dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 15, 2018 12:38:59 GMT
In a no deal scenario we would be fully outside the EU, with tariffs and no free movement. A hard border between Eire and Northern Ireland follows directly from that, otherwise it opens a back door for avoiding the restrictions on free movement, which would be hugely unpopular with the anti-immigration folk who swung the Brexit vote for Leave. Plus it would be open house for the criminal avoidance of tariffs which was, historically, a major source of funds for paramilitaries on both sides. Nobody should want that. Free movement is not even in issue it is already virtually guaranteed even under no deal - the issue is tariffs and (I assume) NI/UK would not charge any tariffs to EU/ROI. If ROI are forced to charge tariffs to UK then once again that would be a ridiculous "shot in foot" decision taken elsewhere, by un-elected people that are neither British nor Irish, and would not last very long.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,523
Likes: 2,666
|
Post by cb25 on Nov 15, 2018 12:40:36 GMT
...Rather than see this as a Brexit vs Remain argument, I see this as the voters chose Leave, but the political classes (both sides) want to Remain... Yes, but there's no evidence that the electorate voted for a hard Brexit. No doubt some of them did, but the things that swung the vote narrowly in favour of Leave were (1) immigration, and (2) the false promises of a have-your-cake-and-eat-it Brexit. The proposed deal delivers on immigration and delivers on Brexit, albeit a softer Brexit than many (but still a minority) would want. Given the amount of effort and money that the government of the day spent telling the population why we should stay (and got their friends in the IMF etc. to parrot the same line), I think the 52% was lower than it would have been if the government had been at all impartial.
May's government has all along let the EU dictate terms. No surprise to me as she's a Remainer. If it takes a 'no deal' to shake the EU up, so be it.
Edit: 15/11/18 @ 16.57 - now 7.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Nov 15, 2018 13:52:43 GMT
In a no deal scenario we would be fully outside the EU, with tariffs and no free movement. A hard border between Eire and Northern Ireland follows directly from that, otherwise it opens a back door for avoiding the restrictions on free movement, which would be hugely unpopular with the anti-immigration folk who swung the Brexit vote for Leave. Plus it would be open house for the criminal avoidance of tariffs which was, historically, a major source of funds for paramilitaries on both sides. Nobody should want that. Free movement is not even in issue it is already virtually guaranteed even under no deal - the issue is tariffs and (I assume) NI/UK would not charge any tariffs to EU/ROI. If ROI are forced to charge tariffs to UK then once again that would be a ridiculous "shot in foot" decision taken elsewhere, by un-elected people that are neither British nor Irish, and would not last very long. I think you are mistaken on free movement, but so be it. As regards tariffs, if the rest of the EU charges tariffs to the UK then so must the ROI. Otherwise, unless a hard border was introduced between the ROI and the rest of the EU (which is not going to happen), Ireland would become a conduit for the avoidance of tariffs, with UK exports to the rest of the EU being passed through Ireland en route. The same applies to rules on product standards etc. And before you suggest that the whole of the EU could drop tariffs for the UK, if they did so then the WTO most favoured nation rules would require the EU to drop tariffs for everybody. That's never going to happen. Unless the EU decides to abandon the Good Friday agreement and sell Ireland down the river (which they won't), the EU won't let "no deal" happen. They will extend Article 50 for as long as it takes until a deal is done. There's a majority in Parliament for that too, although Labour may prefer to play games and try to force an election which they would probably win (not a prospect that fills me with joy). Any real world deal will look very like the one on offer today, because that's what the real world constrains it to be. Most of the cabinet understands that. I think most of the backbenchers probably do too, but that won't stop them making life as difficult as possible. This morning I thought they'd swallow hard and vote for the proposal. Now I'm not so sure. I think a lot would rather lose an election and let Labour do the deal, so they have someone else to blame.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Nov 15, 2018 14:00:37 GMT
3. I don't recall a single mention of the Irish border issue during the campaign on the mainland. I do. John Major and Tony Blair campaigning together. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/tony-blair-and-john-major-brexit-would-close-irish-borderNorthern Ireland first minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster said she found the intervention "rather sad". She told journalists "I do find it rather disgraceful for two prime ministers who know full well the importance of the peace process here in Northern Ireland to come over here and suggest that a vote in a particular direction is going to undermine that". (BBC 9/6/16)
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 15, 2018 15:15:52 GMT
Yes, but there's no evidence that the electorate voted for a hard Brexit. No doubt some of them did, but the things that swung the vote narrowly in favour of Leave were (1) immigration, and (2) the false promises of a have-your-cake-and-eat-it Brexit. The proposed deal delivers on immigration and delivers on Brexit, albeit a softer Brexit than many (but still a minority) would want. Given the amount of effort and money that the government of the day spent telling the population why we should stay (and got their friends in the IMF etc. to parrot the same line), I think the 52% was lower than it would have been if the government had been at all impartial.
May's government has all along let the EU dictate terms. No surprise to me as she's a Remainer. If it takes a 'no deal' to shake the EU up, so be it.
Why should the government have been impartial? It viewed remain as in the country's best interest. Why it called a referendum to risk an outcome it didn't favour is another issue that has everything to do with party politics and trying to win UKIP votes.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 15, 2018 15:33:36 GMT
I know a few owners of small family owned manufacturing and trading businesses on both sides of the brexit divide. Their over-riding concern is the uncertainty not the actual terms of the deal - they will adapt as required.
Investment decisions ideally need to be made with a view to depreciating that investment over a 20 to 25 year period. One of those business owners I know would like to invest in new equipment and jobs if he had certainty of frictionless trade with EU, whilst another would do likewise if he felt confident of a UK-USA trade deal at some future point that wouldn't be thrown off course by a EU-USA trade war. Neither would "throw their current toys out of the pram" if the brexit solution doesn't meet their hopes / dreams. But neither are prepared to invest whilst uncertainty prevails, and both have benefited from the fall in GBP over the last 2 years, and would like to see a GBP value that corresponds to GBP:EUR parity sooner rather than later. It makes exports more competitively priced, and stimulates internal demand (for manufactured goods) vs imports.
I haven't spoken to either particularly recently, but it seems to me that this draft brexit agreement does nothing to satisfy their need for some certainty over the basic shape of the UK's trading relationship with the EU or countries such as the USA over the next 25 years.
FWIW I suspect there will be a confidence motion in the PM, which she will win but be very badly damaged. Where we go from there is anyones guess.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,523
Likes: 2,666
|
Post by cb25 on Nov 15, 2018 15:54:42 GMT
Given the amount of effort and money that the government of the day spent telling the population why we should stay (and got their friends in the IMF etc. to parrot the same line), I think the 52% was lower than it would have been if the government had been at all impartial.
May's government has all along let the EU dictate terms. No surprise to me as she's a Remainer. If it takes a 'no deal' to shake the EU up, so be it.
Why should the government have been impartial? It viewed remain as in the country's best interest. Why it called a referendum to risk an outcome it didn't favour is another issue that has everything to do with party politics and trying to win UKIP votes. Accept that. Perhaps 'impartial' was the wrong word, as I should have said 'truthful' (rather than the numerous "the sky will fall in the day after the country votes to Leave").
As to the reason for the referendum - there were growing calls for a referendum across the political spectrum (despite the likes of the Guardian and its readers suggesting it's a right-wing only thing), with UKIP being only the most obvious voice. Politically, Cameron had little choice but to call a referendum. Not going so would have caused the Conservatives to lose votes and likely the election to Labour. No real surprise that politicians do things for political reason, shades of "does what it says on the tin".
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,523
Likes: 2,666
|
Post by cb25 on Nov 15, 2018 16:54:23 GMT
Who'd trust a politician (rhetorical):
Justice Minister Rory Stewart has apologised after making up a Brexit statistic whilst on BBC Radio 5 Live.
Speaking with Emma Barnett, he claimed 80 per cent of the British public supported the prime minister’s Brexit deal.
Pressed by Emma as to where he had got the information, he said: “I’m producing a number to illustrate what I believe”.
He later added, “I totally apologise and I take that back.”
|
|
|
Post by charlata on Nov 15, 2018 18:11:41 GMT
Trading under WTO rules is not currently an available option. A multitude of WTO countries, both big and small, have queued up behind Moldova to ensure that the UK's entry to the organisation would be slow. If the UK were to leave the EU with no deal, it would not only have no trade agreement with the EU, it would have no deal with any other country in the world. How much longer do we have to listen to people advocating 'no deal'?
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,459
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by travolta on Nov 15, 2018 18:13:50 GMT
No... us older Brits, with a greater perspective of life experience, voted to leave to escape a corrupt, sclerotic, talking shop with layers of restrictive practice and to strive for the sunlight uplands, rebuilding our trade and industry . Just say no and go. It was never in our interest to join a hide bound union in the first place.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Nov 15, 2018 18:15:33 GMT
3. I don't recall a single mention of the Irish border issue during the campaign on the mainland. I do. John Major and Tony Blair campaigning together. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/tony-blair-and-john-major-brexit-would-close-irish-borderNorthern Ireland first minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster said she found the intervention "rather sad". She told journalists "I do find it rather disgraceful for two prime ministers who know full well the importance of the peace process here in Northern Ireland to come over here and suggest that a vote in a particular direction is going to undermine that". (BBC 9/6/16) Well remembered, but I think my point stands. Although they are mainland politicians, they were campaigning in Derry!
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 6,020
|
Post by registerme on Nov 15, 2018 18:25:09 GMT
Any deal other than a "hard Brexit" (which would be catastrophic) was always going to be a shabby compromise that would disappoint pretty much everybody.
As it stands the only silver lining I can see is that it's possible it will result in the DUP becoming politically extinct.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Nov 15, 2018 18:37:05 GMT
Trading under WTO rules is not currently an available option. A multitude of WTO countries, both big and small, have queued up behind Moldova to ensure that the UK's entry to the organisation would be slow. If the UK were to leave the EU with no deal, it would not only have no trade agreement with the EU, it would have no deal with any other country in the world. How much longer do we have to listen to people advocating 'no deal'?
That's sort of right. To be precise, Britain "was, is and will remain a member of the WTO" (see briefingsforbrexit.com/can-the-uk-rejoin-world-trade-organization-a-response-from-wto/) but reaching agreement with all WTO members would take time. See www.ft.com/content/4f0ea43e-a77e-11e8-926a-7342fe5e173f which discusses further. If the FT link from here does not work, google "WTO warns on disruption to UK of no-deal Brexit" and follow the link from there.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 15, 2018 18:37:53 GMT
Any deal other than a "hard Brexit" (which would be catastrophic) was always going to be a shabby compromise that would disappoint pretty much everybody. As it stands the only silver lining I can see is that it's possible it will result in the DUP becoming politically extinct. Her deal IS a hard brexit (exiting CU and SM). It's just the wrong type of hard brexit for the unicornists and opportunists who really want the hardest, no deal variety. No parliament will ever sanction a no deal Brexit, so it's soft Brexit (CU +/- SM) (holding out the possibility of negotiating Canada+++ in the future from a position of strength) or no Brexit.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 15, 2018 18:39:35 GMT
Trading under WTO rules is not currently an available option. A multitude of WTO countries, both big and small, have queued up behind Moldova to ensure that the UK's entry to the organisation would be slow. If the UK were to leave the EU with no deal, it would not only have no trade agreement with the EU, it would have no deal with any other country in the world. How much longer do we have to listen to people advocating 'no deal'?
For as long as the media gives them disproportionate and unwarranted airtime in the name of faux balance.
|
|