Brexit Referendum Superthread

catbear

First Up wrote: »

But its going to get nasty. The Brits don't take humiliation well and will try the divide and conquer tactic, including trying to drag us under with them.

It won't be pretty.

I think Irish attitudes towards the UK harden everytime they condescend and remind us why we left their union.

What's coming is nothing compared to what they did to us in the past.

First Up

catbear wrote:

What's coming is nothing compared to what they did to us in the past.

But this time we have a few older brothers who will weigh in.

FrancieBrady

Is there any estimations as to what it has cost (or not) so far out there?

CrabRevolution

First Up wrote: »

There will be plenty of opportunities for schadenfreude but there will be collateral damage. A depressed UK will hit smaller Irish companies, even as we pick some meat of the carcass off their financial industry.

But its going to get nasty. The Brits don't take humiliation well and will try the divide and conquer tactic, including trying to drag us under with them.

It won't be pretty.

They're already getting their first shots in for the blame game for when everyone inevitably suffers, e.g. "We don't want a hard border with the RoI, the EU are forcing it" "we didn't ask to leave the single market".

As someone made the analogy here before: Its like asking for a divorce, but demanding the house, full custody of the kids, and to get to keep all joint assets. When the partner inevitably refuses you break out with "I never wanted a long and messy court battle, so this is all your fault"

Just stating your unreasonable demands and blame the other side for not giving in to your terms.

First Up

CrabRevolution wrote:

As someone made the analogy here before: Its like asking for a divorce, but demanding the house, full custody of the kids, and to get to keep all joint assets. When the partner inevitably refuses you break out with "I never wanted a long and messy court battle, so this is all your fault"

I think the blame stuff will just be for domestic UK political consumption. The EU doesn't need to give a hoot. Everyone knows they brought this in themselves.

catbear

The more they try to use blame the more people will stop listening.

We've all got our own interests to protect. We have to protect our own producers from being undercut by much cheaper sterling exports, especially if the pound hits parity before the UK are finally out of the EU.

First Up

catbear wrote:

We've all got our own interests to protect. We have to protect our own producers from being undercut by much cheaper sterling exports, especially if the pound hits parity before the UK are finally out of the EU.

The only "protection" available will be tariffs and that's going to be complicated. We need the UK market for food and we do pretty well there. If the EU sets up a tariff wall, so will the UK and that is not in our interest.

Its a dilemma for the UK too. They import twice as much food as they export so tarriffs will push up prices for the consumer - with a weak pound already hitting them in the pocket.

They will talk about trade "deals" with Australia, New Zealand and Kenya but they get a quarter of their food imports from the EU and that can't be easily or cheaply replaced.

Expect a lot of brinkmanship (and bull****ting) before its all done.

catbear

First Up wrote: »

If the EU sets up a tariff wall, so will the UK and that is not in our interest.

We are the EU and it's in our interest to protect our producers.

It's actually a blessing for many in the Agri business to have a rival with similar products face trade barriers to the EU, especially on fresh produce that suffer by being stuck in customs.

Countries like NZ and OZ have already told the UK that a weakened pound means less purchasing power and they'll continue to seek more favourable access to other expanding markets so no favours there.

Our producers get hit everytime the UK devalues sterling so pivoting away from that market for the EU should be where the focus.

First Up

catbear wrote:

Our producers get hit everytime the UK devalues sterling so pivoting away from that market for the EU should be where the focus.

No argument there but easier said than done, especially for the little guys. There's a lot of effort going into it but replacing customers in Manchester or Birmingham with new ones in Turin, Stuttgart or Odense is no cakewalk.

catbear

First Up wrote: »

No argument there but easier said than done, especially for the little guys. There's a lot of effort going into it but replacing customers in Manchester or Birmingham with new ones in Turin, Stuttgart or Odense is no cakewalk.

Well every crisis has opportunity.

Don't forget that the UK will face barriers to Turin, Stuttgart and Odense that we won't. If people get their heads out of their hands they'll that it's a huge opportunity to pick up what the UK loses.

First Up

catbear wrote:

Don't forget that the UK will face barriers to Turin, Stuttgart and Odense that we won't. If people get their heads out of their hands they'll that it's a huge opportunity to pick up what the UK loses.

Of course but that isn't the same as trying to replace a large, familiar market next door with unfamiliar ones further away.

Entering new markets is expensive and small, artisan food producers have a shorter reach in terms of logistics. Selling into mainland Europe also brings a need for new labelling, literature etc for other languages. And that's before differing tastes are factored in.

The drop in sterling has already hit the mushroom sector, which operates on fast delivery schedules. Not so easy to replicate those in Turin or Odense.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

Of course but that isn't the same as trying to replace a large, familiar market next door with unfamiliar ones further away.

Entering new markets is expensive and small, artisan food producers have a shorter reach in terms of logistics. Selling into mainland Europe also brings a need for new labelling, literature etc for other languages. And that's before differing tastes are factored in.

The drop in sterling has already hit the mushroom sector, which operates on fast delivery schedules. Not so easy to replicate those in Turin or Odense.

Yeah this is a massive challenge for small and medium sized companies. Tariffs mean there products will become more expensive in the UK than now but I expect everything will get more expensive in the UK as they rely heavily on imported materials and ingredients even for products that are made in the UK. I think the tariffs will be bad but the will not cause all trade with the UK to cease over night. They will have a drop in sales but hopefully it'll not be so severe that it prevents them from making the adjustment to selling into continental markets.

Irish food has a great reputation here in Germany. The "best" butter is Irish butter. When a supermarket does a beef promotion it is almost always Irish beef. The "Premium" range of beef in my local supermarket is all Irish beef. I believe the German market has barely been tapped and Germany is not protectionist like say, France. If I owned a small food business in Ireland I would be looking straight at the 80 million strong German market as an immediate replacement for the UK.

I wish all these companies the best of luck. They will need it and unfortunately many will not survive Brexit.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah this is a massive challenge for small and medium sized companies. Tariffs mean there products will become more expensive in the UK than now but I expect everything will get more expensive in the UK as they rely heavily on imported materials and ingredients even for products that are made in the UK. I think the tariffs will be bad but the will not cause all trade with the UK to cease over night. They will have a drop in sales but hopefully it'll not be so severe that it prevents them from making the adjustment to selling into continental markets.

Irish food has a great reputation here in Germany. The "best" butter is Irish butter. When a supermarket does a beef promotion it is almost always Irish beef. The "Premium" range of beef in my local supermarket is all Irish beef. I believe the German market has barely been tapped and Germany is not protectionist like say, France. If I owned a small food business in Ireland I would be looking straight at the 80 million strong German market as an immediate replacement for the UK.

I wish all these companies the best of luck. They will need it and unfortunately many will not survive Brexit.

I wouldn't fear too much for the beef or dairy sectors. They are big enough to look after themselves and they already have a strong foothold and footprint in the main EU markets. The problems will be for small specialist producers and especially those selling fresh produce that needs overnight delivery.

But the threats, challenges and opportunities are well understood and a lot of work is going into finding ways to improve market access and build on our already strong image.

murphaph

That's exactly my point. Butter and beef are well established here. Other food companies should try to leverage that solid reputation for quality wherever possible.

The temptation might be to use a scatter gun approach and target many continental countries but I think that would be a mistake. Starting in Germany means starting in an open country that already sees Irish food as quality.

If I had a small artisan food product that was selling mostly into the UK I would try selling mostly into Germany. Language is a problem as you alluded to earlier but German is the most spoken daily language in the EU. If your products are marketed in German, you have a target market of approximately 100 million people who speak that language natively and this by only translating into one language. If you are successful in the DACH countries you will have nothing to worry about and a firm foothold in central Europe is a great springboard to tackle the markets around Germany.

First Up

murphaph wrote:

The temptation might be to use a scatter gun approach and target many continental countries but I think that would be a mistake. Starting in Germany means starting in an open country that already sees Irish food as quality.

I don't think we need to tell Bord Bia or the Irish food conglomerates how to do their business. The trick for the smaller producers will be to leverage or piggy back on the large companies that already have established channels to market.

As I said, the people who understand this stuff are working in it.

murphaph

Just thinking aloud. I doubt Bord Bia read these forums in a professional capacity.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

Just thinking aloud. I doubt Bord Bia read these forums in a professional capacity.

You never know.

catbear

Don't overlook that Irish fresh veg producers are potentially losing a rival produce from north.

EU governments including ourselves will favour our producers against outside competition from the UK.

First Up

catbear wrote: »

Don't overlook that Irish fresh veg producers are potentially losing a rival produce from north.

EU governments including ourselves will favour our producers against outside competition from the UK.

That "favour" can only manifest itself through tariffs or quotas. Commercial decisions about what to buy from where are not governments' business.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

catbear wrote: »

Don't overlook that Irish fresh veg producers are potentially losing a rival produce from north.

EU governments including ourselves will favour our producers against outside competition from the UK.

That "favour" can only manifest itself through tariffs or quotas.  Commercial decisions about what to buy from where are not governments' business.

Not necessarily. Divergence from EU norms and standards alone would achieve that outcome without any tariff or quota whatsoever. These can be modified relatively quickly. Post-Brexit, without the UK's input.

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

Not necessarily. Divergence from EU norms and standards alone would achieve that outcome without any tariff or quota whatsoever. These can be modified relatively quickly. Post-Brexit, without the UK's input.

The UK has complied with EU norms and standards for more than 40 years so I don't see that having much impact.

Any attempt by the EU to introduce new discriminatory measures designed to block UK imports would be shot down by the WTO faster than a rogue North Korean missile.

catbear

Its one thing for the UK to say they comply with EU regs but its unenforceable if theyve left euopean courts of justice. There's no come back if regs are found to be sub par.

Plus the UK may use supplies from sources that don't meet standard and repackage as UK products. Just yesterday it was uncovered that nz lamb was repackaged as British lamb!

If they start doing that with GMO products then they'll be shut out.

Look at Brazilian beef being banned until they met regulation.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

ambro25 wrote:

Not necessarily. Divergence from EU norms and standards alone would achieve that outcome without any tariff or quota whatsoever. These can be modified relatively quickly. Post-Brexit, without the UK's input.

The UK has complied with EU norms and standards for more than 40 years so I don't see that having much impact.

Any attempt by the EU to introduce new discriminatory measures designed to block UK imports would be shot down by the WTO faster than a rogue North Korean missile.

Indeed the UK has, and contributed no small part of the lot in that time. But then, the UK proposes to make a datum of EU rules, regs and such at actual Brexit forecast in 2019, then run all its own way.

Now, the WTO still can't do much about NTBs, which is the operative word here with EU norms, standards and other Single Market-harmonising statutory instruments.

And there are plenty of 100% NTBs that will automatically arise as of actual Brexit day, simply by operation of law, and which can't be renegotiated away or over.

I mentioned one recently IIRC, as I know a fair bit about it since I'd be running smack into it professionally on Brexit day (loss of right of audience of UK IP practitioners to the EUIPO and, for some like myself, loss of right of audience of UK-based IP practitioners to certain national IP offices, e.g. the Irish one).

That's real UK service business being yanked out the door and handed over on a plate to <any competitor in the EU>, by the way. 6 figures' worth in my firm's case. Whence, amongst the many alternatives I'm currently and carefully pondering, one is to go open a subsidiary shop in the EU. Hand out a couple of P45s in UK (sorry, omelette/egg and all that), job and half or couple new jobs in France or Luxembourg.

Outside and beyond that context (which is no more discriminatory than "ending contractual rights and obligations by mutual consent"), I can't see the EU introducing 'discriminatory measures' against the UK. Just doing the usual, i.e. evolving its statutes self-preservingly to harmonize the internal market still further, and of course -in as much as possible- without conflict with existing and advance-stages-pending FTAs (for the avoidance of doubt, 2019 will be the start of negotiations for a EU-UK FTA , not their end: 2017-2019 is solely about the UK exit negotiation, which will be hard enough without trying to shoehorn an FTA into it for good measure).

Now, it would certainly be the Brexited UK's prerogative to consider any such statutory developments as 'discriminatory', if they start running counter to the Brexited UK's industries and service providers. In substantially the same way e.g. the US auto and food industries have long done.

But you know, jurisdictional independence, and sovereignty, and stuff etc.

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

I can't see the EU introducing 'discriminatory measures' against the UK. Just doing the usual, i.e. evolving its statutes self-preservingly to harmonize the internal market still further, and of course -in as much as possible- without conflict with existing and advance-stages-pending FTAs.

All fine but the suggestion was that Irish companies (and presumably companies elsewhere in the EU) needed to be "favoured" in competition with the UK and NTBs were proposed as a means of so doing.

Changing or raising standards in the EU is fine, but those demands apply equally to companies in the EU as to those outside.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

All fine but the suggestion was that Irish companies (and presumably companies elsewhere in the EU) needed to be "favoured" in competition with the UK and NTBs were proposed as a means of so doing.

Changing or raising standards in the EU is fine, but those demands apply equally to companies in the EU as to those outside.

Indeed, save as to the precision that, outside the EU, raised or different or otherwise-amended EU standards only apply to those who want (need?) to sell into the EU.

Which explains how and why banksters, who had previously opened and long operated agencies in London, are now looking to shift (some already shifting) their EU-trading arm to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt, Barcelona <etc.> and, for US ones, looking to repatriate (some already repatriating) hedge funds and the like to Wall Street (see Goldman Sachs, Citigroup <more>): the loss of passporting rights is another such "automatic NTB" soon to be in operation.

Risk-averse banks are not being taken in by the mooted "equivalence" deal to replace lost passporting rights: the "equivalence" deal might of course mitigate the passporting NTB to less than a 100% one, but many have already decided that any % is too much anyway...and that's the best on the table currently, even when we ignore all the Barnier/Juncker/Merkel/May political rethoric flying around.

Evolving EU statutes about financial markets and those who live and act in them (and the ensuing regulatory disconnect with the City - particularly if May eagerly jumps into bed with Trump who, lest we forget, just dumped on the Dodd Frank Act) are sure to demonstrate exactly my point above.

The EU wouldn't need to enact any 'discriminatory measures' against the UK, even if it wanted to: the UK is self-inflicting 'discriminatory measures' all by itself.

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

Indeed, save as to the precision that, outside the EU, raised or different or otherwise-amended EU standards only apply to those who want (need?) to sell into the EU.

Which was the point being made about EU "governments" favouring EU producers in competition with the UK.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

Which was the point being made about EU "governments" favouring EU producers in competition with the UK.

Who do you think submits EU law proposals to the EU Parliament?

That's right, the Commission.

Now, who do you think suggests new EU law proposals and amendments to Commissioners?

Answers on a postcard

Corporatist interests are still as alive and well within the 2017 EU (feel free to substitute 'EU' for any national jurisdiction of choice; including the UK), as they've always been. Governments, in and of themselves, don't favour anyone other than their voters and backers. Some of whom in competition with the UK, both before and after Brexit.

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

Corporatist interests are still as alive and well within the 2017 EU (feel free to substitute 'EU' for any national jurisdiction of choice; including the UK)

As we live in a world where wealth is created by "corporatists"', it would be odd if their interests were not taken into account.

EU employees and consumers also enjoy the highest levels of protection in the world. The balance between the two may not always be perfect but we do it better than anyone else.

ambro25

No disagreements from me there, First Up.

To be sure, earlier posts weren't meant as an argument, but simply to highlight that catbear was probably quite right with his comment, regardless of there being any intent to harm the UK.

Because, historically, that (protectionist preference) is what the EU has always done in respect non-TFA'd third party countries, and the UK will in all likelihood be one such come 2019, even if only for a short while (on a timescale as negotiating these things go).

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

Because, historically, that (protectionist preference) is what the EU has always done in respect non-TFA'd third party countries, and the UK will in all likelihood be one such come 2019, even if only for a short while (on a timescale as negotiating these things go).

I wouldn't call it protectionist preference for members of a club to offer each other more favourable terms than they do to non-members.

And I especially wouldn't apply the term when someone voluntarily leaves a club and then finds membership privileges have been withdrawn.