ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
Well no deal it is then.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit
- Status
Well no deal it is then.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
This raises a question I have been pondering. May's deal is quite obviously believed by May et. al, to be better than no deal.
Contrarily, that same cohort believe that if May's deal is defeated, somehow no deal is better than the status quo.
How does that work? Absent May's deal, how is no deal better?
Because they think party is more important than country.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe. Not convinced of that.
What is dead may never die.
The said deal was DOA all along and yet here it is for the fourth time.
McHrozni
No, it would require Brexit be done in the service of a hostile power. Whether it is good or bad for UK is immaterial.
Backstop was to be permanent, or else until a different arrangement was possible. It's hard to propose a "longer" solution. That said, indeed it is not certain EU would agree to a long transition, without a backstop. Then again, if the alternative is a no deal Brexit, the whole thing is delayed by a decade, during which things will hopefully improve.
Hm, ok. The first one isn't really an outcome though. Histroy won't end with Brexit, no deal or otherwise. A no deal Brexit would be an interm step towards a more permanent resolution of the question.
McHrozni
Well, this is all about the Tory party and its internal divisions, and the threat from (then) UKIP. It's the whole reason we're here.
It had sod all to do with what was good for the country.
Proving treason would be a hack of a bar to clear - especially since a significant proportion of the UK population supports Brexit, even a no deal Brexit. In order for there to be an investigation into treason, there's need to be a clear signal from government for the process to start. That isn't going to happen when the two main parties want Brexit.
There being prosecutions for treason, however this all plays out, is as fantastical as the post-Brexit scenarios presented by the Leave campaign. It's a non-starter.
There was a (flawed) democratic process followed by a (very flawed) political process but that's pretty much business as normal for most countries.
Regardless, the backstop for Northern Ireland and 18 months of transition was enough of a sticking point to have had Theresa May's deal defeated 3 times. I'm not sure what could have changed for a guaranteed 10 year transition period for the entire country to be more popular.
Yes it would just be an interim step, but a no deal Brexit would be a clear signal that the UK didn't want any kind of future relationship which involved adhering to EU regulations, recognising the four freedoms, abiding by EU court and institution rulings and the EU having any kind of constraint on UK dealings with third parties. In other words it would be ruling out EEA or customs union membership which means that the closest relationship the UK would consider would be less close than Ukraine's.
Any kind of bespoke deal of this kind would take years, perhaps decades, to negotiate. In the meantime the UK would be facing a wide range of economic challenges.
Better for whom ? Better in what way ?
A proportion of people, both Brexit supporters and Brexit leaders for whom any kind of economic disruption is a price well worth paying to be free of rule from Brussels. If we're living in squalor and eating turnips then it was our decision to do so and we're eating honest English turnips, not vile tomatoes forced on us by the EU.
There are people both Brexit supporters and Brexit leaders who genuinely believe that the UK, free from the yoke of EU regulation and oppression, will enter some new golden age. Our industries will be free to export globally and once the EU sees the error of their ways, they'll beat a path to our door to negotiate a trade deal on terms acceptable to the UK.
There are people who really don't give a stuff about the short-term economic situation but have larger free-market fish to fry and see the EU as a major barrier to achieving this. This may be because of a deeply held commitment to free markets, a desire to enrich themselves personally or a combination of the two.
Doubtless there are other groups, and I'm sure there's overlap between the various groups, but all of the above would view a no-deal Brexit as a positive step towards the UK's future and far better than Theresa May's deal which keeps the UK tethered to the EU without delivering too much in the way of associated benefits.
I'm reasonably certain the money for Nigel Farage is sourced from the Kremlin. That would count as treason, right?
Regardless, the backstop for Northern Ireland and 18 months of transition was enough of a sticking point to have had Theresa May's deal defeated 3 times. I'm not sure what could have changed for a guaranteed 10 year transition period for the entire country to be more popular.
In this scenario there is no backstop at the end of the 10 year transition. The transition period of 18 months (then 21 months) wasn't the dealbreaker, the overwhelming majority of Brexiteers aren't that fanatical, the Irish backstop was. Maybe a 10 year transition period with no backstop would placate them, although there is ample room for doubt. EU might not agree to it either, but I think it would be worth a shot. It changes the spectrum of danger from a no deal Brexit in a few months to a no deal Brexit a decade from now. That's enough for businesses to divest from Britain if there is no visible progress at least.
Of course by now the Brexiteer resolve hardened to the point where many see a no deal Brexit now as the prefferable solution. Ten years from now their numbers might dwindle however, who knows. The world could be very different ten years from now - Trump will be out of the picture, perhaps Putin too. That might bring better results. The waiting period might also make things worse, but I think it's worth a shot.
No, it wouldn't be years or decades. The deal can be made in an afternoon, over a cup of tea, or it can't be done at all. Presently there are no regulations or tariffs to negotiate on, zilch, zero, nada. I doubt there are any in the pipeline either, Brexit crowd don't strike me as people who'd plan that far ahead (or at all). It would be the easiest deal in human history, if - and only if - a mutually acceptable solution to the Irish border existed beforehand. There isn't one, until one is found the deal can not be agreed - not in two hours and not in fifty years.
McHrozni
Last edited:
I'm fairly certain a large amount of it recently is from US sources.
He does want to move there after Brexit, after all. That's where his backers are.
What's your source for this ? Most accounts I've read is that he's funded by Aaron Banks and US healthcare interests.
The majority of Conservative Party members and supporters are in favour of a no-deal Brexit. Of all the Brexit options, a no-deal is the most popular - only no-Brexit appears to be more popular.
If the 10 year maintenance of the status quo is to be implemented under Article 24 of WTO, many people have linked articles from experts pointing out how flawed this thought process is. If instead there is a move to implement a 10 year transition period it will be opposed by almost all of the Conservative Party, all of the DUP, and a large chunk of the Labour Party all of whom want a Brexit in the next 18-24 months lest the opportunity is lost.
It would take a very long time to negotiate due to the various red lines. The UK would be looking for a free trade arrangement which may or may not include services and financial passporting - that last part alone could take years or decades to determine.
Add in the extra layers of complication arising from whatever deals the UK may strike in the meantime with other non-EU countries and it's easy to see how this could quickly become one of the most complex trade deals in history.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,967
British Steel has entered insolvency.
This is clearly Brexit-related, and it won't be Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees-Mogg who lose their jobs over it.
This is clearly Brexit-related, and it won't be Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees-Mogg who lose their jobs over it.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,835
I think that ego plays a large part. Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Farage etc have no idea what to do about getting a deal, so they go for the no deal option as it makes them appear tough and decisive. Anything else is a wishy, washy compromise.
But, in reality they are skirting around that no deal is just leaving without a deal and then a deal is negotiated from outside the EU. They think that the UK outside the EU will somehow be a powerhouse that the EU has to bow down to. They think that a WTO trade between the UK and EU will be worse for the EU.
They are wealthy enough to be insulted from any economic fall out and like to talk tough, only because they will not be facing poverty.
Wudang
BOFH
But where does Aaron Banks get his money from? There is some evidence that questions need to be asked about that. For example:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...s-nigel-farage-leave-brexit-russia-connection
So it looks like yet again MPs are shipping up to reject the WA, while British Steel faces collapse because the government wouldn't come up with £75 million pounds to help bail them out. Guess the 'Magic Money Tree' got used up bribing the DUP.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
The goal is not to get a good deal from the EU the goal is to get us signed up to a bad deal with the US. The EU is irrelevant other than it stops us signing up to the US deal until we leave.
I'd be reluctant to throw good money after bad to prop up British Steel, not because I don't think it's a viable business in the long term (I don't know one way or another), or because I'm unsympathetic to the thousands of workers who stand to lose their jobs (I am sympathetic) but rather that it's in the hands of venture capitalists and I'd be very wary of giving them even more government money.
I'm not sure that they wouldn't just spirit this money away and be in exactly the same situation in a few weeks or months time - holding the government, and the workforce to ransom.
A proposed alternative, to nationalise the business, doesn't sound that attractive to me. Giving those same venture capitalists (who, IIRC bought the business for £1 and already have received £100m in government loans ostensibly to cover carbon tax payments) a large sum to take the business off their hands seems to be a green light for others to do the same.
I don't know what the answer is, but Greybull walking away from a failing business with tens of millions doesn't sound like it to me.
If you're good at something, don't do it for free:
Maybe. Look, I'm trying to help here. Throw potential solutions at the problem, maybe one passes. What else can be done in the sad situation UK has found itself in?
It can be negotiated in under two hours. There are only two options to choose from:
1. UK gets the deal with services and financial passporting, but accepts EU regulation.
2. UK doesn't get the said deal.
The same goes for pretty much everything else. Heck, I'd be surprised if it took two hours, if UK could accept the rules of the game. If UK does not accept the rules of the game fifty years are not enough to negotiate anyway.
Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about those. If UK leaves the EU without a deal no country will be keen on signing much of anything with the UK, out of fear of European retalliation, the deal changing due to the deal with EU and most of all, because no one will trust the UK to keep to their word in the first place. Plus UK lacks skilled negotiators to strike said deals.
Making other deals until the question of Brexit is resolved is the least of your concerns.
McHrozni
- Status