Brexit Referendum Superthread

First Up

demfad wrote:

Edit: Government here needs to look at trade logistics. Another trade route to Europe perhaps Cork to Brest (shortest sea crossing). A lot of our stock are stored in ware houses in the middle east. We need to shift some of that to Britanny. It avoids the short term catastophe of strangled ports around the channel due to no regulatory agreement. And is a good long term redundancy move also. Im sure wed get EU funding. Would put more pressure on UK too.

Care to elaborate on that? What stock is stored in warehouses in the Middle East and what would shifting it to Brittany achieve?

We will get no funding from the EU to subvent commercial activity like transport or storage. Nor could we subvent it from our own funds. Breach of competition rules.

Jaggo

First Up wrote: »

We will get no funding from the EU to subvent commercial activity like transport or storage. Nor could we subvent it from our own funds. Breach of competition rules.

Well we support transport links such as public service airline routes and airports so it wouldn't be to much of a stretch to open/ensure a strategic (?) transport link with the EU.

demfad

First Up wrote: »

Care to elaborate on that? What stock is stored in warehouses in the Middle East and what would shifting it to Brittany achieve?

We will get no funding from the EU to subvent commercial activity like transport or storage. Nor could we subvent it from our own funds. Breach of competition rules.

If there is a disorderly Brexit with insufficient customs and regulatory infrastructure in place in the UK then the logistics of getting goods from the continent to Ireland in a timely manner become more difficult.
Now, a lot of goods coming from the continent to Ireland are lumped in with UK goods and stored in warehouses in the UK. As these goods would now be under a different regulatory system to UK goods then this becomes complicated and costly.
Also, with tariffs in place many goods could be imported more cheaply directly from the continent. Again a direct trade shipping link to Europe would facilitate this.
This would require the upgrading of a southern port. Ringaskiddy to Brest is shortest sea route. In the highly unusual circumstances of Brexit perhaps its an infrastructure project we could get help with.
If not, still something that should happen IMO. A disaster situation is an acrimonious Brexit with no regulatory recognition. A second port gives us redundency for this.

First Up

Jaggo wrote:

Well we support transport links such as public service airline routes and airports so it wouldn't be to much of a stretch to open/ensure a strategic (?) transport link with the EU.

Only "social" routes to maintain rural/isolated communities. Not the same as subsidising direct costs for business.

There are already commercially viable "strategic" links between Cork/Rosslare and France. No market failure there.

First Up

demfad wrote:

If there is a disorderly Brexit with insufficient customs and regulatory infrastructure in place in the UK then the logistics of getting goods from the continent to Ireland in a timely manner become more difficult. Now, a lot of goods coming from the continent to Ireland are lumped in with UK goods and stored in warehouses in the UK. As these goods would now be under a different regulatory system to UK goods then this becomes complicated and costly. Also, with tariffs in place many goods could be imported more cheaply directly from the continent. Again a direct trade shipping link to Europe would facilitate this. This would require the upgrading of a southern port. Ringaskiddy to Brest is shortest sea route. In the highly unusual circumstances of Brexit perhaps its an infrastructure project we could get help with. If not, still something that should happen IMO. A disaster situation is an acrimonious Brexit with no regulatory recognition. A second port gives us redundency for this.

You mentioned ports in the Middle East. Where does that fit in?

I understand the logistical challenge posed by transhipment through the UK but we already have direct air routes to most EU countries and sea routes from Cork and Rosslare to Cherbourg and Roscoff.

The infrastructure is already there but it has be viable. There was a short-lived service to St Nazaire ladt year, using the EU's "Motorway of the Sea" programme but it was discontinued because it didn't meet the necessary commercial criteria.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

Well I'm sure Boris can double hat in the role as well... Talking about fun facts; how about the fact there will be 400k new jobs when Brexit is completed through writing trade deals with the same countries already having trade deals with EU? Brexit math at it's best; oh we leave a free trade agreement and when we sign the same agreement again we'll get magically 400k new jobs while not losing any jobs on our side. Seriously the Brexit claims are really starting to get desperate at this stage...

Good evening!

I agree that nobody can guarantee no job losses as a result of Brexit.

However, it's equally untrue to say that Brexit provides no new opportunities to the UK and that it will benefit no company own the UK. There are also companies like Tate Lyle that have suffered as a result of the external tariff regime of the EU.

The reality is that the picture is grey.

The middle ground is to say that Brexit provides excellent opportunities to trade with countries that the EU is not willing to or able to forge a free trade agreement with but not without a free trade agreement with the EU. A more nimble post Brexit UK would be able to pass these agreements far more quickly than the EU but losing access to 44% of your export market isn't wise.

The UK with the right agreement to cover it's EU trade however has every chance of benefiting from being outside.

If the leave side would be honest and acknowledge that losing access to 44% of the export market would be bad and if the remain side would be honest and acknowledge that Britain has every chance of success outside the EU in the right circumstances we'd be a long way closer to an accurate discussion.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

Good evening,

Jaggo wrote: »

People seem to have just accepted that a border is bad but are we really sure it is. While I accept that it would be bad on the political level, I am not sure it is bad at an economic level.

Our trade with the North is in deficit. Our exports are a limited amount of agricultural products and pharma(that will not be effected by tariffs). Whereas we import at large amount of food, construction services and administrative services. Interestingly enough, these are exactly the labour intensive industries that could potentially be used in the recovery of the regions outside Dublin.

Furthermore, if Northern Ireland uses the devaluation of the pound, and the removal of employment law to reduce costs, we could see a devastating loss of jobs in the border region. Add this to the potential loss of tax revenue from trade moving north and maybe smuggling why have we just accepted that not having a border is a good thing?

For Donegal it would be lethal. There's only one tiny 10km wide territorial isthmus between it and the rest of the republic. It would increase journey times to Dublin significantly and ruin border communities. Cross border trade benefits both sides of the border and people getting work on both sides. I'm sure it affects a lot of the border acutely but Donegal is a clear example of where it's a disaster. Just thinking of the Lifford - Strabane border crossing alone amplifies that.

You could only hold that view if you don't live on the border or if you don't know anyone who does.

If the European Union insist on erecting the border they've failed the Irish people. Simple as.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the European Union insist on erecting the border they've failed the Irish people. Simple as.

The only thing simple about that is your logic. The UK Government, in deciding to implement an advisory refenendum, will initiate change that could mean a border in Ireland. The UK Government is wholly responsible for that. It is up to the UK to take responsibility and accountability for her actions and not to deflect it onto others as you are trying to do here

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

However, it's equally untrue to say that Brexit provides no new opportunities to the UK and that it will benefit no company own the UK. There are also companies like Tate Lyle that have suffered as a result of the external tariff regime of the EU.

Have they? Or could it be that they're now inferior to the competition and the EU provides a convenient scapegoat. I fail to see how they'll do any better once the UK surrenders its influence over the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The middle ground is to say that Brexit provides excellent opportunities to trade with countries that the EU is not willing to or able to forge a free trade agreement with but not without a free trade agreement with the EU. A more nimble post Brexit UK would be able to pass these agreements far more quickly than the EU but losing access to 44% of your export market isn't wise.

Which countries would these be exactly? A more nimble UK will be lacking the size of the single market to bargain with.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the leave side would be honest and acknowledge that losing access to 44% of the export market would be bad and if the remain side would be honest and acknowledge that Britain has every chance of success outside the EU in the right circumstances we'd be a long way closer to an accurate discussion.

If you ever presented an actual argument, it might be possible for me to acknowledge it. Instead, you drop meaningless comments like vaguely alluding to nebulous opportunities and that the sky won't fall in. If you want to convince anyone, I suggest that you use facts and specifics.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Last post for today!

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The only thing simple about that is your logic. The UK Government, in deciding to implement an advisory refenendum, will initiate change that could mean a border in Ireland. The UK Government is wholly responsible for that. It is up to the UK to take responsibility and accountability for her actions and not to deflect it onto others as you are trying to do here

No. If the UK government and Irish governments don't want a border and the EU imposes one it is a failure of the EU to the Irish people. If the Irish people are collateral damage to the EU that speaks volumes.

Claiming that anything that the EU may do as a 'consequence' doesn't wash.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Have they? Or could it be that they're now inferior to the competition and the EU provides a convenient scapegoat. I fail to see how they'll do any better once the UK surrenders its influence over the EU.

You can look up what they said yourself. External tariffs on sugar cane have hurt their profitability. The reality is that it is grey rather than black or white and the totality should be listened to.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Which countries would these be exactly? A more nimble UK will be lacking the size of the single market to bargain with.

So? The USA has a free trade deal with Australia which is 16 million in popilation.

Iceland has a free trade agreement with China.

The point is without 32 parliaments to approve the UK could be more quick in arranging and approving these free trade agreements.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you ever presented an actual argument, it might be possible for me to acknowledge it. Instead, you drop meaningless comments like vaguely alluding to nebulous opportunities and that the sky won't fall in. If you want to convince anyone, I suggest that you use facts and specifics.

I did here. I've not got any decent reply to say that the UK can't be successful outside the EU in the right circumstances.

You know it isn't honest to say I've not made a case for my position.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Claiming that anything that the EU may do as a 'consequence' doesn't wash.

As I say, a deflection tactic

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

You can look up what they said yourself. External tariffs on sugar cane have hurt their profitability. The reality is that it is grey rather than black or white and the totality should be listened to.

I've little interest in what they said. I do find it odd that other firms seem capable of making money selling sugar and syrup though.

solodeogloria wrote: »

So? The USA has a free trade deal with Australia which is 16 million in popilation.

Iceland has a free trade agreement with China.

The point is without 32 parliaments to approve the UK could be more quick in arranging and approving these free trade agreements.

I didn't say that these were impossible. I freely acknowledge that the EU has been lax in signing trade deals though some of that is down the opposition as with CETA and TTIP. I would have preferred the UK to stay in, keep the single market card and push for more trade and completion of the single market.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I did here. I've not got any decent reply to say that the UK can't be successful outside the EU in the right circumstances.

You cited JCB, another carefully cherrypicked example and a suggestion from Jacob Rees-Mogg. You then went on with your usual apocalyptic rhetoric and strawmen at which point I stopped reading.

Good loser

How about this:

UK stays in Single market. Fee €10 bn per annum.

UK gets total control over Immigration. Fee another €10bn per annum.

That's a deal EU could live with.

KingBrian2

Britain has already got deals with the Gulf Arabs and Chinese, they need to concentrate on these markets if they want to generate growth in the economy. They have shown themselves unwilling to cooperate with their former EU partners so now is the time for them to go out in to the world and improve bilateral relations with these countries. I would not like to see a trade war develop between the EU & Britain as this would be be very bad for the Irish economy. I don't see the British gvt helping themselves by not having a clear proposal on working with the European Commission on how to deal with potential of a trade war erupting.

topmanamillion

Good loser wrote: »

How about this:

UK stays in Single market. Fee €10 bn per annum.

UK gets total control over Immigration. Fee another €10bn per annum.

That's a deal EU could live with.

Why would the UK pay to be allowed to control immigration? They will have complete control over that when they leave the EU.

Jaggo

solodeogloria wrote: »

For Donegal it would be lethal. There's only one tiny 10km wide territorial isthmus between it and the rest of the republic. It would increase journey times to Dublin significantly and ruin border communities. Cross border trade benefits both sides of the border and people getting work on both sides. I'm sure it affects a lot of the border acutely but Donegal is a clear example of where it's a disaster. Just thinking of the Lifford - Strabane border crossing alone amplifies that.

You could only hold that view if you don't live on the border or if you don't know anyone who does.

If the European Union insist on erecting the border they've failed the Irish people. Simple as.

If the UK is going to make a success of Brexit they will be doing so by improving its exporting potential, they will pretty much only be able to do this by reducing some of: employment rights, wages, environmental standards or currency deprication - some of the compeditive advantages required to make a success of exporting.

If so, Donegal will be effected massively by brexit in either case. By establishing a border we can protect Donegal from the worst effects of the changes while lowering the amount of money that will flow across the border (protecting our own economy).

PS. the extremely low GDP/wages in Northern Ireland seems quite a significant failure of UK government policy.

Peregrinus

Good loser wrote: »

How about this:

UK stays in Single market. Fee €10 bn per annum.

UK gets total control over Immigration. Fee another €10bn per annum.

That's a deal EU could live with.

No, it isn't. If the UK has "total control over immigration" then it's not in the single market. You can have one or the other, but not both.

If shoemakers in Genoa are not free to go and make shoes in Glasgow, then shoemakers in Genoa and shoemakers in Glasgow are not in a single market. it's as simple as that.

The inability of too many Brexiters to grasp this basic point is the rock on which a lot of Brexit fantasies are going to founder.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've little interest in what they said. I do find it odd that other firms seem capable of making money selling sugar and syrup though.

So - you support not listening to businesses that have been adversely affected by external tariffs?

It seems like you're not interested in listening to anyone who presents a positive case for leaving the European Union. If so you're just interested in listening to pro-remain points instead of hearing the full truth. Proper political argument engages with the other side of the argument.

I'm 100% sold on the idea that the UK needs to remain good trading partners with the EU (I think this can be done as a part of a third country deal with a transition period), I'm also 100% sold that the UK can benefit from external free trade agreements at the same time.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't say that these were impossible. I freely acknowledge that the EU has been lax in signing trade deals though some of that is down the opposition as with CETA and TTIP. I would have preferred the UK to stay in, keep the single market card and push for more trade and completion of the single market.

OK - this is a big area of agreement. The UK can probably sign good free trade deals relatively efficiently with other countries. That would account for a large amount of trade opportunities that Britain would miss.

Edit: the only way Britain can contribute to legislation concerning the single market is by staying in the European Union. That's off the cards by the vote.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You cited JCB, another carefully cherrypicked example and a suggestion from Jacob Rees-Mogg. You then went on with your usual apocalyptic rhetoric and strawmen at which point I stopped reading.

My post clearly explained the advantages of a third country deal. It's not really being engaged with.

Claiming you stopped reading isn't the same as saying it wasn't an argument.

Claiming that external free trade agreements wouldn't be good for a lot of firms like JCB who trade predominantly outside of the EU27 (56% of all UK exports go outside the EU) is just an unwillingness to hear what some are saying.

The point is with the right free trade agreement with the EU the UK can gain hugely from external trade deals with other countries. You've yet to give a good response - claiming it isn't an argument isn't honest.

Jaggo wrote: »

If the UK is going to make a success of Brexit they will be doing so by improving its exporting potential, they will pretty much only be able to do this by reducing some of: employment rights, wages, environmental standards or currency deprication - some of the compeditive advantages required to make a success of exporting.

If so, Donegal will be effected massively by brexit in either case. By establishing a border we can protect Donegal from the worst effects of the changes while lowering the amount of money that will flow across the border (protecting our own economy).

PS. the extremely low GDP/wages in Northern Ireland seems quite a significant failure of UK government policy.

So you're saying increasing journey times to the point of blocking imports into Donegal is going to be good for it?

I suggest you head up there and just see the levels of integration between the economy and the necessity of the N2 / A5 as an access route at least to north Donegal or speak to people who work across the border in Tyrone or Derry.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

So - you support not listening to businesses that have been adversely affected by external tariffs?

It seems like you're not interested in listening to anyone who presents a positive case for leaving the European Union. If so you're just interested in listening to pro-remain points instead of hearing the full truth. Proper political argument engages with the other side of the argument.

Nope, that's just another strawman. In fairness, TL have just decided to play the same "Blame the EU" card that almost everyone else has. There is no CEO in the world who'll admit to not being good enough when such an effective scapegoat is nearby.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Claiming you stopped reading isn't the same as saying it wasn't an argument.

Claiming that external free trade agreements wouldn't be good for a lot of firms like JCB who trade predominantly outside of the EU27 (56% of all UK exports go outside the EU) is just an unwillingness to hear what some are saying.

The point is with the right free trade agreement with the EU the UK can gain hugely from external trade deals with other countries. You've yet to give a good response - claiming it isn't an argument isn't honest.

You can only sneer so much before putting people off. I'll give it another go later but you basically cited a few careful examples from Brexit: The movie and threw in your usual platitudes about the sky not falling in.

demfad

First Up wrote: »

You mentioned ports in the Middle East. Where does that fit in?

Warehouses in the West midlands of England.

I understand the logistical challenge posed by transhipment through the UK but we already have direct air routes to most EU countries and sea routes from Cork and Rosslare to Cherbourg and Roscoff.

The infrastructure is already there but it has be viable. There was a short-lived service to St Nazaire ladt year, using the EU's "Motorway of the Sea" programme but it was discontinued because it didn't meet the necessary commercial criteria

Has the infrastructure (ports) the capacity necessary to handle a large increase in volume should British and European ports become clogged in the case of a disorderly hard Brexit? I would suggest not.
In such a scenario ideally you would want to divert all European imports/exports to a Southern port as Dublin would have the same issues as other European ports would with tariff and crucially non tarrif barriers on UK goods.
For European imports coming to Ireland via large warehouses in England, a considerable amount of pre planning would be necessary. Logically, warehouses in Britanny should supply us if there are 60km tailbacks into Calais and Dover. We cant get a grant to build warehouses but we can certainly inform, liase with and help clear barriers to this.
One barrier that we must clear is having a southern port with capacity to handle what might be a sudden massive overnight increase in commercial traffic. We may be able to get funding for that, and we will need it long term anyway if the Brexit is hard.
The UK has no way to alleviate the carnage that a disorderly Brexit will cause. We do. It would seem unwise in the extreme not to use it.

solodeogloria

Good morning.

Last post for today.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nope, that's just another strawman. In fairness, TL have just decided to play the same "Blame the EU" card that almost everyone else has. There is no CEO in the world who'll admit to not being good enough when such an effective scapegoat is nearby.

I actually read about Tate Lyle on Politico. The article explains how the regulatory regime of the EU and external tariffs are bad for sugar cane refineries. It also explains efforts that have been taken to highlight the issue in the European Commission.

Look - it's really simple. If Tate Lyle found it great to be in the EU they would have said so. For some firms the impact of regulation and tariffs has been negative on tbeir business.

It's just honesty to acknowledge that. My point is that the UK should preserve business with the EU through a third country deal and increase potential across by expanding trading relationships with other countries which membership of the customs union doesn't allow.

I've yet to hear a strong argument to the contrary. Using examples is a way of grounding the argument in reality.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You can only sneer so much before putting people off. I'll give it another go later but you basically cited a few careful examples from Brexit: The movie and threw in your usual platitudes about the sky not falling in.

It isn't sneering to insist that it is dishonest to say I haven't made an argument for my position. I'm simply asking for an honest and a balanced discussion.

I heard about JCB from Sky News and Tate Lyle from Politico. The truth is that there are advantages from having new freedoms to get new trade deals whilst maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible.

You can't say I've not argued for this position. I'm simply suggesting that we need to engage with the full picture of how Brexit can affect business in the UK. It's grey not black and white.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've little interest in what they said. I do find it odd that other firms seem capable of making money selling sugar and syrup though.

So - you support not listening to businesses that have been adversely affected by external tariffs?

It seems like you're not interested in listening to anyone who presents a positive case for leaving the European Union. If so you're just interested in listening to pro-remain points instead of hearing the full truth. Proper political argument engages with the other side of the argument.

I'm 100% sold on the idea that the UK needs to remain good trading partners with the EU (I think this can be done as a part of a third country deal with a transition period), I'm also 100% sold that the UK can benefit from external free trade agreements at the same time.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't say that these were impossible. I freely acknowledge that the EU has been lax in signing trade deals though some of that is down the opposition as with CETA and TTIP. I would have preferred the UK to stay in, keep the single market card and push for more trade and completion of the single market.

OK - this is a big area of agreement. The UK can probably sign good free trade deals relatively efficiently with other countries. That would account for a large amount of trade opportunities that Britain would miss.

Edit: the only way Britain can contribute to legislation concerning the single market is by staying in the European Union. That's off the cards by the vote.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You cited JCB, another carefully cherrypicked example and a suggestion from Jacob Rees-Mogg. You then went on with your usual apocalyptic rhetoric and strawmen at which point I stopped reading.

My post clearly explained the advantages of a third country deal. It's not really being engaged with.

Claiming you stopped reading isn't the same as saying it wasn't an argument.

Claiming that external free trade agreements wouldn't be good for a lot of firms like JCB who trade predominantly outside of the EU27 (56% of all UK exports go outside the EU) is just an unwillingness to hear what some are saying.

The point is with the right free trade agreement with the EU the UK can gain hugely from external trade deals with other countries. You've yet to give a good response - claiming it isn't an argument isn't honest.

Jaggo wrote: »

If the UK is going to make a success of Brexit they will be doing so by improving its exporting potential, they will pretty much only be able to do this by reducing some of: employment rights, wages, environmental standards or currency deprication - some of the compeditive advantages required to make a success of exporting.

If so, Donegal will be effected massively by brexit in either case. By establishing a border we can protect Donegal from the worst effects of the changes while lowering the amount of money that will flow across the border (protecting our own economy).

PS. the extremely low GDP/wages in Northern Ireland seems quite a significant failure of UK government policy.

So you're saying increasing journey times to the point of blocking imports into Donegal is going to be good for it?

I suggest you head up there and just see the levels of integration between the economy and the necessity of the N2 / A5 as an access route at least to north Donegal or speak to people who work across the border in Tyrone or Derry.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You mean like this: Very quietly, Liam Fox admits the Brexit lie - where he admits that the UK intents to apply for WTO membership assuming all the obligations it has under EU membership or this one: Post-Brexit trade deals 'to create 400,000 jobs' where the calculation turns out to be the UK's projected benefit from the EU deals on the assumption that the UK can negotiate deals as good as the EU did.  Reality is beginning to strike team Brexit and it would appear at best all they can achieve is to hope to be in the same position they were before rather than achieving something better.
Which is not surprising, at the end of they day if you take out a new membership in the same club, why should you expect the rules to be different.  If the UK wants to do a deal with a WTO member it will have to play by the same rules as it does now.  You can continue to claim all kind of great things might happen, but at this state you appear to be out of sync even with the Brexit group think.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

However, it's equally untrue to say that Brexit provides no new opportunities to the UK and that it will benefit no company own the UK. There are also companies like Tate Lyle that have suffered as a result of the external tariff regime of the EU.

The reality is that the picture is grey.

Its actually black and white.

Tate and Lyle will face EXACTLY the same tariffs inside the EU then outside.
This isnt an opinion. I know this because Liam Fox has formerly applied for the UKs post Brexit WTO rates and has instructed the WTO that there is to be NO change to ANY tariff rate whatsoever.

Otherwise any State he changes the rate for will istigate a WTO trade dispute, and the UK will incur sanctions and penalties (where is the sovereignty?). The UK must also set quotas on this trading which they must make favourable to their opponents for the same reason. Every other state will smell blood here.

As regards trade deals the UK must negotiate its EU trade deal first. This will take 10 years and the UK will most likely lose Gibralter and have to commit to not reducing corporation tax. The trade deals that it enjoys under the EU will be lost.
The EU will then have to renegotiate those other deals as they are different now minus the UK. When the EU is finished renegotiating those the UK can negotiate (worse) deals with those countries.
By the time the UK gets around to negotiating its 'new' deals the EU will probably have been there already.
Note: the reason the EU hasnt signed a deal with India is due to UK objections.

The 400,000 jobs projections is ludicrous.
IT counts jobs made from exports not jobs lost from imports.
It counts gains from trade deals the EU already has.
It counts gains from dishing the most 'cumbersome' regulations omitting to mention that any EU regulations it retains puts in under ECJ authority for these regulations.
It doesnt count losses from tarriffs to Europe.
It doesnt acknowledge payments to Nissan and their ilk from the exchequer.
The cumbersome regulations include workers rights, safety, quality.
These will save money for companies but not for teh exchequer. The rport but tehse savings directly into the exchequer.
With less quality products imports into discerning markets like the EU will suffer.

This report definitively showed that elite Brexiters have no plan, never had one and dont care iof it ruins their countrya s long as Brexit is carried out and they dont have to deal with those bogey Europeans anymore.

First Up

demfad wrote:

Has the infrastructure (ports) the capacity necessary to handle a large increase in volume should British and European ports become clogged in the case of a disorderly hard Brexit? I would suggest not. In such a scenario ideally you would want to divert all European imports/exports to a Southern port as Dublin would have the same issues as other European ports would with tariff and crucially non tarrif barriers on UK goods. For European imports coming to Ireland via large warehouses in England, a considerable amount of pre planning would be necessary. Logically, warehouses in Britanny should supply us if there are 60km tailbacks into Calais and Dover. We cant get a grant to build warehouses but we can certainly inform, liase with and help clear barriers to this. One barrier that we must clear is having a southern port with capacity to handle what might be a sudden massive overnight increase in commercial traffic. We may be able to get funding for that, and we will need it long term anyway if the Brexit is hard. The UK has no way to alleviate the carnage that a disorderly Brexit will cause. We do. It would seem unwise in the extreme not to use it.

As I said, I understand the challenges of transhipment and breaking bulk. However it is not just about logistics. Many products coming to Ireland via the UK are traded here by UK based importers/distributors. They are not just coming though the UK because of transport; the UK importer buys in bulk, carries stock and makes the Irish sales in the same way as they do to customers throughout the UK. The goods may originate in Asia for example but the Irish buyer is dealing with the UK, not country of origin. Furthermore EU import procedures are carried out by the UK importer. For the Irish customer, it is effectively an internal EU transaction.

If the Irish customer is no longer buying via the UK, they will need not just a new transport route but also have to set up new links to producers, undertake EU import and set up new payment procedures. And that's before we see if the Irish customer can negotiate the same prices for smaller quantities.

Of course, cutting out the UK based middle man will make some savings but these may be outweighed by the higher costs and more lengthy import procedures.

Getting over the problem of by-passing fulfilment centres in the UK is only part of it.

Jaggo

solodeogloria wrote: »

So you're saying increasing journey times to the point of blocking imports into Donegal is going to be good for it?

I suggest you head up there and just see the levels of integration between the economy and the necessity of the N2 / A5 as an access route at least to north Donegal or speak to people who work across the border in Tyrone or Derry.

But that is exactly it, Donegal (and all the border counties) primarily get there money from transfers from the rest of the state. That money then filters through the economy via shops, pubs etc. People moving across the border to spend in the North will cause large scale unemployment in Donegal. If sterling falls further, Donegal could lose many, many jobs. Would it not be better to protect Donegal in some measure by having a hard border?

Just on Tate and Lyle, (its now owned by an American company), they import sugar cane from Latin American to produce sugar at a lower cost then the standard price for sugar in Europe. It should be noted that there are many farmers in the UK producing sugar beet for English sugar companies, these companies/farmers would almost certainly close if Tate and Lyle got their wish. Sugar beet in the UK has £300 million in production, pays £40 million in taxation and created c9000 local jobs, but it requires trade restrictions to survive post brexit.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/uk-sugar-beet-industry-brexit-may-sweet/
and the british sugar industry website.

Tate and Lyle are a good example of the benefits of signing free trade agreements, they are also a good example of the downside of trade too.

View

Good loser wrote: »

How about this:

UK stays in Single market. Fee €10 bn per annum.

UK gets total control over Immigration. Fee another €10bn per annum.

That's a deal EU could live with.

It is also considerably more expensive than what the U.K. currently pays as an EU member and would come with no voting rights in the decisions on the Single Market. :-)

View

Good loser wrote: »

How about this:

UK stays in Single market. Fee €10 bn per annum.

UK gets total control over Immigration. Fee another €10bn per annum.

That's a deal EU could live with.

It is also considerably more expensive than what the U.K. currently pays as an EU member and would come with no voting rights in the decisions on the Single Market. :-)

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

I actually read about Tate Lyle on Politico. The article explains how the regulatory regime of the EU and external tariffs are bad for sugar cane refineries. It also explains efforts that have been taken to highlight the issue in the European Commission.

Look - it's really simple. If Tate Lyle found it great to be in the EU they would have said so. For some firms the impact of regulation and tariffs has been negative on tbeir business.

And it's good for the farmers in UK who grow sugar beets who gets protected from cheap imports; as noted with free trade agreements as well they tend to be zero in terms of job creation because the increase in exports is offset in lost jobs from the increased imports. Hence for all the increases for Tate Lyle you can expect to see similar losses among the farmers of UK.

It's just honesty to acknowledge that. My point is that the UK should preserve business with the EU through a third country deal and increase potential across by expanding trading relationships with other countries which membership of the customs union doesn't allow.

I've yet to hear a strong argument to the contrary. Using examples is a way of grounding the argument in reality.

Yet you can't name a single country to get this free trade agreement with that EU has not tried to get a deal going with (India for a decade for example but India refuses to budge on their protective tariffs) or EU has a trade deal with already.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

No. If the UK government and Irish governments don't want a border

The UK is perfectly free to either:
A) not proceed with Brexit, or,
to proceed with it on the basis that it intends to apply for Schengen and/or EFTA/EEA membership (like Norway, Switzerland etc).

If the UK chooses to do neither of the above then it is choosing not just to overturn the status quo but to exclude any easy possibility of it being extended either on a temporary or more permanent basis.

That though is a matter for the UK to decide.

Given that it is six months after the referendum, it wouldn't have been hard for them to give a clear indication of their preferences for the future of the border. The fault for any lack of clarity on the matter is entirely down to the UK.

Jim2007

Good loser wrote: »

How about this:

UK stays in Single market. Fee €10 bn per annum.

UK gets total control over Immigration. Fee another €10bn per annum.

That's a deal EU could live with.

No it most certainly is not.  That is the whole point, it is not only about the cash, you cannot have a single market where one player refuses to be bound by the rules the same as everyone else.  The best the UK can hope for is ideal similar to the one we (Switzerland) have.  We have to accept all trading standards, laws and decisions of the ECJ, pay into the structural fund, accept FMOP and in return we get restricted access to the market and no voting rights.  Only thing is it has proved to be a nightmare from the EU side to administer and they have already ruled it out as a working model and have refused to continue it with Switzerland as well.