Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

roots2branches wrote: »

I find this attitude odd in Ireland. Let's suck it to the Brits, how dare they leave!

It's purely self interested. Let's try and take maximum advantage of their acts of self destruction to benefit our economy. American FDI that previously went to London might now come to Dublin as the only common law jurisdiction in the EU.

So long as they don't impose a hard border in Northern Ireland, I don't think anyone really cares if they leave the EU or not.

Bad attitude to take to our biggest trading partner.

Except that they aren't our biggest trading partner. They are the third biggest after the EU and US.

Leo talks the hard talk but we all know when he gets booted out of office he'll be heading to the EU gravy train leaving Ireland in a worse position.

How does that work? Fine Gael won't be in power, so why would they appoint him to a position in Europe?

Zubeneschamali

MrMusician18 wrote: »

To be honest, it doesn't matter what the media in the UK thinks now. It was only dangerous when such rhetoric undermined the union from within or when it threatened the UKs position within the union.

It is still dangerous, because Brexit isn't finished yet.

It seems from his recent speech that Johnson, even with his majority, is still playing entirely to the Eurosceptic press, and is prepared to leave with No Deal (or an Australian style deal as he now calls it) in order to look tough in the Telegraph.

This will be disastrous for England, which is not strictly our problem anymore, but it will be pretty bad for Ireland, too. People expecting him to pivot to some softer Brexit deal once his 5 years in #10 were secured are still waiting. Instead he is drawing even more red lines ahead of negotiations.

brickster69

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Except that they aren't our biggest trading partner. They are the third biggest after the EU and US.

I think he was talking about the Eu's not Ireland's.

WomanSkirtFan8

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is still dangerous, because Brexit isn't finished yet.

It seems from his recent speech that Johnson, even with his majority, is still playing entirely to the Eurosceptic press, and is prepared to leave with No Deal (or an Australian style deal as he now calls it) in order to look tough in the Telegraph.

This will be disastrous for England, which is not strictly our problem anymore, but it will be pretty bad for Ireland, too. People expecting him to pivot to some softer Brexit deal once his 5 years in #10 were secured are still waiting. Instead he is drawing even more red lines ahead of negotiations.

Johnson and Co have zero chance of getting any deal with any countries outside the UK or anywhere else if they dont have any deal with the EU first. Pure vanity project.

CelticRambler

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

Johnson and Co have zero chance of getting any deal with any countries outside the UK or anywhere else if they dont have any deal with the EU first. Pure vanity project.

Ah now ... You're forgetting they've already signed a deal with the Faeroe Islands. And wasn't there talk of an agreement with Lesotho too? :rolleyes:

bob mcbob

RobMc59 wrote: »

That`s a useful comparison document.There are many differing views on various things and the EU wanting to treat the UK differently from other countries they have trade agreements with stands out and will be a point of contention imo.
Also,for me the EU position on Gibraltar seems high handed as until the brexit vote the EU were`nt interested, personally I don`t think it`s any of their business.
The EU approach to UK fishing territory also appears high handed ,why should the UK have to seek consent from the EU regarding UK fishing territory?
There was a report from Holland yesterday evening speaking to Dutch fishermen who are very worried about continued access to UK waters-this could well be the UK`s major bargaining chip.

Yes just one wee problem with this - most of the fish are in Scottish waters around the north east coast. This is why there are tory MP's there because of the Brexit promises from the likes of Gove.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/25/michael-gove-unveils-brexit-fisheries-bill-giving-scottish-ministers/

London using this bargaining chip will see Scottish independence polling going from the current 52% in favour to 60+.

ArthurDayne

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is still dangerous, because Brexit isn't finished yet.

It seems from his recent speech that Johnson, even with his majority, is still playing entirely to the Eurosceptic press, and is prepared to leave with No Deal (or an Australian style deal as he now calls it) in order to look tough in the Telegraph.

This will be disastrous for England, which is not strictly our problem anymore, but it will be pretty bad for Ireland, too. People expecting him to pivot to some softer Brexit deal once his 5 years in #10 were secured are still waiting. Instead he is drawing even more red lines ahead of negotiations.

Sometimes I find myself looking at these supremely well-educated and experienced British ministers and asking myself — are these people simply at such a high frequency of intelligence and political nous that I simply cannot process it, or are they actually just complete idiots ?

To me, May’s Lancaster speech must go down as the worst and most self-defeating policy exposition in modern British history. Her unrealistic and contradictory redlines only succeeded in setting a crazily low threshold for what would be considered ‘capitulation’ — and in doing so she handed the Brextremists a big massive crate of ammo to fire cries of ‘surrender’ at even the most rational compromise.

Boris has even more wriggle room than May did to inject some measured realism into this whole sorry affair. Instead he has taken May’s low threshold of capitulation even lower, and sealed it with a barrage of jingoistic nonsense. I find myself asking: why do they keep doing this? Why do they keep boxing themselves in to the most limited maneouvreability possible? Why do they keep setting objectives that they will inevitably fail to achieve and then leave themselves open to looking like they have capitulated?

Is it all just about short term power — i.e. tell your faithful what they want to hear? Do they genuinely just not look far ahead enough to consider what happens when lie after lie gets eroded away by logic ? Or are we just too stupid to understand a strategy that is actually working for the Tories?

J Mysterio

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ah now ... You're forgetting they've already signed a deal with the Faeroe Islands. And wasn't there talk of an agreement with Lesotho too? :rolleyes:

Aha, the mountain kingdom

Saw that the prime minister and his current wife are being unvestigated for the suspected killing of his former wife.

fash

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Somewhat off topic, but people said this for years about Enda, that he was being a good European to butter up his betters in Brussels so he could ride the EU faceless bureaucrat gravy train later.

Completely baseless.

Any day now...

Zubeneschamali

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Or are we just too stupid to understand a strategy that is actually working for the Tories?

Imagine you are leader of the Tories, and your only goal is to get into #10 and stay there. You don't care about the national interest or the economy, you have no principles and will say absolutely anything to win.

Congrats, you are Boris Johnson and you have a thumping majority!

Five years in #10 will see Johnson in the top 30 longest serving PMs. If he wins in 2024 he could catch Tony Blair in the top 10!

And that is what it is all about.

newport2

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Or are we just too stupid to understand a strategy that is actually working for the Tories?

I think his strategy is to create an "Us vs Them" rhetoric in the UK media. When the EU is seen as the big bad wolf, Boris will get away with whatever path he takes this year, because it will all be the EU's fault. So while he might appear to be boxing himself in, if everything is seen to be the fault of the EU it gives him more support/options in what he finally decides, even if that is backing down on what he has said to date.

CrabRevolution

ambro25 wrote: »

What happens if and when the UK standards should diverge downards, then?

The EU standards are a baseline, under which no Member State can operate or fall. Member States are entirely free to enact and uphold higher standards as a matter of national policies, for competitive advantage and/or socio-ecolo-economic betterment.

The UK's higher standards in certain respects, are to its credit. So why won't it now undertake to continue to uphold at least these EU lower standards (like it has done for decades already)?

That's a big contradiction to the UK argument, that they won't agree not to go lower than the EU standards because they're already higher so there's no need to. It's put pretty succinctly in this piece:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/03/shapeshifter-world-king-the-pm-boris-johnson-could-be-seriously-unwell

Nor would we be bothering to align with the EU, because the EU was basically a bit sh*t......Besides, the EU shouldn’t nit-pick. It was obvious that the UK was trustworthy, said the proven liar. If something was obviously the right thing to do there was no need to have it enshrined in law. To take the lead, he was proposing to make murder legal on the grounds that everyone knew it was wrong.

It's also a great example of UK duplicity. They are now using the argument that higher, more stringent standards = better. Yet one of their big arguments has been that the UK has been "suffering" due to high standards of the EU. So are high standards good or bad?

Another great one from the same piece:

There was to be no talk of a no-deal Brexit. From now on, no deal would simply be referred to as the Australian model. In that no Australian trade deal with the EU actually existed. It was pure genius. Boris could eliminate cancer from the world merely by renaming it. Why had no one thought of that before?

Zubeneschamali

newport2 wrote: »

When the EU is seen as the big bad wolf, Boris will get away with whatever path he takes

You can see him doing it already. Swinging cuts in all government departments just weeks after announcing that austerity is over, but Brexit! Bad EU! Rule Britannia!

And when growth falters and factories close and the pound drops and inflation starts biting - bulldog spirit! Blitz 2.0! EU so bad that freedom is worth the price!

serfboard

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

people said this for years about Enda, that he was being a good European to butter up his betters in Brussels so he could ride the EU faceless bureaucrat gravy train later.

Enda was being a good European because it is in the national interest of Ireland, a sparsely-populated former colony on the edge of Europe with no mineral resources, for our Taoiseach to be a good European.

serfboard

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Swinging cuts in all government departments just weeks after announcing that austerity is over, but Brexit! Bad EU!

The Polly Toynbee article quoted yesterday said that the latter is to cover up the former.

Austerity 2.0 - this time it's the EU's fault.

sondagefaux

RobMc59 wrote: »

I would say I'm pro EU but I'm alarmed by the apparent rhetoric coming out of Brussels in regards to what the EU wants from negotiations. I believe it fuels jingoism and anti EU sentiment which is manna from heaven to right wing UK politicians and the hawkish US who along with Russia, want the EU to implode.
Regarding the fishing rights,it's not just about selling fish its also about people's livelihoods,ie:the fishermen of many nations who rely on fishing in UK- it's a major bargaining chip imo.

Right-wing politicians in both the UK and USA have been bashing the EU for decades.

Why should the EU change its messaging to try to appease people who are unappeasable, and who don't live in the EU?

The people who count, the public in EU countries, are increasingly in favour of globalisation and immigration:

https://bruegel.org/2020/02/resisting-deglobalisation-the-case-of-europe/

The fishing sector employs a very small proportion of the workforce in almost any EU country.

It's not a bargaining chip if the other party doesn't really need it.

sondagefaux

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's purely self interested. Let's try and take maximum advantage of their acts of self destruction to benefit our economy. American FDI that previously went to London might now come to Dublin as the only common law jurisdiction in the EU.

So long as they don't impose a hard border in Northern Ireland, I don't think anyone really cares if they leave the EU or not.



Except that they aren't our biggest trading partner. They are the third biggest after the EU and US.



How does that work? Fine Gael won't be in power, so why would they appoint him to a position in Europe?

It's obvious that some people think there's an always full pool of instantly available senior positions in the EU, specially designated for politicians who haven't been re-elected or haven't won general elections.

I have no idea where they get these notions from

What position would he potentially be appointed to anyway?

Even if he resigns as a TD (why would he?), why would a new government appoint him as the Irish representative to the EU?

This is one of the very few EU-related position in the gift of the Irish government.

Almost all other positions are either as civil servants working for the EU, posts that people must apply for and gain as with national civil servant positions, or they are positions that require relevant skills and experience (CJEU judge or advocate general), or they require the person nominated by the Irish government to be approved by a majority vote in the European Parliament (Commissioner) or, quite simply, they are already filled.

RobMc59

sondagefaux wrote: »

Right-wing politicians in both the UK and USA have been bashing the EU for decades.

Why should the EU change its messaging to try to appease people who are unappeasable, and who don't live in the EU?

The people who count, the public in EU countries, are increasingly in favour of globalisation and immigration:

https://bruegel.org/2020/02/resisting-deglobalisation-the-case-of-europe/

The fishing sector employs a very small proportion of the workforce in almost any EU country.

It's not a bargaining chip if the other party doesn't really need it.

If fishing was unimportant why is it constantly brought up by the EU and why does it often result in naval intervention and various other 'squaring up' situations?-Hardly the actions of something people aren't bothered about..

Enzokk

ambro25 wrote: »

What happens if and when the UK standards should diverge downards, then?

The EU standards are a baseline, under which no Member State can operate or fall. Member States are entirely free to enact and uphold higher standards as a matter of national policies, for competitive advantage and/or socio-ecolo-economic betterment.

The UK's higher standards in certain respects, are to its credit. So why won't it now undertake to continue to uphold at least these EU lower standards (like it has done for decades already)?

The only reason why the UK wouldn't commit to EU standards when they have current higher standards would be to go lower later on.

As for the fishing argument, I am not sure if this has been covered on here but it seems a dispute has already happened.

Here is the BBC report on the 'misunderstanding',

Guernsey-France fishing dispute caused by Brexit confusion

A fishing dispute between Guernsey and France occurred because the UK failed to inform of Brexit-related changes in time, a senior politician claimed.

Guernsey introduced fishing permits for foreign vessels on 31 January after the London Fisheries Convention ceased to apply following Brexit.

As a result no French fishing boats are currently operating in Guernsey, Alderney and Sark waters.

Victory for the UK, right? Not really though as British boats from Guernsey had to process their catch in France and in a move nobody could have foreseen they were turned away and their catch, well it became worthless.

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1224787156855599104?s=20

As for the story about Nissan focusing its production in the UK, well it seems due to Brexit all of the EU will lose out and not just the UK.

https://twitter.com/david_conn/status/1225046121736785920?s=20

Boris Johnson snubs captains of industry over Brexit speech

Nissan, the second-largest car manufacturer in the country, said yesterday that its European operation would become unsustainable if the UK and Brussels failed to strike a tariff-free trade deal. The company employs about 7,000 workers at its Sunderland plant.

It denied reports that it was preparing to increase its British investment in the event of a no-trade-deal Brexit, saying that it might shut its UK operations, alongside facilities in Spain and France, and relocate production to Japan. Last year Nissan announced that it would centralise production of its new electric X-Trail vehicle at its Kyushu hub rather than create a second facility in Europe.

A senior company source said that its integrated supply chain meant that barriers to trade between Britain and Europe made further consolidation much more likely. About two thirds of the components going to make Nissan vehicles at Sunderland are imported from the EU. Only a third originate in the UK. Should the UK and the EU end up imposing respective tariffs on the export of cars, this could increase costs by up to 10 per cent.

The statement was released after reports in the Financial Times suggested that Nissan had drawn up contingency plans to consolidate European operations in Sunderland. It suggested that the company could benefit from new duties on vehicles imported from the EU, giving Nissan’s UK-made models a competitive edge.

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

If fishing was unimportant why is it constantly brought up by the EU and why does it often result in naval intervention and various other 'squaring up' situations?-Hardly the actions of something people aren't bothered about..

I think it was on Remainiacs where they were talking about fish and its importance. One of the reasons given there was because it is to do with feeding the people as a country. That is why there is so much emotion tied to fishing, even when it doesn't mean much in the wider scheme of your economy.

sondagefaux

brickster69 wrote: »

RobMc,

It is not just the fishermen. The EU fish processing industry is big. It employs 130,000 people and generates 39 billion / year.

The total EU27 workforce in 2015 was close to 186 million.

https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

Sam Russell

sondagefaux wrote: »

The total EU27 workforce in 2015 was close to 186 million.

https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

Link is dead.

sondagefaux

RobMc59 wrote: »

If fishing was unimportant why is it constantly brought up by the EU and why does it often result in naval intervention and various other 'squaring up' situations?-Hardly the actions of something people aren't bothered about..

It's fishermen squaring up to other fishermen.

No doubt it's important to the tiny fraction of people in the EU who rely on it for their living.

The total EU27 workforce in 2015 was close to 186 million.

https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

According to other posts on this thread, about 53,000 people fish for a living in the EU, with 130,000 emoloyed in processing etc.

It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the economy and the workforce in any EU country.

Iceland is one of the very few countries in the world where fishing and related activities is of some importance.

It was in conflict with the UK over sea fishing from the 1950s to the early 1970s, the so-called Cod Wars.

Iceland won: it extended its fishing grounds to a 200 nm limit (now the global standard used for maritime states' Exclusive Economic Zones in the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea, UNCLOS) and the UK fishing industry was severely damaged by losing access to fishing grounds.

It won because it threatened to shut down the US military air base in Iceland, then a vital link in NATO's defences against the USSR, and the US told the Brits to concede to Iceland or face dire consequences from the US.

When it came down to it, the UK threw its fishing sector overboard to protect more important UK interests.

For all the rhetoric, experience shows that the UK regards its fishing sector as expendable.

sondagefaux

Sam Russell wrote: »

Link is dead.

Not for me.

Try googling:

Labour market and Labour force survey (LFS) statistics - europa.eu

brickster69

Obviously Europe is quite large. These things will mainly affect a few countries closer to the UK more than others. I could be wrong, but i don't imagine many Italian, Greek, Spanish, Polish and Latvian countries etc. being affected at all.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

I think it was on Remainiacs where they were talking about fish and its importance. One of the reasons given there was because it is to do with feeding the people as a country. That is why there is so much emotion tied to fishing, even when it doesn't mean much in the wider scheme of your economy.

The Economist has termed it the "Scarry Effect", after one Richard Scarry who was an American illustrator for children's books. Essentially, politicians will always suffer disproportionately more when they are perceived to be harming a profession which features prominently in children's tales and as such, they harm said professions at their peril.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. Because they want to sell the fish they catch in UK waters into EU markets. The UK fishing industry exports 80% of its catch, because it is of species that UK consumers are reluctant to eat. Saithe and chips, anyone?

Coley is a lovely fish. Don't conflate British sensibilities with Dublin working class tastes.

RobMc59

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's fishermen squaring up to other fishermen.

No doubt it's important to the tiny fraction of people in the EU who rely on it for their living.

The total EU27 workforce in 2015 was close to 186 million.

https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

According to other posts on this thread, about 53,000 people fish for a living in the EU, with 130,000 emoloyed in processing etc.

It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the economy and the workforce in any EU country.

Iceland is one of the very few countries in the world where fishing and related activities is of some importance.

It was in conflict with the UK over sea fishing from the 1950s to the early 1970s, the so-called Cod Wars.

Iceland won: it extended its fishing grounds to a 200 nm limit (now the global standard used for maritime states' Exclusive Economic Zones in the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea, UNCLOS) and the UK fishing industry was severely damaged by losing access to fishing grounds.

It won because it threatened to shut down the US military air base in Iceland, then a vital link in NATO's defences against the USSR, and the US told the Brits to concede to Iceland or face dire consequences from the US.

When it came down to it, the UK threw its fishing sector overboard to protect more important UK interests.

For all the rhetoric, experience shows that the UK regards its fishing sector as expendable.

Pointing out that Britain put the interests of NATO who were essentially fighting a cold war with eastern bloc countries before their own isn't a good example of Britain regarding its fishing sector as expendable.

brickster69

This EU budget should be fun to watch.

Macron wants 10% more added

Kurtz is threatening a Veto

https://www.dw.com/en/austria-sebastian-kurz-threatens-to-veto-eu-post-brexit-budget/a-52225576?maca=en-rss-en-eu-2092-rdf

And 15 of the 17 "Friends of Cohesion" want things as they are

http://www.aeidl.eu/en/news/latest-news/5273-15-cohesion-countries-call-for-stronger-eu-budget.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

serfboard

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's obvious that some people think there's an always full pool of instantly available senior positions in the EU, specially designated for politicians who haven't been re-elected or haven't won general elections.

If the pool was always full, there would be no vacancies

sondagefaux wrote: »

I have no idea where they get these notions from

What position would he potentially be appointed to anyway?

Even if he resigns as a TD (why would he?), why would a new government appoint him as the Irish representative to the EU?

This is one of the very few EU-related position in the gift of the Irish government.

Almost all other positions are either as civil servants working for the EU, posts that people must apply for and gain as with national civil servant positions, or they are positions that require relevant skills and experience (CJEU judge or advocate general), or they require the person nominated by the Irish government to be approved by a majority vote in the European Parliament (Commissioner) or, quite simply, they are already filled.

It has been standard practice for years, to boot some no longer useful, but still potentially dangerous politician into Ireland's Commissioner role. We've had:

Wikipedia wrote:

Richard Burke, David Byrne, Pádraig Flynn, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Patrick Hillery, Phil Hogan, Ray MacSharry, Charlie McCreevy, Michael O'Kennedy, Peter Sutherland

Some of them have gone on to have successful careers as a result of their commissionership - Peter Sutherland and Ray McSharry specifically come to mind.

Paddy Hillery did well too - being becoming President of Ireland without a vote, in 1976, a position he held until he was again appointed, without a vote, in 1983. He held the job for fourteen years, without having ever being elected to it.

Regarding the other jobs, there is

1. The European Court of Auditors, which Barry Desmond and Maire Geoghegan-Quinn served in:

Wikipedia wrote:

The ECA is composed of one member from each EU Member State, each of whom is appointed unanimously by the Council of the European Union for a renewable term of six years. Members are chosen from people who have served in national audit bodies, who are qualified for the office

So in relation to your comment that "they are positions that require relevant skills and experience", Maire Geoghegan-Quinn had relevant skills in having qualified as a teacher :rolleyes:

The ECA also served as a nice dumping ground for Kevin Cardiff, the man "who was responsible for financial supervision at the time of the collapse of the Irish banks". And his reward for failure was truly staggering.

2. European Union Ambassador to the United States, which John Bruton did from 2004 to 2009. He tried to pivot from that gig to being President of the European Council, but was unsuccessful.

3. European Union Special Representative - another nice number if you can get it. Which Eamonn Gilmore did, becoming the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights in March 2019, and which he will do until March of 2021.

So there are a few (admittedly not that many) nice little jobeens that one can get, after one has "decided" to hang up ones boots.