Brexit Referendum Superthread

embraer170

Agreed, but on the other hand listening to what Hosuk Lee-Makiyama is saying about half way through the video, according to him reaching that break-up point would be a failure for everyone and would be a sign that EU and UK negotiation teams are very poor and aren't even able to express their interest clearly to the other party (according to him there is a very clear interest for both parties to sign a deal as advanced as possible and from his experience with this type of talks this pretty much always means artificial deadlines don't matter).

Or a break-up point could also be as a result of one side having totally unrealistic exceptions.

A BBC poll this morning showed 52% of people now believed the UK would get free trade without free movement. That is just never going to happen with the bar for the most optimistic outcome being set by Norway and Switzerland. The latter relationship is not working out particularly well...

K-9

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think we need to recognise in ourselves a tendency to continue fighting the referendum even though it is over. The mistake is to assume others are doing the same.

May and Boris were on opposite sides of the referendum and therefore "enemies" in that sense. But now the referendum is over and they are no longer in rival camps. May fully accepts the result of that referendum.

I don't think there was ever any evidence that there was any personal enmity between them other than normal political rivalry and ambition.

I think another mistake is to assume that just because May was in the Remain camp during the referendum that she was an ardent ideological pro-EU fanatic. Like a lot of people, she was probably in two minds about a lot of EU issues but had to pick a side and defend it. On the other side, Boris was often accused of not being truly anti-EU but merely used popular anti-EU public sentiment to further his own career.

I would concede that there's politics involved. BoJo did deliver the Leave result and it would be impossible to for May not to give posts to some of the Leave group. But if it was purely a "keep your enemy close" thing then she would have given Johnson a lower profile position where she could still keep an eye on him but he wouldn't be as powerful.

Picking cabinets or reshuffles are political by their nature, Brexit has nothing to do with that. Giving 2 key positions to prominent Brexit Tories has to be political for me, otherwise she'd have given them other ministries. It's still politics, just Brexit is the tool! Giving those 2 positions to Euroskeptics looks like an attempt to reduce any infighting over talks, and any split would be within the Euroskeptic camp, rather than the Tory party itself. Seems a shrewd move to me but we'll see.

whatever_

embraer170 wrote: »

David Davis is delusional:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-who-is-minister-for-brexit-theresa-may-new-cabinet-a7135431.html
What David Davis, the new minister for Brexit, has said about his vision for leaving the EU

He's far from delusional. In recent days we've seen New Zealand, Canada, China (yes, China - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678611/Brexit-makes-UK-China-trade-deal-likely-say-officials-countries-Chinese-blast-frustrating-EU.html)

lining up to do trade deals with Britain.

Meanwhile the Irish government no longer believes there will have to be a border across Ireland and Obama has effectively U-turned on his "back of the queue" comment. "European" businesses in Britain are now U turning on their pre-referendum statements (e.g Siemens : "We never said the UK is in bad shape if it leaves the EU: we said the EU would miss a massive opportunity") and the FTSE 100 is up 20% since February (and has just technically become a bull market since the Tory leadership was resolved).

It is delusional to go on believing that Britain needs membership of the single market. It does not. Britain's exports to the EU amount to about 6% of GDP. The Germans will be keen to do a deal on tariffs on cars in particular (currently 10%), because Britain's monthly trade deficit with Germany is around STG 2Billion and the loss of this would equate to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Germany. For its part, Britain will be keen to do a deal on services.

It may be a different game, but it is a fairly simple one. The complication is that, as usual with the EU, too many countries will be sticking their oars in where they are not wanted. In the interests of self-preservation, the EU will reform to allow a deal to be done. It would be delusional to think otherwise.

Clearlier

whatever_ wrote: »

He's far from delusional. In recent days we've seen New Zealand, Canada, China (yes, China - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678611/Brexit-makes-UK-China-trade-deal-likely-say-officials-countries-Chinese-blast-frustrating-EU.html)

lining up to do trade deals with Britain.

Meanwhile the Irish government no longer believes there will have to be a border across Ireland and Obama has effectively U-turned on his "back of the queue" comment. "European" businesses in Britain are now U turning on their pre-referendum statements (e.g Siemens : "We never said the UK is in bad shape if it leaves the EU: we said the EU would miss a massive opportunity") and the FTSE 100 is up 20% since February (and has just technically become a bull market since the Tory leadership was resolved).

It is delusional to go on believing that Britain needs membership of the single market. It does not. Britain's exports to the EU amount to about 6% of GDP. The Germans will be keen to do a deal on tariffs on cars in particular (currently 10%), because Britain's monthly trade deficit with Germany is around STG 2Billion and the loss of this would equate to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Germany. For its part, Britain will be keen to do a deal on services.

It may be a different game, but it is a fairly simple one. The complication is that, as usual with the EU, too many countries will be sticking their oars in where they are not wanted. In the interests of self-preservation, the EU will reform to allow a deal to be done. It would be delusional to think otherwise.

If it were all about economics then you might be on the right track. It is however delusional to think that the negotiations will only be driven by economics.

The EU can and will shoot themselves in the foot economically in order to maintain things like free movement. It's an absolutely core principle of the EU. That's before you mention the challenge to the very existence of the EU that this represents.

BTW the economic challenge for the UK is not just to secure trade deals but to secure better trade deals than that which they enjoyed as part of the EU. The EU because of the size of its market is typically more attractive than the UK and so theoretically able to get a better deal. The UK has the advantage of being smaller and more agile in its decision making. There may or may not be some advantages to be gained from the commonwealth too.

Enzokk

BorisTheSpider wrote: »

Mad indeed ! Death wish to leave the EU ? Lol ! the very same EU that takes 5 years to decide anything, that destroyed the Greek Economy and will have our children paying for the damage it did to the Irish Economy. Put your money where your mouth is and buy a few Italian Bank Shares !

Remind us again when the 3rd runway at Heathrow will be built? It has taken the UK 5 years to decide to make a decision about the airport infrastructure.

Bob24 wrote: »

Interesting how they seem to say the 2 years deadline in article 50 is almost irrelevant as in this type of negotiations artificial deadlines are never followed as long as there is a common interest for both paries to reach a deal (which they seem to think will be the case).

This is an entirely new situation for everyone so any experience about previous trade deals are off the table. How many times have there been trade talks about a nation leaving the EU? So while 2 nations may have trade talks and give themselves deadlines to ensure progress, the wording is quite clear in that there are 2 years when you exit the EU. It may have been a little hasty to conclude that the trade talks will be fine as previous ones were always extended, its always the one that isn't that you feel the most and its usually where you are the most complacent that it happens.

We can already see it with the talk that for instance Germany will want to trade freely with the UK because they want to sell cars to the British people. It totally ignores the fact that its the users that want those cars and they will continue buying them even if they are more expensive due to more tariffs attached to them. Its not like those that buys BMW's, Mercedes or Audi's are short of money, they will buy them regardless as its a status symbol. Same for French wine and cheese or Italian fashion. I don't see users changing their need for the brands just because it may be more expensive, it will just make it more desirable.

Bob24

Enzokk wrote: »

This is an entirely new situation for everyone so any experience about previous trade deals are off the table. How many times have there been trade talks about a nation leaving the EU? So while 2 nations may have trade talks and give themselves deadlines to ensure progress, the wording is quite clear in that there are 2 years when you exit the EU. It may have been a little hasty to conclude that the trade talks will be fine as previous ones were always extended, its always the one that isn't that you feel the most and its usually where you are the most complacent that it happens.

Yes definitely agreed and he could be wrong (I was just pointing out what he said). But on the other hand I have to say the comments on this are quite interesting with regards to the double standards some people have when experts give an opinion: some posters who were holding expert opinions as a gold standard a few days ago and using the very expert I quote to mock the credibility of another witness taking part in the same audition, are now saying "he could be wrong and we don't know" when he is saying something they don't like to hear. It goes to show how people are guided by their personal biais when the assess the credibility of an opinion.

grogi

Bob24 wrote: »

(according to him there is a very clear interest for both parties to sign a deal as advanced as possible and from his experience with this type of talks this pretty much always means artificial deadlines don't matter).

There might be an economic interest to have a deal, but from political point of view the interests are completely opposite.

UK is a big state - and they should be able to manage without the Union. EU consists of many much smaller states than UK - and those will not. And that's why EU must play hard ball on UK not to let the Union collapse, because those will not survive when challenged by USA and China. Even at an economic cost in short term.

molloyjh

whatever_ wrote: »

...the FTSE 100 is up 20% since February...

It's been explained numerous times why this is not a valid indicator of the British economy. Why so many people keep grasping at this is beyond me. The FTSE 250 is a far better measure. That has recovered somewhat from the hit it took during the referendum but is still down around 4%. The STG:USD is another good measure and while that has rallied somewhat it is still way down (about 11%) on where it was before the referendum.

whatever_ wrote: »

It may be a different game, but it is a fairly simple one. The complication is that, as usual with the EU, too many countries will be sticking their oars in where they are not wanted.

By definition of the EU the countries are wanted.

whatever_ wrote: »

In the interests of self-preservation, the EU will reform to allow a deal to be done. It would be delusional to think otherwise.

The UK need the EU more than the EU needs the UK. And doing any deal that allows for free trade AND the removal of the freedom of movement will basically signal the end of the EU project. Why would any country remain with the EU if they can get that? It makes absolutely no sense.

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The deadline is on Brexit - 2 years after article 50 is activated, they are out.

There is no deadline on trade negotiations, it could take 10 years to settle the UKs new relationship with the EU.

Of course you can disagree with him, but if you watch the video this is not what the guy's opinion is. If you skip to 51:18 he states it fairly clearly. For him both the exit negotiations and the future relationship agreement are linked and it would be a failure for both parties to just accept what he calls an "artificial deadline" after two years and to fall back to basic WTO trade rules.

Enzokk

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes definitely agreed and he could be wrong (I was just pointing out what he said). But on the other hand I have to say the comments on this are quite interesting with regards to the double standards some people have when experts give an opinion: some posters who were holding expert opinions as a gold standard a few days ago and using the very expert I quote to mock the credibility of another witness taking part in the same audition, are now saying "he could be wrong and we don't know" when he is saying something they don't like to hear. It goes to show how people are guided by their personal biais when the assess the credibility of an opinion.

I didn't take it as your opinion but commenting on what was said during that session. We will have to wait and see who was right and wrong. What is clear is that there is uncertainty and what almost everyone agrees on is that uncertainty isn't great for the economy. While the fast transition to a new PM will have helped with some of this uncertainty in the short term, and we see a bounce back in the markets and currency, there may be many more shocks to come and we will only be able to judge how little or big the impact was on the UK economy after the exit has been finalised.

Nody

whatever_ wrote: »

He's far from delusional. In recent days we've seen New Zealand, Canada, China (yes, China - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678611/Brexit-makes-UK-China-trade-deal-likely-say-officials-countries-Chinese-blast-frustrating-EU.html)

Of course China would love a trade deal that don't has those pesky requirements of price dumping , limited import volumes etc. that EU sets to protect European manufacturing and China would love a "free trade" agreement (i.e. China gets to sell at any price and you don't complain when the Chinese state funds the companies doing so).

It is delusional to go on believing that Britain needs membership of the single market. It does not. Britain's exports to the EU amount to about 6% of GDP. The Germans will be keen to do a deal on tariffs on cars in particular (currently 10%), because Britain's monthly trade deficit with Germany is around STG 2Billion and the loss of this would equate to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Germany. For its part, Britain will be keen to do a deal on services.

Finance sector says hello; if UK loses the right for their finance sector to trade euros for example there are significant blows to London. And no, losing 200 million on cars (10% of 2 billion) is not going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in Germany; it would have less then 10k job impact and that's even assuming it would matter (keep in mind all those cars produced in UK for the European market are likely to move to the main continent instead offsetting volumes due to the same tariff and a BMW buyer will still buy it with a 10% tariff; same is not true for a person buying a 20k EUR car produced in UK).

K-9

Nody wrote: »

Of course China would love a trade deal that don't has those pesky requirements of price dumping , limited import volumes etc. that EU sets to protect European manufacturing and China would love a "free trade" agreement (i.e. China gets to sell at any price and you don't complain when the Chinese state funds the companies doing so).

That's a very, very valid point! China may find it easy to get a deal with the UK over the EU, that isn't necessarily a good thing, cheap steel a perfect example.

Finance sector says hello; if UK loses the right for their finance sector to trade euros for example there are significant blows to London. And no, losing 200 million on cars (10% of 2 billion) is not going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in Germany; it would have less then 10k job impact and that's even assuming it would matter (keep in mind all those cars produced in UK for the European market are likely to move to the main continent instead offsetting volumes due to the same tariff and a BMW buyer will still buy it with a 10% tariff; same is not true for a person buying a 20k EUR car produced in UK).

Britain is looking for good terms with 27 countries, we are their 4th largest export market for example whereas Britain is just one country, an important one obviously enough.

Clearlier

Enzokk wrote: »

I didn't take it as your opinion but commenting on what was said during that session. We will have to wait and see who was right and wrong. What is clear is that there is uncertainty and what almost everyone agrees on is that uncertainty isn't great for the economy. While the fast transition to a new PM will have helped with some of this uncertainty in the short term, and we see a bounce back in the markets and currency, there may be many more shocks to come and we will only be able to judge how little or big the impact was on the UK economy after the exit has been finalised.

Just to add that at the moment there is little or no economic impact. The economic impacts will start to reveal themselves in investment decisions until negotiations have concluded and Britain exits. At that point there'll be a boost from any additional trade rights Britain has negotiated throughout the world and a negative impact on any loss of trade rights that has resulted from the negotiations (not just from access to the EU market but also access to other markets that the EU has trade deals with). Those impacts will continue to develop over time both as a result of investment decisions (both positive and negative) and also as both the EU and the UK continue to develop trade relationships with other countries throughout the world.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

it would be a failure for both parties to just accept what he calls an "artificial deadline" after two years and to fall back to basic WTO trade rules.

The point is that the deadline is a real deadline because the EU and the UK (the parties to the negotiations) do not have the power to extend it unless all 28 countries agree.

So Poland or Lithuania or the Czech republic, acting alone, can force the UK out into the cold on that date. Do you really want to bet that all remaining EU countries will agree?

No - so it's a deadline. So the negotiators will be under the gun, which as the guy points out is not usually the case. And the UK negotiators will be under greater pressure, having more to lose. And they will either be new to the role, or Brits who currently work for the EU.

And the Brexiters think they are going to win?

grogi

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No - so it's a deadline. So the negotiators will be under the gun, which as the guy points out is not usually the case. And the UK negotiators will be under greater pressure, having more to lose. And they will either be new to the role, or Brits who currently work for the EU.

And the Brexiters think they are going to win?

Brexiters want to build the safety cushion of trade deals with other places before that 2 year countdown starts.

Unfortunately markets, investors and talented people hate uncertainty... They would like to know what the goal is - and longer this hangs in the air, the more harm...

wes

grogi wrote: »

Brexiters want to build the safety cushion of trade deals with other places before that 2 year countdown starts.

They can't do it before, as there still a member of the EU. The EU could potentially retaliate for breaking the rules, and it would best case piss of the EU, and will result in negotiations being far more harsh hen they need to be.

Again, Brexiters seem to not know what the hell there doing imho, if they believe they can quickly negotiate multiple trade deals, all the while still being members of the EU.

Also, no country would be dumb enough to sign such a deal, in such circumstances.

Now there may be informal talks, but that really all there can be.

Zubeneschamali

grogi wrote: »

Brexiters want to build the safety cushion of trade deals with other places before that 2 year countdown starts.

Then their teams (when they round them up) will be under intense time pressure in those negotiations as political pressure mounts for May to activate article 50.

Negotiating under intense time pressure does not lead to good outcomes.

Zubeneschamali

wes wrote: »

They can't do it before, as there still a member of the EU. The EU could potentially retaliate for breaking the rules, and it would best case piss of the EU, and will result in negotiations being far more harsh hen they need to be.

I don't think there is any rule that would stop them negotiating a deal to begin on the day of Brexit.

And even if there is such a rule, there is no way for the EU to enforce it now. What are the EU going to do, fine them?

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think there is any rule that would stop them negotiating a deal to begin on the day of Brexit.

And even if there is such a rule, there is no way for the EU to enforce it now. What are the EU going to do, fine them?

They're still EU members though. That means that until an exit deal is signed by both sides, they're still bound by whatever treaty prohibits trade talks outside the EU.

wes

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And even if there is such a rule, there is no way for the EU to enforce it now. What are the EU going to do, fine them?

Suspend membership with immediate effect, and the EU will now be given every incentive to hurt the UK during article 50 negotiations.

djpbarry

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think there is any rule that would stop them negotiating a deal to begin on the day of Brexit.

When's that?

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bob24 wrote: »

it would be a failure for both parties to just accept what he calls an "artificial deadline" after two years and to fall back to basic WTO trade rules.

The point is that the deadline is a real deadline because the EU and the UK (the parties to the negotiations) do not have the power to extend it unless all 28 countries agree.

So Poland or Lithuania or the Czech republic, acting alone, can force the UK out into the cold on that date. Do you really want to bet that all remaining EU countries will agree?

No - so it's a deadline. So the negotiators will be under the gun, which as the guy points out is not usually the case. And the UK negotiators will be under greater pressure, having more to lose. And they will either be new to the role, or Brits who currently work for the EU.

And the Brexiters think they are going to win?

Again, you are free to disagree with him. But his opinion clearly is that the deadline is not very relevant and can be extended.

Also, from my own perspective, saying only one country can push them out is correct in theory but missing a key practical point. If lets say the Czech Republic is trying to do that unilaterally because they are unhappy about something, they will not only penalise the UK but also all 26 other members states who want to go ahead with further negotiations. And can one country really resist pressure from 26 other member states?

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They're still EU members though. That means that until an exit deal is signed by both sides, they're still bound by whatever treaty prohibits trade talks outside the EU.

No, I think the rule is they can't make the deal. I don't think there can be any rule against talking about making a deal. Agree deals to come into force when they leave, and no rules are broken.

Zubeneschamali

djpbarry wrote: »

When's that?

The deal could say "Deal comes into force the day and time Britain leaves the EU".

That will happen 2 years after they activate article 50 unless extended.

K-9

djpbarry wrote: »

When's that?

Indeed, rather than squabbling about what the EU can do, Britain will be offering China etc. a deal to come into effect at some indeterminate time in the future!

grogi

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, rather than squabbling about what the EU can do, Britain will be offering China etc. a deal to come into effect at some indeterminate time in the future!

What's more - in such negotiations China or whoever UK negotiates will be in position of power. Britain will need a deal with anyone much more than the other way round.

And UK would like to cherry pick again: we want cheap phones, but not cars etc. - China will push them much harder knowing that UK needs them.

smjm

grogi wrote: »

What's more - in such negotiations China or whoever UK negotiates will be in position of power. Britain will need a deal with anyone much more than the other way round.

And UK would like to cherry pick again: we want cheap phones, but not cars etc. - China will push them much harder knowing that UK needs them.

There is another way of looking at the whole thing. China and others might like to weaken the EU, politically and economically. By giving the UK a good deal, they can encourage others within the EU to rethink their own position. If leaving the EU suddenly looks like a more attractive proposition than being in it, the EU might be forced to rethink their trade strategy. Thus being more vulnerable, China and others could hold the upper hand in future negotiations. It's pure speculation of course - but anything could happen in uncertain times. There's a bigger game going on than simply the EU versus the UK.

embraer170

whatever_ wrote: »

He's far from delusional. In recent days we've seen New Zealand, Canada, China (yes, China - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678611/Brexit-makes-UK-China-trade-deal-likely-say-officials-countries-Chinese-blast-frustrating-EU.html)
lining up to do trade deals with Britain.

I am sure China etc. are lining up to get even more liberal access to the UK market. How is that going to save UK manufacturing jobs?

Meanwhile the Irish government no longer believes there will have to be a border across Ireland

How is that going to work exactly? Unless the UK agrees to Norway deal... that of course includes free movement, and definitely not what the people voted for.

Obama has effectively U-turned on his "back of the queue" comment.

He has?

It is delusional to go on believing that Britain needs membership of the single market. It does not. Britain's exports to the EU amount to about 6% of GDP.

The proportion of all goods and services exported going to the EU is 44%!

grogi

smjm wrote: »

Thus being more vulnerable, China and others could hold the upper hand in future negotiations. It's pure speculation of course - but anything could happen in uncertain times. There's a bigger game going on than simply the EU versus the UK.

Absolutely. One can say everything about China, but they are really planning like 50 years ahead. There is no public vote in 1, 2 or 3 years to please the people, so Chinese political class can play the game for the game itself...

The whole Iceland deal was about that - to get access to land and sailing tracks viable in decades from now...

djpbarry

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The deal could say "Deal comes into force the day and time Britain leaves the EU".

That will happen 2 years after they activate article 50 unless extended.

In other words, nobody knows when exactly the UK will leave the EU. Nobody is going to sign a deal with them if they have no idea when it will come into force.