Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Liquid]

Let's talk about "Project Fear".

From what I have seen from Leave supporters, there is seemingly nothing, nothing that can be said to demonstrate to them that Brexit might be having a negative effect on the economy.

Point One

If you say companies are relocating jobs and/or capital to the EU, (Barclays, Sony, Jaguar Land Rover, easyJet, Ryanair), it's 100% proof of the EUSSR dictating everything UK-registered companies do and proof that being outside the EU is the best course of action. It cannot possibly have anything to do with common business sense.

In the case of JLR, I have some experience of seeing it from "the other side". If the Slovak government offers a very generous subsidy to come and open a factory, it's economic sense to accept it. It is, quite simply, business. If the UK government offered a similar or better subsidy, JLR would be more inclined to retain its business in the UK. But as I have mentioned before, the UK government has long abandoned investing in manufacturing and this isn't the first case. You only have to look at primary steel manufacturing and you can see a refusal to support domestic production in favour of cheaper, imported steel from Germany and China.

If the Slovak government feels it can afford the subsidy offered and can keep its own books balanced, it is more than entitled to pursue JLR and get them to open new operations here. The UK government could have counter-offered but hasn't.

The crux of Brexit is, on paper by politicians at least, about opening up the UK to business. Well if business looks more profitable inside the EU, you cannot complain when companies move there. You absolutely have to look at Brexit being a factor. Brexit is making the United Kingdom unattractive to international and multinational companies.

Point Two

If you say companies are relocating jobs and/or capital (Dyson, potentially Airbus) to outside the EU, it's 100% proof of the EUSSR dictating everything UK-registered companies do and proof that being outside the EU is the best course of action. But is it not a damning statement that even if they are moving operations to outside the EU, it isn't to the UK?

Dyson of course is the best example of this. They have had manufacturing operations in Malaysia and Singapore since the 1990s so it isn't a total surprise but moving their corporate headquarters to Singapore is a glaring hypocrisy given that James Dyson is a prominent supporter of Brexit and Dyson Ltd. was championed by Official Leave as a great company championing what a UK Brexit can do.

The irony is not lost on most that Singapore has signed an FTA with the EU. Japan is as well. "But the UK is going to have one as well!" Yes, that is hopefully true but the unavoidable fact is that Singapore already has one signed and waiting to implement whereas the UK does not and will not. I am pretty confident that Dyson will not relocate back to the UK once the UK-EU trade agreements are signed.

Which again leads back to what I mentioned in point one; it's business sense. Irrespective of national pride or loyalty, companies will almost always follow the money or at least follow the fewest losses. And in the case of moving to Singapore being "a great example of global Britain" as one gammon gasbag who shan't be named put it, it's not. It's companies going where they can extract maximum worth and minimum loss for their business.

Point two is less relevant but you can boil it down to this:

If the UK is in the EU, the EU steals jobs.
If the UK is out of the EU, the EU still steals jobs.

Surely both cannot be true? And surely the reality of what is happening cannot be ignored by Brexit proponents?

I just find it extremely perplexing how companies moving into the EU & out of the UK, and out of the EU & UK are both examples of the evils of the EUSSR. Even accepting that each business case must be viewed individually, it's surely a contradiction. And in both types it is business leaving the UK which is what Brexit was supposed to be avoiding but so far hasn't.

Edit: It suddenly just came to me what I was trying to convey my perplexity at:

Moving operations to outside the EU - Wonderful, global Britain
Moving operations to the EU - Nasty EUSSR stealing British companies

Hypocrisy. And both involve taking business away from the UK.

Notes:

- I don't necessarily agree with all corporate welfare, i.e. enormous subsidies for multinationals, but they are fair points worth discussing.
- I haven't even bothered talking about how 'easy' negotiating Brexit and TAs was supposed to be.

 

[Touring Mars]

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

There's a huge variety of things that could have been done - but some of the best options would require the entire Brexit process to be restarted and begun again from scratch. They include, but are not limited to, agreeing a trade deal before the Withdrawal Agreement needs to be ratified; a bilateral agreement between Ireland and the UK to conduct customs checks at ports and have a 'trusted trader' scheme put in place; declare Ireland a Special Trading Zone where new rules apply for cross-border trade; Ireland could quit the EU; the EU could promise the UK tariff-free trading in return for a legal commitment by the UK to meet all EU standards; etc. etc.

The fact is, as some of us have said repeatedly now, there will be no hard border in Ireland - ever. If your solution to Brexit involves building a border in Ireland, then your solution will not work. It really is as simple as that.

In the event of No Deal, and when both Ireland and the UK have categorically ruled out a hard border in Ireland, there will have to be alternative arrangements made for cross-border trade in Ireland, no matter what else happens. But, as Sajid Javid said, if alternative arrangements can be made after No Deal, then why can that not be done with a deal? It is a vitally important question, and thus far the EU have provided no answers.

 

[eran0004]

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.

That’s not a “how”, that’s a “why”. You need to come up with a way to avoid a hard border, not a reason for why a hard border should be avoided. The will is already there, what’s missing is how to actually do it.

They include, but are not limited to, agreeing a trade deal before the Withdrawal Agreement needs to be ratified

So the UK would remain in the EU until a trade deal has been made that solves the Irish border issue? Sounds pretty much like the backstop.

a bilateral agreement between Ireland and the UK to conduct customs checks at ports and have a 'trusted trader' scheme put in place

Doesn’t work. That means that you can import something to Ireland through the single market, then take it across the border to Northern Ireland and sell it in the UK.

declare Ireland a Special Trading Zone where new rules apply for cross-border trade

Doesn’t work, it means Ireland would have to leave the single market and customs union.

Ireland could quit the EU

Pretty sure I asked for viable options.

the EU could promise the UK tariff-free trading in return for a legal commitment by the UK to meet all EU standards

Basically staying permanently in the single market and customs union.

The fact is, as some of us have said repeatedly now, there will be no hard border in Ireland - ever.

The fact is that you said that there won’t be a hard border. But there needs to be a way for it to not happen. Without the backstop (or an alternative arrangement) there’s no guarantee that there won’t be a hard border.

If your solution to Brexit involves building a border in Ireland, then your solution will not work. It really is as simple as that.

Exactly.

In the event of No Deal, and when both Ireland and the UK have categorically ruled out a hard border in Ireland, there will have to be alternative arrangements made for cross-border trade in Ireland, no matter what else happens.

Not at all. It’s entirely possible that they won’t find an agreement in time, in which case there would be a hard border if there is no backstop mechanism in place.

But, as Sajid Javid said, if alternative arrangements can be made after No Deal, then why can that not be done with a deal? It is a vitally important question, and thus far the EU have provided no answers.

Because nobody knows what those alternative arrangements would be. That’s the whole problem. The question is: would you gamble and hope that someone will find a solution before the border goes hard, or do you accept the backstop proposal to make sure that a hard border is actually ruled out?

 

[Touring Mars]

Lord Trimble, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and architect of the Good Friday Agreement, has announced that he is planning to take the UK government to court to ensure the Northern Ireland Protocol is removed from the Withdrawal Agreement...

 

[mustafur]

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.

Say if a Full No deal Brexit happens, the choice would be that or a hard border would it not?
There is no other alternatives?

Not Building the Hard Border means single market, building it means Not being in the Single market.

 

[Touring Mars]

Say if a Full No deal Brexit happens, the choice would be that or a hard border would it not?
There is no other alternatives?

There are always alternatives. In this case, it is a choice between whether the UK, Ireland and the EU can come up with a reasonable alternative that all parties can live with indefinitely, or whether the UK and Ireland are forced to come up with an arrangement separately. Either way, it will not involve a hard border in Ireland, irrespective of what the EU might demand.

Note that even in the event of a deal, the EU's argument that a hard border will be required still stands unless the UK stays permanently in the Single Market and a Customs Union. It doesn't take a genius to see how that cannot possibly persist, so it's hard to see where the EU think the whole process is going to end up.

Not Building the Hard Border means single market, building it means Not being in the Single market.

Building a border in Ireland means a return to civil war. It will not happen.

 

[Liquid]

The fact is the United Kingdom should have thought about its pre-existing situation, arrangement and treaty with the Republic of Ireland regarding the status of Northern Ireland before any votes or referenda were offered to the public. It is extremely naive to only now look at it and think "Oh, well we have to tie this up to make Brexit happen". Rubbish, it should have been a consideration before the potential to even vote on Brexit was ever a course of action, never mind when Article 50 was actually triggered.

Blah, blah, history, blah, blah, 1922, blah, blah, state collusion. I don't care what your perspective is on it but it's something which has been kept to one side for political gain and is in real danger of disrupting relative peace in Ireland. The fact that a situation like this only applies to the United Kingdom (as in, Portugal or Poland leaving probably wouldn't have such tricky border backstop issues) is irrelevant. Irrespective of whether it was a consequence of 80 years ago or 800 years ago, you (the UK) made your bed, and now you have to lie in it.

 

[Touring Mars]

We could talk all day about how Brexit could have been done differently - and I'm sure we would agree that almost everything about Brexit could have (and should have) been done better, but we are where we are.

Both the EU and the UK appear to believe that the Irish border issue limits the ambitions of the other side - but I hope that both also understand that neither party can dictate terms or expect to get everything their way... if the history of Ireland tells us anything, it is that compromise is absolutely essential.

 

[Liquid]

We could talk all day about how Brexit could have been done differently

My point is that the United Kingdom arguably shouldn't have done it at all, given its delicate territory claims. Not counting Gibraltar it's a feature almost unfounded between any other EU member states. The idea of Brexit means that the UK is never in a position to meet its commitments to both one of its own constituent countries, and a neighbour and fellow EU member. The Good Friday Agreement is a binding cornerstone and principal component of modern constitutional law.

Cakes, having and eating spring to mind.

 

[Touring Mars]

My point is that the United Kingdom arguably shouldn't have done it at all, given its delicate territory claims.

It's easy enough to say, but to suggest that the UK shouldn't have held the referendum raises more questions than it answers.

I don't know if you intended to suggest that the Irish border situation means that the UK should remain inside the EU indefinitely and never even consider leaving the EU or putting it to a vote - but that, frankly, should never be the case.

This is one of the problems with the EU that people find discomfiting... the EU, and the Eurozone in particular, is increasingly coming to resemble a club that you cannot get out of, even if the populace of a member state want out. The Euro has, in effect, driven the UK out of the EU - but it is only right that the UK (or anyone else for that matter) has the right to exit.

Not counting Gibraltar it's a feature almost unfounded between any other EU member states. The idea of Brexit means that the UK is never in a position to meet its commitments to both one of its own constituent countries, and a neighbour and fellow EU member. The Good Friday Agreement is a binding cornerstone and principal component of modern constitutional law.

Cakes, having and eating spring to mind.

But keeping the UK inside the Single Market/Customs Union and therefore subject to EU law indefinitely but without any say in how EU laws are made, with no legal way to exit that arrangement, smacks of the EU having their cake and eating it.

 

[Liquid]

I don't know if you intended to suggest that the Irish border situation means that the UK should remain inside the EU indefinitely and never even consider leaving the EU or putting it to a vote - but that, frankly, should never be the case.

No, I would rather suggest that the Irish question was unequivocally and unilaterally "solved" before something like Brexit can occur.

And no, I don't take that to mean it would be easy. Just that that should be a precondition given the circumstances.

 

[Touring Mars]

No, I would rather suggest that the Irish question was unequivocally and unilaterally "solved" before something like Brexit can occur.

The only way that could have happened is if the future trading arrangements (e.g. a fully fledged trade deal) between the EU and the UK would need to have been negotiated and ratified prior to Article 50 being triggered, but for some reason this option was never on the table.

The fundamental flaw in the entire process is that the future trading relationship between the EU and an exiting member cannot even be negotiated until the member state has already left. That, to me, is the main cause of the problem.

 

[Tired Tyres]

No, I would rather suggest that the Irish question was unequivocally and unilaterally "solved" before something like Brexit can occur.

And no, I don't take that to mean it would be easy. Just that that should be a precondition given the circumstances.

The referendum was a sop offered by Cameron to keep the nutters on the right happy. He didn't think he'd win the election, all the polls said hung parliament, then it wouldn't be problem. Trouble is he did win. That meant he had to keep his promise to his own party. What would really be required to be considered would never have entered anyone's mind at the time.

 

[Liquid]

The referendum was a sop offered by Cameron to keep the nutters on the right happy. He didn't think he'd win the election, all the polls said hung parliament, then it wouldn't be problem. Trouble is he did win. That meant he had to keep his promise to his own party. What would really be required to be considered would never have entered anyone's mind at the time.

Then that only magnifies how reckless and dangerous the whole thing was in the first place.

The one time a politician didn't break an election promise...

 

[Scaff]

Apparently ministers are looking at solving the insanity of a no-deal Brexit with yet more insanity.

The option of applying zero tariffs on all imports is being considered if we crash out!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...587b08e4b00187b553da30?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

The end result of which should require no consideration to dismiss, given that it would pretty much destroy large amount of the UK manufacturing industry, as well as removing any motivation for any country/trading block to bother discussing a free trade deal.

Given that if we crash out we will be on WTO terms, which under the Most Favoured Nation clause means we would not be able to do this selectively, Set a zero tariff for a product and it applies to every country.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apparently ministers are looking at solving the insanity of a no-deal Brexit with yet more insanity.

The option of applying zero tariffs on all imports is being considered if we crash out!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...587b08e4b00187b553da30?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

The end result of which should require no consideration to dismiss, given that it would pretty much destroy large amount of the UK manufacturing industry, as well as removing any motivation for any country/trading block to bother discussing a free trade deal.

Ah hah, they can't take Britain if we've exploded it before they get here! Genius

EDIT: I'll just leave this here, might as well laugh before we cry.

 

[Touring Mars]

Wow...

European Commission president Donald Tusk just said (at a joint EU-Irish press conference):

"By the way, I've been wondering what that special place in Hell looks like for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it safely"...

That closing comment is likely to infuriate a good many people, and is really pretty shocking coming from the president of the European Commission.

Meanwhile, Tusk and Irish leader Vardakar have categorically ruled out any possible changes to the Backstop, and EU leaders have repeated their call for the UK to abandon the idea of leaving the Single Market (and basically giving up on Brexit in all but name).

 

[Liquid]

He is right though.

 

[Dotini]

I wonder how Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are doing in Hell?

 

[Touring Mars]

He is right though.

Given that the UK Government requires the support of Brexiteers in order to have any chance of agreeing a deal, Tusk's comments are not only ill-judged but are also seriously irresponsible.

Another reading of these comments is that the EU have already given up on the prospects of a deal.

 

[Dotini]

the EU have already given up on the prospects of a deal.

I assume this is true. I assume the EU is literally fighting for survival. I assume the EU is willing and ready for any tactic. Any. Lacking this same motivation, you are lost.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Wow...

European Commission president Donald Tusk just said (at a joint EU-Irish press conference):


That closing comment is likely to infuriate a good many people, and is really pretty shocking coming from the president of the European Commission.

Meanwhile, Tusk and Irish leader Vardakar have categorically ruled out any possible changes to the Backstop, and EU leaders have repeated their call for the UK to abandon the idea of leaving the Single Market (and basically giving up on Brexit in all but name).

S+ grade diplomatic skills there Tust. I'm really impressed. That basically guarantees hard brexit.

 

[Robin]

If there was ever an example of the fact that this is a organisation that cannot be reasoned with its Tusk's outburst. Will be good to see the back of them.

 

[Scaff]

Given that the UK Government requires the support of Brexiteers in order to have any chance of agreeing a deal, Tusk's comments are not only ill-judged but are also seriously irresponsible.

The brexiteers were never going to support any kind of deal that is based in reality anyway, so I don't think in that regard its going to make a blind bit of difference at all.

Another reading of these comments is that the EU have already given up on the prospects of a deal.

I read it that they have been quite clear as to what the deal is, and that its not open for re-negotiation.

If there was ever an example of the fact that this is a organisation that cannot be reasoned with its Tusk's outburst. Will be good to see the back of them.

An organisation that fights for the collective interest of its members over the interests of a sole nation that's demanding a better deal than any of them have? Yep sound crap to me.

Its perfectly possible to negotiate with the EU. The record on the UK's influence on EU regulations is demonstration of that, that the UK remained outside of the Euro and Schengen is demonstration of that, the rules in place that allow EU citizens to be removed from other countries if they have no work after 6 months (so addressing one of the main Brexit issues - the UK just never used it) is demonstration of that. That the EU has successfully negotiated FTA's with Canada, Japan, Mexico and others without the kind of nonsense, drama and outright lies from the other side that has characterized Brexitieers is demonstration of that.

On that balance is seems that the country is not possible to reason with is the UK.
(and if outbursts of this type are the main basis of such a claim the BJ alone shifts that back to the UK).

 

[Liquid]

I think a good way to prove Donald Tusk wrong would be for the UK government to have a competent, reasonable plan of action. Whether negotiable or not, it cannot be denied that the UK government has handled everything on its end quite farcically. A :censored:ing omnishambles, to quote Malcolm Tucker.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I think Tusk should just have said, like a proper foreign minister, that the UK could go whistle over their renegotiation intentions. That would be a diplomatic choice of words.

 

[Robin]

An organisation that fights for the collective interest of its members over the interests of a sole nation that's demanding a better deal than any of them have? Yep sound crap to me.

Its perfectly possible to negotiate with the EU. The record on the UK's influence on EU regulations is demonstration of that, that the UK remained outside of the Euro and Schengen is demonstration of that, the rules in place that allow EU citizens to be removed from other countries if they have no work after 6 months (so addressing one of the main Brexit issues - the UK just never used it) is demonstration of that. That the EU has successfully negotiated FTA's with Canada, Japan, Mexico and others without the kind of nonsense, drama and outright lies from the other side that has characterized Brexitieers is demonstration of that.

On that balance is seems that the country is not possible to reason with is the UK.
(and if outbursts of this type are the main basis of such a claim the BJ alone shifts that back to the UK).

It's the rhetoric and language thats the issue, not what or who he represents. Frankly if I were the members I would want someone else speaking on my behalf because there are plenty of moderate citizens who want all this to work out but are being held back held back by individuals ego's. I'm not saying there haven't been people guilty of the same thing over here but mud slinging in general doesn't help anything.

The UK may have had good success with negotiations in the past but that was when we were wholeheartedly part of the club, once we want to leave... not so much! It's easy to deal with the EU when your on the 'outside' so it's no surprise that other global trade deals they have struck have gone smoothly, they don't have any reason to be bitter and difficult.

 

[Scaff]

It's the rhetoric and language thats the issue, not what or who he represents. Frankly if I were the members I would want someone else speaking on my behalf because there are plenty of moderate citizens who want all this to work out but are being held back held back by individuals ego's. I'm not saying there haven't been people guilty of the same thing over here but mud slinging in general doesn't help anything.

If its a question of egos, rhetoric and language as the cause then I would say that the damage from that is heavily biased towards one side (and its not the EU) in terms of harm done.

The UK may have had good success with negotiations in the past but that was when we were wholeheartedly part of the club,

So that wasn't the EU being "a organisation that cannot be reasoned with"

once we want to leave... not so much!

If your stance is 'we want everything we had as a member, but without being a member or contributing in any way' is that really a surprise.

It's easy to deal with the EU when your on the 'outside' so it's no surprise that other global trade deals they have struck have gone smoothly,

Hold on didn't you say it was easy when the UK was in the club to negotiate, so that would be the EU not being "a organisation that cannot be reasoned with" in either scenario......

they don't have any reason to be bitter and difficult.

...oh so its because the EU are just being bitter and difficult!

Except that's not what they are doing. To be honest only one side entered into this process knowing what it wanted, what the best interests of its remaining member was (and those members had agreed to it via a democratic process), and was well prepared in that regard.

The UK's negotiating position was never unified (and still isn't), it's still trying to negotiate for something that was never going to be achieved (for good reason - why should we get a better deal out than the one we have when we were in).

This has nothing to do with the EU being bitter and difficult, I would actually argue its the other way around.

 

[Touring Mars]

One of the key reasons the UK is leaving the EU is precisely because the EU has become impossible to negotiate with - as @Scaff rightly points out, it wasn't always like this, and indeed the UK's position within the EU was unique. However, one could argue that it is this uniqueness that has ensured that the UK and the EU are now on wholly divergent paths, hence Brexit. There is no doubt, though, that the nature of the EU has changed entirely in the last decade or so.

As I have said before, I strongly feel that there is both fault and blame on both sides - Brexit is a mess and the UK could have/should have done much better to avoid as much of the mess as possible, and I don't believe we have. But the EU haven't covered themselves in glory either. Their position on the Irish border issue has been non-negotiable from the start and is wholly at odds with the idea of the UK (or atleast Northern Ireland) ever exiting the Single Market/Customs Union, and hence it is hard to see how any possible deal, however well negotiated or planned for in advance, would have made any difference... the EU's only answer to the Irish border problem is to prevent Northern Ireland from ever leaving the legal orbit of the EU, which sets an entirely new (and worrying) precedent of the EU exerting legal authority over a non-member state in perpetuity, and effectively annexing part of a sovereign state. It is and never was going to be acceptable to the UK (though some in the EU appear to believe that annexation of Northern Ireland is a fair price for the UK choosing to quit the EU).

In the face of the EU's utter refusal to negotiate on the Irish border issue, it is little wonder that the UK may be forced into rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement and simply walking away. If that happens, the EU will be as much to blame as anyone for the ensuing mess and recriminations.... however, my guess is that the UK will still be here in 20 years time, while I doubt the EU will survive that long in its current form. A failed Brexit will be yet another pile of pressure on an already failing system - it will most likely not be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but it's pressure the EU could well do without given what is on the horizon.

 

[Hun200kmh]

@Touring Mars it's all debatable of course, but I think your last sentence should be reversed, like this:

my guess is that the EU will still be here in 20 years time, while I doubt the UK will survive that long in its current form. A failed Brexit will be yet another pile of pressure on an already failing system - it will most likely not be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but it's pressure the UK could well do without given what is on the horizon.

Again about Tusk's words, I found a comment in the Daily Telegraph (of all places!!) that I found particularly funny

We voted to go to Mars!

How do you plan to get there?

Just go!

But you'll suffocate without a ship!

Project Fear my friend, Project Fear.

So what...you're just gonna walk?

We voted to GO! Why can't you anti-democratic EU trolls understand that!?

…

Do you know where Mars is mate?