Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

HalfAndHalf

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The 11 NI MPs who take their seats will all vote against the deal:

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1343591192722878469

Well at least the Tories don’t need to bung them another billion to rethink their ‘principles’ this time.

Professor Moriarty

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Well at least the Tories don’t need to bung them another billion to rethink their ‘principles’ this time.

Fair point. The Tories have their own votes so the DUP now knows what they really think of them.

amacca

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

SNP will be voting against Brexit Bill

Johnson has an effective majority of 100 so it shouldn't affect the result.

Unless there's an ERG rebellion, but that wouldn't be an issue because Labour would come to their rescue.

So it's highly likely this deal will be voted through?

Can you see any possibility of ERG balking at the last minute and Labour not wanting to be associated with it?

HalfAndHalf

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fair point. The Tories have their own votes so the DUP now knows what they really think of them.

I wouldn’t go that far, more that they’re about as trustworthy as the Tories, will do anything for a quick £

eire4

breezy1985 wrote: »

Not to defend China but US foreign policy has killed plenty of innocents in my life and how India treats its "lower castes" and women is sick and are definitely human rights concerns

I was just thinking the same myself. If human rights are an issue and I think they should be then the US and India as you rightly say have much to answer for internally with India mostly and externally with the US mostly. In fairness China is overall probably worse as their human rights abuses are dreadful but no way can you look at India and the US and say they are ok on human rights.

An Claidheamh

sam1986uk wrote: »

Only the Irish in Ireland hate the English.

The Irish that have found work and been given an opportunity to build a life in England conveniently find the English and England quite alright

Not to rehash this debate, and at the risk of censure

You’ll find that those Irish who were at the receiving end of British hate would feel differently, as would the Northern Irish - who had to deal with employed British “servicemen”
Maybe the Irish integrate better, maybe the British (Ireland’s highest foreign nationals - not including their ownership of the North, more per capita than Irish in UK, who found a job and life here ; or indeed British in Spain who ought to be grateful to the Spanish for allowing them to reside there in great numbers

In fact the elitist Irish media are often very Anglophile as they never had much interaction with the British. A bit like how the pro-traveller types never had a halting site on their road

Certainly, there has never been an organised anti-British/xenophobic agenda in the Irish media as there is in the British, from the BBC to the Daily Mail

Furthermore, the outrageous attitude in the last 4 years of claiming Ireland was”annexing” the part of Ireland annexed by Britain, British delusions of “loyalty” from Ireland and unprovoked persistent threats from the UK required correction from this site - considering the Irish media won’t - this should not be confused with “Anglo phobia”, a claim made in the 1970s when some in Ireland accused the UK government of atrocities, human rights violations and terror against Irish people - all which were proven to be accurate

That said, there will always be scumbags in every country, quite frankly I feel sorry and embarrassed for any foreign national in Ireland, coming across our scanger class on our streets


Hating British nationalism/exceptionalism or historical imperialism does not equate to hating the English - that is just nonsense and more like a victimhood complex

An Claidheamh

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The 11 NI MPs who take their seats will all vote against the deal:

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1343591192722878469

Remember that bus DUP? ... It’s back

Fr Tod Umptious

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Remember that bus DUP? ... It’s back

Why are the SDLP and Alliance against it ?

Imreoir2

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

You are more than entitled to your opinion, but from what you're saying, you think the U.K. will be worse off forever more based on them having a worse relationship with the EU......and that’s it.

Why would this be? So you think that’s it now forever, the U.K. will not make any other deals for the rest of eternity? That’s insane!

The UK now has a worse relationship with its nearest neighbours and most important trading market. That will harm the UK for as long as that worse relationship lasts. Further, it has lost access to a network of trade deals the world over and thus far has only replaced some of them and has improved on none.

The small size of the UK market compared to the EU means that it is unlikely to ever be able to secure a better deal with other trade partners than the EU can.

The UK has a worse deal with its closest and most important trade partner and cannot realisticly hope to do substantially better deals with less important and more distant trade partners. This is going to be bad for the UK, all that remains to be seen is just how bad, there is no prospect of the UK doing better outseide the EU.

Headshot

Labour should really abstain from voting on this.

breezy1985

Whens the vote?

HalfAndHalf

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK now has a worse relationship with its nearest neighbours and most important trading market. That will harm the UK for as long as that worse relationship lasts. Further, it has lost access to a network of trade deals the world over and thus far has only replaced some of them and has improved on none.

The small size of the UK market compared to the EU means that it is unlikely to ever be able to secure a better deal with other trade partners than the EU can.

The UK has a worse deal with its closest and most important trade partner and cannot realisticly hope to do substantially better deals with less important and more distant trade partners. This is going to be bad for the UK, all that remains to be seen is just how bad, there is no prospect of the UK doing better outseide the EU.

Wow! Can I have the euromillions numbers as well please?

THIS is exactly what I was saying, experts.......experts everywhere, based on absolutely no historical factual knowledge as it’s never happened before......just out of a pure wish for a country of 70 million people suffer and suffer terribly.

Strazdas

breezy1985 wrote: »

Whens the vote?

Wednesday.

HalfAndHalf

Headshot wrote: »

Labour should really abstain from voting on this.

So you’d rather chance a no deal?

Labour will vote with the Tories bar about 20 that are said to be abstaining.

squeekyduck

fash wrote: »

As of 2018/19, 90% of migration to UK was from non EU sources and the lowest level was about 60%. That never had anything to do with the EU - so that will continue and in fact increase.
The UK will continue to look for cheap labour - however it will increasingly be from north africa, the middle east and afghanistan, pakistan and India instead of the EU. Do not expect (or hope) that that will change.

Nevertheless,, you are correct that Priti Patel and the Tories have already been celebrating the ending of freedom of movement as a victory.

It should be noted however that:
That right to freedom of movement is reciprocal - which will be problematic for UK citizens retiring to Spain etc.;
The "freedom of movement" "problem" was caused primarily in Ireland, Sweden and the UK - in reality there are only 2 eastern european countries which sent significant numbers of people to the UK - Poland and Romania - and prior to this no one complained about "French" and "Spanish" migrants "taking our jobs".

In particular in relation to Poland, Ireland, UK & Sweden allowed immediate access to their countries to the 10 original accession states whereas most EU countries allowed the 7 year brakes allowed by the EU in order to slowly ease those countries into the EU to allow their economies to converge to EU levels to minimize dramatic influxes. Ireland, Sweden & UK did not - in order to tap the migration flows for their economies. Consequently, as the only possible destination countries (and especially while the accession states were at the relative poorest), they got large flows. Of note, these economies are now booming (so far fewer people want to leave, the salary differential is reduced and the EU lifestyle benefits are already in place) and their populations have all of the EU (e.g. Germany, Austria and other closer to home countries) to move to if they wish.
Also of note is that birth rates in these countries have been declining since the 1980's. In other words, the large aughties migration was the last demographically or economically possible. It can never be repeated.
Also of note, aside perhaps from Ukraine (, which is suffering significant decline in its young population), there is nowhere left for the EU to expand that has a significant population to migrate.

Hence even without Brexit, the " freedom of movement" "problem" was something already in the past - or in other words, if you voted for Brexit based on freedom of movement, you voted for a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

I appreciate that, and I am not taking sides. I am looking at this as a neutral party. Leaving the EU for a large part of UK Brexitiers was about "Foreigners", that it will be interesting how the UK spin this as a victory. I understand that its reciprocal and that UK citizen lose freedom of movement but, for a majority of the UK working and middle classes, it will not be a major disruption to their annual EU holiday. It screws with those who enjoy working and living in the EU, but the majority of Brexitiers see this as a price worth paying.

What I don't get is how freedom of movement was achieved by the deal compared to Switzerland for example? How come the UK have tariff-free trade but no movement of people?

On a separate topic, the effects of Brexit are hitting. I had to ship items to an EU country and I had to fill in an electronic customs declaration (Actually not bad in fairness). It will slowly start to hit the masses how an awful idea this was in a few months time when prices increase and the impact of extra paper work becomes apparant.

Headshot

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

So you’d rather chance a no deal?

Labour will vote with the Tories bar about 20 that are said to be abstaining.

This is Tories mess and responsibility. BJ holds a large majority and shouldnt have any issues getting it through.

Labour need to stay well clear of this and hold Tories to this mess

Some time down the line this ****e will come back to bite the Tories (if it hasnt already) and Labour need to be well clear of it.

Strazdas

squeekyduck wrote: »

I appreciate that, and I am not taking sides. I am looking at this as a neutral party. Leaving the EU for a large part of UK Brexitiers was about "Foreigners", that it will be interesting how the UK spin this as a victory. I understand that its reciprocal and that UK citizen lose freedom of movement but, for a majority of the UK working and middle classes, it will not be a major disruption to their annual EU holiday. It screws with those who enjoy working and living in the EU, but the majority of Brexitiers see this as a price worth paying.

What I don't get is how freedom of movement was achieved by the deal compared to Switzerland for example? How come the UK have tariff-free trade but no movement of people?

On a separate topic, the effects of Brexit are hitting. I had to ship items to an EU country and I had to fill in an electronic customs declaration (Actually not bad in fairness). It will slowly start to hit the masses how an awful idea this was in a few months time when prices increase and the impact of extra paper work becomes apparant.

Switzerland is effectively a member of the Single Market, that's the difference. The UK left the SMCU precisely so it could stop EU immigration.

Imreoir2

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

And the basis for this is what exactly? What is a ‘better trade deal’? A deal is something that both sides agree to based on getting the majority of what they want while giving away as little as possible of what they don’t.....if a deal was that bad they wouldn’t sign up to it.

Better than the UK had with a given trade partner while a member of the EU, obviously.

In terms of trade with various partners, Brexit means that the UK has either:
1. expended significant effort to stand still (such as with Japan)
2. expened significant effort to be worse off (as with the EU 27)
3. lost access to a deal covering trade (such as Turkey)
4. made the UK's trading situation better in any tangible way (nope, nothing to see here)

Brexit has made the UK's trading situation significantly worse, some of the damage can be mitigated in time (after significant disruption, job losses, and expence) but there is no realistc prospect of ever being better off as a result of Brexit.

HalfAndHalf

Headshot wrote: »

This is Tories mess and responsibility. BJ holds a large majority and shouldnt have any issues getting it through.

Labour need to stay well clear of this and hold Tories to this mess

Some time down the line this ****e will come back to bite the Tories (if it hasnt already) and Labour need to be well clear of it.

I’d say it’d be a risk to rely on just the Torys to get it through, add up the Tories like May and a few ERG nutters who will vote against, with the DNP, DUP and some Labour MPs and it’s been a close call.

Labour are in a tricky position thanks to Corbyn’s ‘no stance’ on Brexit; they’ll be damned if the do and damned if they don’t.
If they don’t and the U.K. flourishes they’ll be tarnished for years as a party with no vision or holding the U.K. back, if they vote for and it goes wrong for the U.K. they’ll be as bad as the Tories. Rock and hard place.

HalfAndHalf

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Better than the UK had with a given trade partner while a member of the EU, obviously.

In terms of trade with various partners, Brexit means that the UK has either:
1. expended significant effort to stand still (such as with Japan)
2. expened significant effort to be worse off (as with the EU 27)
3. lost access to a deal covering trade (such as Turkey)
4. made the UK's trading situation better in any tangible way (nope, nothing to see here)

Brexit has made the UK's trading situation significantly worse, some of the damage can be mitigated in time (after significant disruption, job losses, and expence) but there is no realistc prospect of ever being better off as a result of Brexit.

Again, can I have the euromillions numbers please?

So in the future the U.K. join up to RCEP, a bloc of 2.2 billion people, they’ll be no better off than still trading with a block of 450 million, who they already have an FTA with. I can’t follow that logic.

yagan

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Again, can I have the euromillions numbers please?

So in the future the U.K. join up to RCEP, a bloc of 2.2 billion people, they’ll be no better off than still trading with a block of 450 million. I can’t follow that logic.

Every large bloc that the UK seeks a trade deal with will have greater leverage, which makes leaving a bloc it did have a say even more ridiculous.

HalfAndHalf

yagan wrote: »

Every large bloc that the UK seeks a trade deal with will have greater leverage, which makes leaving a bloc it did have a say even more ridiculous.

Regardless, nobody knows the terms of a possible future bloc deal, and it would hardly be of no benefit so, you’re saying that the U.K. will be worse off being in an FTA with the EU and an FTA with RCEP than being a full member of the EU yes?

Imreoir2

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Wow! Can I have the euromillions numbers as well please?

THIS is exactly what I was saying, experts.......experts everywhere, based on absolutely no historical factual knowledge as it’s never happened before......just out of a pure wish for a country of 70 million people suffer and suffer terribly.

It does not take an expert to see plain facts for what they are. Brexit is bad for Britain, there is no getting away from that.

I have no wish for Britain or its population of 65 million people to suffer terribly, I did not vote for Brexit, they inflicted that on themselves.

HalfAndHalf

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It does not take an expert to see plain facts for what they are. Brexit is bad for Britain, there is no getting away from that.

I have no wish for Britain or its population of 65 million people to suffer terribly, I did not vote for Brexit, they inflicted that on themselves.

But what are you basing your view on? All you’re saying is it’s ‘bad for Britain’ but aren’t backing it up with anything other than ‘because it is’.

Going from the deal they had as a member and what they have now on it’s own or ‘worse’ for them, but do you really think they won’t be able to seal more and more deals with other countries regardless of ‘who’s dad is bigger and gets the most out of it’ they’ll still get deals that benefit them!

If you can’t see this I don’t know what else to say so probably won’t.

Imreoir2

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Again, can I have the euromillions numbers please?

So in the future the U.K. join up to RCEP, a bloc of 2.2 billion people, they’ll be no better off than still trading with a block of 450 million, who they already have an FTA with. I can’t follow that logic.

RCEP is half a world away, distance is a massive factor in determining the value of a trade deal. Look at the list of the UK's most important trade partners and ask yourself why the UK does more trade with Ireland than Japan and Australia combined.

Can you show the slightest shred of evidence that joining RCEP will make up for the damage leaving the EU has caused? I'll wait.

Leroy42

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Regardless, nobody knows the terms of a possible future bloc deal, and it would hardly be of no benefit so, you’re saying that the U.K. will be worse off being in an FTA with the EU and an FTA with RCEP than being a full member of the EU yes?

We know what they have lost, but you want to ignore that on the basis that the future is unknown?

On that basis you can't ever agree, or disagree, to any decision. You simply go along with everything?

Lumen

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

But what are you basing your view on? All you’re saying is it’s ‘bad for Britain’ but aren’t backing it up with anything other than ‘because it is’.

Going from the deal they had as a member and what they have now on it’s own or ‘worse’ for them, but do you really think they won’t be able to seal more and more deals with other countries regardless of ‘who’s dad is bigger and gets the most out of it’ they’ll still get deals that benefit them!

If you can’t see this I don’t know what else to say so probably won’t.

But the EU is also striking deals on behalf of all of its members, and it is bigger than the UK so has greater bargaining power.

The UK has had four years to negotiate better deals than it had through the EU. Where are they?

HalfAndHalf

Imreoir2 wrote: »

RCEP is half a world away, distance is a massive factor in determining the value of a trade deal. Look at the list of the UK's most important trade partners and ask yourself why the UK does more trade with Ireland than Japan and Australia combined.

Can you show the slightest shred of evidence that joining RCEP will make up for the damage leaving the EU has caused? I'll wait.

It’s 2020 not 1800, plus the U.K. are predominantly a services industry so it’s not geoblocked like agrifood or fish etc.

Yeah they do more trade with here than those countries ‘to date’ but what’s to stop it changing.

I feel like I’m wasting my time coming from a place of ‘anything other than the norm of the EU trade bloc’, seems I’m talking about a future 1000’s of years away.

trellheim

Can some one explain in small words why Labour in the UK will not oppose this deal - I know the Tories have a majority so it will go through but whats the benefit to Labour to endorse or abstain on something that is very clearly a bad outcome for the UK ?

kowloon

So, how easy would it be for a future government to get out of this deal? Could we have a situation where nothing ever fully stabilises again because the possibility of another break-up is always on the horizon with renegotiations?