The next recession

WolfeTone said:

The irony of the Brexit shambles is that the Unionists, who have openly stated that they are opposed to border controls between UK/EU in Ireland, demand to be treated the same as the rest of the Britain

Click to expand...

The backstop is deeply political on all sides, The EU, ireland , the unionists and britain. We want it because it ties northern ireland and consequently britain in the customs union. The EU want it not because of us but because it ties britains hands. The unionist dont want it because it distinguishes between northern ireland and britain which is an anathema to them. Britain does not want it because it ties their hands in negotiations and keeps them in the customs union, and they need the unionist votes .
The backstop is only good if there is a deal, it is looking like there will be no deal with the backstop in place. Its also the case that the backstop prevented theresa may getting her deal through the house of commons. It looks like boris johnson is going to crash out of the EU on 31 October with disastrous consequences, we need to get real , sticking by the backstop seemed to work with a weak and drained theresa may leadership, its not going to work with a fresh boris johnson leadership, whatever we may think of him.

joe sod said:

sticking by the backstop seemed to work with a weak and drained theresa may leadership, its not going to work with a fresh boris johnson leadership, whatever we may think of him.

Click to expand...

But can he afford to get shirty?

Subsequently, he will have to negotiate a trade deal with the EU.

joe sod said:

We want it because it ties northern ireland and consequently britain in the customs union.

Click to expand...

It was the British government that proposed in the WA that remaing in CU would apply to whole of UK and not just NI. Only to placate Unionist demands of "not being treated differently", a card Unionists held by virtue of political numbers and a PM that campaigned (and presumably voted) to Remain.
Irelands interest was solely on NI.

But listen to what Unionists are saying. They are saying that they want the border between UK/EU in Ireland to be open, frictionless.
But they want borders between UK/EU in Britain to be taken control of and subject to British customs and Immigration rules, not EU ones.
Talking out both sides of their mouth on this one.

The sooner Unionists get real the better, because all it will take is a set of parliamentary numbers in the house of commons that sidelines them in terms of government support and they, and their "not being treated differently" hoax, will be dropped like a tonne of bricks.
I have no doubt that underlying recent votes in the HoC on same sex marriage and abortion for NI was bow fired across their mantra of "not being treated differently".
And the simple fact of the matter is that communities on both sides of the border, nationalist and unionist, don't want to see any border infrastructure return.

joe sod said:

The backstop is deeply political on all sides, The EU, ireland , the unionists and britain. We want it because it ties northern ireland and consequently britain in the customs union. . .

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this bit.
We want the backstop because its the insurance plan against a border in Ireland. Which is what the UK said they wanted to avoid also.

Having no border and being out of the single market are very incompatible. But if the UK can come up with a solution I think Ireland would be happy with it. The fact is they haven't so it looks like the backstop is required.

It's almost as if it wasn't really thought through very much when May came up with her red lines. But it's the UK that's leaving and the UK that have conflicting red lines so unless they come up with a magic solution they're stuck with the withdrawal agreement.

We'd prefer they stay in the single market but that's not our call. Before the referendum that wasn't a series option. Now apparently they all voted for no deal

qwerty5 said:

I don't agree with this bit.
We want the backstop because its the insurance plan against a border in Ireland. Which is what the UK said they wanted to avoid also.

Click to expand...

At the moment though the backstop in its current form and duration appears to be holding up a deal which would preclude a border ... so the backstop is bringing about the very scenario it was intended to prevent, should UK event with no deal.
We don't really want the backstop, we want a deal and no border. The backstop is a means to an end that is failing to achieve its goal and should be ditched \ fudged \ modified.

odyssey06 said:

At the moment though the backstop in its current form and duration appears to be holding up a deal which would preclude a border ... so the backstop is bringing about the very scenario it was intended to prevent, should UK event with no deal.

Click to expand...

But its not really. It is only there until such time as a something better is agreed, ie a free trade deal.
So rather than crash out, with all the implications of no deal, the WA paves the path for an orderly exit until such time a free trade deal is agreed.
In the absence of a free trade deal, the backstop insures against border controls returning to Ireland - which all parties across the political spectrum have advocated for.
It really is up to the British to propose alternative arrangements. They haven't, other than ditch the backstop. In which case, no Irish government could plausibly agree to, in turn vetoing a WA between EU and UK. Back to square one, a no deal Brexit.
So compromise has to be found. The obvious compromise is for the Unionists to accept that what they want in practical terms (a frictionless open trade border in Ireland) is not compatible with their idealistic terms "not to be treated differently", when in realistic terms, they are different from rest of UK in many, many ways already, eg same sex marriage, abortion, dysfunctional parliament, d'hondt system of parliament (when functioning) etc

odyssey06 said:

The backstop is a means to an end that is failing to achieve its goal and should be ditched \ fudged \ modified.

Click to expand...

I agree that the backstop is a means to an end, no return to a hard border.

If it is ditched/fuged/modified London will see that this is no longer a priority for us

If there is a no deal Brexit, Britain will still have to negotiate some basis for future trading with the EU. The first item on that agenda will be how to avoid a hard border. Unless of course we signal that this is no longer our priority.

WolfeTone said:

The obvious compromise is for the Unionists to accept that what they want in practical terms (a frictionless open trade border in Ireland) is not compatible with their idealistic terms "not to be treated differently"

Click to expand...

the unionists are the most uncompromising of all the parties to this deal, if your strategy is to get the unionists to compromise well it fails, its not a realistic strategy at all. In fairness to theresa may she did her best to try and get movement on this, she travelled to leo varadker and to the eu and european leaders, but everywhere she got a blank no. Even Donald trump fudges , changes tact and yes backs down, he does not stick blindly to the same failed strategy.

joe sod said:

the unionists are the most uncompromising of all the parties to this deal, if your strategy is to get the unionists to compromise well it fails, its not a realistic strategy at all. In fairness to theresa may she did her best to try and get movement on this, she travelled to leo varadker and to the eu and european leaders, but everywhere she got a blank no. Even Donald trump fudges , changes tact and yes backs down, he does not stick blindly to the same failed strategy.

Click to expand...

What did we (as in Dublin government) compromise on in the backstop?

joe sod said:

the unionists are the most uncompromising of all the parties to this deal, if your strategy is to get the unionists to compromise well it fails, its not a realistic strategy at all.

Click to expand...

One, its not my strategy, im simply pointing out what I think is the most reasonable and realistic solution.
Two, just because the Unionists are "the most uncompromising" therefore the Irish government should cede ground to them? That is the strategy of failure.

My own guess is that the British parliament, under a new leader like Johnson, will end up dumping on the DUP. His strategy will be to garner enough votes between Conservatives and Brexit Party to leave on 31st Oct with the small price of treating NI "differently".
The recent votes in HoC for same sex marriage and abortion for NI were a shot across the bow towards Ulster Unionism.

WolfeTone said:

My own guess is that the British parliament, under a new leader like Johnson, will end up dumping on the DUP. His strategy will be to garner enough votes between Conservatives and Brexit Party to leave on 31st Oct with the small price of treating NI "differently".

Click to expand...

The brexit party are not in the house of commons only the european parliament therefore they have no say in the house of commons vote if there is one. Boris johnson has already said that the house of commons will be in recess on october 31 so he is not planning on any theresa may style last minute votes and extensions. They will run the clock down to october 31 unless there is some change. It would be better for ireland to compromise a little now rather than waiting until then when the pressure will be intense when we could be bounced by the EU anyway. It is better that we take control now and focus on irelands interests not the EUs for now.

It's bluff. A no deal isn't on the cards, as the 31st of March "deadline" has already proven. Despite the talk, it'll be an election/second ref.

If they leave, the backstop will go back to its original NI only incarnation, which the English will be more than happy with, and the focus will shift towards convincing the Scots to "remain".

May we live in interesting times.

joe sod said:

The brexit party are not in the house of commons

Click to expand...

Very true, but the political game for Johnson and Tories is to avoid a GE, if not, get savaged by the Brexit Party.
So how, between now and Oct 31 can Johnson lead the Tories into power with Brexit under their belt?
Here is an idea;

joe sod said:

Boris johnson has already said that the house of commons will be in recess on october 31

Click to expand...

Hardline, hardball, tough and uncompromising. What else could a Tory, come prospective Brexit Party voter, want in a leader?
One small snag, on what grounds can the PM of the Mother of Parliaments bring the House into recess?
On a personal whim? Or with a majority of the house?
Im not sure, but outside of declarations of war, I think Johnson may be over-egging his his penchant for Churchillian dramatics.

I could of course be totally wrong, but in my opinion Johnson will be the most untrustworthy British PM since Thatcher, particularly when it comes to Irish interests.
Thankfully, he is no Thatcher, nor Churchill. He is intelligent, amenable to many, witty, and a bit of craic...but his diplomatic skills dont go much further than beyond the gallery that he is appealing to right now with his rabble-rousing mantra of bringing the HoC into recess.
If, or when, he gets into power, the real politik will quickly smack him across the face like a wet fish making him pine for his Telegraph gig.
The real politik being - shouting from the sidelines doesn't cut it anymore.

That is my take, im open to been proven totally wrong.

Leo playing the 'NI only' backstop option.


The most practical solution in my opinion. The people of Ireland and Britain, and Europe, should not be held back because one political party in the North, representing a viewpoint of a minority of people in NI in relation to Brexit, cannot fathom practical realities over idealistic fantasies.

I love the way this topic goes around in circles, just like every single topic in every single piece of media/news on Brexit. Lets now agree that none of us know what length that piece of string is although some smart eejit will try to convince us he/she has it solved.

"NI only backstop still an option -Varadker"
I heard the interview with leo varadker on Sean O Rourke this morning. Sean O Rourke rightly pointed out that this was the original position an NI only backstop and that was rejected by the unionists. But Sean O Rourke did put Varadker under pressure, he was actually unable to respond on one occasion. The position seems to be that he cant talk about changes to the backstop until he talks to boris johnson, he didnt put it like that but sean o rourke did put him under pressure.

Excellent talk here by economist Stephanie Kelton. Albeit it is from the perspective of US national debt, it goes a long way to challenge the views that suggest we must pay down our debt.



Stephanie Kelton is a professor of public policy and economics at Stony Brook University. Before joining Stony Brook, she chaired the Economics Department at the University of Missouri—Kansas City, where she taught for seventeen years. She served as chief economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee (Democratic staff) in 2015 and as a senior economic adviser to Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign. She is a former editor-in-chief of the top-ranked blog New Economic Perspectives and member of the TopWonks network of the nation’s best thinkers.

WolfeTone said:

Excellent talk here by economist Stephanie Kelton. Albeit it is from the perspective of US national debt, it goes a long way to challenge the views that suggest we must pay down our debt.

Click to expand...

There's a massive difference when you're in a monetary union, and when you're not the sole issuer of what is essentially the World's reserve currency.

That's before you even get into the criticisms of the MMT policies that Kelton espouses. It's not really a viable path for Ireland whatsoever.

NiallSparky said:

There's a massive difference when you're in a monetary union, and when you're not the sole issuer of what is essentially the World's reserve currency.

That's before you even get into the criticisms of the MMT policies that Kelton espouses. It's not really a viable path for Ireland whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I agree insofar as that we are in a monetary union and cannot issue our own currency. But the central point I got from it was Keltons view that national debt is not necessarily a bad thing. Increasing national debt means money being pumped into the economy in creating employment, utilizing resources, increasing capacity for the future.
The important thing for me is that the rate of increasing debt is less than the rate of growth. Once this is occurring, then it can be plausibly said that that debt is being put to productive use overall (notwithstanding obvious controversies in the media with regard to some public spending items).

33 billion spent on interest in the last five years, the multiplying effect of that money in the ecomony cannot be overstated instead leaving by the back door. That's with negative interest rates on the debt. Now with the economy at full capacity do you believe the growth rates will continue as we have seen over the last five years. The answer is simply no way. Interest rates are going to rise costing more money to service the roll over debt.its simple economics the interest rate is going to exceed the growth rate of the economy. The debt created in Ireland was used to pay wages/pensions and welfare payments from 2009 to 2014 (excluding bailout) and nothing remotely to do with expanding the economy. I love economists they all have different points of view