The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[woodview]

OK, sorry I thought you were conflating the two. They're entirely seperate entities.

 

 

 

That assumes that the EU will bargain in bad faith, when in reality, so far, thats been the UK (IMO).

 

The need for the backstop is self evident, anything else would just be a re-run of the last two years.

 

Why would anyone assume it'll be any different at the end of the withdrawal agreement? At that point do we need a withdrawal from the withdrawal agreement.

 

Not a single workable plan set forward by any Brexiteer, not one. Zero, and I mean *absolutely* zero constructive input whatsoever.

 

 

 

Assuming the Free Trade Deal does offer the same advantages as membership, then yes, but of course... it isn't going to.

 

There will be no FTA thats as good as the deal we have now.

OK, cheers.

Depends on bad faith. I don't consider the EU to be all bad people. But they also have a vested interest in withdrawal being as difficult as possible. They don't want other members to do the same.

Agree, there can be no prospect of a hard NI border. A customs territory, or free trade area both negate the need for one.

An FTA may not be as good in trade terms as a complete open market, but there aren't huge differences. A close FTA can get close.

My objection to the EU is central control and lessening of democracy. I would accept a slightly worse trading position with them for no central parliament. I also believe other trade benefits outside the eu would counteract the negatives anyway.

I don't believe the eu is the evil kingdom and leaving is nirvana, but leaving is obviously my preference.

But the thing today, is really this deal, not the general pros and cons that have been argued for the last 3 years.

Todays deal is bad for both leave and Remain. Being locked in the Customs Territory doesn't put us in a position to negotiate a good FTA. We could in theory be in it forever. We also have to accept any decison by the EU in that period. It doesn't make sense.

If the deal had been a harder or softer brexit than I would have chosen, I could go along with it. I'm a big boy, and have been involved in lots of big business deals and understand getting a deal that works for both sides involves give and take, and striking the best for both. This deal isn't it, and don't want anybody lumbered with it.

[Mister M]

This surrender deal has no chance what so ever of getting through the house of commons . May is dead in the water ,and so is her deal.

 

Watching her getting hammered from all sides in the commons right now shows it aint going to happen.

 

This isnt a deal to LEAVE , which was the result of the referendum , its a surrender to the suits in Brussels.

 

We made the fatal mistake of appointing a Remain prime minister , when it should have been a Leaver , either David Davies or Jacob Rees Mogg.

 

We are now going to end up with No Deal , which suits me fine .

 

You kidding! Even the Torygraph and the Daily Heil say that David Davis is as thick as mince & couldn't understand the negotiations.

And Jacob Rees Smug? The name says it all.

[L00b]

It's not that it's soft, it's that it is impossible to move out of the 'transition' into any next phase.

It is not ‘impossible’ at all.

 

Moreover, the sooner the U.K. throws NI under the bus, the faster and easier that next phase, and its negotiation, would happen. Corbyn wouldn’t bat an eyelid at getting that done, either.

[woodview]

It is not ‘impossible’ at all. The sooner the U.K. throws NI under the bus, the faster and easier that next phase, and its negotiation, would happen. Corbyn wouldn’t bat an eyelid.

It is impossible under that deal. Leaving that phase has to be jointly agreed by EU and UK. If the EU don't agree we will be in that phase indefinately.

[L00b]

It is impossible under that deal. Leaving that phase has to be jointly agreed by EU and UK. If the EU don't agree we will be in that phase indefinately.

It’s got to be jointly agreed by EU and UK because of the NI protocol (this is the backstop, in effect).

 

That’s why I refer to “throwing NI under the bus”: no NIinUK (as it were) = no need for any backstop = EU safeguarding of RoI/NI border/GFA redundant = RestofUK can effectively FOO that new CU whenever it wants.

 

The alternative to that option, is to come up with the oft-mentioned (and -derided) magical customs technology: that’s one of the reasons why you can’t call it ‘impossible’, since some bright spark may eventually come up with it.

 

There are many other reasons why it’s not ‘impossible’. It’s all there in plain black and white in the text (as were the consequences of Brexit all along), you just have to read and understand it.

 

Of course, there’s still no cake in it. If that’s the problem, unfortunately I can’t help you, because that’ll be the misplaced exceptionalism still in the way.

Edited November 15, 2018 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/leave-voter-cries-apologises-for-brexit/

 

A man in tears because he realises the consequences of voting leave.

 

That pretty much sums up what I get from a lot of 'ordinary' leave voters. "I didn't think too much about it but liked the sound of what the leave campaign was saying."

 

That's how dog whistle politics work. Get a good enough slogan or sound bite, and you no longer need a credible argument as your target audience will not invest too much time thinking about it, as this guy admits.

Edited November 15, 2018 by esme
url fixed

[Mister M]

Leave voter in tears:

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/leave-voter-cries-apologises-for-brexit/

[Litotes]

It'll be more than £39Bn as it will be calculated in € and the £ will have tanked by then...

[woodview]

It’s got to be jointly agreed by EU and UK because of the NI protocol (this is the backstop, in effect).

 

That’s why I refer to “throwing NI under the bus”: no NIinUK (as it were) = no need for any backstop = EU safeguarding of RoI/NI border/GFA redundant = RestofUK can effectively FOO that new CU whenever it wants.

 

The alternative to that option, is to come up with the oft-mentioned (and -derided) magical customs technology: that’s one of the reasons why you can’t call it ‘impossible’, since some bright spark may eventually come up with it.

 

There are many other reasons why it’s not ‘impossible’. It’s all there in plain black and white in the text (as were the consequences of Brexit all along), you just have to read and understand it.

 

Of course, there’s still no cake in it. If that’s the problem, unfortunately I can’t help you, because that’ll be the misplaced exceptionalism still in the way.

What is the other way out of the propsed Customs Territory , apart from the EU agreeing to it? It is plainly written, I agree, that it has to be a JOINT agreement for it to end i.e the EU must also agree it, we cannot leave unilaterally.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 13:02 ----------

 

That pretty much sums up what I get from a lot of 'ordinary' leave voters. "I didn't think too much about it but liked the sound of what the leave campaign was saying."

 

That's how dog whistle politics work. Get a good enough slogan or sound bite, and you no longer need a credible argument as your target audience will not invest too much time thinking about it, as this guy admits.

Nice work. Remain voters were all carefully considered, read all the relevant pros and cons and came up with the right choice. leavers just believed what they were told, and followed blindly. One guy dredged up for a sound bite proves the whole point. Very educated indeed sir, or are you engaging in Confirmation Bias???

Edited November 15, 2018 by woodview

[Litotes]

That depend on how you quantify it, normally it is based on GDP per capita so here you go from 2017..

 

Inefficient companies usually go under very quickly as we have already seen over the past several months. Its in their interests to be more efficient otherwise no bank will lend them anything.

 

 

That assumes an interest rate of 5-7%, and where did you get those estimates from? According to you productivity would increase and unemployment would also increase as a result.

 

Inflation in a country is not measured on a global level only on a local one and the effect it has on its economy.

 

As said we have had in the past and still have skill shortages well before brexit. Maybe you could provide some proper details about it all being because of brexit.

 

If you use the link I provided in my above post you can compare any country with the UK, it may also surprise you..

 

Productivity = GDP per hour worked according to the OECD

 

https://www.ft.com/content/0e2d7ed6-2e89-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4