Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

dogbert27

Had to look this up:

An International Driving Permit (IDP): It is likely that UK driving licence holders wishing to drive in the EU will need to purchase an IDP, although advice on GOV.UK has not specified which EU countries this will include. Drivers may need separate IDPs for each country they are visiting and are more likely to require one for longer visits. There are two types of IDP used in the EU. Most member states require a 1968 IDP which is valid for three years. Others, including Spain, require a 1949 IDP which is valid for one year. An IDP can be bought up to three months in advance of its use. UK driving licence holders will not need an IDP to drive when visiting Ireland.

So potentially if a UK citizen wanted to drive around Europe for vacation like they have in the past they could need to buy multiple International Driving Permits!

But of course it will be all the EU's fault, not Brexit. :rolleyes:

listermint

forgottenhills wrote: »

First of all I understand completely that the potential EU loss on exports is split among 27 members. The likes of Romania or Latvia may be sanguine about Brexit but tell that to Irish farmers who are still heavily reliant on beef and cheese exports to the UK and for whom tariffs would be devastating. Or tell that to individual car makers in Germany who will lose billions in car sales each when the market is already very weak due to COVID. If you do not think that some governments such as Ireland, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland are not under fierce pressure to do a trade deal with the UK then you do not understand the real world.

Secondly you state that "Brexit will be a 100% failure". That is a sweeping statement. Define Brexit for a start. And also define failure. Brexit was never an economic movement. It was always an expression of English nationalism. If you speak to these English nationalists then they already regard "Brexit" as a 100% success. They do not care about the economic impact.

In the same way that you could argue that Scotland becoming independent will likely lead to economic upheaval and downturn there, at least in the short term. But to Scottish nationalists it will be a 100% success, regardless of the economic ramifications.

Youve vastly confused Scotland's nationalism to the faux nationalism rethoric of brexit. Even they least informed individual in the room should be able to comprehend the difference

forgottenhills

listermint wrote: »

Youve vastly confused Scotland's nationalism to the faux nationalism rethoric of brexit. Even they least informed individual in the room should be able to comprehend the difference

Why are you attempting to deny an expression of English nationalism? There is a large cohort of English people who simply do not want any oversight from the EU and Brexit is an expression of this. Just because you or I don't agree with it or don't like its ramifications doesn't make it "faux".

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

I didn't quote from the article as the part of the article supporting my argument that, on balance and despite several acknowledged negatives, the City of London didn't seem overly concerned with Brexit were evident in the article. In the section titled " The City still has charms"

But here it is reproduced below in case you have a problem finding or acknowledging that there are two sides to the argument.

So, your take from the article is that there is nothing really to worry about. A few glitches and London's financial sector will sail on to a glorious future. That position is vague, unsupported and undefined. I couldn't be arsed arguing with that.

dogbert27

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Does the NI protocol state how this is managed in Ireland? E.G Will people in the North need to fill this application when they visit the South?

I doubt the NI protocol states how this will be managed but it does look like it will affect Northern Ireland.

Below it says that once you have the visa waiver it will be valid for 3 years.

It also seems to be reciprocal as the website says that visa waivers for UK citizens to Europe will apply if the UK allows all EU citizens to visit the UK without visas. So the UK could come up with a similar form that needs to filled in with a fee for EU citizens.

Based on the flow of people and traffic everyday between the north and south here I'm sure there will be some arrangement made.

"After ETIAS comes into effect, British citizens visiting Europe will have to apply online for an ETIAS visa waiver before departing. The ETIAS visa waiver for UK citizens will be valid for 3-year periods and will allow unlimited entries into the region.

Although British people will need an ETIAS travel authorisation, they will not need to apply for a visa like many other countries. The 61 nationalities which are currently visa-exempt, including the UK, will remain visa-exempt but will need an ETIAS visa waiver.

The ETIAS application should not take longer than 10 minutes to complete and the process will be straightforward. Applicants will have to fill out a short form with personal information, details of their passport and answer some security questions. They will then have to pay a fee.

The confirmed travel authorisation should be available to the applicant within a few minutes and the whole process is likely to take a total of 15 minutes although this may vary as the final details have yet to be clarified."

ambro25

forgottenhills wrote: »

First of all I understand completely that the potential EU loss on exports is split among 27 members. The likes of Romania or Latvia may be sanguine about Brexit but tell that to Irish farmers who are still heavily reliant on beef and cheese exports to the UK and for whom tariffs would be devastating. Or tell that to individual car makers in Germany who will lose billions in car sales each when the market is already very weak due to COVID. If you do not think that some governments such as Ireland, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland are not under fierce pressure to do a trade deal with the UK then you do not understand the real world.

(...)

Are you so sure?

I mean, how many British residents do you know, who still buy their Mercedes, Audi or Beemer cash these days?

The reason I ask, is that these are the people who are the most likely to notice a 10% import duty on the windscreen. And ironically enough, those least likely to be bothered by it.

For others, be they private individuals or company car buyers, it'll be as lost in the noise of the monthly lease payment, as the leather seat or pearlescent paint option...because which British buyer/orderer of German automotive metal switches to Nissan or Dacia for the sake of 10%, really?

EDIT: you are certainly correct that the EU27 private sector put very heavy pressure on their respective governments to do a deal with the UK. But not at any price. And after 4 years, I daresay most of these actors -like German car manufacturers, and banks indeed- have long baked a hard Brexit outcome (thin-or-no-deal) into their business continuity plans. So I doubt that this pressure today, is any higher than it was coming up to the previous crash-out deadlines.

dogbert27

forgottenhills wrote: »

Why are you attempting to deny an expression of English nationalism? There is a large cohort of English people who simply do not want any oversight from the EU and Brexit is an expression of this. Just because you or I don't agree with it or don't like its ramifications doesn't make it "faux".

It may not be faux nationalism but it is definitely misplaced and misinformed.

And there is definitely a difference between Scottish nationalism breaking from the UK as they were taken in to the UK through the Acts of Union we're the people didn't get a vote but the gentry were bribed to coerce versus the UK signing up to be part of the EEC in the 70's.

Strazdas

forgottenhills wrote: »

Why are you attempting to deny an expression of English nationalism? There is a large cohort of English people who simply do not want any oversight from the EU and Brexit is an expression of this. Just because you or I don't agree with it or don't like its ramifications doesn't make it "faux".

English nationalism though is coming from a position of it being a sovereign and independent nation for many centuries (and indeed from being the head of a vast empire for hundreds of years). A very different beast to Scottish nationalism, a small country which hasn't even achieved independence yet.

I wouldn't describe it as 'faux' though : English nationalism is real and a coming thing (Brexit may well be its first major manifestation).

Nody

forgottenhills wrote: »

First of all I understand completely that the potential EU loss on exports is split among 27 members. The likes of Romania or Latvia may be sanguine about Brexit but tell that to Irish farmers who are still heavily reliant on beef and cheese exports to the UK and for whom tariffs would be devastating. Or tell that to individual car makers in Germany who will lose billions in car sales each when the market is already very weak due to COVID. If you do not think that some governments such as Ireland, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland are not under fierce pressure to do a trade deal with the UK then you do not understand the real world.

How about this; you are utterly failing to understand the real world. Here's the German car industry's statement.

Germany’s leading industry representatives have warned they will not lobby for preferential access to the single market for the U.K. post-Brexit.

Leading Brexiteers have argued that German Chancellor Angela Merkel will ultimately engineer a compromise on Brexit under pressure from German car-makers and manufacturers worried about barriers to the U.K. market once its leaves the EU.

But German industrialists have reiterated that retaining the integrity of the single market is their goal. “Defending the single market, a key European project, must be the priority for the European Union,” Dieter Kempf, president of the German Federation of Industries lobby group which represents around 100,000 companies, told the Observer.

Here's the impact of Brexit on French wines:

France exports €11.7billion of wine, with €143million of that going to the UK, its second largest export market after Germany. What impact will the UK leaving the EU have on the wine industry and on wine consumption in the UK?

Woo, a 143 million (or 1.22% of total export) while a significant volume will still be sold because the people with money got taste. Yup, clearly going to pulling Macron up on that trade deal...

Yes; they would all like a deal but they also realize that the EU market and protecting the single market is worth easily 10x as much as losing all UK trade. That's the part you apparently can't get is the real world realities here. Now; you go and find a statement from the German car industry that claims differently. That's called backing up your claims with facts. I've backed up my claim; now you get to do the same.

forgottenhills wrote: »

Secondly you state that "Brexit will be a 100% failure". That is a sweeping statement. Define Brexit for a start. And also define failure. Brexit was never an economic movement. It was always an expression of English nationalism. If you speak to these English nationalists then they already regard "Brexit" as a 100% success. They do not care about the economic impact.

Well if all you want to feel warm is to piss in your pants then that's also a success; however for the rest of the world we'd think longer than 5 minutes ahead. Brexit was suppose to "unlock the Global Britain" with "glorious new trade deals and opportunities". About reducing the number of immigrants, to increase the salary of people and break up EU as stated by Farage himself on the day after the election. To reduce the administration and red tape. All of it has 100% failed and in reality turned in the other direction instead.

In the same way that you could argue that Scotland becoming independent will likely lead to economic upheaval and downturn there, at least in the short term. But to Scottish nationalists it will be a 100% success, regardless of the economic ramifications.

Except unlike UK the Scots would have a plan forward that involves working with their closest countries around them for a closer trading environment which every economist out there will tell you is how you achieve prosperity. Compare that to UK who've gone out of their way to spit in the face of their trade partners and lie while failing to deliver any alternative solution.

Sam Russell

forgottenhills wrote: »

First of all I understand completely that the potential EU loss on exports is split among 27 members. The likes of Romania or Latvia may be sanguine about Brexit but tell that to Irish farmers who are still heavily reliant on beef and cheese exports to the UK and for whom tariffs would be devastating. Or tell that to individual car makers in Germany who will lose billions in car sales each when the market is already very weak due to COVID. If you do not think that some governments such as Ireland, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland are not under fierce pressure to do a trade deal with the UK then you do not understand the real world.

Let us look at car sales, for example.
In recent times, Mercedes cut their prices by 10% across the board (in Ireland), so there is enough fat within the price to absorb the 10% tariff should it come to that.

Now BMW, Mercedes, and Audi are premium cars purchased by people of high net worth. These purchasers will not be put off by a price rise, particularly if it is funded by their employer. they might lose some sales, but not many.

Much more seriously affected would be sales of UK assembled cars that are mostly at the low end of the market.

Secondly you state that "Brexit will be a 100% failure". That is a sweeping statement. Define Brexit for a start. And also define failure. Brexit was never an economic movement. It was always an expression of English nationalism. If you speak to these English nationalists then they already regard "Brexit" as a 100% success. They do not care about the economic impact.

In the same way that you could argue that Scotland becoming independent will likely lead to economic upheaval and downturn there, at least in the short term. But to Scottish nationalists it will be a 100% success, regardless of the economic ramifications.

I think the problem is highlighted above. If only we could define Brexit.

Failure is easier - economic ruin.

forgottenhills

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, your take from the article is that there is nothing really to worry about. A few glitches and London's financial sector will sail on to a glorious future. That position is vague, unsupported and undefined. I couldn't be arsed arguing with that.

You seem to have your mind made up already before reading the article. My position from reading articles like this is that the arguments are nuanced and that on balance the City doesn't see Brexit as a knockout blow, in fact it seems more concerned with new Asian markets. Balance seems to be in short supply around here with the amount of anti-British sentiment that is displayed in numerous threads. Objectivity seems in short supply. Personally Brexit is a pain in the ass for me and I have been impacted financially because of it already but I try to look at things objectively.

trellheim

Ireland and the UK share a Common Travel area so UK will not be required to do ETIAS for us

Professor Moriarty

forgottenhills wrote: »

You seem to have your mind made up already before reading the article. My position from reading articles like this is that the arguments are nuanced and that on balance the City doesn't see Brexit as a knockout blow, in fact it seems more concerned with new Asian markets. Balance seems to be in short supply around here with the amount of anti-British sentiment that is displayed in numerous threads. Objectivity seems in short supply. Personally Brexit is a pain in the ass for me and I have been impacted financially because of it already but I try to look at things objectively.

Yeah. More guff. Make an argument.

Christy42

forgottenhills wrote: »

First of all I understand completely that the potential EU loss on exports is split among 27 members. The likes of Romania or Latvia may be sanguine about Brexit but tell that to Irish farmers who are still heavily reliant on beef and cheese exports to the UK and for whom tariffs would be devastating. Or tell that to individual car makers in Germany who will lose billions in car sales each when the market is already very weak due to COVID. If you do not think that some governments such as Ireland, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland are not under fierce pressure to do a trade deal with the UK then you do not understand the real world.

Secondly you state that "Brexit will be a 100% failure". That is a sweeping statement. Define Brexit for a start. And also define failure. Brexit was never an economic movement. It was always an expression of English nationalism. If you speak to these English nationalists then they already regard "Brexit" as a 100% success. They do not care about the economic impact.

In the same way that you could argue that Scotland becoming independent will likely lead to economic upheaval and downturn there, at least in the short term. But to Scottish nationalists it will be a 100% success, regardless of the economic ramifications.

"we give 350 millionth the EU, let's give it to the NHS instead." this will be the easiest trade deal ever. BMW will be hammering down Merkel's door to get them to beg for a deal... As for your comment that that Irish farmers and German car manufacturers will be begging for a deal, the UK has set about 10 deadlines so far to get the EU to cave at the last minute. Not a peep from any of those industries but sure any day now, just hold out a few more days... Norway style deal, won't leave the single market.

There was a massive massive economic element to Brexit. They are simply choosing to ignore it now that it turns out to have been built on complete and utter lies. You and the Brexit side are just defining whatever happens as a success. Whatever happens the UK will end up with oversight. It will come from whoever the big trade partner is, either the EU or the US most likely.

The problem is no one on theBrexit side of things knew or ever knew whatever it is that they want. They hardly discussed the North before the vote when it is their only land border. In a campaign about taking control of out borders how does your only land border become irrelevant?

Strazdas

forgottenhills wrote: »

You seem to have your mind made up already before reading the article. My position from reading articles like this is that the arguments are nuanced and that on balance the City doesn't see Brexit as a knockout blow, in fact it seems more concerned with new Asian markets. Balance seems to be in short supply around here with the amount of anti-British sentiment that is displayed in numerous threads. Objectivity seems in short supply. Personally Brexit is a pain in the ass for me and I have been impacted financially because of it already but I try to look at things objectively.

Aren't the economic arguments for Brexit a bit of a con though? The original Eurosceptics were focused on 'sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty' and nothing else. The emergence of chancers like Daniel Hannan and David Davies claiming there would be 'economic benefits' to leaving the EU was much, much later.....around the time of the referendum campaign.

dogbert27

trellheim wrote: »

Ireland and the UK share a Common Travel area so UK will not be required to do ETIAS for us

Here it says there won't be a passport control at the airport either.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ac159f-travelling-and-visiting/

It does say though that drivers from the UK and Northern Ireland will need the green card to prove they have insurance so something that they need to keep in mind.

Sam Russell

Christy42 wrote: »

They hardly discussed the North before the vote when it is their only land border. In a campaign about taking control of out borders how does your only land border become irrelevant?

I think the biggest joke about the NI situation was the then Minister (SoS) for Brexit (Raab) admitted that he had not even read the GFA (all 38 pages of it) as it did not make bedtime reading.

Mind you, he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

ambro25

forgottenhills wrote: »

You seem to have your mind made up already before reading the article. My position from reading articles like this is that the arguments are nuanced and that on balance the City doesn't see Brexit as a knockout blow, in fact it seems more concerned with new Asian markets. Balance seems to be in short supply around here with the amount of anti-British sentiment that is displayed in numerous threads. Objectivity seems in short supply. Personally Brexit is a pain in the ass for me and I have been impacted financially because of it already but I try to look at things objectively.

Actors of the City of London, big and small, are both downplaying the expected impacts of Brexit (it's not good PR to trumpet setbacks, effective or incoming) and/or overestimating their criticality in the global and pan-european contexts (too-big-to-fail belief).

It's the same in many other fields of (non-financial) business, and a quintessentially British trait. Tellingly, observe how there is still so little corporate signalling about Brexit and its management by successive governements, some 4 years after the referendum, with British structural preparedness being what it reportedly is, and this >< close to the end of the withdrawal period.

The City will not be knocked out by Brexit. But it will be gradually diminished by a thousand cuts over time, and there's good hundred or two of these cuts in already, and a boatload more coming by year end, thin deal or not.

No anti-Britishness here, by the way. My wife is British and I drive a Jaguar

Charles Babbage

dogbert27 wrote: »

Wow I just came across this:

However, from late 2022 onwards, visitors from countries with visa-free agreements with the EU (including the UK)will not be able to enter the Schengen Area with only their passports. The EU Commission has confirmed that UK citizens will need to pay a fee to visit Europe and will need to complete the online ETIAS application form before setting off.

https://www.etiasvisa.com/etias-news/etias-visa-how-will-it-affect-uk-citizens

So after Dec. 31st they will lose their European health cards, are recommended to plan 4 months in advance for taken a pet to the EU, the guarantee of free mobile phone roaming throughout the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway will end.

If taking their taking their own car they might also need a ‘green card’ or valid proof of insurance and a GB sticker.

I also take it that after Dec. 31st all car registration plates will need to change.

It's all this small, every day stuff that people don't seem to be seeing affecting their lives.

People will be really upset with the first point of having to pay a fee and fill out forms to enter the EU for a vacation.

You do realise that website is entirely unofficial and is less likely to be correct than even the WUMs here on boards.ie?

dogbert27

Charles Babbage wrote: »

You do realise that website is entirely unofficial and is less likely to be correct than even the WUMs here on boards.ie?

How about this website:

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/etias/

or this

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/smart-borders/etias_en

or this

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/18080-the-benefits-of-etias-the-new-visa-waiver-for-europe.html

So what exactly are you trying to get at that with saying the website is unofficial less likely to be correct?

Do you think the UK will be treated differently to the other 60 countries that will be required to do this?

listermint

forgottenhills wrote: »

Why are you attempting to deny an expression of English nationalism? There is a large cohort of English people who simply do not want any oversight from the EU and Brexit is an expression of this. Just because you or I don't agree with it or don't like its ramifications doesn't make it "faux".

It is faux. The EU is a union of like minded countries who come together to agree arrangements to operate together in terms of trade and flow of people.

The UK was never and is not subservient to the EU it never has been. It's not unsovereign being a member. The UK has all of its own facilities to manage and run its nation. It's faux nationalism. They are not and never were ruled from he outside. It's arguments like that which mean I can't take you seriously.

forgottenhills

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us look at car sales, for example.
In recent times, Mercedes cut their prices by 10% across the board (in Ireland), so there is enough fat within the price to absorb the 10% tariff should it come to that.

Now BMW, Mercedes, and Audi are premium cars purchased by people of high net worth. These purchasers will not be put off by a price rise, particularly if it is funded by their employer. they might lose some sales, but not many.

Much more seriously affected would be sales of UK assembled cars that are mostly at the low end of the market.


I think the problem is highlighted above. If only we could define Brexit.

Failure is easier - economic ruin.

I don't think that the German car manufacturers are all that happy though in private (despite the agreed public positions so as not to undermine the EU's negotiating position). It was extremely telling that Merkel intervened a few weeks ago, when the talks seemed to be heading to a dead end, to more or less state that there had to be a deal.

And once again - a Brexit "failure" cannot simply be defined by economics - I doubt you will find many Brexit voters who primarily voted for it on economic grounds. For those who voted for it because they don't like any EU control, or on the grounds of immigration, both of which were far bigger reasons, the fact that they have left the EU and have total freedom over many areas of their legislation, is already seen as 100% success, despite what will happen economically. I know this as I speak with some of these Brexiteers on an almost daily basis.

forgottenhills

listermint wrote: »

It is faux. The EU is a union of like minded countries who come together to agree arrangements to operate together in terms of trade and flow of people.

The UK was never and is not subservient to the EU it never has been. It's not unsovereign being a member. The UK has all of its own facilities to manage and run its nation. It's faux nationalism. They are not and never were ruled from he outside. It's arguments like that which mean I can't take you seriously.

Its not my argument. I am not a Brexiteer and for me Brexit is a pain in the ass and has cost me money.

I am stating that many English people felt that way and to them Brexit/leaving the oversight of the EU was an expression of nationalism. Whether you agree with it or not is beside the point. It is what they believe. Can you not accept that other nations have genuine views, whether you agree with them or not?

joeysoap

dogbert27 wrote: »

It will be an issue within the UK if Boris makes the decision unilaterally without agreement with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and could be another chink to erode the UK after Brexit.

It will definitely have an affect to people living and working on the border.

Spain and Portugal sure a border and have different times America has 5 time zones excluding that bit that keeps the same tine all year round.


But yes, different time zones would have an effect on the border area

Sam Russell

joeysoap wrote: »

Spain and Portugal sure a border and have different times America has 5 time zones excluding that bit that keeps the same tine all year round.


But yes, different time zones would have an effect on the border area

But the time zone will only be for a few months a year, if NI refuse to cancel the clock change each year. It would be daft, but then ....

roosterman71

forgottenhills wrote: »

And once again - a Brexit "failure" cannot simply be defined by economics - I doubt you will find many Brexit voters who primarily voted for it on economic grounds. For those who voted for it because they don't like any EU control, or on the grounds of immigration, both of which were far bigger reasons, the fact that they have left the EU and have total freedom over many areas of their legislation, is already seen as 100% success, despite what will happen economically. I know this as I speak with some of these Brexiteers on an almost daily basis.

Ya mean the same immigration laws that they had already while in the EU, but chose not to implement?

What other areas of legislation have they now got total control over which they hadn't got prior to Brexit?

forgottenhills

Nody wrote: »

How about this; you are utterly failing to understand the real world. Here's the German car industry's statement.
Here's the impact of Brexit on French wines:
Woo, a 143 million (or 1.22% of total export) while a significant volume will still be sold because the people with money got taste. Yup, clearly going to pulling Macron up on that trade deal...

Yes; they would all like a deal but they also realize that the EU market and protecting the single market is worth easily 10x as much as losing all UK trade. That's the part you apparently can't get is the real world realities here. Now; you go and find a statement from the German car industry that claims differently. That's called backing up your claims with facts. I've backed up my claim; now you get to do the same.

Well if all you want to feel warm is to piss in your pants then that's also a success; however for the rest of the world we'd think longer than 5 minutes ahead. Brexit was suppose to "unlock the Global Britain" with "glorious new trade deals and opportunities". About reducing the number of immigrants, to increase the salary of people and break up EU as stated by Farage himself on the day after the election. To reduce the administration and red tape. All of it has 100% failed and in reality turned in the other direction instead.

Except unlike UK the Scots would have a plan forward that involves working with their closest countries around them for a closer trading environment which every economist out there will tell you is how you achieve prosperity. Compare that to UK who've gone out of their way to spit in the face of their trade partners and lie while failing to deliver any alternative solution.

Well in fact total French exports to the UK were GBP£41billion in 2019 so not small beer and a huge national interest for France.

Of course the Irish beef industry and the German car industry etc have been quiet in public so as not to undermine the EU's negotiating position. But talk to any Irish farmer or food processing and exporting group and they are desperate for a deal. And as I have stated previously it was only on the intervention of Merkel that the talks have seemed to go back on track. This is despite provocations such as the UK's recent Internal Markets Bill which would have been a legitimate excuse for the EU to walk away from the table. This is clear evidence that the EU side desperately wants a deal also. There is also the approx €39 billion UK cash settlement which will likely evaporate if no deal is the outcome.

And I do hope that Scottish Nationalists have a plan ready whenever they are allowed their next referendum. Because they went into the last one a few years ago with no clear plan for what currency they would use on independence or no clear plan for when, or how, they would be able to rejoin the EU. And unsurprisingly they lost that referendum.

Sam Russell

forgottenhills wrote: »

I don't think that the German car manufacturers are all that happy though in private (despite the agreed public positions so as not to undermine the EU's negotiating position). It was extremely telling that Merkel intervened a few weeks ago, when the talks seemed to be heading to a dead end, to more or less state that there had to be a deal.

And once again - a Brexit "failure" cannot simply be defined by economics - I doubt you will find many Brexit voters who primarily voted for it on economic grounds. For those who voted for it because they don't like any EU control, or on the grounds of immigration, both of which were far bigger reasons, the fact that they have left the EU and have total freedom over many areas of their legislation, is already seen as 100% success, despite what will happen economically. I know this as I speak with some of these Brexiteers on an almost daily basis.

I would be surprised if Merkel would move to save the auto industry. I think she has a much wider view.

I said the failure of Brexit would be economic ruin - not just economics. The Lehman Brothers crash led to economic ruin - well it was for us.

The reason people voted for Brexit is much wider than just one idea - it is a collection of contradictory ideas, and many voted for some and would not have voted for others, but Brexit was not defined at all, so who was to know what it was. Also, the Leave side told lies, and even have driven the project away from its stated goals.

No one is claiming that there is any upside for Brexit, only misery and extra costs.

ambro25

forgottenhills wrote: »

I don't think that the German car manufacturers are all that happy though in private (despite the agreed public positions so as not to undermine the EU's negotiating position). It was extremely telling that Merkel intervened a few weeks ago, when the talks seemed to be heading to a dead end, to more or less state that there had to be a deal.

And once again - a Brexit "failure" cannot simply be defined by economics - I doubt you will find many Brexit voters who primarily voted for it on economic grounds. For those who voted for it because they don't like any EU control, or on the grounds of immigration, both of which were far bigger reasons, the fact that they have left the EU and have total freedom over many areas of their legislation, is already seen as 100% success, despite what will happen economically. I know this as I speak with some of these Brexiteers on an almost daily basis.

But that "success" does not have any substance howsoever.

Any 'control' by the EU was economic, since that is the primary purpose of the EU and the topical extent of pooled sovereignty, and the UK always retained its full sovereignty in all respects (since that subset of sovereignty pooled with the other 27 in the EU, could always be recovered via Article 50 TEU, and indeed was). And the EU will now be exerting more such control, through natural trading gravity.

Immigration statistics since 2016 show that it has not diminished, but changed in make-up, with fewer EU27 immigration more than balanced out by non-EU immigration, i.e. that very non-EU immigration which the UK could always fully control, because wholly outside the FoM strictures. And which the UK is manifestly still 'failing' to 'control' now, 4 years on.

So objectively, whether some people already consider Brexit a "success", is meaningless: they were successfully deceived by propaganda then, they're still being successfully deceived by propaganda now. What other point is there to take away?

forgottenhills

roosterman71 wrote: »

Ya mean the same immigration laws that they had already while in the EU, but chose not to implement?

What other areas of legislation have they now got total control over which they hadn't got prior to Brexit?

I am not arguing for Brexiteer views on immigration or the extent of actual EU oversight or to what extent their sovereignty was pooled by being a member of the EU or anything else. But they held those views regardless of whether they were correct or not, voted to leave, and to people who held those views Brexit is already a success as they will be 100% responsible for their own immigration policies from Jan 2021.