Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

If Scotland leaves the UK, it will be to join the EU. No other reason makes sense.

If Scotland leaves the UK it will be to leave the UK, just as in our own case. Sovereign independence is normally a goal in itself; it does not have to be a means to some other policy objective.

Having said that, it is likely that one of the first acts of an independent Scotland would be to pursue EU membership.

Which would normally involve a commitment to adopting the euro. But that commitment, as already noted, is very context-dependent and need not be time-limited. And Scotland's circumstances would be unique.

Having said that, it's likely that the Scots would wish to progress to adopting the euro. It's true that, as Cap'n midnight points out, 60% of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK, but the Scots would presumably expect to diversify that after independence. Besides, 47% of the UK's trade is with the eurozone; if 47% of trade doesn't require the UK to adopt the euro, it's not clear that 60% of trade must require Scotland to retain sterling. And the circumstances that lead Scotland to choose independence, including as they do UK political dysfunction, poor government, anti-trade measures and economically damaging policies, also suggest that sterling is a poor long-term bet.

So I think Scotland would transition to the euro. And they wouldn't do this just because the EU wanted them to, but also because they would want to themselves. Every other country that has secured independence from the UK - and there are many - has abandoned sterling. And quite a few territories that haven't yet secured independence from the UK have abandoned sterling too. I see no reason to expect the Scots to buck the trend.

fash

Thought this was an interesting point:
https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/status/1274885228872466432?s=20

I wonder how true it is and what matters would have been brought to light?

johnnyskeleton

fash wrote: »

Thought this was an interesting point:
https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/status/1274885228872466432?s=20

I wonder how true it is and what matters would have been brought to light?

I don't understand what he means. Is he saying that Ireland can disclose to the UK any security secrets of the EU? The EU wants to have common defence and security with the UK, and as far as I can see that continues during the transition period.

Assuming for a minute that Ireland was privy to sensitive information that the UK was not, well I don't see how or why we would disclose it any more than any other EU country would. We aren't a leaky sieve that wishes to pander to the British. In fact, I would think that of all the EU countries that might unofficially disclose information to the British, we would be fairly far down the list, above France but below Slovakia!

Maybe best not to pay too much attention to a random twitter user, especially since he presupposes that this information is eye opening.

fash

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't understand what he means. Is he saying that Ireland can disclose to the UK any security secrets of the EU? The EU wants to have common defence and security with the UK, and as far as I can see that continues during the transition period.

Assuming for a minute that Ireland was privy to sensitive information that the UK was not, well I don't see how or why we would disclose it any more than any other EU country would. We aren't a leaky sieve that wishes to pander to the British. In fact, I would think that of all the EU countries that might unofficially disclose information to the British, we would be fairly far down the list, above France but below Slovakia!

Maybe best not to pay too much attention to a random twitter user, especially since he presupposes that this information is eye opening.

I believe what is being said is that Ireland is permitted to release information about a third party non EU member state that it would not be permitted to release about a fellow member state (and/or such information is now relevant given that the UK is no longer "us" but rather now "them" - although the tweet suggests the first reason is more likely).

It is not a question that Ireland was privy to information that the UK would not have been privy to, it was information that both Ireland and the UK would have been privy to about UK actions against Ireland that was now relevant to other EU states and which Ireland could now disclose.

You seem to think this is about leaking information to the UK: again it is not, it is about sharing information with EU member states that is now relevant about a now non-EU border state.

EDIT: and the "eye-opening" being referred to would be the surprise of EU personnel from other member states at the discovery of the behaviour of the UK.

johnnyskeleton

fash wrote: »

I believe what is being said is that Ireland is permitted to release information about a third party non EU member state that it would not be permitted to release about a fellow member state (and/or such information is now relevant given that the UK is no longer "us" but rather now "them" - although the tweet suggests the first reason is more likely).

It is not a question that Ireland was privy to information that the UK would not have been privy to, it was information that both Ireland and the UK would have been privy to about UK actions against Ireland that was now relevant to other EU states and which Ireland could now disclose.

You seem to think this is about leaking information to the UK: again it is not, it is about sharing information with EU member states that is now relevant about a now non-EU border state.

Well that doesn't make sense, or at least doesn't make sense it has something to do with Irish/UK relations as the twitter poster suggested. If the EU wants to share information with the UK, they do so directly as part of the CSDP, which the UK remains engaged in during the transition period.

It sounds a bit like Irish exceptionalism to suggest that we are the ones who can disclose it to the UK

fash

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well that doesn't make sense, or at least doesn't make sense it has something to do with Irish/UK relations as the twitter poster suggested. If the EU wants to share information with the UK, they do so directly as part of the CSDP, which the UK remains engaged in during the transition period.

It sounds a bit like Irish exceptionalism to suggest that we are the ones who can disclose it to the UK

I don't read anything about sharing information WITH the UK rather ABOUT the UK.

johnnyskeleton

fash wrote: »

I don't read anything about sharing information WITH the UK rather ABOUT the UK.

I mean, we are getting down a rabbit hole at this stage, but:

A) Ireland could share diplomatic and political insights about the UK with the EU-27 before the Brexit day, as part of the negotiating strategy; and
Ireland can't share any sensitive security or defence information with the EU-27 about the UK (if they even have it) to the exclusion of the UK, as the UK are still engaging with the CSDP.

In truth, it is not at all clear what the Twitter user is saying because his language is unclear, but maybe you can point out what you think the interesting point in it is. What information exactly is being shared and by what means?

fash

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In truth, it is not at all clear what the Twitter user is saying because his language is unclear, but maybe you can point out what you think the interesting point in it is. What information exactly is being shared and by what means?

And that is my question to you (and others).

briany

Would the Tories have won the December general election even if they'd had no-deal in place and essentially ran on a definite no-deal platform?

Peregrinus

briany wrote: »

Would the Tories have won the December general election even if they'd had no-deal in place and essentially ran on a definite no-deal platform?

Presumably Johnson/Cummings didn't think so, or they would have run the election on that basis.

Alternative possibility; they thought they would or might win the election, but they didn't wish to be in government during a no-deal Brexit, and having to wear the political consequences of that. This is not an unattractive view; it explains why Johnson caved to get a Withdrawal Agreement, and suggests that he will cave again to get an FTA.

It wouldn't make sense to run on a No Deal platform, but I think it would have won. You can only go one way and that is from trying to get a deal to we tried to get a deal. If you go the other way, it would be seen as undemocratic.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

It wouldn't make sense to run on a No Deal platform, but I think it would have won. You can only go one way and that is from trying to get a deal to we tried to get a deal. If you go the other way, it would be seen as undemocratic.

I don't think Johnson/Cummings worries about democracy, or about being criticised as undemocratic; their core support does not expect them to pay too much attention to democratic considerations.

Remember, they won the 2019 election on the basis of have an agreed "oven-ready" deal with the EU to implement. Having secured a decisive mandate for the implementation of that deal, they have basically torn it up, and are now demanding a quite different deal from the EU, for which they have neither sought nor obtained any kind of mandate from the people. Yet there hasn't been a murmer of disquiet from the crowd that got terribly exercised about how "undemocratic" it would be to "disrespect the mandate" of the 2016 referendum by not pursuing a hard Brexit.

CelticRambler

briany wrote: »

Would the Tories have won the December general election even if they'd had no-deal in place and essentially ran on a definite no-deal platform?

Probably. The election was won as much on the back of the "Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite" slogan as Johnson's oven-ready Brexit, so it's probably safe to assume that the electorate would have been manipulated into voting for any dog, donkey or dung-beetle wearing a blue rosette, deal or no deal.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote:

Probably. The election was won as much on the back of the "Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite" slogan as Johnson's oven-ready Brexit, so it's probably safe to assume that the electorate would have been manipulated into voting for any dog, donkey or dung-beetle wearing a blue rosette, deal or no deal.

I think it was won on the back of "Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable for a long list of reasons". I don't know where anti-semitism stands on the list but I doubt it clinched it.

Labour's indulgent lurch to the loony left has contributed a lot to the UK's shambolic situation. And don't leave Tony Blair off the hook either. It all started to go wrong when he threw his lot in with GWB on Iraq.

Funny how things come back to bite.

Peregrinus

Though, to be fair, Blair togging out with the Bushistas could hardly be described as a "lurch to the looney left". Quite the opposite, more like.

I agree that Labour has performed dismally. When the history of this period of British history comes to be written, a lot of attention will be devoted to the extraordinary poor quality of leadership on both sides of British politics at the same time.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Though, to be fair, Blair togging out with the Bushistas could hardly be described as a "lurch to the looney left". Quite the opposite, more like.

Agreed. The lurch left happened after - but because - Blair tore the party apart. First the wrong Miliband and then Corbyn.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Agreed. The lurch left happened after - but because - Blair tore the party apart. First the wrong Miliband and then Corbyn.

I think we have a succession of events. Blair cleaving to the Bushistas wasn't enough on its own; it was the stresses of the global financial crisis on top of that. The GFC, I suggest, fatally weakened centrist voices and tendencies in both parties, with the Tories collapsing to the right and Labour collapsing to the left.

murphaph

Blair represented most Brits of his time more than the hard left leaders of the past. That's why labour won so convincingly. Brits are not as left wing as the French. They elect old Etonians for heaven's sake. There's no point being a hard left party in perpetual opposition. Far better to move towards the centre and be able to deliver some socialist policies. That's what Blair did and did it well.

Blair made one huge mistake with Iraq but the truth is that old Labour will never get into Downing Street again. It'll have to be centre left version of the party.

First Up

murphaph wrote:

Blair made one huge mistake with Iraq but the truth is that old Labour will never get into Downing Street again. It'll have to be centre left version of the party.

And he had solved that by building New Labour - until he blew it.

Many old and new Labour voters were disgusted over Iraq. The loony left took the opportunity and brought in Ed Milliband. That allowed the Tories enter government without the Lib Dems, who Cameron thought would kill the Brexit referendum he had promised. The rest as they say, is history.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1275332263627173888

6 weeks basically means sign the deal we have with the EU and clarify any u-boats you might not have

Enzokk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1275332263627173888

6 weeks basically means sign the deal we have with the EU and clarify any u-boats you might not have

The rest of the thread on this is pondering whether Japan is trying to force the UK into extending the transition or accept a BRINO, which would be better for Japan. They have hedged their bets in the UK in regards to trade with the EU, even if they have their own deal now with the EU.

I am not sure if that will help with the current politicians in the UK though, they seem immune to common sense or any sense really.

moon2

First Up wrote: »

The loony left took the opportunity

The inclusion of "Loony left" in an argument should lead the reader to immediately disregard the post as biased Trumpian nonsense.

If you can make an argument without resorting to infantile names it would improve the credibility of the point you're making.

fash

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1275332263627173888

6 weeks basically means sign the deal we have with the EU and clarify any u-boats you might not have

What do you mean "deal we have with the EU" - Japan is not offering as good terms as Japan has with EU - and say that the UK-Japan deal is a "stop gap" only.

See here:Holger Hestermeyer (@hhesterm) Tweeted:
2) So why no rollover? The deal will not offer the same access for agriculture. Japan uses the time pressure to say more cannot be done in that time.

Edit: see here: .

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Enough of the "loony left" stuff please.

fash

fash wrote: »

What do you mean "deal we have with the EU" - Japan is not offering as good terms as Japan has with EU - and say that the UK-Japan deal is a "stop gap" only.

See here:Holger Hestermeyer (@hhesterm) Tweeted:
2) So why no rollover? The deal will not offer the same access for agriculture. Japan uses the time pressure to say more cannot be done in that time.

Edit: see here: .

And more opinion on this fiasco here:
.

Headshot

fash wrote: »

And more opinion on this fiasco here:
.

oh any one have the full story as FT use a pay wall

First Up

moon2 wrote:

The inclusion of "Loony left" in an argument should lead the reader to immediately disregard the post as biased Trumpian nonsense.

If you can make an argument without resorting to infantile names it would improve the credibility of the point you're making.

Call them what you like. It doesn't alter the fact that they guaranteed a Tory government at the worst possible time.

serfboard

Headshot wrote: »

oh any one have the full story as FT use a pay wall

One of the things it says is that the time limit is so short because, according to Tokyo’s chief negotiator:

Hiroshi Matsuura wrote:

To avoid a gap in January, we must pass this in the autumn session of the [Japanese parliament]. That means we must complete negotiations by the end of July.

The article also says that this kind of news "highlights the risk of the UK being bounced into bad deals".

Intriguingly, "Tokyo is dangling the prospect of a second chance for more leisurely negotiations if the UK applies to join the [TPP]". I hadn't realised that TPP was still going, but there is a sequel - TPP-11 - so-called because there are 11 signatory countries.

Wikipedia wrote:

The eleven countries' combined economies represented 13.4 percent of global [GDP], making the CPTPP the third largest free-trade area in the world by GDP after [NAFTA] and [the] European Single Market.

In one way, this sounds like a good idea for the UK.

In another, I thought that they didn't like free-trade agreements like the European Single Market?

Tropheus

Take a story about Japan rushing the weak UK into a potentially bad trade deal, put a spin on it, and BOOM a Brexit victory courtesy of the Daily Express.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1299668/brexit-news-brexit-trade-deal-japan-uk-boris-johnson

dogbert27

Tropheus wrote: »

Take a story about Japan rushing the weak UK into a potentially bad trade deal, put a spin on it, and BOOM a Brexit victory courtesy of the Daily Express.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1299668/brexit-news-brexit-trade-deal-japan-uk-boris-johnson

FFS. Express and the Daily Mail deserve the Brexit they'll receive. :rolleyes: