Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

kunst nugget

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid your argument depends on the money being a legal obligation which it is not.


It is only an obligation if the UK signs up to an agreement saying it is. In the event of no deal they have not. The clue is in the words "no" and "deal".

It's been pointed out to you several times what the legal, financial and political ramifications would be for them withholding the money but it doesn't seem to be sinking in...

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

I'm afraid your argument depends on the money being a legal obligation which it is not.

The clue is in the word "honour" but by all means lets see how they get on winning that argument with the global finance industry.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes but I am not advocating no deal. Both Ireland and the UK are better off economically if there's a deal.

But from the UK's perspective, a large part of the attractiveness of the WA is continuity. While negotiations for the future relationship is ongoing, the UK gets to trade on much the same basis as it was doing as an EU member.

However in the event of no deal, this continuity is lost. It is gone and cannot be brought back. Now they are outsiders. They expect economic hardship - there's been no shortage of doom and gloom forecasts in the press - and they will get it and there will indeed be some political pressure to come crawling back to the EU in humiliation, but there will also be a desire to get on with the task of rebuilding the economy and negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world. .

And who will they agree these deals with?
Mercosur who have demanded the Falklands?
India who have demanded visas (and which the UK has repeatedly refused)?
The US which demands the backstop?
China which demands Hong Kong/UK subservience(and might even demand that the UK liberalise its laws on heroin - or at least that is what I would demand if I were China)
Japan which demands a deal with the EU?
Canada which refuses to roll over CETA?
Australia who want to "wait and see"?
The EU who demand the backstop, £39Bn and citizen rights (which the UK has unilaterally guaranteed anyway)?

Lackadaisical

The single biggest problem with absolutely all of this is we're not negotiating with a rational player. The UK position is all about identity politics, nationalism and has a willingness to select or make up facts to suit their argument and dismisses unbiased, expert opinion if it does not support their world view.

All I see is a circular argument in the UK that has remained basically unchained since 2016. Even over the last few weeks, the arguments seem to be becoming more entrenched and even less rational.

I have a sense that something's going to give over the next few months and it will probably be some kind of significant economic blip as the markets start to realise that the prospect of a major mess is becoming almost inevitable. There's been a sense that this is all a bit surreal and will go away, but I just sense that's fading.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

The clue is in the word "honour" but by all means lets see how they get on winning that argument with the global finance industry.

What agreement are they not honouring?

Professor Moriarty

Lackadaisical wrote: »

The single biggest problem with absolutely all of this is we're not negotiating with a rational player. The UK position is all about identity politics, nationalism and has a willingness to select or make up facts to suit their argument and dismisses unbiased, expert opinion if it does not support their world view.

All I see is a circular argument in the UK that has remained basically unchained since 2016. Even over the last few weeks, the arguments seem to be becoming more entrenched and even less rational.

I have a sense that something's going to give over the next few months and it will probably be some kind of significant economic blip as the markets start to realise that the prospect of a major mess is becoming almost inevitable. There's been a sense that this is all a bit surreal and will go away, but I just sense that's fading.

The pound has been dropping against the Euro for nine consecutive weeks and is about to set a record.

alchemist33

Lackadaisical wrote: »

The single biggest problem with absolutely all of this is we're not negotiating with a rational player. The UK position is all about identity politics, nationalism and has a willingness to select or make up facts to suit their argument and dismisses unbiased, expert opinion if it does not support their world view.

All I see is a circular argument in the UK that has remained basically unchained since 2016. Even over the last few weeks, the arguments seem to be becoming more entrenched and even less rational.

I have a sense that something's going to give over the next few months and it will probably be some kind of significant economic blip as the markets start to realise that the prospect of a major mess is becoming almost inevitable. There's been a sense that this is all a bit surreal and will go away, but I just sense that's fading.

I've been getting that sense too, that a no deal scenario is most likely. It's mostly coming from Boris - I think he thinks he'll get a new deal by dint of charisma alone, bit he won't. And he's painted himself into a no-deal corner by playing to the Brexiteer Tory base.

kunst nugget

Bit cynical wrote: »

What agreement are they not honouring?

If they decide not to pay they are not honouring their commitment to the multi annual financial framework which runs until 2020 which they are signed up to.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well here's one from the IMF last year as published in the Guardian:




URL="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/19/no-deal-brexit-would-harm-all-european-countries-warns-imf"]source[/URL

What we have to remember that if we say that it is not the end of the world for Ireland, others in the UK may say the same for their own country.

About 3.7%? I'm pretty happy with that - certainly within the bounds within which we tell the UK to go f**k themselves about installing a hard border in NI. At that small price, it will be interesting to see how long they can remain together as a single entity

Lackadaisical

alchemist33 wrote: »

I've been getting that sense too, that a no deal scenario is most likely. It's mostly coming from Boris - I think he thinks he'll get a new deal by dint of charisma alone, bit he won't. And he's painted himself into a no-deal corner by playing to the Brexiteer Tory base.

That's also been an issue since day one. The Tories have been playing politics to a domestic audience and really failing to recognise that the EU is basically a technocratic body that tends to base decision making on facts and statistics, not whims of politics.

I also get the impression that the English right-wing voters see a charm and charisma in those kinds of stereotypes of grown up public school boys in a way that nobody else does. They tend to come across as pompous, arrogant and elitist to everyone else.

Attempting to spin to a very well informed, technocratic audience is like trying to bluff your way through a highly technical university essay. The audience knows the subject area in intimate detail and will simply strip away all the waffle, break it down to the bare facts and then translate it into multiple languages. So all the attempts to spin melt away very quickly. That was very evident every time they came in with a new proposal that was essentially the previous rejected proposal written in slightly different language, only to have it rejected again.

What's worrying me is that in three years, nothing's changed and they seem to be preparing to go approach the EU with yet more bluster and fact-free nonsense.

Bit cynical

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's been pointed out to you several times what the legal, financial and political ramifications would be for them withholding the money but it doesn't seem to be sinking in...

Most of the arguments don't hold water I'm afraid. For example, it has been suggested that the UK in the event of no deal in some way owes money towards the pensions of those employed by the EU while the UK was a member.

It is true that if the UK left the EU without a deal, the money paid by the UK for membership would cease but financial obligations of the EU would continue. But that is simply unfortunate for the EU. It is not an obligation of the UK to compensate the EU for lack of a member.

The EU is, of course, entitled to make some sort of compensation part of a deal if it wants but it can't force another country to sign up to that deal. And without a deal, nothing is owing.

I've yet to hear a counter-argument to this. I would be very surprised if there is one.

fash

MadYaker wrote: »

What’s to stop giving 2 fingers to the EU and keeping their 39 billion? No trade deals for a start I’m guessing

That and seizing assets and imposing more punitive no deal tariffs. £39Bn is in the order of 0.2% of EU annual GDP and was (even) to be paid over decades

First Up

Bit cynical wrote: »

What agreement are they not honouring?

The Bravado Brexiteers have threatened to renege on the UK's commitment to honour its contributions to the EU budget until the end of 2020.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

About 3.7%? I'm pretty happy with that - certainly within the bounds within which we tell the UK to go f**k themselves about installing a hard border in NI. At that small price, it will be interesting to see how long they can remain together as a single entity

Sure but that same forecast by the IMF has the UK only slightly higher. So if you are pretty happy with that, why should the UK be worried?

Thargor

Jesus what a complete and utter reptile, the way he gives a completely different answer to what was asked if he doesn't like the question, or just keeps waffling and talking over the interviewer until they have to move on. Glad Andrew Neil called him on it, problem is it works on everyone else, see the end of the ITV debate where he just decided to start shouting over Hunt and the chair.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1149710209671147521?s=20

reslfj

Bit cynical wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I really don't think you get how any of this works at all.

How does it work in your opinion?

As you seems to have so little or no ability and willingness to understand relations between negotiating countries here it goes:

It will surely be solved before it comes to this, but: "The 7 times larger and fully functioning EU27 will effectively kill the UK's the economy" - end of story.

It's an offer you can't refuse - simple really.

Lars

PS! For the EU the money is only number 3 after the rights of EU and UK citizens and the Irish backstop.
For the EU the money is indeed more the principle of 'pay what we agreed and you owe', than the amount itself.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

I've yet to hear a counter-argument to this. I would be very surprised if there is one.

There's nothing to stop the UK paying that money if they refuse.

There's actually nothing to stop the UK doing a lot of things heretofore considered beyond the pale. I suppose the world all these right wing nationalist movements (like Brexit) are busy building is really going to be one where the strong always do what they can and the weak always suffer what they must.
I wonder is the UK one of the strong (or at least strong enough to prosper in that world?) We'll see I suppose.

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is true that if the UK left the EU without a deal, the money paid by the UK for membership would cease but financial obligations of the EU would continue.

If UK is no longer a member and has left very much under a cloud without a deal and refuses to pay any money at all, why can't the EU decide unilaterally as to its continuing obligations (e.g. rights of UK employees and ex employees of the EU, their pensions, rapid winding up of funds to any left-over EU funded projects in the UK)?

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

The Bravado Brexiteers have threatened to renege on the UK's commitment to honour its contributions to the EU budget until the end of 2020.

Sure, if the UK wants a deal. But as with the other obligations, these payments are tied getting a deal. Outside of a deal, it is not an obligation of the UK to pay the expenses of an organisation of which it is not a member.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

What agreement are they not honouring?

The 2014 budget framework agreement.

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

If UK is no longer a member and has left very much under a cloud without a deal and refuses to pay any money at all, why can't the EU decide unilaterally as to its continuing obligations (e.g. rights of UK employees and ex employees of the EU, their pensions, rapid winding up of funds to any left-over EU funded projects in the UK)?

Well the issue of salaries and pensions would be between the EU as an employer and the individual employees as well the relevant employment laws I would have thought.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

The 2014 budget framework agreement.

I can see why this might apply to members wishing to enjoy the continued benefits of membership of the EU. But a country leaving the EU would only be obliged to pay the agreed amount up until its time leaving.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure but that same forecast by the IMF has the UK only slightly higher. So if you are pretty happy with that, why should the UK be worried?

Because aside from the EU, they won't get a deal with the US, Mercosur, India or China. In the medium term that means the dissolution of the union, the reunification is Ireland and the reestablishment of Scotland.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

Because aside from the EU, they won't get a deal with the US, Mercosur, India or China. In the medium term that means the dissolution of the union, the reunification is Ireland and the reestablishment of Scotland.

However that forecast is for the overall economic hit due to a hard brexit. So if we don't think the impact on Ireland will be too great then according to the same forecast, we also have to say that others in the UK will be saying the same thing.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

I can see why this might apply to members wishing to enjoy the continued benefits of membership of the EU. But a country leaving the EU would only be obliged to pay the agreed amount up until its time leaving.

Actually no - if you read the links I provided, Even the UK admitted that it is fully obliged to pay this. Hence there is literally no dispute (aside from you- and I suspect nobody important cares what you think) as to this payment.

Stop moaning ffs

A previously informative thread overnight infested by several accounts all at once posting misinformation outright lies and bullsh!t

Where have we seen this before?

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And here is RTE quoting the report. It could not be plainer

80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time. Plain and simple

I agree that it couldn't be plainer, and I am at a loss to see how you are misreading things you are quoting yourself:


The bit you are missing is in bold here:


The ESRI estimates that ten years after the UK leaves with a deal, employment in Ireland will be some 45,000 lower than it would have been if the UK remained a member state.

A disorderly no-deal Brexit would see that number almost double, with around 80,000 fewer in employment.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

However that forecast is for the overall economic hit due to a hard brexit. So if we don't think the impact on Ireland will be too great then according to the same forecast, we also have to say that others in the UK will be saying the same thing.

In the UK as a whole , who cares - in. NI, about 10 years growth and without central support.

trellheim

Most of the arguments don't hold water I'm afraid. For example, it has been suggested that the UK in the event of no deal in some way owes money towards the pensions of those employed by the EU while the UK was a member.

It is true that if the UK left the EU without a deal, the money paid by the UK for membership would cease but financial obligations of the EU would continue. But that is simply unfortunate for the EU. It is not an obligation of the UK to compensate the EU for lack of a member.

The EU is, of course, entitled to make some sort of compensation part of a deal if it wants but it can't force another country to sign up to that deal. And without a deal, nothing is owing.

I've yet to hear a counter-argument to this. I would be very surprised if there is one.

There's nothing in A50 that mentions monies owed or obligation to discharge anything.

But that doesnt stop the UK owing money for agreements entered into for anything, EU or outside the EU.

Of course the agreed sums it pays as a full member will cease - no-one, not even the EU have suggested otherwise, as it will no longer be a member. Again, no-one has ever disputed this.

The UK has happily accepted in the WA that it should pay certain sums into the budget.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

Sure, if the UK wants a deal. But as with the other obligations, these payments are tied getting a deal.

No they are not. They were agreed as a prequisite for discussions on the Withdrawal Agreement to start.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Outside of a deal, it is not an obligation of the UK to pay the expenses of an organisation of which it is not a member.

The UK needs a deal. If not a big WA style deal, it needs lots of little deals.

For example, on Nov 1st, planes will only be able to fly from the UK to EU destinations because the EU says they may. The UK really needs a deal to allow them to keep flying.

The EU is under no obligation to extend any such deal. Likewise nuclear materials for medical use from EURATOM, and tens or hundreds of other such issues.

The 39 billion is a small item compared to the power the EU has over a small neighbour like Brexitland.