Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread IV

12357331

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The tories, through JRM, had another pop at the business sector yesterday
    “Oh, well they are dismissing the concerns of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the CBI have got everything wrong in the whole of its history.”
    JRM in response to the host asking him about their recent criticism.

    This follows on from IDS claiming in a Daily Mail article that
    “Before World War II, as the historian Andrew Roberts has pointed out, the Federation of British Industries - the forerunner of the CBI - supported both the Gold Standard (which, in its constraints on a government's ability to manage the economy is an instrument of jobs destruction), and the appeasement of Nazi Germany.

    “Between 1937 and 1939, while the Nazis were opening their concentration camps, the FBI oversaw the creation of no fewer than 33 separate agreements between British and German business groups."

    So they appear to have gone full bore against business now.

    So Brexit has led to the denouncement of corporate Britain, the Lords, Judges, Scotland, MP's, the GFA and there is probably more that I can't think of at the moment.

    It's a really staggering state of affairs when people like IDS and JRM (and Boris too I recall) are basically telling business to shut up and just get on preparing for whatever it is that they will eventually decide you have to prepare for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    The tories, through JRM, had another pop at the business sector yesterday

    JRM in response to the host asking him about their recent criticism.

    This follows on from IDS claiming in a Telegraph article that

    So they appear to have gone full bore against business now.

    So Brexit has led to the denouncement of corporate Britain, the Lords, Judges, Scotland, MP's, the GFA and there is probably more that I can't think of at the moment.

    It's a really staggering state of affairs when people like IDS and JRM (and Boris too I recall) are basically telling business to shut up and just get on preparing for whatever it is that they will eventually decide you have to prepare for.

    Look at it this way: JRM, Boris etc KNOW that Brexit will be bad for the economy or for your average punter. They want Brexit for some OTHER reason.

    They can't have it revealed that it will be bad for business/the economy so they all out attack any suggestion of it. That is why Airbus were threatened with nationalisation.

    At all costs the message that Brexit will be disastrous must be subdued until Brexit happens.

    This should actually give people who wish to avoid the disaster hope: Leavers do not believe this is a done deal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,721 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    I think Danny Dyer would be a much better leader of the UK, he makes sense when it comes to Brexit, more than a lot of politicians over there do....

    https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1012439971188310017?s=21


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    @Demfad, what do you think the goal of Brexit is then? Is it just some scheme to crash the pound and the Uk economy so that they can buy cheap (like the funds did in Ireland for example).

    Seems a very risky strategy, and close to treasones I would suggest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,645 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    This follows on from IDS claiming in a Telegraph article that

    So they appear to have gone full bore against business now.

    So Brexit has led to the denouncement of corporate Britain, the Lords, Judges, Scotland, MP's, the GFA and there is probably more that I can't think of at the moment.

    It's a really staggering state of affairs when people like IDS and JRM (and Boris too I recall) are basically telling business to shut up and just get on preparing for whatever it is that they will eventually decide you have to prepare for.

    That article was actually in The Daily Mail.

    IDS accusing the CBI of appeasing the Nazis.

    In the Daily Mail.

    Gold.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    That article was actually in The Daily Mail.

    You are correct, my mistake. The quote I took was directly from the article, so I didn't even spot it when I reread it!


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But if, two-and-a-half years after the Brexit referendum, the UK has not got their act together sufficiently to be able to make a Brexit deal, why would we expect another three or six months to change anything?

    Of course 3 to 6 months is no good - extend it for 5 years.

    Invoking A50 before doing any preparations was clearly nuts - we all know it'll take years to unravel this mess.

    So the EU should give it years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Of course 3 to 6 months is no good - extend it for 5 years.

    Invoking A50 before doing any preparations was clearly nuts - we all know it'll take years to unravel this mess.

    So the EU should give it years.

    So the side to that is what incentive to the EU have to make A50 work? There is the short term impact, particularly on Ireland and some other EU countries, but compare that to the effect such chaos could have in the advancement of Anti-EU sentiment on other countries.

    One of the big issues that the EU has is that if the UK is seen to be more successful outside of the union then the myth of the EU is broken. When something like the banking crisis in Ireland, or the crisis in Greece comes up, people are simply able to state the "fact" that no matter how bad things appear they would be worse off outside of the EU.

    If the EU simply allow the UK to stroll easily away, on their own timetable and helping them to resolve all the issues, then demand to leave the EU will only grow in places like Italy etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Of course 3 to 6 months is no good - extend it for 5 years.

    Invoking A50 before doing any preparations was clearly nuts - we all know it'll take years to unravel this mess.

    So the EU should give it years.

    There is no point in giving it years if we just end up back in the same situation. If the leg need to be amputated , amputate it , no point suffering for 5 years only to end up amputating it then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    1. In light of the state of play presented by the Union negotiator, the European Council
    welcomes the further progress made on parts of the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement.
    The European Council takes note, however, that other important aspects still need to be
    agreed, including the territorial application of the Withdrawal Agreement, notably as regards
    Gibraltar.
    2. The European Council expresses its concern that no substantial progress has yet been
    achieved on agreeing a backstop solution for Ireland/Northern Ireland. It recalls the
    commitments undertaken by the UK in this respect in December 2017 and March 2018, and
    insists on the need for intensified efforts so that the Withdrawal Agreement, including its
    provisions on transition, can be concluded as soon as possible in order to come into effect on
    the date of withdrawal. It recalls that negotiations can only progress as long as all
    commitments undertaken so far are respected in full.
    3. Work must also be accelerated with a view to preparing a political declaration on the
    framework for the future relationship. This requires further clarity as well as realistic and
    workable proposals from the UK as regards its position on the future relationship. The
    European Council reconfirms the principles set out in its guidelines and the position defined
    in March 2018. The European Council recalls that if the UK positions were to evolve, the
    Union will be prepared to reconsider its offer in accordance with the principles stated in the
    guidelines of 29 April and 15 December 2017 as well as of 23 March 2018.
    4. The European Council renews its call upon Member States, Union institutions and all
    stakeholders to step up their work on preparedness at all levels and for all outcomes.


    After all the talk of June being the big crunch meeting. It turns out to be a 1 page press release of the EU restating it's position and saying to UK the ball is in your court.

    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35966/29-euco-art50-conclusions-en.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So the side to that is what incentive to the EU have to make A50 work?

    If the UK crashes out, it will cost everyone in the EU cash money. I see no reason why the EU should allow the worst, most expensive Brexit - an uncontrolled crashout, if the alternative is simply to extend current arrangements and smooth out the transition so that it costs the EU less and does less damage to the EU.

    I am aware that this can only happen if the UK asks for it, but we can all plainly see that they are not ready to crash out, and they must know it themselves. IF they call for some can-kicking, of course the EU should facilitate it.

    As for the idea that we should kick the UK when they are down as an example to others, no, we should not. We should not give them any special deals making leaving more attractive than staying, but punishing them simply for leaving the club via established club rules? No - instead we should make the transition as smooth as possible, and welcome them back in a decade or two when they realize what an insane mistake they have made.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    If the UK crashes out, it will cost everyone in the EU cash money. I see no reason why the EU should allow the worst, most expensive Brexit - an uncontrolled crashout, if the alternative is simply to extend current arrangements and smooth out the transition so that it costs the EU less and does less damage to the EU.

    The EU cannot cause or prevent the UK crashing out, this is only something the UK can control. So far they have not done what is necessary to prevent a crash brexit. Extending Article 50 will only prolong the amount of time it takes the crash to happen, which in itself is worse. If the UK can do what is necessary to prevent a crash brexit, they will do it by the end of the year. If they cannot, giving them more time will simply see them fail to do what is necessary over a longer time frame. This is not in the EU's interest. If there was any reason to think that an extension will allow the UK to agree an acceptable deal before the new deadline, then an extension is useful. If not, then an extension is pointless. A crash brexit in 2024 is no better than a crash brexit in 2019. All you do is prolong the damaging uncertainty before it happens.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,991 ✭✭✭ambro25


    <...>

    4. The European Council renews its call upon Member States, Union institutions and all stakeholders to step up their work on preparedness at all levels and for all outcomes.
    After all the talk of June being the big crunch meeting. It turns out to be a 1 page press release of the EU restating it's position and saying to UK the ball is in your court.
    Uh...my reading of it is that, in diplo-speak, it’s rather more than a hard slap: this ‘1 page press release’ effectively calls out the U.K. on its serial back-pedalling about negotiated commitments to its face, whilst warning all stakeholders (re. kept paragraph and bit in bold) that it’s ready to let the U.K. crash out on its arse.

    The detailed quoting of earlier positions with date is the EU manoeuvring in its ‘disclaiming basis’ (if U.K. crashes out, EU can point to clear and unambiguous series of fully-referenced steps and warnings = no objective basis whatsoever for U.K.outcome to be blamed on EU ‘intransigence’, rather it’s the U.K.’s fault for not sticking to its word).

    Accessorily, these also pave the way for the EU27 to justify telling the U.K. to go swing for an Article 50 extension, because they demonstrate lack of good faith by the U.K.

    Were I in the UK government, and a rational thinker, I would take this ‘1 page press release’ for exactly what it is: my final warning.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,246 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    If the UK crashes out, it will cost everyone in the EU cash money. I see no reason why the EU should allow the worst, most expensive Brexit - an uncontrolled crashout, if the alternative is simply to extend current arrangements and smooth out the transition so that it costs the EU less and does less damage to the EU.

    I am aware that this can only happen if the UK asks for it, but we can all plainly see that they are not ready to crash out, and they must know it themselves. IF they call for some can-kicking, of course the EU should facilitate it.

    As for the idea that we should kick the UK when they are down as an example to others, no, we should not. We should not give them any special deals making leaving more attractive than staying, but punishing them simply for leaving the club via established club rules? No - instead we should make the transition as smooth as possible, and welcome them back in a decade or two when they realize what an insane mistake they have made.
    The transition has been made as smooth as possible with EU showing every card, every decision, every route possible and it's implications up front; the problem is UK wants to keep all the benefits while leaving and refuses to let go of that fantasy. If you keep extending their time all you do is show them that it will be possible for them to get their way and that deadlines set by the EU are meaningless. This is before you go into topics such as how UK funding needs to be recalculated, the 2021 budget etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Uh...my reading of it is that, in diplo-speak, it’s rather more than a hard slap: this ‘1 page press release’ effectively calls out the U.K. on its serial back-pedalling about negotiated commitments to its face, whilst warning all stakeholders (re. kept paragraph and bit in bold) that it’s ready to let the U.K. crash out on its arse.

    There has been so much talk in the UK about convincing the EU that the threat of a no-deal Brexit is real and that the UK is willing to walk away if they don't get what they want. They expect the EU to soften its stance if they believe there will be no-deal otherwise. The analogy they use is the car salesman who changes his tune if you start walking out of the showroom.

    The EU are calling the UK's bluff. This is the EU saying: "Ok, we believe you. We accept that there may be no-deal and are preparing for that outcome. Now, about that backstop."


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    @Demfad, what do you think the goal of Brexit is then? Is it just some scheme to crash the pound and the Uk economy so that they can buy cheap (like the funds did in Ireland for example).

    Seems a very risky strategy, and close to treasones I would suggest.

    The only model that could keep some kind of economy afloat after a hard Brexit is the low tax low regulation one. The Billionaire class particularly the dodgier kind will make a killing. Why else do they want to be outside Customs and Regulatory Unions?

    Look at top Brexiteer Lord Ashcroft suggesting uber dodgy Malta as a port in the storm during Brexit.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/29/lord-ashcroft-praises-malta-as-base-for-uk-business-during-brexit


    As regards fluctuations in currency this wouldn't exactly be new to Brexiteers.
    Farage and his chums made a killing on the night of the referendum when Farage condeded defeat twice (first was 4 minutes after polling closed) while he already knew a survation poll had leave at 52:48.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/brexit-big-short-how-pollsters-helped-hedge-funds-beat-the-crash

    These guys care about controlling the rules to suit themselves. Same in the US, same in Russia.

    The slogan 'take back control' is not really all about taking back control from the EU.
    It is about taking any control the EU had back, and using the power to take control from the rest of the UK population to make money for themselves and their ilk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Uh...my reading of it is that, in diplo-speak, it’s rather more than a hard slap: this ‘1 page press release’ effectively calls out the U.K. on its serial back-pedalling about negotiated commitments to its face, whilst warning all stakeholders (re. kept paragraph and bit in bold) that it’s ready to let the U.K. crash out on its arse.
    Indeed, plus I was watching a live thread of the meeting and one thing to note is that the Council had originally planned 2h15m for the Art50 section but in the end, it took them less than 10 minutes to agree to adopt the conclusions. No dissent, no discussion required, just unilateral agreement.

    Compare that to the migration discussions which took 10+ hours and went on until 3am last night. The UK has not gained themselves any allies at all in the entire 2 years of this process.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,664 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Were I in the UK government, and a rational thinker ...


    :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:



    Sorry :o

    If the UK crashes out, it will cost everyone in the EU cash money.


    It's costing everyone in the EU money right now, as governments and businesses put contingency arrangements in place. On paper, it's "nothing much" for an airline to add a "Brexit clause" to their Ts & Cs, but a lawyer somewhere had to be paid to make the ammendment. Similarly, the one-line statement that CoL-Bank has narrowed down it choice to Dublin, Frankfurt and Milan hides the cost of researching what office space will cost, what IT services are available, how logistically feasible would be a move, etc.



    As has been mentioned by others, at this time, there is nothing to indicate that the UK has either the interest or the competence to negotiate any kind of withdrawal agreement or transitional deal. They can't even publish a white paper on time, so where is that talent going to appear from if we give them another five years?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,845 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Ambro25 is spot on above. Uses of words like MUST and discussing "all outcomes" is a siren wailing in diplo-speak .



    Something different . Text of the passed EU Withdrawal bill
    Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
    (1)In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—
    (a)act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and
    (b)have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
    (2)Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which—
    (a)diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
    (b)create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    The EU are calling the UK's bluff. This is the EU saying: "Ok, we believe you. We accept that there may be no-deal and are preparing for that outcome. Now, about that backstop."

    There will be no backstop if there is no deal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,664 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    create or facilitate border arrangements ... which feature physical infrastructure ... that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.


    Hmm. So if there is an agreement, then new infrastructure is on the cards.

    That would be entirely logical, it being an EU external frontier, but not quite the "no hard border" guarantee that it was lauded in the reports on the day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Blowfish wrote: »
    Indeed, plus I was watching a live thread of the meeting and one thing to note is that the Council had originally planned 2h15m for the Art50 section but in the end, it took them less than 10 minutes to agree to adopt the conclusions. No dissent, no discussion required, just unilateral agreement.

    Compare that to the migration discussions which took 10+ hours and went on until 3am last night. The UK has not gained themselves any allies at all in the entire 2 years of this process.
    The Daily Express etc. have been making hay about the EU needing a whole 10+ hours of deliberation to make solid progress on a major issue facing the continent. I mean it's surreal...their own cabinet hasn't been able to make progress on Brexit in 10+ months (actually much longer). That the EU can knock an agreement out after 10 hours is a compliment. It's actually really fast.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    Hmm. So if there is an agreement, then new infrastructure is on the cards.

    That would be entirely logical, it being an EU external frontier, but not quite the "no hard border" guarantee that it was lauded in the reports on the day.

    The very purpose of an agreement would be to avoid physical infrastructure, the wording is legalese for "before and after B-Day".


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    Faisal Islam considers the Irish paragraph to state that unless the backstop is codified, then the transition period cannot apply:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1012652968091488256


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    I agree. The UK seem to be of the view that the December Agreement is only an agreement in principle, except for the past about the transition.

    My impression is that they have already taken the transition as a given, so technically leave happens in Mar 19, but in reality they have until Dec 2020.

    But that is not my reading of it. Why do the UK seem to think that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" except for the transition?

    Or am I reading it wrong and the transition is a separate thing?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    Meanwhile, Peter Foster, of the Telegraph, believes a "No Deal" Brexit is becoming increasingly likely:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1012636845774114820


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    Rather alarming exchange between Labour MEP Seb Dance and veteran Eurosceptic Bernard Jenkin:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/SebDance/status/1012444419100901376


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,845 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Rather alarming exchange between Labour MEP Seb Dance and veteran Eurosceptic Bernard Jenkin:


    ERG want out ASAP

    Hard Border is easiest from their ( crappy, ideological, mental-as-fk) point of view as it means no CU, no rules

    Ergo - ERG want a hard border - no surprise.

    Watching Question Time last night Clive Lewis Labour and Suella Braverman - all she was interested in was cheap points .


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    Rather alarming exchange between Labour MEP Seb Dance and veteran Eurosceptic Bernard Jenkin:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/SebDance/status/1012444419100901376

    It's hardily a surprise, they would like to have their cake and eat it, but failing that they just want out to the greatest extend possible and damn the consequences for Britain.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,991 ✭✭✭ambro25


    With apologies for the ‘pause’ in the flow of conversation, today I’ve been mulling a bit about a spat with Mrs ambro25 last night, over my cheering the Belgian goal (she’s Brit, for decades we’d been supporting the UK or France).

    I’ve been trying to express to her how I feel deep down, but I’m not big on emotional expansion ‘and stuff’, so I was mulling and browsing, and came across this book.

    I’ve only started it, but already I heartily recommend it to anyone, Leaver or Remainer or “undecided/don’t care” alike, for an insight into the human dimension of Brexit, still mostly out of the whole debate.

    It’s spot on, and ‘gets’ the correct feels. Right between the eyes.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement