Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

https://japantoday.com/category/business/toyota-won't-build-cars-at-uk-factory-the-day-after-brexit

Toyota planning shut down on Brexit day as they don't know what disruption there will be. But sure feck business to quote current prime minister.

Also fresh leaks (more recent than yellowhammer) claim 48hour delays at Dover
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/02/leaked-no-deal-report-says-lorries-could-face-48-hour-delays-at-dover

The bit I don't understand about these finite, time-limited delays is how they are not forecasted to increase. Unless something fundamental changes, the conditions that can create a 48 hour delay will continue to build that delay continuously.

Igotadose

More recent reports leaked: "Irish border after Brexit – all ideas are beset by issues says secret paper"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/irish-border-after-brexit-all-ideas-beset-by-issues

BarryD2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

But don't forget unlike game theory players there is a giant imbalance between two parties here. Worst case scenario for us is nowhere near as bad as it is for UK.

What game world are you living in? This is a lose situation for us if Brexit does go ahead. There is an imbalance alright between the economies of the UK and the Republic - their's is much larger

As has been pointed out again and again from the outset, the best result for us is either no Brexit or a very soft one, which latter does not really suit the EU.

prawnsambo

Igotadose wrote: »

More recent reports leaked: "Irish border after Brexit – all ideas are beset by issues says secret paper"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/irish-border-after-brexit-all-ideas-beset-by-issues

I don't have to read the 'secret' paper to know that. If you don't have SPS checks at the border, you can't have SPS checks. But even more fundamentally, you have farms and businesses that straddle the border now, so unless you build a physical wall a la Trump; through people's houses, farms and businesses, it's as porous as a sieve.

prawnsambo

BarryD2 wrote: »

What game world are you living in? This is a lose situation for us if Brexit does go ahead. There is an imbalance alright between the economies of the UK and the Republic - their's is much larger

As has been pointed out again and again from the outset, the best result for us is either no Brexit or a very soft one, which latter does not really suit the EU.

It does actually. A very soft brexit will maintain the UK's membership of the SM, CU or both. Either like Norway or Switzerland or a combination of both. That means that goods flows will be much smoother and seamless than what a hard brexit would cause. And of course would include FoM. And even membership subs. But without Nigel Farage in the EP.

CelticRambler

BarryD2 wrote: »

the best result for us is either no Brexit or a very soft one, which latter does not really suit the EU.

What game world are you living in?

The EU's starting point was to have a Brexit that was so soft, it didn't happen. But if there was going to be a Brexit of some kind, the EU laid out the options, increasingly hard, on the "Barnier staircase" as a function of the British demands/red lines.

Britain opted for the kind of softness enjoyed by North Korea, and over the weekend have been publicly stating that that's their default negotiating position.

Enzokk

Another minister has hinted that the Government could ignore parliament.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1168400431367766017?s=19

So this is not just a slip of one minister but it seems to be the policy.

Then this morning Jacob Rees-Mogg was taking calls and he had no time for experts.

https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1168432907922358273?s=19

https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1168434092611911681?s=19

I saw another tweet about May and which way she could vote. She has a choice, back those that prevented her deal from going through and cost her her job, or back ministers she appointed who backed all her votes on her deal.

Imagine she votes against the government and loses the whip and gets deselected.

ToBeFrank123

BluePlanet wrote: »

Maybe you haven't been paying attention lately?
It's not just the 'Backstop' that needs ditching now (according to the more hardline Tories), it's the entire Withdrawal Agreement.
Plus they already said they aren't paying the divorce bill.

So to summarize here, you want to:
Cave to the Tories on the Backstop, still loose the 42 billion and likely confine the WA agreement to the dustbin.

What's in it for us?

So you and fellow travelers can travel North and South un-hindered?

Actually its you who haven't been paying attention.

The backstop was voted down by Corbyn, ERG and most of the opposition.

If Corbyn had voted for the WA we wouldn't be staring down the barrel of a No Deal.

May's government proposed the backstop and Corbyn was probably the number 1 reason it was voted down, probably in the hope it would cause a general election and he'd become prime minister.

Now Corbyn is going around acting the hero as if he could prevent a No Deal. He had his chance to prevent a No Deal, by voting for the WA and backstop. People forget this. And if the WA was brought back to the HOC in the morning, he'd still vote it down.

What's badly missing from all this, including with people like you, is Real Politick, and not fantasising about something else that's not going to happen such as the HOC voting for the backstop. Its been proven time and again they won't support it - not just the conservatives, but people like Corbyn, a supposed friend of Ireland and as I said the number 1 reason the WA and Backstop didn't get through the HOC.

Zubeneschamali

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It's talking about the trucks travelling to France, many of which are empty anyway because we import far more goods from the EU than we send there.

So, are UK authorities going to do the sensible thing and have one lane of the Motorway as a queue for empty trucks, and another lane as the 48-72 hour queue for trucks carrying loads?

This would be helpful for Irish goods using the landbridge, as the TIR lorries can just join the empty queue since no checks are needed at Dover or Calais.

BarryD2

prawnsambo wrote: »

It does actually. A very soft brexit will maintain the UK's membership of the SM, CU or both. Either like Norway or Switzerland or a combination of both.

A soft Brexit was not suiting the EU politically. There has always been an EU view that the UK cannot have their cake and eat it, that they can't leave the EU but enjoy much the same benefits of being in. Otherwise there's be other states maybe thinking they'd have a slice of the same.

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Giving into UK and we immediately lose. Cooperation is not an option as after 3 years of negotiations they decided to shred the incredible win win compromise that the WA is.

Who said anything about giving in? We are where we are, there's no going back. All I've suggested here is that people need to a dose of realism, it's all very well to castigate the Brits and point out the faults of their current leaders, but that'd not going to butter any bread here down the road.

We are in a similar sort of territory that pertained prior to the financial crash a decade ago in that the public are being told here that all is grand, soft landings and all that rubbish right up to the last minute before midnight. Who's going to be the Patrick Honohan of 2019?

farmchoice

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Actually its you who haven't been paying attention.

The backstop was voted down by Corbyn, ERG and most of the opposition.

If Corbyn had voted for the WA we wouldn't be staring down the barrel of a No Deal.

May's government proposed the backstop and Corbyn was probably the number 1 reason it was voted down, probably in the hope it would cause a general election and he'd become prime minister.

Now Corbyn is going around acting the hero as if he could prevent a No Deal. He had his chance to prevent a No Deal, by voting for the WA and backstop. People forget this. And if the WA was brought back to the HOC in the morning, he'd still vote it down.

What's badly missing from all this, including with people like you, is Real Politick, and not fantasising about something else that's not going to happen such as the HOC voting for the backstop. Its been proven time and again they won't support it - not just the conservatives, but people like Corbyn, a supposed friend of Ireland and as I said the number 1 reason the WA and Backstop didn't get through the HOC.

im not a suppoter of corbyn but just on this point.
corbyn the lib dems SNP etc opposed the WA not because of the backstop (or not just because) but because it took the UK out of the CM and the SM. it was argued that to do this would be savagely damaging for the uk economy and state and that they would not vote to destroy their country though an act of economic insanity( in their view).

funkey_monkey

Katya's take on things:

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1168449899316371457

ToBeFrank123

BarryD2 wrote: »

What game world are you living in? This is a lose situation for us if Brexit does go ahead. There is an imbalance alright between the economies of the UK and the Republic - their's is much larger

As has been pointed out again and again from the outset, the best result for us is either no Brexit or a very soft one, which latter does not really suit the EU.

Agreed. But the chances of No Brexit now are very slim. A soft Brexit involving the WA and backstop also appear to be gone out the window, as time and again it was rejected by the HoC.

Its laughable to see Corbyn going around now trying to act the hero.

Here's what he said in December 2018

https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-i-will-prevent-a-no-deal-brexit-and-negotiate-limited-backstop/

Asked if he could guarantee there would be no Irish backstop in a Labour-negotiated Brexit deal, Corbyn told Euronews “there certainly wouldn’t be a backstop from which you can’t escape.”

Here's what he said in January.

Corbyn told both Sky and the BBC that he had told the prime minister it was unacceptable that the UK could not quit the arrangement - designed to keep the Irish border open in the absence of a trade deal that does so - unilaterally, as he has repeatedly over the last few months.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/01/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-irish-backstop-needlessly-damaging-labour


Here he is in August this year.

Jeremy Corbyn has said he agrees with President Macron of France that the backstop, designed to avoid a hard border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland after Brexit, is indispensable.
The Labour leader said the question of the Irish border was "fundamental" to a lot of things. "The Irish peace process was an enormous step forward. It's an international treaty. It's an international agreement," he said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-49441271/brexit-corbyn-backs-macron-on-irish-backstop

He changed his position and he repeatedly had a chance to vote for the EU-UK negotiated WA and the backstop and repeatedly voted against it. These are the facts.

Zubeneschamali

BarryD2 wrote: »

the best result for us is either no Brexit or a very soft one, which latter does not really suit the EU.

Nonsense, the EU has been open to soft Brexit into a Norway type deal from Day One, as shown on Barnier's single slide summary below.

It is Theresa May's red lines, not Brexit itself, which set up this disaster.

Elect Corbyn, get an extension, and then negotiate a deal that keeps the UK in the CU and SM - problem solved.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Agreed. But the chances of No Brexit now are very slim. A soft Brexit involving the WA and backstop also appear to be gone out the window

Theresa May's WA is not any kind of soft Brexit - it is a very hard Brexit, leaving both the CU and SM, unthinkably Hard compared to what the Leave campaign said would happen - "No-one is talking about leaving the single market" etc.

The WA just means that it is a somewhat organised way to Hard Brexit, as opposed to a No Deal crash exit.

First Up

BarryD2 wrote:

A soft Brexit was not suiting the EU politically. There has always been an EU view that the UK cannot have their cake and eat it, that they can't leave the EU but enjoy much the same benefits of being in. Otherwise there's be other states maybe thinking they'd have a slice of the same.

A complete mis-read of the EU position. The EU would accept the UK joining a Customs Union, in which it complies with EU standards and maintains the EU's external tariffs. That would retain many of the economic benefits of EU membership and pose no threat to the integrity of the SM. They only thing preventing that is Tory party politics and Brexit ideology.

There are 28 (soon 27) EU members with wide political variation. There is no "political" consensus and nobody is trying to enforce one.

VinLieger

BarryD2 wrote: »

A soft Brexit was not suiting the EU politically. There has always been an EU view that the UK cannot have their cake and eat it, that they can't leave the EU but enjoy much the same benefits of being in. Otherwise there's be other states maybe thinking they'd have a slice of the same.

Yeah you need to read up on barniers staircase to understand how wrong this is.

BarryD2 wrote: »

Who said anything about giving in? We are where we are, there's no going back. All I've suggested here is that people need to a dose of realism, it's all very well to castigate the Brits and point out the faults of their current leaders, but that'd not going to butter any bread here down the road.

We are in a similar sort of territory that pertained prior to the financial crash a decade ago in that the public are being told here that all is grand, soft landings and all that rubbish right up to the last minute before midnight. Who's going to be the Patrick Honohan of 2019?

At no point has the public been told all is grand, just last week ministers were telling people and business to prepare for the worst due to no deal being incredibly likely.



You literally are just making stuff up at this stage to suit your bizarre narrative that nobody understands how bad this could be, when in reality everyone understands how bad it could be however we have also been preparing for 3 years AND have 26 EU members to help support us through it whereas the UK will have nobody.

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nonsense, the EU has been open to soft Brexit into a Norway type deal from Day One, as shown on Barnier's single slide summary below.

It is Theresa May's red lines, not Brexit itself, which set up this disaster.

Elect Corbyn, get an extension, and then negotiate a deal that keeps the UK in the CU and SM - problem solved.

Fantasy stuff. It was never going to happen.

Once the WA was rejected a couple of times by the HoC, the obvious follow on was a Conservative leadership battle with Johnson winning.

Zubeneschamali

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Zero sum games are straight out of Trumpian handbook, compromise and cooperation are dirty words for them.

However UK is not a big boy on global stage like the US

Worth noting, too, that Trump's zero sum games with China are a failure for the US. Repeated rounds of game theory show tit-for-tat with some built in forgiveness works best.

The EU will forgive the UK when a sane party regains power, and if Brexit has not happened, will be open to a renegotiation without May's red lines. If Brexit has happened before sanity returns, the EU will be open to negotiations on a close future relationship.

But any such agreements will have strong guarantees in them in case the Brexit Party or ERG wing of the Tories survive the coming chaos and retake power in future.

Zubeneschamali

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Katya's take on things:

Really, who cares at this point? She has got exactly nothing right, ever, since Brexit started. It is all just impressions she gets from UK sources who are either spinning or just crazy.

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Theresa May's WA is not any kind of soft Brexit - it is a very hard Brexit, leaving both the CU and SM, unthinkably Hard compared to what the Leave campaign said would happen - "No-one is talking about leaving the single market" etc.

The WA just means that it is a somewhat organised way to Hard Brexit, as opposed to a No Deal crash exit.

It was the best deal on the table for the HoC to vote for, it was the only deal that could have preserved the backstop. It was rejected.

Staying in the CU would have meant abiding by the rules but having no say in the rules, and that was not going to be acceptable to many in the HoC.

josip

prawnsambo wrote: »

The bit I don't understand about these finite, time-limited delays is how they are not forecasted to increase. Unless something fundamental changes, the conditions that can create a 48 hour delay will continue to build that delay continuously.

Something fundamental does change.
If the delay is longer than 48 hours, then that trading route becomes non-viable for many businesses.
They will either source locally if possible, use an alternative route or simply go out of business.
It's not viable for any business to pay for a tractor, trailer and driver to sit idle at a border for 48 hours solid.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, are UK authorities going to do the sensible thing and have one lane of the Motorway as a queue for empty trucks, and another lane as the 48-72 hour queue for trucks carrying loads?

This would be helpful for Irish goods using the landbridge, as the TIR lorries can just join the empty queue since no checks are needed at Dover or Calais.

Checks will still be needed to make sure the trailer is empty.
I've been driving into and out of the EU regularly for the last 15 years.
I've seen a few times 3km+, 48 hour queues of trucks.
But they're always in a single queue on the hard shoulder.
Maybe UK borders will have greater capacity for segregation but if it backs up to the motorway, anything apart from a hard shoulder queue would bring the motorway to a halt.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Fantasy stuff. It was never going to happen.

Fantasy stuff is thinking that the UK can crash out with No Deal and survive.

The Leave campaign and all prominent Leavers before the referendum repeatedly held up Switzerland and Norway as examples of successful countries outside the EU. They repeatedly said that they would not get a Norway or Switzerland deal, they would get a better deal than that. They said it would be the easiest deal ever negotiated, and that they held all the cards.

Now, after failing at all of the above for 3 years, all they will promise is adequate food, and I don't even believe that.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It was the best deal on the table for the HoC to vote for, it was the only deal that could have preserved the backstop. It was rejected.

But not because it was too soft - the opposition voted against it because it was too hard. Saying the only other option is an even harder crash out is fantasy.

One perfectly possible option is an extension for a General Election in which a Remain alliance gets into government, throws out May's undemocratic red lines, and negotiates a least-damaging Brexit, Norway+.

Another is an extension for a 2nd referendum in which Remain wins and we bury the whole Brexit thing in one of those nuclear waste ponds.

After all, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, right? Which means it isn't over by a long way.

CelticRambler

BarryD2 wrote: »

A soft Brexit was not suiting the EU politically. There has always been an EU view that the UK cannot have their cake and eat it, that they can't leave the EU but enjoy much the same benefits of being in. Otherwise there's be other states maybe thinking they'd have a slice of the same.

The EU's position has, from the very beginning, been completely transparent: a member state outside the Union will not enjoy the same advantages as one that is a full member. That never meant that the EU didn't want a "soft" Brexit - the EU was (and would still be) quite happy to have the same kind of arrangement as it has with the EFTA states, or Turkey, or Japan, or South Korea.

Can you not get your head around the fact that it's the UK that doesn't a soft Brexit?

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Traveled that way back in March there was construction work for extra lane back then, not sure if it was completed

That lane is for "Operation Stack", i.e. the delayed HGV traffic that is going directly to the port for "immediate" loading. The traffic that is likely to be subject to checks - and therefore likely to be at a standstill for 2-8 days - will be re-routed to the holding zone at Manston Airport.

Zubeneschamali

josip wrote: »

anything apart from a hard shoulder queue would bring the motorway to a halt.

I think they have reserved Manston airfield for queuing trucks, too, a move described by the Irish Road Haulage Association as "totally and utterly bonkers".

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But not because it was too soft - the opposition voted against it because it was too hard. Saying the only other option is an even harder crash out is fantasy.

One perfectly possible option is an extension for a General Election in which a Remain alliance gets into government, throws out May's undemocratic red lines, and negotiates a least-damaging Brexit, Norway+.

Another is an extension for a 2nd referendum in which Remain wins and we bury the whole Brexit thing in one of those nuclear waste ponds.

After all, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, right? Which means it isn't over by a long way.

They were never going to get a deal that suited everyone. The WA was aimed at the middle but in the end, everyone had some fault with it. The backstop, leaving the CU, etc.

No deal is going to please everyone or even a majority in the HoC.

At some stage, people like Corbyn were going to have to bury their principles to get a deal through which included the backstop.

I think Johnson would have less of a chance than May of getting a deal through as Corbyn would vote against anything he comes up.

The WA was the only deal on the table. Anything else was just more of the usual fantasising that has surrounded Brexit from the start.

As I said before, a different deal could have included staying in the CU - that would likely have failed a vote too because it would have meant abiding by CU laws and rules, including I think free movement of people, but having no say over those rules. Its a fantasy to believe that would have passed either.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The WA was aimed at the middle

No, the WA is an outrageous leap towards Hard Brexit compared to what the Leave campaign promised the UK electorate, featuring exit not only from the EU, but also the SM and CU. Further from the EU than Turkey or the Ukraine, for feck's sake.

Norway+++ would have been near the middle of No Brexit (48%) vs. Some Sort Of Brexit (52%).

Leroy42

Didn't TM have a majority with the DUP?

The fault for the failure of the WA in the HoC is entirely down to her and the Tory party.

TM failed to bring her own party along with her. Johnson is doing exactly the same.

Calina

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Katya's take on things:

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1168449899316371457

She is strongly implying her contact is Irish.