Britain leaving the European Union.


#5576

BBC News - Wage growth at highest rate since 2008

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/07/uk-wages-boom-to-post-gfc-high-on-brexit-immigration-cuts/


#5577

Both of your sensible suggestions have been ruled out by BoJo and Hunt. Any more?


#5578

BoJo hasn’t ruled out any finessing of the backstop yet - as a PM. Let’s see if he rules something like that out when he is PM and if something like that is offered coming up to October as a way out of the impasse.


#5579

Prepare for Bailout 2.0


#5580

> Boris Johnson on Varadkar: ‘Why isn’t he called Murphy like all the rest of them’


#5581

That assumes the UK remains led by Al Bo de Pfeffel Johnson.
At least 50% of the population is against a no deal Brexit and it looks like the EU will make the optics of a no deal fall squarely on de Pfeffel Johnson.

Except with the battle of Britain, well over 50% of the population didn’t think Hitler was right.

[quote=“onioneater, post:5574, topic:48441, full:true”]Remember that in the ensuing chaos the UK will have leverage in terms of the €39 billion it may or may not pay to the EU
[/quote] …Or one fiftieth of one percent of EU GDP per annum over 8 years (which is when the £39 Bn was to be paid).

the EU as a whole is effectively unaffected by a no deal Brexit https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1144260045850517505 , Ireland is pretty much as affected by a no deal Brexit as by any other form of Brexit - about 6 months’ growth (unlike the UK ( affected similarly to the great recession) or NI - which loses 10 years of growth). Ireland’s best strategy is to create either a situation so awful that A50 is revoked or secondly no deal.

So why on earth risk this crock of shit unfurling? Remember also that lorries carrying goods to Ireland will be stuck in the queues at Dover and Calais along with those carrying goods to the UK. The sensible thing to do will be to offer a concession on the backstop (timebox it to 2 years or to another UK referendum)

Brexit has been going on for 3 years. Round 2 (whether in or out of the WA) will take at least 10 years. 2 years backstop is a sick joke.

to get the May WA over the line and see what happens in the next few years while they are still negotiating the actual EU/UK trade deal. A lot could change over the next 2 years including a UK General Election that could bring in the Labour Party. It favours staying in the Single Market & Customs Union (so the backstop becomes moot).
The labour party is against the single market - stop lying.
Conceding strengthens the Tories and ensures the Labour party will lose the next time- what do you do then?

Once they are out of the political side of the EU I predict that the UK electorate won’t care a great deal if they remain in the SM/CU and will have got bored of that debate.
[/quote] 50% will believe whatever the Express and Nigel Farage (etc) tell them to believe. Being in the SM/CU without being in the EU would mean they were a “vassal state” even worse than EU membership. A BRINO with none of the upsides of Brexit etc


#5582

For the stoopids, heres what happened -


#5583

#5584

It’s not mutual…


#5585

Is it time to press the panic button now?


#5586

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-25/johnson-pledges-to-turbo-charge-no-deal-brexit-preparations?srnd=premium-europe
They are preparing but, what’s our plan?


#5587

Last December:

Brexit: Tory MP backtracks over food scarcity in Ireland
Sat, Dec 8, 2018, 17:47

No-deal remarks ‘taken out of context’, claims former cabinet minister Priti Patel

Conservative MP Priti Patel has said her comments about Britain preventing food imports to Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit have been “taken out of context”.

The former British international development minister has been condemned on both sides of the Irish Sea for her remarks in the Times that Britain could prevent the use of its country as a landbridge between Ireland and the continent.

She responded to a British government report stating that a no-deal Brexit might mean food shortages in Ireland.

In such a scenario she suggested this possibility could be used to exert pressure on the Irish Government to drop its insistence on the backstop.

“This paper appears to show the government were well aware Ireland will face significant issues in a no-deal scenario. Why hasn’t this point been pressed home during negotiations,” she told the Times in reference to the report.

Former BBC journalist Gavin Esler tweeted: “Truly despicable comments from Priti Patel – how is it possible that someone like this ended up in the British Cabinet?”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-tory-mp-backtracks-over-food-scarcity-in-ireland-1.3725093

This madam is now the Home Secretary


#5588

A war-crime according to no less than The Geneva Convention:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule53


#5589

The first of many threats towards us. I hope I am wrong but, we might see a surge of anti-Brit sentiment in this country. We are in dangerous waters.


#5590



Nick Gutteridge

@nick_gutteridge

14 hours ago, 16 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter

Bookmark

Save as PDF

1/ I’ve done this before but on a day like today it’s worth remembering the striking difference in the way the EU and UK see the backstop. From the Brussels furnace, based on convos with officials/diplomats, the EU perspective (not advocating either way just reporting as ever).

2/ EU negotiators acknowledge the Withdrawal Agreement is ‘toxic’ and are aware why, even if they don’t understand the British reasoning. They see the backstop as a rare UK triumph, securing tariff and quota free access to the Single Market with few of the usual strings attached.

3/ Member States have always been a bit uncomfortable with the Ts & Cs of the UK-wide backstop because it doesn’t contain some stuff they’d want in return for such market access - things like fishing rights, dynamic alignment on environmental and social/employment standards etc.

4/ It also separates access to the Single Market for goods from services, which some EU countries with service-based economies find a bit disconcerting. They fear that under the backstop the UK, which is 80% service-based after all, could exploit that for competitive advantage.

5/ The UK-wide backstop also sets a precedent ahead of future trade talks by giving Britain that quite significant quota and tariff free access to the EU market before negotiations have even begun. As one official put it they see it as ‘a kind of gift from the EU’ in that regard.

6/ The EU official sums it up: ‘The Brits managed to have in a Withdrawal Agreement a quasi Customs Union. No tariffs, no quantitative restrictions and no other impediments with respect to quotas. Something the EU has never given to any other country in the world except Norway.’

7/ ‘The common perception in the UK is the Withdrawal Agreement of Mrs May is toxic. The reality is that given the red lines of the Government this is not badly negotiated and it’s fairly close to Chequers, that’s the truth of it.’ Chequers minus, to coin an @adamfleming phrase.

8/ Remember that Chequers, whilst loathed in the UK for keeping us too close to the EU, was loathed in Brussels and Member States in equal measure for trying to replicate many of the economic benefits of Customs Union and Single Market membership without all the obligations.

9/ A diplomatic source says of the backstop: ‘Since the whole thing became so toxic nobody really managed to explain what the UK negotiators secured, something for which you have to fight for years in any ordinary trade agreement and that comes with a lot of conditions attached.’

10/ A problem with the EU’s reasoning from a UK perspective, of course, is it’s based on the premise of ‘why wouldn’t you want a Customs Union?’ It also doesn’t address the DUP’s opposition to regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland only and resulting checks in the Irish Sea.

11/ So, what happens if PM Johnson ditches the backstop and asks for a GATT 24 standstill agreement? From the EU perspective you quickly enter ‘very complicated negotiations which have the purpose to basically cover exactly the same benefits the Brits already obtained in the WA.’

12/ These take place on the basis of Article 218, not 50, meaning Member State ratification is required. The French, Belgians and others will demand fishing rights. Ditto a LPF on social/environmental/labour rights. Greece and Italy will want Geographical Indication protection.

13/ ‘You will see all kinds of preconditions that we haven’t seen before.’ The upshot, says an EU official, is the UK will end up having to negotiate ‘all the prerequisites’ built into the backstop in terms of market access but only on ‘a worse basis’ and with more risk involved.

14/ ‘With the UK-wide backstop they obtained tariff and quota free access to the EU market. If we start from scratch because there’s No Deal are we seriously going to give them the same thing right away? It will be a nightmare and in the meantime we’ll have the disruption.’

15/ As for PM Johnson’s GATT 24 idea, it’s ‘unthinkable’. Why? ‘It would give an unprecedented opening to the Single Market without any safeguards. They’re out of the ecosystem, legislation checks, safety standards. It would amount to full access to the SM without any strings.’

16/ So all of this is why the EU side can’t understand the UK obsession with ditching the backstop. One diplomat argues ‘Europe needs to make the case that what we offered is not such a bad deal’. Truth is that horse has long since bolted and started a new life on the moors. ENDS


#5591

Gutteridge’s analysis of the backstop, whether deliberately or not, completely ignores what is now the key point. The backstop will keep the UK indefinitely in the CM and SM at a high € cost with no representation to show for it and no ability to act independently in terms of trade deals. as there will be no realistic way for them to negotiate a trade deal acceptable to Leavers that will allow them out of the backstop.

May and her negotiating team seemed to be happy with the backstop, and of course they wanted it applied to the entire UK, but the majority of Tories were not and these Tories are now running the show with significant public support. If we get to an election in the UK it is easy to see a combination of the Conservatives and Brexit party winning a working majority ahead of a divided opposition with an unappealing Labour leader in what will be a single issue election. The WA with backstop is dead unless amended. Its now a choice between amending the backstop and a no deal exit with significant collateral damage all around, something which the British government now seem willing to accept rather than sign up to the WA.


#5592

Modern vintage Irish Gov do not do plans. They wait dutifully for their orders form central command and adujsut/market/sell as their plans via a compliant media apparatus.

Less plan more bet - that they are the unassailed “goodboy” of the big boys Club and thus are on the “forever-winning” team who sup at the central bankers magic fiat currency chalice.

We’ve seen this before, for what is coming, No one is prepared.


#5593

I imagine that as a country we are not terribly well prepared and are just hoping for the best. For instance have people made system changes yet for an overnight changing VAT status for the UK? I haven’t heard anything done about this although I do hope it is actually there ready to be rolled out overnight.

Another worrying aspect now is that the French seem to think that they are well-prepared and they seem to be almost goading the UK at this point to do a no-deal exit. It looks like the French believe that they can do more damage to the UK in such a scenario than the UK will do to them. And they are probably correct. Unless something changes we are heading towards an ugly trade war scenario where the little guy can get squeezed.


#5594

Okay, now he has. Next suggestion? Tugged forelock maybe? Murphy’s the name, what can I get you sir?


#5595

Gutteridge’s analysis of the backstop, whether deliberately or not, completely ignores what is now the key point. The backstop will keep the UK indefinitely in the CM and SM at a high € cost with no representation to show for it and no ability to act independently in terms of trade deals.

“None of you seem to understand, I’m not stuck in here with you - you are stuck in here with me.”
Are you the guy that got a vat of boiling oil thrown in his face?
https://youtu.be/B3lsJmwNO40

With the backstop, the UK has Norway level access to the EU with almost zero cost and zero obligations. It is the deal is the century. The British negotiators did an amazing job. Teresa May did a terrible job selling it and the No deal at any cost negative spin got out of control.

as there will be no realistic way for them to negotiate a trade deal acceptable to Leavers that will allow them out of the backstop.
… And there is no way of negotiating a deal which does not have a backstop which will be acceptable to those who support the GFA.
So now what? Accept death and war and the murder of innocents as a price to pay just so you can buy Marks and Spencers sandwiches more cheaply?

May and her negotiating team seemed to be happy with the backstop, and of course they wanted it applied to the entire UK, but the majority of Tories were not and these Tories are now running the show with significant public support. If we get to an election in the UK it is easy to see a combination of the Conservatives and Brexit party winning a working majority ahead of a divided opposition with an unappealing Labour leader in what will be a single issue election. The WA with backstop is dead unless amended.

You mean all other options besides a backstop are dead. The UK will almost certainly - following a general election - vote yes to the (NI) backstop. Actually a significant majority of the Tory MPs support a backstop - it is a fringe group that is against it.

Its now a choice between amending the backstop and a no deal exit with significant collateral damage all around, something which the British government now seem willing to accept rather than sign up to the WA.

Almost certainly a bluff on the UK side- however Ireland has nothing more to lose so no deal is indeed better than a bad deal - and any deal without a backstop is by definition a bad deal.