Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub · 27-02-2019 12:33pm

In relation to the "German Car" canard..

One of three things happen

UK Buyers will just suck up the price increase
Germany will start shipping more "poverty spec" models to the UK to keep the prices more in line with current levels
UK Buyers will buy less cars , maybe holding on to them for a bit longer.

It'll probably be a mix of all three , and whilst option 3 below will hurt the car makers , it won't be by a huge unmanageable amount .

The single biggest losers here by quite some margin, will be the UK.

If this was a boxing match , this is akin to a boxer winning by knock-out , but breaking a bone in their hand delivering the knock-up blow.

Yeah , they broke their hand and it hurts a bit , but they still won and the other guy is flat on his back unconscious.

Akrasia · 27-02-2019 12:35pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This is a bit of a cyclical discussion but anyways...

A No Deal crash out is very much a problem for the EU, particularly for Ireland where WTO tariffs will pretty much kill off our beef industry, unless the EU are prepared to stump up something like a billion more in subsidies for Irish beef farmers. There are numerous ways a no deal crash out is bad for the UK and EU. May will want to leave that card on the table for as long as possible. Its one of the few cards she has left to play.

The EU has a problem either way. They have already decided that it is less of a problem to allow the UK to leave with no deal, than it is to sacrifice the integrity of the EU, the single market, the customs union and the NI peace process.

prawnsambo · 27-02-2019 12:37pm

murphaph wrote: »

It doesn't say that. Those 3.5m registered vehicles include foreign built ones.

I did say it was a cursory look.

I didn't really look at it in any depth. I was mostly pointing to the link where the fact checker got its figures. Trying to be helpful in other words.

J Mysterio · 27-02-2019 12:41pm

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

I've yet to see someone explain what "take no deal off the table" actually means?

It means ruling out No Deal. It means not allowing a crash out. Hence it implies either a deal, extended delay or revokation of a50.

J Mysterio · 27-02-2019 12:42pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It means to allow a no deal crash out happen.

It means the opposite of this.

murphaph · 27-02-2019 12:47pm

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

I wonder:

1) "Built" must mean final assembly and not include cars which are manufactured in Germany and undergo final assemble elsewhere?
2) The 1 in 7 UK statistic is, as I understand it, 1 in 7 of that 69%

I understand the 1 in 7 to refer to all car production in Germany. It makes sense. The UK has long had a soft spot for German marques and as homegrown UK mass marques don't exist there's room for German ones. Compare to Sweden where every second car seems to be a Volvo or France or Italy where local marques are dominant. It's not surprising that the UK takes so many German cars.

murphaph · 27-02-2019 12:49pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I did say it was a cursory look.

I didn't really look at it in any depth. I was mostly pointing to the link where the fact checker got its figures. Trying to be helpful in other words.

Sure, me too. I wasn't scolding you ;-)

Akrasia · 27-02-2019 12:51pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

Looks like the threat of delay has Mr Rees Mogg reconsidering the May Deal.

Hopefully some nice words in the codicil will be enough to get him and his chums over the line. He really wants to leave on the 29th.

UK accepting May's Deal is the ideal outcome for me now - the UK needs Brexit, and they should have it.

I think JRM would prefer a No Deal to Mays deal, but he would also prefer Mays deal to no brexit, so anything he says about her recent stance should be taken under the context that he wants to allow her strategy to continue as removing any possibility of no brexit plays into his hands.

Pretending to be upset after May pretends to take no deal off the table, when she's really taking 'no brexit' off the table is just part of his strategy to remove all options until there are only two remaining.

ancapailldorcha · 27-02-2019 12:57pm

May's deal doesn't preclude a People's Vote as far as I know though extending Article 50 keeps the possibility of withdrawing it unilaterally open.

ToBeFrank123 · 27-02-2019 1:03pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

It means the opposite of this.

Sorry I might have rushed the reply as sometimes happens due to work reasons.

Taking a No Deal off the table means taking the possibility of a No Deal crash out off the table. But you're right, taking no deal off the table means not allowing a no deal scenario take place. And since its one of the very few, possibly only remaining threat/card she has left to play, she is not going to take it off the table for a while yet at least. When she negotiates with the EU these days she is looking over her shoulder at internal conservative politics.

Akrasia · 27-02-2019 1:03pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

May's deal doesn't preclude a People's Vote as far as I know though extending Article 50 keeps the possibility of withdrawing it unilaterally open.

It depends on if they participate in the EU elections. The original EU legal decision about whether the UK could withdraw A50 unilaterally didn't consider what would happen if the UK did not participate in the EU elections.

If the UK extend A50 but do not participate in the elections, as may herself said, there would be no chance of extending and uncertainty over whether or not they could unilaterally withdraw A50 without throwing the EU parliament into a constitutional crisis.

An Ciarraioch · 27-02-2019 1:20pm

Possibly the worst presentation of a poll finding I've seen:

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1100719744154513408

After all, this suggests over 70% of Labour voters support the decision, once undecideds are removed.

reslfj · 27-02-2019 1:52pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

... But I want to pick up on the "still exports more outside the EU" bit.

"Still" is the wrong word to use here, since in fact it's a recent development. Until 2014, the UK exported more to the EU than to the rest of the world.

And, worse, the change isn't because of a boom in trade with the rest of the world; it's because the UK's exports to the EU have been static or declining, in real terms (while imports from the EU continue to rise).

And that's not because of a decline in demand in EU countries; during this period demand has been rising faster in EU countries than in the UK....

Take a look at this video from Sky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldEGd0ghNhg

Remember export value is just a statistical substitute a placeholder for what really matters "the value added in country".

Moving gold in or or out of the UK adds a lot to the im- and export statistics, but the value added for the UK is a small bit of rent for using some bank's vault plus a security transport charges for moving the gold from/to the airport i.e. very little. for the UK.

One may think that importing and reexporting will cancel out in the trade statistics. But this in not the case and such "much to easy assumptions" should be looked out for and avoided all the time.

Lars

LuckyLloyd · 27-02-2019 1:56pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Sorry I might have rushed the reply as sometimes happens due to work reasons.

Taking a No Deal off the table means taking the possibility of a No Deal crash out off the table. But you're right, taking no deal off the table means not allowing a no deal scenario take place. And since its one of the very few, possibly only remaining threat/card she has left to play, she is not going to take it off the table for a while yet at least. When she negotiates with the EU these days she is looking over her shoulder at internal conservative politics.

There are *no* substantive negotiations continuing with the EU. The WA is the agreement on the table. The conversations on a legal codicil / guarantee / attachment to the WA are all that is being discussed. And the EU is limited in what is on offer there. No Deal will be taking off the table by parliament on March 13th and the EU know this. They also know how detrimental No Deal will be on the UK economy and how unprepared the UK is for it as per yesterday's report.

May has no cards to play with the EU. The EU will provide by the end of next week:

- some wording on the backstop
- terms for a lengthy extension

And then parliament will choose one or the other. The EU controls this process now.

An Ciarraioch · 27-02-2019 2:05pm

This seems bizarre - the Tory backbencher Alberto Costa had an amendment on EU citizens' rights that it appeared the government had accepted, yet now he's been sacked from his current position!

RobMc59 · 27-02-2019 2:09pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

When you learn why a town like Le Havre or Abbeville is so completely architecturally modern compared to the typical decrepit French mediaeval centre ville, perhaps being an Irishman with all that historical baggage evokes a more intense reaction. At least that's how it was for me, when I realised that the narrative of "our great heroes" being peddled to my children in school in England was somewhat off the mark - like their bombs - and that the RAF were just as much a bunch of murderous bastards as the Black & Tans. Between themselves and their US buddies, they killed as many French civilians in bombing raids as the Germans deported and exterminated French Jews (link). Have a look at the photos of Le Havre from the day after the RAF visited and compare them to the photos of Hiroshima; tell me that was not an atrocity, and explain why 5000 French civilians had to die for Britain that day.

Is it valid to use examples from WW2 in this context? Well, most of us here would say "FFS: no! We've moved on from last-century conflicts" - but that's not the case when it comes to the Brexiteers. Just about any vox pop interview or any heated discussion on TV or radio will have someone on the Leave side lob in a remark about "we won the War" or "bloody Germans" or some other reference to WW1 or 2.

And that's the nub of the problem: so much of the Brexit debate and the argument in favour of Leave is based on 100-year-old propaganda wartime produced by a goverment that needed more "brave heroes" to massacre foreign civilians in the name of British freedom. While so much of Britain has continued to live in this swashbuckling fantasy world, the rest of us in Europe had a collective WTF? moment, decided to draw a blue-and-gold-starred line in the sand, let bygones be bygones, and move on.

That is why the GFA and the literal line of the Irish border is so important in all of this. From an Irish perpective, that was our collective decision to move on and was reciprocated by the British. I think even today, few people in England understand how enormously powerful was the image of Queen Elizabeth coming to Ireland, stomping across an Irish field in her green wellies; laying a wreath at our Garden of Rememberance; a woman who had been the very literal target of the IRA for years sitting down to dinner with the Commander in Chief of the paramilitaries who murdered her cousin, killed thousands of her subjects and caused billions of pounds worth of damage to her Kingdom.

And then with one tick in a box, 17.4m voters decided to rip all that reconciliation to shreds ... :mad:

So yeah, if the Brexiteers want to go down the rabbit-hole of "taking back control" as a nineteenth-century independent nation, let's set the record straight and have them also accept responsibility for war crimes and other atrocities committed by Britain on continental soil.

Or they could just get real, burn their fictionalised history books, and join the rest of us in the twenty-first century.

For a start,this is totally off topic.
Secondly,how can anything pertaining to the black and tans(I doubt many brexiteers would know anything about them btw) be compared to WW2?
I don't think there is anyone on this thread who goes on about the UK in WW2 apart from a few Irish posters occasionally-I have in the past but realised it's nothing to do with Brexit and when people like Mark Francois do it i find it embarrassing.

woohoo!!! · 27-02-2019 2:18pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

This seems bizarre - the Tory backbencher Alberto Costa had an amendment on EU citizens' rights that it appeared the government had accepted, yet now he's been sacked from his current position!

Like lots of things Brexit related, this does not seem to make much sense, at least from first viewing.

An Ciarraioch · 27-02-2019 2:24pm

A full article here - pretty much the whole House of Commons appeared to support the amendment:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/27/confusion-reigns-over-brexit-amendment-as-tory-mp-alberto-costa-sacked

WomanSkirtFan8 · 27-02-2019 2:24pm

UsedToWait wrote: »

Good piece by Patrick Kielty in the Guardian - he wasn't someone I'd have predicted to have emerged as a voice of reason from this whole mess..

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/26/hard-brexit-united-ireland-second-referendum-dup?CMP=share_btn_tw

I know. Read that last night and kielty absolutely nailed it.

Christy42 · 27-02-2019 2:26pm

Holding no deal as a card is like trying to play with a beer mat during a hand of poker.

Like seriously. How is holding on to needing to ask us to keep the lights on in a section of their country a card?

If they go with it they will back out in weeks. We know they can't play it long term so it is not a card.

Plus the poker game ended up months ago. No one really cares about their beer mat. Negotiations are over.

Leroy42 · 27-02-2019 2:32pm

Its is a card based on the fact that they really believe that the EU needs them more and that the predictions of a no deal are totally incorrect.

So whilst you see a beer mat, they see the secret brewers card of special powers.

JRM on Sky News yesterday was asked why he would gamble on no deal, and he simply stated it wasn't a gamble since the reports were wrong, just has they had been prior to the vote itself.

prawnsambo · 27-02-2019 2:38pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its is a card based on the fact that they really believe that the EU needs them more and that the predictions of a no deal are totally incorrect.

So whilst you see a beer mat, they see the secret brewers card of special powers.

JRM on Sky News yesterday was asked why he would gamble on no deal, and he simply stated it wasn't a gamble since the reports were wrong, just has they had been prior to the vote itself.

I'm not sure I'd want to trust my funds to a man who has so little grasp of economics.

Leroy42 · 27-02-2019 2:41pm

Per Faisal Islam

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1100749825849593856

It appears that whilst the EU will be happy enough to grant an extension (and whilst it is never stated as such any extension will be a gift from the EU) once there is something tangible planned.

Mark Rutte stated pretty much the same a few days ago.

An Ciarraioch · 27-02-2019 2:46pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Per Faisal Islam

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1100749825849593856

It appears that whilst the EU will be happy enough to grant an extension (and whilst it is never stated as such any extension will be a gift from the EU) once there is something tangible planned.

Mark Rutte stated pretty much the same a few days ago.

Add Pedro Sanchez to the list:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/27/spanish-pm-warns-may-brexit-delay-with-no-plan-not-reasonable-or-desirable

Joe_ Public · 27-02-2019 2:47pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd want to trust my funds to a man who has so little grasp of economics.

Enough of a grasp, though, for his firm to have started moving its funds to dublin as the risk of a no deal brexit grew clearer.

J Mysterio · 27-02-2019 2:47pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A full article here - pretty much the whole House of Commons appeared to support the amendment:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/27/confusion-reigns-over-brexit-amendment-as-tory-mp-alberto-costa-sacked

This is truly bizarre.

Professor Moriarty · 27-02-2019 2:48pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Per Faisal Islam

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1100749825849593856

It appears that whilst the EU will be happy enough to grant an extension (and whilst it is never stated as such any extension will be a gift from the EU) once there is something tangible planned.

Mark Rutte stated pretty much the same a few days ago.

The EU now know they have the upper hand and are keeping May's feet to the fire. When your opponent is in disarray, it's time to finish them off.

An Ciarraioch · 27-02-2019 2:49pm

Helen McEntee seems to be putting in a lot of spade work under the radar - meeting the Latvian Foreign Minister today in Riga:

http://twitter.com/HMcEntee/status/1100683971522895872

Leroy42 · 27-02-2019 2:55pm

OT, but maybe there is someone on here that would be able to say what sort of things are typically discussed at meetings like the one mentioned above. I assume nothing concrete is discussed, its more a meet and great sort of thing.

10000maniacs · 27-02-2019 2:59pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Her brinksmanship position hasn't been shot down at all. In fact, she's shifted into 5th gear. If HOC rejects her deal, rejects no deal, and then votes for her short 3 month extension, then the options of a 2nd referendum, a significant renegotiation (Corbyn's deal) and possibly unilateral revokation of A50 will be gone. If they vote for the short extension, it could essentially lock Brexit into place 100%

It will go from being '3 options, Mays Deal, No Deal, or No Brexit'
to 'Mays Deal or No Deal'

I'm not convinced by your argument that the option for a second referendum is not available anymore if there is an extension to Article 50. Can you explain why you think this is so.

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments