Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[LondonJohn]

Literally the Messiah, hyperbole, but they are suddenly talking in glowing terms about what a great Conservative leader he is having mocked him right up until the date of the election.

Well then.... wow.

That's why I think they find it so difficult to say why Brexit will be so great for the UK economy. These are (four) smart people, generally (retired) senior managers or directors in multi-national companies so they're aware of the difficulties of doing business outside the EU rather than inside the EU. That's why they had clearly defined economic reasons for Remaining.

What has been very surprising to me is that over they have pretty much done the same thing over the last few weeks - suddenly decided that there is a strong economic case for leaving the EU and that business with the rest of the world will easily compensate with any new difficulties dealing with the EU. In contrast to their previous position however, they are unable to provide specifics about how this might happen.

Again, wow. But to paraphrase HL Mencken: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the (British) public".

Best for whom ?

UK plc.

It seems to me that there are very few people who stand to gain from either Boris Johnson's deal (which is the same as Theresa May's deal but with a hard border in the Irish Sea, not on the island of Ireland) or no-deal.

But at the same time, it's arguable that no better (or "less bad") deal could be had. Incidentally, on this issue I do happen to agree with those who argue that anthing involving an ongoing full customs union or free trade agreement would not be in keeping with what voters reasonably believed they were voting for in 2016 (but to a degree this is a judgement call rather than a black-and-white matter).

Indeed the key players, including Boris Johnson have seemed to do everything they can to prevent a deal which is least damaging to the UK and its electorate and instead move towards a position which benefits their backers most.

I simply don't interpret the known evidence in the same way as you do.

 

[Dave Rogers]

He didn't promise that "the process (would be) expedited". He promised that there'd be no further delay. Which is exactly what the proposed legislation would do.

Except, of course, that it won't actually do anything, other than give the impression that Boris is doing what he said he would and prepare the way for a claim, if anything accidentally goes wrong, that he did everything he possibly could to prevent it by making it illegal for anything to accidentally go wrong.

Dave

 

[ceptimus]

I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something.

Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.

 

[LondonJohn]

The UK already had the ability to prevent a further extension. All Boris Johnson is seeking to do is to prevent parliament, with a huge Conservative majority, from taking action should it become apparent that ending the transition period is disastrous.

I think you're missing the point. The point is that by locking this issue down with legislation, Johnson is (most likely) deliberately seeking to give himself no wiggle room in order to expedite negotiations and reach resolutions. Now, one can of course argue as to whether this is a wise move or not.... but you kicked off this area of debate when you suggested that Johnson's reason for seeking this legislation was in order to deliberately try to end up with a no-deal Brexit and/or to try to ensure an erosion of worker's rights.

What proportion of Left-wingers and anti-Johnson-ers are inbred by your estimation ?

Uh what? Firstly (and again), if I wrote "I find it interesting that tall women find it difficult to shop for formal clothing", why would it be at all relevant to ask "what proportion of women are tall by my estimation"? Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction".

I don't see how it's ironic. Rather, it clearly shows that a left-wing, anti-Conservative message wasn't a barrier to being elected.

*sigh* And nor was it a barrier to Labour being elected in safe Labour seats. You're missing the point.

The key differences between the SNP and Labour IMO were a leadership which wasn't an electoral liability and a clearly defined, and easily understood Brexit policy.

While I agree with those differences, there's the additional rather large difference that's implied by the words "Scottish" and "Nationalist".

...a no-deal Brexit

No, I do not believe Boris Johnson's repeated statements about not wanting a no-deal. He is both a liar and a political opportunist. During the Leave campaign he assured us that we'd be in the EEA and immediately reversed that position when it was clear that a hard Brexit created a path to 10 Downing Street.

OTOH Dominic Cummings has been very consistent about wanting a no-deal Brexit. Given that he is the one who actually does all the planning and work, and that Boris Johnson is famously lazy and ill-prepared, I'm confident that Dominic Cummings will prevail.

Well, we'll see I guess.

 

[LondonJohn]

I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something.

Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.

(Though I don't altogether subscribe to your final sentence there)

 

[McHrozni]

Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.

EU wants the toxic UK out as soon as possible. It contends with the endless extensions upon extensions because it doesn't want to be guilty of the inevitable disaster Brexit will become. In regards to payments EU already won, the EU budget only went on until the end of 2020. UK can renegade to at most 11 months of that and would have to do an equivalent of a soverign default in order to do so.

McHrozni

 

[Dave Rogers]

I suppose if the law makes the EU negotiators believe they have a hard deadline to work to (I don't think they believe in the concept of hard deadlines), then it may achieve something.

I really don't think they're stupid enough to fall for that one. It's plain to see that this law will not be binding on the one body it applies to, and the evidence seems to suggest that the EU negotiators are intelligent and knowlegeable enough to understand that. I think this law is purely PR directed at the portion of the electorate who have voted Conservative in order to get a speedy resolution to Brexit.

Without a deadline, it's in the interests of the EU to string out the negotiations forever. They want to keep us obeying their rules and paying them, for as long as possible.

I don't think they're that stupid either. They want to get on with the business of running the EU, and I suspect most of them would really, really like to get the Brexit party out of the European Parliament.

Dave

 

[ceptimus]

EU wants the toxic UK out as soon as possible. It contends with the endless extensions upon extensions because it doesn't want to be guilty of the inevitable disaster Brexit will become. In regards to payments EU already won, the EU budget only went on until the end of 2020. UK can renegade to at most 11 months of that and would have to do an equivalent of a soverign default in order to do so.

McHrozni

If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can.

 

[ceptimus]

I really don't think they're stupid enough to fall for that one. It's plain to see that this law will not be binding on the one body it applies to, and the evidence seems to suggest that the EU negotiators are intelligent and knowlegeable enough to understand that. I think this law is purely PR directed at the portion of the electorate who have voted Conservative in order to get a speedy resolution to Brexit.



I don't think they're that stupid either. They want to get on with the business of running the EU, and I suspect most of them would really, really like to get the Brexit party out of the European Parliament.

Dave

My understanding is that the Brexit party (and other UK MEPs) WILL be out of the European Parliament during the transition period - so they'll be gone about six weeks from now. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

I agree that there should be no need for the law - Boris's promise to not extend the transition period should be sufficient and equivalent. But if the law makes the EU negotiators think they have less chance of stringing the negotiations along, then it may have some value.

 

[The Don]

I think you're missing the point. The point is that by locking this issue down with legislation, Johnson is (most likely) deliberately seeking to give himself no wiggle room in order to expedite negotiations and reach resolutions. Now, one can of course argue as to whether this is a wise move or not.... but you kicked off this area of debate when you suggested that Johnson's reason for seeking this legislation was in order to deliberately try to end up with a no-deal Brexit and/or to try to ensure an erosion of worker's rights.

I was arguing that it's a way to engineer a no-deal Brexit.

The erosion of workers' rights is the inevitable result of having a Conservative government during the Brexit process.

Uh what? Firstly (and again), if I wrote "I find it interesting that tall women find it difficult to shop for formal clothing", why would it be at all relevant to ask "what proportion of women are tall by my estimation"? Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction".

I have literally never encountered that definition of "inbred" in my 52 years of being a native English speaker. The two I'm familiar with are:

• The product of incest
• Something possessed since birth

Neither of these seem to relate to your definition.

*sigh* And nor was it a barrier to Labour being elected in safe Labour seats. You're missing the point.

Labour were pummelled by both the Conservatives and the SNP and yet somehow this is a clear indication that their anti-Tory rhetoric is the cause - nope not getting it.

 

[McHrozni]

If the trade negotiations "take longer than expected" and "an extension to the transition period is granted to allow negotiations to continue" then the EU will demand that the UK continue to pay during that extension and, of course, we won't be able to conclude trade deals with other countries during the extension(s). What's not for the EU to like? They'll try to delay things for as long as they can.

UK won't be able to conclude trade deals after the extensions either. UK faces a cliff edge Brexit unless it ends up in a customs union with the EU. A few trade partners might roll over the deals to cover the UK as well, most won't. UK doesn't have negotiators for any one of those deals, so it's not like making any sort of a deal like promised by BJ and his ilk benefits the UK.

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

UK won't be able to conclude trade deals after the extensions either. UK faces a cliff edge Brexit unless it ends up in a customs union with the EU. A few trade partners might roll over the deals to cover the UK as well, most won't. UK doesn't have negotiators for any one of those deals, so it's not like making any sort of a deal like promised by BJ and his ilk benefits the UK.

McHrozni

I said "conclude trade deals with other countries" By which I meant non-EU countries.

 

[McHrozni]

I said "conclude trade deals with other countries" By which I meant non-EU countries.

So did I.

UK lacks skilled negotiators. This works well enough with EU that wants to accomodate UK to the best of their ability.

Outside it's dog eats dog. YOou'll probably feel it soon enough.

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

So did I.

UK lacks skilled negotiators. This works well enough with EU that wants to accomodate UK to the best of their ability.

Outside it's dog eats dog. YOou'll probably feel it soon enough.

McHrozni

I don't want to argue about the skill of UK negotiators.

But your argument has a logical error in any case. Having unskilled negotiators doesn't prevent you from concluding trade deals - it merely prevents you from concluding trade deals that work more in your own favour.

 

[McHrozni]

Having unskilled negotiators doesn't prevent you from concluding trade deals - it merely prevents you from concluding trade deals that work more in your own favour.

Put that on a plaque and write "#Brexit" underneath, will you?

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

Labour were pummelled by both the Conservatives and the SNP and yet somehow this is a clear indication that their anti-Tory rhetoric is the cause - nope not getting it.

One key difference is that the SNP consistently opposed Brexit, holding a referendum, and respecting the result.

Labour voted in favour of holding the referendum, promised to respect the result, and then broke their promise.

SNP stuck to their word and were rewarded by voters. Labour broke their word and were punished by voters.

 

[ceptimus]

Put that on a plaque and write "#Brexit" underneath, will you?

McHrozni

A concluded trade deal now might be more valuable than a better deal concluded ten years from now. Have you considered that?

Once a trade deal is in place, alterations can still be made. This happens all the time.

 

[McHrozni]

A concluded trade deal now might be more valuable than a better deal concluded ten years from now. Have you considered that?

Of course I have.

It was one of the key arguments against Brexit.

Once a trade deal is in place, alterations can still be made. This happens all the time.

Just be sure you have something to offer still, ok?

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

You're missing the key difference. Johnson's promise was stupid, over ambitious, and unbelievable, but it was broken because his opponents prevented him from delivering it. In contrast, Labour politicians breaking of their promise to respect the referendum, was just because they changed their minds - or were lying when they made the promise in the first place.

Voters will forgive (to an extent) the first type of broken promise, but not the second kind.

His bill get through, it was him that sabotaged his own bill's process.

 

[GlennB]

Secondly I hope you understand that by "inbred" I mean "indoctrinated" rather than "the product of incestuous sexual reproduction".

This explains the dispute going on, as 'inbred' doesn't mean 'indoctrinated' at all.