Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

First Up

Nate--IRL-- wrote:

It is entirely within the UK's power to create a hard border in Ireland any time they want. Whether they want to endure the consequences of doing so has quite likely prevented them from seriously considering it, despite the noises made Trouble is all the interested parties involved also see this

Yes, the UK went into the exit talks thinking that Ireland gave them a negotiating advantage. It took May's government a while to realise that it wasn't going to get a back door to the SM, or a no questions asked FTA.

That resulted in May's exit and Boris started with similar expectations. Reality has taken a while to soak in so we'll where it goes from here.

RobMc59

First Up wrote: »

Yes, the UK went into the exit talks thinking that Ireland gave them a negotiating advantage. It took May's government a while to realise that it wasn't going to get a back door to the SM, or a no questions asked FTA.

That resulted in May's exit and Boris started with similar expectations. Reality has taken a while to soak in so we'll where it goes from here.

I'm beginning to think Johnson and co genuinely couldn't care less about a hard border or the GFA as they probably believe they can engineer a situation were they can blame the EU-in their warped minds it's a hundred years ago and Britain,aided by the US will make the EU pay by bringing it crashing down.Not seeing the bigger picture that the EU is good for all European nations and stops the voracious US carving up Europe with the Russians.

murphaph

brickster69 wrote: »

What will happen to the EU car industry if the UK and USA put 25% tariffs on car imports.

EU cars sold in the US are all premium models. Even cheaper VWs are a premium marque in the US. They will just cost a bit more for their well off purchasers.

The UK market is significantly smaller. Premium marques again will still sell and just cost more. A British MB driver is not going to start driving a Vauxhall Astra (if Vauxhall exists).

Remember due to rules of origin a British assembled car may well likely not be British as far as the WTO is concerned if too many of its components are made outside the UK.

Brexit is going to simply make better cars more expensive in the UK and will lead to massive consolidation to produce a very small number of domestic vehicles with enough domestic content to count as British. You will see one or two engine plants supplying every manufacturer. There will be hardly any choice in spec.

The EU car industry is facing upheaval (much bigger upheaval) due to the death of the internal combustion engine and the advent of its replacements. Brexit is a distraction and nothing more really.

The biggest threat to the EU car industry is from China, they could (would) flood the market with cheaper EVs thus undercutting the established manufacturers before they can completely transition to EV.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The biggest threat to the EU car industry is from China, they could (would) flood the market with cheaper EVs thus undercutting the established manufacturers before they can completely transition to EV.

America and the EU can protect their markets, though.

LuckyLloyd

Tea Shock wrote: »

I'm blue in the face telling people this! Everyone seems to be assuming the threat of a hard border in Ireland is gone. It absolutely isn't. Especially given the fact that the UK prime minister has spent the last couple of months telling anyone who'll listen that the WA doesn't mean checks on goods moving from GB to NI. It's my prediction that come the Autumn or so, when they realise they're not going to be getting what they want, the British government will threaten to put the Irish border back on the table.... And there may be (God forbid) Taoiseach Micheal Martin there that they'll think might get them a different result than they got with Varadkar!

Come January 31st, the NI front stop is enshrined in an international treaty with the force of law. The U.K. cannot easily renege on such things. Infact the minute they threatened to do so, negotiations would likely be suspended immediately.

Sam Russell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Come January 31st, the NI front stop is enshrined in an international treaty with the force of law. The U.K. cannot easily renege on such things. Infact the minute they threatened to do so, negotiations would likely be suspended immediately.

Then there is the USA House of Representatives - under Pelosi - who have threatened the UK 'not to mess with the GFA'. A hard border does exactly that, so no USA deal of any sort if that were to come about - or even could come about.

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

Then there is the USA House of Representatives - under Pelosi - who have threatened the UK 'not to mess with the GFA'. A hard border does exactly that, so no USA deal of any sort if that were to come about - or even could come about.

The US will ultimately agree to a deal if it is in its favour. So whilst they will put NI border as a no go area, ultimately they will agree to accept it if there is enough benefit to the US. They are not going to do themselves out of business for the sake of NI. Of course that means that the UK will be even more screwed that they otherwise would be.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

The US will ultimately agree to a deal if it is in its favour. So whilst they will put NI border as a no go area, ultimately they will agree to accept it if there is enough benefit to the US. They are not going to do themselves out of business for the sake of NI. Of course that means that the UK will be even more screwed that they otherwise would be.

I would not accept that.

1. The 'special relationship' is not UK - USA but Ireland - USA.

2. No President wants to be seen to screw Ireland - and a hard border does exactly that.

3. Pelosi is an astute politician - she knows how the votes go.

The USA can still get what they want without allowing the UK Gov to install a hard border. The UK will be a supplicant.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would not accept that.

1. The 'special relationship' is not UK - USA but Ireland - USA.

2. No President wants to be seen to screw Ireland - and a hard border does exactly that.

3. Pelosi is an astute politician - she knows how the votes go.

The USA can still get what they want without allowing the UK Gov to install a hard border. The UK will be a supplicant.

Also, even many Republicans are favourably disposed towards Ireland and couldn't give a hoot about Trump's links with the hard right in England - the idea that Irish America is all Democrats would be way off the mark.

Leroy42

I certainly think the US will make a big song and dance about it should the UK go that route, but ultimately the US will go with whatever suits them best.

At present, it suits the US be look like they are prepared to walk away should the UK not stick to the deal. It gives them additional leverage in any trade talks. But if they really cared, they would putting significant pressure on the UK to stay as close as possible to the EU, preferably within the SM & CM. But that doesn't suit the US agenda as they would like to have almost full control over the UK and at the same time weaken the EU.

The US are more than happy to trade with Saudi etc, so I don't think they will suddenly stop trade with the UK over a small border. So when it comes down to it, they will agree a trade deal, once it is in their favour, and include vague terms about resolving conflict or some such. At the end of the day, the UK has sovereignty and their border is NI, so the US can't really demand anything.

At the moment, they are trying to build a wall with Mexico, but would seem a bit much to refuse trade talks on the basis of the UK doing the same with their neighbours.

MrMusician18

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would not accept that.

1. The 'special relationship' is not UK - USA but Ireland - USA.

2. No President wants to be seen to screw Ireland - and a hard border does exactly that.

3. Pelosi is an astute politician - she knows how the votes go.

The USA can still get what they want without allowing the UK Gov to install a hard border. The UK will be a supplicant.

If the UK is for sale for a song and in order to buy it the US has to turn it's back on Ireland, it will do so. It is utterly naive to think otherwise

johnnyskeleton

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Come January 31st, the NI front stop is enshrined in an international treaty with the force of law. The U.K. cannot easily renege on such things. Infact the minute they threatened to do so, negotiations would likely be suspended immediately.

Yep. Arguably the frontstop is more legally binding than the Good Friday Agreement, insofar as there were some uncertainties surrounding how the GFA should actually be interpreted regarding a border in Ireland.

We maintained the position that a land border on the island would breach the GFA; not because it was directly enshrined in the GFA, but because it would breach the spirit and intention of the GFA to recognise the all Ireland economy and the legitimacy of Irish identity in the North. The Unionists countered, with some justification, that a border down the Irish sea would be no different for them - not exactly prohibited in (what they call) the Belfast Agreement, but against the concept that there shouldn't be a change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people.

The problem for Unionists is that the Irish message was spoken with a single clear voice and really limited to only this single issue, whereas their message was convolluted and soft - Ireland supported the peace process and the DUP supported the Tories. It then got amplified across the EU and indeed the world and has become the political new reality.

So even if one were to have some sympathy with the DUP's position, it is soon to be past that point. Once the frontstop is in place, they cannot go back and try to claim that the Irish sea border is as much a breach of the GFA/BA as the land border is. That ship, if you'll forgive the pun, has sailed.

So, even though the UK can breach any international agreement they want, what they have lost is the diplomatic veil under which they could, theoretically have imposed a hard border before. That is the real significance of the front stop.

But I hope there are no UK Brexiteers reading any of this. The strategy seems to be let Boris have his victory lap until the WA is finalised. If that means we have to pretend that he got a good deal, so be it.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would not accept that.

1. The 'special relationship' is not UK - USA but Ireland - USA.

2. No President wants to be seen to screw Ireland - and a hard border does exactly that.

3. Pelosi is an astute politician - she knows how the votes go.

The USA can still get what they want without allowing the UK Gov to install a hard border. The UK will be a supplicant.

Also, even many Republicans are favorably disposed towards Ireland and couldn't give a hoot about Trump's links with the hard right in England - the idea that Irish America is all Democrats would be way off the mark.

The Special Relationship' Ireland has is across the whole political spectrum, not just Democrats. Pelosi is an able politician who knows where the votes are and that is why she is at the top of the Democrats in the House. If she was a republican, she would still be at the top.

Ireland counts more for most Americans than the UK, Britain or England. I would suggest that most Americans could not distinguish between those terms - the UK, Britain or England - to them they are synonymous.

Sam Russell

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If the UK is for sale for a song and in order to buy it the US has to turn it's back on Ireland, it will do so. It is utterly naive to think otherwise

If the UK is that desperate, then why hold out for NI Unionists? The English Tories care not a jot for NI, so who speaks for NI then?

RobMc59

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Special Relationship' Ireland has is across the whole political spectrum, not just Democrats. Pelosi is an able politician who knows where the votes are and that is why she is at the top of the Democrats in the House. If she was a republican, she would still be at the top.

Ireland counts more for most Americans than the UK, Britain or England. I would suggest that most Americans could not distinguish between those terms - the UK, Britain or England - to them they are synonymous.

The Americans have a different attitude completely to European nations.I've worked for quite a few US companies and found them to be ruthless were money is concerned-little or no room for sentiment it's just business to them.
European companies I've worked for{French,British and Italian )are less obsessed with money and care more for employees.
There is no special relationship between the UK and US or US and Ireland imo-how useful you are to them is all that counts.

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

The Americans have a different attitude completely to European nations.I've worked for quite a few US companies and found them to be ruthless were money is concerned-little or no room for sentiment it's just business to them.
European companies I've worked for{French,British and Italian )are less obsessed with money and care more for employees.
There is no special relationship between the UK and US or US and Ireland imo-how useful you are to them is all that counts.

Correct, the only special relationship is between the US dollar and the US corporations.
All you need to do is look at how companies reduce staff numbers in the US, an unexpected call from HR and escorted off site or a phone call to not bother coming in because you have been "terminated!". They have a similar attitude to international trade relations as well.


Something Ireland (& the UK) should do well to remember.

First Up

Of course the US will suit itself in the end but having the UK over a barrel over the GFA will come in handy during trade negotiations and it won't hurt politically either. A lot of this will be happening around March and you know what that is like.

Enzokk

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So, even though the UK can breach any international agreement they want, what they have lost is the diplomatic veil under which they could, theoretically have imposed a hard border before. That is the real significance of the front stop.

But I hope there are no UK Brexiteers reading any of this. The strategy seems to be let Boris have his victory lap until the WA is finalised. If that means we have to pretend that he got a good deal, so be it.

The interesting case is the De Souza one going through the courts right now. The UK is treating their international treaties and their subsequent obligations with disdain already it seems. The 1981 Citizens act overrides the GFA as they have not bothered to enshrine the rights of people born in NI to identify as either or both British or Irish. According to the current law they are British no matter the GFA. That should actually be a concern for the EU when it comes to dealing with the UK.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

America and the EU can protect their markets, though.

The UK is quite likely to do a trade deal where car parts can be imported duty free and assembled in the UK. There is no British car industry to protect anymore.

Sam Russell

RobMc59 wrote: »

The Americans have a different attitude completely to European nations.I've worked for quite a few US companies and found them to be ruthless were money is concerned-little or no room for sentiment it's just business to them.
European companies I've worked for{French,British and Italian )are less obsessed with money and care more for employees.
There is no special relationship between the UK and US or US and Ireland imo-how useful you are to them is all that counts.

Yes, that is correct, but US politics is not quite as ruthless.

Why do US Presidents visit Ireland in the year before their reelection? G. H. Bush did not visit, but then he did not get reelected.

Why does the Taoseach of the day get to the White House to celebrate St Patrick's Day every year? The only country that gets such a visit.

Why is the NY St Patrick's Parade always on March 17th and not transferred to a non=business day?

Why are so many US FDI businesses setting up hqs in Ireland?

RobMc59

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes, that is correct, but US politics is not quite as ruthless.

Why do US Presidents visit Ireland in the year before their reelection? G. H. Bush did not visit, but then he did not get reelected.

Why does the Taoseach of the day get to the White House to celebrate St Patrick's Day every year? The only country that gets such a visit.

Why is the NY St Patrick's Parade always on March 17th and not transferred to a non=business day?

Why are so many US FDI businesses setting up hqs in Ireland?

You may be right or perhaps I'm cynical but I think the US is only interested in it's own affairs and has no love for Europe.
Why do they see the possibility of a European army as a threat unless they fear their influence in Europe would be diminished even though it would be a good thing for Europe?

johnnyskeleton

RobMc59 wrote: »

The Americans have a different attitude completely to European nations.I've worked for quite a few US companies and found them to be ruthless were money is concerned-little or no room for sentiment it's just business to them.
European companies I've worked for{French,British and Italian )are less obsessed with money and care more for employees.
There is no special relationship between the UK and US or US and Ireland imo-how useful you are to them is all that counts.

Yes. And one of the important factors that US companies will look at is political and financial stability.

They will look for a safe, stable country to put safe investments in, and they will look for a riskier country for high risk high reward hedging.

One of the remarkable stats being trotted out by Brexiteers is that the UK is currently the destination for more FDI than any other country. I wonder, does this reflect more the pump and dump policies of buying when sterling had dropped to an all time low, rather than being long term foreign direct investment? Time will tell I suppose.

So the US companies will stash their low risk low yield investments in the EU, and the higher risk stuff in the UK.

Strazdas

Dr. Richard North suggests on his blog that if the UK goes for a bare bones FTA, it could lose as much as 60% of its exports to the EU over time (thanks to numerous self imposed restrictions and trade barriers).

I'm not sure if the Leave supporting public are aware just how much they are playing with fire.

boring accountant

McGiver wrote: »

Especially given that public are so smart to hire buffoons like Johnson or charlatans like Varoufakis.

And how would that work? If it was by popular vote than Germany and France would really control the EU. Which they of course don't now. How would that work out for Ireland with say 2M votes versus Germany & France combined 70M??? Yeah right.

Eurosceptic nonsensical populistic rhetoric to suggest this. Without suggesting a workable mechanism ensuring smaller member states are represented and qualified commissioners selected.

If you want a federalised Europe there are plenty of models for federal democracy in existence. Europhiles like to pretend this is the best we can do when the reality is they’re afraid of giving people a say in their plans.

Idaho has far fewer votes than California and yet no one in Idaho would dream of secession. It’s a failure of imagination at best. At worst it’s a desire to disenfranchise the electorate. Your comment about Boris and Varofakis betrays your motivations.

Btw, I’m all for being in the EU provided it is run by directly elected officials. I want the opportunity to vote for or against an EU commissioner. If there are 20 million french voters as well that doesn’t matter, as long as we each get one vote. As it stands the French and Germans get to decide the composition of the Commission through horse trading and back room dealing. Our politicians are on the sidelines.

trellheim

I'm not sure if the Leave supporting public are aware just how much they are playing with fire.

"we voted, innit" has clearly overridden all other arguments (even those over the legitimate nature of the vote in the first place).

I had a furious argument in a London boozer last week where my point was that "CU+SM+FOM" is as much Brexit as hard brexit , by the terms of the referendum both are perfectly valid explanations.

First Up

boring accountant wrote:

Btw, I’m all for being in the EU provided it is run by directly elected officials. I want the opportunity to vote for or against an EU commissioner. If there are 20 million french voters as well that doesn’t matter, as long as we each get one vote. As it stands the French and Germans get to decide the composition of the Commission through horse trading and back room dealing. Our politicians are on the sidelines.

If officials are directly elected then the French and Germans will have a lot more say than at present. They won't need any horse trading.

You don't seem to have fully grasped what the EU is.

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

"we voted, innit" has clearly overridden all other arguments (even those over the legitimate nature of the vote in the first place).

I had a furious argument in a London boozer last week where my point was that "CU+SM+FOM" is as much Brexit as hard brexit , by the terms of the referendum both are perfectly valid explanations.

Putting 'identity' and 'sovereignty' ahead of even your economy seems incredibly risky for a country that is already sovereign and independent. It could end up in a scenario where the electorate has literally voted to sabotage their own economy.

Igotadose

Strazdas wrote: »

Putting 'identity' and 'sovereignty' ahead of even your economy seems incredibly risky for a country that is already sovereign and independent. It could end up in a scenario where the electorate has literally voted to sabotage their own economy.

Could? Given *zero* predictions of economic *improvement* due to brexit, as that guy said on the BBC before the election, the turkey's have voted for Christmas.
It's been a slow-mo trainwreck so far, watching the UK turn on itself, but now the crash will speed up. By 2021, things will happen fast (assuming the y/e 2020 date is meaningful, in Brexit UK no dates are ever met.)

boring accountant

First Up wrote: »

If officials are directly elected then the French and Germans will have a lot more say than at present. They won't need any horse trading.

You don't seem to have fully grasped what the EU is.

The difference is it would be the French and German people, not their politicians. I assure you I have fully grasped what the EU is. I don’t see how you have any reason to believe otherwise.