/ Rumours of a brexit deal

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Offwidth 11:30 Fri

Anyone got any guesses on how they think they have squared a circle?  If, as the hints appear, they plan for NI being in the customs union I don't see how that gets through Parliament.

Report
BnB 11:40 Fri
In reply to Offwidth:

> Anyone got any guesses on how they think they have squared a circle?  If, as the hints appear, they plan for NI being in the customs union I don't see how that gets through Parliament.

My adviser and I discussed this morning and we both came up with the same obstacle. It would require too many Labour votes if the DUP doesn't fall into line. And why would Labour gift Boris an election boost?

There's a good possibility that this is all optics - both sides making sure that they don't get blamed for not trying hard enough.

Report
David Riley 11:40 Fri
In reply to Offwidth:

Unlike the rest of the EU, anything would be better than no deal for Varadkar .

Report
Offwidth 11:43 Fri
Ridge 11:57 Fri
In reply to BnB:

> My adviser and I discussed this morning and we both came up with the same obstacle. 

> There's a good possibility that this is all optics - both sides making sure that they don't get blamed for not trying hard enough.

You are Donald Tusk and I claim my €5

Report
BnB 12:13 Fri
In reply to Ridge:

Well spotted my British friend.

Report
Robert Durran 12:18 Fri
In reply to Offwidth:

> Latest

Worrying times. If Johnson gets a deal through before Oct 31st we are f*cked. Fingers crossed that he is thwarted. All still to play for.

Report
Lusk 12:21 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Worrying times. If Johnson gets a deal through before Oct 31st we are f*cked. Fingers crossed that he is thwarted. All still to play for.


Agreed
This is scary, we could be looking at another 5 years of Tory Govt.
If so, I'm washing my hands of this country.  Unfortunately I'm trapped here.

Report
In reply to Lusk:

I can't see how he'll get a deal through. The Irish problem seems insuperable.

Report
Robert Durran 12:28 Fri
In reply to Lusk:

> This is scary, we could be looking at another 5 years of Tory Govt.

Yes, Johnson as the puppet of triumphant extremists hell-bent on implementing a really hard Brexit. It could be as bad as no deal but with the Tories punished electorally for it.

> If so, I'm washing my hands of this country.  Unfortunately I'm trapped here.

I'm lucky enough to live in Scotland with an escape route....

Report
Toerag 12:31 Fri
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I can't see how he'll get a deal through. The Irish problem seems insuperable.


Hence my thread about it the other day

Report
jkarran 12:57 Fri
In reply to David Riley:

> Unlike the rest of the EU, anything would be better than no deal for Varadkar .

That's not actually true is it, 'anything' covers a huge range of possibilities, most of them completely unacceptable. For example, caving in to blackmail setting a precedent which leads to the collapse of a union which has brought the continent stability and prosperity, that's worse than dealing with a very troublesome customs border and a distressed economy.

No-deal fu*ks Ireland as hard as us in all the same ways but one: Ireland will keep its powerful allies who will be determined to demonstrate value through solidarity.

Still claim you knew exactly what you were voting for in 2016?

jk

Report
jkarran 13:02 Fri
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I can't see how he'll get a deal through. The Irish problem seems insuperable.

By scuppering the A50 extension leaving it the only option this parliament believes it has a mandate for.

Could he do it and will he try? It seems his career hinges on it so the answer to one of those is almost certainly yes!

jk

Report
Lusk 13:09 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'm lucky enough to live in Scotland with an escape route....

Aye!

I do have one escape route, the wife's uncle lives in co Sligo, with property, we could go there.
But I don't want to, I like my house, I like Manchester, The Peak, Yorkshire, The Lakes, Wales etc etc and most of all the people are fantastic in Britain, I don't see why I should be virtually hounded out of the place I live and love, but the Tories are poison.  And the way things are with my family, we can't just upsticks and f*ck off to Cyprus like some people.

I was filled with so much optimism yesterday listening to Corbyn's speech (I'm going to ignore whingers like summo etc "Who's going to pay for it all blah blah f*cking blah")

I just feel depressed now, and I'm one who never/refuses to get depressed about anything.

We're all f*cked!!!!!!

Post edited at 13:10
Report
Martin Hore 13:31 Fri
In reply to Lusk:

> I was filled with so much optimism yesterday listening to Corbyn's speech (I'm going to ignore whingers like summo etc "Who's going to pay for it all blah blah f*cking blah")

I too thought Corbyn made a good speech. But it's entirely reasonable to ask how it will be paid for. I heard nothing in Corbyn's speech that explained that. If he'd said it will cost 1p on the standard rate of income tax, plus 5p on the higher rate, I'd still have said it was, by and large, a good set of proposals. I'm not a labour supporter by the way., and I did, before retirement, pay some higher rate tax.

Martin

Report
deepsoup 13:58 Fri
In reply to jkarran:

> No-deal fu*ks Ireland as hard as us in all the same ways but one: Ireland will keep its powerful allies who will be determined to demonstrate value through solidarity.

Or two.  While they're struggling with the consequences of it they won't have to deal with the incredibly corrosive affects on their society of a fairly sizeable chunk of the population actually having wanted it to happen.  Common adversity often tends to draw people together. 

Brexiters have often made comparisons to various aspects of WW2 - for the Irish there may well be a degree of "Dunkirk spirit" (it will, after all, hardly be the first time they've ever been f*cked over by the English) but imagine the atmosphere in the London bomb shelters if half the people there had actually voted for the Blitz.

Report
David Riley 14:20 Fri
In reply to jkarran:

> That's not actually true is it,

I believe it is.

>  caving in to blackmail setting a precedent which leads to the collapse of a union

You think the EU can't survive brexit ?

> worse than dealing with a very troublesome customs border and a distressed economy.

Nothing is worse for him than being forced to implement a hard border against the wishes of his country.

Report
jkarran 14:43 Fri
In reply to David Riley:

> I believe it is.

Good for you but it's still demonstrably untrue. Reduce it to the absurd: no-deal vs 'anything', let's say for old time's sake invaded, colonised and starved by the English?

> You think the EU can't survive brexit ?

I think the EU wouldn't survive giving in to blackmail by members demanding better terms out than in which isn't the same thing but is what I previously said.

> Nothing is worse for him than being forced to implement a hard border against the wishes of his country.

Plenty of things are. That isn't to say it's something he wants to do but sometimes we only get tough choices, a no deal border is one of those but it has to be weighed against Ireland losing access to the EU's customs union, you're gambling they'll leave that under duress so as to stay bound to Britain. I wouldn't make that bet.

jk

Post edited at 14:45
Report
MonkeyPuzzle 14:48 Fri
In reply to David Riley:

> I believe it is.

He's already flat out rejected the initial proposal, so it's clearly not.

> You think the EU can't survive brexit ?

It won't survive long if it agrees a deal allowing a porous external border ripe for smuggling, people-smuggling and influx of cheaper goods of a lower standard.

> Nothing is worse for him than being forced to implement a hard border against the wishes of his country.

Again, he's already rejected the initial proposal out of hand. Ireland are no longer our little sidecar for us to bully and threaten. With the rest of the EU27, they have us on toast in any negotiations.

Report
David Riley 14:53 Fri
In reply to jkarran:

Nonsense.  Obviously I'm talking about possible deal options, not including Ireland getting wiped out by an asteroid.

Report
jkarran 15:05 Fri
In reply to David Riley:

> Nonsense.  Obviously I'm talking about possible deal options, not including Ireland getting wiped out by an asteroid.

Well as I've already said the EU compromising it's fundamental principles in response to British blackmail, that would be worse, in the long run it crumbles as each remaining nation in turn lines up to follow Britain's exceptionalist lead demanding more than their partners for less.

Brexiters always miss the value in solidarity. Why do you think Ireland has been such a problem for the quitters, is it newly powerful as a small island nation or does it stand shoulder to shoulder with powerful allies and unity of purpose. You think they'll give that up to avoid a no-deal customs border?

We'll see.

jk

Report
oldie 16:03 Fri
In reply to Offwidth:

>  If, as the hints appear, they plan for NI being in the customs union I don't see how that gets through Parliament. <

EU agrees to refuse extension. UK leaves. Now UK able to sign the deal with EU as with any country in world and thus doesn't require parliamentary approval?

Fantasy. Don't really know if this is possible or legal, and its highly unlikely.

Report
Bob Hughes 16:09 Fri
In reply to David Riley:

> Unlike the rest of the EU, anything would be better than no deal for Varadkar .

politically, giving in to the English would finish him. 

Report
wercat 17:36 Fri
In reply to Offwidth:

Has anyone been refreshing their memory of the history of the Troubles by watching the current BBC series?

I'd like to hear from anyone supporting no-deal who has also taken trouble to watch this and digest and process the implications

As for the reasons of hinting at a deal - there is a competition from both sides to not be seen as the party who prevents a deal.  The problem is that the two sides are not equivalent as one side's logic is composed entirely of NOT gates

Post edited at 17:38
Report
John2 18:25 Fri
In reply to wercat:

I have indeed watched the series, and I'm not really sure what you mean by your comment.

It is generally agreed that it is possible that within the next decade Northern Ireland will have a Catholic majority, and one has to assume that it will not take too much longer for the island of Ireland to be united.

By that stage the current backstop negotiations will be irrelevant.

Report
pasbury 19:12 Fri
In reply to Offwidth:

Surely any offer that Varadkar and the EU sound positive about will be a backstop. Or some continued divergence for NI. Maybe with ratification by a reconvened Stormont.

It's Mrs May's deal with different coloured sprinkles on top. It cannot be any other way because of the stupid red  lines!

Parliament can either reverse their repeated rejection of the deal while holding their noses for a bit of imagined peace and quiet, or they can reject it again and be victims of the blame game and we will all suffer a People Vs Parliament shitfest.

If it seems too good to be true it probably is.

And of course Cummings will eat all this good faith on the part of the EU, digest it in his sociopathic gut and shit it out all over us in toxic briefings.

Post edited at 19:19
Report
Robert Durran 20:12 Fri

I'd be genuinely interested why my post at 12.18 got a load of dislikes. Is UKC really suddenly full of Boris fans?

Report
BnB 20:20 Fri
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'd be genuinely interested why my post at 12.18 got a load of dislikes. Is UKC really suddenly full of Boris fans?

I didn't dislike your post Robert, but I found it odd.

If Boris gets a deal through parliament, notwithstanding that his preferred destination is Canada ++, it will be because the agreement administers a soft Brexit. That would also mean that Boris could and likely would pull the Tory party back towards the centre, since he would not need to offer hard Brexit in the forthcoming manifesto. You may not be a Tory supporter but this would undeniably be preferable to the alternatives.

Report
In reply to BnB:

Surely, now is the time then, for a referendum on this deal and staying in the EU. This deal is the best that May's and Johnson's government can get. So, do we want this real, pragmatic deal or do we want to stay in the EU. 

This is the stage we should have been at in 2016. I compare this painful process very unfavourably to the 2014 Scottish referendum, which wasn't perfect but was at least better informed. 

Let the civil service produce two 500 page documents side by side, outlining the pros and cons of each option. Put them in public places and online. Then people can see what they are voting for. We would have it all sorted by the summer. 

Post edited at 20:46
Report
Offwidth 21:12 Fri
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Latest ... an effective 'customs union' for NI but time to resolve issues looks very short before 31st

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/11/michel-barnier-meets-brexit-secretary-after-uks-positive-talks-with-ireland

Report
pasbury 21:12 Fri
In reply to BnB:

What he's offering is in no way a soft Brexit, the only change is a slightly softer one for NI.

Post edited at 21:12
Report
BnB 22:22 Fri
In reply to pasbury:

> What he's offering is in no way a soft Brexit, the only change is a slightly softer one for NI.

We don’t know the details yet and you well could turn out to be correct.

Report
Andy Hardy 23:53 Fri
In reply to BnB:

Canada(+++) aka Remain(---)

How is leaving the single market a soft brexit?

Report
neilh 00:09 Sat
In reply to John2:

Your assumption is that all catholics want to be in the Republic of Ireland is probably wrong. Economically the republic has issues with funding healthcare for example. Also Catholicism is waning dramatically in Eire. 

So do not assume that is what people want 

Report
HansStuttgart 00:32 Sat
In reply to pasbury:

Where Johnson wants to go with the future relagionship is irrelevant. The UK can hold an election in the transition and vote for a softer brexit.

Report
HansStuttgart 00:39 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

> Nothing is worse for him than being forced to implement a hard border against the wishes of his country.

Being forced to implement a hard border because the British fail to uphold their international commitments is much less worse than voluntarily signing up to a treaty that creates a hard border.

Anyway, in case of no deal the Irish will get a few months of accepted non-compliance with EU law at the border, while the EU uses the chaos in GB created by effectively blocking all other UK borders to force the UK to accept the backstop. So with no deal the border will be temporary, if Varadkar agrees it in the WA it will possibly be forever.

Report
George Ormerod 06:39 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

Isn’t this the much predicted shafting of the DUP and many of the ERG to save his skin? Still, I don’t see how the numbers work as he’s already f*cked off almost every Labour MP and 20+ of his own? And what will his Mekon overlord make of this as he’s been frantically briefing that no deal is the one true path this last week or so?

Report
JoshOvki 07:38 Sat
In reply to wercat:

I was over in N. Ireland (Derry / London Derry) earlier this week for a funeral and was talking to people who live there. In the last year or so things have really started to flair up again and it is making people worried. Some of them were evacuated from their house because of a suspected bomb left across the road (fortunately it was "just" and elaborate hoax), and there were a couple of areas I was warned it is best to avoid or not say anything when I was in the area. If we go down the no deal route, people are sure it will all kick off again, hell even if there is a deal it could all kick off again.

Report
BnB 08:04 Sat
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Canada(+++) aka Remain(---)

> How is leaving the single market a soft brexit?

If you go back to my post yesterday evening you will see that I didn't attempt to classify the deal. I said that it needs to be "soft" in the eyes of Parliament for it to pass. Or, to put it another way, there is no majority in Parliament for what the House considers a hard Brexit. Apologies if I didn't formulate that notion well.

Everyone has different definitions of "soft". For some that might be Norway or BRINO, for others it could be an exit from the single market and customs union that is "softened" by a transition period during which a new trade relationship with Europe is agreed, ensuring limited disruption to industry.

In the context of my original statement, neither your opinion nor mine is relevant. If the DUP come onside with any finalised deal, then the House will decide.

Report
John2 08:55 Sat
In reply to neilh: So what do you think the IRA were fighting for during the ‘troubles’.

Report
Bob Hughes 09:35 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'd be genuinely interested why my post at 12.18 got a load of dislikes. Is UKC really suddenly full of Boris fans?

You don’t need to be a Boris fan to think that no deal is a lot worse than 5 years of Tory government

Report
Robert Durran 11:29 Sat
In reply to Bob Hughes:

It probably would be worse, but I wouldn't underestimate the potential damage of five years with such an utterly unprincipled and dishonest prime minister.

Anyway, I'm not yet ready to throw in the towel and accept that it is now a choice between a Johnson hard Brexit and his threat of no deal. 

I sincerely hope that he fails to get a deal through and that the Benn act gives us  a further extension and the chance of a GE or, better, a confirmatory referendum.

Report
Robert Durran 11:36 Sat
In reply to BnB

> Everyone has different definitions of "soft". For some that might be Norway or BRINO, for others it could be an exit from the single market and customs union that is "softened" by a transition period during which a new trade relationship with Europe is agreed, ensuring limited disruption to industry.

It is a ridiculous, tragic, shifting of the goal posts that some now seem to see anything other than a no deal Brexit as soft. 

Report
BnB 12:26 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It probably would be worse, but I wouldn't underestimate the potential damage of five years with such an utterly unprincipled and dishonest prime minister.

> Anyway, I'm not yet ready to throw in the towel and accept that it is now a choice between a Johnson hard Brexit and his threat of no deal. 

> I sincerely hope that he fails to get a deal through and that the Benn act gives us  a further extension and the chance of a GE or, better, a confirmatory referendum.

Be careful what you wish for. A GE following a delay to Article 50 raises the likelihood of Hard Brexit. You’re going to get a GE soon after any possible deal is passed anyway.

Post edited at 12:28
Report
Robert Durran 12:55 Sat
In reply to BnB:

> Be careful what you wish for. A GE following a delay to Article 50 raises the likelihood of Hard Brexit. You’re going to get a GE soon after any possible deal is passed anyway.

It doesn't sound like it could be much harder than what is currently on offer. Assuming parliament, would, in the end submit to the blackmail threat of no deal if it really came to it, I don't think there is much to lose.

Report
BnB 13:07 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

 Sorry I should have said a GE could lead to “no deal” which is the real worry. From where I’m sat, trying to invest in UK companies, it seems to me that the uncertainty is doing a lot more harm than any form of Brexit ultimately will. It’s becoming crushing.

Post edited at 13:15
Report
In reply to BnB:

> From where I’m sat, trying to invest in UK companies, it seems to me that the uncertainty is doing a lot more harm than any form of Brexit ultimately will.

I'd be grateful if you could explain that. Doesn't the 'uncertainty' = fear that there will be a (hardish) Brexit? And that said UK companies are fearful of the impact it will have on their continuing viability?

To use a climbing analogy, isn't 'uncertainty' about whether one will be able to stay on the rock (when soloing) quite a lot less awful than actually falling off?

Report
Robert Durran 16:18 Sat
In reply to BnB:

>  Sorry I should have said a GE could lead to “no deal” which is the real worry. From where I’m sat, trying to invest in UK companies, it seems to me that the uncertainty is doing a lot more harm than any form of Brexit ultimately will. It’s becoming crushing.

I understand that uncertainty is not great in the short term, but I just think it is worth the shot at a GE which could lead to a much less damaging outcome in the long term. 

Report
BnB 16:42 Sat
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> > From where I’m sat, trying to invest in UK companies, it seems to me that the uncertainty is doing a lot more harm than any form of Brexit ultimately will.

> I'd be grateful if you could explain that. Doesn't the 'uncertainty' = fear that there will be a (hardish) Brexit? And that said UK companies are fearful of the impact it will have on their continuing viability?

Not at all. I'm channelling the business mood when I use the term to mean the inability to take fundamental decisions about business strategy because the direction of travel is opaque. And in a globally competitive world, standing still, paralysed by uncertainty, is fatal.

It's very clear that the vast majority of business leaders want the softest of Brexits, or none at all. But, for the vast majority of businesses, that is driven more by the operational efficiency of maintaining the status quo than by any tariff concerns. However, the breadth of the various possibilities, from being pitched over the Brexit cliff in three weeks time to a referendum that potentially reverses the whole shebang, is petrifying (in the geological sense). The economy is grinding to a halt.

Yesterday, the possibility of a deal, any deal, was enough to send UK bank stocks higher by up to 15%. That's a ridiculous leap for such drab institutions, but it reflects the value that the investment community places on the potential removal of uncertainty.

Report
In reply to BnB:

Ok, thanks, that pretty much answers it.

> Not at all. I'm channelling the business mood when I use the term to mean the inability to take fundamental decisions about business strategy because the direction of travel is opaque. And in a globally competitive world, standing still, paralysed by uncertainty, is fatal.

OK, that's the part of it I can understand very well.

> It's very clear that the vast majority of business leaders want the softest of Brexits, or none at all. But, for the vast majority of businesses, that is driven more by the operational efficiency of maintaining the status quo than by any tariff concerns. However, the breadth of the various possibilities, from being pitched over the Brexit cliff in three weeks time to a referendum that potentially reverses the whole shebang, is petrifying (in the geological sense). The economy is grinding to a halt.

Er ... yes ... but I still don't get how 'the status quo' can be 'maintained' if Brexit happens.

> Yesterday, the possibility of a deal, any deal, was enough to send UK bank stocks higher by up to 15%. That's a ridiculous leap for such drab institutions, but it reflects the value that the investment community places on the potential removal of uncertainty.

Yes, I saw that (but I read it as: because it was a significant shift in the 'soft' direction, there was still a slight, desperate hope that maybe, perhaps Brexit still might not happen ????)

Post edited at 16:52
Report
JimR 17:10 Sat
In reply to Offwidth:

I wonder if Boris promised Leo a referendum on a United Ireland. That would explain his change of heart as apparently 63% of NI residents now support unification .. and any borders etc would be short term and largely irrelevant. However good luck on getting that deal through parliament. Its also a complete recipe for a flare up of serious trouble in NI. And once mooted that particular genie will not be rebottled.

Report
BnB 17:21 Sat
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Ok, thanks, that pretty much answers it.

> OK, that's the part of it I can understand very well.

> Er ... yes ... but I still don't get how 'the status quo' can be 'maintained' if Brexit happens.

It won't be. That's why business in general wants to Remain, or leave on the softest terms.

> Yes, I saw that (but I read it as: because it was a significant shift in the 'soft' direction, there was still a slight, desperate hope that maybe, perhaps Brexit still might not happen ????)

I'm afraid not. After all, although we haven't seen any details, this is likely a proposed deal outside the customs union and single market, albeit with a transitional period. "No deal" is the event that business needs to see the back of. And the spike in the market reflected the retreat of that possibility, albeit perhaps only temporarily. Beyond that, with notable exceptions like the car manufacturers, most businesses will settle for any resolution, so they can get on with learning how to fill the new forms in and start investing again in growth and jobs.

The tariffs and supply chain disruption coming under Brexit shouldn't be viewed as a unique phenomenon. While Brexit is consuming northern Europe, the rest of the world is more in thrall to Donald Trump's Tariff War, primarily aimed at China but radiating out in all directions. A threat of tariffs of 25% on all automobile imports from the EU is hanging over the poor Germans, who are worried enough that the Brits will stop buying BMWs. Meanwhile southern European wine and food imports to the US have just had a similar tariff placed on them in retaliation for illegal EU aid given to Airbus. It's all a big global shake-up that actually creates opportunities for the UK. And I don't mean to buy chlorinated chickens.

I want to be clear I'm not in favour of leaving the EU at all, but it's getting to the point where, if we aren't going to stay, and I don't think we are, a journey spent sat in the waiting room is a less appealing prospect than the destination.

Post edited at 17:27
Report
john arran 17:22 Sat
In reply to JimR:

I wouldn't want to fan that particular flame but I did read that the first half-hour of their meeting was just the two of them in private, before their aides were allowed to join them. Got me wondering why, and what they could have been discussing/agreeing that would have been too sensitive to risk being leaked.

Report
JimR 17:42 Sat
John2 18:00 Sat
In reply to Robert Durran:

So you think John MacDonnell as chancellor would be less damaging for business than a no deal Brexit? Utilities would be nationalised, possibly without compensation. And any company with more than 250 employees would have to give up 10% of its shares to a trust for the benefit both of its employees and the exchequer. Let’s not talk about rates of taxation. This would be far more radical than the Labour policies of the 1960s when the Beatles wrote Taxman- ‘One for you, nineteen for me- that’s the way it’s going to be’. That song actually understated the case- some people were paying 98% tax. What was the result? Anyone who could afford to left the country and we had to be bailed out by the IMF.

Report
Robert Durran 18:11 Sat
In reply to John2:

> So you think John MacDonnell as chancellor would be less damaging for business than a no deal Brexit?

I'm no particular Corbyn/MacDonnell fan (though I like the sound of some of their ideas). However their Brexit policy of offering a choice between a softer, less damaging Brexit and remain sounds very reasonable to me. But one thing is certain - a Labour government can be kicked out after five years, but a damaging Brexit is effectively permanent.

And then there's all the other negatives of Brexit other than for business.........

Report
Pefa 18:35 Sat
In reply to JimR:

> I wonder if Boris promised Leo a referendum on a United Ireland. That would explain his change of heart as apparently 63% of NI residents now support unification ..

The KKK would never allow that, sorry DUP I mean. 

Report
Pefa 18:40 Sat
In reply to John2:

How do you get from McConnell nationalising energy rip off companies to Wilsonian 98% tax rates for the super rich? I mean do you seriously think that would happen? Because if you are genuine then I would like to take the time to reassure you that it will never happen. 

Report
John2 19:36 Sat
In reply to Pefa:

McDonnell you mean? Always a pleasure to debate with the well informed.

Report
jkarran 19:59 Sat
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> Where Johnson wants to go with the future relagionship is irrelevant. The UK can hold an election in the transition and vote for a softer brexit.

If there is no transition or the transition is itself shocking brexit becomes irreversible, an act of aggression against the UK by the EU. Obviously its bollocks from the outside now but in the middle of it it'll be an easy sell. There is no way back from that to a sensible settlement.

Jk

Report
jkarran 20:06 Sat
In reply to BnB:

> Yesterday, the possibility of a deal, any deal, was enough to send UK bank stocks higher by up to 15%. That's a ridiculous leap for such drab institutions, but it reflects the value that the investment community places on the potential removal of uncertainty.

That's nonsense. 

It's not about reducing uncertainty, its about the probability of a move in the right direction increasing. If the news had been that no-deal had become more certain, an increase in certainty but in the wrong direction, the stock movement wouldn't have been upward would it?

Jk

Post edited at 20:07
Report
John2 20:42 Sat
In reply to jkarran:

That really is, to quote you, 'nonsense'. The news was not that no-deal had become more certain, therefore BnB was quite correct.

Report
Eric9Points 20:50 Sat
In reply to John2:

No one is talking about nationalisation without compensation.

No one is talking about punitive levels of taxation.

The share plan would occur over 10 years.

Report
Frank4short 21:02 Sat
In reply to jkarran:

> Good for you but it's still demonstrably untrue. Reduce it to the absurd: no-deal vs 'anything', let's say for old time's sake invaded, colonised and starved by the English?

> I think the EU wouldn't survive giving in to blackmail by members demanding better terms out than in which isn't the same thing but is what I previously said.

> Plenty of things are. That isn't to say it's something he wants to do but sometimes we only get tough choices, a no deal border is one of those but it has to be weighed against Ireland losing access to the EU's customs union, you're gambling they'll leave that under duress so as to stay bound to Britain. I wouldn't make that bet.

> jk

You'll probably find at this point quite a large percentage of the population are willing to accept a no deal brexit, in spite of the difficulties it would cause us, as frankly they're so disgusted at hearing the constant bullshit from the brexiteers and their supporters they're happy to see them burn. Not an insignificant proportion of my friends and family are of similar opinions. They don't want to see see innocent people hurt or our (Irish) economy ruined but they're just over listening to people like JRM or Boris lie like it's going out of fashion and ignorant asses in vox pops talking about the blitz spirit and other such tropes.  Plus in all reality brexit going really badly is likely the only way the UK/England will ever get over the superiority complex that caused it in the first place and allow you to move on to something like a normal (under)standing of your place in the world. 

Report
MG 21:17 Sat
In reply to John2:

> That really is, to quote you, 'nonsense'. The news was not that no-deal had become more certain, therefore BnB was quite correct.

He claimed it was that "removal of uncertainty" had caused shares to rise. It isn't, its a glimmer of a chance a deal that has. He was wrong.

A no deal exit, or increased chance of one, ie. "removal of uncertainty" in another way, would cause shares to fall. 

Report
mullermn 21:25 Sat
In reply to Eric9Points:

> No one is talking about nationalisation without compensation.

Unless you currently run a private school.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-49786645

Report
Tyler 23:09 Sat
In reply to BnB:

> I'm channelling the business mood when I use the term to mean the inability to take fundamental decisions about business strategy because the direction of travel is opaque. And in a globally competitive world, standing still, paralysed by uncertainty, is fatal.

> It's very clear that the vast majority of business leaders want the softest of Brexits, or none at all. But, for the vast majority of businesses, that is driven more by the operational efficiency of maintaining the status quo than by any tariff concerns. However, the breadth of the various possibilities, from being pitched over the Brexit cliff in three weeks time to a referendum that potentially reverses the whole shebang, is petrifying (in the geological sense). The economy is grinding to a halt.

I'm not clear whether you are saying businesses would prefer no deal (or bad deal?) now to (the chance of?) revocation in 12 months or just that whatever deal we end up with its best done soon. If the latter then that's axiomatic but if the former this is probably only true for business planning to move out in the event of a poor or no deal (by poor I mean true barriers etc). That makes sense for the business on an individual level, but if those plans mean setting itself on a course to get out of the UK (or at least those parts that can be moved) then that's not great for UK plc and we'd be better off waiting. For example the announcement today about Toyota in Sunderland, no deal would end uncertainty and enable Toyota to get going on its next round of investment but it would end Toyota in Sunderland. How beneficial you view this 'end to uncertainty' will deepened on if you are a shareholder or an employee.

Also there are lots of businesses that aren't mobile but still need access to EU markets and suppliers that will be knackered by any Brexit. For a bank with a large footprint in the EU already it might be relatively simple, for a company like the one I'm currently engaged with it would mean starting afresh, not feasible so it may end up just having to lose the EU part of the business.

I'd also contest the view that even if a deal was struck tomorrow it would lead to certainty quicker than if we hung around until A50 was revoked. We'd still be looking at a significant period before we knew what our future trading relationship looked like (unless your just thinking the transition period would enable an orderly exit, ok if you are an investor, not so great if you are reliant on the jobs and tax take remaining in the UK) whereas revocation, when it comes, would be instant certainty.

Post edited at 23:26
Report
Tyler 23:12 Sat
In reply to BnB:

> A threat of tariffs of 25% on all automobile imports from the EU is hanging over the poor Germans, who are worried enough that the Brits will stop buying BMWs. Meanwhile southern European wine and food imports to the US have just had a similar tariff placed on them in retaliation for illegal EU aid given to Airbus. It's all a big global shake-up that actually creates opportunities for the UK

Why do we need to be out of the EU to benefit from this shake up? Why will the UK alone be a beneficiary but the EU won't be? As the 25% tariff on Scotch shows we're not going to be immune from any trade war.

Report
Tyler 23:17 Sat
In reply to JimR:

> I wonder if Boris promised Leo a referendum on a United Ireland. That would explain his change of heart as apparently 63% of NI residents now support unification .. and any borders etc would be short term and largely irrelevant.

Why would Leo trust him to do this? Its not like the WA could compel the UK govt to do it so he'd be reliant on BJ keeping his word and his ability to negotiate it through parliament. Far more likely BJ has promised to retain the backstop, something he will deny next week and accuse Leo of performing a volte-face over some fabricated compromise.

Report
Dr.S at work 07:40 Sun
In reply to Tyler:

How about - NI assembly get there 4 yearly vote, but if the EU arrangements are scrapped then it automatically triggers a border poll.

nice trap for the DUP.

Report
Frank4short 08:36 Sun
In reply to David Riley:

> Unlike the rest of the EU, anything would be better than no deal for Varadkar .

Is absolutely definitively demonstrably untrue. Varadkar is in an extremely delicate situation domestically at the moment for reasons that aren't worth bringing up here. Anyway that being said his major plus factor in the eyes of the Irish electorate is how he is doing with Brexit. The view is that for the first time in 800 (ish?) years Ireland is now holding the cards and they don't plan on dropping them anytime soon. Ideas such as we will leave the customs union to align with the UK is about as delusional bullshit as an additional £350 M to the NHS. It isn't, never will, and never was going to happen. 

If Leo caves he looses his major saving grace in the eyes of the vast majority of the Irish public.

Whist the threat of troubles in NI kicking off again does seriously worry people (the effects would most likely be concentrated in NI) in reality the vast majority of southerners are more worried about the economy but it's already looking like ,though despite the fact certain industries will probably be really badly effected (agri food sector primarily), there are upsides. The Irish banking and global IT sectors based out of Dublin are taking significant chunks of business from London due to our appearance as a safe haven now. On top of which if this does happen it won't be of our making (despite what certain elements of your press may tell you). So there will at least be some reasonable calls for national unity in overcoming the challenges.

So long story short Leo/Ireland would probably rather no deal then to be seen to be caving to English nationalism. 

Edit: re the points some posters have made about a border poll. The reality is that NI is a long way away from being close to accepting a border poll. Even if there was a simple or even supra majority in favour of NI being part of ROI. The facts are that NI has the highest level of state subvention of any region in the UK, not even including the additional NHS burden. In simple NI costs too much and i'm not sure most southerners would be prepared to pay for them. That's before you ever take into account if it did happen there's circa a million extremely angry people up there who want nothing to do with ROI and would turn into the troubles 2.0 just with the unionists doing most of the bombing this time and they will likely be bombing Dublin. So most of Ireland, north and south, is extremely aware of this fact which doesn't make an NI border poll a tempting prospect or valuable bargaining chip to the Irish government. 

Post edited at 08:59
Report
BnB 08:42 Sun
In reply to MG:

> He claimed it was that "removal of uncertainty" had caused shares to rise. It isn't, its a glimmer of a chance a deal that has. He was wrong.

> A no deal exit, or increased chance of one, ie. "removal of uncertainty" in another way, would cause shares to fall. 

If you read the two posts I wrote within that hour in conjunction you’ll find the clarification “No deal is the event that business needs to see the back of. And the spike in the market reflected the retreat of that possibility”.

However, even without that clarification, it’s surprising that you came to your conclusion about my interpretation since my first post specifically ties the “potential removal of uncertainty” with the possibility of “a deal, any deal”.

Report
Ian W 09:31 Sun
In reply to JimR:

> I wonder if Boris promised Leo a referendum on a United Ireland. That would explain his change of heart as apparently 63% of NI residents now support unification .. and any borders etc would be short term and largely irrelevant. However good luck on getting that deal through parliament. Its also a complete recipe for a flare up of serious trouble in NI. And once mooted that particular genie will not be rebottled.


And exactly how long do you think BoJo would last as head of the Conservative and Unionist party if he crossed the thickest possible, most scarlet of all red lines for his party, and the very reason his own party rejected the backstop so vociferously, in order to get his 31/10/19 target......

Report
Ian W 10:00 Sun
In reply to Martin Hore:

> I too thought Corbyn made a good speech. But it's entirely reasonable to ask how it will be paid for. I heard nothing in Corbyn's speech that explained that. If he'd said it will cost 1p on the standard rate of income tax, plus 5p on the higher rate, I'd still have said it was, by and large, a good set of proposals. I'm not a labour supporter by the way., and I did, before retirement, pay some higher rate tax.

It would be paid for in pretty much the same way as the tory's current splurge; borrowing. But in a less dramatic way as the labour proposals would be much less costly. Or a combination of borrowing and taxation, and at least labour have been honest enough to admit that increasing taxation is on the cards.

Post edited at 10:23
Report
Offwidth 10:00 Sun
Ian W 10:23 Sun
In reply to Offwidth:

So it appears to be a case of which dogmatic principle is sacrificed.........

And i don't think anyone ever thought that the Tory's gave the slightest shit about the DUP, who I have absolutely no sympathy for.

Report
HansStuttgart 04:04 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> If there is no transition or the transition is itself shocking brexit becomes irreversible, an act of aggression against the UK by the EU. Obviously its bollocks from the outside now but in the middle of it it'll be an easy sell. There is no way back from that to a sensible settlement.

> Jk

The transition is part of the WA, but it would be better is it was much longer, 2027 or so.

There is always a way back. There is only a question about the timescale. Once a large majority of the UK public wants to be in the EU, the UK will be in the EU.

I don't understand some of the fears of political spin from CON that is commonly mentioned on this forum. It came up as well on a GNU thread where people argued that BJ should be kept in power because otherwise it would be too easy for CON to win the election.

This strikes me as having too little faith in the people. 

After all, if british people's support for the EU is so small that a bit of spin on negative effects of brexit can change their mind, how can remain win a second referendum?

It is also an irony that Remain is scared of a CON gov spin operation while maintaining that the 2016 referendum was lost by people giving a "f**k you" vote to Cameron.

Report
JimR 07:33 Mon
In reply to HansStuttgart:

Quite simply choice confirmation bias. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias

Report
jkarran 09:16 Mon
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> The transition is part of the WA, but it would be better is it was much longer, 2027 or so. There is always a way back. There is only a question about the timescale. Once a large majority of the UK public wants to be in the EU, the UK will be in the EU.

I understand what the transition is. What comes after it will define how it is to live through it, if we we were transitioning to a Norwegian settlement then life would go on, the change barely noticed but we're not, we'll be leaving the CU and SM. Once they know for sure that's coming companies that have been holding off making decisions will start implementing their brexit contingency plans during the transition period, we'll start seeing mass lay-offs in depressed areas. We'll need a narrative to explain that and to offload the blame from those responsible, it will be EU aggression, we will shift from the language of brexit to the language of war. Obviously double all that if there's no deal. That is why there's no way back, we will come to hate Europe with a passion, poisoned by a culpable press that cannot possibly in that environment afford to tell the truth, lead by a government directly responsible for the privations we'll suffer, a scapegoat is the only option. Add to that the question of whether we'd be welcome back and on what terms, the Euro for example will not fly, no matter how bad a mess we get into.

On top of all that there will be the question of who or what rejoins, the UK will disintegrate as a result of this, does it re-apply as is, minus Scotland, minus Northern Ireland...

> I don't understand some of the fears of political spin from CON that is commonly mentioned on this forum. It came up as well on a GNU thread where people argued that BJ should be kept in power because otherwise it would be too easy for CON to win the election. This strikes me as having too little faith in the people. 

I think looking at the polling and knowing the way our constituencies are arranged to historically deliver a balanced government and opposition across a left, right divide rather than the skewed brexit axis we have today you'd need more than faith in the people to believe the Conservatives will be out of office after a snap election.

> After all, if british people's support for the EU is so small that a bit of spin on negative effects of brexit can change their mind, how can remain win a second referendum?

Support is about 50-55% of voters, 30-35% of electorate, we probably can't win a referendum on that basis. You can win an election in today' fragmented landscape with 30-35% of voters let alone the electorate.

> It is also an irony that Remain is scared of a CON gov spin operation while maintaining that the 2016 referendum was lost by people giving a "f**k you" vote to Cameron.

I'm not sure I see the irony, 2019 isn't 2016, a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

jk

Post edited at 09:19
Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.