International Brexit Discussion v9: The Last Extension

[JDragon]

From the very the beginning, politicians were already grand-standing about who gonna be suffering more - as if that's something to be proud of, instead of how everyone can benefit from the new arrangement, and that poisoned well is still where they all are drinking from now.

Let's not step into the bothsideist fallacy trap here. The well was poisoned by the lies of the Brexit campaign. There still could have been smooth and professional negotiations if the British would have been able to state what they wanted. They did not. How do you negotiate when the other side wants to have their cake and eat it, but fails to verbalize a realistic demand?

The EU came aligned and prepared. Being inside the club must be associated with amenities being outside the club does not provide, otherwise being part of the club becomes meaningless.

 

[Arkain2K]

As I have already mentioned this two years ago: I absolutely despise how so many people on the either side of the English channel were gunning for this to be an ugly and acrimonious divorce from the start, when they could have easily frame this as a the establishment of a new and fruitful economic partnership between independent allies, without the dreaded "ever-closer union" aspiration.

From the very the beginning, politicians were already grand-standing about who gonna be suffering more - as if that's something to be proud of, instead of how everyone can benefit from the new arrangement, and that poisoned well is still where they all are drinking from now.

On the scale of "hurting" in a No Deal scanario, the E.U as a collective will hurt the least because of their size, followed by Britain, but the biggest victims will be the smaller individual members of the E.U, particularly those who depends on the Freedom of Movement as human labor and remittance make up much of their economic output, or those who greatly relies on British investments, or those who counts Britain as one of their biggest - if not the biggest - export destination for their products.

Incidentally, they are also the voices that no one can hear, as everyone only pay attention to what the big guys demands. All you're going to see in news headlines are either Boris Johnson, or Merkel, or Macron. If someone were to ask "which individual European countries will suffer the most", I doubt many people can even get in the same ballpark, because those smaller countries' suffering don't matter in the grand scheme of things, not really.

Here's a good place to start if anyone want to see actual maps of which E.U members in each sector will be affected the most:

Where Europe Would Be Hurt Most by a No-Deal Brexit
By ALLISON MCCANN, MILAN SCHREUER and AMIE TSANG

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/07/world/europe/brexit-impact-on-european-union.html

Where Brexit will hurt most in Europe
Exposure of different regions within the EU to Brexit varies greatly between and within countries.
By Jacopo Barigazzi

https://www.politico.eu/article/bre...s-revealed-by-eu-report-phase-2-negotiations/

Let's not step into the bothsideist fallacy trap here. The well was poisoned by the lies of the Brexit campaign. There still could have been smooth and professional negotiations if the British would have been able to state what they wanted. They did not. How do you negotiate when the other side wants to have their cake and eat it, but fails to verbalize a realistic demand?

The EU came aligned and prepared. Being inside the club must be associated with amenities being outside the club does not provide, otherwise being part of the club becomes meaningless.

See what I mean when I said no one involved actually gives a shit about the smaller European countries, who would undoubtedly suffer the most from No Deal?

Everyone who have a horse in race this will read that long post and immediately focus on finger-pointing, while completely ignore the most important point about this "suffering" business that perhaps only people from the outside looking in can see.

 

[deise69]

As I have already mentioned this two years ago: I absolutely despise how so many people on the either side of the English channel were gunning for this to be an ugly and acrimonious divorce from the start, when they could have easily frame this as a the establishment of a new and fruitful economic partnership between independent allies, without the dreaded "ever-closer union" aspiration.

From the very the beginning, politicians were already grand-standing about who gonna be suffering more - as if that's something to be proud of, instead of how everyone can benefit from the new arrangement, and that poisoned well is still where they all are drinking from now.

On the scale of "hurting" in a No Deal scanario, the E.U as a collective will hurt the least because of their size, followed by Britain, but the biggest victims will be the smaller individual members of the E.U, particularly those who depends on the Freedom of Movement as human labor and remittance make up much of their economic output, or those who greatly relies on British investments, or those who counts Britain as one of their biggest - if not the biggest - export destination for their products.

Incidentally, they are also the voices that no one can hear, as everyone only pay attention to what the big guys demands. If someone were to ask "which individual countries will suffer the most", not many people can answer that correctly, because their suffering don't matter in the grand scheme of things, not really.

Here's a good place to start if anyone want to see actual maps of which E.U members in each sector will be affected the most:

Where Europe Would Be Hurt Most by a No-Deal Brexit
By ALLISON MCCANN, MILAN SCHREUER and AMIE TSANG

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/07/world/europe/brexit-impact-on-european-union.html

Where Brexit will hurt most in Europe
Exposure of different regions within the EU to Brexit varies greatly between and within countries.
By Jacopo Barigazzi
​

https://www.politico.eu/article/bre...s-revealed-by-eu-report-phase-2-negotiations/

Without even looking I know Ireland is probably near, if not at the top of the list. Does it mean we'll OK the removal of the backstop ? Not a hope.

Why ? Because under the terms of the GFA, the people of Northern Ireland can choose to be Irish or British or both. IIRC there are roughly 700,000 Irish passport holders in NI at this moment and growing.

https://www.dfa.ie/passports/statistics/

The people of Northern Ireland and Ireland would rather have a border in the Irish Sea, if "alternative arraignments" cannot be found.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...rish-sea-border-rejected-by-dup-38414210.html

 

[JDragon]

See what I mean when I said no one involved actually gives a shit about the smaller European countries, who would undoubtedly suffer the most from No Deal?

Everyone who have a horse in race this will read that long post and immediately focus on finger-pointing, while completely ignore the most important point about this "suffering" business that perhaps only people from the outside looking in can see.

The best deal, and this seems to be completely evident to me, is the one the UK has currently. They have all advantages of being in the EU, they have all levers available to manage non-EU immigration, they are not part of Schengen, they have their own currency AND they have the insane Brit rebate.

The next best thing available is a managed exit with a deal, for which only the May deal with possible minor adjustments is available. No deal will suck, there is no way around it. And sure, it will affect some countries more than others. But the UK is making a choice here. Nobody forced the UK to go down this path.

 

[panamaican]

As I have already mentioned this two years ago: I absolutely despise how so many people on the either side of the English channel were gunning for this to be an ugly and acrimonious divorce from the start of the negotiation, when they could have easily frame this as a the establishment of a new and fruitful economic partnership between independent allies, without the dreaded "ever-closer union" aspiration.

From the very the beginning, politicians were already grand-standing about who gonna be suffering more - as if that's something to be proud of, instead of how everyone can benefit from the new arrangement, and that poisoned well is still where they all are drinking from now.

On the scale of "hurting" in a No Deal scanario, the E.U as a collective will hurt the least because of their size, followed by Britain, but the biggest victims will be the smaller individual members of the E.U, particularly those who depends on the Freedom of Movement as human labor and remittance make up much of their economic output, or those who greatly relies on British investments, or those who counts Britain as one of their biggest - if not the biggest - export destination for their products.

Incidentally, they are also the voices that no one can hear, as everyone only pay attention to what the big guys demands. All you're going to see in news headlines are either Boris Johnson, or Merkel, or Macron. If someone were to ask "which individual European countries will suffer the most", I doubt many people can even get in the same ballpark, because those smaller countries' suffering don't matter in the grand scheme of things, not really.

Here's a good place to start if anyone want to see actual maps of which E.U members in each sector will be affected the most:

Where Europe Would Be Hurt Most by a No-Deal Brexit
By ALLISON MCCANN, MILAN SCHREUER and AMIE TSANG

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/07/world/europe/brexit-impact-on-european-union.html

Where Brexit will hurt most in Europe
Exposure of different regions within the EU to Brexit varies greatly between and within countries.
By Jacopo Barigazzi

https://www.politico.eu/article/bre...s-revealed-by-eu-report-phase-2-negotiations/

I don't think that's valid. Everyone said before the vote - This is a bad thing to do, everyone is going to get hurt and the UK will get hurt the most.

You're somewhat disregarding the rhetoric that was coming out of the UK at the time. The Remainers and the EU were very upfront about how everyone would hurt. The Leavers insisted that it wasn't true and they would make out just fine because they held the negotiating advantage.

No one wanted an ugly or acrimonious divorce but when one side insists that they must have the divorce, there's no way it's going to be hugs and kisses. The only way it would have went down without acrimony was if the EU acquiesced to giving the UK a deal that would have harmed the EU more than necessary.

And how could they do that and look at the other EU members in the morning?

This is like 2 people getting divorced and the person with the most money says "If we get divorced, both of our lifestyles are going to suffer but I make the most money so you're going to hurt more than me. Let's not get divorced." And the other partners says "Nope, I'm going to get everything I want in the divorce because you can't stand to live without me."

Then the divorce happens and the person with the most money fights to hold on to their money. The person with the most money was never gleefully looking to screw over their partner. Their partner just refused to consider the possibility that a divorce is rarely going to be pleasant thing.

The Leavers wanted a divorce and they pushed for it. Why in the world would the EU give them preferential treatment at the expense of the EU? It's a trade deal, every carve out to the UK is going to come at the expense of someone in the EU. It cannot be anything except acrimonious, that's how financial divorces work.

 

[JDragon]

I don't think that's valid. Everyone said before the vote - This is a bad thing to do, everyone is going to get hurt and the UK will get hurt the most.

You're somewhat disregarding the rhetoric that was coming out of the UK at the time. The Remainers and the EU were very upfront about how everyone would hurt. The Leavers insisted that it wasn't true and they would make out just fine because they held the negotiating advantage.

No one wanted an ugly or acrimonious divorce but when one side insists that they must have the divorce, there's no way it's going to be hugs and kisses. The only way it would have went down without acrimony was if the EU acquiesced to giving the UK a deal that would have harmed the EU more than necessary.

And how could they do that and look at the other EU members in the morning?

This is like 2 people getting divorced and the person with the most money says "If we get divorced, both of our lifestyles are going to suffer but I make the most money so you're going to hurt more than me. Let's not get divorced." And the other partners says "Nope, I'm going to get everything I want in the divorce because you can't stand to live without me."

Then the divorce happens and the person with the most money fights to hold on to their money. The person with the most money was never gleefully looking to screw over their partner. Their partner just refused to consider the possibility that a divorce is rarely going to be pleasant thing.

The Leavers wanted a divorce and they pushed for it. Why in the world would the EU give them preferential treatment at the expense of the EU? It's a trade deal, every carve out to the UK is going to come at the expense of someone in the EU. It cannot be anything except acrimonious, that's how financial divorces work.

 

[panamaican]

Indeed.

I simply do not understand how any rational thinker could look at the UK's rhetoric and posture all through this and not reach that conclusion. How can anyone blame the EU for what the UK unilaterally forced on everyone else.

 

[whougonnacall]

true enough but know that the trump piss taking will shamelessly continue, guilt free

And tis well earned

 

[Arkain2K]

The best deal, and this seems to be completely evident to me, is the one the UK has currently. They have all advantages of being in the EU, they have all levers available to manage non-EU immigration, they are not part of Schengen, they have their own currency AND they have the insane Brit rebate.

The next best thing available is a managed exit with a deal, for which only the May deal with possible minor adjustments is available. No deal will suck, there is no way around it. And sure, it will affect some countries more than others. But the UK is making a choice here. Nobody forced the UK to go down this path.

As you well know, we've already discussed Cakeism ad-nauseum for like 7 threads straight now, and pretty much all the blaming is just being replicated verbatim at this point, especially when a poster is brand new to the discussion and thought he discovered something new. I guarantee every single post of that nature in v9 can be found in v3-v8. It's rather exhausting, really. Like groundhogs day, without any of the humor.

Now that we have 2 months left on the clock before the European nuclear winter, I'm much more interested to see what comes next after all the finger-pointing and grand-standing about who will suffer. But since people still want to talk about suffering, we can certainly approach it on an academic stand point to see which European countries will suffer the most. At least that angle gotta add something new and refreshing to this often-rehashed discussion, yeah?

Without even looking I know Ireland is probably near, if not at the top of the list.

Surprise: it's actually Belgium!

It's tough being the small shrimp in a tank of big piranhas.

According to a study by the University of Leuven, there will be close to two million job loses across the continent as a result of a no-deal Brexit. New trade barriers, which would come into force instantly on November 1, will deliver a brutal hit to businesses.

Belgium will be the worst hit EU country as a result of a no-deal Brexit.

Belgium would suffer huge losses, with the small Northern European nation losing 2.35 percent of its GDP and 42,390 jobs.

The country, known best for its selection of beers, is expected to see its food and drinks industry worst hit by a no-deal Brexit.

The report reads: "We find Belgium to be amongst the most badly affected countries in the EU27 relative to its size.

"For many sectors we find Belgium to belong to the top 3 of the most affected countries in the EU27."

24,000 of the job losses would be in the Flanders region in the north of the country, 1.06 percent of the Flemish working population.

Brussels would see 4,000 job losses while French-speaking Wallonia would be hit by 10,000.

 

[JDragon]

Macron telling BJ he has 30 days to produce visibility of his alternative proposals. Essentially Germany and France are telling BJ: you are saying this can be done another way, then please deliver.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Macron telling BJ he has 30 days to produce visibility of his alternative proposals. Essentially Germany and France are telling BJ: you are saying this can be done another way, then please deliver.

Don’t worry it’s all in this lovely video.



Don’t worry about the potential medical or food shortages or general trade chaos or any of that bad stuff, the empire is back!

 

[JDragon]

Don’t worry it’s all in this lovely video.



Don’t worry about the potential medical or food shortages or general trade chaos or any of that bad stuff, the empire is back!

Two world wars etc

 

[Billy no mates]

Don’t worry it’s all in this lovely video.



Don’t worry about the potential medical or food shortages or general trade chaos or any of that bad stuff, the empire is back!

Would have been better set to the 'Dambusters Theme' at the end there and really given it that kitsch last night of the proms feel .

 

[deise69]

Surprise: it's actually Belgium!

It's tough being the small shrimp in a tank of big piranhas.

Did you even bother to read your own source ?

A study published last month led by researchers at Erasmus University Rotterdam found that regions in Ireland face the most severe Brexit consequences, with potential economic exposure on par with the impact on regions of the U.K. that are currently most dependent on ties to the EU.

You also completely missed the point, that it's about 700,000 Irish citizens in NI having a border imposed on them by British people again.

 

[Teen Wolf]

 

[Arkain2K]

@JDragon : It seems that neither the British nor the Irish people actually want anything to do with the border wall and inspections posts that the E.U insists that must go up between Ireland and Northern Ireland in case of No Deal, so do you happen to know which company will actually be in charge of building such a "hard border" and who will administer them in the future? Is it gonna be a 310-miles long steel and concrete wall or a chain-link fence? Which peace-keeping force are tasked with protecting the E.U inspection posts from being blowned up on the job by terrorists?

There are a lot of chatters about this E.U/U.K border and how it must be built per E.U laws, but I can't seem to find much concrete info at all about its implementation from the same E.U officials.

Since No Deal Brexit is two months away and a hard border supposedly must go up immediately after that, would be nice if anyone have some hard info on that project.

---

What's the problem?

If Brexit happens, the 310-mile Irish border will represent the only land border between the UK and the EU.

As well as no longer being in the EU, Northern Ireland is likely to end up with different rules and standards to its neighbour, the Republic of Ireland.

That's because the UK intends to leave the customs union and single market - arrangements designed to make trade easier between EU countries.

Lorries travelling to the EU from Northern Ireland would be required to stop at the border for document checks and some product inspections. This would be to ensure their goods meet EU standards.

In theory, such checks would mean things like cameras and security posts, creating a so-called "hard border".

Concerns have been raised that the return of a hard border could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. This helped bring the period of violence in Northern Ireland known as "The Troubles" to an end.

Who would build the border posts?

One proposal, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, is to allow physical checks on animals and other goods to take place in "mobile units away from the border".

However, existing EU law states that animal checks must take place at designated Border Inspections Posts (BIPs) "in the immediate vicinity of the point of entry" - which would include the Irish border.

The EU says "geographic constraints" are the only exception (eg mountains, cliffs, valleys, rivers). In these cases, "a certain distance from the point of introduction may be tolerated."

So getting the EU to allow checks to take place away from the border, for non-geographic reasons, would require a change in the rules.

But no one has started building border posts and the UK and Irish governments say they don't want a hard border.

So there is a very real question, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, about who would actually install the border posts if the EU insist they're necessary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48826360

 

[deise69]

@JDragon : It seems that neither the British nor the Irish people actually want anything to do with the border wall and inspections posts that the E.U insists that must go up between Ireland and Northern Ireland in case of No Deal, so do you happen to know which company will actually be in charge of building such a "hard border" and who will administer them in the future? Is it gonna be a 310-miles long steel and concrete wall or a chain-link fence? Which peace-keeping force are tasked with protecting the E.U inspection posts from being blowned up on the job by terrorists?

There are a lot of chatters about this E.U/U.K border and how it must be built per E.U laws, but I can't seem to find much concrete info at all about its implementation from the same E.U officials.

Since No Deal Brexit is two months away and a hard border supposedly must go up immediately after that, would be nice if anyone have some hard info on that project.

---

What's the problem?

If Brexit happens, the 310-mile Irish border will represent the only land border between the UK and the EU.

As well as no longer being in the EU, Northern Ireland is likely to end up with different rules and standards to its neighbour, the Republic of Ireland.

That's because the UK intends to leave the customs union and single market - arrangements designed to make trade easier between EU countries.

Lorries travelling to the EU from Northern Ireland would be required to stop at the border for document checks and some product inspections. This would be to ensure their goods meet EU standards.

In theory, such checks would mean things like cameras and security posts, creating a so-called "hard border".

Concerns have been raised that the return of a hard border could jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. This helped bring the period of violence in Northern Ireland known as "The Troubles" to an end.

Who would build the border posts?

One proposal, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, is to allow physical checks on animals and other goods to take place in "mobile units away from the border".

However, existing EU law states that animal checks must take place at designated Border Inspections Posts (BIPs) "in the immediate vicinity of the point of entry" - which would include the Irish border.

The EU says "geographic constraints" are the only exception (eg mountains, cliffs, valleys, rivers). In these cases, "a certain distance from the point of introduction may be tolerated."

So getting the EU to allow checks to take place away from the border, for non-geographic reasons, would require a change in the rules.

But no one has started building border posts and the UK and Irish governments say they don't want a hard border.

So there is a very real question, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, about who would actually install the border posts if the EU insist they're necessary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48826360

2016 Brexiteers "We want to control our borders"
2019 Brexiteers "The evil EU nazis are forcing us to control our borders"

 

[deise69]

 

[Rematch]

2016 Brexiteers "We want to control our borders"
2019 Brexiteers "The evil EU nazis are forcing us to control our borders"

There's a difference between people wanting something and outsiders telling them how to go about achieving it.

Hurray, Brexit thread!

 

[Arkain2K]

2016 Brexiteers "We want to control our borders"
2019 Brexiteers "The evil EU nazis are forcing us to control our borders"

So you don't know?

Is there anyone else with actual knowledge on the subject matter?