Brexit Referendum Superthread

catbear

One thing is certain, only a fantasist believes the UK should be rewarded for leaving.

View

First Up wrote: »

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

That point is true but largely irrelevant. The EU Treaties basically work on a quid pro quo basis between the member state. If you leave then there is no quid pro quo anymore.

For instance, EU law means your domestic car insurance gives you for 3rd party insurance in any member state. If you leave, then your car insurance literally has no validity outside your country. Instead you need special insurance (and the paperwork to back it up).

First Up wrote: »

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.

Provided any changes to tariffs and/or legal regulations apply equally to all (non-EU) countries, it is perfectly legal under WTO rules for the EU to introduce any new measures that it wishes.

First Up

View wrote:

Provided any changes to tariffs and/or legal regulations apply equally to all (non-EU) countries, it is perfectly legal under WTO rules for the EU to introduce any new measures that it wishes.

Not so. The EU has different terms of trade with different countries and can set terms with the UK that are different to those it has with the US, China, Australia or anywhere else.

Non tariff barriers are a different matter. Legal and technical requirements are the same for everyone - member states and non members.

The EU cannot set demands on UK suppliers that are different to those set for everyone - or anyone - else.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

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wouldn't apply the term when someone voluntarily leaves a club and then finds membership privileges have been withdrawn.

You're playing semantics, and I'm not interested.

Moreover, Incorrectly so, with reference to your reply to View.

For example, it is certainly a legal requirement for a non-EEA applicant (EU-TFA'd or not) for an EU trademark or design to be represented by an EU representative. This legal requirement does not apply to EEA applicants, who can apply directly, without any representation whatsoever. Big cost advantage (high 3 to low 4 €-figure when it goes well, higher when it doesn't) to the EEA applicants.

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

You're playing semantics, and I'm not interested.

Fair enough; neither am I.

ambro25 wrote:

Moreover, Incorrectly so, with reference to your reply to View.

You misunderstood my point but maybe I didn't make it clearly enough.

The restrictions you describe are not designed or aimed at a single country to prevent them doing business. The EU is a club and offers associate membership to EEA members. Nothing discriminatory about that.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

You misunderstood my point but maybe I didn't make it clearly enough.

Quite:

First Up wrote:

Non tariff barriers are a different matter. Legal and technical requirements are the same for everyone - member states and non members.

First Up wrote: »

The restrictions you describe are not designed or aimed at a single country to prevent them doing business.

Adverting to the above, that was not the point I understood you to make, and to which I was replying.

Though I suppose we could look at the EU embargo of dumped Chinese steel (which would have been implemented, but for the UK's veto), by way of counter-example.

First Up wrote: »

The EU is a club and offers associate membership to EEA members. Nothing discriminatory about that.

Not a point I ever contradicted.

It's the simple fact of exiting of the club and becoming a 3rd party country, which lands the UK in a bucket load of WTO-compliant NTBs already long applied to 3rd party countries, TFA'd with the EU and not, and in continual development since the early days of the ECSC.

I've termed these EU/EEA-specific NTBs "protectionist preference", by reference to their relevance and application non-EEA 3rd party countries (and substantially similar NTBs are applied by most said 3rd party countries just the same), but you can call them whatever else you want, and play on terminology all day long: many (most?) will apply to the UK just the same come 2019.

Nothing partisan about it, it's a matter of fact.

Professor Moriarty

This is worth reading as it objectively lays out the different factors at play regarding trade and Brexit. In particular, trade with the EU and the US. One important point made is that Tory insistence on a clean break and a hard Brexit means that Swiss or Norwegian style agreements are out. Other points made are that the UK hasn't negotiated a trade deal for fifty years so it lacks expertise. Interestingly, the point is made that the UK will have huge issues regarding the disparity between UK and US regulations.

Objectively speaking, a hard Brexit will mean walking away from an FTA with a bloc that buys 45% of its exports and renegotiating tariffs and, more importantly, regulations with a Trumpian country that purchases 15% of its exports. All done by civil servants who have never negotiated a trade agreement before. Difficult to find the positives in this Tory wet dream.

catbear

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Difficult to find the positives in this Tory wet dream.

Tories only want reelection even they have to outKip UKip, especially with Labour now polling less than UKip!

swampgas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is worth reading as it objectively lays out the different factors at play regarding trade and Brexit. In particular, trade with the EU and the US. One important point made is that Tory insistence on a clean break and a hard Brexit means that Swiss or Norwegian style agreements are out. Other points made are that the UK hasn't negotiated a trade deal for fifty years so it lacks expertise. Interestingly, the point is made that the UK will have huge issues regarding the disparity between UK and US regulations.

Objectively speaking, a hard Brexit will mean walking away from an FTA with a bloc that buys 45% of its exports and renegotiating tariffs and, more importantly, regulations with a Trumpian country that purchases 15% of its exports. All done by civil servants who have never negotiated a trade agreement before. Difficult to find the positives in this Tory wet dream.

<puts on tinfoil hat>

I sometimes wonder if Hard Brexit is being pushed by those who ultimately seek the disintegration of the EU and the end of the Euro. The idea being to get out early but to be in a stronger position once the EU and its currency have been destroyed. It's a bit CT I know, but I've been struck by how people like Farage seem obsessed with bringing down the EU and the Euro.

From the perspective of someone actively working to bring about the collapse of the EU (maybe within a few years), Hard Brexit might seem like a sensible strategy.

<takes off tinfoil hat>

Professor Moriarty

catbear wrote: »

Tories only want reelection even they have to outKip UKip, especially with Labour now polling less than UKip!

Exactly. May's craven volte face in the past ten months tells you all you need to know about the Tories and their addiction to power.

Professor Moriarty

swampgas wrote: »

<puts on tinfoil hat>

I sometimes wonder if Hard Brexit is being pushed by those who ultimately seek the disintegration of the EU and the end of the Euro. The idea being to get out early but to be in a stronger position once the EU and its currency have been destroyed. It's a bit CT I know, but I've been struck by how people like Farage seem obsessed with bringing down the EU and the Euro.

From the perspective of someone actively working to bring about the collapse of the EU (maybe within a few years), Hard Brexit might seem like a sensible strategy.

<takes off tinfoil hat>

I wouldn't knock that idea at all. Consider the perspective of a Little Englander Tory. Grammar school, white, conditioned to believe in class and English superiority and with an innate fear of Johnny Foreigner. Harking back to the days of empire and sunny Cotswold villages.

From such a xenophobic and insular perspective, it makes perfect sense to bring down a bloc that threatens your fantasy. After all, when the dust settles and Europe has reverted to multiple disparate nation states, English superiority will prevail once again.

swampgas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't knock that idea at all. Consider the perspective of a Little Englander Tory. Grammar school, white, conditioned to believe in class and English superiority and with an innate fear of Johnny Foreigner. Harking back to the days of empire and sunny Cotswold villages.

From such a xenophobic and insular perspective, it makes perfect sense to bring down a bloc that threatens your fantasy. After all, when the dust settles and Europe has reverted to multiple disparate nation states, English superiority will prevail once again.

True enough. Another major factor, IMO, is that breaking up the EU would suit Russia. I assume Putin is pushing hard to influence elections in France and Germany with a view to destabilising the EU further.

Farage has been linked to Russian interests for years.
(Example: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/31/nigel-farage-relationship-russian-media-scrutiny)
It's hardly a coincidence.

ambro25

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Objectively speaking, a hard Brexit will mean walking away from an FTA with a bloc that buys 45% of its exports .

No to mention, the 'freest' possible form of FTA

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Difficult to find the positives in this Tory wet dream

A crucial issue which I can't see mentioned in this piece (I might have missed it, but thank you very much for this link all the same), is that it is a sine qua none condition of all FTAs negotiated by the EU, that the ECJ maintains ultimate jurisdiction on the EU side come-what-may: so much as regards the compatibility of an agreement's clauses with EU law, as for any disputes thereafter against the EU side once the TFA is in force (once given effect as primary EU law).

On that topic, refer e.g. what happened with CETA recently, and to the potential annulment of the Singapore TFA as the consequence of an SG claimant having an ISDS pop at the EU/an EU member state. No point mentioning the EU-US TTIP, since Trump has now binned it.

On the notion that the UK would want to negotiate an FTA with the EU post-Brexit, but given the stridency of the Leave side against EU law and the ECJ, I've been, and still am, looking forward to see how May & her cohort of Eurosceptics are going to navigate that one.

Late edit about intervening posts - with the optional loan of a tinfoil hat, yes, I'd fully subscribe to the notion of Putin and his merry band of kleptocrats pushing the global turn towards nationalism. For years now. What with having Jinping as his best customer and new best mate, and a very old vested interest to rebuild a western buffer, Putin manoeuvring to fragilise the EU (Brexit, alt-right, mass refugee flows from Syria, <etc.>) and driving a geopolitical wedge between the US and the EU makes perfect sense. In that context, I wasn't surprised one bit by Trump's adverse noises about NATO, still less by the ongoing US-Russia 'scandals' à la Flynn...and I wouldn't like to be living on the Baltic these days.

murphaph

I definitely think there are moves afoot to destabilise the EU and weaken us. I fear however that we are our own worst enemy and Europe will revert to type and nationalism will prevail and the superpowers can pick over our corpse when the dust has settled. I think a major turning point is coming up with the French presidential elections.

The EU, warts and all, has been an astonishing success story.

First Up

ambro25 wrote: »

Quite:


Adverting to the above, that was not the point I understood you to make, and to which I was replying.

Though I suppose we could look at the EU embargo of dumped Chinese steel (which would have been implemented, but for the UK's veto), by way of counter-example.
Not a point I ever contradicted.

It's the simple fact of exiting of the club and becoming a 3rd party country, which lands the UK in a bucket load of WTO-compliant NTBs already long applied to 3rd party countries, TFA'd with the EU and not, and in continual development since the early days of the ECSC.

I've termed these EU/EEA-specific NTBs "protectionist preference", by reference to their relevance and application non-EEA 3rd party countries (and substantially similar NTBs are applied by most said 3rd party countries just the same), but you can call them whatever else you want, and play on terminology all day long: many (most?) will apply to the UK just the same come 2019.

Nothing partisan about it, it's a matter of fact.

I'd answer this if I could be bothered to try to decipher what you are talking about. A bit of grammar wouldn't go amiss either.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

I'd answer this if I could be bothered to try to decipher what you are talking about. A bit of grammar wouldn't go amiss either.

Enough sneering.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Enough sneering.

Don't question mod warnings on thread.

ambro25

I attended an event the day before yesterday, at which a Whitehall senior type in charge of the trade side of Brexit (in a previous appointment, the head of the UK team at the WTO in Geneva) was speaking 'informally' (as in: this is what's been going on, this is what's going to happen, this is what you'll hear in the press, this is the end result we're after, but no promises - and no names please).

So, views from the hands-on and nitty-gritty Department for International Trade side, not from the political and more wishy-washy Department for Exiting the EU side.

Pursuant to which, what is being worked on in Whitehall, is no different from what the reasonably educated and attentive on here already know.

The UK will go into negotiations with the EU, on the basis of a tariff schedule replicating long-honoured WTO-/EU-sanctioned tariff levels as currently applied by UK as an EU member state: 0-ish% on approx 30% of traded goods; rest at somewhere between 1 and 5%, with cars at 10% and some rare exceptions (e.g. cream) at up to 55%.

And then hope and pray the EU and the rest of the world agrees, because "surely no one will want to rock the trading boat" (I kid you not).

The hardest will be working out and agreeing the UK's share of the EU quotas for agricultural and other 'tariff-tiered' products. The UK may get into disputes about proposed rates with the Commonwealth (NZ, AU), rather than the EU, but nothing that can't eventually be solved with a rate or quantity adjustment.

There is no planning whatsoever about the (non-tariffed) service sectors yet (because they're not tariffed), and no planning or taskforce concerned with NTBs: Whitehall is still only just inviting ad hoc submissions, through Chambers of Commerce and the like (of the sort I've been posting about IP in here) to "gain an understanding of the scale" and, in the meantime, "trusting that something will get sorted out in negotiations". 

FUBAR, tbh. I ended up flooring a couple of questions from the audience about European and global IP for him (e.g. someone believing that Brexiting will somehow relieve UK exporters to the US from US trademark rights, LOL!), and another guy ended up flooring the questions of the audience about practical customs clearance procedures (including Kyoto Customs Agreement/Convention-related queries). They just don't have a clue. And they're the apolitical side of the government (supposedly) managing this at the coalface.

murphaph

Quite frightening. Like him or loathe him, Tony Blair describes the current situation well when he says the UK is heading for a cliff edge.

It's time the notion that Brexit at any cost be shown to be the absolute travesty it is going to be.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

Quite frightening. Like him or loathe him, Tony Blair describes the current situation well when he says the UK is heading for a cliff edge.

It's time the notion that Brexit at any cost be shown to be the absolute travesty it is going to be.

He made a lot of sense but Blair's credibility is totally shot.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

He made a lot of sense but Blair's credibility is totally shot.

It is. If only people could look past the messenger to the message, which is deadly serious.

Lemming

murphaph wrote: »

It is. If only people could look past the messenger to the message, which is deadly serious.

The tragic thing is that out of the whole lot of them - even with his credibility shot over the Iraq war - he's still head & shoulders above about any other possible UK politician across all parties in the UK as a statesman.

Professor Moriarty

Lemming wrote: »

The tragic thing is that out of the whole lot of them - even with his credibility shot over the Iraq war - he's still head & shoulders above about any other possible candidate in the UK as a statesman.

By a country mile. Cameron made a stupid and catastrophic mistake. May is craven and sold her soul. Corbyn is a fantasist.

Blair is the best prime minister in the past 50 years. Maybe 100 years.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Blair is the best prime minister in the past 50 years. Maybe 100 years.

Nope, not with Iraq on his slate.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

Nope, not with Iraq on his slate.

Who would you rate as better in the past 50 years?

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

The tragic thing is that out of the whole lot of them - even with his credibility shot over the Iraq war - he's still head & shoulders above about any other possible UK politician across all parties in the UK as a statesman.

There was a time when I would have joined the anti-Blair fanatics but this is so true. You could say the same about Nick Clegg, both regarding political acuity and credibility.

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

Nope, not with Iraq on his slate.

This sums up the myopia of a lot of people towards Blair. Yes, the Iraq war thing will haunt him to the grave, but it is a damning indictment of UK politics that even with Iraq haunting him to his dying days, he is - to date - still head & shoulders above almost any other UK politician as a leader & statesman. If you actually stand back and objectively look at him and his achievements - and it should be noted that his achievements do not start and end with the word "Iraq" as popular as it may seem to sneer in the school playground ... - there are very few UK politicians who measure up to him and carry the sort of presence or ability to speak with such articulate passion that he does. Very few "leaders of men" material in the current pack.

As for Nick Clegg (to respond to ACP), I'd put him on a footing regards Blair's calibre but his problem - if you will - is that the Lib Dems just aren't political heavy-weights as a party at present. That may change in the medium-term if Labour continue to roll over and allow the Tories to not just tickle their collective bellies but also to openly denigrate and abuse them.

catbear

For me it's impossible to rate any UK PM while westminster still doesn't acknowledge responsibility for its genocide in Ireland and the partition of Ireland against the vote for home rule.

Blair came closest with a personal acknowledgement.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Who would you rate as better in the past 50 years?

Not directed to me but I'd argue the Iron Lady in the top position with Blair in second or third position.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Who would you rate as better in the past 50 years?

That's a bit like asking Mrs Lincoln did she enjoy the play.

I think Blair was over-rated in many respects but with a catastrophe like Iraq on his record, nothing else matters.