Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Mrr T said:
SpeckledJim said:
Mrr T said:
Mortarboard said:
IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found. It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
1. Is there a technological solution?
2. If there is, will the EU agree to using it, given if they don't then they can hold the UK in their keep-net indefinitely
?
1. I had doubts about a technology solution but then again it was the brexiters who had claimed it was an easy solution but changed their minds.
2. Much was made of this by the ultras but May also negotiated a side agreement where the EU agreed to act reasonably. I would have suggested that a joint committee to agree acceptance criteria and independent arbitration would have solved the issue.
Oh yes we have seen plenty of evidence of that over the years. 
Tuna said:
Mrr T said:
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
It's funny that a lot of Remainers claim that Boris' deal is identical to Mays. You don't take time to correct them, do you?It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
As for technological solution - you have to be a very stubborn individual to ignore that what is essentially the first newly created border in years could not take advantage of a lot of technological improvements over the old border processes. No longer do we have to carry around paper dockets that were faxed to us to prove that our business is legitimate. Equally, knowing that border policing is not an absolute (from a certain level of porosity to deliberately low levels of actually imposed checks), there is no reason for a border not to be designed to be efficient rather than a nonsensical ideal of perfection.
As for the technology solution I did not say it was impossible just I could see difficulties. For example, 1. Lots of small users, 2. Tracking movements on a long and winding border, 3. Goods which require physical inspection. I believe seeing difficulty is an essential tool of project management. It does not mean a project cannot be delivered just that if you can identify as many of the difficulties as you can at the beginning you have a chance of delivering.
I said a couple of days ago I believe the EU missed a trick when the UK suggested a technology solution. They should have said yes, and made the leaving date dependant on delivery
London424 said:
Mrr T said:
Mortarboard said:
IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found. It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
London424 said:
Mrr T said:
Mortarboard said:
IIRC (and bear in mind, the permutations were all over the place, so maybe not 100% accurate), May's deal was essentially full regulatory alignment. Politically difficult to sell (why bother leaving if you're still playing to all the same rules, "sovereignty", etc.) However, it would have allowed trade deals out the wazoo, little internal disruption, and would have given the EU almost zero room to object to any imports etc. Would also have made services a simple matter also.
It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found. It was almost EEA, but not EEA. Would have been interesting to see how that would have eventually played out, had there not been any internal spits within the Tories and labour. The finagling to get any deal passed in parliament was unprecedented - a simple party majority wasn't enough (see the ERG's actions etc.)
M.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
Ultimately if there was a disagreement and the UK could prove the the EU where being unreasonable the UK could have just broken the treaty. However, the ultras where clear the UK could not do that because the UK abides by its international treaties.
crankedup5 said:
Spot on, that’s exactly what it all amounted to. The EU would have loved for May’s deal to have passed Parliament and have the U.K. in political paralysis’s for decades. And plenty of (call them what you think appropriate) actually wanted this.
I’ll not go around the doors on this again but I think many in the eu are much happier with Boris’ deal than May’s as it’s a cleaner break. Some of the current issues are related to his unwillingness to own the downsides and just wanting to take credit for the upsides.I think the assumption that the eu is a united Machiavellian entity with a grand plan is roughly equivalent to thinking that the “united” in uk is an adjective rather than a verb
.Mrr T said:
That was the argument. However, I am sure May deal had a dispute resolution process.
Ultimately if there was a disagreement and the UK could prove the the EU where being unreasonable the UK could have just broken the treaty. However, the ultras where clear the UK could not do that because the UK abides by its international treaties.
Ah the 'we could have procured our own vaccines' argument... Ultimately if there was a disagreement and the UK could prove the the EU where being unreasonable the UK could have just broken the treaty. However, the ultras where clear the UK could not do that because the UK abides by its international treaties.
roger.mellie said:
I think the assumption that the eu is a united Machiavellian entity with a grand plan is roughly equivalent to thinking that the “united” in uk is an adjective rather than a verb
They definitely do have a grand plan, thankfully we're out of it and that makes no senseI don't believe for a minute we will sell NI down the river, however...
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 June 19:00
digimeistter said:
They definitely do have a grand plan, thankfully we're out of it and that makes no sense
I don't believe for a minute we will sell NI down the river, however...
Indeed, it’s clear that right from the 1950’s there was an ideal and a goal and a clear strategy I don't believe for a minute we will sell NI down the river, however...
Edited by digimeistter on Tuesday 22 June 19:00
Documents released under the 30 year rule have shown that the the U.K. Govt in the 70’s weren’t open and honest and actively misled the voters during the 74 referendum
To say there was no grand plan is rather naive in the least
It’s true to say it has been very much “slowly slowly catchee monkey” with an agenda designed to avoid the proles realising
Earthdweller said:
Indeed, it’s clear that right from the 1950’s there was an ideal and a goal and a clear strategy
Documents released under the 30 year rule have shown that the the U.K. Govt in the 70’s weren’t open and honest and actively misled the voters during the 74 referendum
To say there was no grand plan is rather naive in the least
It’s true to say it has been very much “slowly slowly catchee monkey” with an agenda designed to avoid the proles realising
Of course some are playing the long game and the uk used to be on the same team. But the same posters who suggest there’s a cabal at the centre manipulating all also tend to be the same ones that play dumb on the plan and come out with “if only it remained a trading bloc” nonsense.Documents released under the 30 year rule have shown that the the U.K. Govt in the 70’s weren’t open and honest and actively misled the voters during the 74 referendum
To say there was no grand plan is rather naive in the least
It’s true to say it has been very much “slowly slowly catchee monkey” with an agenda designed to avoid the proles realising
As far as agendas to fool the proles go, thankfully both the EU and the UK are too incompetent to completely achieve their ambitions. E.g. I thought the one Britain one nation stuff was a parody but I suppose Ein Volk was already taken.
Mrr T said:
Not really. The May deal was leaving the SM and CU at the end of the transition period provided a solution was found so there was no border is island. If no solution was found in time only then did the back stop kick in and the UK would remain fully aligned to the EU until a solution was found.
It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
We were confident the EU would force the backstop into use. Mays deal sucked balls, she should have been prosecuted for treason for her stunt played at chequers that stabbed the entire department for leaving the EU in the back.It was funny a lot of brexiters on PH where claiming there was an easy technology solution to the border. When the May deal was announced they suddenly said the back stop meant the UK would never properly leave the EU. It seemed they where not as confident of a technology solution as they claimed.
Mortarboard said:
barryrs said:
Wasn’t the triggering of A50 another EU driven decision as they wouldn’t discuss Brexit in advance of.
Yes - but I also got the distinct impression that the UK didn't have a clear idea of what it wanted/needed/preferred before triggering A50 either.As I mentioned, the UK government only did info gathering in the chemical industry in mid 2018. Bit late then if you need to start up new plants.......
Certainly, going into a negotiation without "having done your homework" would not be my preferred way of doing it.
Another good question would be could the UK (and maybe they did, but not made public) sound out potential trade partners ahead of triggering A50? Certainly could have floated the possibility of "rollover" deals prior to doing it, surely?
One possibility would have been (to expand on Oilchange's approach) might have been: Trigger A50, with the understanding that if nothing is agreed, then "no deal" it is. Might have been an effective foil against the EU stance of "no talks until A50 is triggered"
M.
It is very clear that she never wanted to leave the EU, even when she was saying she did. Ultimately the only conclusion that can be drawn is the same one.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic on your latter point or not. That approach was the only one that would ever have worked (ie seen things move forwards as constructively as possible), and the EU needed to believe it.
I think they do now, more or less. But unfortunately all that happened way too late due to May's dicking about with the idiot Robbins. Off to GS to feather his nest...and people get all agitated about the current bunch in government. Tschk.
I know mortarboard tells us the Irish fishermen are loving Brexit but ...
They are blockading Dublin port this morning protesting over the EU Fishing policies
Organisers of today's demonstration say they are protesting the "lack of a level playing field under the EU Common Fisheries Policy" which they say "is destroying" the Irish fishing industry and rural communities.
The Irish fishing industry is worth over €1 billion to the economy, with 16,000 local people employed in fishing and processing.
Representative groups say quota cuts, Brexit and the EU's policing of the industry have dealt "hammer blows" to the industry.
iirc Ireland has had a 20% cut in the amount of the catch in Irish waters with France, Belgium and Denmark being given bigger quotas
They are blockading Dublin port this morning protesting over the EU Fishing policies
Organisers of today's demonstration say they are protesting the "lack of a level playing field under the EU Common Fisheries Policy" which they say "is destroying" the Irish fishing industry and rural communities.
The Irish fishing industry is worth over €1 billion to the economy, with 16,000 local people employed in fishing and processing.
Representative groups say quota cuts, Brexit and the EU's policing of the industry have dealt "hammer blows" to the industry.
iirc Ireland has had a 20% cut in the amount of the catch in Irish waters with France, Belgium and Denmark being given bigger quotas
Mrr T said:
Treason!!!!
Really!!!
It's a fair description of what she did, working behind the back of the government department created to manage the Brexit process to completely undermine their work and then to throw it all away and present her solution worked out with the EU without their knowledge. Really!!!
To then make it a you are walking home from Chequers if you dont back this change right now was an added disgrace.
She actively worked against the interests of the country by undermining her own government ministers and staff, which gave us 2 years of chaos, how would you describe that?
I see Spain’s PM has said that the €750bn Coronavirus recovery fund will be used to build an United States of Europe
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/22/eu-cor...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/22/eu-cor...
I'm unsure if brexit was worth it or not, I'm interested in the answers to this question though, I've not been following the thread thus far.
There seems to have been little in the news regarding brexit since we officially left due to the pandemic taking center stage, there's not really been much focus on the economy more generally either.
I voted remain in the referendum and am still of the opinion that on balance we seem likely to loose more than we gain by leaving the EU. I mainly see it as a major economic decision, I'm not really bothered about the national identity side of things.
It does appear that there was less initial brexit disruption than anticipated, the consequences of leaving will surely take time on the scale of years to become fully apparent. Somewhat hard to separate from pandemic related disruption I imagine.
I read some of this piece in the Indepent earlier, focusing on the perceived negative economic impact, it got me thinking about it all again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre...
There seems to have been little in the news regarding brexit since we officially left due to the pandemic taking center stage, there's not really been much focus on the economy more generally either.
I voted remain in the referendum and am still of the opinion that on balance we seem likely to loose more than we gain by leaving the EU. I mainly see it as a major economic decision, I'm not really bothered about the national identity side of things.
It does appear that there was less initial brexit disruption than anticipated, the consequences of leaving will surely take time on the scale of years to become fully apparent. Somewhat hard to separate from pandemic related disruption I imagine.
I read some of this piece in the Indepent earlier, focusing on the perceived negative economic impact, it got me thinking about it all again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre...
Manufacturing growth highest since records began.
https://www.sharecast.com/news/news-and-announceme...
https://www.sharecast.com/news/news-and-announceme...
Six Potter said:
I'm unsure if brexit was worth it or not, I'm interested in the answers to this question though, I've not been following the thread thus far.
There seems to have been little in the news regarding brexit since we officially left due to the pandemic taking center stage, there's not really been much focus on the economy more generally either.
I voted remain in the referendum and am still of the opinion that on balance we seem likely to loose more than we gain by leaving the EU. I mainly see it as a major economic decision, I'm not really bothered about the national identity side of things.
It does appear that there was less initial brexit disruption than anticipated, the consequences of leaving will surely take time on the scale of years to become fully apparent. Somewhat hard to separate from pandemic related disruption I imagine.
I read some of this piece in the Indepent earlier, focusing on the perceived negative economic impact, it got me thinking about it all again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre...
Economic issues were not the major factor for many voters in the referendum. That's largely why many Remainers *still* don't understand.There seems to have been little in the news regarding brexit since we officially left due to the pandemic taking center stage, there's not really been much focus on the economy more generally either.
I voted remain in the referendum and am still of the opinion that on balance we seem likely to loose more than we gain by leaving the EU. I mainly see it as a major economic decision, I'm not really bothered about the national identity side of things.
It does appear that there was less initial brexit disruption than anticipated, the consequences of leaving will surely take time on the scale of years to become fully apparent. Somewhat hard to separate from pandemic related disruption I imagine.
I read some of this piece in the Indepent earlier, focusing on the perceived negative economic impact, it got me thinking about it all again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff