Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What is interesting to ponder is that, considering Chips' perfectly reasonable thesis that Johnson may opt for a much softer Brexit, how will the papers react? It would be ironic if they turned against him as they did Cameron in 2016. Johnson could sell May's deal because it delivered a promise of Brexit but signing a trade deal that maintains close alignment with Brussels is a completely different story.

My hunch, based on what Johnson said in a recent Peston interview, is that once Brexit is done (31 Jan) that the daily news simply dies away.

No one will talk about trade deals and Johnson will look to keep everything relatively as it is. Look at the position on NI. Everything is based on, the lie, that nothing changes.

Because in reality that's what people want.

Chips Lovell

listermint wrote: »

I don't think that's entirely accurate.

There's a readjustment going on. Papers used to hold them to account. This is insidious world war II origins stuff.

I don't know what papers you read, but the one's I read have never stopped holding the government to account.

While my remark about lying and conniving always winning may have been a little flippant, there is a heavy element of spin to any political campaign. Johnson himself may be an utter charlatan, but he won't be the first to reside in Number 10 and, as long as people continue voting for people who tell them what they want to hear rather than tell them the truth, he won't be last either. And, while it's certainly not desirable to have a person like him as prime minister, it would be far more catastrophic to have someone who actually believes in Brexit. At least with Johnson there's a decent chance he'll slither away from his hardline position once it no longer serves a purpose.

And lets not get carried away with ourselves here. What's happening in the UK isn't that new. Thatcher persuaded vast swathes of the working classes to vote against their own interests. Twice in the space of 50 years, the government misled parliament in order to go to war (Suez and Iraq). Lying, conniving, spinning are long established.

In the rogues gallery, Johnson is closer to Silvio Berlusconi than Hitler.

Zubeneschamali

Tell me how wrote: »

If the above in bold happens, Brexit will have happened. Any conversation will be about rejoining the EU, not staying in.

No, all the conversations for a very long time will be about damage limitation. I'm sure a rejoin campaign will kick off, but it will be a sideshow in UK politics for many years, the way the Leave campaign was until Cameron came along.

Zubeneschamali

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I believe the transition deal will just keep being extended. Neither Parliament nor the EU have any reason not to keep extending it.

The current Parliament would do that, but if Johnson gets an outright majority, the next parliament will be a UKIP one, and will charge out with no trade deal at the end of 2020.

The question is whether the NI arrangement from the WA can survive that, or whether, after all, we are looking at a hard border on the island.

listermint

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I don't know what papers you read, but the one's I read have never stopped holding the government to account.

While my remark about lying and conniving always winning may have been a little flippant, there is a heavy element of spin to any political campaign. Johnson himself may be an utter charlatan, but he won't be the first to reside in Number 10 and, as long as people continue voting for people who tell them what they want to hear rather than tell them the truth, he won't be last either. And, while it's certainly not desirable to have a person like him as prime minister, it would be far more catastrophic to have someone who actually believes in Brexit. At least with Johnson there's a decent chance he'll slither away from his hardline position once it no longer serves a purpose.

And lets not get carried away with ourselves here. What's happening in the UK isn't that new. Thatcher persuaded vast swathes of the working classes to vote against their own interests. Twice in the space of 50 years, the government misled parliament in order to go to war (Suez and Iraq). Lying, conniving, spinning are long established.

In the rogues gallery, Johnson is closer to Silvio Berlusconi than Hitler.

I dont know what news papers you read, But we today have widespread and seemingly acceptable vilification of minority groups across the uk.

This white washing of the use of these tactics as more bunga bunga than the reichstag plays into normalisation of it.

No im sorry you are taming it down

joe40

On the currency issue, sterling collapsed on the Brexit result, so markets clearly prefer Britain in the EU.
But now polls indicating a Tory majority improve the strength of sterling. Surely a labour govt or coalition holds the possibility of stopping Brexit via second referendum, or softer Brexit.

All the consensus seems to be that a labour govt will cause the pound to go down, even though a tory majority will copper fasten Brexit taking place.

Is the just short term uncertainty that markets respond to?

What gives?

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I don't know what papers you read, but the one's I read have never stopped holding the government to account.

While my remark about lying and conniving always winning may have been a little flippant, there is a heavy element of spin to any political campaign. Johnson himself may be an utter charlatan, but he won't be the first to reside in Number 10 and, as long as people continue voting for people who tell them what they want to hear rather than tell them the truth, he won't be last either. And, while it's certainly not desirable to have a person like him as prime minister, it would be far more catastrophic to have someone who actually believes in Brexit. At least with Johnson there's a decent chance he'll slither away from his hardline position once it no longer serves a purpose.

And lets not get carried away with ourselves here. What's happening in the UK isn't that new. Thatcher persuaded vast swathes of the working classes to vote against their own interests. Twice in the space of 50 years, the government misled parliament in order to go to war (Suez and Iraq). Lying, conniving, spinning are long established.

In the rogues gallery, Johnson is closer to Silvio Berlusconi than Hitler.

I think what's new is the scale of what's been perpetrated. Thatcher's policies, and I have no intention of discussing their merits and pitfalls here, at least benefitted some of the population. Today's children of Thatcher are more ambitious, ruthless and less scrupulous. Thatcher at least seemed to believe in Britain. The Conservatives are utilising racism, xenophobia, fake news and lies to achieve their ends in an unprecedented way. The worst thing is that if Labour follow suit next time (and the end of the current Tory party is coming imminently) then look at who would call out Labour over using such tactics. The press? Johnson? Gove? Piers Morgan? Are any of these credible? It's not just that the Tories are playing dirty. It's that they are legitimizing playing dirty.

As you said before, I do not think that it's out of the question that Johnson will plop for a version of the status quo once the deal passes. He's betrayed everyone else at this stage so what's the ERG on top of this. I don't know how he's spin staying in a customs union with the EU to protect JIT chains but then this might be at the end of his premiership anyway. This'd suit me as it would save me from having to enact my contingency plan of relocating to Limerick or somewhere in Ireland.

Brexit is a disaster capitalist project which will benefit a double digit number of people, mainly hedge fund managers, the landed gentry and press barons. I think this is the main issue with your point. You've alluded to Eden and Blair. I think I get why but this is different for the reasons I gave above.

Out of curiosity, what papers are you reading? I'm finding The Economist to be quite fair and balanced.

Zubeneschamali

joe40 wrote: »

All the consensus seems to be that a labour govt will cause the pound to go down, even though a tory majority will copper fasten Brexit taking place.

Is the just short term uncertainty that markets respond to?

What gives?

There is no possibility, none, of a Labour Government. A good showing by Labour would mean a hung parliament and more uncertainty.

Despite Brexit and his "f*ck business" attitude, the traders in London are all from the same Eton/Oxbridge inside set as Johnson and believe he is one of them and hence will see them right, so him in #10 will send Sterling up.

They are wrong, of course, and if a Tory Brexit actually happens, Sterling will take a beating again when reality dawns.

joe40

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no possibility, none, of a Labour Government. A good showing by Labour would mean a hung parliament and more uncertainty.

Despite Brexit and his "f*ck business" attitude, the traders in London are all from the same Eton/Oxbridge inside set as Johnson and believe he is one of them and hence will see them right, so him in #10 will send Sterling up.

They are wrong, of course, and if a Tory Brexit actually happens, Sterling will take a beating again when reality dawns.

I know there won't be a labour government, but surely there is some hope that a coalition is possible, to stop another Tory government.

I just can't understand how a Tory majority will help sterling. I know it gives certainty, but that "certainty" is pretty damning for long term UK EU relations.

The only thing putting the brakes on a no deal Brexit so far have been Tories lack of majority and moderate Tories helping to pass the Benn act. That would disappear in a new majority Tory government under Johnson.


I do agree with what you say, I just find it puzzling.

Chips Lovell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The current Parliament would do that, but if Johnson gets an outright majority, the next parliament will be a UKIP one, and will charge out with no trade deal at the end of 2020.

There will be a majority for some kind of Brexit. There will never be a majority in favour of hard Brexit. So yes, they'll vote to leave, but I can't imagine a majority voting against an extension of the transition period without any sort of trade deal. Bear in mind too, that of the minority advocating for a hard Brexit, only some of those people sincerely support it. The rest are flying the flag because it goes down well with their base.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think what's new is the scale of what's been perpetrated. Thatcher's policies, and I have no intention of discussing their merits and pitfalls here, at least benefitted some of the population. Today's children of Thatcher are more ambitious, ruthless and less scrupulous. Thatcher at least seemed to believe in Britain. The Conservatives are utilising racism, xenophobia, fake news and lies to achieve their ends in an unprecedented way.

I think the Conservatives are no strangers to using racism, xenophobia, fake news and lies. I do find the whole Brexit debacle to be more farce than sinister plot though. After creating a bogeyman in the form of Europe and repeatedly invoking it, the electorate finally believed it and now they have lie and finagle their way out of the mess.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what papers are you reading? I'm finding The Economist to be quite fair and balanced.

Read the Economist too every week. Also the Guardian and the FT. Don't really rate any other outlet.

jem

Ok what is the best and worst results we can hope for from a brexit point of view.( that has any chance of happening)

Best I would sugest is a hung parliment : excesses of brexit halted by opposition
worst a 20 ish Tory victory : ERG has borris by the cahonies

Interesting one is a huge tory majority : Borris can worry less about erg but could take it as a vote for very hard brexit.

IF only labour had an electable leader !!

black forest

If there are undecided voters they should read the thread Steve Analyst put up at twitter. The whole history of brexit with all its different variations and every decision all the parties fought for or against in one place.


https://twitter.com/emporersnewc/status/1204670833265979392

A bit easier to read with the Threadreaderapp.


There is no doubt that, should the Tories win and sign the WAB, they own Brexit to one hundred percent. Whatever will develop in 2020 the UK is out of the EU and a third country. The Front Stop prevents a land border on the island of Ireland. Quite a bit better than before with no solution and a looming No Deal Brexit or a continuously fought against Back Stop. And it will be a signed international treaty under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Should the UK leave end of 2020 without any deal and be lax with it’s controls of goods between NI and rUK there are still EU‘s temporary and unilateral measures for quite a few things. The timetable might be different but essentially these measures will not change.

How long will it take the EU to revoke one or two of these unilateral measures should the UK start to play games?

Sam Russell

joe40 wrote: »

On the currency issue, sterling collapsed on the Brexit result, so markets clearly prefer Britain in the EU.
But now polls indicating a Tory majority improve the strength of sterling. Surely a labour govt or coalition holds the possibility of stopping Brexit via second referendum, or softer Brexit.

All the consensus seems to be that a labour govt will cause the pound to go down, even though a tory majority will copper fasten Brexit taking place.

Is the just short term uncertainty that markets respond to?

What gives?

The currency markets are always short term. Long term operators hedge against volatility. Short term is about uncertainty.

The Brexit vote was a shock to the system so the hedgers were caught out and had to cover their positions rapidly - hence the massive drop.

Currently, a projected Tory majority means the WA passes and things carry on as before for a year or so - so stability reigns. A hung parliament means back to uncertainty and GBP will drop. Note, it is not back to pre-Brexit value of GBP75p = €1.

Zubeneschamali

Chips Lovell wrote: »

There will be a majority for some kind of Brexit. There will never be a majority in favour of hard Brexit.

I think it is very likely that Johnson will stick with his promise not to request a Transition extension mid-year: it fits with his repeated notion that the EU will only deal under max pressure.

Will Parliament really rebel again, take control off him and force him to request an extension? I don't think so, not if he wins on Thursday.

And even if they do, and 2021 is added to the Transition, time is still too short to agree an FTA by Dec. 2021 unless the UK gives way on everything, so a WTO exit looks on the cards anyway.

Chips Lovell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it is very likely that Johnson will stick with his promise not to request a Transition extension mid-year: it fits with his repeated notion that the EU will only deal under max pressure.

Will Parliament really rebel again, take control off him and force him to request an extension? I don't think so, not if he wins on Thursday.

And even if they do, and 2021 is added to the Transition, time is still too short to agree an FTA by Dec. 2021 unless the UK gives way on everything, so a WTO exit looks on the cards anyway.

Why would he refuse? Once he's won his election, he's nothing to gain from advocating a hard Brexit. It would be a disaster for Britain and he knows it. Both he and the EU know he has a weak hand, so a bluff won't work either.

In terms of extension, I think the most likely scenario is multiple extensions, continually kicking the can down the road. It is nobody's interest for the UK to exit on WTO terms.

Zubeneschamali

Chips Lovell wrote: »

It is nobody's interest for the UK to exit on WTO terms.

It is nobody's interest for the UK to exit at all, yet here we are.

Chips Lovell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is nobody's interest for the UK to exit at all, yet here we are.

Exactly. Which is why the UK was in no hurry to get out the door and instead has spent the last three and a half years saying it is getting Brexit done, but largely leaving it undone.

joe40

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Exactly. Which is why the UK was in no hurry to get out the door and instead has spent the last three and a half years saying it is getting Brexit done, but largely leaving it undone.

I would like to think you are right but it took a high court challenge to stop porouging Parliament and the Benn act to force the extension request. Without that we could now be in a no deal situation, which was the default position.

serfboard

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Which is why the UK was in no hurry to get out the door and instead has spent the last three and a half years saying it is getting Brexit done, but largely leaving it undone.

I take it that you are therefore forecasting an endless round of transition extensions, or a BRINO deal?

Chips Lovell

joe40 wrote: »

I would like to think you are right but it took a high court challenge to stop porouging Parliament and the Benn act to force the extension request. Without that we could now be in a no deal situation, which was the default position.

I saw the prorogation fiasco as more an attempt at brinkmanship than an effort to force no deal. Lessening the period of time they had to debate any withdrawal deal would increase the pressure to pass it.

serfboard wrote: »

I take it that you are therefore forecasting an endless round of transition extensions, or a BRINO deal?

I think that's the most likely outcome. I could be wrong of course, but I'm having a hard time seeing why Johnson would opt for no deal when he's nothing to gain from it.

Simply put, Boris Johnson is famed for his insincerity, so I'd be careful about assuming he's sincere about a hard Brexit. When the time comes, he'll throw the Brexiteers under the bus as well.

robinph

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I saw the prorogation fiasco as more an attempt at brinkmanship than an effort to force no deal. Lessening the period of time they had to debate any withdrawal deal would increase the pressure to pass it.

Which is up there with the idea of threatening to shoot yourself in the head in order to prevent shooting yourself in the foot, or leaving with no-deal in order to try and get a better deal as a negotiating tactic.

It was clear that parliament wouldn't be allowing no-deal to go through and wouldn't be bullied into accepting the deal without first getting to look at it just because Johnson threatened to die in a ditch at the end of October. The only people that Johnson was bargaining with by shutting down parliament was the extreme Brexiteers in showing them how brexity he was prepared to be.

The EU wasn't fooled by the no-deal being better than a bad deal, parliament wasn't fooled by the threat to sign the deal or get no-deal. The EU said "OK then if you insist" and parliament said "no, you sign here to get an extension as we are in charge".

Zubeneschamali

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think that's the most likely outcome. I could be wrong of course, but I'm having a hard time seeing why Johnson would opt for no deal when he's nothing to gain from it.

For the same reason he opted for Leave instead of Remain before the Referendum - he can use it to be PM.

If he pivots to a BRINO deal, the ERG and Farage will turn on him - will he have a majority big enough to pass legislation when Francois & co. are voting against him?

joe40

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I saw the prorogation fiasco as more an attempt at brinkmanship than an effort to force no deal. Lessening the period of time they had to debate any withdrawal deal would increase the pressure to pass it.



I think that's the most likely outcome. I could be wrong of course, but I'm having a hard time seeing why Johnson would opt for no deal when he's nothing to gain from it.

Simply put, Boris Johnson is famed for his insincerity, so I'd be careful about assuming he's sincere about a hard Brexit. When the time comes, he'll throw the Brexiteers under the bus as well.

I'm far from an expert on these things and I take your point about Johnson; the way he shafted the DUP showed some level of pragmatism. However from my understanding the the only thing which stopped no deal at Halloween was the Benn act forcing Johnson to ask for an extension.

If Johnson privately wanted to avoid a no deal, it required other MPs providing the cover.

Hypothetically if the Benn act was not taken, would Johnson have gone through with his rhetoric of no deal.
I don't think he really wants a no deal situation, but he is playing a dangerous game of bluff which could blow up in his face.

serfboard

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Boris Johnson is famed for his insincerity, so I'd be careful about assuming he's sincere about a hard Brexit. When the time comes, he'll throw the Brexiteers under the bus as well.

It's a funny thing. The Tory Party members, and now perhaps the British electorate, are going to elect a known compulsive liar - and are then going to be surprised when he lies to them.

robinph

serfboard wrote: »

It's a funny thing. The Tory Party members, and now perhaps the British electorate, are going to elect a known compulsive liar - and are then going to be surprised when he lies to them.

Tory party membership can take the blame as it was a two horse race and over 50% of them selecting Johnson, but the majority of the voting population will not be voting Tory.

Akrasia

serfboard wrote: »

It's a funny thing. The Tory Party members, and now perhaps the British electorate, are going to elect a known compulsive liar - and are then going to be surprised when he lies to them.

Some of them are supporting him because he lied to them (when he shut down parliament to try to force a no deal through while still pretending that the 'proroguing' of parliament had nothing to do with brexit

Chips Lovell

robinph wrote: »

Which is up there with the idea of threatening to shoot yourself in the head in order to prevent shooting yourself in the foot, or leaving with no-deal in order to try and get a better deal as a negotiating tactic.

Yes, I'm making no claims about the cunningness of that plan. It was a shambles. I was more speculating on the motivation behind it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If he pivots to a BRINO deal, the ERG and Farage will turn on him - will he have a majority big enough to pass legislation when Francois & co. are voting against him?

I don't think any of them realistically thinks a trade deal will be done in one year. He will get at least one extension. That's two years of a majority at least. He'll take that and worry about the blowback when the time comes.

joe40 wrote: »

I'm far from an expert on these things and I take your point about Johnson; the way he shafted the DUP showed some level of pragmatism. However from my understanding the the only thing which stopped no deal at Halloween was the Benn act forcing Johnson to ask for an extension.

Would need to check the timing again, but my recollection was that if prorogation went ahead, Parliament would return on October 14. The leave date at that point was October 31. Also, because it was a new parliamentary session, it would permit voting on the same exit bill again.

WomanSkirtFan8

The EU wasn't fooled by the no-deal being better than a bad deal, parliament wasn't fooled by the threat to sign the deal or get no-deal. The EU said "OK then if you insist" and parliament said "no, you sign here to get an extension as we are in charge".[/QUOTE]

The problem with that line of thinking though, is that th EU, since the start of this whole fiasco, has always been ahead of the UK (and still are). Too many people in the the UK (England specifically), seem to think that they still have an empire, which they don't.

But the truth is the completely reverse. The EU is the one in charge and not the UK.
But, it looks like the UK are going to have the learn the hard way. :cool:

Russman

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

But the truth is the completely reverse. The EU is the one in charge and not the UK.
But, it looks like the UK are going to have the learn the hard way. :cool:

This, I think is the uncomfortable truth in the Brexit mess. The EU have mostly been treating the UK with kid gloves to date, presumably as they're still a member of that same EU. Even to the extent of sending Leo to throw Boris a lifeline on the backstop. Once they formally exit the bloc however, I reckon they are in for a very rude awakening as to their place in the world and how tough the EU can really be when it wants to.

Kermit.de.frog

I would rather not be a member of such a club that seeks to punish those who dare to leave particularly a country like the UK who have contributed so much financially and defence wise.

The EU have failed to overturn another referendum.

This is to be celebrated regardless of what side you are on.