Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

20silkcut wrote: »

Just watched a video by Phil moor house where he discusses the policy of keir starmer not tackling Boris Johnson over brexit.
Interestingly he quotes opinion polls showing a clear majority of the British public expressing the view that leaving the EU was a bad idea but when asked should they rejoin there is a 50:50 split.

What you could possibly do in a situation like that? Clearly a good 15-20% or so of British voters think brexit is bad but are willing to put up with it.

You are mixing up two different questions; Brexit is good but Boris did not drive home hard enough to get EU to capitulate as it would have during negotiations and besides WTO terms is better. That's why you see the disparity between the two; Brexit is not bad, the negotiated deal is bad (because why did the unicorn farms not come as promised, can't be because of brexit because brexit is great or they would need to rethink everything and admit they were fooled).

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just silly. Geography means that the UK and the EU are going to have to deal with each other no matter what. A decent relationship is in the best interests of both parties.

The same is true in a divorce with children involved, the difference is that they don't have to abide by each other's rules.

Professor Moriarty

The UK has left the EU and isn't coming back anytime soon. Regarding the EU and the UK needing to have a good relationship for a variety of economic and security reasons, yes and no. Of course, near neighbours should get on and do business amicably and smoothly. But behind the EU's thinking there is an existential guiding principle. Britain cannot be seen to benefit from Brexit. If it does, the EU will fragment as a variety of countries, with current small majorities in favour of Remain, will swing towards Leave as nationalist populists point to how well Britain is doing. Rather than bend rules and policies to accommodate Brexit and the UK, it is in the EU's greater interest to leave the UK to twist in the wind.

dogbert27

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The UK has left the EU and isn't coming back anytime soon. Regarding the EU and the UK needing to have a good relationship for a variety of economic and security reasons, yes and no. Of course, near neighbours should get on and do business amicably and smoothly. But behind the EU's thinking there is an existential guiding principle. Britain cannot be seen to benefit from Brexit. If it does, the EU will fragment as a variety of countries, with current small majorities in favour of Remain, will swing towards Leave as nationalist populists point to how well Britain is doing. Rather than bend rules and policies to accommodate Brexit and the UK, it is in the EU's greater interest to leave the UK to twist in the wind.

Correct, I find this attitude that now that Brexit is done the EU should be accommodating to the UK and help them through their mess quite bizarre.

The EU (us) have been mocked and ridiculed by the UK for nearly 5 years since the referendum and now we're supposed to what? Say that the EU lost and Brexit won and the GREAT BRITAIN is back on the world stage and the EU are sorry to be losing them?

I don't have any sympathy for people who will cut off their nose to spite their face.

Sam Russell

yagan wrote: »

A century ago Britain was 90% of our export market, now that's gone below 10% and dwindling.

Brexit is not a pro business or pro trade movement. It's a populist domestic vote catcher with economic consequences and probably the reason why there's no decent opposition is because Brexit has become an act of faith, a religion beyond rational appraisal.

It's ironic that Britain is becoming the closed state that China was when British gunboats sailed up the Yangtze.

Latest CSO figures show exports to the UK at 8% of GDP. Imports from the UK are 20% of GDP.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/as-ireland-diversifies-britain-beefs-up-trade-with-us-1.4485641

The extent of this was borne out in the last trade numbers from the Central Statistics Office (CSO), which show that last year the Republic ran a trade deficit of €5.4 billion with Britain. In other words we imported €5.4 billion worth more goods from them than they imported from us.

The value of Irish exports to Britain in 2020 was €12.4 billion while the value of imports from Britain totalled €17.8 billion.

But digging a bit deeper, the point that certain imports could be easily be EU or non UK imports being re-exported to Ireland.

Imports from Britain are diverse but the big ticket categories include machinery and transport (worth €4.4 billion in 2020), food (worth €3.8 billion) and chemicals (worth €2.8 billion).

Machinery and transport includes cars, trucks, tractors, etc. Now most of these are not manufactured in the UK and are merely RHD versions of EU vehicles. Now logic would see these being shipped direct - why would VW not ship direct so as to avoid any tariff?

If we add the transport and machinery imports with the chemicals it wipes out the deficit with the UK. Now not all will be wiped out, but most probably will.

Food is probably the likes of Tesco and M&S, and that will sort itself out with sourcing Irish products.

Now if NI buys its cars from Dublin based subsidiaries of the manufacturers rather than the UK versions then the balance of trade will move in our favour.

redcup342

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just silly. Geography means that the UK and the EU are going to have to deal with each other no matter what. A decent relationship is in the best interests of both parties.

Yes exactly, it is stupid.

No country has ever imposed trade restrictions on itself before.

Brexit is the reason for this problem, the UK and their government wanted this.

And agreement is on both sides, the EU has followed that agreement so far, the UK are not able or unwilling to do that with regards to the North.

They had a year to prepare (regarding NI) and Brexit meant Brexit so they powered on anyway.

The solution is either to reverse Brexit (not happening) or the UK fulfills its side of the agreement which they signed up to (they seem to think its not possible)

The whole UK government is a complete farce, even Farage thinks they've gone too far with COVID regulations.

Whatever transition needs to be done to get it working needs to be done in the UK, negotiating further amendments to the deal to appease the UK would just lead to more and more amendments that didn't suit them.

They need to cop and and deal with the situation they've created.

serfboard

redcup342 wrote: »

negotiating further amendments to the deal to appease the UK would just lead to more and more amendments that didn't suit them.

Well put.

NeuralNetwork

I suspect what will happen is they'll rant, rave and try to implement it for 6 months to 12 months and then there'll be an economic reckoning and problems and they'll just have to negotiate a broader trade deal.

Where they are at the moment simply isn't a realistic position. However, it will never be equivalent to EU membership as they won't politically accept anything like that so, it will likely be a fairly big economic drag into the future.

Also I don't really think the EU is likely to want to rush back into any complex arrangements with the UK. The last few years have been a bit of a nightmare for all concerned.

yagan

redcup342 wrote: »

Whatever transition needs to be done to get it working needs to be done in the UK, negotiating further amendments to the deal to appease the UK would just lead to more and more amendments that didn't suit them.

Or to put it another way gravity pulls them back towards alignment.

ancapailldorcha

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

No it doesn’t, look at Russia the other pariah state of Europe with delusions of grandeur and fascistic/nationalistic politics that looks backwards in time and also that looks down on its neighbours

Where possible interactions and trade is kept to minimum with every attempt at cooperation rebuked by Kremlin

Moscow on Thames has a ring to it

The UK is not Russia. I don't think that this comparison is either helpful or accurate. The UK has spent decades integrating itself into and benefitting hugely from the single market and the freedoms that it offers to Europeans.

We don't know how the UK will look in 5 years time, whether or not it will realise the necessity of cooperating with Brussels so maybe then comparisons with Moscow might be merited.

View

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

In other news the chief Brexiteer Cummings is in papers now over half a million contract given to his buddies. Which is ironic seeing how his main arguments used to revolve around knocking down whole system to stick it to corrupt elites.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dominic-cummings-helped-friends-at-public-first-win-500-000-contract-sh78xfcdh

Interesting how radical revolutionaries always follow same path

In fairness, Brexiters promised to “take back control”, not use that control wisely. :-)

redcup342

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK is not Russia. I don't think that this comparison is either helpful or accurate. The UK has spent decades integrating itself into and benefitting hugely from the single market and the freedoms that it offers to Europeans.

We don't know how the UK will look in 5 years time, whether or not it will realise the necessity of cooperating with Brussels us so maybe then comparisons with Moscow might be merited.

I fixed that for you, our MEPS are in Brussels just like everyone else.

Talking about the EU like a third party while we are in it, is part of the problem.

Therein lies the only flaw I see in the EU, it's not designed to be patriotic in Nature, to be so it would be seen as dangerous.

On the flip side of that because nobody has a Patriotic feeling about it everyone can blame problems on "them" and nobody is willing to defend it.

On the other side the UK does something mental, they point at the Union Jack and whisper *for the queen* patriotism kicks in and there is no criticising it.

Same goes for Russia, Russians criticise the Government and the state of things all the time, someone outside of Russia criticises Russia and you are wrong no matter what your argument is.

Strazdas

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't think they'd be welcome back until both the two main parties clearly support Re-join.

Even a re-join referendum vote of 51/49 or something under a Labour government is pointless, if the opposition party is liable to have another vote to leave when they get into power.

We've used the 'gym membership' analogy a few times, but it falls down here as EU membership isn't something you can do on a year-on/year-off basis.

Indeed, an unstable, deeply divided UK would never be allowed anywhere near the Single Market. They would have to be up around 70% or 80% in favour of SM membership. A country coming in and then demanding exemptions or rule changes (as the likes of Cameron was doing) would be a fiasco.

CelticRambler

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

No it doesn’t, look at Russia the other pariah state of Europe with delusions of grandeur and fascistic/nationalistic politics that looks backwards in time and also that looks down on its neighbours

Where possible interactions and trade is kept to minimum with every attempt at cooperation rebuked by Kremlin

Moscow on Thames has a ring to it

I'm sticking with "Serbia on Thames" as the best analogy. I think the Former Kingdom of GB & NI will split into its constituent parts, each of which will strive to become a successful independent nation, some more enthusiastically than others, and for most of them, that will include applying to join the EU. A sizeable chunk of what we currently call England will remain stubbornly opposed to any kind of formal union with anything "European", still squabbling with itself, until - in about fifty years' time (JRM's prediction) - the last bastions of the idiocracy finally crumble.

newport2

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't think they'd be welcome back until both the two main parties clearly support Re-join.

Even a re-join referendum vote of 51/49 or something under a Labour government is pointless, if the opposition party is liable to have another vote to leave when they get into power.

We've used the 'gym membership' analogy a few times, but it falls down here as EU membership isn't something you can do on a year-on/year-off basis.

This. If the UK did a U-turn and decided it wanted back in any time soon, there would be far too many up in arms about it. Why would the EU want further disruption, MEPs elected purely to cause problems in the European parliament, needless noise and criticism generated, etc?

I think the EU wants the UK to rejoin the EU. But only when the UK has decided itself with a significant majority that it wants to do so.

Seth Brundle

newport2 wrote: »

This. If the UK did a U-turn and decided it wanted back in any time soon, there would be far too many up in arms about it. Why would the EU want further disruption, MEPs elected purely to cause problems in the European parliament, needless noise and criticism generated, etc?

I think the EU wants the UK to rejoin the EU. But only when the UK has decided itself with a significant majority that it wants to do so.

The UK needs to gain some maturity if it wishes to re-join the EU.
At the moment the UK seems to believe that it should be a rule giver and never be a rule taker. The UK does not appear to want to be a team player. This has been fuelled by their politicians and media for decades.

The UK really needs to reflect on itself, its media and its system of politics. Currently there is no appetite for this - they are quite a far distance away from this point. Any discussion of them rejoining the EU is pointless without this process of self-assessment.

Zubeneschamali

The UK will not rejoin for at least a generation, if ever. Right now, they can't even agree a Norway type deal.

But in a few years, no-one will care that Norway is worse than full membership, because where they have landed is so much worse again. They will start moving in that direction.

Professor Moriarty

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The UK needs to gain some maturity if it wishes to re-join the EU.
At the moment the UK seems to believe that it should be a rule giver and never be a rule taker. The UK does not appear to want to be a team player. This has been fuelled by their politicians and media for decades.

The UK really needs to reflect on itself, its media and its system of politics. Currently there is no appetite for this - they are quite a far distance away from this point. Any discussion of them rejoining the EU is pointless without this process of self-assessment.

The majority of the UK's media, which is controlled by powerful external forces, has no intention of reversing Brexit. Quite the opposite in fact. Brexit will be trumpeted as the greatest change to happen Britain in decades. Truth will be irrelevant in this trumpeting.

There is a large cohort of voters for whom Brexit has become a shining dogma that must be defended with cult-like venom. It has satisfied their latent exceptionalism and nationalism and they won't allow that to be reversed. For the rest, there is a pervading sense of defeat. Labour's response to Brexit continues to be a cowardly capitulation. There is no significant anti-Brexit voice in the UK anymore. Just weary and defeatist acceptance. The UK will not be rejoining the EU for decades to come. Nor should the EU want them back.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK will not rejoin for at least a generation, if ever. Right now, they can't even agree a Norway type deal.

But in a few years, no-one will care that Norway is worse than full membership, because where they have landed is so much worse again. They will start moving in that direction.

I would agree with that assessment.

However, there are several huge differences between Norway and the UK.

Norway has a huge Sovereign Fund that is guarded for future generations. The State owns the oil as part of that fund. The UK, on the other hand has a huge national debt which will be crippling if interest rates increase to pre crash levels of 6% or more - particularly post Covid.

Norway lives on fish and oil/energy. The UK relies on financial services but the EU agreement excludes services, leaving the UK GDP and balance of trade vulnerable, and with trade moving to the EU, that will only get worse.

Norway has a stable political climate. The UK political climate ... ???

To get to a Norway deal, they need to change utterly.

Seth Brundle

Not wishing to get into the debate about abortion but I note how the DUP have tabelled new legislation in Westminster today to provide equality towards embryos with Down Syndrome so that the pregnancy cannot be terminated.
So the party in favour of inequality also want equality and at the same time as wanting NI to be the same as the rest of the UK, they want NI to be different from the UK.

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just silly. Geography means that the UK and the EU are going to have to deal with each other no matter what. A decent relationship is in the best interests of both parties.

Interestingly, the same argument could be made for Russia, except Russia is a world power that provides Europe with essential goods which we can't source elsewhere. Russian probably has similar cultural and political ties with the EU as the UK does.

However, Russia's behaviour has meant that, despite a massive desire to trade with Russia amongst EU member states (particularly Germany), the EU relationship with Russia is very poor.

I don't see the EU relationship with the UK deteriorating to such an extent as the relationship with Russia has. I don't think the UK will entirely dispense with democracy or invade a neighbouring country. However, the relationship with the UK is probably the worst after Russia and Belarus.

More importantly, however, is that the EU will always do business with Russia, China, the US and Saudi Arabia because they need to trade with them, even if those countries do things that the EU does not approve of. However, trade with the UK is welcome but not essential, and indeed there may even be short term benefits to the EU to disruptions of trade with the UK, particularly in the area of financial services.

The ultimate point I suppose is that the EU will always maintain some kind of a working relationship with the UK. But it doesn't mean that it will necessarily be a good relationship.

ancapailldorcha

Russia isn't really a world power though. It was at one stage but even during the cold war it was vastly outpowered technologically by the United States. It now has an economy the size of Spain's with a vastly bigger landmass and population. There's a reason its influence is limited to disinformation campaigns and hacks on the internet.

I don't see the UK's relationship deteriorating to this degree. It has its own peculiar democracy which does give the voter the choice as evidenced in 2019. It doesn't need to dispense with this as it's plenty restrictive as is with the two-party system, FPTP and all but absent new challengers to the incumbent governing party.

Whether the government of the day is wise enough to realise the necessity of its relationship with Brussels or not is another story. Business of some degree will be done but it's dispiriting to see the opportunties to ease the impact of Brexit on so many be gleefully ignored.

joeysoap

Deleted User wrote: »

Are the Portuguese staff as grumpy as they are in Spain.

Friendliest people in Europe.

Professor Moriarty

joeysoap wrote: »

Friendliest people in Europe.

Absolutely. Classy.

CelticRambler

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But in a few years, no-one will care that Norway is worse than full membership, because where they have landed is so much worse again. They will start moving in that direction.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The majority of the UK's media, which is controlled by powerful external forces, has no intention of reversing Brexit. Quite the opposite in fact. Brexit will be trumpeted as the greatest change to happen Britain in decades. Truth will be irrelevant in this trumpeting.

There is a large cohort of voters for whom Brexit has become a shining dogma that must be defended with cult-like venom. It has satisfied their latent exceptionalism and nationalism and they won't allow that to be reversed.

No need to think that the UK will ever end up with a Norway style relationship when they've already signed up for Switzerland minus minus.

The next ten years will almost certainly see a gradual acceptance of the reality of geography and economics. Little by little, as the Great New Trade Deals with the rest of the world fail to make up for the loss of frictionless access to the SM/CU, sections of the TCA will be renegotiated over the course of weeks, months or years with next to no interest shown by the media until the new terms are announced, and then the Brexit media will trumpet huge British victories over the EU, such as forcing the EU to recognise British food standards (permanently aligned with those of the EU), getting the EU to capitulate over Rules of Origin (sshhh, nobody mention signing up to level playing field rules too) or the hard-won right for artists and other ephemeral workers to do their thing visa-free in Europe (and of course we'll welcome their musicians, because British concerts are the best in the world ... )

eire4

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm sticking with "Serbia on Thames" as the best analogy. I think the Former Kingdom of GB & NI will split into its constituent parts, each of which will strive to become a successful independent nation, some more enthusiastically than others, and for most of them, that will include applying to join the EU. A sizeable chunk of what we currently call England will remain stubbornly opposed to any kind of formal union with anything "European", still squabbling with itself, until - in about fifty years' time (JRM's prediction) - the last bastions of the idiocracy finally crumble.

Whatever about the time frames it might take for them to arrive back on planet earth with the rest of us I think your analogy there is probably pretty close to how things will play out in the coming years.

Junkyard Tom

Dianne Dodds former DUP MEP, current Stormont MLA rejects GB alignment with the EU on SPS regulations that would ease the Irish Sea border because she doesn't want the UK slavishly following 'EU Rules'.

https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/1361723330496258056?s=20

Doug Beatie has described the above as 'utter madness', it'll be interesting to see how Unionism divides on this issue.

https://twitter.com/BeattieDoug/status/1361739167328264195?s=20

SNIP.

FrancieBrady

SNIP. No one-liners please.

ancapailldorcha

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

UK is not Russia ... Yet

I said it before but perestroika would be the closest historical analogue to Brexit (both applied wrong solutions to wrong problems) and the result was collapse of USSR, once the nationalistic genie is out of bottle it’s hard to put it back.

I see what you're getting at but I still disagree with this assessment. Covid is the big unknown here IMO. We don't know what Europe will look like in 3-4 years time. If the pandemic has mostly or entirely subsided then I think there's going to be a lot more internal rancour here over Brexit.

I don't think Perestroika is a suitable comparison at all. Brexit is going to entrench privilege in British society, not prompt a reformation of how things work here. There's no indication of any positives. Rees-Mogg claimed six decades and even if he's right, that's a lot of needless suffering in the meantime.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are clearly going to go for us caving in to their demands. Bless:D

I think the DUP are trying to manufacture a sort of 'Sophie's choice' for Westminster, hard GB-NI alignment or a FTA with the EU.

The problem for the DUP is that, as far as England is concerned, NI is not so much a cherished child as an embarrassing cousin.