Brexit

[Jason]

What RaboResearch has done is looked at the ultimate hardest of hard Brexits. And yes it is grim. There are of course worse fates that could befall the UK: if we elect Corbyn and assume that the UK's economy goes like that of Venezuela (which has applied Corbynist policies) then the fate of the UK economy will be at least twice as bad as RaboResearch predict from Brexit. I make the point that predictions (once anyone starts looking at extreme outcomes) they can be shockingly bad, as bad as you want the research to show them to be.

Brexit will not take place in a vacuum. It certainly won't be the case that nothing else will change. As such the effects cannot be set out in the simplistic way RaboResearch suggest.

RaboResearch will get their headline, and presumably it is the press story that they want. It's a form of marketing. They don't seem to have much real research behind the headline. Bluntly it is rubbish research.

 

[dandelion]

What RaboResearch has done is looked at the ultimate hardest of hard Brexits.

No, they havnt. They have applied a standard 'no deal' outcome. They have added more to their model than others, but this is a trend happening with all models being used. As we dsicover more problsm caused by Brexit, the predicted outcomes are steadily getting worse.

And yes it is grim. There are of course worse fates that could befall the UK

Arguably, since we have had 40 years of right wing politics where the aim has been to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor, the worse has already happened. One view of Brexit is that it was really a vote against the established order inside the UK, which leave managed to blame upon the EU whereas thy really have little to do with it. Leaving will not address the fact that conservative policies caused the problems these people think they voted against. May keeps banging on about helping the JAMs because she understands this perfectly well. Heck, even Thatcher understood. But the party today does not and that is why May cannot get it to do what she wants, and why it simply will not do what is needed.

So adding leaving the EU on top of conservative policies which have been slowly eroding the UK social structure for 40 years, is a truly terrible scenario.


The UK needs a return to the post war socialist consensus. Under this regime conditions improved steadily for everyone. We created the welfare state. There was massive housebuilding. The national debt shrank. The matter is more difficult nowadays -as you keep mentioning - because of globalisation. This means countries need to band together to fight companies simply taking their industry abroad and leaving them with nothing. Which is what is going to happen to the UK under Brexit. We need the EU now more than ever.

Brexit will not take place in a vacuum. It certainly won't be the case that nothing else will change.

I dont think there is the least chance the conservatives will suddenly become a socialist party, which is what is necessary. Their backers (the rich) simply will not permit this to happen. We saw the fuss when conservatives proposed a dementia tax on pensioners, part of their core voting support. They tried to change tack a little and did not like the results.

As such the effects cannot be set out in the simplistic way RaboResearch suggest.

The models are becoming steadily more complex, and the predicted outcomes steadily worse.

 

[dandelion]

May off to visit Barnier pesonally to discuss Brexit. Seems to be a bit of a dispute whether she was always scheduled to visit him or it is an emergency visit. Claims it was always on her schedule, but apparently was not listed on Barnier's. He has been busy talking to the labour party to find out what parliament really thinks. It would seem that since the EU requires matters to be conducted according to the UK constitution, May or the government might not have authority to act for the Uk, because parliament is sovereign.

Probably what the government want is for them to be bypassed, so that the tories can escape as much as possible of the blame for Brexit; for when it goes wrong, for those upset because it happens and those upset because it doesn happen. It will suit the tories well if the party pretends to keep pushing Brexit but gets some of its MPs to vote against it in parliament. Then it can try to keep onboard leave supporters. How much that will protect it from the process simply failing because the government has no plan what it wants, remains to be seen.

 

[dandelion]

Bombardier is to give a controlling stake in its aircraft business to EU based airbus. The reason seems clear, that it does not have the political clout to be able to sell planes to the US.

A couple of lessons here then. An important UK based industry just became EU based, because airbus' long term involvement in the UK becomes questionable if Brexit happens. They think their future lies with the EU.

Bombardier is canadian, but despite the trade deals between Canada and the US, Canada was powerless to help bombardier against boeing. Any other UK based company will in the future find itself in exactly the same situation if the Uk leaves the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41646795

 

[dandelion]

Yougov starting to call it for majority to remain in the EU. http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in...might-be-starting-particularly-amongst-c2des/

Recent polling has suggested a steady swing to remain, and in particular this has happened amongst the C2DE, working class, voters. The pattern originally was ABC1 voting 60/40 remain and C2DE voting 60/40 leave. But the C2DEs a starting to change their minds.

Probably good news for labour, meaning their support which might have been split between wanting leave and left wing policies is coming together again firmly against Brexit. They need to adopt a strongly remain stance.

 

[dandelion]

EU negotiations are currently stalled because the UK government cannot decide what it wants. BBC reports that they have not even discussed it at cabinet meetings, I presume because they know they could not get agreement. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41674721

The tories do not dare state what they want from Brexit. Because they know that any firm statement would leave most voters and MPs unhappy and not wanting that outcome. It isnt just leave/remain, but the different flavours of leave which cannot agree.

So possible outcomes.
1) The government finally takes a position and war breaks out amongst leave factions. Government falls and there is an election.
2) The government fails to take a position and talks grind to a halt. As they must if the Uk refuses to engage.
2a) The government continues on its stated path of pushing through the hardest of brexits, which is the default if there is no agreement. Parliament revolts, the government loses confidence motions and there is another election soon.
2b) The government continues but staves off confidence defeats and prepares hard Brexit. The nation revolts, swinging massively against Brexit. Parliament belatedly revolts and there is a new election in a year.
2c) Hard brexit goes through. The nation revolts and the tory party is disgraced for a generation. Libs become the 2nd party in parliament.

Whichever outcome, the government fall at latest in 5 years time. The later this happens, the worse will be the impact on tory support and the longer that will contintinue. The best outcome for tories is to lose power now. Have another election which just returns a small labour majority, making life difficult for them. Labour then has to make the Brexit decisions.

The best outcome for labour is for brexit negotiations to continue as long as possible (because then the economy will continue to collapse), but then step in and become government just in time to save the nation.

So I expect another election as soon as the tories can engineer one without being seen to do so. These outcomes were the same before the last election, but the conservatives ended up woth the worst possible result. They needed to lose properly but failed, so they will try again.

 

[chrisrobin]

Lest set a few things straight about the slime balls who are trying to wreck the Brexit talks.

Barnier and Juncker know the markets dislike uncertainty, the longer they can make negotiations dwell on the “we cant talk to you yet about trade” the longer the pound will fall. so Juncker will use not fixing the “divorce settlement as a reason not to move forward.

The EU are forcing the UK to negotiate with itself, all the EU has to say is “not good enough” and not make a counter offer but send the UK scuttling. The hope is the UK will come back with a better offer, they insist on the UK making a better offer before they will even consider moving the talks forward.

So what’s really happening is that the Brussels negotiators are paying no heed to the nations they supposedly represent. Instead they are representing the interests of the EU Bureaucracy! This is an interest in preserving jobs for the boys, the so called Brussels uber alles, who have no interest whatsoever in a mutually advantageous trade deal that leaves the UK in good financial shape.

Juncker knows that the UK will not use the powerful tools it has because it has already promised to put the UK superior security and military resources at the disposal of Europe.

Why?

In the end these security assets can only be maintained by having a successful economy - something Barnier and Juncker are hell bent on destroying. So far the UK has been upfront about how it sees the final result being, but now security should be used as a bargaining tool! Putin is not interested in the UK but on countries closer at home Surely a UK that has been excluded of a decent financial arrangement with the EU should not be bound to a strategy to defend the EU when most EU nations do not meet their obligations to NATO - so why should the UK?

It is astounding the UK has not seen fit to explain to the other countries Brussels is representing that they are not being best served my their so called representative's. If a suitable trade deal cannot be made lets make it very clear, French wine, Portuguese Port, German cars, Polish workers and all the young people for whom the EU cannot find work will find the UK a less welcome market.

The EU is putting fear in the remainers, should, through the efforts of Barnier and Juncker the UK walk away from the negotiations and invoke a hard Brexit will they explain to their members what they have to lose, what they will lose?

Remember negotiations are just that, and if you're not prepared to walk away dont take a seat at the table to begin with. The EU, boasting of having the entire EU behind therm think they can smell fear. The UK has to stand strong and be prepared.

Regardless its now time for Brussels to fully explain to all member nations the implications of a deal or no deal conclusion. Barnier can no longer hide behind two faced platitudes nor can Juncker hide in a bottle.

 

[Jason]

The EU is negotiating for the good of the EU institutions and sees damage to the EU nations as a price worth paying. If the EU nations let this continue then I'm not sure there is much the UK can do.

 

[852147]

Bring

The EU is negotiating for the good of the EU institutions and sees damage to the EU nations as a price worth paying. If the EU nations let this continue then I'm not sure there is much the UK can do.

Bring in saint Jeremy he will offer them a few marrows of his allotment and some carrots deal done! His had a lot to do with business and negotiating in his 68 years of life a true expert! There is nothing he can’t do! Anyone that opposes him will be attacked by the unemployed hordes aka momentum.

 

[Jason]

Presumably the EU would prefer the UK to be led by Corbyn. This situation would create what they would see as a "beneficial crisis". As the UK economy crashed under Corbyn the EU would be able to impose more and more Europe. I suppose the vision would be the UK as another Spain, another territory of the EU just about avoiding bankruptcy but subject to every whim of the masters in Brussels.

 

[chrisrobin]

The EU is negotiating for the good of the EU institutions and sees damage to the EU nations as a price worth paying. If the EU nations let this continue then I'm not sure there is much the UK can do.

The problem the EU negotiators have created is one of their own greed. Speak to other members of the EU and you'll find that maybe the politicians know what's going on, or pretend to the man in the street just sees the UK as a country which doesn't want to pay any money. - that's how its being sold to them.
As David Davis said today as far as Barnier is concerned its all about the money,
to the EU we should pay what they have calculated without asking questions, and in some cases what is in it for the EU.
Upstart they regard us, well one thing is for sure we will never capitulate to the whim of the EU.
France might have given in to the German hoards in 6 weeks in WWII, with the appointment of Macron it was a week before he was at Germany's skirts.
IOt is all about money, Barnier and the others wanting to make sure they an continue in a profligate way after we leave - the smaller countries and newer arrivals terrified that their subsidies will be reduced - consequently its all lets be ghastly to the Brits, lets paint them the villains, pretend we were ready to negotiate on good terms but pretend those English across the channel were not prepared to give anything.
Oh yes, EU citizens in the UK, don't be stupid EU, no way will they be under EU law, its a bit like saying that the UK should give in and allow Sharia Law.
While those with short sight might thing that reducing the trading possibilities of the UJK will be a good thing, make us squirm and suffer it is indeed the WEU who is being short sighted by not wanting to admit that trade is a two way deal.

 

[Jason]

My personal view is that we have to set out the base lines:
1) EU nationals in the UK will be under the same law as UK nationals. We cannot have two legal systems in one nation.
2) The divorce bill is £0. It maybe that we are willing to make a contribution within the context of a trade deal.
3) The NI border practicalities have to be discussed within the context of a settlement. However the UK will not erect a hard border. If Ireland wants to do so, that is their sovereign choice.
4) Spain's treatment of Catalonia reminds us that Spanish agreement to the status quo for Gibraltar is required as part of an agreement, and 26 EU nations should pressure Spain to agree.

 

[852147]

Presumably the EU would prefer the UK to be led by Corbyn. This situation would create what they would see as a "beneficial crisis". As the UK economy crashed under Corbyn the EU would be able to impose more and more Europe. I suppose the vision would be the UK as another Spain, another territory of the EU just about avoiding bankruptcy but subject to every whim of the masters in Brussels.

Agreed also he has nothing to negotiated if PM as his position is accept whatever the EU want's. I agree they want him to crash the economy totally like the Greek Socialist did a few years back the EU step's in and saves us. We then have austerity x100 and become a vassal state of Germany for at least the next ten years.

 

[marinera]

A good amount of conspirationism circulating seems to me.

 

[Jason]

A good amount of conspirationism circulating seems to me.

Spot on!

The Brexit negotiations are neither fully public nor fully secret. Instead we get brief comments and a few leaks. Anyone can find evidence for any view they wish to find.

Curiously I think the issue that will change the story is Catalonia. If Spain is heavy-handed, then very many people in the UK will equate Spain with the EU and I think we will see a surge in anti-EU feeling. Whether or not this is justified I think it will change the mood in the UK.

 

[dandelion]

A good amount of conspirationism circulating seems to me.

Indeed there is. the situation sems to be:

The conservative government does not know what it wants from Brexit. Obviously, it would like all the good bits and none of the bad bits, but it knows this is impossible. So failing that it does not know what to ask for.

The government is therefore stalling. If it makes a choice then it will upset some group of MPs and some group of voters. There are at minimum reman, soft Brexit and hard Brexit supporters. But there are gradations amongst them all about what people see as the most important thing, and to get a deal a choice must be made about what to prioritise. But they cannot make a choice, because if they lose any faction the government falls.

To not have a negotiating position is obviously heading for long term disaster. But to create a position is to cause immediate disaster for the tories. Thye are totally stuck.

And so what they are doing is trying to blame the EU. Just read the posts above, total nonsense. The Uk knows the EU's position, it has always known the EU's position. The UK has to choose what it wants!

BUT...!!! ...... What MPs want (apart from staying in the EU, which they do) is to get happy voters on their side. At the moment there are committed remainers and leavers who will stay that way come what may. But the swing block is people who will judge Brexit by results. Not going well so far. A recession is predicted. permanent harm to the economy. Politicians know that whatever people say now, they will blame a government which brings in brexit when it all goes wrong. And the worse it is, the more blame. And there is scope her for a huge amount of blame, enough to put the conservatives out of power for a generation. Maybe enough to destroy the party.

And that is why the cons cannot reach an agreement on policy. Those who believe Brexit is good are totally irreconcileable with those who think it an utter disaster.

 

[chrisrobin]

A good amount of conspirationism circulating seems to me.

when in Rome piss in the fountains.
The EU frankly has as much to lose - with a smaller income places in dire need of propping up like Italy, Greece and Spain might well be impossible.
The EU negotiators are out to paint the UK is the worst possible light, to make the pound drop and to come begging - but they forget we area resilient nation.
So, conspiracy, I don't think so, corruption in the corridors of power definitely.

 

[Jason]

We've actually had more constructive language today. What I think I'm understanding is:

1) This is a complex negotiation with the UK, EC and 27 nations, and a break-down has to be regarded as possible. As such the UK should prepare a no-deal scenario. This is simply a prudent insurance policy. There's also the view that if the EU offers something WORSE than WTO terms then we have to be ready to go for the better option of WTO. There's been a shift in the last few days from NO DEAL being a real possibility to NO DEAL as a theoretical possibility.

2) The EU will offer a deal that will be better than WTO terms. The reality of EU negotiation is that it will be offered at the last possible moment. The UK parliament will accept a deal as long as it is better than WTO terms. The room for debate is how much better does it need to be.

3) The UK parliament has a real problem getting its own legislation through as the Conservatives are a minority government with confidence and supply from DUP. What I think we are looking at is that the curious pact will hold for two years. We've gone for the idea of a two-year parliament (they should be one year; we've only had longer before in war time) which means that the supply (the sign-off of money to keep the country running) has been done for two years. The confidence element is working in as much as the government has so far won every vote. This said it is possible that the Withdrawal Bill will not go through. This means that after Brexit key laws would be made by the judges, not parliament. In a Common Law system (ie the UK) the judges fill the gaps. In recent years there haven't been many gaps, but the concept is still there.

4) What happens at the end of this two-year parliament is anyone's guess. However:
a) DUP have a dislike of Corbynism which is almost beyond the comprehension of most political commentators. Their leader Arlene Foster as a child saw her father shot by the IRA - he crawled into the family home dripping in blood. He was very severely injured, but survived. A little later she was a kid on a school bus that the IRA bombed. Most (all?) UP politicians have comparable experiences. And Corbyn is the big supporter of the IRA. He is the man who was actually arrested for his support of an IRA terrorist murderer. The DUP will do absolutely anything to stop an evil man becoming PM. If this means confidence and supply for the Conservatives I think they will give it. Unless Labour is say 30 points behind the Conservatives in the polls then I think we will see a three-year deal, to 2022.
b) Of course it is possible that the Conservatives will be way ahead. The cancer of Corbyn and Momentum has so far silenced the sane voices in Labour, and Labour's poll performance entrenches the cancer. However something will break. A New Labour Party? Expulsion of Corbyn from the Privy Council? Something. It is possible that DUP and indeed Conservatives may think it is time for another election.

 

[852147]

We've actually had more constructive language today. What I think I'm understanding is:

1) This is a complex negotiation with the UK, EC and 27 nations, and a break-down has to be regarded as possible. As such the UK should prepare a no-deal scenario. This is simply a prudent insurance policy. There's also the view that if the EU offers something WORSE than WTO terms then we have to be ready to go for the better option of WTO. There's been a shift in the last few days from NO DEAL being a real possibility to NO DEAL as a theoretical possibility.

2) The EU will offer a deal that will be better than WTO terms. The reality of EU negotiation is that it will be offered at the last possible moment. The UK parliament will accept a deal as long as it is better than WTO terms. The room for debate is how much better does it need to be.

3) The UK parliament has a real problem getting its own legislation through as the Conservatives are a minority government with confidence and supply from DUP. What I think we are looking at is that the curious pact will hold for two years. We've gone for the idea of a two-year parliament (they should be one year; we've only had longer before in war time) which means that the supply (the sign-off of money to keep the country running) has been done for two years. The confidence element is working in as much as the government has so far won every vote. This said it is possible that the Withdrawal Bill will not go through. This means that after Brexit key laws would be made by the judges, not parliament. In a Common Law system (ie the UK) the judges fill the gaps. In recent years there haven't been many gaps, but the concept is still there.

4) What happens at the end of this two-year parliament is anyone's guess. However:
a) DUP have a dislike of Corbynism which is almost beyond the comprehension of most political commentators. Their leader Arlene Foster as a child saw her father shot by the IRA - he crawled into the family home dripping in blood. He was very severely injured, but survived. A little later she was a kid on a school bus that the IRA bombed. Most (all?) UP politicians have comparable experiences. And Corbyn is the big supporter of the IRA. He is the man who was actually arrested for his support of an IRA terrorist murderer. The DUP will do absolutely anything to stop an evil man becoming PM. If this means confidence and supply for the Conservatives I think they will give it. Unless Labour is say 30 points behind the Conservatives in the polls then I think we will see a three-year deal, to 2022.
b) Of course it is possible that the Conservatives will be way ahead. The cancer of Corbyn and Momentum has so far silenced the sane voices in Labour, and Labour's poll performance entrenches the cancer. However something will break. A New Labour Party? Expulsion of Corbyn from the Privy Council? Something. It is possible that DUP and indeed Conservatives may think it is time for another election.

I agree on all point's above mostly benefit's all to get a decent deal the bad deal no deal is being over hyped by remainer's and Labour to try and force remain or in Labor's case an election. DUP and conservatives agree on most economic issues and are very close politically main difference is DUP is very conservative on social issues a bit like conservatives prior to David Cameron. While conservatives now are mostly socially liberal but very conservative with the economy probably the sanest political ideology in current times in my opinion. Considering how far to the left Labour has gone and I have previously voted Labour in 2012 mayoral election and was going to in 2010 and I consider them to left wing and generally crazy messiah cult like at the moment to vote for them anytime soon.

I agree the DUP will desperately want a new deal come June/July 2019 when current one is up as benefit's them hugely so they will want it extend till 2022. I also agree the DUP hates Corbyn and Labour 2017 version far to left wing and to friendly too previously not spoken to group's such as the IRA and Hammas. So they will vote down with Tories anything Corbyn suggest of any meaning. Tories might go for another general election in 2019 if they change leader and rise in poll's and Corbyn's Labour loses momentum in that two year period similar to Sturgeon 2015 election to 2017 election. If not the case new deal will be signed till 2022 which is to far of to predict now.

 

[dandelion]

Just saw an estimate of the cost to the Uk of the CURRENT plans for bankers to move to the EU, of £12bn per annum to the government and another £12bn to the general economy.

So thats twice our contributions to the EU lost in just that. The divorce bill is a drop in the ocean of the cost of Brexit.