You think Favourite Worst Nightmare is better than Whatever People Say I Am That Is What Iâm Not.
To talk for a moment with the serious people on this thread, I had an accountant tell me yesterday that Ireland could lose up to 40% of its GDP post-Brexit, which obviously is not great. Iâm not saying that I think things will be that bad, but I assume that all of you would support some kind of 11th hour minor compromise on the backstop to make it look like Boris has made a great deal.
However Borisâs appointments of lots of hard-Brexiters to the cabinet makes me doubt whether an 11th hour minor-compromise-deal would even be possible. My questions for the sensible, non-Labane people are as follows:-
(i) What should our 11th hour minor compromise on the backstop be?
(ii) Is there any chance of that being enough for Boris to get the deal through his cabinet and parliament give the cabinet that he has appointed?
(iii) Does he need to get the deal through cabinet and parliament or just parliament?
It is very difficult to come up with a figure. Import/exports certaintly do not tell the whole story. You have HUGE crossovers between the North but also the South, in terms of professional services, ops services, transport etc. Lots of figures do not get captured.
40% is obviously disproportionate, but it is a huge amount.
And I am still trying to reconcile Labaneâs talk of vision here and where he sees both sitting.
How the fuck could Ireland lose 40% of itâs GDP? Irelandâs GDP is over $300 billion, itâs exports to the UK about $16 billion and itâs imports from the UK about $20B. Irelandâs exports to the EU - UK greatly outnumber exports to the UK, and Ireland exports 2X as much to the US as the UK.
People think itâs the 1930s when the UK was our only trading partner.
The best hope for Ireland here is that the post relationship deal described is robust.
The EU stopped Ireland and the UK bilaterally doing this before by proxy but it does have to happen. And it would solve lots of the problems. But I still think, and always have, that the UK needs to jettison a lot of their ideas on freedom to negotiate worldwide trade deals in order to achieve that future position. This goes back again to the issues of borders, money and laws which was the flag that they flew under. They HAVE to accept itâs not possible and the problem with that is that in a few years time people will ask why the UK gave up their seat in proposing trade deals just so their fishermen could own UK waters and that they didnât have to pay French farmers anymore. Basically, they will end up back in by some back door, because it is in their interest.
My vision for the UK is that it becomes a failed state, and looks at Ireland with envy.
The population of the UK are not going to stop buying Irish products when the UK leaves the EU. When I go to the store I have dozens of dairy products to choose from, and choose to buy Kerrygold at a bit of a premium because I like it. Same for Irish whiskey. Consumers donât change their buying habits because of trade deals, unless products disappear off the shelves. At worst there will be a small impact on Irish exports to the UK. The benefits of multinationals choosing Ireland over the UK will greatly outweigh that.
The collapse of the EU is a completely separate issue.
Thatâs not my claim, I said that was my accountant friendâs claim, I strongly implied that I didnât think it would be that bad. For the avoidance of doubt, I donât think things will be that bad. Youâre an awful bullshitter.
It would be good to be able to have serious discussions about politics on TFK, there are plenty of intelligent posters.
Itâs a waste of time. Itâs not a serious website. Any attempt at serious discussion is vandalised by morons. As a moderator on boards.ie I wouldnât tolerate it for a second
Leaving aside Brexitâs economic impact â almost undoubtedly negative (or severely negative) in the medium term, even according to froth-mouthed economists such as Andrew Lilico and Patrick Minford â there is one way in which Brexit is a chimera. Most likely, there is no longer a Leave majority, simply through demographics. Whatever the EUâs pros and cons, the likelihood is that Britain will no sooner be out â if exit does happen â than there will be a serious caucus for re-entry. What is the point of Brexit, in those terms â and demographics underpins all economics, as per China and India?
I suspect BJ will ultimately go for another vote. Nothing would suit him better than to have the issue gone. You can defend another vote as democracy in action, however galled the ERG might be.
If thatâs the case, can one of the intelligent posters outline the hit Ireland would take from a hard Brexit and why?
Ireland exports $16 billion to the UK, the claim is that this would be at risk? Why? Will consumers in the UK stop buying Irish beef, butter, whiskey, Guinness, etc in favor of shit imitations from south America? They already have this choice by the way and choose Irish products, just as Americans have loads of choices and choose to buy $33 billion of Irish products. Maybe it has something to do with America having 30 million Irish Americans.
How many multinationals have already moved to Ireland from the UK and how many will move after a hard Brexit? What will be the impact on Irelandâs GDP?
My opinion is a hard Brexit would result in a small short term hit to Irelandâs economy and long term gain.
There isnât a majority for any form of anything, thatâs the issue. The Brexit vote was so narrowed down between âwishful thinkingâ and everything else that itâs impossible. The issue is still General Elections, where despite these being the fundamental issues of our time, there being people who vote Blue or Red. Voting Red is now the real problem. Corbyn is a disaster but still gets that easy Labour 20% that Michael Foot got.
I agree re demographics. There is no point to this. In 20 years the UK will be there with the French and Germans thinking about how to navigate the globe. Population IS the major force as information and IP becomes easier to access.
My one hope personally is that Europe and the US see more eye to eye and come up with a more uniform platform to take them on. But I recognise this is difficult.
The EU wonât let Britain back in for at least a couple of generations. They have fucked the EU around too much in the last 3 years and wasted too much time that could have been spent on other parts of the European project. Ultimately De Gaulle has been proved correct.
The second referendum is the natural place for him to go because heâs no principles either way and itâs what Tony Blair and many others expect to happen.
I see a big problem that makes it impossible for him.
After he gets over the hurdle of managing to hold a second referendum without the hard-Brexiters turning on him he has to secretly conspire behind the scenes to help Remain win, all while publicly backing Leave. Thatâs easily achievable but that ultimately leaves him in the exact same position as David Cameron where he has backed the losing side in a referendum. How can be stay on as Prime Minister after that?