Impact of no-deal : 40,000 jobs at risk

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
18,318
The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has said it is working with the government on how to mitigate any short-term effects of a no-deal Brexit.

It follows a Department for the Economy report that claimed the UK leaving the EU without a deal could put 40,000 jobs at risk in Northern Ireland.

Many jobs could "disappear almost overnight"
in industries such as agri-food and haulage, says the report.


Thankfully the dup are "We're talking to the government" about how we can mitigate any such impact in the short term and that is what we want to do,"

This would be funny if it was not so serious.
 


owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,860
The reporter on Newstalk put it succinctly:

Would we be better off now that a no-deal is just about inevitable to agree to a time limit on the backstop? Say 5 years. It means kicking the can down the road and waiting and seeing if a Trade Deal can be hammered out with the UK.

But it would avoid immediate dislocation and economic misery on the scale of 2008-2009.

As Yeats wrote "England may keep faith", and agree to a Trade Deal that avoids a hard border, which everyone says they do not want.

Ok, it means giving a win to Boris Johnson and his insufferable Old Etonians, but that may be better than the alternative. And, yes, the Backstop was a British suggestion to get over a kink in the negotiations, a proposal they have now gone back on.


I do not necessarily hold this position, instinctively I want to dish the Brits, but can anyone effectively refute this argument?
 

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
18,318
The reporter on Newstalk put it succinctly:

Would we be better off now that a no-deal is just about inevitable to agree to a time limit on the backstop? Say 5 years. It means kicking the can down the road and waiting and seeing if a Trade Deal can be hammered out with the UK.

But it would avoid immediate dislocation and economic misery on the scale of 2008-2009.

As Yeats wrote "England may keep faith", and agree to a Trade Deal that avoids a hard border, which everyone says they do not want.

Ok, it means giving a win to Boris Johnson and his insufferable Old Etonians, but that may be better than the alternative. And, yes, the Backstop was a British suggestion to get over a kink in the negotiations, a proposal they have now gone back on.


I do not necessarily hold this position, instinctively I want to dish the Brits, but can anyone effectively refute this argument?
The British version of the time limit is that it would simply no longer exist after the time period has passed.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has said it is working with the government on how to mitigate any short-term effects of a no-deal Brexit.

It follows a Department for the Economy report that claimed the UK leaving the EU without a deal could put 40,000 jobs at risk in Northern Ireland.

Many jobs could "disappear almost overnight"
in industries such as agri-food and haulage, says the report.


Thankfully the dup are "We're talking to the government" about how we can mitigate any such impact in the short term and that is what we want to do,"

This would be funny if it was not so serious.

I would think 40,000 conservative. When you factor in N.I.s dependance on Government jobs , and the reduced Revenue the UK government will have , I think 40,000 is conservative.
Sadly its also a lot of new jobs and investment in Tourism that will be effected as well as Agriculture.

I think the Irish Governments figures were highly conservative too.The shock to the Southern Irish economy will also be enormous and start a long slow economic regression.

I really don't give a f@ck what they do , who or where they concede or how humiliating the climbdown is on either side ........

I just know the geographic and hard economic reality, is that Ireland , the island ,desperately needs a Trade deal with the UK ...and anyone who says other wise is an ignorant fool (probably feeling all secure in a state job!)
 

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
18,318
I really don't give a f@ck what they do , who or where they concede or how humiliating the climbdown is on either side ........

I just know the geographic and hard economic reality, is that Ireland , the island ,desperately needs a Trade deal with the UK ...and anyone who says other wise is an ignorant fool (probably feeling all secure in a state job!)
The problem is that Boris is in la la land when it comes to this issue. Its an EU / UK matter and as such their is little anyone can do till the UK grows up.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,860
I would think 40,000 conservative. When you factor in N.I.s dependance on Government jobs , and the reduced Revenue the UK government will have , I think 40,000 is conservative.
Sadly its also a lot of new jobs and investment in Tourism that will be effected as well as Agriculture.

I think the Irish Governments figures were highly conservative too.The shock to the Southern Irish economy will also be enormous and start a long slow economic regression.

I really don't give a f@ck what they do , who or where they concede or how humiliating the climbdown is on either side ........

I just know the geographic and hard economic reality, is that Ireland , the island ,desperately needs a Trade deal with the UK ...and anyone who says other wise is an ignorant fool (probably feeling all secure in a state job!)
Ireland does not need a bilateral Trade Deal with the UK .... to be semi-detached from the EU and economically dependent on the UK is not in our interests. It is turning the clock back to the 1960s, when all the UK wanted was a source of cheap farm produce.

What is desperately required is a UK - EU Trade Deal.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,860
The British version of the time limit is that it would simply no longer exist after the time period has passed.
Maybe there is scope for negotiation there. Like a "review" after 5 years and a possible extension. Again, it kicks the can down the road but maybe can-kicking is the best option.

That may just be enough for a new PM to get an Agreement through the HoC.

I know the EU say the Agreement is closed, but if Boris Johnson (or less likely Hunt) turns up with an offer of some sort, the EU will be bound to give him a hearing.
 

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
18,318
Maybe there is scope for negotiation there. Like a "review" after 5 years and a possible extension. Again, it kicks the can down the road but maybe can-kicking is the best option.

That may just be enough for a new PM to get an Agreement through the HoC.

I know the EU say the Agreement is closed, but if Boris Johnson (or less likely Hunt) turns up with an offer of some sort, the EU will be bound to give him a hearing.
I would not disagree a bit of can kicking could be good. As they say in father ted that would be an EU matter.
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,713
Whether there will be loads of jobs at risk or not, I absolutely guarantee our sleeveen rubbish managerial class will use it as an excuse to abuse workers!
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,112
Maybe there is scope for negotiation there. Like a "review" after 5 years and a possible extension. Again, it kicks the can down the road but maybe can-kicking is the best option.

That may just be enough for a new PM to get an Agreement through the HoC.

I know the EU say the Agreement is closed, but if Boris Johnson (or less likely Hunt) turns up with an offer of some sort, the EU will be bound to give him a hearing.
I think your proposal allows face saving for Tory Loons .

Is that sufficient to save them from committing Hari-kiri on their economy and waging Jihad on the peace process and agriculture.

We have to keep our powder dry till Boris or Hunt get in. Think Hunt is more likely to do the above. Electing him would be a sign that the Tories are recommencing medication.

But a concession to that pr1k Boris might also have a silver lining. He will screw up the Tories even more. Labour will ditch the gobsh1te Corbyn and we'll end up with adults in charge in the UK again.

While that sh1tfest unfolds, it is better to have a withdrawal agreement in place so NI remains stable and our economy is not damaged.

So, yep, a compromise on the backstop could work. Plus Ireland could get some concessions in Europe and some enhanced support for any post border poll scenario from the brits and the EU.

We are engaged in a far longer game here than most.
 

Marcella

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
3,935
Sammy Wilson is the DUP spokesperson on Brexit.

Sammy says the Ulster Farmers Union know feck all about farming - farmers will be grand in a no deal.

Sammy says the Chambers of Commerce, Institute of Chartered accountants, Institute of Directors and federation of small businesses know feck all about business. Businesses will be grand in a no deal brexit.

Sammy says the Road Haulage Association know feck all when they warn of disruptions at the border. Everything will be grand in a no deal says Sammy.

Sammy Wilson is a former minister of environment who is on record as denying man made climate change.

I’ll leave that to sink in with no further comment.
 

Marcella

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
3,935
Maybe there is scope for negotiation there. Like a "review" after 5 years and a possible extension. Again, it kicks the can down the road but maybe can-kicking is the best option.

That may just be enough for a new PM to get an Agreement through the HoC.

I know the EU say the Agreement is closed, but if Boris Johnson (or less likely Hunt) turns up with an offer of some sort, the EU will be bound to give him a hearing.
The problem with continued can kicking is that it puts off long term inward investment.

Can kicking would hurt both UK and Irish economic growth.

A no deal is preferable to can kicking or a fudge. The backstop will be waiting for the brits when they return to the trade table post hard brexit.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,501
The reporter on Newstalk put it succinctly:

Would we be better off now that a no-deal is just about inevitable to agree to a time limit on the backstop? Say 5 years. It means kicking the can down the road and waiting and seeing if a Trade Deal can be hammered out with the UK.

But it would avoid immediate dislocation and economic misery on the scale of 2008-2009.

As Yeats wrote "England may keep faith", and agree to a Trade Deal that avoids a hard border, which everyone says they do not want.

Ok, it means giving a win to Boris Johnson and his insufferable Old Etonians, but that may be better than the alternative. And, yes, the Backstop was a British suggestion to get over a kink in the negotiations, a proposal they have now gone back on.


I do not necessarily hold this position, instinctively I want to dish the Brits, but can anyone effectively refute this argument?
Five years is too short. The trade deal negotiations would likely take that long anyway and the British side could simply extend them until it did and would negotiate with that in mind. A time limit which left the Backstop useful as an insurance policy would likely be too long to be any use to the British.

A columnist on the Sindo had a novel solution recently whereby the British side would formally leave without Westminster passing the WA but the UK would enter a temporary CU and SM for two years while negotiations on the future relationship would start immediately and be concluded in that period(fat chance) but would not come into force until the WA was ratified by Westminster. He felt that with the Trade agreement a known quantity the WA would pass in parliament easier.

The question must then be asked as to why the EU insisted on such a clearly defined step by step process to the leave negotiations in the first place. I've no doubt that the main reason was to narrow the focus of the negotiations in order to prevent unicorn hunting by the Brexiteers infecting the tortuous nitty gritty negotiations which the future relationship will inevitably involve. At least with the WA ratified the broad outline would be agreed and there would then be limits on what the fantasists could introduce while the real heavy stuff was being discussed

Related to this then is the question as to why the Brexiteers really object all that strongly to the backstop and I don't buy the sovereignty argument entirely. Moderate leavers can see quite well that NI has a compromised sovereignty anyway, is in a difficult geographical position and would in any case be in a better position than any other UK region if they were left with closer ties to the EU. Ultra Brexiteers may well not realise any of this but consider Brexit to be more important than the Union. Neither group , however, have been brought to that sufficiently stark place whereby they are finally prepared to throw the DUP under the bus by agreeing an Irish Sea border. They are still on the whole UK backstop page.

So two things flow from that. Given that the Backstop applies to the whole UK for the moment what is the real problem that they have with it? It seems obvious that the real problem they have with it is that it will prevent the UK from having the hard Brexit that they want because the Backstop forces them to remain aligned. Secondly the issue of the alternative arrangements which they are constantly pushing-surely that will provide a solution in time which the EU are committed to accept once proven? I feel that they know perfectly well that this might solve some parts of the problem but will never provide an overall solution with the result that they know that this will keep them in the backstop-they have no faith themselves that the alternatives will work

So to me all of this makes it easier for the Irish government to hold its ground. They are risking the facilitation of a no deal but only stand to gain an unattractive Hard Brexit if they concede on the Backstop. Indeed the future relationship talks might throw up a no deal anyway given the increasing dementia in Britain. Furthermore I just don't believe that the UK will cause a no deal simply to avoid knifing the DUP who do not represent the majority in NI anyway. A simple economic border down the Irish Sea will make the whole thing disappear from their point of view and if a no deal is the end result of all of this then it's hard to escape the notion that it's because that's what they really want themselves which makes conceding a time limit doubly pointless.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,860
Five years is too short. The trade deal negotiations would likely take that long anyway and the British side could simply extend them until it did and would negotiate with that in mind. A time limit which left the Backstop useful as an insurance policy would likely be too long to be any use to the British.

A columnist on the Sindo had a novel solution recently whereby the British side would formally leave without Westminster passing the WA but the UK would enter a temporary CU and SM for two years while negotiations on the future relationship would start immediately and be concluded in that period(fat chance) but would not come into force until the WA was ratified by Westminster. He felt that with the Trade agreement a known quantity the WA would pass in parliament easier.

The question must then be asked as to why the EU insisted on such a clearly defined step by step process to the leave negotiations in the first place. I've no doubt that the main reason was to narrow the focus of the negotiations in order to prevent unicorn hunting by the Brexiteers infecting the tortuous nitty gritty negotiations which the future relationship will inevitably involve. At least with the WA ratified the broad outline would be agreed and there would then be limits on what the fantasists could introduce while the real heavy stuff was being discussed

Related to this then is the question as to why the Brexiteers really object all that strongly to the backstop and I don't buy the sovereignty argument entirely. Moderate leavers can see quite well that NI has a compromised sovereignty anyway, is in a difficult geographical position and would in any case be in a better position than any other UK region if they were left with closer ties to the EU. Ultra Brexiteers may well not realise any of this but consider Brexit to be more important than the Union. Neither group , however, have been brought to that sufficiently stark place whereby they are finally prepared to throw the DUP under the bus by agreeing an Irish Sea border. They are still on the whole UK backstop page.

So two things flow from that. Given that the Backstop applies to the whole UK for the moment what is the real problem that they have with it? It seems obvious that the real problem they have with it is that it will prevent the UK from having the hard Brexit that they want because the Backstop forces them to remain aligned. Secondly the issue of the alternative arrangements which they are constantly pushing-surely that will provide a solution in time which the EU are committed to accept once proven? I feel that they know perfectly well that this might solve some parts of the problem but will never provide an overall solution with the result that they know that this will keep them in the backstop-they have no faith themselves that the alternatives will work

So to me all of this makes it easier for the Irish government to hold its ground. They are risking the facilitation of a no deal but only stand to gain an unattractive Hard Brexit if they concede on the Backstop. Indeed the future relationship talks might throw up a no deal anyway given the increasing dementia in Britain. Furthermore I just don't believe that the UK will cause a no deal simply to avoid knifing the DUP who do not represent the majority in NI anyway. A simple economic border down the Irish Sea will make the whole thing disappear from their point of view and if a no deal is the end result of all of this then it's hard to escape the notion that it's because that's what they really want themselves which makes conceding a time limit doubly pointless.
I liked Denis Staunton's article in the Irish Times that Ireland's best option is to hold its nerve because it is not clear what is going to happen. They should certainly "game" possible outcomes, but keep up the pressure.
 

JacquesHughes

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
1,255
Five years is too short. The trade deal negotiations would likely take that long anyway and the British side could simply extend them until it did and would negotiate with that in mind. A time limit which left the Backstop useful as an insurance policy would likely be too long to be any use to the British.

A columnist on the Sindo had a novel solution recently whereby the British side would formally leave without Westminster passing the WA but the UK would enter a temporary CU and SM for two years while negotiations on the future relationship would start immediately and be concluded in that period(fat chance) but would not come into force until the WA was ratified by Westminster. He felt that with the Trade agreement a known quantity the WA would pass in parliament easier.

The question must then be asked as to why the EU insisted on such a clearly defined step by step process to the leave negotiations in the first place. I've no doubt that the main reason was to narrow the focus of the negotiations in order to prevent unicorn hunting by the Brexiteers infecting the tortuous nitty gritty negotiations which the future relationship will inevitably involve. At least with the WA ratified the broad outline would be agreed and there would then be limits on what the fantasists could introduce while the real heavy stuff was being discussed

Related to this then is the question as to why the Brexiteers really object all that strongly to the backstop and I don't buy the sovereignty argument entirely. Moderate leavers can see quite well that NI has a compromised sovereignty anyway, is in a difficult geographical position and would in any case be in a better position than any other UK region if they were left with closer ties to the EU. Ultra Brexiteers may well not realise any of this but consider Brexit to be more important than the Union. Neither group , however, have been brought to that sufficiently stark place whereby they are finally prepared to throw the DUP under the bus by agreeing an Irish Sea border. They are still on the whole UK backstop page.

So two things flow from that. Given that the Backstop applies to the whole UK for the moment what is the real problem that they have with it? It seems obvious that the real problem they have with it is that it will prevent the UK from having the hard Brexit that they want because the Backstop forces them to remain aligned. Secondly the issue of the alternative arrangements which they are constantly pushing-surely that will provide a solution in time which the EU are committed to accept once proven? I feel that they know perfectly well that this might solve some parts of the problem but will never provide an overall solution with the result that they know that this will keep them in the backstop-they have no faith themselves that the alternatives will work

So to me all of this makes it easier for the Irish government to hold its ground. They are risking the facilitation of a no deal but only stand to gain an unattractive Hard Brexit if they concede on the Backstop. Indeed the future relationship talks might throw up a no deal anyway given the increasing dementia in Britain. Furthermore I just don't believe that the UK will cause a no deal simply to avoid knifing the DUP who do not represent the majority in NI anyway. A simple economic border down the Irish Sea will make the whole thing disappear from their point of view and if a no deal is the end result of all of this then it's hard to escape the notion that it's because that's what they really want themselves which makes conceding a time limit doubly pointless.
Strangely the UK media has forgotten it's an all UK backstop, and refer to it habitually as 'the Irish backstop'. That's only typical of the poor grasp of details by both the elite and the 'get on with it' morons.

That the UK goes into the CU and SM for extendable five year periods ( for a price tag of course) is an interesting idea.

The 'DUP working with the government' ( they're clearly not working with the other NI parties) could only be about cadging more handouts from Westminister for their supporters. ( I predict they shall be feather-bedded.)

Sinn Fein and others should demand that a Brexit-related expansion of the NI fishing fleet is opened to 'new entrants', and is not just a bung to the existing loyal fisherfolk.
 

Herr Rommel

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
9,067
Sammy Wilson is the DUP spokesperson on Brexit.

Sammy says the Ulster Farmers Union know feck all about farming - farmers will be grand in a no deal.

Sammy says the Chambers of Commerce, Institute of Chartered accountants, Institute of Directors and federation of small businesses know feck all about business. Businesses will be grand in a no deal brexit.

Sammy says the Road Haulage Association know feck all when they warn of disruptions at the border. Everything will be grand in a no deal says Sammy.

Sammy Wilson is a former minister of environment who is on record as denying man made climate change.

I’ll leave that to sink in with no further comment.
Remember prods are like slow children and need everything fully explained
 

james toney

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
16,700
How many times do they need to be told.....Hello DUP ...there are 40,000 jobs under threat.....Arlene; we will seek more advice....from our drug dealing terrorist friends in the UDA/UVF first.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
40,584
How many times do they need to be told.....Hello DUP ...there are 40,000 jobs under threat.....Arlene; we will seek more advice....from our drug dealing terrorist friends in the UDA/UVF first.

Sir Jeff has said he could live with 40,000 job losses....I shit you not folk. 😁
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top