Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

Reading the latest brexit news it appears Johnson says the UK won't be forced into agreeing EU preconditions to a free trade deal and is willing to walk away without an agreement-I hope he has a plan B if the EU say 'fine,get on with it!'Or he's going to look even more silly than he already does if he has to back down.

Thank them for their 33 billion and their Northern Ireland solution and let them go on their merry way. Tell them that if they want, they can come back with a fully-written agreement they think will pass every parliament in the EU. Let them try beat the reserve price on all of them with just the one bid.

Sam Russell

GBP dropped over 1p on the day. Low 83.9p=€1 close 85.02p=€.

Market is moving back over more uncertainty.

Professor Moriarty

Interesting recent poll by YouGov. For the first time in 18 YouGov polls since March 2017, a majority of people in the UK would vote to leave the EU if there was another referendum:

Leave 53%
Remain 47%

It would appear that the Tories and the Tory press have done their job.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interesting recent poll by YouGov. For the first time in 18 YouGov polls since March 2017, a majority of people in the UK would vote to leave the EU if there was another referendum:

Leave 53%
Remain 47%

It would appear that the Tories and the Tory press have done their job.

They have left.

What was the question asked? A bit like predicting last weeks Lotto numbers.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have left.

What was the question asked? A bit like predicting last weeks Lotto numbers.

If there was a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote? Last poll conducted 20.1.20.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid that does not make sense. We already had the NI in the single market solution in writing; the UK merely had to ratify it, so we were hardly ambushing them with a watered down version of it.

“Ambushed “ because the minute Varadkar left the meeting they instantly issued an announcement that the issue was now solved- and the UK had no idea how to respond aside from express caution.

You say we “already had” NI resolved- yet that rather overlooks the minor point that Johnson’s plan B was to run an election on a no deal basis rather than accept- hardly something that we “already had”.

If we did not believe Johsnon would go through with his plan to walk away, then all we had to do was to continue to insist on the original deal which was better for Ireland than the one we eventually agreed a) in respect of the border and b) in respect of trading with the UK.

Because it does not make sense to believe that it was an Irish idea. It is deal we had to accept because the perceived alternative was wors

I doubt many doubted that Johnson was not going to follow through-hence your statement is not relevant.
It is only “worse” if you know for sure that:
The UK would sign the WAB anyway; and
If the UK signed up, they wouldn’t wriggle out of the “backstop” portion at the end blaming the EU for not accepting their alternative arrangements in good faith.
Why or how do you believe that?

Bit cynical

Christy42 wrote: »

Why? It suits us well. It avoids the border and the UK can't renege on it either. It has to be an NI decision to put up a border and voters there are against a hard border.

This is close to the original suggestion from the EU. This is not some great Boris plan.

I would partly agree with this. It suits us quite well considering the alternative, but not as well as the previous deal. Part of the UK (NI) politicians having to vote to extend the arrangement is better than the UK Government being able to terminate special status for NI, but not as good as neither group being able to end the arrangement. As Fash points out in the post above, we were faced with a potential no deal scenario.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

“Ambushed “ because the minute Varadkar left the meeting they instantly issued an announcement that the issue was now solved- and the UK had no idea how to respond aside from express caution.

You say we “already had” NI resolved- yet that rather overlooks the minor point that Johnson’s plan B was to run an election on a no deal basis rather than accept- hardly something that we “already had”.

So in other words you agree that Johnson's threat of no deal had an effect. It was not merely hot air as others had been suggesting and I had been disputing.

moon2

Bit cynical wrote: »

So in other words you agree that Johnson's threat of no deal had an effect. It was not merely hot air as others had been suggesting and I had been disputing.

This threat may have been 100% serious. However the prevailing wisdom is that were he to follow through, the resulting impact would cause unsustainable damage to the UK.

The EU would be able to weather the impact far more easily (larger economy, less dependent on the UK, emergency fund already in place) and so could afford to wait for the UK to reach a point where they would negotiate.

I'm other words, did it have an effect? Maybe in that it opened the door for him to compromise? Did the threat materially change the final outcome? Unlikely.

jimmycrackcorm

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Also, they don't seriously think that 1 in 5 brits actually want to buy a Nissan do they.....

The Nissan discussion is interesting from the perspective that 70 prevent of their current output goes to the EU. The speculation is about transferring manufacturing to the UK to boost sales there as a replacement.

So much for global Britain as a great world trading power. More like North Korea self sufficiency.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid that does not make sense. We already had the NI in the single market solution in writing; the UK merely had to ratify it

But we all know Johnson couldn't ratify it!

For fecks sake, were watching live on television as varadkar swooped in. Do I really have to trawl back and see what you said at the time?

Bit cynical

moon2 wrote: »

This threat may have been 100% serious. However the prevailing wisdom is that were he to follow through, the resulting impact would cause unsustainable damage to the UK.

The EU would be able to weather the impact far more easily (larger economy, less dependent on the UK, emergency fund already in place) and so could afford to wait for the UK to reach a point where they would negotiate.

I'm other words, did it have an effect? Maybe in that it opened the door for him to compromise? Did the threat materially change the final outcome? Unlikely.

I think the key thing is that something did change when Johnson became PM and, having declared the May deal dead, announced that he would walk away unless a deal was agreed.

We never called his bluff. We'll never know what he would have done had we continued to insist on the earlier agreement. We would have been entitled to do this and had been doing this right up to the point Johnson took power. The earlier deal suited us more in that there was no get out clause for politicians in NI, and the UK wide backstop would have suited us economically. But we switched to a deal where NI politicians can end the UK's requirement against a border on the Island, and our trading relationship now depends on the outcome of negotiations for a Canada style FTA which, though I think one will be obtained, will not be as good for us, though it suits the more hardline of the Brexiteers.

But the fact that there was compromise and flexibility on the EU side, due to Johnson's tough stance, bodes well for the outcome of the trade negotiations and this will benefit Ireland ultimately.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the key thing is that something did change when Johnson became PM and, having declared the May deal dead, announced that he would walk away unless a deal was agreed.

We never called his bluff. We'll never know what he would have done had we continued to insist on the earlier agreement. We would have been entitled to do this and had been doing this right up to the point Johnson took power. The earlier deal suited us more in that there was no get out clause for politicians in NI, and the UK wide backstop would have suited us economically. But we switched to a deal where NI politicians can end the UK's requirement against a border on the Island, and our trading relationship now depends on the outcome of negotiations for a Canada style FTA which, though I think one will be obtained, will not be as good for us, though it suits the more hardline of the Brexiteers.

But the fact that there was compromise and flexibility on the EU side, due to Johnson's tough stance, bodes well for the outcome of the trade negotiations and this will benefit Ireland ultimately.

Am wondering, do you think there should have been no movement at all from the EU then? Was that "weakness" in your eyes?
Somehow if EU/Ireland had adopted such a position, I think you would not have been very impressed with it.
You might have called it intransigence or pig-headedness (as opposed to a "tough stance" which is the wont of Boris the Brexiteer!).

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

Am wondering, do you think there should have been no movement at all from the EU then? Was that "weakness" in your eyes?
Somehow if EU/Ireland had adopted such a position, I think you would not have been very impressed with it.
You might have called it intransigence or pig-headedness (as opposed to a "tough stance" which is the wont of Boris the Brexiteer!).

No I think it was the correct thing to do given the consequences for Ireland, and to a lesser extent, other EU countries of not doing so.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But we all know Johnson couldn't ratify it!

For fecks sake, were watching live on television as varadkar swooped in. Do I really have to trawl back and see what you said at the time?

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense.

We had been standing firm on the deal while TM was in power even though she too could not ratify it. The effect of our policy was to drive her out of power giving way to Johnson, a much harder Brexiteer. We didn't give TM an inch after the deal was signed. Then Johnson takes over threatening to walk away and we reopen the thing we said would not be reopened and agree to a lesser deal from Ireland's point of view.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

No I think it was the correct thing to do given the consequences for Ireland, and to a lesser extent, other EU countries of not doing so.

Yes, you can't get anywhere if everyone takes "tough" yet ultimately self defeating stances.

Unfortunately if Boris Johnson is to be taken at his word he has no intention at all of upholding the NI aspect of the withdrawal agreement (so it might all be for nothing). I'm not sure it's a good idea to be signalling that going into these negotiations, even if it sounds tough.

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

Yes, you can't get anywhere if everyone takes "tough" yet ultimately self defeating stances.

However it worked for him and hard-Brexiteers. Johnson got elected on a landslide and the country is now seeking an FTA.

If you disagree with Brexit, of course, Brexit itself is a disaster and the harder the Brexit the greater the disaster. But Johnson and the ERG do not disagree with Brexit and the harder the better. They won this fight.

Capt'n Midnight

kowloon wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Eh, what??

Ireland from the outset wanted no border on the island, and that is what we got.

Germany would be quite happy with a Dundalk to Derry canal full of piranhas.

Is it too late for that option?

While the Foyle and Finn do indeed form the border from Derry it's not meant to be taken literally.

You see, the Newry canal is nearly 15km north of Dundalk.

And it's linked to the Bann so if you filled it with piranhas that would cut off everything West of the Bann.


Then again ...

It would be cheaper than extending the M3 to Letterykenny which is the other way to bisect the north.

J Mysterio

According to Huff Post UK, No.10 tried to exclude certain publications from a briefing (Trump style) prompting a mass walkout.

SantaCruz

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it worked for him and hard-Brexiteers. Johnson got elected on a landslide and the country is now seeking an FTA.

If you disagree with Brexit, of course, Brexit itself is a disaster and the harder the Brexit the greater the disaster. But Johnson and the ERG do not disagree with Brexit and the harder the better. They won this fight.

They did, and the UK lost.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

If you disagree with Brexit, of course, Brexit itself is a disaster and the harder the Brexit the greater the disaster. But Johnson and the ERG do not disagree with Brexit and the harder the better. They won this fight.

SantaCruz wrote:

They did, and the UK lost.

They've been fighting among themselves as they came down the tunnel, with the opposition on the field waiting for the match to start.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it worked for him and hard-Brexiteers. Johnson got elected on a landslide and the country is now seeking an FTA.

If you disagree with Brexit, of course, Brexit itself is a disaster and the harder the Brexit the greater the disaster. But Johnson and the ERG do not disagree with Brexit and the harder the better. They won this fight.

What has been agreed to wasn't a bad outcome at all for the EU or ourselves (provided Johnson actually implements it).
Even a negotiating "softie" (as you might see it) will wise up if someone nakedly cheats it (which Johnson will be doing if he ignores parts of withdrawal agreement that are inconvenient for him).

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense.

We had been standing firm on the deal while TM was in power even though she too could not ratify it. The effect of our policy was to drive her out of power giving way to Johnson, a much harder Brexiteer. We didn't give TM an inch after the deal was signed. Then Johnson takes over threatening to walk away and we reopen the thing we said would not be reopened and agree to a lesser deal from Ireland's point of view.

Define lesser deal for Ireland. What is the differences between the May deal and Johnson's and how is it worse for Ireland?

As for the upcoming trade talks, I wonder what influence playing to the domestic audience will be like. When the UK was still part of the EU there would have been sympathy with them and the message they needed to send out domestically, but will it still be there with them being a third country now?

moon2

Bit cynical wrote: »

But the fact that there was compromise and flexibility on the EU side, due to Johnson's tough stance, bodes well for the outcome of the trade negotiations and this will benefit Ireland ultimately.

Johnson's 'tough stance' didn't achieve this. The change in agreement was made possible due to him reneging on the promise to keep the UK whole. Keeping rules unified across the UK was one of Theresa Mays three mutually exclusive red lines, and was originally something Johnson himself supported.

Once he told the EU one of the three mutually exclusive red lines was no longer a red line it paved the way for the EU to change the agreement to something more similar to what was originally proposed. The EU had repeatedly said they could alter the agreement *if* the UK terms changed, and without a change in UK terms the agreement would not be reopened.

I think you're being a little revisionist and are attributing too much to Johnson's posturing and forgetting the change in UK position which allowed this to occur.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

So in other words you agree that Johnson's threat of no deal had an effect. It was not merely hot air as others had been suggesting and I had been disputing.

I think the threat was always there that no deal was possible - especially after May's deal was shot down. And while it was quite likely that a no deal would do so much damage to the UK that it would be forced to come to an arrangement eventually with the EU- however that would be a very damaging event with frankly unpredictable consequences- so certainly worth avoiding.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense.

We had been standing firm on the deal while TM was in power even though she too could not ratify it. The effect of our policy was to drive her out of power giving way to Johnson, a much harder Brexiteer. We didn't give TM an inch after the deal was signed. Then Johnson takes over threatening to walk away and we reopen the thing we said would not be reopened and agree to a lesser deal from Ireland's point of view.

We had to stand firm on May, since she was a lame duck. Any concession we made would have been immediately swallowed up and we would get nothing in return.Johnson offered the possibility of having something ratified.

We never said the WAB could not be opened up- we said that it could not be opened up if the UK didn't change its red lines - which they did - there is now a border down the middle of the UK.

upupup

fash wrote: »

We had to stand firm on May, since she was a lame duck. Any concession we made would have been immediately swallowed up and we would get nothing in return.Johnson offered the possibility of having something ratified.

We never said the WAB could not be opened up- we said that it could not be opened up if the UK didn't change its red lines - which they did - there is now a border down the middle of the UK.

I love that.karma!

newport2

Enzokk wrote: »

Define lesser deal for Ireland. What is the differences between the May deal and Johnson's and how is it worse for Ireland?

In fairness, May's deal had the entire UK locked into the customs union and single market until they managed to square a circle, with the EU's approval required in order to change anything. That was better for Ireland.

But if May had been willing to change her red lines, like Johnson did after he took over, Johnson's deal would have been an option to her as well. She ruled it out. Nothing to do with Johnson's negotiating or tough stance. He changed the red lines set out by May to compromise for the EU.

Leroy42

Spot on, they have created another boggeyman to fight against. Apparently, Brexit was done last week, except for the mean EU that is still holding the UK to ransom.

So forget about Russian interference, HS2 massive overruns, no end to austerity etc, its all EU's fault.

Now, we were led to believe that the UK were working on loads of trade deals which were going to roll over at the same time as BRexit day, yet now they are pushing the narrative that they have no idea where the EU stands and are prepared to walk away, again!

It really is odd. This should be the greatest achievement of Brexiteers, they are finally free. Yet the likes of Widdecome, Farage, the Express etc, are all out almost everyday saying how tough everything is and how they will, maybe, have , little choice but to go to WTO in the end with all the problems that raises. So we still await any form of an actual plan and what the likely outcome of that plan is.

The UK have left, yet they still have no idea of that the effects will be!

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

(...)

The UK have left, yet they still have no idea of that the effects will be!

I disagree, 'they' (Farage, Johnson, backers, etc.) have all long known what the effects will be.

There is nothing odd to Johnson's bombast and belligerent tone, nor to his repeat of Theresa May's Lancaster-like self-boxing: the plan still is to leave on the hardest of terms.

'They' just need a bit more time to fully bed the fault of the EU, Remainers, the ECHR, judges, experts, etc. in with their domestic audience.

By the evidence of recent polls (YouGov IIRC, putting the leave vote *in retrospect* at 50%, ie upward trend there), it's working.