Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

DangerScouse

mick087 wrote: »

The UK have gone they are out the EU
They think they are going to live in a land of of hope and glory for evermore.
Let them.

The EU still want some say over there laws.
If the EU don't look at themselves and see what they are doing wrong then they have learned nothing from how brexit came about.

A deal will be done with seconds to spare this is how the EU do things.

God help us in Ireland if we ever seek to leave.

Why would we ever leave?

I don't think a deal will be done this time at all tbh. The EU have grown tired of the UK and visa versa and the cold hard fact is the majority in the UK want out as proved by the referendum and the last election.

We are in for a few very rocky years that is going to destroy our economy as well as the UK's and will hurt the EU project also.

Shelga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, they've been warning about viability for a while so I'd say contingencies for closures and the establishment of manufacturing infrastructure in the EU must be well underway. They can lobby the government but given that the Home Secretary has boasted about triggering the left, that won't achieve anything.

You worked there? Didn't expect to read that!



Yes. At this stage, we've had two elections on top of the referendum vote. England wants this so now it has to happen. I'm braced to move back if I have to as my area doesn't really exist outside southern England and places like Heidelberg in Germany.

It's like a boxset that's taking too long to complete. I just want to see how it ends now.

I worked there for 5 years, from 2011 to 2016. Times were good. Company was making money hand over fist. Endless new product lines- too many. From speaking to friends there now, it's obviously a very different story. 4500 redundancies last year, with more to come. Castle Bromwich factory, where I worked, in production something like 3 shifts a week.

I didn't mean to sound smug or anything, by the way. I think what is happening to the UK is horrifying. When I compare it to how I felt upon arrival in 2011, it's so sad. I'm now upskilling in a different area here in Ireland. The whole thing definitely makes me value and appreciate democracy in Ireland though, not least the fact that we have proportional representation.

listermint

DangerScouse wrote: »

Why would we ever leave?

I don't think a deal will be done this time at all tbh. The EU have grown tired of the UK and visa versa and the cold hard fact is the majority in the UK want out as proved by the referendum and the last election.

We are in for a few very rocky years that is going to destroy our economy as well as the UK's and will hurt the EU project also.

In many ways it has Strengthened it. And its made it, and its citizens fully aware of attacks on it from the East.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bizarre way to put it. It sounds like the EU has an outlandish desire to control a country outside the bloc.

Would it not be more accurate and less tabloidy to say that the UK wants a very close relationship to the EU and the EU has conditions, so as to protect itself? And the UK can use its sovereignty to say yes or no, the same way every trade deal will have some say over their laws.

The UK can walk away at any time from this desire and the EU won't be asking them to do anything with their laws. The entire thing comes about because of the UK's intents and wishes.

I'm no trade expert but isnt the reality that the very nature of doing trade deals or signing treaties is, to an extent, to cede very small parts of your sovereignty anyway. It's the nature of the beast and in the grown up and mature world, most states accept it as reality. The irony is they will probably cede more sovereignty in signing a trade deal with trump or his successor, only they'll try to spin it a completely different way.

Johnson and his cronies weren't lying for once when they told us they had an oven ready deal. They simply neglected to tell the electorate the oven was, in fact, an incinerator.

mick087

Deleted User wrote: »

Bizarre way to put it. It sounds like the EU has an outlandish desire to control a country outside the bloc.

Would it not be more accurate and less tabloidy to say that the UK wants a very close relationship to the EU and the EU has conditions, so as to protect itself? And the UK can use its sovereignty to say yes or no, the same way every trade deal will have some say over their laws.

The UK can walk away at any time from this desire and the EU won't be asking them to do anything with their laws. The entire thing comes about because of the UK's intents and wishes.

Bazarre is an excellent Description of the EU And the UK

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

The UK have gone they are out the EU
They think they are going to live in a land of of hope and glory for evermore.
Let them.

The EU still want some say over there laws.
If the EU don't look at themselves and see what they are doing wrong then they have learned nothing from how brexit came about.

A deal will be done with seconds to spare this is how the EU do things.

God help us in Ireland if we ever seek to leave.

Do I really need to post this again? Must be into double digit figures easily how many times its had to be clearly and concisely explained how trade deals work.

mick087

DangerScouse wrote: »

Why would we ever leave?

If the citizens of Ireland or any other state wanted to leave then that would be a very good reason to leave.

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

If the citizens of Ireland or any other state wanted to leave then that would be a very good reason to leave.

So you are saying the EU protecting itself and its members is a good reason to leave it?

reslfj

Hermy wrote: »

Maybe that's why I didn't get it - I thought there was more to it but it's quite straightforward really.

Thanks horse.

When it comes to the dirty details - it can be very complicated. Aid is not just cash.

Lars

mick087

VinLieger wrote: »

Do I really need to post this again? Must be into double digit figures easily how many times its had to be clearly and concisely explained how trade deals work.

I have read all sorts of experts opioions i have read its gonna be great for the UK i have read its gonna be bad for the UK.
I have read the EU are trying there best i have read they are being difficult.

I have heard from experts on experts.

Here is my opinion as Brexit expert the negotiations will come up with a deal at the last minute.

mick087

VinLieger wrote: »

So you are saying the EU protecting itself and its members is a good reason to leave it?

Did i say that? NO i did not say that.

What i said was to be clear if the Citizens of or any other state wished to leave the EU then they should.

Why have you tried to suggest otherwise?

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

I have read all sorts of experts opioions i have read its gonna be great for the UK i have read its gonna be bad for the UK.
I have read the EU are trying there best i have read they are being difficult.

I have heard from experts on experts.

Here is my opinion as Brexit expert the negotiations will come up with a deal at the last minute.

I think you've missed the point, possibly intentionally, this isnt a pro or anti-brexit point of view its simply how trade deals work, the bigger market, in this case the EU, dictates the terms. It will be exactly the same when the UK looks for a deal with China or the US.

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

Did i say that? NO i did not say that.

What i said was to be clear if the Citizens of or any other state wished to leave the EU then they should.

Why have you tried to suggest otherwise?

Okay then can you answer the original question again as to why would Ireland want to leave?

mick087

mick087 wrote: »

Did i say that? NO i did not say that.

What i said was to be clear if the Citizens of or any other state wished to leave the EU then they should.

Why have you tried to suggest otherwise?

Why would you bother saying that? One country has decided to leave and finally did after asking for extensions a couple of times. They've been gone over half a year. By bringing up that point, you're making an issue out of it.

The question is why would the Irish population decide to leave. As in, what would cause that vote to win.

ambro25

mick087 wrote: »

(...)

A deal will be done with seconds to spare this is how the EU do things

This is how the EU do things sometimes, between EU member states, as seen with e.g. Greece bailouts and, more recently, the Covid19 stimulus budget.

But as you correctly pointed out, the UK is no longer a member state.

And the EU never rushes deals at the 11th hour with 3rd party countries. On that front, you need only research how long each EU-3rd country FTA took to negotiate (never mind implement), keeping well in mind the intention to converge -rather than diverge- in each such case.

If a deal "gets done with seconds to spare", this will be merely optics for UK domestic consumption, with Johnson aping his oven-ready WA approach to try and paint a wholesale caving-in into a victory. The EU will be only too happy to assist, yet again, like they did last time (and every time before with Theresa May): a little political powder to the eyes of Brexidiots matters not at all, in the grander scheme of global geopolitics.

But that is a big 'if'. And I make no secret of my very longstanding opinion, that the UK needs to ride its Brexiting rap -hard- before enlightenment can be bootstrapped.

TL;DR: so long as the UK stalls on LPF, it's a no-deal outcome. Days or weeks or seconds to spare irrespective.

mick087

reslfj wrote: »

When it comes to the dirty details - it can be very complicated. Aid is not just cash.
Lars

I think you might be correct.

Hermy

reslfj wrote: »

When it comes to the dirty details - it can be very complicated. Aid is not just cash.

Lars

Probably shouldn't describe international trade negotiations as quite straightforward - no doubt there's a bit more to it than that.:o

Hermy

mick087 wrote: »

I have read all sorts of experts opioions i have read its gonna be great for the UK i have read its gonna be bad for the UK.
I have read the EU are trying there best i have read they are being difficult.

Would you mind naming some of these experts whose opinions you've read which say Brexit is going to be great? I'd be very interested in reading them too.

mick087

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You are trying to get a Brexiteer to apply logic and not just copy and paste random quotes into an incoherent brain dump he done earlier (with loads of typos).

Half the time I wonder if some of these brexiteers are actually from Ireland or UK, there is no way in hell someone from England could have such bad english

boards maybe could post the network provider name from which the poster is posting next to the timestamp (its not hard tie ip address to ASN number+name, example ip 1.2.3.4 belongs to Eir) that would really put a spanner into work by driveby putinbots

Because you don't deem someones education up to your standards that is no reason they should not have a view or something to say.

Instead of mocking someones education ask yourself why and how the education system failed them.

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

(4)if the UK government establishes a state aid regime that is inconsistent with the commitments it has made in the WA . . .

(5) the UK courts must enforce the UK state aid regime, despite the violation of the WA.

Interesting. I don't know much about UK law, but I would imagine that, much like most countries, international agreements are not justiciable in the domestic courts unless there is specific provision to do so in domestic legislation. So this Bill says no more than what the law already provides for. In which case, it is either being done out of ignorance of how International Law is interpreted in UK Courts or is intended as a pure political stunt.

For a start, they may see this as a way of signalling that they are really, really serious about embracing no-deal....Morality and legality aside, the tactic is badly misjudged.

I agree that if that is the purpose, it is very badly misjudged. However, I find it hard to believe that this was intended as a message to EU leaders because on the one hand it doesn't change what was always the risk if they breach the WA i.e. they become a parriah nation, lose other benefits of the WA and possibly face sanctions etc, and on the other hand it makes it less likely for other EU members to trust the UK.

Possibly it is being done so that the negotiators can talk out of both sides of their mouths. They can tell the UK voters that UK law is always supreme over the EU trade deal, while telling the EU that they have no intention of actually passing any laws inconsistent with the WA.

For some, this could be because they are crazy enough to think that no deal would be a good thing. They would be hoping that the EU will react intemperately (e.g. by flouncing out of the talks) and thus this could help to bring about the good thing they seek.

For others, it could be because they think it is to the UK’s advantage if the EU thinks that the UK government is crazy enough to think that no deal would be a good thing. They will be hoping that the EU reaction will be to say “Gosh! This people really are stupid enough to embrace a no-deal outcome! That would not be good for us! We had better cave!” They, or some of them, may recognise that there’s a risk that the EU will react intemperately and flounce of out of the talks but they reckon that, well, at least in that scenario they will be better able to blame the EU for the no-deal outcome, since it is the EU that will have terminated the talks.

I don't think anyone would reasonably consider that the EU terminating the talks to be a bad thing. I accept that an assessment of whether the UK or the EU were to blame is a subjective matter, but surely most reasonable international observers would consider that the UK were at fault, unless they are already predisposed to dislike the EU.

However, even if the EU is blamed for breaking off trade talks, all that means is that the EU is a tough negotiator. They will still have ongoing trade talks with other parties. Australia or the US, for example, aren't going to say "you broke off talks with the UK, therefore we refuse to do a deal with you". They might even say "well, at least we know that we have to play it straight with the EU if we actually want a deal".

Ultimately, if the EU and the UK fail to reach a deal it will be bad for both and be considered a failure by both. But the failure will adversely impact the UK far more than the EU, and whether that is because of their own intransigence or because the EU is a bully makes little difference IMO.

(I think Boris Johnson is in this group. Tony Connelly is reporting that Johnson is going to issue a statement saying that a deal must be made by 15 October (to allow time for ratification) thereby signally that he still wants a deal. So he hopes that by wanting a deal he will encourage the EU to keep talking, but by threatening to play hardball with NI if there is no deal he will encourage them to cave in those talks.)

It would be funny if that is seen by Brexit supporters as him taking a hard line. Michel Barnier has already set the 15th Oct as the deadline for a deal, because there is an EU Council meeting on the 15th and 16th Oct, and they will need time for the Member States' parliaments and the EU Parliament to ratify it.

Also, there is some suggestion that Brexit won't even be on the September Council meeting schedule, as there are other matters to look at such as Greece and Turkey etc.

The UK seems to think that talking tough means constantly referring to the EU negatively. The EU will talk tough by simply not referring to the UK at all.

The EU cannot allow the impression to prevail that states can make treaties with the EU and then, within months, express a willingness or intention of violating the treaties they have just made, and there will be no blowback. For obvious reasons, the EU cannot let it be thought that threats like this are a good way to get what you wwant from the EU. If the EU were not firmly set against caving before, they certainly will be now.

Agreed. But also, they consider the Future Declaration deal to be a good compromise. It isn't a list of what they want, it's what, after careful negotiation, they are prepared to accept. And the UK want to undermine that (as well as undermining the Withdrawal Agreement). So in their mind, the UK already got what they wanted, within reason, but are still unhappy with it.

Nevertheless, the EU should not flounce out of the talks. They should keep talking, they should hold the line, and they should point out that the UK’s threat to violate the WA in order to adopt whatever state aid regime they might want in the future simply underlines that the EU has been wise to insist that the UK’s state aid regime needs to be agreed as part of the WA, and that if Johnson is serious about wanting an FTA agreed by 15 October he needs to table his proposed state aid regime pretty well immediately.

Or, they should just say "the deal is agreed, take it or leave it". I realise they won't do this, but it would be nice for them to give the UK a taste of their own medicine for once.

Finally, worth pointing out that this tactic is likely to be internally destabilising for the Johnson government. There will be a significant segment of opinion in Westminster and in Whitehall that is appalled.

It's hard to say, but it seems to me that the pre election purge of moderates from the Conservative Party last year, the sizeable majority and the firing of senior cabinet ministers who refuse to kiss the ring (e.g. Sajid Javid) has created a culture of fear in the Tory party. There are no openly rebellious backbenchers so I guess we won't know that there is any significant opposition to Johnson's government in the Tory party until those who oppose him are certain that they have enough support to make a difference.

I doubt we will see that, if we haven't already seen it to date this year.

The UK is squandering its reputation as a reliable, or even a law-abiding, international actor.

That reputation is long gone, IMO. The Chagos Islands vote in the UN, although of no practical effect, has demonstrated that the UK has lost it's soft power influence, possibly forever.

Who will want to make treaties with the UK if the UK is, within months, quite open about its readiness to violate the obligations it has just accepted?

Other countries that are equally ready to violate their obligations and international law when it suits them. The US, China etc. But in any event, most countries will only enter an agreement if it suits them. Countries will still be prepared to enter trade deals with the UK. But they won't expect them to last very long.

But it will bother many others, including many who supported Brexit for reasons of patriotism.

I'm not so sure. I don't think they are following it too closely. They voted for Johnson because he promised a Brexit, while the others did not promise a Brexit. They typically read the Sun, the Express, Telegraph etc so as far as their news supply goes, Johnson is doing a great job of it. I'm not sure how many of them realise quite how badly the UK's international reputation has been affected by this.

mick087

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would you bother saying that? One country has decided to leave and finally did after asking for extensions a couple of times. They've been gone over half a year. By bringing up that point, you're making an issue out of it.

The question is why would the Irish population decide to leave. As in, what would cause that vote to win.

Correct that indeed was the question asked.
There would be arguments to leave yes.
But not for a yes win, well not at the moment.

My remark was made in how much difficulty the UK are having.

54and56

mick087 wrote: »

The UK have gone they are out the EU
They think they are going to live in a land of of hope and glory for evermore.
Let them.

The EU still want some say over there laws.
If the EU don't look at themselves and see what they are doing wrong then they have learned nothing from how brexit came about.

A deal will be done with seconds to spare this is how the EU do things.

God help us in Ireland if we ever seek to leave.

It's the UK are seeking access to the worlds biggest trading bloc. They are supplicants.

The EU grants favourable (better than the standard WTO terms) access to it's market on terms which protect the integrity of the EU internal market. The UK is geographically closest to the EU, has a stated position of wanting to see the EU dismantled yet wants the freest access to the EU market of any country but doesn't want to give the EU commitments it requires on LPF, Fisheries and Security etc in order to grant the UK such access.

It's not that complicated really. If the UK wants a high degree of access it has to make some strong commitments which BTW don't require the EU to have a say over UK laws, it requires the UK and the EU to make mutually binding legal commitments to each other as is the case in all FTA's around the world.

If you want free access the cost is making some commitments on LPF, Fisheries and Security etc.

If you aren't prepared to do that jog on.

Imreoir2

mick087 wrote: »

A deal will be done with seconds to spare this is how the EU do things.

That's not at all how the EU does trade deals. There are plenty of trade deals that have been going on for years and years without agreement. There are more than a few that were just never completed. Remember TTIP? Where was the last second agreement there?

Enzokk

Philippe Lamberts was on BC Radio 5 Live with Emma Barnett and this is how he sees it,

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1302918297986400257?s=20

Basically what we have been saying on here, if the reports is confirmed and they use domestic law to ignore the WA, then there is no use in the negotiations continuing as the UK's word is not worth anything to the EU.

mick087

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay then can you answer the original question again as to why would Ireland want to leave?

At the moment the majority of Irish citizens do not want to leave.
I have never stated otherwise.

If your asking me my own personnel reasons why i might wish to see an Irexit you would also be wasting your time. I would not like to see that at the moment.

You try to put words into someones mouth then get them to try and justify something they never said.

Enzokk

I find the tweets and communications around stories like the one yesterday fascinating, take the current leader of the Brexit Party in Wales as an example,

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1302921443471228929?s=20

As you can see he think the current parliament should not be bound by the current parliaments decisions. Work that one out for yourself.

Just a update from the European Commission as well,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1302922404377907207?s=20

If the UK messes with the WA and what it signed up for then the negotiations are done.

mick087

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let me guess, educational system in UK failed them because of the evil EU?

That's just a smug arrogant comment.

mick087

54and56 wrote: »

It's the UK are seeking access to the worlds biggest trading bloc. They are supplicants.

The EU grants favourable (better than the standard WTO terms) access to it's market on terms which protect the integrity of the EU internal market. The UK is geographically closest to the EU, has a stated position of wanting to see the EU dismantled yet wants the freest access to the EU market of any country but doesn't want to give the EU commitments it requires on LPF, Fisheries and Security etc in order to grant the UK such access.

It's not that complicated really. If the UK wants a high degree of access it has to make some strong commitments which BTW don't require the EU to have a say over UK laws, it requires the UK and the EU to make mutually binding legal commitments to each other as is the case in all FTA's around the world.

If you want free access the cost is making some commitments on LPF, Fisheries and Security etc.

If you aren't prepared to do that jog on.

This is all very true but the UK think its complicated and the EU will play hardball to the end.

There will be a deal done both will come out looking better than the other and all will be ok not great ok.

I know whats on the table so do both sides. Both want a deal both will make sacrifices. Big or small negotiations are always the same both wanting the best for there party.

If there is no deal the blame game starts and in reality both sides will be to blame.

An Ciarraioch

mick087 wrote: »

Correct that indeed was the question asked.
There would be arguments to leave yes.
But not for a yes win, well not at the moment.

My remark was made in how much difficulty the UK are having.

This is the first time in any political or economic negotiations that any country has opted to reverse the process of globalisation and disentangle almost 50 years of international legislation, so by their very nature, the talks are necessarily difficult - it would be like either California or New York deciding to secede from the US in terms of complexity.

VinLieger

mick087 wrote: »

At the moment the majority of Irish citizens do not want to leave.
I have never stated otherwise.

If your asking me my own personnel reasons why i might wish to see an Irexit you would also be wasting your time. I would not like to see that at the moment.

You try to put words into someones mouth then get them to try and justify something they never said.

Well i gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried but theres zero point engaging with you anymore as your going round in circles not making any sense, you claimed there was good reasons to leave the EU but refuse to explain them.

mick087 wrote: »

If the citizens of Ireland or any other state wanted to leave then that would be a very good reason to leave.