What do You think about Brexit concequences?

[Bellydancerbynight]

Is it bad for our nation ?
Or good?
As we all know since last month.. the Value of Pound Sterling is going down.

it does rather exude that you think you know how other people think and ergo what they realize or "fail to realize".

Almost all leaver posts on here are made with the explicit aim of denying that there are any trade-offs to discuss.

I have no issue with a rational conversation about what trade offs are acceptable, along the lines of Bellini's proposals for example - she thinks that a loss of single market access and significant barriers to rUK-EU trade are acceptable as long as there is no physical border on the island of Ireland.

Well, in that case have a GE first? a new broom through Parliament and start again.... People will soon lose trust if we rush into Brexit and it is as bad as many experts believe it will be.

The UK is probably the only first world country to deliberately take itself backwards, in fact it is.

We need to take stock and remember this decision is for many years, if not decades, we will not rejoin the EU should it prove to be a disaster.

Hmmm..well let's either stay neutral or agree to disagree on what "most Leaver posts" state shall we Misti? Most MNetters who voted to Leave stay well clear of this Board.

I do so at my own peril, knowing that I'm going to get my 'internet' head shot off at any time, possibly by a 'pile on' of at least 10 posters simultaneously demanding responses, irrefutable links that evidence the future and. and, etc.

Thankfully I nderstand tis only t'internet and I don't take it personally. I see that "just popping in" is gaining momentum on another thread, pleased to assist...I think maybe I should re-introduce "remsplaining" again cuz I likes 2b useful .

Almost all leaver posts on here are made with the explicit aim of denying that there are any trade-offs to discuss

Sometimes negotiations don't produce agreements. Getting the better of the other side to save face often gets in the way. Take a look at some the high profile divorces that have gone on for years.

On the NI only backstop I have a question.

On Question Time a few weeks ago the DUP representative (can't remember his name) gave the reason for the backstop being rejected is that it would prevent NI from trading with the rest of UK which is a big market for NI. Is that correct?

Well, in that case have a GE first

I would support a GE. That way if people have changed their minds about leaving the EU they can vote for parties that are are pro remain or pro leave as they choose.

We need to take stock and remember this decision is for many years, if not decades, we will not rejoin the EU should it prove to be a disaster

EU has a mechanism to rejoin. It is Article 49.

70-80% wont feel much of a difference day to day, week to week

This is fantastic news, can you explain how you are so confident that this will definitely be the case HappyParent ?

@HateIsNotGood I've suggested a way for an orderly Brexit. still waiting for anyone else from our apparently countless Leave supporters to come up with a different and workable version of an orderly Brexit. If not, fuck 'em, we must revoke.

Sometimes negotiations don't produce agreements. Getting the better of the other side to save face often gets in the way. Take a look at some the high profile divorces that have gone on for years.

Sure. But no deal also involves implicit trade offs, between sovereignty on the one hand, and trade, citizens' rights, and potentially the Union and even peace in NI. Why don't you want to discuss them?

It is legitimate to argue for no deal if you are also prepared to argue that the trade-offs this involves are also acceptable. But it is dishonest to argue in favour of it while also arguing that there are no trade offs.

the DUP representative (can't remember his name) gave the reason for the backstop being rejected is that it would prevent NI from trading with the rest of UK which is a big market for NI. Is that correct?

It definitely wouldn't stop trade, no. It would make it more difficult by introducing barriers to trade between NI and the rUK which do not exist at the moment. However, there are two points that the DUP is not keen to acknowledge:

• firstly, that a border in the Irish Sea already exists between NI and the rUK for the purposes of agriculture and phytosanitary controls
• it is easier in practice to impose controls on trade between NI and the rUK, at sea ports for eg, than on a land border (quite apart from being less politically incendiary).

Trade between the rUK and NI differs qualitatively from trade between NI and EI, because you can't just drive across the border - all goods already have to pass through a seaport or an airport.

Why don't you want to discuss them?

Sounds like neither the EU nor the UK are speaking to each other at the moment. EU has indicated that existing WA can't be looked at again and UK have replied that results in no deal.

How do you force people to the table?

"How do you force people to the table?"
Easy - drop the UK wide backstop, which is a red line and go for the NI only backstop. Which has never been tested in Parliament and which EU would agree to.
NI special economic zone/border in the sea. We could leave on 31 October 2019.
Not happy with that, Leavers? Then we Revoke. Because No Deal cannot happen.

EU has indicated that existing WA can't be looked at again and UK have replied that results in no deal.

This is highly dishonest, for two reasons:

1. The EU has indicated that multiple different brexits are available depending on the UK's red lines; ie that different Brexit models involve a different set of trade offs. See the Barnier staircase which makes these trade offs explicit.
2. The extension to 31/10 was granted on the explicit basis, agreed by both sides, that the WA would not be reopened (but the PD may be). This was an agreement between two future treaty partners. You would hope that both sides entered that agreement in good faith.

PS you don't need to reopen the WA to negotiate any of the Brexits on the Barnier staircase; this can be dealt with in the political declaration.

@Mistigri

Johnson seems to working on the basis that all what happened when T May was PM is now all irrelevant and any good faith expressed by May does not oblige subsequent PM to do the same?

Which of the red lines should go first? Bellini has suggested the UK wide Backstop which I think is okay taking into account that DUP statement that such arrangement prevents NI from trade with UK is an incorrect statement. What other red line should go or the NI only backstop sufficient?

the Barnier staircase

I would support a GE. That way if people have changed their minds about leaving the EU they can vote for parties that are are pro remain or pro leave as they choose

Its the obvious answer isn't it, extend brexit until after a GE, could even be BJ's plan.

EU has a mechanism to rejoin. It is Article 49

We would lose (in all probability) our opt outs, rebate, have to join Schengen and undertake to join the Euro..... we'd also need to convince the commission, the European parliament & 27 countries we are sincere in our application, none of this is likely is it? and take years of negotiation, causing yet more division.

Tbf if things turned out to be a disaster, re applying would be a huge loss of national pride, it would take a generational change to overcome this.

could even be BJ's plan

Very possible as he potentially gets another 5 years as PM. After that he can do a Cameron and charge 100K for speeches or sign up with Facebook like Clegg........

Is PM about doing best for the Country or just to look good on a CV?

If UK were to rejoin EU then terms almost certain to be less favourable than those at present. At the very least the rebate would be gone to cover EU costs of the disruption both by UK leaving and rejoining.

Also how long would UK be prepared to test whether or not leaving EU was a good or a bad move? JRM estimates it will take up to 50 years before the full benefit kicks in. Long time to wait.

Johnson seems to working on the basis that all what happened when T May was PM is now all irrelevant and any good faith expressed by May does not oblige subsequent PM to do the same?

The EU's agreement was with the U.K. and its government, I don't think it matters who the PM is. The next PM of Japan doesn't get to randomly renegotiate the EU-Japan trade agreement, which is a mutual commitment between two countries not two individuals. Same thing applies here.

My own view is that if you wanted to do a successful Brexit you'd do it gradually via the EEA. Once you are outside the EU but still inside the EEA it is possible to move further apart, to (for example) a Swiss style agreement and perhaps eventually towards Canada. But once you have trashed all goodwill and thrown your toys out of the pram, it may prove very hard to move closer together in future even if circumstances change. Of course this route would take time and involve trade offs but it would be a more consensual approach and a less risky one.

Canada and Norway type arrangements were referenced during the campaign prior to the referendum, but seem to have disappeared. Considering the geographic location of the UK the Norway model seems best as UK would still be able to make trade deals with Non EU Countries which appears to be one of the main arguments for leave.

The Canada model still requires checks on goods at EU borders which is not helpful for the Irish Border.

Of course this route would take time and involve trade offs but it would be a more consensual approach and a less risky one

This is where Article 50 is flawed. Two years to conclude all negotiations and reorganize what was developed over a period of 40+ years is not enough.

The Canada model still requires checks on goods at EU borders which is not helpful for the Irish Border.

So does Norway (you'd still need NI to remain in the customs union) but it would be enormously less complicated and damaging.

I think it's widely acknowledged that the A50 process is inadequate, though the EU treaties cannot be blamed for foolish British politicians voting to trigger the process before they had any idea what they wanted.

So does Norway (you'd still need NI to remain in the customs union) but it would be enormously less complicated and damaging

So lets follow the Norway example. Per head Norway pays less to the EU than UK, GBP 140 compared to GBP 220. So there may be scope for a Brexit Dividend that leave supporters promote.

British politicians voting to trigger the process before they had any idea what they wanted

Maybe they thought a deal would be agreed before the European Elections in May 2019, just did not work out. However, I think it is correct to say that there was no plan before A50 was invoked.

Mystery, I think that most remainers would accept Norway as well as some leavers (certainly enough for a majority). But I see no possible route for delivering this.

While there is not that much evidence of rational thought in politics at the moment but

One possible outcome would be for someone of some group other than Boris to insist of a postponement and a GE.

Boris can then use 'they are trying to steal your Brexit ' at the hustings and, he hopes, win a bigger majority and have a good five years ahead.

This would be quite fair and reasonable if we had proportional representation. With FSTP, success for remain will require significant tactical working together for the remain parties. Fingers crossed