Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Capt'n Midnight

moon2 wrote: »

The UKs sovereignty is hardly based on who the US president is... or is it?

Does this mean there isn't a Special Relationship :eek:



Realistically even if the Democrats get the presidency and both houses the US will still behave substantially the same way towards the UK.

They'll still want to make $ from the NHS, they'll still want to use the UK as a junior partner in US wars, they'll still insist on a US first trade deal.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

It is dependent on whether he has a friend or foe in the white house.

Biden opposed Brexit and has stated that he wants a good relationship with the EU. He has also stated that there will be no US-UK trade deal without the GFA being protected. Biden also called Johnson a Trump "clone".

druss

Democrats and "old-school" Republicans would have viewed UK presence within the EU as being broadly useful to the US in terms of influence on trade/geopolitical items.

As Obama said at the time, the priority was a US-EU trade deal. UK, by leaving would have dropped to the back of the queue for any priority trade negotiations with a Clinton administration and basically made themselves less "useful"

On the other hand, the friendly US faces who helped to bankroll Brexit were also viewing this through an EU-US prism. Basically that a weakened EU, or ideally the collapse of the EU, would make it easier for US side to call the shots and weaken the EU voice globally. Not that a relationship with the Uk was so prized by the US.

Even Trump, from time to time, showed his hand in his eagerness to do deals with Merkel (believing that she could negotiate for the EU).

If the UK leaving does not bring on the collapse of the EU, then the UK is no longer as useful to US interests of any persuasion. The whole "special relationship" schtick fades without the leverage of being an influential player within the EU.

I would suggest that this drop in usefulness applies no matter who is in the White House and that, at least, there is a possibility of building a sane trade relationship with a Biden administration than with one who views every single transaction as one of winners and losers.

CelticRambler

If Biden takes the White House and the Democrats make in-roads into the Senate (as well as holding Congress) then I would imagine they would make it a priority to restore America's image on the world stage. In that context, the US would be very hesitant to start this new chapter by deliberately pissing off the EU in supporting/facilitating Brexiter nonsense such as unilateral re-writing of previously agreed treaties.

Perhaps Johnson's alleged wait-and-see strategy is really a question of him wanting to know just how cooked is the Brexit goose. Perhaps even so that he can plan his own departure for alternative sunlit uplands.

fly_agaric

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That leaves Donald Trump. For some reason, Brexiters seem to think he can and will give the UK a favourable trade deal. I've always struggled to understand this. He and various Members of Congress from rural states will be under pressure from lobbyists to make sure he can open up the British markets for their subpar, toxin-riddled exports. He wasn't kidding when he said "America First". His isolationist foreign policy has been one of the few constant themes of his presidency. Some of the Tory party may welcome such a deal but all it would really achieve is to push the UK in a Socialist direction as it must now subsidies individuals, farms and businesses in much the same way it is now to keep afloat. Of course, this all ignores the Democrat-controlled Ways & Means Committee which has jurisdiction over trade deals.

They (UK govt./Brexiters running it) can break Withdrawal Agreement, tell the EU to "do one" and Donald Trump will still be willing to try & facilitate the UK desires for a trade deal. Maybe even likelyhood of agreement increases as he will approve of these actions.

Trump may not be able to anyway (because of his own administration's incompetence or the Congress blocking it), and as you say any deals would likely be rotten for the UK, but they will have a ally of sorts in the Whitehouse & possibility of it exists.

Of course a rotten deal for the average person in the UK could still be good for many sectors of UK economy, in particular for Tory party "friends" and donor companies etc. which might be more important to the govt. than what the public thinks given a general election is quite a long way off in the UK.

Strazdas

druss wrote: »

Democrats and "old-school" Republicans would have viewed UK presence within the EU as being broadly useful to the US in terms of influence on trade/geopolitical items.

As Obama said at the time, the priority was a US-EU trade deal. UK, by leaving would have dropped to the back of the queue for any priority trade negotiations with a Clinton administration and basically made themselves less "useful"

On the other hand, the friendly US faces who helped to bankroll Brexit were also viewing this through an EU-US prism. Basically that a weakened EU, or ideally the collapse of the EU, would make it easier for US side to call the shots and weaken the EU voice globally. Not that a relationship with the Uk was so prized by the US.

Even Trump, from time to time, showed his hand in his eagerness to do deals with Merkel (believing that she could negotiate for the EU).

If the UK leaving does not bring on the collapse of the EU, then the UK is no longer as useful to US interests of any persuasion. The whole "special relationship" schtick fades without the leverage of being an influential player within the EU.

I would suggest that this drop in usefulness applies no matter who is in the White House and that, at least, there is a possibility of building a sane trade relationship with a Biden administration than with one who views every single transaction as one of winners and losers.

That's an excellent point. The UK has diminished itself on the world stage and has less clout after Brexit (though that penny might not have even dropped with the Brexiteers yet).

amacca

Strazdas wrote: »

That's an excellent point. The UK has diminished itself on the world stage and has less clout after Brexit (though that penny might not have even dropped with the Brexiteers yet).

Add to that this disastrous brexit nonsense has served as an example that leaving is not beneficial and even seems to have served to strengthen the EU (I dont hear any loud noises agitating for leaving the EU in other countries now)

Sam Russell

amacca wrote: »

Add to that this disastrous brexit nonsense has served as an example that leaving is not beneficial and even seems to have served to strengthen the EU (I dont hear any loud noises agitating for leaving the EU in other countries now)

The major problems facing the EU, apart from Covid - which is the whole world's problem, are 1) the 'rule of law' issues with Hungary and Poland and 2) the migrant issue from outside the EU.

Brexit is already baked in. The EU has already moved to compensate. It will be OK - deal or no deal.

Strazdas

amacca wrote: »

Add to that this disastrous brexit nonsense has served as an example that leaving is not beneficial and even seems to have served to strengthen the EU (I dont hear any loud noises agitating for leaving the EU in other countries now)

Interestingly, I think if it does transpire that the UK is diminished and weakened outside the EU, it will be very hard for the shysters in the British press to conceal this. You would think it will become evident very quickly that the UK is isolated and nobody is even listening to them any longer.

We're in for an intriguing couple of years, where all the bragging about 'Global Britain' and it being free to be an economic superpower, now that it is free of the shackles of the EU, is going to come under the most intense scrutiny.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

Interestingly, I think if it does transpire that the UK is diminished and weakened outside the EU, it will be very hard for the shysters in the British press to conceal this. You would think it will become evident very quickly that the UK is isolated and nobody is even listening to them any longer.

We're in for an intriguing couple of years, where all the bragging about 'Global Britain' and it being free to be an economic superpower, now that it is free of the shackles of the EU, is going to come under the most intense scrutiny.

Yeah. But, the immediate but transient disruption resulting from the end of transition aside, the real injury of Brexit is not dramatic and sudden, but persistent and cumulative. The UK will fall further and further behind comparator countries due to years and years of relative underperformance. It's not the UK economy will shrink every year; it will just not grow as fast as comparable neighbouring countries. It's not that the UK will have no diplomatic or international clout; it will just have less than it could as a member of the EU. Etc, etc. Eventually there will be a perception of the UK as "the sick man of Europe", but this will take a while. And it will be a perception that takes root outside the UK before it is widely accepted as correct within the UK.

Strazdas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah. But, the immediate but transient disruption resulting from the end of transition aside, the real injury of Brexit is not dramatic and sudden, but persistent and cumulative. The UK will fall further and further behind comparator countries due to years and years of relative underperformance. It's not the UK economy will shrink every year; it will just not grow as fast as comparable neighbouring countries. It's not that the UK will have no diplomatic or international clout; it will just have less than it could as a member of the EU. Etc, etc. Eventually there will be a perception of the UK as "the sick man of Europe", but this will take a while. And it will be a perception that takes root outside the UK before it is widely accepted as correct within the UK.

For sure, but I don't think it will take years and years either. All it will take will be one or two high profile snubs to the UK for the penny to start dropping that nobody is paying too much attention to them any longer. Even the 'sick man of Europe' thing could unfold more quickly, especially with Covid-19 raging on and with a bunch of total incompetents in charge.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but I don't think it will take years and years either. All it will take will be one or two high profile snubs to the UK for the penny to start dropping that nobody is paying too much attention to them any longer. Even the 'sick man of Europe' thing could unfold more quickly, especially with Covid-19 raging on and with a bunch of total incompetents in charge.

Not many voters in the UK care greatly about the country's diplomatic heft. They care about whether they have a job, whether their kids will get jobs, the price of goods in the shops, whether the neighbourhood is safe and the schools are thriving. Whether the UK is taken more or less seriously on the international stage, not so much.

Yeah. During the referendum campaign the remain side weren't able to sell the positives of EU membership, I don't see how people are suddenly going to recognise or value them now.

Any visible negatives will be as expected or worth it or someone else's fault.

People notice job losses (eg a factory closing), they don't notice the factory that never opened because the UK had become less competitive, even if it had the same quantum of jobs lost.

Lumen

I think it's worth bearing in mind that Brexit has never been about cold hard economic calculus. Economic arguments have been deployed by the Brexiter leaders, but if you look at the reaction of the pro-Brexit voters when those tissue thin arguments are torn apart, they quickly brush it aside and say that it doesn't really matter whether the country will end up poorer, because that's not what this is about.

This is about feelings. If the Brexiters feel victorious, they are victorious.

So w.r.t a US trade deal, it doesn't matter to the Brexiters if they end up with poor quality food pouring in from the US. The people who care about chlorinated chicken and financial sector passporting are the whinging liberal elite Europhiles.

If you think back to the Iraq war, who were the 1m people out on the streets clamouring for the UK to avoid war? Not the Eurosceptics. It was middle class Labour supporters who felt betrayed by their leader.

The special relationship morons are Brexiters are Trump fetishists. It's the same mentality. They love strong power, unilateralism, small security councils with them in it.

The real irony is that the country that actually has the special relationship is Ireland, although it has limits and shouldn't be taken for granted. Try getting the Tories to recognise that one.

Anyway, my point is that Boris doesn't need to find a solution that makes the UK richer, which is convenient because that's impossible. He just needs to find a solution which is emotionally acceptable to his tribe.

Peregrinus

But his tribe is a minority. The same tribe would have approved of the UK's part in the invasion of Iraq, but look at how that adventure is regarded now. Will Brexit come to be seen in a similar light?

The invasion of Iraq could never be undone, but Brexit could be. Hard Brexiters have never troubles to build an enduring consensus for the kind of Brexit they want, and that could prove to be their undoing. Even if they get what they want, they may not get to keep it.

Lumen

It is already seen in exactly the same light by opponents!

The difference is that Brexit was done with an explicit democratic mandate, and plenty of time to think it through. So whereas Iraq was hung squarely on Blair and Campbell, responsibility for Brexit is diffused over half the population.

Peregrinus

I think many people who voted for Brexit are already aware that the Brexit they are getting is not the one they voted for. Just how much it's not the one they voted for will shortly be brought home to them. And, continuing the Iraq war parallel, they may come to feel like people to supported or assented to the invasion of Iraq because they were told all about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They might feel they've been had. And they might be quite cross about that.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think many people who voted for Brexit are already aware that the Brexit they are getting is not the one they voted for. Just how much it's not the one they voted for will shortly be brought home to them. And, continuing the Iraq war parallel, they may come to feel like people to supported or assented to the invasion of Iraq because they were told all about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They might feel they've been had. And they might be quite cross about that.

But nobody knows what Brexit they voted for, if they claim it isn't the right type of Brexit they are either told that everyone else knew or that its all the EU fault but being so unfair and punishing the UK

Sam Russell

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1026/1173929-northern-exports/

Govt presses EU and UK to protect NI exporters

The NI protocol does not allow NI goods to be treated as EU goods under the NI protocol because NI is under the UK customs area.

This affects products that are incorporated into Irish products, like milk that goes onto be infant formula. I am not sure the resolution is in the UK or EU hands as it affects 60 or so trade agreements that might need individual negotiation - not easy.

It could be simply to adjust the NI protocol to make NI part of the EU customs area - expect opposition from some sections of NI. Of course, it is probably much more serious than this and require the UK to do the unthinkable - ask the EU for assistance in this matter.

rock22

Sam Russell wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1026/1173929-northern-exports/



The NI protocol does not allow NI goods to be treated as EU goods under the NI protocol because NI is under the UK customs area.

...

It could be simply to adjust the NI protocol to make NI part of the EU customs area - expect opposition from some sections of NI. Of course, it is probably much more serious than this and require the UK to do the unthinkable - ask the EU for assistance in this matter.

To be honest, this reflects badly on the Irish negotiators, Coveney etc. Surely,
in pushing for a protocol for Ni they should have ensured that it would have the desired affect. Was all the talk and hold up a complete waste of time?

Professor Moriarty

rock22 wrote: »

To be honest, this reflects badly on the Irish negotiators, Coveney etc. Surely,
in pushing for a protocol for Ni they should have ensured that it would have the desired affect. Was all the talk and hold up a complete waste of time?

Ireland's mistake was to take Johnson at his word. Turns out he continues to be an inveterate liar.

Nate--IRL--

rock22 wrote: »

To be honest, this reflects badly on the Irish negotiators, Coveney etc. Surely,
in pushing for a protocol for Ni they should have ensured that it would have the desired affect. Was all the talk and hold up a complete waste of time?

To be honest, protecting NIs exports to the world is something the British government should be seeking/negotiating on behalf of Northern Ireland, instead of Ireland. The Fact that they haven't cared about maximising this possible advantage for NI is not surprising.

Nate

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah. But, the immediate but transient disruption resulting from the end of transition aside, the real injury of Brexit is not dramatic and sudden, but persistent and cumulative. The UK will fall further and further behind comparator countries due to years and years of relative underperformance. It's not the UK economy will shrink every year; it will just not grow as fast as comparable neighbouring countries. It's not that the UK will have no diplomatic or international clout; it will just have less than it could as a member of the EU. Etc, etc. Eventually there will be a perception of the UK as "the sick man of Europe", but this will take a while. And it will be a perception that takes root outside the UK before it is widely accepted as correct within the UK.

To add to this, I used to think that a sizeable proportion of the public here would just lap up whatever excuses the tabloids would feed them. However, as time has gone on they've become more and more drained by both Brexit and the drama surrounding it. Covid has become the principal source of drama here now so I think most people here are ignoring Brexit, think it's been done or are just affording it minimal attention.

It's going to be a long period of constant bad news as opposed to one big shock. I think you're right there. Until the people of this country see tangible material changes to their own lives, they won't change their minds or show an interest in the EU again. Data isn't going to convince them either.

Professor Moriarty

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

To be honest, protecting NIs exports to the world is something the British government should be seeking/negotiating on behalf of Northern Ireland, instead of Ireland. The Fact that they haven't cared about maximising this possible advantage for NI is not surprising.

Nate

Interestingly, 59% of people in NI would prefer a border in the Irish Sea. 41% would prefer a border with the Republic.

Sam Russell

rock22 wrote: »

To be honest, this reflects badly on the Irish negotiators, Coveney etc. Surely,
in pushing for a protocol for Ni they should have ensured that it would have the desired affect. Was all the talk and hold up a complete waste of time?

If there was a mistake, it was two mistakes.

1. NI should have been designated as part of the EU customs area for CoO purposes. All goods are in free circulation within the SM so have equal status with all other such goods - I cannot see how one litre of milk can be different to another when it is in the creamery truck.

2. They gave NI the right to change their status every four years, but the voting arrangement was 'those attending to vote' instead of 'a majority of those entitled to vote'. Could be a big difference, if it is close.

However, the whole episode was rushed, and cool heads would have taken longer on it, but as Tipp O'Neal would have said - 'When you have the votes, take the vote!'.

Strazdas

Lumen wrote: »

It is already seen in exactly the same light by opponents!

The difference is that Brexit was done with an explicit democratic mandate, and plenty of time to think it through. So whereas Iraq was hung squarely on Blair and Campbell, responsibility for Brexit is diffused over half the population.

Invasion of Iraq had a democratic mandate (of sorts) though. Right wing press acted as cheerleaders for it and opinion polls showed well over 50% of the population were in favour (the main ones objecting were the Left).

I can see Brexit going the same way as the Iraq invasion. Everyone eventually admitting the thing was a disaster - Brexiteers will still claim it was a good idea in principle, but will have to admit that implementation of it failed.

dogbert27

Strazdas wrote: »

Invasion of Iraq had a democratic mandate (of sorts) though. Right wing press acted as cheerleaders for it and opinion polls showed well over 50% of the population were in favour (the main ones objecting were the Left).

I can see Brexit going the same way as the Iraq invasion. Everyone eventually admitting the thing was a disaster - Brexiteers will still claim it was a good idea in principle, but will have to admit that implementation of it failed.

So Blair's obvious mistake was he should have repeatedly stated "I'm following the will of the people and invading Iraq"! :pac:

Sam Russell

dogbert27 wrote: »

So Blair's obvious mistake was he should have repeatedly stated "I'm following the will of the people and invading Iraq"! :pac:

I think Blair's mistake was invading Iraq.

dogbert27

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think Blair's mistake was invading Iraq.

Well if you want to be factual about it.

Much like Cameron's mistake was having a referendum with such a childishly simple question that did not convey the weight of the ramifications.

Well just having a referendum full stop.

His second mistake was going through with the result even though it was not legally binding.

Strazdas

dogbert27 wrote: »

Well if you want to be factual about it.

Much like Cameron's mistake was having a referendum with such a childishly simple question that did not convey the weight of the ramifications.

Well just having a referendum full stop.

His second mistake was going through with the result even though it was not legally binding.

Referendum was held by him as a cheap and cynical political stunt : he wasn't remotely interested in the British public's opinion on anything. Problem was, once the result came in, he couldn't admit the referendum was a cynical stunt. He had to pretend it was real and 'democratic'.