Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[Lothian]

You'd be foolish to believe all the claims made by any campaigners. During the Brexit campaign both sides lied. I think this happens with most election campaigns. Politicians are liars! (shock!)

I never expected that the EU would allow us to keep all EU privileges after we'd left - they would be mad to do that as it would encourage lots of other countries to also leave the EU.

What lies did remain say about the economic consequences and ease of trading by remaining?

It is not that leave told done lies. All leave said was lies. Where did leave say we would have a hard brexit, border posts in Ireland, airport car parks in Dover and massive job losses. Where were those posters?

 

[McHrozni]

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Well, he's right on the GMO and Disney character thing. However I doubt Disney characters can be made into fearmongering propaganda quite as easily. Maybe when Disney makes a human-mouse hybrid that looks like Mickey and uses them as slaves in their parks, but that's twenty years away, maybe thirty.

Those ears need a support structure that is both light and stiff and convincing the metabolism to build it out of titanium is going to be tricky.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

What lies did remain say about the economic consequences and ease of trading by remaining?

It is not that leave told done lies. All leave said was lies. Where did leave say we would have a hard brexit, border posts in Ireland, airport car parks in Dover and massive job losses. Where were those posters?

Found one!

McHrozni

 

[GnaGnaMan]

No the backstop does not go away. The backstop remains. What it requires is that whatever changes there are in the EU in future the UK passively follows. If the EU decides to ban US goods or make Disney characters illegal* then the UK has to follow.

Now if you believe the EU is wonderful and can never do wrong then that is fine, I happen to think that at present staying in the EU is better than not; but I think that could change in the future. Leaving the EU has a mechanism article 50. There is no exit from the backstop. It requires the UK to be subject to EU law as it is now and as it will be in the future in perpetuity with no legal exit except as agreed by the EU.

*The EU is quite capable of irrational legislation e.g. on GMO. Their is a more rational basis for arguing that Disney's cultural appropriation and claimed ownership of e.g. Snow White, should be banned than GMO's.

You're saying that the UK should break the GFA now because there might unexpectedly(!) arise circumstances which would force the UK to break the WA. That makes no sense.

 

[catsmate]

Jeebus...
Certain people really need to either:
1. Read the GFA, the NI backstop arrangements and the UK's Withdrawal Agreement
2. Stop pontificating about matters they clearly don't understand

 

[catsmate]

All we need to do is negotiate a trade deal and the backstop goes away.

Given the level of competence of the Brexiteers that should be completed around 2070.

 

[catsmate]

I'm curious. What is this alternative to the backstop?

There was some rubbish from the Brexiteers about magic technology that could fix everything easily. Those who understand what was actually required debunked their nonsense however.

 

[Lothian]

Found one!

McHrozni

Indeed. Whereas in the past lorry drivers would live a lonely existence, rolling on through borders as if they were not there. In the Brexit future they will be able to converse with and get to know a large variety of immigration, customs, and tax officials on route and will have hours to spend playing cards while parked up on the side of the A2. It will be a lot more sociable country as we abandon our mobile phones Tesco orders and rediscover the ability to make small talk while standing in food queues. Not to mention the benefit of having the opportunity to learn foreign languages as we fight for the limited visas available for jobs picking soft fruits in Romania or building sites in Poland. It will be truly great.

 

[McHrozni]

Indeed. Whereas in the past lorry drivers would live a lonely existence, rolling on through borders as if they were not there. In the Brexit future they will be able to converse with and get to know a large variety of immigration, customs, and tax officials on route and will have hours to spend playing cards while parked up on the side of the A2. It will be a lot more sociable country as we abandon our mobile phones Tesco orders and rediscover the ability to make small talk while standing in food queues. Not to mention the benefit of having the opportunity to learn foreign languages as we fight for the limited visas available for jobs picking soft fruits in Romania or building sites in Poland. It will be truly great.

MaBGA!

McHrozni

 

[Vixen]

I am sure many people voted for Brexit for many different reasons. I do not believe you know what all those people thought would be the consequence of Brexit. I do know people who thought there would be a worsening of the economy post Brexit but who thought there would be a longer term gain. People who thought a short term sacrifice was justified for the longer term benefits. One person I know argues that with global warming the EU would be flooded with refugees and the global warming would impact central and southern europe more than the UK. That looking 30 years ahead the UK needed to be able to adopt its own policies.

You seem to be saying that immigration is the problem. Truth is, we have a divided world: the rich world and the poor world. As long as that is the case, the poor world will be susceptible to exploitative dictatorships, civil wars, poverty, hunger, natural disasters (infrastructures that crumble at first sign of severe weather, earthquakes or flooding), so of course, there is economic migration. If you were born by an accidental of birth on the flood plains of Bangladeshi, you too, would be keen to get out and try your hand at an 'Indian' Restaurant in Soho or a sweatshop tailors in the East End.

In the meantime, first world countries are crying out for menial labourers, cleaners, agricultural workers, construction workers or even doctors, nurses and engineers because there is a shortage of such staff in their own country with the indigenous population preferring light service 9 to 5 work.

So Merkel may or may not have made a huge mistake allowing in over a million or so asylum seekers from war torn Syria and Afghanistan and there is the reasonable fear that we in the UK will be obliged to take in large numbers when lack of housing is already near crisis point. Truth is, migration is nothing new. It is as old as mankind itself. Even if the UK were to leave with deal or no deal it still has a humanitarian obligation to admit asylum seekers.

Stopping immigration doesn't solve anything much as they are often vital to the wealth of the country.

The problem starts when the immigrants become 'ghetto'-ised into certain areas and become associated with crime and poverty.

Then there is a perception they are a burden on the welfare service.

'Taking back control of our borders' isn't going to solve this.

 

[abaddon]

They don't still want to play the course as if they were a member. They just want to leave. If the club is prepared to offer a way of paying per round, and if the cost is reasonable, then they might still play there. If not they will play at different clubs.

What is not acceptable is for the club to dictate to ex-members that they can never play at any other club.

Correct. Which is why the EU is doing no such thing.

The UK is entirely free to negotiate any treaty or trade deal it wants with any third party it wants after it has left.

It is UK incompetence that means it has not left yet.

 

[McHrozni]

Stopping immigration doesn't solve anything much as they are often vital to the wealth of the country.

Actually stopping immigration would be in the long-term interests of the countries providing the said immigrants.

Why? Because those that leave tend to be better educated, more flexible and more capable than those who remain. The longer emigration goes on the more the ratio skews towards the less educated, less flexible and less capable people remaining. This is not a problem if the rate emigration is low enough for the available talent pool to be continuosly replenished, but mass emigration over a generation or so may well produce a failed state that will take several generations to repair. Truly massive emigration of a a third of population has the potential to do that in half the time.

I have nothing against immigrants and as you say they often are vital to the wealth of their target country. Bring in too many however and that will be determinal to their origin country for the foreseeable future.

It's easy to name countries that are at risk of this or have passed the treshold: Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Somalia. All of these will be far more difficult to repair from their own respective collapses than they would be if it wasn't for the mass emigration robbing the country of talent. There are others that are at risk (Argentina comes to mind), some are in Europe, some may even be members of the EU. I don't expect them to fall down quite as deep at those five, but they will still feel the consequences.

Stoping excessive immigration therefore does something in that regard: it makes the rise from poverty less difficult for the poor countries.

McHrozni

 

[Dave Rogers]

There was some rubbish from the Brexiteers about magic technology that could fix everything easily. Those who understand what was actually required debunked their nonsense however.

It was self-debunking anyway, because if the magic technology had existed then it would have been put in place on day 1 and there would have been no need for the backstop to continue. The backstop is required, purely and simply, because the magic technology doesn't exist yet.

Dave

 

[a_unique_person]

There was some rubbish from the Brexiteers about magic technology that could fix everything easily. Those who understand what was actually required debunked their nonsense however.

What was to be negotiated with the EU about this magic? Can the EU negotiate magic?

 

[catsmate]

It was self-debunking anyway, because if the magic technology had existed then it would have been put in place on day 1 and there would have been no need for the backstop to continue. The backstop is required, purely and simply, because the magic technology doesn't exist yet.

Dave

Exactly. If the magic technology existed the Brexiteers wouldn't have cared about the NI backstop.

What was to be negotiated with the EU about this magic? Can the EU negotiate magic?

I'm sure the EU has an office responsible for planning for the return of magic.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, he's right on the GMO and Disney character thing. However I doubt Disney characters can be made into fearmongering propaganda quite as easily. Maybe when Disney makes a human-mouse hybrid that looks like Mickey and uses them as slaves in their parks, but that's twenty years away, maybe thirty.

Those ears need a support structure that is both light and stiff and convincing the metabolism to build it out of titanium is going to be tricky.

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

It was self-debunking anyway, because if the magic technology had existed then it would have been put in place on day 1 and there would have been no need for the backstop to continue. The backstop is required, purely and simply, because the magic technology doesn't exist yet.

Dave

The backstop called their bluff, which is why they're opposed to it.

As someone has already suggested, if it didn't exist then something else would have been found to complain about.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We've made many proposals to the EU. It's rather a waste of time if they just reject them out of hand, or insist they can't be discussed until after Brexit.

Can you name 3?

 

[ceptimus]

Correct. Which is why the EU is doing no such thing.

The UK is entirely free to negotiate any treaty or trade deal it wants with any third party it wants after it has left.

Yes, if we leave properly. That wouldn't have been the case had we accepted "Mrs May's deal" which bound us into the backstop and prevented us negotiating any treaties or trade deals with other countries.

 

[Lothian]

Yes, if we leave properly. That wouldn't have been the case had we accepted "Mrs May's deal" which bound us into the backstop and prevented us negotiating any treaties or trade deals with other countries.

It broadly continued the existing membership obligations and rights until termination. A simple exercise running to a mere 557 pages.
I dare say that all EU law could have been reviewed in light of the UK's intended departure and amore nuanced transition agreement could have been agreed where the number of pages could have gone into 5 figures. The agreement was meant to be quick and dirty to maximize the time for discussions about the 1/1/2021 and onwards arrangements. That is why for the key areas what was documented was simply 'as is' or 'scrap'.
Negotiating new treaties is 'as is'. As you will know the existing law does not prevent us negotiating new trade deals. We have agreed some already with the likes of the faroe islands. If it doesn't stop us negotiating deals now it will not stop us negotiating deals in transition.
As ever this is not a genuine complaint simply a brexiteer* lie to hide their objective of orchestrating a model.

The lie are generally promoted by those shorting the UK's economic welfare for personal gain albeit spread by those deluded into a fantasy.