Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Tired Tyres]

So why did the UK decide to leave the EU without considering the consequences?

For same reason anyone votes for anything. It is a personal choice of the individual who considers their own outlook with no consideration of the bigger picture.

Take me, for example, I vote Liberal Democrat. even though there is very little chance of that doing any good at all.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is classic...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/v...-so-bbc-gaffe-suggests-video?CMP=share_btn_tw

Not convinced it wasn't done on purpose though...

 

[Scaff]

Well, quite - but the mind boggles as to why not... it has been portrayed as if making trade between the UK and EU easy after Brexit is like us 'having our cake and eat it'.... but in reality it is pure common sense that a) could prevent a civil war from erupting in Ireland, b) save the Irish economy from ruin, c) save the UK economy from severe harm, d) stop the UK from breaking up entirely and e) prevent hastening the collapse of the EU. But apparently it is more important that the UK don't get tariff-free trade because we are being naughty boys and not playing along with the great European project.

Why not?

Well the main thing that springs to mind is that it would give the UK a deal that no-one else, either within the EU or any other trading block or country has!

Even the FTA's the EU has with other countries/trading blocs still have limits on them that the UK doesn't have. Take the FTA with Mexico, that does have tariff free agreements for most products, but it also sets limits on the quantities that can be imported/exported per year tariff free. After that threshold is reached tariffs kick in.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/november/tradoc_157553.pdf

Expecting the exact same conditions around free trade that the UK currently has with the EU after Brexit is exactly like 'having our cake and eating it', and its about as far from a common sense thing for the EU to do (or the UK to expect) as one can get.

If roles were reversed and it was another EU country leaving, I can guarantee that the UK would be at the front of the line to ensure that the country in question didn't get the exact same deal they currently have when they leave.

 

[Touring Mars]

Why not?

Well the main thing that springs to mind is that it would give the UK a deal that no-one else, either within the EU or any other trading block or country has!

Indeed, but then again, this is a unique situation - and it requires a unique solution. I do sympathise with the EU to some extent - they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - but this is as much to do with the EU's overreach as anything else IMO.

This is the first time a member state has triggered Article 50, but the prevailing logic seems to be that the EU must take steps to ensure that the exiting member is worse off than it would be if it had remained so as to discourage others from following suit. This makes sense... but paradoxically, any steps taken to punish the UK will also punish the EU as well (and Ireland in particular)... so either the EU risks disintegration by making our exit too easy, or it risks disintegration by cutting off its nose to spite its face. But I would argue that Brexit is unlikely to set a precedent for most, if not all, other EU members (with the possible exception of Germany) insomuch as a good outcome for the UK will not encourage others to leave, because all member states are different and have very different reasons for being part of the EU, and with the UK out of the way, the EU can make more progress towards integration that could strengthen the case for staying in. As one astute commentator said, the EU would do well to focus on making continued membership more attractive rather than trying to figure out how to punish those who wish to leave.

Brexit is also very different than other possible cases because a) the history of Ireland and the border issue and b) the fact that the UK already has a very different deal with the EU than all other member states. We are also the second largest economy in the EU, the third biggest contributor to the EU budget, and one of a minority of EU members that pays in more than we get back. As such, the UK leaving the EU poses significant issues (and in the case of the Irish border issue, uniquely so) that mean that it was always going to be the case that Brexit needs to be a bespoke deal that not only benefits the UK, but prevents significant economic harm to the EU as well.

If roles were reversed and it was another EU country leaving, I can guarantee that the UK would be at the front of the line to ensure that the country in question didn't get the exact same deal they currently have when they leave.

I don't know about that - it would depend on who was leaving and why. But, as I alluded to above, each member state is quite different and the UK's circumstances, particularly with reference to the delicate political situation in Ireland, demand special attention (and therefore a bespoke deal) irrespective of any other considerations. Aside from the (somewhat bogus) argument that a favourable deal for the UK might encourage others to leave, it is hard to fathom why the EU would want to make trading with the UK any harder than it needs to be. Even the hardest of hard Brexiteers acknowledge that there will necessarily be some new limitations, but both sides ought to be working on how to work with the new reality and keep trade as simple as possible.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And the UK voted to leave.

Yes, but you asked why people didn't consider it. The country it will be in DID consider it. And remember that inhabitants of the four countries don't necessarily recognise the UK as their country.

Of course nobody wants to go back to that. The problem is that in order to prevent it, a decision has to be made about how to deal with the border to Ireland. Nobody knows how to solve the problem, and the parliament had a choice:

1. Solve it in some way, and if we can’t find a solution we have the backstop to prevent disaster.

2. Solve it in some way, but without the backstop.

They chose option two and now they’re relying on someone somewhere to find some kind of solution, because otherwise they’re in a very tricky situation.

They didn't choose Option 2, they've chosen to give the PM a mandate to ask for changes to the backstop. That could be seen as a tacit understanding that the backstop (or terms similar to those that constitute the backstop) has to remain.

This parliament only has a working majority through the coalition of a tiny (if very lide) Northern Irish party whose terms may be more likely to be listened to by the PM than parliament. They don't want an arrangement where it looks like NI is part of ROI more than it's part of the ridiculous Queendom.

 

[Milouse]

This is classic...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/v...-so-bbc-gaffe-suggests-video?CMP=share_btn_tw

Not convinced it wasn't done on purpose though...

This kind of error is pretty common:

 

[Scaff]

Indeed, but then again, this is a unique situation - and it requires a unique solution. I do sympathise with the EU to some extent - they are damned if they do and damned if they don't - but this is as much to do with the EU's overreach as anything else IMO.

This is the first time a member state has triggered Article 50, but the prevailing logic seems to be that the EU must take steps to ensure that the exiting member is worse off than it would be if it had remained so as to discourage others from following suit. This makes sense... but paradoxically, any steps taken to punish the UK will also punish the EU as well (and Ireland in particular)... so either the EU risks disintegration by making our exit too easy, or it risks disintegration by cutting off its nose to spite its face. But I would argue that Brexit is unlikely to set a precedent for most, if not all, other EU members (with the possible exception of Germany) insomuch as a good outcome for the UK will not encourage others to leave, because all member states are different and have very different reasons for being part of the EU, and with the UK out of the way, the EU can make more progress towards integration that could strengthen the case for staying in. As one astute commentator said, the EU would do well to focus on making continued membership more attractive rather than trying to figure out how to punish those who wish to leave.

Brexit is also very different than other possible cases because a) the history of Ireland and the border issue and b) the fact that the UK already has a very different deal with the EU than all other member states. We are also the second largest economy in the EU, the third biggest contributor to the EU budget, and one of a minority of EU members that pays in more than we get back. As such, the UK leaving the EU poses significant issues (and in the case of the Irish border issue, uniquely so) that mean that it was always going to be the case that Brexit needs to be a bespoke deal that not only benefits the UK, but prevents significant economic harm to the EU as well.

While almost any form of Brexit will hurt both sides, its going to hit the UK more. I know from my own sector just how well EU based companies have been advised by the EU in regard to this, and the degree of planning that they have carried out (BMW Mini for example can now manufacture at full capacity outside the EU for 4 to six months - despite all body pressings coming from the UK), while the UK government has done pretty much bugger all in terms of support for business.

As for a country leaving being worse off that if it were in the EU. I really don;t understand why this is even a discussion point. Of course they have to be, otherwise no point exists in being in the EU. It would be utter insanity to give the UK a better deal or even parity upon leaving, not only would it totally undermine any reason for the EU to exist, but it would also destroy all existing FTAs the EU has. Quite how people actually believed that the UK could leave and still get a better deal has always been beyond me, it was never going to happen.

Quite frankly the divorce deal was about as good as we were ever going to get (in all honesty its better than I expected us to get), yet it was always doomed because people had been sold a unicorn, and those doing the selling will not admit that the unicorn isn't real.

I don't know about that - it would depend on who was leaving and why. But, as I alluded to above, each member state is quite different and the UK's circumstances, particularly with reference to the delicate political situation in Ireland, demand special attention (and therefore a bespoke deal) irrespective of any other considerations. Aside from the (somewhat bogus) argument that a favourable deal for the UK might encourage others to leave, it is hard to fathom why the EU would want to make trading with the UK any harder than it needs to be. Even the hardest of hard Brexiteers acknowledge that there will necessarily be some new limitations, but both sides ought to be working on how to work with the new reality and keep trade as simple as possible.

You honestly think that if say Ireland or the Netherlands had actually voted to leave the UK government (regardless of flavour) would have been fine with them negotiating a better deal or even one that kept parity?

I also disagree with the claim "the hardest of hard Brexiteers acknowledge that there will necessarily be some new limitations", what they sold people was that this would be easy, that we would be better off, that we would retain free trade and that we would have signed new FTA's with more countries than the EU is as a trading bloc. All of which is on the record at either Hansard, twitter (they loved a bit of twitter) or the interviews they gave. Limitations were never part of what was sold by the hard-core brexiters, that has only entered the narrative now that the reality of the situation has sunk in. Even then we still have them making up crap like this...

https://www.indy100.com/article/bre...n5l-xhBefKLwRBYbIhp0azxmus#Echobox=1548949756

...they are seriously still trying to sell that unicorn.

 

[Milouse]

The EU should to be making this easy but they are too afraid of the message that would leave.

the EU will only consider options that punish the UK

Sure, puerility is a very well-known trait of the EU...
Now, here's what is really at stake:
List of the largest trading partners of United Kingdom in 2015:

(wikipedia)

You honestly think that if say Ireland or the Netherlands had actually voted to leave the UK government (regardless of flavour) would have been fine with them negotiating a better deal or even one that kept parity?

Here's the full Agreement draft:
"Farewell, tax loophole"

 

[Liquid]

I don't forsee how a post-Brexit UK will have the rejuvenated economy that will supposedly occur when, even as an EEC and EU member, the British government long, long, long abandoned primary manufacturing as a business investment or economic policy.

It's about thirty to thirty-five years since Westminster really gave a toss about manufacturing things. There's no way that is going to change even if you wanted it to.

 

[Scaff]

Oh look the unicorn is still ongoing.

https://infacts.org/bbc-lets-brexit...qwnLnfOaX6eHnWQHksWi2Kmd6BFYSY4bsQf-ZguePN_ck

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Milouse]

After reading his thread and a few comments, something stroke me: would the WA be signed for life? I'm asking this because i read a lot that the lack of a date limit relative to the backstop issue is a big problem in UK. But what would prevent UK to break that WA in the future in case the EU turn to be of bad faith on this matter?
I'm unsure at which degree UK and EU would be bound by that WA, but i'm quoting the WA draft itself:
"RECALLING that the Withdrawal Agreement, which is based on Article 50 TEU, does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom"

 

[UKMikey]

I'm unsure at which degree UK and EU would be bound by that WA, but i'm quoting the WA draft itself:
"RECALLING that the Withdrawal Agreement, which is based on Article 50 TEU, does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom"

I don't think the EU would object to the UK rejoining on vastly unfavourable grounds to itself.

 

[Imari]

So why did the UK decide to leave the EU without considering the consequences?

Are you actually asking "why are humans irrational"?

Um, cos they're humans? It's sort of part of the basic functionality. It would be more surprising if the UK had made a decision that entirely considered all consequences and came to a thoroughly reasoned conclusion based on that.

 

[eran0004]

Are you actually asking "why are humans irrational"?

Um, cos they're humans? It's sort of part of the basic functionality. It would be more surprising if the UK had made a decision that entirely considered all consequences and came to a thoroughly reasoned conclusion based on that.

The question points out the flaw in the reasoning “a hard border will never happen because Britain would never go back to that”.

Glad you spotted it.

 

[Touring Mars]

As for a country leaving being worse off that if it were in the EU.

Of course they have to be, otherwise no point exists in being in the EU.

And therein lies the rub. The question is not so much 'Can an EU member do better outwith the EU?' but 'Will the EU allow an existing member state to try?' Don't get me wrong - the UK, IMO, would be better off staying in the EU, but the fact remains that the UK will survive quite well outside the EU too... but if the UK does leave the EU, we'd almost certainly do alot better (and the EU would benefit more too) if a common sense free trade deal between us existed. I guess my main point is that the it actually doesn't make much sense from an EU perspective to go down the route of high tariffs, because the Eurozone has enough (massive and serious) problems without making life harder than it needs to be.

So why did the UK decide to leave the EU without considering the consequences?

Flip the argument on its head and say 'Is the Irish border question a good enough reason for the UK to stay in the EU?'

The fundamental problem of having a hard border in Ireland was resolved by the Good Friday Agreement, but is now back in play because of Brexit. The argument that the UK are responsible for this (because 'The UK voted for Brexit') is only half true - the EU bear responsibility too, for it is the integrity of the Single Market that is the only reason why a hard border is even being discussed at all.

As I (and many others) have said before, this is an important factor... but, IMO, it is not the most important factor by a very long way. Peace is more important... the people who live on the island of Ireland are more important... democracy is more important etc. etc. The integrity of the Single Market is relatively unimportant, and yet that is what takes precedence in the EU's eyes, and it is their fundamental red line.

But I don't believe that it is or should be a question of one or the other - I do believe that it is possible (though not easy) to respect both the integrity of the Single Market (the EU's red line) and the other (more important) factors - by making a legal commitment towards tariff-free trade and an agreement on customs checks away from the border (say at ports across the whole of Ireland) - something a bit more imaginative that forcing Northern Ireland to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves.

Perversely, the Backstop is designed to be a legal guarantee that a hard border will not return - but, unfortunately, because the WA is legally binding and negotiations on the trade deal that would render it obsolete haven't even started yet, it puts the UK in an incredibly vulnerable position that, whether by design or accident, could lead to a permanent, de facto break-up of the UK. Ironically, the Backstop has become the main reason why a No Deal Brexit (and with it the possibility of a hard border) is so much more likely.

I guess another answer to your question is that most people in the UK never thought that the EU would be so intransigent when it came to the Irish border issue, and put the integrity of the Single Market ahead of all those other, arguably more important, considerations... but that's the way it has played out.

 

[Scaff]

And therein lies the rub. The question is not so much 'Can an EU member do better outwith the EU?' but 'Will the EU allow an existing member state to try?' Don't get me wrong - the UK, IMO, would be better off staying in the EU, but the fact remains that the UK will survive quite well outside the EU too... but if the UK does leave the EU, we'd almost certainly do alot better (and the EU would benefit more too) if a common sense free trade deal between us existed. I guess my main point is that the it actually doesn't make much sense from an EU perspective to go down the route of high tariffs, because the Eurozone has enough (massive and serious) problems without making life harder than it needs to be.

No one outside of Brexitiers has said a reasonable deal can't be made least of all the EU. That's not the issue

The issue was that people were sold the same deal or even better, with new trade deals in place bigger than the one we currently have via the EU.

It's that unicorn again.

 

[eran0004]

Flip the argument on its head and say 'Is the Irish border question a good enough reason for the UK to stay in the EU?'

That's not the argument. The argument is that Britain wants to leave the single market and stay in it too. It's not doable, and they need to make up their mind.

The fundamental problem of having a hard border in Ireland was resolved by the Good Friday Agreement, but is now back in play because of Brexit. The argument that the UK are responsible for this (because 'The UK voted for Brexit') is only half true - the EU bear responsibility too, for it is the integrity of the Single Market that is the only reason why a hard border is even being discussed at all.

I can't see how the EU bears responsibility for that. The backstop was proposed as a way to avoid a hard border, the British parliament rejected that solution without offering any alternative more concrete than "some other way".

As I (and many others) have said before, this is an important factor... but, IMO, it is not the most important factor by a very long way. Peace is more important... the people who live on the island of Ireland are more important... democracy is more important etc. etc. The integrity of the Single Market is relatively unimportant, and yet that is what takes precedence in the EU's eyes, and it is their fundamental red line.

You have one country who wants to leave the single market and 27 who wants to stay in it. I don't see why Britain leaving the single market would have to mean that everyone else (or at least Ireland) must leave it too?

And if peace really is more important than the single market, then why is the backstop unacceptable? It literally says that if a hard border cannot be avoided through any other means, then the last resort would be for the UK to stay in the single market. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But I don't believe that it is or should be a question of one or the other - I do believe that it is possible (though not easy) to respect both the integrity of the Single Market (the EU's red line) and the other (more important) factors - by making a legal commitment towards tariff-free trade and an agreement on customs checks away from the border (say at ports across the whole of Ireland) - something a bit more imaginative that forcing Northern Ireland to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves.

That was the original backstop proposal. Britain didn't like it, so it was modified to include all of the UK. And the backstop doesn't rule out another solution, it's an insurance policy for the event that another solution can't be found.

And I don't think "forcing to stay" is correct. Britain would volunteer to stay in the single market, if they agreed to that deal.

Perversely, the Backstop is designed to be a legal guarantee that a hard border will not return - but, unfortunately, because the WA is legally binding and negotiations on the trade deal that would render it obsolete haven't even started yet, it puts the UK in an incredibly vulnerable position that, whether by design or accident, could lead to a permanent, de facto break-up of the UK. Ironically, the Backstop has become the main reason why a No Deal Brexit (and with it the possibility of a hard border) is so much more likely.

The first backstop proposal could possibly have that consequence. I don't see how the current backstop proposal would lead to that. I think it's more likely that a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland would have that effect.

I guess another answer to your question is that most people in the UK never thought that the EU would be so intransigent when it came to the Irish border issue, and put the integrity of the Single Market ahead of all those other, arguably more important, considerations... but that's the way it has played out.

I don't think it's intransigent. I don't think that Britain should have the right to force Ireland to leave the single market.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't think that Britain should have the right to force Ireland to leave the single market.

And I don't see that they will, or even try to. It's quite possible that some Leave voters (impossible to guess a number) don't give a toss about what happens in the other three countries from where they live, and I'm sure that includes some of the pinheads I've personally spoken to, so it's equally possible that how the border would work didn't matter to them. If they are so unaware of "foreign" policy they could be equally unaware of why the IRA were blowing up hotels, busses, parades, police stations and so on, and unaware of what the border across Ireland meant it real terms.

Remember that there's a genuine anger amongst some in England that the country doesn't have its own dedicated parliament. Some of that anger was channeled in the referendum.

 

[rono_thomas]

The argument is that Britain wants to leave the single market and stay in it too. It's not doable, and they need to make up their mind.

Not actually sure thats the argument on the ground, it might be what you hear coming from the mouths of politicians, but I’d hazard a guess that the average joe bloggs who didn’t understand what they were voting for when ticking leave have an understanding that leaving whilst staying is not doable.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's not the argument. The argument is that Britain wants to leave the single market and stay in it too. It's not doable, and they need to make up their mind.

No, the UK does not want to stay in the Single Market - the UK wants a trade deal that keeps access to the Single Market with minimal tariffs and barriers to trade.

I can't see how the EU bears responsibility for that. The backstop was proposed as a way to avoid a hard border, the British parliament rejected that solution without offering any alternative more concrete than "some other way".

The main problem lies with Article 50 and the way the Brexit process has been conducted, mainly at the behest of the EU. Clearly, it is not possible to satisfy the demands of both sides while a trade deal doesn't exist... it's now a Catch-22, but really the entire process should have been done differently so as to avoid this situation, and for that the EU are as much (if not considerably more) to blame than the UK.

You have one country who wants to leave the single market and 27 who wants to stay in it. I don't see why Britain leaving the single market would have to mean that everyone else (or at least Ireland) must leave it too?

No idea what you mean here.

And if peace really is more important than the single market, then why is the backstop unacceptable? It literally says that if a hard border cannot be avoided through any other means, then the last resort would be for the UK to stay in the single market. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But the UK staying in the Single Market means abiding by all of the rules of the EU while having no say in how those rules are made... that is not reasonable.

And the backstop doesn't say 'if a hard border cannot be avoided through any other means, then the last resort would be for the UK to stay in the single market' - it says 'if no trade deal is done between the UK and EU, then the UK is legally obliged to stay in the Single Market (and hence be an EU member in all but name) so as to avoid the need for a hard border in Ireland'...

But the idea that the backstop is the only defence against a hard border in Ireland is false. Neither the UK nor Ireland want a hard border, thus it will not (and, in my view, cannot) happen. But the danger for the UK is that the backstop, while avoiding a hard border in Ireland (that won't materialise anyway), will create a new hard border between NI and the UK (i.e. splitting a sovereign state into two separate customs territories), which is constitutionally and politically (and quite possibly literally) explosive.

That was the original backstop proposal. Britain didn't like it, so it was modified to include all of the UK. And the backstop doesn't rule out another solution, it's an insurance policy for the event that another solution can't be found.

But, all it really does is kick the can down the road... if Northern Ireland is to remain a part of the UK and the UK is not an EU member, then sooner or later there will have to be one of two final outcomes - a hard border in Ireland, or 'some other solution'. The UK and Irish governments have ruled out the former time and time again, thus it is not a question of 'if' another solution can be found, but when.

And I don't think "forcing to stay" is correct. Britain would volunteer to stay in the single market, if they agreed to that deal.

Again, no. The UK will not be staying in the Single Market after Brexit - but the backstop legally compels the UK to remain in the Single Market (and thus accept EU rules/laws without any further say in how they are made) until such a time as a trade deal that allows the backstop to be replaced is signed, but even that future trade deal may not solve the Irish border problem, thus raising the prospect of Northern Ireland being trapped in the Single Market (and trapped outside of its largest market, the UK internal market) permanently.... that's the problem.

I don't think that Britain should have the right to force Ireland to leave the single market.

?

Who said anything about Ireland leaving the Single Market? (though now you mention it, that would solve the problem nicely...)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Who said anything about Ireland leaving the Single Market? (though now you mention it, that would solve the problem nicely...)

I was going to suggest that May should channel her inner Cromwell... and then I remembered that channeling an inner Churchill might work just as well. Not "well", but to the same goal

 

[mustafur]

Will Northern Ireland end up like Hong Kong, but instead being One Kingdom Two Systems.

 

[Touring Mars]

Will Northern Ireland end up like Hong Kong, but instead being One Kingdom Two Systems.

A lot of people (particularly business owners) in NI can see the massive opportunity that such an outcome could provide - in theory, a special arrangement for Northern Ireland could work out very well for them... but at the expense of other parts of the UK, and ROI.

Ironically, the DUP - who are pro-Brexit - are vehemently opposed to this idea, but I can see why some people in NI see it as a potential once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

However, I reckon it would be unsustainable insofar as it would put both the rest of the UK and Ireland at a competitive disadvantage with Northern Ireland - Scottish Nationalists would be up in arms and push for independence, and no doubt Welsh nationalists would follow suit.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Perhaps unsurprisingly Nissan are thought to be preparing to announce that the X-Trail will not be built in canny Sunderland leek. BBC.

EDIT: This is confirmed - it will be built in Japan.

 

[Robin]

It's only partly a Brexit uncertainty issue. I'm surprised any manufacturer is bothering to make Diesel cars now since the emissions scandal and the governments stance on it. This hasn't just affected Nissan, Jaguar also have been hit hard by the downturn in Diesel as well as the slowdown in emerging markets. Also the X Trail hasn't exactly been a big seller, guess it makes sense to not invest in expansion to produce an unpopular car.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's only party a Brexit uncertainty issue. I'm surprised any manufacturer is bothering to make Diesel cars now since the emissions scandal and the governments stance on it.

You could well be right, and with the fall of Ghosn (and lots of claims about power struggles inside Renault, Nissan and Mitsubishi) it seems that Nissan are consolidating their industry at home for now. If this was more Brexit-related one might expect them to invest on the other side of the North Sea.

 

[Robin]

You could well be right, and with the fall of Ghosn (and lots of claims about power struggles inside Renault, Nissan and Mitsubishi) it seems that Nissan are consolidating their industry at home for now. If this was more Brexit-related one might expect them to invest on the other side of the North Sea.

I agree, the whole Ghosn thing would have caused quite a shakeup in the company. That would have created uncertainty in their direction going forward because his vision may differ from the management in place now.

Ghosn was also the one who attended that No 10 meeting to do this 'deal' with the government so it may very well have died with his downfall.

Consolidating operations back to Japan for now makes sense because they could have easily moved production to their Spanish factory if access to the EU was the main issue. In fact they actually pulled production of some models from that factory as well so it appears to be a global strategy.

It's still a shame though, hopefully some investment might come to the Sunderland operation in the future.

 

[eran0004]

No, the UK does not want to stay in the Single Market - the UK wants a trade deal that keeps access to the Single Market with minimal tariffs and barriers to trade.

The main problem lies with Article 50 and the way the Brexit process has been conducted, mainly at the behest of the EU. Clearly, it is not possible to satisfy the demands of both sides while a trade deal doesn't exist... it's now a Catch-22, but really the entire process should have been done differently so as to avoid this situation, and for that the EU are as much (if not considerably more) to blame than the UK.


No idea what you mean here.

But the UK staying in the Single Market means abiding by all of the rules of the EU while having no say in how those rules are made... that is not reasonable.

And the backstop doesn't say 'if a hard border cannot be avoided through any other means, then the last resort would be for the UK to stay in the single market' - it says 'if no trade deal is done between the UK and EU, then the UK is legally obliged to stay in the Single Market (and hence be an EU member in all but name) so as to avoid the need for a hard border in Ireland'...

But the idea that the backstop is the only defence against a hard border in Ireland is false. Neither the UK nor Ireland want a hard border, thus it will not (and, in my view, cannot) happen. But the danger for the UK is that the backstop, while avoiding a hard border in Ireland (that won't materialise anyway), will create a new hard border between NI and the UK (i.e. splitting a sovereign state into two separate customs territories), which is constitutionally and politically (and quite possibly literally) explosive.


But, all it really does is kick the can down the road... if Northern Ireland is to remain a part of the UK and the UK is not an EU member, then sooner or later there will have to be one of two final outcomes - a hard border in Ireland, or 'some other solution'. The UK and Irish governments have ruled out the former time and time again, thus it is not a question of 'if' another solution can be found, but when.


Again, no. The UK will not be staying in the Single Market after Brexit - but the backstop legally compels the UK to remain in the Single Market (and thus accept EU rules/laws without any further say in how they are made) until such a time as a trade deal that allows the backstop to be replaced is signed, but even that future trade deal may not solve the Irish border problem, thus raising the prospect of Northern Ireland being trapped in the Single Market (and trapped outside of its largest market, the UK internal market) permanently.... that's the problem.



?

Who said anything about Ireland leaving the Single Market? (though now you mention it, that would solve the problem nicely...)

Name one viable option to the backstop that would guarantee that there won’t be a hard border to Ireland.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Name one viable option to the backstop that would guarantee that there won’t be a hard border to Ireland.

I've already told you to look up the history of Northern Ireland to see why.

Seriously any politician even considering such a thing should be in a padded cell being asked some interesting questions to determine sanity.