Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Lumen

CelticRambler wrote: »

So Britain willingly accepts a deal that was drafted by "Brussels" and Canada, because nothing says "take back control" like copy-and-pasting someone else's work. :P

There are several arguments in favour of mass copy/pasting.

1. It gets you more or less to where you were before. Which seems pointless, but at least you have the opportunity to negotiate a improved deal in future which better matches the particular needs of the UK economy blah blah.

Not convinced, wait for #2...

2. Because subsequent deals will be negotiated by British insiders, that gives ample opportunity for....insider trading and favours for friends! Got a Tory donor with a bunch of sheep farms? Throw the fishermen under the bus and go all out for lamb! Someone in cabinet got fingers in the international money laundering game? Forget manufacturing and go all out for financial services! Remember that key players in the pro-Brexit camp (e.g. Rees Mogg) are in the hedge fund business whose fortunes are directly tied to predicting the future. And what better way of predicting the future than controlling it?

I can't really work out the balance of factors (stupidity, mawkish jingoism, corruption) but it's a heady mix.

prawnsambo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Every little thing is seen as a victory.

First it was the Faroes with their fish deal that allowed the Faroes to fish in UK waters and land them in the UK. Nothing in return but it was a victory.

Then it was Japan - giving them a comprehensive trade agreement the same as they already had, but with the advantage they could export blue cheese tariff free (the Japanese do not eat blue cheese). Another victory but not cheaper Soya because it is made in NL.

Now it is Canada looking to allow the current EU deal to continue for now. Another victory.

All they need is a few Unicorns on the sunny uplands.

The Japan deal favours Japan on an 80/20 basis. And as said above, a lot of the quotas will be leftovers from the EU Japan deal.

Sam Russell

prawnsambo wrote: »

The Japan deal favours Japan on an 80/20 basis. And as said above, a lot of the quotas will be leftovers from the EU Japan deal.

My post was pointing out how small the small victories were for the UK in their pursuit of wondrous trade deals now they were free to make such trade deals on the world stage. It is ironic that the deals so far are lesser than the deals they would have had if they stayed in the EU.

The fact they have failed to roll over many of the existing trade deals they would enjoy as EU members points out how bleak their future trade arrangements may well be. The Canada deal is a pro-tem arrangement while Canada turns the screw to get better terms.

A brave new world.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

The fact they have failed to roll over many of the existing trade deals they would enjoy as EU members points out how bleak their future trade arrangements may well be.

EU trade deals are a average compromise between 27 countries interests. In most cases they weren't optimised for the UK.

So some of those deals will be worse for the the UK than the EU average and keeping them would lock in the benefit for the other country.

What "better than EU" deals have they done so far ?

And did they depend on sweetners like promising billions of international aid to the Southern African countries ?

View

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EU trade deals are a average compromise between 27 countries interests. In most cases they weren't optimised for the UK.

So some of those deals will be worse for the the UK than the EU average and keeping them would lock in the benefit for the other country.

What "better than EU" deals have they done so far ?

And did they depend on sweetners like promising billions of international aid to the Southern African countries ?

EU deals most definitely aren’t an “average compromise” between 27 countries interests.

Were that the case then there is no question that the NI border issue would have been any sort of issue in the talks with Brexit Britain. The “average compromise” for the other countries would have been that Ireland put up a hard border with the non-EU U.K. just as all the other EU countries do on their land borders with non-EU/EEA countries.

And, of all the countries in the EU, the U.K. was probably the country least likely to have even considered sacrificing its national interest for the betterment of other countries in the EU, much less actually done so.

Capt'n Midnight

View wrote: »

And, of all the countries in the EU, the U.K. was probably the country least likely to have even considered sacrificing its national interest for the betterment of other countries in the EU, much less actually done so.

I suppose that's the point. The UK relied on 27 countries squabbling and playing the veto in their own national interests. Just like in trade deals.

By all accounts our diplomats started the charm offensive soon after the referendum appeared on the manifesto.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I suppose that's the point. The UK relied on 27 countries squabbling and playing the veto in their own national interests. Just like in trade deals.

By all accounts our diplomats started the charm offensive soon after the referendum appeared on the manifesto.

They started in the Nov before he referendum. It is one of Ireland's strengths - the soft power of our diplomats.

View

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I suppose that's the point. The UK relied on 27 countries squabbling and playing the veto in their own national interests. Just like in trade deals.

By all accounts our diplomats started the charm offensive soon after the referendum appeared on the manifesto.

The EU countries don’t squabble and veto during trade deals. Were that the case, it would make far more sense for the larger countries, such as Germany, to go off and negotiate deals on their own, rather than being “held back” by the interests of smaller countries (ie every other EU country in the case of Germany).

That doesn’t happen though because the individual member states realise that - to use rugby terminology - they are better off going out and operating collectively as a “pack”, rather than going out as a one-man “team” which would just get run over by their opponents. Brexiters though have always been convinced that the U.K. was the indispensable “star player” on the EU team, whereas no one else believed that for a second.

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

They started in the Nov before he referendum. It is one of Ireland's strengths - the soft power of our diplomats.

It would have been far better had our diplomats and politicians used their soft power to keep the NI border issue front and centre in the run up to the referendum and during it. Being blunt about it at that time would have saved a lot of messing around since then.

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

It would have been far better had our diplomats and politicians used their soft power to keep the NI border issue front and centre in the run up to the referendum and during it. Being blunt about it at that time would have saved a lot of messing around since then.

They did within the EU27.

Their pitch to the UK audience was totally ignored by the Brexiteers whatever angle they put forward. Logic does not beat xenophobia, jingoism, and nostalgia for a time past that never was, and a promise for a future that never will be.

The fact the NI border and the GFA were centre of the EU position is proof of that. Remember, Obama's promise the the UK would be back of the queue when it came to a USA trade deal, since born out.

listermint

View wrote: »

It would have been far better had our diplomats and politicians used their soft power to keep the NI border issue front and centre in the run up to the referendum and during it. Being blunt about it at that time would have saved a lot of messing around since then.

Unusual viewpoint to take considering it was and they did .

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Unusual viewpoint to take considering it was and they did .

It was news to my English friends in the run up. I was called selfish by one acquaintance when I was trying to explain how NI would be affected.

Don't really see how Ireland could have impacted the British thinking on things, though. It was there on the EU side and all that could be done was done.

Enzokk

View wrote: »

It would have been far better had our diplomats and politicians used their soft power to keep the NI border issue front and centre in the run up to the referendum and during it. Being blunt about it at that time would have saved a lot of messing around since then.

Like warning Brexit could lead to the old divisions and a border?

Irish PM Enda Kenny issues border warning over Brexit

The EU would have to construct a new boundary between Northern Ireland and Ireland if the UK votes for Brexit, symbolising a return to “division, isolation and difference,” the Irish prime minister has said.


Enda Kenny says a vote to leave would result in a harder border running from Derry to Dundalk, which would “present an opportunity for others with malign agendas to exploit”.

“There is no version of this development [Brexit] that would avoid extra costs to governments, businesses, consumers and anyone seeking to travel between north and south,” Kenny writes in an article for the Guardian.

If I remember correctly the likes of Farage would have rubbished this point of view and lamented interference by foreign leaders in the UK election.

CelticRambler

View wrote: »

It would have been far better had our diplomats and politicians used their soft power to keep the NI border issue front and centre in the run up to the referendum and during it. Being blunt about it at that time would have saved a lot of messing around since then.

There were plenty of things put bluntly to the Brexiters in the run-up, and all of them were dismissed as "Project Fear". Our diplomats did exactly what needed to be done - they went around the Brexiters and spoke directly to the people who mattered, with the result that we have the best possible outcome from a very messy situation. And not just for Ireland, the Republic, but also for all those in Northern Ireland, regardless of which fleg they fly.

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

They did within the EU27.

Given that the referendum was held in the U.K., not the EU27, that was largely irrelevant.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Their pitch to the UK audience was totally ignored by the Brexiteers whatever angle they put forward.

Of course Brexiters ignored it, as they didn’t want to engage on the issue. When asked about the NI border, they just trotted out claims that “magic technology” would solve any problem with the border.

These claims were left utterly unchallenged by our diplomats and politicians. That helped out the pro-Leave side during the referendum which means we effectively “aided and abetted” Brexiters in their struggle with Remainers.

Had our diplomats and politicians stated clearly:
1) there is no border on the planet that uses “magic technology” to avoid border infrastructure (outside a customs union),
2) we did not believe that a “magic technology” solution was possible or likely to be developed in any short or medium term time frame, and,
3) given the above, that we would “exercise our sovereignty” and put up a hard border and opt into Schengen.

Doing so would have totally undermined Brexiters claims that the status quo would continue at the NI border. That would have left them facing much tougher questions about the border than they did and their lack of answers could have exposed them to ridicule.

The time to make a “big issue” out of the NI border situation was during the referendum, not afterwards during the WA negotiations when the U.K. was on the way out.

Had Remain won the referendum, our government would not have needed to engage in a desperate “rear guard” action, within the EU, over the NI border, which has resulted in a solution that will probably prove unsatisfactory and/or unworkable even if the pro-Brexit U.K. government operates it in good faith (and they almost certainly won’t do that).

Leroy42

Obama tried to tell them the truth and they roundly told him to feck off and mind his won business. That was the US, their No.1 international relationship.

NI and Scotland both voted Remain, and yet far from looking to bring the country with them, it seems they have actively gone out of their way to alienate anyone that doesn't agree with the fantast Brexit.

People are fed up with experts! Wouldn't have mattered what the diplomats said.

View

Enzokk wrote: »

Like warning Brexit could lead to the old divisions and a border?

Irish PM Enda Kenny issues border warning over Brexit



If I remember correctly the likes of Farage would have rubbished this point of view and lamented interference by foreign leaders in the UK election.

One single low key comment was never going to have an impact. To make an impact, you need to be much more high profile and hammering away “on message” on a continual basis. That didn’t happen which resulted in the impression, for many people in the U.K. that Brexiters were being reasonable with their claims about “magic technology” solving the border issue.

View

Leroy42 wrote: »

Obama tried to tell them the truth and they roundly told him to feck off and mind his won business. That was the US, their No.1 international relationship.

NI and Scotland both voted Remain, and yet far from looking to bring the country with them, it seems they have actively gone out of their way to alienate anyone that doesn't agree with the fantast Brexit.

People are fed up with experts! Wouldn't have mattered what the diplomats said.

The U.K. could wait for a trade deal with the US. That doesn’t apply in the case of a land border since you have to have a clear answer to the issue of what you will or won’t do at it, once you leave.

Our government, had the chance to “set the narrative” on this by spelling out exactly what we would do but opted instead to let Brexiters “set the narrative” by allowing their nonsense to go unchallenged.

BonnieSituation

We literally did hammer them constantly.

It didn't matter.

During the referendum campaign we brought up border issues, as did the SDLP, SF, Alliance and UUP in the North and no one on the mainland gave a shoite.

I mean, the Farage/Geldof flotilla got more column inches than what the people of Belcoo and Blacklion would do.

You have to remember that while not being overtly pro-Brexit, British Media are certainly pro-British exceptionalism.

It was no surprise that they acted in the same manner as they did during indyref1 in 2014.

20silkcut

View wrote: »

The U.K. could wait for a trade deal with the US. That doesn’t apply in the case of a land border since you have to have a clear answer to the issue of what you will or won’t do at it, once you leave.

Our government, had the chance to “set the narrative” on this by spelling out exactly what we would do but opted instead to let Brexiters “set the narrative” by allowing their nonsense to go unchallenged.

It was highlighted at every opportunity there was no more anyone could have done. Every argument was swatted away by brexiteers.
That is still the case right up to the present moment.
Brexiteers are really determined to go through with this and there is no talking to them.
Even with the might of the USA now pivoting against them they are still determined to drive off that cliff.
What more can anybody do?

Strazdas

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We literally did hammer them constantly.

It didn't matter.

During the referendum campaign we brought up border issues, as did the SDLP, SF, Alliance and UUP in the North and no one on the mainland gave a shoite.

I mean, the Farage/Geldof flotilla got more column inches than what the people of Belcoo and Blacklion would do.

You have to remember that while not being overtly pro-Brexit, British Media are certainly pro-British exceptionalism.

It was no surprise that they acted in the same manner as they did during indyref1 in 2014.

The truth is that Brexiteers and Leave voters couldn't give a flying fig about Ireland and the Irish border. It's not that they were uninformed about the issues Brexit would cause for it....it was that they literally couldn't care less.

People are talking about them as if they are mature, responsible adults. They are not, they are in the process of wrecking the country they live in.

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

It was highlighted at every opportunity there was no more anyone could have done. Every argument was swatted away by brexiteers. . . .

And not just by Brexiters. Remainers in GB were really not interested; they didn't think the Irish aspects of Brexit would find any traction with GB voters so they, too, ignored what Irish government and Irish commentators said.

20silkcut

And the largest political party in the north were full bore for a hard brexit as well.
And the second largest with the contrarian view were unheard and unseen in Westminster. A fact which only came to light for many English political commentators through brexit. The only ones batting for the cause in the North were the Irish government.

BonnieSituation

Strazdas wrote: »

The truth is that Brexiteers and Leave voters couldn't give a flying fig about Ireland and the Irish border. It's not that they were uninformed about the issues Brexit would cause for it....it was that they literally couldn't care less.

People are talking about them as if they are mature, responsible adults. They are not, they are in the process of wrecking the country they live in.

Exactly.

Point of order, it's the "British border in Ireland" though.

British exceptionalism brought the border.

British exceptionalism hardened it.

British exceptionalism ignored a civil war on its own territory because of it.

British exceptionalism is a beast that needs a hard brexit.

BonnieSituation

20silkcut wrote: »

And the largest political party in the north were full bore for a hard brexit as well.
And the second largest with the contrarian view were unheard and unseen in Westminster. A fact which only came to light for many English political commentators through brexit. The only ones batting for the cause in the North were the Irish government.

The UUP had a massive opportunity and blew it and that is seen by the rise of the Alliance.

The DUP won bigoted loyalism the battle. But nationalism were the biggest beneficiaries of this and will win the war.

Only the most myopic Loyalist can't see that and as Is say elsewhere, let them at it. THe future of this island is a positive one, with or without them.

Enzokk

View wrote: »

One single low key comment was never going to have an impact. To make an impact, you need to be much more high profile and hammering away “on message” on a continual basis. That didn’t happen which resulted in the impression, for many people in the U.K. that Brexiters were being reasonable with their claims about “magic technology” solving the border issue.

And if we remember back the Brexit side had the biggest liars in charge and in front for them. So whatever you did they would have either lied or rubbished it away. Johnson still lies and obfuscates at every opportunity. Gove has that stupid look on his face when he is caught in a lie and slithers out of it by feigning ignorance when caught out.

Farage is the master at pivoting when he is asked a tough question and making a totally separate point, usually about another attack point he has about the EU. Now had we been actively campaigning for them to remain it would firstly have been attacked as interference, as Obama's comments were. Secondly it would have been labelled project fear, as in the article I posted and a lie would have been told to push that argument away,

Theresa Villiers, the Northern Ireland secretary and a prominent Brexit advocate, has said there would be no need for border controls with Ireland if the UK leaves the EU, citing the “common travel area” that has existed between the two countries since 1923.

She either doesn't know which is alarming or she knows and lies to rubbish it away.

Thirdly the point would have been ignored by the most cynical politicians and liars there are around at the moment. Hindsight is 20/20 and easy but it is also to forget what did happen as you remember key points during the referendum and not what happened day to day. It was a whole campaign built on lies and no amount of campaigning by us would have made a difference as the people you needed to convince were the once running the campaign to leave the EU.

54and56

Super article on the true meaning of Sovereignty by the ever articulate ex Irish Ambassador to London Bobby McDonagh - https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/somebody-needs-to-explain-sovereignty-to-johnson-before-it-is-too-late-1.4416087

Sam Russell

54and56 wrote: »

Super article on the true meaning of Sovereignty by the ever articulate ex Irish Ambassador to London Bobby McDonagh - https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/somebody-needs-to-explain-sovereignty-to-johnson-before-it-is-too-late-1.4416087

It is clear that the Dept. of Foreign Affairs has always had the brightest and best of our Civil Servants who have fought tirelessly for our own states interests by quietly using their soft power around the world.

It was always considered that the British Civil Servants were the most able, but sadly that has faltered as politicians have increasingly over-ruled their sage advice for party political advantage - not just Tories but Tony Blair had the magic weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that could be ready in 15 minutes but never could be found after that state was returned to the stone age.

I think the British state is returning to a time when truth and honesty will be long gone from public discourse.

Charles Babbage

Enzokk wrote: »

She either doesn't know which is alarming or she knows and lies to rubbish it away.

Villiers knew very well, as NI Secretary she had plenty of sources of information. Instead, she shamefully denied the reality and used her position as NI Secretary to support that denial.



Cameron sent to NI two Secretaries of State, Paterson and Villiers, who were profoundly unprincipled individuals. A NI Secretary who called a spade a spade could even have brought some reality into the Brexit campaign and provided a different result.

20silkcut

Enzokk wrote: »

And if we remember back the Brexit side had the biggest liars in charge and in front for them. So whatever you did they would have either lied or rubbished it away. Johnson still lies and obfuscates at every opportunity. Gove has that stupid look on his face when he is caught in a lie and slithers out of it by feigning ignorance when caught out.

Farage is the master at pivoting when he is asked a tough question and making a totally separate point, usually about another attack point he has about the EU. Now had we been actively campaigning for them to remain it would firstly have been attacked as interference, as Obama's comments were. Secondly it would have been labelled project fear, as in the article I posted and a lie would have been told to push that argument away,



She either doesn't know which is alarming or she knows and lies to rubbish it away.

Thirdly the point would have been ignored by the most cynical politicians and liars there are around at the moment. Hindsight is 20/20 and easy but it is also to forget what did happen as you remember key points during the referendum and not what happened day to day. It was a whole campaign built on lies and no amount of campaigning by us would have made a difference as the people you needed to convince were the once running the campaign to leave the EU.

The whole brexit/trump phase has really highlighted the malleability of truth and facts and how such truth and facts can be completely obliterated in the face of fanaticism.

This was also starkly highlighted in the run up to the invasion of Iraq 2003 ,where no matter what facts or truth were presented , George W Bush was taking down saddam hussein , nothing was going to stop that happening. I’m sure most people remember the ridiculous fabrications concocted at that time about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I have vague memories of saddam husseins refrigerator being checked for WMDs. It was all bull**** and we knew months in advance before a shot was fired in that war that it was all bull****.