Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

PropJoe10

54&56 wrote: »

Trump when asked right now at the G7 if the trade deal he wants to do with the UK will "do over" the UK he responds that no he won't do over the UK as he loves the UK and has a number of properties in the UK including Turnberry in Ayrshire and Doonbeg in Ireland -

Boris Johnson is putting his faith in this guy to strike a good trade deal. Jesus wept.

Enzokk

54&56 wrote: »

Trump when asked right now at the G7 if the trade deal he wants to do with the UK will "do over" the UK he responds that no he won't do over the UK as he loves the UK and has a number of properties in the UK including Turnberry in Ayrshire and Doonbeg in Ireland -

I am still amazed that people actually thought this waste of a human was fit to be president of anything, never mind the most powerful country in the world. No wonder we have grown woman harassing a 16 year old on twitter for standing up the her beliefs while the Amazon burns. What a sad indictment of the humans species.

Continuing my rant, Johnson claimed that the new trade deal with the US would allow pork pies to be sold to the US, just like it is being done currently in Thailand and Iceland. And to no-one's surprise he was caught lying again. A serial liar caught lying again.

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1165878083393654784?s=20

Melton Mowbray pork pie makers and No 10 clash over Johnson claim

The humble Melton Mowbray pork pie is at the centre of an unlikely political dispute about British exports.

Boris Johnson had said pork pies are exported to Thailand and Iceland, but cannot be to the US due to red tape.

However the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association said the pies were not even exported to Thailand and Iceland.

Downing Street insisted pies were exported, citing producer Walker & Son - but the company said this was not correct.

Walker & Son told the BBC it had previously exported a "tiny amount" of pork pies to Singapore, but had not done so for "at least two years" and is now "entirely focused on the UK market".

The pies cannot be shipped to the US unless it is frozen and baked on arrival. It is made from fresh meat and thus has restrictions on it entering, as well as the short shelf life.

Stop moaning ffs

Slightly OT but Emma de Souza has won her court case against the British home office. I can’t fully grasp how but somehow they pulled some stunt where all NI citizens were suddenly British and the right to identify as Irish was rolled over and she took a case against them.

I wish unionists in NI would read the comments. They’d see how the average Brit sees NI and everyone in it. Not a pretty picture.

https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1125709245209567232?s=21

Stop moaning ffs

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is bizarre from a sister of Boris Johnson. Suggesting that Irish re-unification would be one of the few bonuses from a hard brexit!.

Heard that. She could well be doing the family trait of saying one thing an saying the exact opposite the next moment.

BarryD2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Even for the partitionist outlook of many a contribution in here. That really takes the biscuit. Our "Friends" in this case are our fellow citizens.

Well they may hold citizenship if they wish but they don't pay their taxes here or vote here and so on. And there is a substantial portion of the NI population who don't want anything to with the Republic.

I think the Republic is right to stand up insofar as it can for that section of the NI population that looks southwards. But does that extend to potentially harming the economy and the population of the Republic? Where does our greater responsibility lie if a choice needs to be made? I don't know but think that the citizens of the Republic should be looking a lot more closely at this aspect.

And it doesn't help at all that politics at NI government level and representation for nationalists in Westminster has been practically non existent. People can be forgiven for wondering why you'd help people who won't help themselves? I know it's more complicated that that, but the above is the bottom line as to how things have panned out whether deliberately or otherwise.

BarryD2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Even for the partitionist outlook of many a contribution in here. That really takes the biscuit.

Our "Friends" in this case are our fellow citizens.

And I'm no partitionist. I'd like to see Ireland under one collective government as soon as practical but I do believe that should be achieved by persuasion and consent. The consent of a large majority of the population both south & north. The idea of trying engineer/ railroad a UI is quite worrying as it would surely condemn us to further generations of division, resentment and probable violence.

Stop moaning ffs

BarryD2 wrote: »

And I'm no partitionist. I'd like to see Ireland under one collective government as soon as practical but I do believe that should be achieved by persuasion and consent. The consent of a large majority of the population both south & north. The idea of trying engineer/ railroad a UI is quite worrying as it would surely condemn us to further generations of division, resentment and probable violence.

It won’t be railroaded. That’s not how we work with refs. You’ll see NI tailspin into serious economic and social decline. It’ll happen naturally and you’ll see either ff or fg stick their wet finger in the air and see the mood has actually changed (it already has) and they’ll rush to get out front and make it like it was their idea. But it is coming there’s no doubt at this stage.

Imreoir2

BarryD2 wrote: »

I think the Republic is right to stand up insofar as it can for that section of the NI population that looks southwards. But does that extend to potentially harming the economy and the population of the Republic? Where does our greater responsibility lie if a choice needs to be made? I don't know but think that the citizens of the Republic should be looking a lot more closely at this aspect.

And it doesn't help at all that politics at NI government level and representation for nationalists in Westminster has been practically non existent. People can be forgiven for wondering why you'd help people who won't help themselves? I know it's more complicated that that, but the above is the bottom line as to how things have panned out whether deliberately or otherwise.

An agreed deal that allowed for a hard border would be far worse for Ireland than a hard border coming about because of no-deal. No-deal is not a sustainable position for the UK and the longer it lasts the weaker and more desperate for a deal they become. In such a scenario a hard border would only be temporary, but a hard border by agreement would be permenant.

I am no great fan of SF, but it is not accurate to say that they have been non-existant in terms of representing NI. Westminster is not the only important forum when it comes to dealing with Brexit, the European side of the equation is as important if not moreso for the actual outcome. I seem to recall that SF was out of the gate very early on in idenfitying that NI would need special arangements and highlighting the issue publicly even before the Irish government had moved to make it an issue publicly. Ever since SF have used their position to represent the nationalists communities interests at a National level in Ireland and at a European level both through their MEPs in the European Parliament and with various delegations from the European Taskforce dealing with Brexit. While their abstentionist policy in Westminster has made them less than effective on the UK side of the equation, it has been suggested, in my opinion quite plausibly that their presence in Westminster would make things more difficult for the Irish position. How could any concern over the possible threat to the peace process posed by Brexit voiced by a Sinn Féin MP in Westminster not be twisted to be seen as a threat by SF themselves? I think it would make the moderate position even harder in the UK parliament if they had to line up with SF.

CelticRambler

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Slightly OT but Emma de Souza has won her court case against the British home office.

Not off-topic at all. Way back in the beginning of the post-referendum era, I forecast that the anomaly of Irish(EU) citizens born, reared, living and working in NI(UK) would start to create unresolvable legal paradoxes within the UK. Ultimately, it could result in purely British nationals becoming second-class citizens if they don't hold another passport. A lot will depend on the role of the ECJ in the future agreements between the EU and the UK ... but it'll be yet another reason for GB to cut NI adrift.

Limpy

Imreoir2 wrote: »

An agreed deal that allowed for a hard border would be far worse for Ireland than a hard border coming about because of no-deal. No-deal is not a sustainable position for the UK and the longer it lasts the weaker and more desperate for a deal they become. In such a scenario a hard border would only be temporary, but a hard border by agreement would be permenant.

I am no great fan of SF, but it is not accurate to say that they have been non-existant in terms of representing NI. Westminster is not the only important forum when it comes to dealing with Brexit, the European side of the equation is as important if not moreso for the actual outcome. I seem to recall that SF was out of the gate very early on in idenfitying that NI would need special arangements and highlighting the issue publicly even before the Irish government had moved to make it an issue publicly. Ever since SF have used their position to represent the nationalists communities interests at a National level in Ireland and at a European level both through their MEPs in the European Parliament and with various delegations from the European Taskforce dealing with Brexit. While their abstentionist policy in Westminster has made them less than effective on the UK side of the equation, it has been suggested, in my opinion quite plausibly that their presence in Westminster would make things more difficult for the Irish position. How could any concern over the possible threat to the peace process posed by Brexit voiced by a Sinn Féin MP in Westminster not be twisted to be seen as a threat by SF themselves? I think it would make the moderate position even harder in the UK parliament if they had to line up with SF.

Would Sinn Fein have to pledge allegiance to the Queen to take up the seats in west minister?

Stop moaning ffs

CelticRambler wrote: »

Not off-topic at all. Way back in the beginning of the post-referendum era, I forecast that the anomaly of Irish(EU) citizens born, reared, living and working in NI(UK) would start to create unresolvable legal paradoxes within the UK. Ultimately, it could result in purely British nationals becoming second-class citizens if they don't hold another passport. A lot will depend on the role of the ECJ in the future agreements between the EU and the UK ... but it'll be yet another reason for GB to cut NI adrift.

I was just being careful. I have to tip toe here when it comes to off topic or language stuff when it comes to the mods.
Appalling that the home office tried to sneak this by. And I don’t believe for a second it was an oversight. It was intentional. Delighted she won. Wish it would have been later. Would have been a massive point to rally people on in the UI campaign

Stop moaning ffs

Limpy wrote: »

Would Sinn Fein have to pledge allegiance to the Queen to take up the seats in west minister?

Yes. That is their main reason for abstention.
If they turned up to two their seats it would be totally counter productive. Not one mp any stripe would be seen to vote the same way as them.

Laois_Man

BarryD2 wrote: »

I think the Republic is right to stand up insofar as it can for that section of the NI population that looks southwards. But does that extend to potentially harming the economy and the population of the Republic? Where does our greater responsibility lie if a choice needs to be made? I don't know but think that the citizens of the Republic should be looking a lot more closely at this aspect.

You say this as if a return to 'The troubles' won't harm the economy and the population of the Republic!

BluePlanet

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Slightly OT but Emma de Souza has won her court case against the British home office. I can’t fully grasp how but somehow they pulled some stunt where all NI citizens were suddenly British and the right to identify as Irish was rolled over and she took a case against them.

I wish unionists in NI would read the comments. They’d see how the average Brit sees NI and everyone in it. Not a pretty picture.

https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1125709245209567232?s=21

I thought the Home Office appealed the ruling and will make the case in court that essentially the GFA is not legally binding.

Stop moaning ffs

BluePlanet wrote: »

I thought the Home Office appealed the ruling and will make the case in court that essentially the GFA is not legally binding.

I’d love to see them try that

Spanish Eyes

prawnsambo wrote: »

FYI everybody, Rachel Johnson (Boris's sister) is sitting in for Sheila Fogarty on LBC at the moment. Well worth a listen. Quite diametrically opposed to her brother's view on brexit.

For someone on her first gig on LBC and being a sibling of the PM, I think she did quite well.

I have to confess that I didn't realise at first who she was, it being a Bank Holiday in UK, and standins are de rigeur. But she fought her corner. Whilst at the same time not rubbishing her brother either.

I kind of liked her approach. However, she is but one presenter amongst many.

The oul curmudgeon himself with his twenty minute monologue at the start of his show, James O'Brien is back tomorrow. (I think). Should be interesting. His stand in was Majid Nawaz. I find him very intense and self absorbed. Just me maybe.

Snickers Man

This is a genuinely dispassionate question posed in the hope that it can generate a reasoned, factual and dispassionate answer. Hopefully from somebody with specialist knowledge of international financial markets.

What would be the likely reaction from international bond markets if the British reneged on their promise to pay the full amount of payments collectively and colloquially known as the Brexit Divorce Bill?

Could they welsh out of some of them without spooking the bond markets?
Would any shortfall on the promised payment see a rise in sovereign borrowing costs (ie British sovereign bond yields)?

Or is the payment something the bond markets don't really care about?

Just curious.

J Mysterio

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I was just being careful. I have to tip toe here when it comes to off topic or language stuff when it comes to the mods.
Appalling that the home office tried to sneak this by. And I don’t believe for a second it was an oversight. It was intentional. Delighted she won. Wish it would have been later. Would have been a massive point to rally people on in the UI campaign

Im not sure that her legal battles are over? Your tweets are from May, but im sure she is still fighting the UK.

BluePlanet

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’d love to see them try that

This article was updated on Aug 1.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-48268586

It doesn't really say anything about the arguments the Home Office will make, but that they have appealed the ruling.

FrancieBrady

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Yes. That is their main reason for abstention.

Strictly speaking it's not. As far as I understood it, the core of abstentionism is 'not interfering in the affairs or running of other countries, which would make their position hypocritical'.
This allows them to take part in the devolved government but not in running Scotland Wales etc.

Stop moaning ffs

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Strictly speaking it's not. As far as I understood it, the core of abstentionism is 'not interfering in the affairs or running of other countries, which would make their position hypocritical'.
This allows them to take part in the devolved government but not in running Scotland Wales etc.

Echoes what Mary Lou said on Marr a while back. SF have no business interfering in another countries politics.

Stop moaning ffs

J Mysterio wrote: »

Im not sure that her legal battles are over? Your tweets are from May, but im sure she is still fighting the UK.

That’s mad I didn’t catch the date apologies. It was trending earlier somehow only reason I saw it.
In that light I’m glad it hasn’t gone away.

Enzokk

BluePlanet wrote: »

I thought the Home Office appealed the ruling and will make the case in court that essentially the GFA is not legally binding.

Looking at her twitter account it seems like they are back in court on the 10th September. I cannot see how the Home Office can win this, unless they find that the GFA itself has no legal standing. I found the Home Office replies very disingenuous, they are fighting this case but they respect the right of people in NI choosing to be either Irish or British or both? Can someone explain to me how that works?

https://twitter.com/EmmandJDeSouza/status/1164530651149864961?s=20

Brexit and identity in NI: A delicate issue

In a statement, the Home Office said there was an "unwavering commitment" to upholding the Good Friday Agreement, including its provisions on citizenship and identity.

They say one thing but their actions are contradictory to this.

Laois_Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is a genuinely dispassionate question posed in the hope that it can generate a reasoned, factual and dispassionate answer. Hopefully from somebody with specialist knowledge of international financial markets.

What would be the likely reaction from international bond markets if the British reneged on their promise to pay the full amount of payments collectively and colloquially known as the Brexit Divorce Bill?

Could they welsh out of some of them without spooking the bond markets?
Would any shortfall on the promised payment see a rise in sovereign borrowing costs (ie British sovereign bond yields)?

Or is the payment something the bond markets don't really care about?

Just curious.

It is a financial obligation that is not market-based so I believe rating downgrade happening due to not paying the divorce bill is the least of their worries! But there are many ways the UK credit rating can and likely would be downgraded in the period after a hard Brexit!

trellheim

People have just about had enough of this conversation”

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson says people are “yearning for a day when #Brexit comes off the front pages

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1166028001508651008

tapping the zeitgeist there on a UK bank Holiday monday , Cummings is some spinmaster, nothing but nothing you read is by chance which is why they dont let BJ out on his own normally with other than vague answers

Popeleo

Snickers Man wrote: »

This is a genuinely dispassionate question posed in the hope that it can generate a reasoned, factual and dispassionate answer. Hopefully from somebody with specialist knowledge of international financial markets.

What would be the likely reaction from international bond markets if the British reneged on their promise to pay the full amount of payments collectively and colloquially known as the Brexit Divorce Bill?

Could they welsh out of some of them without spooking the bond markets?
Would any shortfall on the promised payment see a rise in sovereign borrowing costs (ie British sovereign bond yields)?

Or is the payment something the bond markets don't really care about?

Just curious.

While we are waiting for an expert, I will row in with my semi-educated view-

I don't believe that there would be a direct spooking of the markets, like if they defaulted on an actual bond. However, I do think that it would lead to the cost of borrowing for the UK to increase as part of an overall no deal scenario.

Not paying will greatly decrease the chances of anything more than a very basic trade agreement with the EU. The potential damage of this to UK economy as measured by GDP, exchange rates, inflation, unemployment etc. is what will cause the cost of debt to increase.

Strazdas

Laois_Man wrote: »

It is a financial obligation that is not market-based so I believe rating downgrade happening due to not paying the divorce bill is the least of their worries! But there are many ways the UK credit rating can and likely would be downgraded in the period after a hard Brexit!

It's the reputational damage that would be the big one. You don't want the reputation of being a shifty and unreliable customer who reneges on deals.

Nody

Laois_Man wrote: »

It is a financial obligation that is not market-based so I believe rating downgrade happening due to not paying the divorce bill is the least of their worries! But there are many ways the UK credit rating can and likely would be downgraded in the period after a hard Brexit!

The rating agencies has stated it would not be considered a default but close to it; even if they agree to pay the fact of a hard Brexit hit on the economy would lead to a review and likely downgrading of the future bonds with corresponding interest rate increase. The bond downgrading would likely be in several stages as each one would get a negative forecast until hitting the right level. As a reference UK today is AA with negative forecast with S&P, Fitch and Aaa with Moody's (stable) since they are unlikely to default on their debt short to medium term. I'd guess they will end up around BBB (Italy) or slightly above at A (Iceland). This will be driven as well how much the pound tanks, how much they decide to borrow etc. and then the 5 to 10 year development is dependent on their economy and what type of PMs they get (i.e. will they get a borrow and spend type of guy, will London keep shrinking etc.). The real worry signs will be when companies will insist on a) other currencies or fixed exchange rates and b) insist on NY contracts; those are signs they are starting to be seen as to potentially default on their debt.

BluePlanet

Enzokk wrote: »

Looking at her twitter account it seems like they are back in court on the 10th September. I cannot see how the Home Office can win this, unless they find that the GFA itself has no legal standing. I found the Home Office replies very disingenuous, they are fighting this case but they respect the right of people in NI choosing to be either Irish or British or both? Can someone explain to me how that works?

I think what it means is that yes, people born in NI can choose to be Irish rather than British; but if you choose wrong, don't expect to have access to the same British legal systems.

Remember that former NI Secretary of State said that Irish citizens in NI would not be able to vote in a border poll there:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/sf-accuses-bradley-of-staggering-ignorance-of-belfast-agreement-1.3851135

McGiver

BarryD2 wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Even for the partitionist outlook of many a contribution in here. That really takes the biscuit.

Our "Friends" in this case are our fellow citizens.

And I'm no partitionist. I'd like to see Ireland under one collective government as soon as practical but I do believe that should be achieved by persuasion and consent. The consent of a large majority of the population both south & north. The idea of trying engineer/ railroad a UI is quite worrying as it would surely condemn us to further generations of division, resentment and probable violence.

UI must be a federation. Unitary state won't work. 4 provinces with devolved powers each... It would be somewhat harder for RoI part of the Ulster, but there is no other sensible way IMHO. Sorry for OT