Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

From your link to the Irish Times:

In a disorderly scenario, economic output here would be 5 per cent lower after 10 years than if the UK remained in the European Union, while employment would be 3.4 per cent lower, which equates to 77,500 fewer jobs. The disorderly scenario would also mean a hit to real wages of approximately 1.4 per cent with a knock-on impact on consumption.

From my link to RTE:

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.


I said that there would be 80000 fewer jobs as a result of Britain crashing out of the EU. You disputed that. My link and your link both prove, in plain and simple English, that there will be 80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time if Britain crashes out. It's not possible for me to make it any simpler.

Joe_ Public

Not sure if anybody saw the performance of chief ERG cheerleader Andrew Bridgen on sky news this morning. I seriously doubt a greater number of fantasy/half-truths/misinformation/ambiguity/falsehood/outright lies has been squeezed into a single 10 minute broadcast since this whole debacle began.

Apparently "hundreds" of deals have already been done with the EU, on everything from aviation to transport of goods across the continent, all ready to roll on 1 November. The EU has said [by telling Bridgen personally i can only assume] that there'll be "at least 9 months" with no extra checks on goods on the continent, and "surprise, surprise" the Irish gov has already rowed back on the backstop, just like he always told us they would. And not only can they sign a G24 tarriff free deal the moment they leave, what he calls a "one pager", but they can simply "cut and paste" the EUs existing trade agreements and use them for themselves after they leave. Delusion doesn't begin to cover it.

"We'll be the customer [with the EU after leaving]," he said, "and as everyone in business knows, the customer is always KING."

Bit cynical

trellheim wrote: »

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.

If the UK has accepeted the WA. But if you read back of the last few posts, what is being disputed is what is owed by the UK in the event of no deal in which case the WA does not apply.

Stop moaning ffs

Bit cynical wrote: »

If the UK has accepeted the WA. But if you read back of the last few posts, what is being disputed is what is owed by the UK in the event of no deal in which case the WA does not apply.

It’s been explained to you multiple times that if they don’t pay what they owe,
They dirty their bib on an international scale and would soon feel the cold shoulder in every trade deal and the WTO/IMF/world banks would not be happy.

Read the replies.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not sure if anybody saw the performance of chief ERG cheerleader Andrew Bridgen on sky news this morning. I seriously doubt a greater number of fantasy/half-truths/misinformation/ambiguity/falsehood/outright lies has been squeezed into a single 10 minute broadcast since this whole debacle began.

Apparently "hundreds" of deals have already been done with the EU, on everything from aviation to transport of goods across the continent, all ready to roll on 1 November. The EU has said [by telling Bridgen personally i can only assume] that there'll be "at least 9 months" with no extra checks on goods on the continent, and "surprise, surprise" the Irish gov has already rowed back on the backstop, just like he always told us they would. And not only can they sign a G24 tarriff free deal the moment they leave, what he calls a "one pager", but they can simply "cut and paste" the EUs existing trade agreements and use them for themselves after they leave. Delusion doesn't begin to cover it.

"We'll be the customer [with the EU after leaving]," he said, "and as everyone in business knows, the customer is always KING."

I've given up listening to and watching these people. It really is depressing to see people lie so easily and readily.

Bit cynical

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s been explained to you multiple times that if they don’t pay what they owe,
They dirty their bib on an international scale and would soon feel the cold shoulder in every trade deal and the WTO/IMF/world banks would not be happy.


Read the replies.

Most of the posts, unfortunately, fail to establish that in the event of no deal, that the UK actually owes that money.


Therefore, while it is possible to post that the IMF or whatever would not be happy, it does not mean that there's any foundation to these assertions.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've given up listening to and watching these people. It really is depressing to see people lie so easily and readily.

Yes, its so obviously deliberate and a depressing development. It seems to me that the classic twitter strategy, put the lie up there so it always sits on top no matter how often it is debunked beneath, is now increasingly evident on tv. Just keep repeating the lies often enough, doesnt even matter if they're challenged or debunked, just say them and put them out there and enough people will believe them without questioning. The times we live in.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

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.

Fair enough - all within an EU (rather than a UK) framework which could be changed without UK input. I admit that is very unlikely. The situation (Brexit, let alone a no-agreement Brexit) was never envisaged I'm sure. edit: my knowledge is limited but for most of these jobs you are meant to be an EU citizen when they hire you... Perhaps that could be used to make most of them redundant after 1st of November somehow if the EU was being ungenerous about it!

Would you agree the UK does owe a non-zero amount of money on leaving?
As you point out there is nothing above and beyond their relationship with each other governing this situation and no way for it to be enforced on the UK. There is no 3rd party that is going to decide on it.
Any post Brexit relationship (such as it is) is likely to be quite nasty if the UK decides to pay nothing.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, its so obviously deliberate and a depressing development. It seems to me that the classic twitter strategy, put the lie up there so it always sits on top no matter how often it is debunked beneath, is now increasingly evident on tv. Just keep repeating the lies often enough, doesnt even matter if they're challenged or debunked, just say them and put them out there and enough people will believe them without questioning. The times we live in.

They're copying the Trump playbook.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They're copying the Trump playbook.

Yep, the Trump/Bannon playbook. Almost to the letter. I have my doubts as to how well it will ultimately translate to the british electorate. I believe - and it may be wishful thinking on my part - that the latter is a more sophisticated one than its US counterpart, regardless of what the most recent elections might suggest. We'll find out one way or another very soon i guess.

Joe_ Public

These Neil interviews have come 2 weeks too late. All irrelevant now. I remember when Hunt claimed he was the one to renegotiate the WA because Merkel and others had personally told him it was possible. Dont hear him claiming that anymore, though.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yep, the Trump/Bannon playbook. Almost to the letter. I have my doubts as to how well it will ultimately translate to the british electorate. I believe - and it may be wishful thinking on my part - that the latter is a more sophisticated one than its US counterpart, regardless of what the most recent elections might suggest. We'll find out one way or another very soon i guess.

I think you're right. The British electorate is largely more informed it would seem. The big problem is FPTP which can give a majority to a party with 37% of total votes cast.

20silkcut

Just watching the tri colour burn in orange pyres today in fairness in light of the whole Brexit situation and the havoc it’s going to wreak on this island it’s utterly unacceptable. There is no justification for it. We don’t burn their flags in any officially sanctioned ceremonies like this and we have much more reason than they have . Why do we accept this???

Professor Moriarty

20silkcut wrote: »

Just watching the tri colour burn in orange pyres today in fairness in light of the whole Brexit situation and the havoc it’s going to wreak on this island it’s utterly unacceptable. There is no justification for it. We don’t burn their flags. Why do we accept this.

Because we are better than that.

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

Fair enough - all within an EU (rather than a UK) framework which could be changed without UK input. I admit that is very unlikely. The situation (Brexit, let alone a no-agreement Brexit) was never envisaged I'm sure.

Would you agree the UK does owe a non-zero amount of money on leaving?

I think I'd need to see somewhere where the UK agreed to pay a specific sum of money to the EU independent of any subsequent deal. Not quite the same but I believe the norm for a country breaking away from a larger country (e.g. Scotland breaking away from the UK) is that in the absence of a deal, no money is payable.

This is not to say that it might be in the UK's interest to pay some money but this would not be out of legal obligation imo.

As you point out there is nothing above and beyond their relationship with each other governing this situation and no way for it to be enforced on the UK. There is no 3rd party that is going to decide on it.
Any post Brexit relationship (such as it is) is likely to be quite nasty if the UK decides to pay nothing.

However I think the main nastiness will be between the UK and the EU (with Ireland caught in the crossfire). I don't think outside entities will regard the UK as in breach of its agreements since that money does appear to be part of a negotiation in return for other things that failed to reach completion.

This is all concerning the scenario of a no deal brexit. If a deal happened and part of it was the UK paying over a sum of money which they subsequently did not do, then that would be a different matter.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I said that there would be 80000 fewer jobs as a result of Britain crashing out of the EU. You disputed that. My link and your link both prove, in plain and simple English, that there will be 80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time if Britain crashes out. It's not possible for me to make it any simpler.

There will be 80,000 jobs fewer if the UK leaves than if the UK stays.

If the UK stays, we might add 200,000 jobs in 10 years, 80K less means we only add 120,000 jobs.

Neither article says there will be 80000 jobs less than there are now, that would be maybe 300,000 less than if the UK stays, and not what either article says.

Lackadaisical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because we are better than that.

Well, we're remarkably tolerant of it but it's probably because we're confident in our national identity, non-conflicted and don't define ourselves by obsessing over a piece of coloured fabric.

Personally, I wouldn't even bother responding to that kind of provocation, because that's precisely what it is. All I would say is that it must be an extremely stressful existence to go around fuming with hatred of 'others' and it's very much the same kind of negative energy that's fuelling the extremes of Brexit in Britain too.

20silkcut

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because we are better than that.

I hope we are

Zubeneschamali

20silkcut wrote: »

Why do we accept this???

Why would we care? Pack of cavemen dancing around a fire in their backwater - what's that to a modern nation like ourselves?

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think you're right. The British electorate is largely more informed it would seem. The big problem is FPTP which can give a majority to a party with 37% of total votes cast.

Do you imagine the BP would get 37%? Not knowing the circumstances of the election yet, i still find it hard to see them outdoing their current polling figures of mid-20ish. I think talk of them winning 100+ seats, or even beating all the other parties, is outlandish. They will have to campaign with proper policies, unlike the euro elections, and i am fairly confident they will all turn out to be useless campaigners. Not suggesting they wont win a fair few seats, but i'm thinking in terms of 50-60 being a good showing for them. Maybe i'm underestimating it, but i fancy Lib Dems will do a lot better when the momentum behind remain really begins to crank up and assuming Labour have at least got some of their mojo back together again.

trellheim

Do you imagine the BP would get 37%? Not knowing the circumstances of the election yet, i still find it hard to see them outdoing their current polling figures of mid-20ish. I think talk of them winning 100+ seats, or even beating all the other parties, is outlandish. They will have to campaign with proper policies, unlike the euro elections, and i am fairly confident they will all turn out to be useless campaigners. Not suggesting they wont win a fair few seats, but i'm thinking in terms of 50-60 being a good showing for them. Maybe i'm underestimating it, but i fancy Lib Dems will do a lot better when the momentum behind remain really begins to crank up and assuming Labour have at least got some of their mojo back together again.

A GE before Brexit - yes, indeed they would poll that high especially if the Tories do a Revoke A50

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There will be 80,000 jobs fewer if the UK leaves than if the UK stays.

If the UK stays, we might add 200,000 jobs in 10 years, 80K less means we only add 120,000 jobs.

Neither article says there will be 80000 jobs less than there are now, that would be maybe 300,000 less than if the UK stays, and not what either article says.

Both articles say exactly that. 80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time. I have no idea why you can't accept that fact but I'm done trying to explain.

20silkcut

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why would we care? Pack of cavemen dancing around a fire in their backwater - what's that to a modern nation like ourselves?

The problem is those cavemen are now doing serious economic damage to this island. They should be called out on this sort of behaviour. They are propping the British government. Such inflammatory behaviour should not be accepted at any level. Burning another country’s national flag is desperate behaviour. Whatever police force is up there should not be allowing this crap.
It wouldn’t be allowed in Dublin to burn union jacks wholesale like that.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why would we care? Pack of cavemen dancing around a fire in their backwater - what's that to a modern nation like ourselves?

Because in a future united Ireland they will be voting for TDs in the Dail, You can see that a tiny number of unionist MPs can wreak havoc in the HOC, just imagine what they could do in the Dail where they would become a significant minority.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Do you imagine the BP would get 37%? Not knowing the circumstances of the election yet, i still find it hard to see them outdoing their current polling figures of mid-20ish. I think talk of them winning 100+ seats, or even beating all the other parties, is outlandish. They will have to campaign with proper policies, unlike the euro elections, and i am fairly confident they will all turn out to be useless campaigners. Not suggesting they wont win a fair few seats, but i'm thinking in terms of 50-60 being a good showing for them. Maybe i'm underestimating it, but i fancy Lib Dems will do a lot better when the momentum behind remain really begins to crank up and assuming Labour have at least got some of their mojo back together again.

Well, they're at 21% in the polls currently so I doubt if they'll get that high. 21% doesn't cut much mustard usually but the two party norm is gone for now so who knows how many seats they could get. I think their greatest influence within Britain will be to push the Tories further to the right.

Lackadaisical

Deleted User wrote: »

Because in a future united Ireland they will be voting for TDs in the Dail, You can see that a tiny number of unionist MPs can wreak havoc in the HOC, just imagine what they could do in the Dail where they would become a significant minority.

Considering a large number of them probably wouldn't recognise the word "Dail" or "TD", I think that could be a LONG way off, even in the current circumstances.

The most logical solution would be special status for Northern Ireland that allows them to remain in the customs union and preserve some kind of a status quo.

The only logical way I can see out of the current mess might be a referendum in Northern Ireland on granting themselves a special status. I still think a united Ireland's is quite a way off. There's a lot of political calming down to happen first and that could well be a generation or so away.

For the foreseeable future, I think Northern Ireland has to remain a compromise. Otherwise you'll just revert to the bad old days with one side or the other being furious.

The Republic just needs to keep moving forward and being an attractive prospect. That's fundamentally what will bring a United Ireland about.

I'd like to see a united Ireland, but I would like to see it happen under the right circumstances and completely peacefully. If that takes another generation or more, so be it.

In the meantime, we need to protect the peace that exists up there and that means a status quo and I can really only see how that could be achieved with a consented to special status. The DUP shouldn't be allowed to block that. You cannot have a situation in the North where one side holds all the power. It's extremely dangerous and everyone with any sense knows that!

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Both articles say exactly that. 80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time.

Fewer than what? Fewer than NOW?


No. They both say fewer than in 10 years time if the UK remains.


The only way that means fewer than now is if the ESRI imagines we will add zero jobs in the next 10 years if the UK remains.


Which would be a much bigger deal than their Brexit number, so, nope.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not quite the same but I believe the norm for a country breaking away from a larger country (e.g. Scotland breaking away from the UK) is that in the absence of a deal, no money is payable.

Well there usually is some sort of agreement made for that situation. Would be quite a chaotic world otherwise.
The UK did agree to the current EU budget 2 years prior to their Brexit mania but as you said if they are not in the EU any more there's nothing to "make/oblige" them pay anything else other than a sense of responsibility, honour, not shafting your neighbours and making things awkward etc etc...

Bit cynical wrote: »

However I think the main nastiness will be between the UK and the EU (with Ireland caught in the crossfire). I don't think outside entities will regard the UK as in breach of its agreements since that money does appear to be part of a negotiation in return for other things that failed to reach completion.

Well we are (in) the EU so...
Also I think there could be quite a bit of more "direct" nastiness inter UK/Ireland in that situation rather than just "crossfire"...
Yes, I'd agree the likes of US, China etc won't give a hoot, and the international bodies (like IMF that was mentioned) are dying and withering away because the powerful countries don't particularly support their existence any longer (when they get in the way somehow).
As in my other post we seem to be moving (much more) towards that sort of dog eat dog world driven by projects like Brexit. Hope the UK doesn't get eaten at some point.
Not all are as "nice" (or even gullible?) as their neighbours in the EU.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fewer than what? Fewer than NOW?


No. They both say fewer than in 10 years time if the UK remains.


The only way that means fewer than now is if the ESRI imagines we will add zero jobs in the next 10 years if the UK remains.


Which would be a much bigger deal than their Brexit number, so, nope.

Christ. Grand.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Christ. Grand.

Exactly. A bit of a slowdown, not quite the turbo growth we have been seeing, 100,000 new jobs instead of 200,000.


Grand.