Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

dogbert27 wrote: »

The United Kingdom is not a country so it is completely different to Spain/Catalonia.

Scotland is already recognized internationally as a country.

But the UK is a state, while Scotland is not.

There is no way the EU will do anything that might be seen as encouraging the break-up of a non-Member state. Their line will very much be that, beyond a general wish to see all such questions resolved peacerfully and constitutionally, this is None Of Their Business and they have no preference, one way or the other, as to whether Scotland should secede from the UK. If asked whether an independent Scotland would be welcome as a candidate for membership, the answer will be that any European state can become a candidate for membership, but the question does not arise with respect to Scotland unless and until Scotland becomes a state.

johnnyskeleton

The UK wants to do a trade deal with Australia for political/diplomatic reasons rather than trade reasons.

Look how well Global Britain(TM) is doing, they will say. The Australians, for their part, would do a trade deal with the UK tomorrow, because for them a trade deal is proportioantely worth more than it is to the UK. The only reason they wouldnt, is if a UK deal could cause problems with an Australia-EU deal.

So Brexiteers are making political points about trade negotistions opening with Australia. The EU has had negotiations with them since 2018. So the Brexiteers have tried to turn it into a race to see how quickly they can do a deal i.e. they only started now but will finish before the EU-Australia deal.

They will claim this is a benefit of being outside of the slow moving EU. But moving quickly isnt necessarily a good thing in a complex arrangement.

Maybe Australia will propose a deal that suits them and the British will be so desperate to get a deal done quickly they eill sign it. It will be interesting to see then if they try to renege on it after!

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The UK wants to do a trade deal with Australia for political/diplomatic reasons rather than trade reasons.

Look how well Global Britain(TM) is doing, they will say. The Australians, for their part, would do a trade deal with the UK tomorrow, because for them a trade deal is proportioantely worth more than it is to the UK. . .

Australia does want to do a trade deal with the UK, but not tomorrow, for three reasons.

First, they have more to gain from a trade deal with the EU. They want both. But they would rather let the EU trade deal shape what is and isn't possible in the UK deal than the other way around. So they want to do the EU trade deal first.

Secondly, what they want out of a UK trade deal will partly depend on what's in the UK/EU deal, if any. So they want to let the dust settle there before they conclude their own deal.

Thirdly, they expect the UK to be under more pressure to conclude a deal after transition ends, especially if there is no prospect of a UK/EU deal, and they think the more pressure the UK is under the better their bargaining position will be.

So, no rush.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the UK is a state, while Scotland is not.

There is no way the EU will do anything that might be seen as encouraging the break-up of a non-Member state. Their line will very much be that, beyond a general wish to see all such questions resolved peacerfully and constitutionally, this is None Of Their Business and they have no preference, one way or the other, as to whether Scotland should secede from the UK. If asked whether an independent Scotland would be welcome as a candidate for membership, the answer will be that any European state can become a candidate for membership, but the question does not arise with respect to Scotland unless and until Scotland becomes a state.

That'll be the official line but IMO Scotland would be particularly welcome back in the fold.

I think Scotland and then Northern Ireland will secede from the UK in my lifetime. Before Brexit I would not have believed that. I used to respect their stability but we've become the stable grown up country. They have lost their marbles altogether.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

That'll be the official line but IMO Scotland would be particularly welcome back in the fold.

I think Scotland and then Northern Ireland will secede from the UK in my lifetime. Before Brexit I would not have believed that. I used to respect their stability but we've become the stable grown up country. They have lost their marbles altogether.

You used to respect the stablity of Northern Ireland ???!!!

ZeroThreat

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The UK wants to do a trade deal with Australia for political/diplomatic reasons rather than trade reasons.

Look how well Global Britain(TM) is doing, they will say. The Australians, for their part, would do a trade deal with the UK tomorrow, because for them a trade deal is proportioantely worth more than it is to the UK. The only reason they wouldnt, is if a UK deal could cause problems with an Australia-EU deal.

So Brexiteers are making political points about trade negotistions opening with Australia. The EU has had negotiations with them since 2018. So the Brexiteers have tried to turn it into a race to see how quickly they can do a deal i.e. they only started now but will finish before the EU-Australia deal.

They will claim this is a benefit of being outside of the slow moving EU. But moving quickly isnt necessarily a good thing in a complex arrangement.

Maybe Australia will propose a deal that suits them and the British will be so desperate to get a deal done quickly they eill sign it. It will be interesting to see then if they try to renege on it after!

Many in the UK seem to be under some sort of illusion regarding their present-day relations with some of the commonwealth nations. Articles in the likes of the Telegraph appear regularly, where the writer is under the impression that the likes of Australia/Canada/NZ have somehow been waiting for the demise of the EU, so that they can once again be 'lead' by the British ala the old 1950s and prior commonwealth days.

I honestly think many brexiteers in addition to wanting to wind the clock in the UK back to the 40/50s also somehow think these other countries have remained preserved in some sort of time bubble since since the pre EU/EEC days and that the subservient old anglo/imperial relationship remains unchanged.

ZeroThreat

Peregrinus wrote: »

You used to respect the stablity of Northern Ireland ???!!!

maybe he meant he respected that explosives remained stable while being handled there. (most of the time)

ancapailldorcha

Interesting:

https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1273350121556672515

LONDON — The U.K. will use “shock and awe” tactics based on behavioral science to spur businesses and the public to prepare for the end of the Brexit transition period.

The term, more often used to describe a military strategy of overwhelming force and closely associated with the Iraq war, is contained in a document setting out the government's communications plan.

A massive information campaign is set to warn the public about the “consequences of not taking action,” before moving to a new phase focusing on avoiding losses as a result of the post-Brexit disruption.

...

Government research showed businesses are reluctant to take action without certainty. Some, especially those working in cross-border trade, were more likely to prepare because of their concerns about the potential impact of Brexit, but the government noted that because of their worries they “will not respond well to overly positive messaging.”

Meanwhile, Brexit voters are “less likely to prepare as they don’t believe in any potential negative consequences of leaving.”

Polling in January this year showed 74 percent of U.K. adults had done nothing to prepare for leaving the EU and did not plan to. Eight percent had taken action and 9 percent intended to do so.

We've gone from Brexit being a huge opportunity to something that needs to "get done" to the government having to use exploitative and manipulative tactics to get businesses to prepare for it. I don't know what this is going to mean in practice. Anything from possible fines to telling tourists how much more expensive a pint is going to be in Benidorm I suppose.

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

Australia does want to do a trade deal with the UK, but not tomorrow, for three reasons.

First, they have more to gain from a trade deal with the EU. They want both. But they would rather let the EU trade deal shape what is and isn't possible in the UK deal than the other way around. So they want to do the EU trade deal first.

Secondly, what they want out of a UK trade deal will partly depend on what's in the UK/EU deal, if any. So they want to let the dust settle there before they conclude their own deal.

I agree with all of that. In fact, the part of my post you replaced with "..." reads:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The only reason they wouldnt, is if a UK deal could cause problems with an Australia-EU deal.

Thirdly, they expect the UK to be under more pressure to conclude a deal after transition ends, especially if there is no prospect of a UK/EU deal, and they think the more pressure the UK is under the better their bargaining position will be.

I would disagree with that. Or at least, I dont know what the Australians think thr point of optimum pressure will be, but I think the UK is under the greatest pressure to do a deal now.

Not for trade reasons, but for diplomatic and domestic reasons. They want a win. They have to be able to turn around and say "look how quickly we can do a deal now that we are unshackled". They will even do a deal thats bad for them e.g. no quotas on Australian beef (and in the fullness of time, New Zealand lamb) just to say theyve done the deal.

Australia for their part will want to make sure they dont undermine any EU deal, but that doesnt mean that they have to wait to see what UK-EU looks like.

Once the transition period has ended, whatever the outcome, people will be sick of all the Brexit and Trade news. An Australian deal then will be a boring footnote in the daily express.

The UK govt needs a win and a win now, so that they can continue to claim their Brexit success. That is priority no.1 and favourable trade deals is a distant second.

Ao if the Australian govt were smart, they woulf capitalise on the pressure that is on the UK right now, rather than waiting until after the UK-EU deal. That certainly seems to be what theyre doing, as their language plays right into the Brexit playbook - setting it up as a race to see who can do a deal quicker, even though such things are utterly irrelevant in the real world!

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would disagree with that. Or at least, I dont know what the Australians think thr point of optimum pressure will be, but I think the UK is under the greatest pressure to do a deal now . . .

You may be right.

CrabRevolution

Nody wrote: »

Best trade deal negotiators ever! I wonder if other countries will in the future simply sit back and see how badly UK will fall over without doing anything.

It sounds like something from Red Dwarf or Futurama. Where they're making a big deal about something statistical, but part of the joke is just how utterly miniscule the numbers they're discussing are.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

That'll be the official line but IMO Scotland would be particularly welcome back in the fold.

I think Scotland and then Northern Ireland will secede from the UK in my lifetime. Before Brexit I would not have believed that. I used to respect their stability but we've become the stable grown up country. They have lost their marbles altogether.

Just as a side point to that, and Ireland's new seat on the UN Security Council.

If Scotland and NI both vote to leave the UK, and the UK reverts to being the United Kingdom of England and Wales, will the UK be under pressure to relinquish their permanent seat on the UN Security Council in favour of, say, India?

Tell me how

eire4 wrote: »

IMHO after watching the absolute fiasco that was Brexit and now continues in these trade negotiations so far I really do not see any of the EU 27 wanting to follow that path never mind the fact that the EU has other countries current not members wanting to join. Reality is IMHO that it is the UK's union which is actually in threat of falling apart with Scotland moving towards pushing for a new independence referendum as well as the situation with regards to Irish reunification.

I most definitely hope that you are right but I don't think the significance of having a country like the UK outside the EU practically begging for others to join them (as the UK will do) cannot be ignored.

While the last 4 years have increased the desire of more French people to stay in the EU, there is reportedly still 1/3 of people there who wish to leave (link). Earlier this year there were rumblings of discontent (reported in staunchly anti EU UK Express paper mind) in Italy being used to fuel further distrust of the EU project there.

That last point is exactly what I am talking about. Only time will tell if the populism movements of the latter half of the last decade will subside and more reasonable pragmatic voices will come to the fore or if they will have been seen as a success leading to others seeking similar strategies.

johnnyskeleton

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just as a side point to that, and Ireland's new seat on the UN Security Council.

If Scotland and NI both vote to leave the UK, and the UK reverts to being the United Kingdom of England and Wales, will the UK be under pressure to relinquish their permanent seat on the UN Security Council in favour of, say, India?

They should probably do that anyway considering that they are ignoring the vote in the General Assembly on the Chagos Islands. Hard to see how a country can put itself out as a world leader in a diplomatic body when it ignores any rulings of that body which goes against it!

However, this leads to the much bigger questions of whether the UN actually is what it says it is. In a cynical way, it is nothing more than a big talking shop based on the victorious WWII allies (hence the original permanent security council of USA, France, UK, USSR and ROC) and is far from its lofty stated purpose of achieving "international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character"

The UN's sub organisations are of considerable value e.g. WHO, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNESCO etc but seem to be under increasing pressure from right wing extremists in the USA and, potentially, the UK.

I also make the somewhat fatuous point that when Breixteers talk about an unelected useless bureaucracy that forces them to take refugees, imposes its human rights laws on them and occasionally makes british troops fight under its flag, this more accurately describes the UN than it does the EU, so logically they would want to leave the UN before the EU.

But, of course, a cynical person would point out to me that the UK is undeservedly a preeminent country in the UN, whereas it was just one amongst equals in the EU, so the Brexit ego is ok with the UN, so long as the British are disproportionately powerful there, whereas they left the EU because they felt that they were not the dominant force.

Sam Russell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, this leads to the much bigger questions of whether the UN actually is what it says it is. In a cynical way, it is nothing more than a big talking shop based on the victorious WWII allies (hence the original permanent security council of USA, France, UK, USSR and ROC) and is far from its lofty stated purpose of achieving "international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character"

The fact that the ROC (Taiwan) was removed as a permanent member with a veto was removed and replaced with the PRC (China) is a precedent that could be replicated.

The UK seat could be replaced by either the EU, or India.

ambro25

It's hard to conceive of a country which appoints the likes of Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab as foreign secretaries, as a world leader in any diplomatic context.

The UK has been gradually disengaging from any sort of diplomatic heavy lifting, exactly as witnessed of Trump's United States over the past few years, lastly with the announced closure of its Department for International Development, on the run-up to its kleptocratic management 'upgrade'.

Diplomacy (the time-honoured sort) is for the wrong sort of Oxbridge and Ivy League elites. Get with the programme already.

Enzokk

Michael Gove is giving evidence in front of the Northern Ireland Select Committee and seems like it is interesting,

https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1273611251625668609?s=20

So he contradicts the EU on this, but does he?

https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1273615544462311426?s=20

So he was incorrect to state there will not be exit declarations as this had not been agreed yet. And then we have this from a trade expert on those declarations,

https://twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1273612438664024064?s=20

ancapailldorcha

A recurrent theme seems to be the UK wasting time reneging on various committments they made in the WA and the EU having to pull them up on this. I honestly don't see how they can negotiate any type of deal without extending by January unless they just plain to play up to the Brexiters and do a last minute BRINO.

How they're planning to cut deals with countries who already have dedicated trade teams is beyond me.

CrabRevolution

Tell me how wrote: »

I most definitely hope that you are right but I don't think the significance of having a country like the UK outside the EU practically begging for others to join them (as the UK will do) cannot be ignored.

While the last 4 years have increased the desire of more French people to stay in the EU, there is reportedly still 1/3 of people there who wish to leave (link). Earlier this year there were rumblings of discontent (reported in staunchly anti EU UK Express paper mind) in Italy being used to fuel further distrust of the EU project there.

That last point is exactly what I am talking about. Only time will tell if the populism movements of the latter half of the last decade will subside and more reasonable pragmatic voices will come to the fore or if they will have been seen as a success leading to others seeking similar strategies.

If anything I'd say that wave has long ago peaked (though not disappeared). Soon after the Brexit referendum there was talk of anti-EU governments sweeping to power across Europe, starting with Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, AfD etc. Every election in Europe became closely followed in the news as there'd be some populist anti-Eu party running who anti-EU commenters claimed were on the cusp of victory. Even if these countries didn't leave the EU, the Brexiters claimed the new populist governments would ally with the UK and work against the EU from the inside and give the UK an advantageous deal.

None of these even came close to winning anything and the election watching soon stopped as people realised these anti-EU parties were going nowhere.

Leroy42

I do think that the EU will have to be very wary of the UK trying to break up the EU. For very many Brexiteers, including Gove, the ultimate aim is not simply that the UK leave, but that the EU itself breaks up such that the UK can become a leading member of a new alliance - hence all the talk of the Commonwealth.

It very much looks like the UK will run into the arms of the US in terms of trade, in effect giving the US an even bigger hold over the UK. The US has never liked the EU, because it levels the comparative strengths of the two blocks. Much easier to bully Ireland, Germany, France etc individually rather than as a group (I am talking exclusively of trade).

The US can then look to leverage their strengthened hold over the UK to work for its interests in the EU, which is to diminish the EU as a whole.

If things go reasonably well for the UK, there is no doubt that other countries will start to look across and wonder.

Enzokk

That was a little disingenuous of Gove, asked if leaving on the 31st December 2020 without a deal would be a failure of state craft responded that they will leave with a deal as it has been agreed already. When pointed out to him that is not what he meant and Gove knows that is not what he meant, he answered that it would be better to leave with a trade deal than without a trade deal.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

You used to respect the stablity of Northern Ireland ???!!!

Lol. No I mean I used to respect the stability of British governments compared to our own continually collapsing coalitions of the 1980s. Tables have well and turned now.

CelticRambler

Tell me how wrote: »

While the last 4 years have increased the desire of more French people to stay in the EU, there is reportedly still 1/3 of people there who wish to leave (link).

You might want to review your data! That's an article from June 2016, showing 33% of French in favour of leaving the EU, and 45% in favour of staying in the bloc. Three years later, it's 23% "Leave" and 77% "Remain"

So three years of post-referendum Brexity nonsense would appear to have convinced one heck of a lot of Don't Knows that the status quo was worth keeping "quo" ... and a third of the supposed Frexiters have reconsidered their position.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

The fact that the ROC (Taiwan) was removed as a permanent member with a veto was removed and replaced with the PRC (China) is a precedent that could be replicated.

The UK seat could be replaced by either the EU, or India.

You need four boomers to be sure that you will always have one at sea.

India only has one missile sub.
And it's nukes can only fly for 750Km vs over ten times that for everyone else.

And their GPS system IRNSS doesn't cover the entire planet.

So not quite there yet.


Compared to the other security council members the UK doesn't have it's own GPS system, or satellite launchers or even ICBM's.

The satellites for the EU Galileo GPS system have been sent up from French Guiana four at a time on Ariane 5 rockets whose boosters form the basis of the French ICBM's.

Dyr

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do think that the EU will have to be very wary of the UK trying to break up the EU. For very many Brexiteers, including Gove, the ultimate aim is not simply that the UK leave, but that the EU itself breaks up such that the UK can become a leading member of a new alliance - hence all the talk of the Commonwealth.

Looking at Italy and the general hawkishness around the Euro in the financial markets the UK might not need to break up the EU, we'll do it ourselves

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do think that the EU will have to be very wary of the UK trying to break up the EU. For very many Brexiteers, including Gove, the ultimate aim is not simply that the UK leave, but that the EU itself breaks up such that the UK can become a leading member of a new alliance - hence all the talk of the Commonwealth.

It very much looks like the UK will run into the arms of the US in terms of trade, in effect giving the US an even bigger hold over the UK. The US has never liked the EU, because it levels the comparative strengths of the two blocks. Much easier to bully Ireland, Germany, France etc individually rather than as a group (I am talking exclusively of trade).

The US can then look to leverage their strengthened hold over the UK to work for its interests in the EU, which is to diminish the EU as a whole.

If things go reasonably well for the UK, there is no doubt that other countries will start to look across and wonder.

I don't think the US want to diminish the EU as a whole tbh. I think that line of thinking comes from hawkish trump escapades over the last number of years.

A biden presidency will want to bolster EU relationship's and reaffirm protections against russian influence.

The tightness of any relationship with the UK will be built around controlling the Russian influence within it.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1273563700348301314

https://twitter.com/eberlmat/status/1273569526496591873

https://twitter.com/eberlmat/status/1273569661918023682

https://twitter.com/eberlmat/status/1273572572181991426

Insane how these comparisons add up. Also a great way to show people the scale of it.

declanflynn

Bambi wrote: »

Looking at Italy and the general hawkishness around the Euro in the financial markets the UK might not need to break up the EU, we'll do it ourselves

The uk will break up before the EU, nothing like a 10 year depression to put pressure on a union

Capt'n Midnight

Gintonious wrote: »

Insane how these comparisons add up. Also a great way to show people the scale of it.

NZ are annoyed with the UK because the EU tariff free quota for lamb was split. The UK portion was never as profitable as selling to the continent, and "exporting" the UK quota to the rest of the EU was the best way to maximise return.

Aussie beef is probably the same.

Unless the UK are going to pay top dollar for antipodean imports Brexit means the southerners are out of pocket. And if the UK are importing US hormone, gmo fed meat grown on cattle lots and butchered under unsanitary conditions then they probably won't be paying top dollar.

Peregrinus

Tell me how wrote: »

I most definitely hope that you are right but I don't think the significance of having a country like the UK outside the EU practically begging for others to join them (as the UK will do) cannot be ignored.

The UK was outside the EU for about 15 years, begging others to join them. It didn’t seem to bother the EU; they kept knocking back the UK’s application to join. The UK founded EFTA as a rival to the EU; that fizzled. The considered opening up the Commonwealth to European democracies but that fizzled also; European democracies couldn’t see any reason why they should join the Commonwealth.

What has changed that would now make joining the UK outside the EU an attractive prospect for any EU Member State? If anything, the UK’s shambolic parade of ineptitude and idiocy over the last four years have served as an Awful Example; euroscepticism within the EU has become much more reformist and much less seccessionist. Things would have to change very radically for the UK before joining the UK outside the EU would begin to look like an attractive option for any EU Member State.

Tell me how wrote: »

While the last 4 years have increased the desire of more French people to stay in the EU, there is reportedly still 1/3 of people there who wish to leave (link). Earlier this year there were rumblings of discontent (reported in staunchly anti EU UK Express paper mind) in Italy being used to fuel further distrust of the EU project there.

Others have pointed out that your French figures are from four years ago, which kind of underlines my point. If you read about the discontent in Italy in sources with more credibility than the Express, you’ll see that it was not based on claims about denial of sovereignty, oppression, rule by Brussels and the tyranny of bureacrats; the objection was that the EU was not doing enough; the critics wanted it to exercise more power, to take on more competences, to be more assertive to Member States - to make them do more to support Italy, basically. Pretty much the opposite of Brexitry, really.

Tell me how wrote: »

That last point is exactly what I am talking about. Only time will tell if the populism movements of the latter half of the last decade will subside and more reasonable pragmatic voices will come to the fore or if they will have been seen as a success leading to others seeking similar strategies.

Time has told, I suggest. We’re four years after the referendum, and the domino effect gleefully predicted by Brexiters has - like their other promises and predictions - been a complete bust. The net effect has been to divert euroscepticism in a new and different direction.