Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

ThePanjandrum

tuxy wrote: »

Over 50% of our MEPs are female so I think we are safe from being classified as white supremacists.

Not only does that avoid the question it assumes that women cannot be white supremacists which is laughable.

Having said that, hardly anyone who is called a "white supremacist" is a white supremacist. It's just one of those meaningless insults like "Fascist" or "Nazi" which is designed to close down conversation but which really shows that the person using the term doesn't actually undersatan what it means.

ThePanjandrum

Enzokk wrote: »

Will the tariffs imposed really outweigh the other costs of Brexit though? Do you have a link that confirms how much the UK will raise through tariffs? What about the plan not to impose tariffs to keep the border in NI open? What happens to the extra revenue then?

Just a quick note about no tariffs to keep the NI border open, that was for goods remaining in Northern Ireland, not goods going elsewhere.

reslfj

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Just a quick note about no tariffs to keep the NI border open, that was for goods remaining in Northern Ireland, not goods going elsewhere.

Isn't that precisely the Irish Sea border ?

Lars

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1158506323165745158

Strong thread this, a little snippet that stood out:

They recognise that the UK Government is now trying to isolate and put personal pressure on Irish leader Leo Varadkar. So they purposely sent a message of full support for the Irish at the EU Council debrief... and for the backstop etc.

So again, to anyone who thinks the E.U will trow Ireland under the bus at the 11th hour, it won't be happening.

trellheim

They recognise that the UK Government is now trying to isolate and put personal pressure on Irish leader Leo Varadkar

Exactly as I said they would ( to be clear, that the UK govt would put pressure on) . It is in no way finished yet. I suspect the Irish government know this far better than I do. Good stuff from the EU in support.

BUT I still cant crystal ball a way out, unless one side caves, but I see no negotiations.

Unless theres a smoke filled back room but I've no inkling of one ?

Edit : the only better Brexit reporter than Faisal Islam is Tony Connelly and its a huge gulf after those two even though Faisal's gone from the Brexit beat to BBC Economics editor (same thing, says you )

PS I like Tom Newton Dunn even though its the Sun . he's not shy

trellheim

Other relevant FI tweet

Also worth noting that sterling-euro is now hovering just a touch above its lowest level for over a decade since the financial crisis at €1.081. Hits that decade low at €1.079.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1158519769844330498

Peregrinus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So we go on WTO terms, the same way as the USA and China deal with the EU. It's not ideal but if it comes to tariffs then the UK Government will receive a lot more revenue than the EU and can use it to shield its businesses.

I swear to God, it's like you never heard of the Great Depression.

Strazdas

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1158506323165745158

Strong thread this, a little snippet that stood out:



So again, to anyone who thinks the E.U will trow Ireland under the bus at the 11th hour, it won't be happening.

Downing Street are even using the term "anti-democratic backstop" in their press releases. It's impossible to take these guys seriously.....it's all just a joke to them, they are not serious politicians.

trellheim

undemocratic backstop

The UK Government in Cabinet signed off on the fking backstop they had every chance to say p off if they thought it would not get through the HoC, that was Olly Robbins main purpose in all of that


Sorry rage filled at undemocratic ... 27 other countries + the EU Commission, Council, Parliament + most everyone else including the US Congress ... and its undemocratic... Grrrrr

Peregrinus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Indeed there are and many of them in Leave constituencies, many Remain votes will be frittered away on the Lib Dems and other such parties meaning that the Brexit Party has a straight run against an unpopular MP and a split Remain vote.

Mmm. The Brexit Party having "a straight run agains an unpopular MP" means that the Leave vote is also split.

Current opinion polls put the Brexit Party in fourth place nationally, polling in the range 9%-15%, depending on which poll you pick. In the 2015 General Election UKIP secured 12.6%, and this won them the grand total of one seat.

Which suggests, perhaps, that the Brexit Party's main impact will not be in taking seats from the Conservatives, but rather in denying seats to the Conservatives, to the advantage of more Remainy candidates, as we've just seen in Brecon & Radnorshire. To win a majority in a General Election, Johnson needs to crush the Brexit Party; he needs to reduce them to (current) UKIP-like levels of support. Hence he attempts to steal their clothes by adopting extreme hard brexitry himself.

The risk with this strategy, though, is obviously that he may repel moderate Tories. They will be very reluctant to switch to Labour, esp. under Corbyn, but a resurgent Lib Dems could look to them like a very attractive offering. As, again, we have just seen in Brecon & Radnorshire.

Now, you will immediately point out that there was a single Remain candidate in the B&R bye-election; Plaid Cymru stood aside. If the Remain vote had been split as well as the Leave, would, the Lib Dems have still taken the seat?

Quite possibly, yes. They took it with a majority of 1,425. But in the General election in 2017, Plaid Cymru took only 1,299 votes, and that was on a much higher turnout. So, even if Plaid had run in the bye-election, on the figures it seems likely that the Lib Dems would have won anyway.

murphaph

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So we go on WTO terms, the same way as the USA and China deal with the EU. It's not ideal but if it comes to tariffs then the UK Government will receive a lot more revenue than the EU and can use it to shield its businesses.

But the US doesn't just rely on WTO terms in its trade with the EU. There are sectoral bilateral agreements in place. Pure WTO trade is rare.

brickster69

reslfj wrote: »

We in the EU27 are 5-7 times the size of the UK - so our initial idea is the UK pays 5-7 times more for concessions from the EU than visa versa.
.

Don't pay to buy 90 Billion a year more than we sell, sorry. Best try that with America or someone, sure they will.

In fact when you think about it, the UK is equal to 19 of the smallest EU states combined. So really it is 1 against 8 now.

KildareP

brickster69 wrote: »

Don't pay to buy 90 Billion a year more than we sell, sorry. Best try that with America or someone, sure they will.

In fact when you think about it, the UK is equal to 19 of the smallest EU states combined. So really it is 1 against 8 now.

That is the repeated fatal error the UK keeps making.
You deal with one EU block - not 27 individual (or multiple groups of) standalone member states.

Once the UK exits without a deal then the EU sets the terms and it’ll be proper 3rd country terms, not the current favourable ex-member terms on offer.
As the USA will do.
As Canada and Australia have thus far indicated they will.

What do the UK do if they find proposed trading terms unpalatable from everyone?

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

Don't pay to buy 90 Billion a year more than we sell, sorry. Best try that with America or someone, sure they will.

You don't buy it as an act of charity. You buy it because you want it; because you reckon you are better off buying it than not buying it. The notion that if you stop buying it the EU suffers but the UK doesn't is silly.

brickster69 wrote: »

In fact when you think about it, the UK is equal to 19 of the smallest EU states combined. So really it is 1 against 8 now.

The whole point is that the EU functions as a single trading block. Counting the number of member states within the block, or comparing the UK by size with member states of the block, is meaningless. You might as well try and big up the UK's position relative to the US by comparing the UK to individual US states.

A better perspective would be this. The EU-27, by GDP, is about 5.6 times larger than the UK. This means that, in terms of negotiating muscle, the EU negotiating with the UK will have about the same relative advantage as the UK would have if negotiating with Argentina, or with Thailand.

(In fact I think this comparison also overstates the UK's position. Argentina or Thailand have other potential trade partners that are closer to them than the UK, and larger than the UK, which makes their trading relationship with the UK a relatively modest concern for them. But this is certainly not true for the UK when negotiating with the EU.)

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Not only does that avoid the question it assumes that women cannot be white supremacists which is laughable.

Having said that, hardly anyone who is called a "white supremacist" is a white supremacist. It's just one of those meaningless insults like "Fascist" or "Nazi" which is designed to close down conversation but which really shows that the person using the term doesn't actually undersatan what it means.

I agree with your first part. A woman is more than capable of being a white supremacist. Having 50/50 male/female elected representatives isn't necessarily the best indicator to use with regards to equality.

But Ireland is also a 96% white country. So it's obviously going to end up with most of its politicians being white.

lawred2

For some unknown reason newstalk will be having Eoghan Harris on shortly

brickster69

Peregrinus wrote: »

You don't buy it as an act of charity. You buy it because you want it; because you reckon you are better off buying it than not buying it. The notion that if you stop buying it the EU suffers but the UK doesn't is silly.


The whole point is that the EU functions as a single trading block. Counting the number of member states within the block, or comparing the UK by size with member states of the block, is meaningless. You might as well try and big up the UK's position relative to the US by comparing the UK to individual US states.

A better perspective would be this. The EU-27, by GDP, is about 5.6 times larger than the UK. This means that, in terms of negotiating muscle, the EU negotiating with the UK will have about the same relative advantage as the UK would have if negotiating with Argentina, or with Thailand.

(In fact I think this comparison also overstates the UK's position. Argentina or Thailand have other potential trade partners that are closer to them than the UK, and larger than the UK, which makes their trading relationship with the UK a relatively modest concern for them. But this is certainly not true for the UK when negotiating with the EU.)

EU's weakness is it thinks it is stronger than it is. They thought that the UK would accept a Treaty no other nation on Earth would accept. Now they will have to accept the worst case scenario. Soon Europe's businesses will start to ask WTF is going on ?

"sign this agreement, we will not change it and it is the best we will offer or else we will go into recession, our banks could fail and make 1.5 million EU citizens unemployed. Oh and we don't need your military we will make our new army. Finally we will have a border on Ireland, how do you like that ? "

declanflynn

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

As I said above there are rebels on both sides , plenty of horrified Tories

Indeed there are and many of them in Leave constituencies, many Remain votes will be frittered away on the Lib Dems and other such parties meaning that the Brexit Party has a straight run against an unpopular MP and a split Remain vote.

Some of the Tories like Grieve are facing deselection anyway, so its unlikely that their local party will rally behind them.

BTW, Did you know that Grieve's area of expertise is Health and Safety Law, not Constitutional Law?

I still think no deal won't happen on October 31, I bet Grieve and co have a plan

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

For some unknown reason newstalk will be having Eoghan Harris on shortly

Cus Newstalk breakfast has turned into clickbait in audio form

VinLieger

brickster69 wrote: »

EU's weakness is it thinks it is stronger than it is. They thought that the UK would accept a Treaty no other nation on Earth would accept. Now they will have to accept the worst case scenario. Soon Europe's businesses will start to ask WTF is going on ?

Firstly its not a treaty its a Withdrawal Agreement that is a prelude to a trade negotiation which will result in a treaty.


Secondly no nation in the world would accept a backstop because no nation in the world would be stupid enough to get themselves into a situation where one was required without properly discussing it and understanding the realities of it.


Thirdly minus the backstop you honestly believe the likes of Norway, Iceland or Switzerland to name only 3 obvious examples wouldn't jump in a heartbeat at the terms of the deal offered to the UK? You know nothing about EU politics or trade deals.


Finally the EU is stronger quite simply due to the fact we have a larger market than the UK which is the essence of what trade deals are built on, dont believe me maybe lets hear from an expert?

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

EU's weakness is it thinks it is stronger than it is. They thought that the UK would accept a Treaty no other nation on Earth would accept. Now they will have to accept the worst case scenario. Soon Europe's businesses will start to ask WTF is going on ?

"sign this agreement, we will not change it and it is the best we will offer or else we will go into recession, our banks could fail and make 1.5 million EU citizens unemployed. Oh and we don't need your military we will make our new army. Finally we will have a border on Ireland, how do you like that ? "

Your narrative lacks realism. The treaty you refer to was not dictated by the EU; it was constructed around "red lines" set at the outset by the UK and accepted by the EU, negotiated between the EU and the UK, modified during negotiations to make concessions that the UK sought, and accepted by the UK government.

And it lacks balance. The consequences of the UK's rejection of the treaty it negotiated are much, much worse for UK businesses and even for the UK's political stability than the consequences for EU businesses and the EU's political stability. Yet you seem to think that EU governments should be responsive to consequences for the EU, but the UK government should simply ignore the much worse consequences for the UK. That's not only unbalanced; it strikes me as pretty unrealistic.

brickster69

Backstop, what backstop ?

Who do you believe and who is lying ?

https://twitter.com/lienomail/status/1158623462149251077

declanflynn

brickster69 wrote: »

Backstop, what backstop ?

Who do you believe and who is lying ?

https://twitter.com/lienomail/status/1158623462149251077

The backstop was the uks idea mate!

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

EU's weakness is it thinks it is stronger than it is. They thought that the UK would accept a Treaty no other nation on Earth would accept. Now they will have to accept the worst case scenario. Soon Europe's businesses will start to ask WTF is going on ?

"sign this agreement, we will not change it and it is the best we will offer or else we will go into recession, our banks could fail and make 1.5 million EU citizens unemployed. Oh and we don't need your military we will make our new army. Finally we will have a border on Ireland, how do you like that ? "

No other nation on earth would have contemplated what the UK is doing, so your assertion is moot.

declanflynn

Just a few brands that are not owned by brits
Rolls Royce
Weetabix
Cadbury
Newcastle brown ale
Jaguar land rover
Camelot
Boots
Raleigh
Asda
Branston pickle
Ur average brit thinks these are British companies and always will be long live the queen etc etc, it's mind boggling

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So we go on WTO terms, the same way as the USA and China deal with the EU. It's not ideal but if it comes to tariffs then the UK Government will receive a lot more revenue than the EU and can use it to shield its businesses.

You do understand that tariffs are collected from UK individuals and businesses importing goods? So you propose to use the money collected from businesses to shield those same businesses?

Stop moaning ffs

brickster69 wrote: »

Backstop, what backstop ?

Who do you believe and who is lying ?

https://twitter.com/lienomail/status/1158623462149251077

If there’s no backstop, why is Johnson insisting on it’s removal?

This is very little to do with the backstop, Mays red lines and many other elements of the WA are hugely problematic for the British so if it wasn’t the backstop it would simply be something else. They want to renegotiate the entire WA and that’s not going to happen, so they’re banging on about the backstop to put the blame on the EU.
That won’t get them anywhere and so abritain finds itself in catastrophe alone with no trade deals and sterling fallen through the floor. It isn’t up to the EU to save them from that. It’s up to Britain to accept the WA and get on with it.

Leroy42

Brickster69, what is the alternative to a backstop? Lets us imagine for a moment that the EU conceeds to UK demands and removes it to reopen talks.

What is the UK plan? They (UK) cannot continue to adhere to current regulations as this would negate the ability to do other trade deals. They cannot leave an open border as his would remove any incentive for other countries to look for tariff or access agreements as part of future trade deals.

So what are the UK planning on doing to resolve their own problem. Forget about the EU issues, which the Brexit side have used to conveniently avoid having to actually discuss the real issues.

Its either a backstop, a border or continuing to accept EU regulations.

20silkcut

brickster69 wrote: »

Backstop, what backstop ?

Who do you believe and who is lying ?

https://twitter.com/lienomail/status/1158623462149251077

Some really odious comments under that tweet.

lawred2

brickster69 wrote: »

EU's weakness is it thinks it is stronger than it is. They thought that the UK would accept a Treaty no other nation on Earth would accept. Now they will have to accept the worst case scenario. Soon Europe's businesses will start to ask WTF is going on ?

"sign this agreement, we will not change it and it is the best we will offer or else we will go into recession, our banks could fail and make 1.5 million EU citizens unemployed. Oh and we don't need your military we will make our new army. Finally we will have a border on Ireland, how do you like that ? "

not too many other nations self destructing like the UK is either mate so...