Zompist Bboard Again

quinterbeck wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:40 pm

alice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:35 pm Where's Sal when you need him?

If his work is anything to do with politics (which I have a hunch it might) it's probably keeping him busy at the moment!

Alternatively, he's Brexited the ZBB.

Arkasas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:09 pm

quinterbeck wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:40 pm

alice wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:35 pm Where's Sal when you need him?

If his work is anything to do with politics (which I have a hunch it might) it's probably keeping him busy at the moment!

Alternatively, he's Brexited the ZBB.

Does that mean he'll be having a breakdown for the next 2 - 3 years?

chris_notts wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:15 pm

Arkasas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:09 pm

quinterbeck wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:40 pm

If his work is anything to do with politics (which I have a hunch it might) it's probably keeping him busy at the moment!

Alternatively, he's Brexited the ZBB.

Does that mean he'll be having a breakdown for the next 2 - 3 years?

It means he'll be talking it over with Zompist to try to retain the ability to post as a guest account.

Har har. We all know he's coming back. He still posts at the CBB, so he's not dead.

Anyway, if Johnson's deal puts Northern Ireland in limbo, and the DUP is kicked out of the Tory tent, what is the future of NI? Will more disgruntled Unionists mean fresh violence?

chris_notts wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:40 pm

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:07 pm

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:17 pm OK, refresh my memory. Does this mean that Johnson will get his deal through parliament, or that No Deal happens on January 31?

Johnson will get his deal through parliament. Not quite as bad as No Deal, but also accompanied by some new fellow travellers: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article ... the-tories

The current deal only deals with the terms of withdrawal, and puts the new cliff edge at the end of 2020. Boris has promised to finalise the new relationship with the EU by that point and not extend the "transition period" when the UK is outside the EU but still part of the single market. Everyone knows that complex and deep trade deals take quite a long time to negotiate, so there are three main possibilities:

1. Boris lied and will extend
2. Boris will go for a minimal deal that may eliminate many tariffs but will do little for non-tariff barriers (e.g. product standards, mutual recognition of qualifications, services)
3. Boris will leave with no deal on the future relationship and revert to the famous "WTO terms" at a time when the WTO has no functioning court to enforce them

Anything other than (1) would be an economic shock, although (3) would be a bigger one than (2).

(1) is also by far the most likely, given that he has already extended behind his 'dying in a ditch'. Also, he has often lied.

Anyway, it seems I vastly overestimated (wishful thinking?) the extent of tactical voting.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:40 pm Everyone knows that complex and deep trade deals take quite a long time to negotiate, so there are three main possibilities:

1. Boris lied and will extend
2. Boris will go for a minimal deal that may eliminate many tariffs but will do little for non-tariff barriers (e.g. product standards, mutual recognition of qualifications, services)
3. Boris will leave with no deal on the future relationship and revert to the famous "WTO terms" at a time when the WTO has no functioning court to enforce them

Anything other than (1) would be an economic shock, although (3) would be a bigger one than (2).

One of the major problems of no deal formal exit was going to be the lack of recognition - the EU refused to discuss such matters at a non-personal level with a member state. That includes things like pilots' licences and airworthiness certificates and health inspections for meat. The latter could be a problem simply because of the cost of importing vets - the immigration taxes are not to be sneezed at.

Another possibility that has been suggested on the EU side is sequencing the talks, i.e. concluding a basic deal by the end of 2020 and then doing a follow-on deal later. The issue with this is that the EU wants to put all the issues it cares about (e.g. fisheries) in phase 1, and everything the UK is likely to care about (e.g. services) in phase 2. Obviously, the UK would be stupid to agree to this unless there are things both sides really want settled in phase 2.

I think (hope) that Johnson has learned the lesson from Theresa May's big mistake when she signed on to EU sequencing proposals for the withdrawal agreement. But one can never underestimate the strategic stupidity of politicians.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:11 pm I think (hope) that Johnson has learned the lesson from Theresa May's big mistake when she signed on to EU sequencing proposals for the withdrawal agreement. But one can never underestimate the strategic stupidity of politicians.

Well, there's always this...

alice wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:17 am

chris_notts wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:11 pm I think (hope) that Johnson has learned the lesson from Theresa May's big mistake when she signed on to EU sequencing proposals for the withdrawal agreement. But one can never underestimate the strategic stupidity of politicians.

Well, there's always this...

I know Boris has a history of lying, but given this kind of move I don't see how he can easily row back. He'd not only have to sack most of his cabinet, but also convince a purged party full of extremists to repeal his self-imposed deadline.

That means an economic shock at the end of 2020, whether we get a basic deal or no deal. The FX traders seem to have already realised this, since the brief bump in the pound is gone.

A question I dont see asked a lot:

Once Brexit happens, Ireland will be the only English-speaking nation in the EU. Will Ireland thus come to wield disproportionate power due to the status of English as the language of world finance?

Ive heard companies are already closing offices in London and opening or expanding offices in Dublin, but dont know how much of this is due to language issues, and how much of it even is real, given that its easy to massage statistics to make them suit a narrative.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:17 pm A question I dont see asked a lot:

Once Brexit happens, Ireland will be the only English-speaking nation in the EU.

Unless Scotland secedes and stays in the EU, I guess

Vijay wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:21 pm

Pabappa wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:17 pm A question I dont see asked a lot:

Once Brexit happens, Ireland will be the only English-speaking nation in the EU.

Unless Scotland secedes and stays in the EU, I guess

There is no stay in, only rejoin. So... maybe in four or five years?

That raises an interesting question. The EU would probably be willing to fast-track Scotland's entrance because a) it would be an economic emergency, and b) it would really piss off the English. How fast could they do it? It took 7 months from referendum to membership for Estonia, for example. That was probably after negotiations had already taken place, but how long could it take a former EU member to demonstrate that they meet EU membership criteria?

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:35 pm That raises an interesting question. The EU would probably be willing to fast-track Scotland's entrance because a) it would be an economic emergency, and b) it would really piss off the English. How fast could they do it? It took 7 months from referendum to membership for Estonia, for example. That was probably after negotiations had already taken place, but how long could it take a former EU member to demonstrate that they meet EU membership criteria?

You have to bear in mind that Scotland would also have to hold its referendum, successfully leave the UK, and set up all the bits it would be missing as an independent state before it could even begin negotiations. I don't see how the process of leaving is completed in less that 2 - 3 years from now, plus 1 - 2 at least to negotiate re-entry. And that's assuming that other parties (UK, EU) actively enable the process.

If the UK government resists, which it probably will under the Conservatives given previous statements, either the leaving bit will take longer or it'll be a lot messier. Would the EU really want a new break-away state subject to a massive territorial dispute as a member? And that's assuming that, if the SNP decided to ignore the law, the UK wouldn't be willing to go the Catalan route.

...the process of leaving is completed in [at least] 2 - 3 years from now

OK, that makes sense.

plus 1 - 2 at least to negotiate re-entry

But why this part, though. That's the part I find difficult to predict. Poland had to prove that it met the criteria of membership, and then convince the EU that it was in their interest to let it join. Scotland has already proven its qualifications, and it's fairly obvious how stealing territory from your sworn enemy is beneficial to the EU (to say nothing of boxing them in on two sides and taking all their oil).

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:45 pm

plus 1 - 2 at least to negotiate re-entry

But why this part, though. That's the part I find difficult to predict. Poland had to prove that it met the criteria of membership, and then convince the EU that it was in their interest to let it join. Scotland has already proven its qualifications, and it's fairly obvious how stealing territory from your sworn enemy is beneficial to the EU (to say nothing of boxing them in on two sides and taking all their oil).

I just think this is wishful thinking, in the same way that eurosceptics thought that starting from alignment should make a trade deal easy. A few points:

1. The EU is inherently a slow, legalistic entity with a lot of horse trading. Accession, whatever else it is, takes the form of a treaty that all the existing members have to sign, and they'll all be looking after their interests. It's not like just filling in an application form. For example, when the Eastern European countries joined, short-term restrictions on freedom of movement were negotiated which didn't apply to previous new members.

2. Almost all complex treaties take years to negotiate. Simple treaties where one side dictates terms can be done fast, but that isn't EU accession.

3. Scotland's current membership will not be the same as its future membership. Leaving aside the fact that Scotland will be rebuilding parts of its regulatory infrastructure as it leaves and so can't rely on past UK compliance, the UK has carved out a lot of opt-outs which neither Scotland nor a UK that changes its mind will get on the way back in again. Some of these will be difficult for Scotland: does it really want to be obliged to join the Euro for example? The SNP certainly didn't want to at the time of the last referendum.

4. You are projecting your biases onto the EU when you think that the UK is a sworn enemy and that the EU would do things not otherwise in its interests to give the UK a good kicking. Undoubtedly the relationship with the UK is difficult, but the UK is economically and military much more significant than an independent Scotland, and given geographical proximity we'll eventually have to find a way to work together. The EU won't compromise its own core interests as a favour to the UK, but it's also not going to create some kind of new iron curtain out of spite either. If Scotland joins it will be because of the EU's core interests, not as some kind of tit for tat diplomatic war.

5. This is all even assuming that there are no member states with a good reason to make things difficult. As one example, given how it's crushed the Catalan independence movement, Spain would find it very difficult to encourage a breakaway state elsewhere. And I'm sure some of the others would have other issues.

I'm not saying it's impossible for it to be relatively fast, but a year or two is fast in international relations. That's the best case, not the worst case.

The election is of course chapeau vieux by now, but at least we've finally found out who was to blame.

alice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:08 am The election is of course chapeau vieux by now, but at least we've finally found out who was to blame.

Well that's one way to send any antisemites in Labour spiralling into raged-filled catatonia I suppose...

Frislander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:52 am

alice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:08 am The election is of course chapeau vieux by now, but at least we've finally found out who was to blame.

Well that's one way to send any antisemites in Labour spiralling into raged-filled catatonia I suppose...

It's possible to hate Uri Geller because he's a self-important fraudulent spoon-bending idiot without being an antisemite.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:07 pm It's possible to hate Uri Geller because he's a self-important fraudulent spoon-bending idiot without being an antisemite.

It is unfortunate that disliking people who happen to be Jewish, rather than because they are Jewish, has come to be seen as anti-Semitism.

There definitely is a line, though; calling Jews in general "brutes" just because there happen to be some individuals who are supposedly Jewish who are allegedly aggressive in trying to buy people's homes definitely counts as anti-Semitism.