Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Touring Mars]

This is basically my point, but worded more coherently.

Brexit benefits literally no-one (bar the small elite), but the damage has already been done to the UK. The EU stands nothing to gain from a no-deal Brexit and so, my feeling/thought is that once this comes to ahead we will get a vote and Art.50 we be retracted.

That's about the opposite of what I took Famine's post to mean - by requesting an extension or even retraction of Article 50, the UK loses its sole source of leverage against the EU. The only method by which the UK can benefit from Brexit is if the EU are forced to move, and that means not retracting Article 50.

When all is said and done, the main motivation of the EU is that the UK does not gain a competitive advantage over the EU by leaving - the UK would gain a huge advantage by being allowed to trade with the EU as it does today but also strike its own international trade deals, hence why the EU won't allow that to happen. The EU are, therefore, making it impossible for the UK to trade with the EU on its current terms in the hope that the UK capitulates and abandons Brexit, but once Brexit becomes inevitable/irreversible (and I'd argue that it pretty much already is), then there are no good outcomes left for the EU, only less bad ones.

 

[baldgye]

That's about the opposite of what I took Famine's post to mean - by requesting an extension or even retraction of Article 50, the UK loses its sole source of leverage against the EU. The only method by which the UK can benefit from Brexit is if the EU are forced to move, and that means not retracting Article 50.

I don't think, there is any situation in which the UK can benefit from Brexit.
But I guess the situation in his final paragraph would be under the assumption on no vote, no rebelling by MP's etc and that it's no-deal regardless...

When all is said and done, the main motivation of the EU is that the UK does not gain a competitive advantage over the EU by leaving - the UK would gain a huge advantage by being allowed to trade with the EU as it does today but also strike its own international trade deals, hence why the EU won't allow that to happen.

I don't agree to this, on any basis.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I don't think, there is any situation in which the UK can benefit from Brexit.
But I guess the situation in his final paragraph would be under the assumption on no vote, no rebelling by MP's etc and that it's no-deal regardless...




I don't agree to this, on any basis.

Care to explain your lack of agreement on any basis?

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't agree to this, on any basis.

Well, that was really more a statement of plain fact as it was an opinion. Indeed, the EU guidelines clearly state that a Brexit deal will only be satisfactory if there are guarantees of a 'level playing field' - in order words, no competitive advantage gained by the UK.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/33458/23-euco-art50-guidelines.pdf

There are many ways that Brexit could be advantageous to the UK, but the trouble is that those advantages largely come at the expense of the EU, which is why the EU will not agree to conditions by which they can arise - unless they have no other choice.

 

[baldgye]

Well, that was really more a statement of plain fact as it was an opinion. Indeed, the EU guidelines clearly state that a Brexit deal will only be satisfactory if there are guarantees of a 'level playing field' - in order words, no competitive advantage gained by the UK.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/33458/23-euco-art50-guidelines.pdf

There are many ways that Brexit could be advantageous to the UK, but the trouble is that those advantages largely come at the expense of the EU, which is why the EU will not agree to conditions by which they can arise - unless they have no other choice.

I don’t agree with the notion that the U.K. could gain, by leaving the EU on the basis of trade.

Though I do agree that it’s in the EU’s interest politically to make the U.K. worse off, however I’m not sure that this is their actual aim. Rather a method in order for us to not leave...

Sorry I quoted the whole section rather than the bit I wanted (iOS text selection isn’t always the best)

Edit @Tired Tyres hope that clears it up a bit

 

[Touring Mars]

So, today is the day that the Brexit train is likely to come off the rails and both the UK and EU stick to their guns on the Irish backstop issue.

Michel Barnier said last night that the EU are willing to extend the transition period by one year in order to reassure people that the Irish backstop should never need to be used, and cited this as an example of how the EU is being "flexible". However, it is not really the 'flexibility' that the situation demands - someone has to change their view on the Irish backstop, not merely the timeline surrounding how and when it may come into effect.

In essence, the EU are proposing to extend the transition period such that a trade deal can be done before the end of 2021 (instead of 2020) that avoids the need for a hard border in Ireland - but the (major) difficulty with this is that any possible trade deal with the EU will be contingent upon accepting the (unacceptable) backstop proposed by the EU in advance - hence, there's no point in extending the negotiation period if the terms of even starting the negotiations cannot be accepted!

Notwithstanding the fact that extending the transition period from 21 months to 33 will infuriate Leave voters, it will also mean an increase to the UK's 'Brexit bill' (like the beer Mo brought Homer in the hospital, 'that extra year ain't free you know...') and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union (and with it the Free Movement of People) until December 2021, in exchange for an extension to a negotiation that may never start. By making the trade deal negotiations contingent upon a pre-acceptance of the EU's Irish backstop proposals, they are making it impossible for the UK to negotiate a trade deal at all. As a consequence, far from making the Irish backstop 'something that should never need to be used', it will be something that is unavoidable, and, worse still, in the absence of a trade deal that resolves the situation to the satisfaction of both sides, it will also be irreversible. This is precisely why the UK cannot accept the EU's backstop proposal in the first place.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Thanks for that @Touring Mars it's all getting a bit too complicated to follow, especially if you're not a native English speaker and the word "backstop" means nothing to you (other than "stopping at the back" ).

To others like me, following with curiosity (and a bit of fascination, I admit) this significant moment in history, here's a summary I could understand … I think!

https://news.sky.com/story/what-will-happen-at-moment-of-truth-brexit-summit-who-knows-11527552

 

[Touring Mars]

Thanks for that @Touring Mars it's all getting a bit too complicated to follow, especially if you're not a native English speaker and the word "backstop" means nothing to you (other than "stopping at the back" ).

It's not a commonly used word here either - in this instance it literally means a 'fall back' default option that will automatically kick in unless something else is put in place - both sides describe it as an insurance policy.

The UK and the EU have already formally agreed to the implementation of a backstop, and this is why the EU side (Ireland in particular) are now saying that 'the UK must honour what it has already agreed to' - but, they are omitting to mention a vital point - the UK has agreed to a backstop, but it is the nature of the backstop that is being disputed. The EU's version of the backstop - which many people in the EU appear to believe the UK has agreed to (which is categorically untrue) is unacceptable to the UK.

To be clear, the EU's backstop is that Northern Ireland alone remains in the Single Market and Customs Union, thus creating a Customs border between the rest of the UK and Northern Ireland i.e. a Customs border inside the UK. The UK's backstop is that the whole of the UK remains in the Single Market and Customs Union until a free trade deal with the EU is agreed, thus avoiding a hard border in Ireland and, crucially, avoiding a Customs border between NI and the rUK too.

In fairness, there are major problems with both solutions - the UK's stance is perfectly understandable - imposing a Customs border inside a sovereign state would be totally unprecedented, and would be tantamount to breaking up a nation state. Also, the idea of a Customs border between NI and the rUK has been unanimously rejected by the UK parliament - not a single MP of any party voted in favour of it. It will never happen.

But, the UK's backstop solution has an (obvious) problem - what happens after the transition period (of continued Single Market access)? In some way or another, there must be Customs checks imposed between Ireland and NI, and simply agreeing on a new free trade deal doesn't resolve that issue - neither does walking away without a deal at all. The solution, it would appear, is that until a technological solution that can be acceptable to the UK parliament is implemented, then the whole of the UK will stay in the EU.

I think the crucial point is that the UK cannot and will not ever accept the current EU position, but as long as that is the case, the UK is effectively stuck in the EU. Cynics might point out that this is the aim of the EU all along - to frustrate Brexit and keep the UK inside the Single Market by hook or by crook, but I don't see this as a tenable situation... it is more likely that frustrating Brexit in this manner will cause the UK government to collapse and be replaced with a much harder line Euroskeptic government, and then where does that leave us?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Between a rock and a hard place?

 

[baldgye]

If the government implodes, does that give us a hard-line no-deal kind of Brexit Tories, or will it fracture in half? The Mogg cabal are the most vocal and vitriolic at the moment, but do they have the support of the majority of the party and could Bojo ever actually be elected leader of the Tories?

I don't think Labour could stand up the pressure of running for a GE before any Brexit plan had been agreed or carried out...



Also looks like delaying of Brexit is now inevitable?

 

[UKMikey]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...l-twitter-conservative-politics-a8597051.html

"The jibe was directed at the sick boy's father instead" has to be the least convincing attempt at mitigation I've heard all week but "Bollocks To Brexit" is an amusing slogan given the recent discussion of the phrase's use on this thread.

 

[baldgye]

View attachment 776094 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...l-twitter-conservative-politics-a8597051.html

"The jibe was directed at the sick boy's father instead" has to be the least convincing mitigation I've heard all week but "Bollocks To Brexit" is an amusing slogan given the recent discussion of the phrase's use on this thread.

Prior to said discussion I came into the possession of around 200 Bollocks to Brexit stickers... but I hadn’t until last week when ever that story broke, been aware of a fluorescent beanie!

 

[UKMikey]

Prior to said discussion I came into the possession of around 200 Bollocks to Brexit stickers... but I hadn’t until last week when ever that story broke, been aware of a fluorescent beanie!

I wouldn't wear one to a job interview

 

[baldgye]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...money-remain-poll-boris-johnson-a8603646.html

So it’s, almost like, lying and cheating works?

 

[Touring Mars]

Brexiteers are like dogs and children - it's time to start worrying about what they are doing when everything goes quiet...

 

[Touring Mars]

Unfortunate typo in today's Telegraph - spot the superfluous w...

edit: ... fixed now...

 

[Famine]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...money-remain-poll-boris-johnson-a8603646.html

So it’s, almost like, lying and cheating works?

The thing is... the bus was never a lie. It was simplistic, and inaccurate under scrutiny, but, grossly*, not a lie.

For clarity, here is the bus:

​

That's made up of two statements (although I'd have put a semi-colon between them). The first is that we send the EU £350m a week. The second is "let's fund our NHS instead". I suppose "Let's take back control" is a third, but not necessarily relevant.

The problem here is that people infer that - and it certainly seems to imply that, without the semi-colon, or a capital L - instead of sending £350m a week to the EU, we could give it to the NHS. The notion that the bus is a lie springs from that inferral/implication - and a lot of people remember the bus, inaccurately, as saying that we can send £350m a week to the NHS if we stop sending it to the EU. We can't do that, because if we stopped sending the EU £350m a week gross, we'd stop getting the rebate back from the EU - our net contribution to the EU is near to half of that figure because of the rebate. The net contribution falls further when you consider things like EU grants to projects in the UK which contribute to our GDP but we'd then have to fund ourselves or cancel - although that gets a bit fuzzy; how much of an EU grant is UK money coming back to the UK that the UK could have spent in the first place?

But ultimately we do send £350m a week to the EU, or thereabouts. That line isn't a lie because it's the gross figure. The statement "We send the EU £350 million a week" is completely accurate. Think of your own electricity bill; you send £100 a month gross to your electricity provider and then every year they tell you that you've overpaid and give you £120 back. You've sent them £90 a month net, but when your bank asks why you're £10 overdrawn each month, because you're sending £100 to the electricity company, you can't say "THAT'S A TORY LIE BECAUSE IT'S ONLY £90 WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE REBATE SO I'M NOT OVERDRAWN NET!"

The "lie" is that we could stop and spend it on the NHS instead - which the bus doesn't actually say anywhere on it.

*See what I did there?

 

[baldgye]

The thing is... the bus was never a lie. It was simplistic, and inaccurate under scrutiny, but, grossly*, not a lie.

For clarity, here is the bus:

​

That's made up of two statements (although I'd have put a semi-colon between them). The first is that we send the EU £350m a week. The second is "let's fund our NHS instead". I suppose "Let's take back control" is a third, but not necessarily relevant.

The problem here is that people infer that - and it certainly seems to imply that, without the semi-colon, or a capital L - instead of sending £350m a week to the EU, we could give it to the NHS. The notion that the bus is a lie springs from that inferral/implication - and a lot of people remember the bus, inaccurately, as saying that we can send £350m a week to the NHS if we stop sending it to the EU. We can't do that, because if we stopped sending the EU £350m a week gross, we'd stop getting the rebate back from the EU - our net contribution to the EU is near to half of that figure because of the rebate. The net contribution falls further when you consider things like EU grants to projects in the UK which contribute to our GDP but we'd then have to fund ourselves or cancel - although that gets a bit fuzzy; how much of an EU grant is UK money coming back to the UK that the UK could have spent in the first place?

But ultimately we do send £350m a week to the EU, or thereabouts. That line isn't a lie because it's the gross figure. The statement "We send the EU £350 million a week" is completely accurate. Think of your own electricity bill; you send £100 a month gross to your electricity provider and then every year they tell you that you've overpaid and give you £120 back. You've sent them £90 a month net, but when your bank asks why you're £10 overdrawn each month, because you're sending £100 to the electricity company, you can't say "THAT'S A TORY LIE BECAUSE IT'S ONLY £90 WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE REBATE SO I'M NOT OVERDRAWN NET!"

The "lie" is that we could stop and spend it on the NHS instead - which the bus doesn't actually say anywhere on it.

*See what I did there?

While you are technically right*, the reality was that this was the prop for the politicians to then further the notion that this 350m a week could go directly into the NHS, and save it.

*ofc we don't actually send 350m a week

 

[Famine]

While you are technically right*, the reality was that this was the prop for the politicians to then further the notion that this 350m a week could go directly into the NHS, and save it.

Maybe - but politicians being vague in order to make people thing one thing or another is... politics.

*ofc we don't actually send 350m a week

Indeed, it's a variable value and can be both higher and lower. And it all gets a bit wonky because of when the rebate is issued - but the claim on the bus wasn't fundamentally inaccurate. It's an easy target now because everyone remembers the bus saying we could fund the NHS to the tune of £350m a week if it wasn't for sending that cash to the EU, even though it didn't. And loathe though I am to use the phrase, those outlets that report on it as if it did are peddling... flake pews.

 

[baldgye]

Maybe - but politicians being vague in order to make people thing one thing or another is... politics.

They perpetuated a falsehood (350m a week is going to the EU) and presented it under the context of being beneficial (that money being able to be redirected to the NHS), only if they did as they said (voted to leave).

The whole notion is bollocks, it's a lie upon a lie.

I guess I draw the line at it being just politics when the only move here is for a small group of people to become even more wealthy and powerful and the rest of the country can literally rot. But maybe that's just me?

 

[Famine]

They perpetuated a falsehood (350m a week is going to the EU)

... which isn't technically false.

and presented it under the context of being beneficial (that money being able to be redirected to the NHS), only if they did as they said (voted to leave).

... and that's pretty much every election pledge in the last all of time.

The whole notion is bollocks, it's a lie upon a lie.

I guess I draw the line at it being just politics when the only move here is for a small group of people to become even more wealthy and powerful and the rest of the country can literally rot. But maybe that's just me?

It's not "just politics", it's the top and bottom of politics. Pretty much everything you can think of happened because the politicians who tabled it, debated it and voted for it were incentivised in some way or other by the people it benefits financially.

Looking at Brexit, there's plenty of reason to suppose that both Leave and Remain received substantial funding from individuals whose outcome it benefitted, and the politicians who came out on each side were likely incentivised to do so, or saw an opportunity for personal advancement with the appropriate outcome. I mean Cameron on one side, Johnson on the other - it's a regular Eton Mess.

 

[Milouse]

I guess appending "instead" actually means prepending "; And Now for Something Completely Different:".
I learn English everyday.

And now i have that silly Monthy Python music in the head, thank you...

 

[baldgye]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/there...ticle-2018-11?utm_source=reddit.com&r=US&IR=T

If you squint really hard, you can almost see it... hope!

 

[Touring Mars]

RTE (Irish television) are reporting that the UK and the EU have agreed the text of the Withdrawal Agreement...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-at-all-definite-says-lidington-politics-live

It remains to be seen, however, if the Cabinet will back it and then the big test will come when Parliament votes to pass it. It's still not clear when this will happen, but an agreement needs to be drafted in the next few hours if there is to be any chance of an EU summit later this month to begin the ratification process.

-

edit: The 'Hard Brexit' crowd are already sharpening their knives, and Labour's Brexit Secretary (Sir Keir Starmer) is also sounding very negative about it. Jacob Rees-Mogg has said that 'the white flags have gone up all over Whitehall' - and this is before the DUP have seen the text

edit 2: And now Sir Vince Cable has said the Lib Dems are very likely to vote down the deal, but he says that the way forward is a second referendum "that will resolve the issue". I'm sorry, but how does a second referendum "resolve" anything?? If a referendum has caused this shambles, a second referendum is only likely to make it even worse.

edit 3: David Davis, the former Brexit Secretary, has savaged the 'deal'. Meanwhile, a few MPs are calling for 'cool heads' and asking how anyone can criticise the deal before they've even seen it... a fair question, but it is pretty obvious that the contents of the deal are already known and no-one is going to like it.

 

[Robin]

The leaked documentation about the deal sounds terrible, basically 'in but not really in' sounds like a reality now.

I could see parliament fighting this and possibly no deal is better than what's currently on the table.

 

[Touring Mars]

The leaked documentation about the deal sounds terrible, basically 'in but not really in' sounds like a reality now.

I reckon it needs to be remembered that we are still only talking about the Withdrawal Treaty at this stage, which is not the same as the 'Future Framework' (or Future Relationship, whatever they call it these days!) where the real substance of the UK-EU relationship will be defined. The Withdrawal Treaty merely agrees how we exit, and what happens (legally) if the Future Framework negotiations (e.g. our 'trade deal' with the EU) break down or fail to address issues like the Irish border. The Withdrawal Treaty also agrees what happens in the interim - the 'transition period', which was always going to resemble something like 'half-in, half-out', and arguably it should be... though Hard Brexiteers (and plenty others too) are understandably nervous about the prospect of living in a Norway-style arrangement for a couple of years (or perhaps indefinitely) where we essentially remain inside the EU but with no say over anything at all - this is why there has been (and still is) a lot of emphasis on making clear the mechanism by which the UK can extricate itself from this arrangement, not least because once it's in place, the EU have little to no reason to move on to the next stage of Brexit - indeed, the suspicion is that the EU would be very happy if the UK was permanently locked into a Norway-style arrangement, as opposed to what Theresa May is proposing which is that the Norway-style arrangement has a definite end point and beyond that the entire UK leaves the EU completely.

I personally think that Brexit - as envisaged by Johnson, Rees-Mogg etc., simply cannot be achieved in a single step, and that Theresa May's plan is to effectively do it in two steps - but unfortunately the first step involves putting the UK in an extremely vulnerable position which, if anything, is actually a step in the opposite direction to where Leavers want the UK to go. Ironically, the transition period will put the UK considerably more at the mercy of the EU (at a time where they seem very disinclined to show any goodwill at all) and thus it puts the UK in a very weak position in order to achieve stage 2 - to the point where a hefty slice of the government way well not be able to support taking that step. May's strategy resembles taking one step back in order to take two steps forward, but it remains to be seen how much support she will get for such a risky move.

 

[Robin]

@Touring Mars I agree that that is probably what May has in mind (take it in steps) but what worries people is that we will be left in a perpetual leaving state whilst existing as Norway!

Yes Boris and Co's ride into battle approach is slightly far fetched but May could seriously have done with a bit more aggression on this in my opinion.

How many years is it going to take to build this framework... 2? 20? At least with no deal it would be exactly the same (years of building a framework) without still being in.

Basically building a new house whislt proping up the old one, or knocking down the old one then building a new one, is there any real difference?

 

[baldgye]

@Touring Mars I agree that that is probably what May has in mind (take it in steps) but what worries people is that we will be left in a perpetual leaving state whilst existing as Norway!

Yes Boris and Co's ride into battle approach is slightly far fetched but May could seriously have done with a bit more aggression on this in my opinion.

How many years is it going to take to build this framework... 2? 20? At least with no deal it would be exactly the same (years of building a framework) without still being in.

Basically building a new house whislt proping up the old one, or knocking down the old one then building a new one, is there any real difference?

Problem of just crashing out with no deal, is that we'd be operating with a framework while slowly going bankrupt, trying to desperately rush into deals to make sure we had enough provisions to get by. We'd be in just as weak a position only with a more aggravated populous.

 

[Liquid]

Basically building a new house whislt proping up the old one, or knocking down the old one then building a new one, is there any real difference?

You need somewhere to live whilst building a new house.

Unless you like being homeless, of course...

 

[Touring Mars]

The irony of the DUP's total opposition to the Irish Backstop is that Northern Ireland stands to be elevated to one of the most attractive place to do business in the whole of Europe and the UK - uniquely, it will have unfettered access to both the internal UK market and the European Single Market, both of which would be permanent and legally guaranteed indefinitely... you can see why the Scottish and Welsh governments are up in arms about it. And yet, the DUP are furious about it because it will make them 'different' to the rest of the UK - as different as being in a life boat instead of the Titanic.