did someone in DFA piss in his cornflakes? Or something else?

I wonder how his former colleagues in the DFA would describe him (off the record of course)

I know some dfa ppl and asked them same about RB.

The gist of it is he apparently was a contrarian for years.

There’s bad blood between dfa and him. Something about getting blamed for a cock up years ago. I could go into further detail but I won’t on a public forum.

I also would be curious to know if he is getting any payment for his extremely pro Brexit stance?

Something for ppl to look into maybe.

fash

Enzokk wrote: »

I think she was caught trying to focus on his claim and was trying to get past his semantics and utter refusal to confront reality. I think she was more flabbergasted at his arrogance that even in the face of evidence she showed him that he doubled down. She could have talked him through what deal would have meant no job losses in his opinion and trying to see if it could be a reality, but he seemed so drunk on the kool aid I don't think she could have done much better.

I accept that - it's much more difficult to do things live in air than sit in an armchair and criticise with time on one's hands to formulate - it was a useful "thought terminating cliche" from Digby and needs to be countered in future.

Macy0161

Folkstonian wrote: »

Look at the Swiss deal, look at Norway. Huge compromises. For Britain, because they have got the arse at the shock decision to leave, it’s just the take it or leave it off the shelf aforementioned lumps of ****.

The EU would be open to an Norway type deal imo. It was not an option because of the UK's Red Lines. Norway is in the Single Market.

The Swiss deal I would suggest is the intention of the type of deal envisaged for the full FTA. And would deal with the backstop, given the conditions of the Swiss Deal. Again the most likely issues is the UK Red Lines (Free Movement is one of the conditions).

Basically, the only thing stopping Norway, Norway+, Swiss FTA is the the UK Red Lines, not EU intransigence.

The EU, even now, is saying that the WA is the best available unless the UK removes some of it's self imposed Red Lines.

Enzokk

fash wrote: »

I accept that - it's much more difficult to do things live in air than sit in an armchair and criticise with time on one's hands to formulate - it was a useful "thought terminating cliche" from Digby and needs to be countered in future.

I think we can agree that she did a good job of probing his view on job losses, but in hindsight there are other questions she could have asked as well. He does though seem slippery as an eel and a example of this would be his statement that the elite is to blame for how Brexit is going when he is on the board of 6 companies.

Shelga

If there was no Northern Ireland- if Ireland was one united country already- would it really be so easy for the UK?

Would they just be leaving the customs union and single market permanently on March 29th, and suddenly everything would be brilliant?

Or would they be staying in during the transition period, but free to try to strike trade deals on their own?

fash

Shelga wrote: »

If there was no Northern Ireland- if Ireland was one united country already- would it really be so easy for the UK?

Would they just be leaving the customs union and single market permanently on March 29th, and suddenly everything would be brilliant?

Or would they be staying in during the transition period, but free to try to strike trade deals on their own?

Good question: yes and no. The UK would be free to decide - but the fundamental problem is that it doesn't know what it wants - customs Union membership to do the least harm to its industry while keeping out the filthy foreigners or not and losing 8% of its economy.

Enzokk

Shelga wrote: »

If there was no Northern Ireland- if Ireland was one united country already- would it really be so easy for the UK?

Would they just be leaving the customs union and single market permanently on March 29th, and suddenly everything would be brilliant?

Or would they be staying in during the transition period, but free to try to strike trade deals on their own?

I think that they would have still gotten a transition deal where the FTA was negotiated and for the UK to set up replacement agencies to replicate the work the EU is doing for them currently. They would have left both the SM and CU at the end of 2020 and all of of the EU bodies as well.

Shelga

Enzokk wrote: »

I think that they would have still gotten a transition deal where the FTA was negotiated and for the UK to set up replacement agencies to replicate the work the EU is doing for them currently. They would have left both the SM and CU at the end of 2020 and all of of the EU bodies as well.

So it may have been more straightforward, but she probably still would have struggled to get a majority in the HoC for this plan? Would there be advantages to leaving the SM and CU in these circumstances? Wouldn’t businesses like JLR and Nissan still be horrified?

mrbrianj

Strazdas wrote: »

That part indeed sounds bonkers. The idea of the Taoiseach leaking sensitive info to the Daily Telegraph of all newspapers is ludicrous (the Telegraph utterly despise him and it sounds far more like something May and her No.10 advisers would do).

Yes, a well know source of Irish Government leaks The Daily Telegraph. Who Dominic Raab also writes pieces for. Raabs accusation really stands up alright!

Whats amazes most is not the arrogance of the UK political class - that's a given, but its the way they openly and clearly lie but are never called out on it.

seamus

If NI wasn't a factor, the deal would already be done, but that's not to say it would be "easy" for the UK. On a global scale it would still be a little fish in a big pond, with a limited amount of time to strike its own trade agreements.

The UK would still come out of Brexit considerably worse off than it was.

The HSA (at the Government's insistence) are running radio ads now advising anyone who imports chemicals from the UK to look at their supply lines and make arrangements for Brexit. It's getting real now, we can expect considerable amounts of leaflets drops and information campaigns to prepare for no deal over the next 2 months.