Brexit discussion thread II

LeinsterDub

Aristotle145 wrote: »

BRITAIN is spending almost £1million every day to house and feed asylum seekers and refugees with foreign aid cash.
Maybe if they concentrate about the people that lives there first,Brexit wont be a issue.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/874364/foreign-aid-madness-outrage-one-million-day-asylum-seekers-refugees

You're aware that non of those claiming asylum are from Europe?

solodeogloria

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how do you suppose they can insist exactly?

Good morning!

Very simply. Explain to shareholders the consequences and ask people to come forward and sell shares to those in the EU.

If that doesn't happen hold an AGM to issue more shares to be sold to other parties in the EU, thus reducing the share of shares held by other parties. If it is under threat of fines by the EU then you'd imagine the other shareholders would vote for this at an extraordinary AGM.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Very simply. Explain to shareholders the consequences and ask people to come forward and sell shares to those in the EU.

If that doesn't happen hold an AGM to issue more shares to be sold to other parties in the EU, thus reducing the share of shares held by other parties. If it is under threat of fines by the EU then you'd imagine the other shareholders would vote for this at an extraordinary AGM.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No, solo, I don't know that they can. In general a listed company is not allowed to impose any restrictions on the holding, transfer, etc of its shares. If you hold shares in a UK airline, you can sell them to whoever you like, or keep them yourself, whichever you choose. There is nothing the airline can do to change this. And if the airline issues new shares, anyone can subscribe for them. Similarly if the airline buys back existing shares from shareholders, the same buyback terms must apply to all shareholders.

Most likely (unless a Brexit deal is made which allows the UK to participate in the Aviation Area, which is unlikely unless May is prepared for some pinkening of her red lines) affected UK airlines will have to demerge, splitting into two companies, or selling off a large chunk of their businesses and networks to EU airlines. Or they could just allow themselves to be taken over by EU airlines. But (a) that requires shareholder consent, and (b) it also depends to some extent on the UK's internal aviation market remaining open to EU-owned airlines, which is not something that could be taken for granted.

murphaph

Indeed. Luckily for Ryanair it is still cash rich enough to buy back shares to ensure it is majority EU owned before Brexit.

I see nothing but a big contraction of the UK aviation sector if no deal is reached. Brexit just keeps on giving.

I have a sneaking suspicion Dublin airport will be a big winner in all this though.

I heard an interview with someone from Ryanair I think who mentioned that there was a clause in the companies constitution allowing them to force people to sell shares to maintain the nationality of the company.

LIMITATIONS ON SHARE OWNERSHIP BY NON-EU NATIONALS The Board of ...
PDF https://investor.ryanair.com › 2015/04

Peregrinus

OK. I think the must have obtained a stock exchange dispensation to include this; SFAIK it wouldn't normally be allowed.

It doesn't really answer the objections, though. Essentially, if the UK is carved out of the European Aviation Area, EU airlines won't be treated as domestic in the UK, and UK airlines won't be treated as domestic in the rest of the Area. This means that an airline will have to give up either its UK domestic network or its rest-of-area network. By changing ownership, they can choose which of them they give up, but they still have to give up one.

And, either way, this results in a destruction of value. Suppose they hold on to their rest-of-Area network; the value of this is diminished because it no longer extend to internal UK. The Rome-Paris-London-Edinburgh flight now only flies Rome-Paris-London, and misses out on the custom that patronised it because of the Edinburgh leg. So they have to give up their internal UK network, and they get to keep the balance of their network but its less valuable because it doesn't integrate with the internal UK business the way it used to.

This, of course,will be reflected in the share price that the UK shareholders can secure when they are forced to sell their shares. And in the market value of the shares retained by the EU shareholders. And it's going to affect travellers, for whom flight options will be fewer, or more expensive, or both.

It's not the only way in which airlines will be adversely affected. It hasn't happened yet, but already Monarch has collapsed, due to the falling pound (a consequence of the Brexit vote) driving up their fuel costs and driving down their bookings (fewer Britons holidaying abroad).

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Again - how much of domestic air traffic (e.g London to Edinburgh) is actually handled by non-British airlines in the UK? I couldn't imagine a great amount.

It isn't an insurmountable issue. There's still scope for some form of agreement if that is desired but it really isn't a headline issue. Airlines will deal with circumstances that regulate intra-EU travel and domestic UK flights.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Is that all? Peanuts. They should be spending a lot more on humanitarian grounds. Tax a few Tory party donors properly.

Christy42 wrote: »

365 million a year? That it? Less than that given you said almost so let's call it 350 million. So basically a week's worth of the money that nus was promising the NHS.

Also there is little of that money that can be saved unless you want to kick off all asylum seekers before you even give them a chance to apply.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

FFS, spending 0.046% of UK government spending on housing and feeding asylum seekers is causing the finest example of self harm by a country in decades!!!! Go back to the Express and Mail sites

Look at the poster's history, best ingnored.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - how much of domestic air traffic (e.g London to Edinburgh) is actually handled by non-British airlines in the UK? I couldn't imagine a great amount.

Eh...all Ryanair flights and the BA ones are not really clear because IAG is a European company registered in Madrid. I'm not sure of the ownership breakdown but I suspect BA would need to split out from IAG, leaving Iberia, Aer Lingus and Vuelling as European airlines. Somehow.

But your post is just more hand waving. The European air travel market is by far the most liberal in the world. You may not have noticed how liberal it is but it will cost many British jobs when UK airlines are denied access to it.

You talk in vague terms of some deal being struck but time is running out and without accepting ECJ oversight you can forget access to Europe's open skies. And EASA.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Eh...all Ryanair flights and the BA ones are not really clear because IAG is a European company registered in Madrid. I'm not sure of the ownership breakdown but I suspect BA would need to split out from IAG, leaving Iberia, Aer Lingus and Vuelling as European airlines. Somehow.

But your post is just more hand waving. The European air travel market is by far the most liberal in the world. You may not have noticed how liberal it is but it will cost many British jobs when UK airlines are denied access to it.

You talk in vague terms of some deal being struck but time is running out and without accepting ECJ oversight you can forget access to Europe's open skies. And EASA.

Good morning!

Again - UK flights into the EU can land under an arrangement similar to Israel's and vice versa.

For carriers like easyJet who do a lot of point to point travel within the EU, they can follow easyJet and incorporate as an EU airline.

I'm failing to see the apocalypse here. The impact seems to be that British carriers can't fly point to point within the EU. I don't have a major issue with this outcome. The inverse impact if the UK will reciprocate would be that EU carriers can't fly point to point within the UK. I also don't have a major issue with that.

If this is a consequence of not being in the single market and not having ECJ jurisdiction I'm OK with it as an outcome. If it is a price for being able to liberalise trade with the rest of the world, I think it's worth paying.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - UK flights into the EU can land under an arrangement similar to Israel's and vice versa.

For carriers like easyJet who do a lot of point to point travel within the EU, they can follow easyJet and incorporate as an EU airline.

I'm failing to see the apocalypse here. The impact seems to be that British carriers can't fly point to point within the EU. I don't have a major issue with this outcome. The inverse impact if the UK will reciprocate would be that EU carriers can't fly point to point within the UK. I also don't have a major issue with that.

If this is a consequence of not being in the single market and not having ECJ jurisdiction I'm OK with it as an outcome. If it is a price for being able to liberalise trade with the rest of the world, I think it's worth paying.

On the evidence of the above, I don't believe that you have much understanding of modern business models of regional airlines, solo.

I don't mean this to be a debate-suppressing or silencing post, but your reliance on the example of point-to-point domestic flights within the UK as an acceptable business alternative for UK airlines to the loss of point-to-point regional flights across the EU for the sake of keeping out of the ECJ scope, makes no business sense at all, considering the scale and trends of the UK domestic flights market:

The United Kingdom has a low usage for domestic (internal) flights, and after a high in 2005/06, has been in decline. In the year 2010/11 just 18.4 million internal passengers were carried (compared with 1,352 million rail journeys in the same period).[26] Air's share of passengers has reduced significantly on certain key routes,for example: for London to Manchester, rail’s market share (rail v air passenger journeys) rose from 69% in 2008 to 79% in 2010, for Birmingham to Edinburgh, rail’s market share rose from 14% in 2008 to 31% in 2010 and from London to Glasgow, rail’s market share has risen from 12% in 2008 to 20% in 2010; although air still remains the leader on many London to Scotland journeys.

You don't need long or even medium range widebodies to fly London to Manchester or Glasgow (in fact, you really don't want them at all, too expensive for 200m-300m flea hops). Flea-hoppers like ATR42s and Shorts do the job just fine, at a fraction of the operational cost.

The problem is, how do you compete with rail and transition aircraft fleets, without killing off profitability and thousands of UK jobs instantly (supposing you can even get out of the widebody aircraft leases in the first place)?

You've not really though this through, have you much?

solodeogloria

ambro25 wrote: »

On the evidence of the above, I don't believe that you have much understanding of modern business models of regional airlines, solo.

I don't mean this to be a debate-suppressing or silencing post, but your reliance on the example of point-to-point domestic flights within the UK as an acceptable business alternative for UK airlines to the loss of point-to-point regional flights across the EU for the sake of keeping out of the ECJ scope, makes no business sense at all, considering the scale and trends of the UK domestic flights market:
You don't need long or even medium range widebodies to fly London to Manchester or Glasgow (in fact, you really don't want them at all, too expensive for 200m-300m flea hops). Flea-hoppers like ATR42s and Shorts do the job just fine, at a fraction of the operational cost.

Good morning!

I didn't say this. Please read my posts again.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

I didn't say this. Please read my posts again.

I read your post just fine. You claim that you did not say this, but then how is one to understand-

solodeogloria wrote: »

<...>

The impact seems to be that British carriers can't fly point to point within the EU. I don't have a major issue with this outcome. The inverse impact if the UK will reciprocate would be that EU carriers can't fly point to point within the UK. I also don't have a major issue with that.

If this is a consequence of not being in the single market and not having ECJ jurisdiction I'm OK with it as an outcome.<...>

pray tell?

You are aware, of course, that UK-owned companies like Easyjet, Ryanair, and the majors' own lo-cost ops) have developed, and only endure, through the EU-wide cabotage option brought about by Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 (with effect as of April 1, 1997), aka the "1997 EU deregulation", right?

For background, see the chapter "The European Response: Bilateral Initiatives" at this link. The core pusher for that deregulation was the UK.

Your 'not having a problem' with the abandonment of the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 by the UK would effectively be the death knell of UK civil aviation: EU low costs would still be to provide profitable daily flights to and from London from most anywhere in the EU, and subsidise a few other flights a week to various major UK end point (Manchester, Edinburgh) on the back of their preserved intra-EU routes. UK airlines, starved of volume and profit on inexistent domestic lines, couldn't hope to compete with 'Europeanised' Easyjet and Ryanair on p2p lines in the EU.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I never said that UK domestic flights would compensate for not being able to fly within the EU which is what you said I claimed.

What I did say is that not being able to do point to point flights in the EU seems like an acceptable cost to pay if it means that the UK can regain more control over trade policy more widely.

British airlines wishing to do point to point travel in Europe can reincorporate as a EU based airline like easyJet and vice versa for anyone interested in UK domestic flights.

I was very clear on this. We need to take care not to misrepresent what other people say.

I don't consider this a huge issue. It is obvious that adjustments need to be made post-Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Panrich

Interesting conversation regarding airlines here. If I understand Solo's point (not wanting to put words in his mouth) it might be that airlines like Ryanair and Easyjet will become 'european' and will not lose much business from internal UK domestic flights as they are low volume anyway as Ambro pointed out. Big airlines like BA will also not have many ptp flights within EU so they should also be ok. Smaller players like FlyBE and Loganair will be interesting cases depending on how the chips fall.

murphaph

Panrich wrote: »

Interesting conversation regarding airlines here. If I understand Solo's point (not wanting to put words in his mouth) it might be that airlines like Ryanair and Easyjet will become 'european' and will not lose much business from internal UK domestic flights as they are low volume anyway as Ambro pointed out. Big airlines like BA will also not have many ptp flights within EU so they should also be ok. Smaller players like FlyBE and Loganair will be interesting cases depending on how the chips fall.

Of course "becoming European" means easyJet will stop hiring people in Luton and start in Vienna and they will have to create new bases in the EU and reduce capacity in the UK. This means all sorts of jobs moving to the EU. That's the real price to be paid.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Of course "becoming European" means easyJet will stop hiring people in Luton and start in Vienna and they will have to create new bases in the EU and reduce capacity in the UK. This means all sorts of jobs moving to the EU. That's the real price to be paid.

Good afternoon!

easyJet has already said the move will not affect UK jobs.

The Guardian wrote:

EasyJet, which employs 4,000 staff in continental Europe, said the move would not affect UK jobs – its 6,000 employees in Britain would continue to be based in Luton and its 11 other bases across the country.

[citation]

Again, this desperation to make everything into an apocalypse isn't exactly helpful.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

easyJet can say what they like but common sense tells you they will end up employing far more in the EU than the UK if most of their operations are in the EU.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

easyJet has already said the move will not affect UK jobs.
[citation]

Again, this desperation to make everything into an apocalypse isn't exactly helpful.

Did you see the news that nurses are leaving the NHS in droves, this added to less EU nurses joining the NHS since the Brexit vote means that there will most likely be an even worse staffing crisis in the NHS than last year.

EU nurses leaving the UK in huge numbers as NHS becomes 'less attractive' to staff

In the last year, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of EU nurses and midwives leaving the NHS.

Figures from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) show that workers are also joining the service in much reduced numbers – 90% less registrations than last year.

The numbers indicate a wider drop in the numbers of clinical staff as, for the first time, the NHS suffers from more people leaving the register than joining.

Total figures for nurses and midwives leaving show an increase of 4,500 from 2015/16, with a rise across all countries of registration but specifically Europe where the numbers rose by two thirds.

In comparison, the same number of staff are joining the service overall against last year, meaning there is a constant reduction in total numbers.

But how did you put it, keep calm and carry on? This will mean more immigration will be needed for countries outside of the EU, and as the figures show this costs the taxpayer more than immigration from the EU so the net effect seems to be that the UK has decided willingly to spend more money on social welfare benefits to non-EU staff in the NHS because they were not in control of some things.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - UK flights into the EU can land under an arrangement similar to Israel's and vice versa.

I believe they can once an agreement has been concluded. It's not obvious that work is being done in this area but since the civil servants at least in the UK are brighter than pretty much all of the politicians put together, I'm assuming that it is. What I'm not assuming is that it's something that you can handwave away plus it is one of hundreds of things which together add up to a lot of work which you're content to handwave away. I just don't think it's a practical approach, the yerrah it'll be grand approach.

solodeogloria wrote: »

For carriers like easyJet who do a lot of point to point travel within the EU, they can follow easyJet and incorporate as an EU airline.

So that we are both clear on this, to do that takes time, money and work and is being imposed by Brexit. It is an exceptional business cost. It's the sort of cost that I think the UK government should be paying on behalf the companies concerned to be frank. It's a unilateral and extremely expensive change in the business environment.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm failing to see the apocalypse here. The impact seems to be that British carriers can't fly point to point within the EU. I don't have a major issue with this outcome. The inverse impact if the UK will reciprocate would be that EU carriers can't fly point to point within the UK. I also don't have a major issue with that.

If this is a consequence of not being in the single market and not having ECJ jurisdiction I'm OK with it as an outcome. If it is a price for being able to liberalise trade with the rest of the world, I think it's worth paying.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I'll come to this again but when companies stop operating flights, or cease operating altogether by, say, going out of business, people lose their jobs. You are gambling with the lives of people you don't even know. I think it's hideous but fine. I'll deal with this further down.

But you never see the apocalypse for one very simple reason: you don't want to. It doesn't matter what I say about this, or what ambro says about his area of expertise or the careful explanations that someone else made about safety and certification the other day: you cannot see the problem because your illusions depend on not seeing the problem. You just hand wave them away.

ambro25 wrote: »

On the evidence of the above, I don't believe that you have much understanding of modern business models of regional airlines, solo.

He does not have any as far as I can see.

ambro25 wrote: »

I don't mean this to be a debate-suppressing or silencing post, but your reliance on the example of point-to-point domestic flights within the UK as an acceptable business alternative for UK airlines to the loss of point-to-point regional flights across the EU for the sake of keeping out of the ECJ scope, makes no business sense at all, considering the scale and trends of the UK domestic flights market:
You don't need long or even medium range widebodies to fly London to Manchester or Glasgow (in fact, you really don't want them at all, too expensive for 200m-300m flea hops). Flea-hoppers like ATR42s and Shorts do the job just fine, at a fraction of the operational cost.

The problem is, how do you compete with rail and transition aircraft fleets, without killing off profitability and thousands of UK jobs instantly (supposing you can even get out of the widebody aircraft leases in the first place)?

You've not really though this through, have you much?

A lot of regional flights particularly where operated by long haul carriers - think BA or BA interlined regional carriers (I haven't taken an interest for years so not sure how they have it sliced up at the moment) - are feeding into long haul markets out of hubs or feeding business routes. They may already not be profitable at all. But that doesn't make the ownership issue for BA go away. I wonder if they, like Nissan, have been provided with some guarantees because per Walsh, the planes will not be grounded after Brexit. Based on this in the Evening Standard (because It is the least worse of Mail, Telegraph, Standard) he is focusing on the need for British tourists - so basically the "They need us more than we need them" argument which we're all familiar with in the context of German cars. But the point remains that to enable this, work needs to be done.

Plus, solo doesn't care about the jobs or profits. This is very obvious.

For the most part, point to point in the UK is not really leisure travel and it's not going to replace the leisure travel markets which the locos created out of European open skies.

The thing is, the aviation sector is very sensitive to economic shock so even if the paperwork all got sorted and the UK agreed to sign up to ECJ for open skies related reasons, if the UK takes an economic hit which it is in the process of doing already, this is likely to cause serious issues as well.

ambro25 wrote: »

You are aware, of course, that UK-owned companies like Easyjet, Ryanair, and the majors' own lo-cost ops) have developed, and only endure, through the EU-wide cabotage option brought about by Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 (with effect as of April 1, 1997), aka the "1997 EU deregulation", right?

Strictly speaking, Easyjet is claiming to be EU owned going forward with what looks like a wholly owned UK subsidiary to deal with the UK issues. I'm not sure how that will fly if the UK implements ownership rules which wouldn't totally surprise me down the line. Ryanair has a number of US shareholders but I really can't be bothered trying to find out if their US and UK shareholders together exceed 49% because that would only be a point in time view.

But to be honest Ryanair will probably just drop the routes if they can't operate them profitably anyway.

There are solutions to these problems (obviously staying in the EU is the best one). What troubles me - as usual - is the lack of recognition on the Brexit side that there are all these substantial problems which need to be resolved in an orderly manner. Bearing in mind the number of people who still want to just crash out, it's clear there is little to no understanding of the complexity of things.

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I did say is that not being able to do point to point flights in the EU seems like an acceptable cost to pay if it means that the UK can regain more control over trade policy more widely.

You know, it's really nice of you to say you're willing to sacrifice business, profit, companies, jobs, and people's lives just to pretend you have more control over trade policy.

The problem is, that control is illusory. Sure, the UK is a comparatively big market, but compared to China, the US and the EU, it is the weaker trading partner and it will be taking not dictating. The US already wants to slice up the health and agriculture sectors - hence ongoing discussions about the future of the NHS and Jeremy Hunt's policies on the one side, and chlorinated chicken and reduced hygiene standards in food prep on the other hand.

Once the US and free trade decimates the agricultural sector, that's a few jobs gone - not as many in past years but jobs which tend to be in the regions rather than the city of London for example.

We had days of driving licence and now we're dealing with aviation related regulations.

It'd be nice if you and people like you sat back and said things like "it is going to be very complicated, isn't it? I really hadn't realised. How do we do this" rather than "It'll be fine and it's all worth it for the control we get back". I don't think the people who will lose their jobs will be so happy. It's a pity costs like that cannot be imposed purely on people who say losing jobs and company profits is worth it. The other problem is that once lost those jobs may be very hard to get back.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

easyJet has already said the move will not affect UK jobs.
[citation]

Again, this desperation to make everything into an apocalypse isn't exactly helpful.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Seriously, stop talking about apocolypses. We don't see it like that.

It's entirely possible that Easyjet won't lose jobs in Luton. But that doesn't mean they will necessarily grow the numbers substantially either. It is hard to say from this point.

But to be honest, I wouldn't be taking any bets. I was working in the aviation sector post 9-11. It was not a good time for job security because the economic downturn caused fewer people to be flying in addition to the ones who were just too terrified.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Calina wrote: »

I believe they can once an agreement has been concluded. It's not obvious that work is being done in this area but since the civil servants at least in the UK are brighter than pretty much all of the politicians put together, I'm assuming that it is. What I'm not assuming is that it's something that you can handwave away plus it is one of hundreds of things which together add up to a lot of work which you're content to handwave away. I just don't think it's a practical approach, the yerrah it'll be grand approach.

It isn't handwaving. I'm obviously aware that work needs to be done. But proposing it as something that makes me think twice about Brexit? It isn't at all. The UK can succeed outside of the European Union and now is the time for the hard work to be put in place to ensure that it can.

Calina wrote: »

So that we are both clear on this, to do that takes time, money and work and is being imposed by Brexit. It is an exceptional business cost. It's the sort of cost that I think the UK government should be paying on behalf the companies concerned to be frank. It's a unilateral and extremely expensive change in the business environment.

I don't agree. Circumstances change all the time and business needs to be prepared to change in a changing world.

I know you refuse to accept this - but there will be far more opportunities in the future for British companies after Brexit than there are today with a liberalisation of trading terms with other countries. This will mean jobs will be created in the UK in the long term.

Calina wrote: »

I'll come to this again but when companies stop operating flights, or cease operating altogether by, say, going out of business, people lose their jobs. You are gambling with the lives of people you don't even know. I think it's hideous but fine. I'll deal with this further down.

It isn't hideous to support making decisions for the long term benefit of the UK. The Government's approach is right, Brexit cannot come with the same restrictions as EU membership. The UK needs to take back much more control.

The British people voted to take risks on June 23rd 2016. Brexit needs to be executed carefully and thoughtfully, but there's a lot of opportunity outside the EU.

Apart from Ryanair and easyJet, what proportion of point to point air traffic within the EU27 is handled by British airlines?

Calina wrote: »

But you never see the apocalypse for one very simple reason: you don't want to. It doesn't matter what I say about this, or what ambro says about his area of expertise or the careful explanations that someone else made about safety and certification the other day: you cannot see the problem because your illusions depend on not seeing the problem. You just hand wave them away.

There's another option. The apocalypse just isn't there. Quibbling about things that can be resolved is just silly. This is the job of the negotiators. I'm confident to let them do the work they need to do. I see no reason for panic.

Calina wrote: »

Plus, solo doesn't care about the jobs or profits. This is very obvious.

Calina wrote: »

You know, it's really nice of you to say you're willing to sacrifice business, profit, companies, jobs, and people's lives just to pretend you have more control over trade policy.

Not true. Leaving the single market and customs union is the only way to regain control of trade policy which will lead to liberalised trade terms and more jobs in the UK. My position is primarily based on creating a strong business environment for companies in the UK.

Calina wrote: »

The problem is, that control is illusory. Sure, the UK is a comparatively big market, but compared to China, the US and the EU, it is the weaker trading partner and it will be taking not dictating. The US already wants to slice up the health and agriculture sectors - hence ongoing discussions about the future of the NHS and Jeremy Hunt's policies on the one side, and chlorinated chicken and reduced hygiene standards in food prep on the other hand.

There's nothing illusory about it. There are clear opportunities for liberalised trade right around the world.

Private operators already work in the NHS. The American boogeyman is just nonsense. I don't see any more reason to be wary of the Americans than I do of the EU to be honest. The British Government will continue to regulate the health and agriculture sectors after Brexit.

The chlorinated chicken argument is more nonsense. I guess the key question to people here would be - would you eat chicken in America? I would because the practice of chlorinating chicken is perfectly safe. It's a matter for discussion in trade talks.

Calina wrote: »

It'd be nice if you and people like you sat back and said things like "it is going to be very complicated, isn't it? I really hadn't realised. How do we do this" rather than "It'll be fine and it's all worth it for the control we get back". I don't think the people who will lose their jobs will be so happy. It's a pity costs like that cannot be imposed purely on people who say losing jobs and company profits is worth it. The other problem is that once lost those jobs may be very hard to get back.

Again, none of this is insurmountable. Brexit is going to be hard work, but it is hard work that is worth it in the long run. I support Brexit because it'll lead to more jobs in the long term rather than less.

As I say again, the British people voted for this change on June 23rd 2016.

There's no u-turn going to happen here. The UK is leaving the EU. The people asked the Government to get on with it in the best way possible. That's what the Government is doing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

easyJet has already said the move will not affect UK jobs.

Money talks, Brexs**t walks: I'll see your cheap promises-fuelled hand-waving, and raise you 400 real UK jobs gone in 7 months flat-

March 2017: Vauxhall sold: Peugeot plays down job cuts and Brexit fears

October 2017: Vauxhall to cut 400 jobs at Ellesmere Port

As you acknowledge yourself, businesses are adaptive, thus their past promises are never guarantees of future performance: these job losses are the straightforward consequences of a market slowly contracting through lack of growth and investment due to Brexit-fuelled uncertainty. Expect more.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, this desperation to make everything into an apocalypse isn't exactly helpful.

Neither is your serial hand waving of real issues in need of real solutions. Real issues which are really very numerous. Have another:

January 2017 Prediction: expect fields of rotting crops in UK if EU migrants don't come after the referendum
June 2017 Realisation: EU migrant workers are not coming this year
November 2017 Expected Consequence: fields are full of rotting crops

I'm quietly confident that the above is to be found within the 'agricultural' sectoral report of the 58 sectoral reports. And the above chronological play-out is plain, clear and incontrovertible evidence that the crops/seasonal labour issue -like so many others- has been wholly caused by the referendum and wholly unmanaged by the UK's government.

That chronological play-out is neither evidence that the crops/labour problem will endure (or not), nor that there will be a food supply apocalypse. However, it clearly is evidence that the UK government cannot be relied upon to help manage the short-term consequences of the referendum. Feel free to draw any conclusions from that state of affairs.

There's tons more like this, and tons more still to come out of the Brexit woodwork. It's not a coming apocalypse, you see: just very, very hard times to come for everybody (bar perhaps the fabled 1% or 0.1%) in the UK.

As a fellow EU economic migrant, few final words of advice to you: as you're planning to stay in the UK, so perhaps you'd like to take more than a superficial interest in these issues, just so you're not surprised when they come a-knocking in Real Life, and so your lifestyle/personal circumstances are rigged for Brexit. Me, I'm bailing now, fast. I would dearly love not to, but I know what's coming, I've seen it (and dodged it) twice before.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't handwaving. I'm obviously aware that work needs to be done. But proposing it as something that makes me think twice about Brexit? It isn't at all. The UK can succeed outside of the European Union and now is the time for the hard work to be put in place to ensure that it can.

But current indications are that nobody on the British side of the negotiations have a clue what they're doing. And then there are the Brexit impact reports the government is refusing to release.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I know you refuse to accept this - but there will be far more opportunities in the future for British companies after Brexit than there are today with a liberalisation of trading terms with other countries. This will mean jobs will be created in the UK in the long term.

People refuse to accept this crap because that's exactly what it is. You have yet to provide any sort of good news about Brexit or detail anything positive about it. All you contribute is childish strawmen and accusations of deceit when people point this out. Big economies like India, China and the US are primarily interested in deals with the EU. Sure, they'd likely want deals with the UK but that's lower down on their list of priorities.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't hideous to support making decisions for the long term benefit of the UK. The Government's approach is right, Brexit cannot come with the same restrictions as EU membership. The UK needs to take back much more control.

It is when you show such callous disregard for the lives and jobs of people in this country for the sake of this weird quasi-religion you seem to be making Brexit into.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The British people voted to take risks on June 23rd 2016. Brexit needs to be executed carefully and thoughtfully, but there's a lot of opportunity outside the EU.

Fewer than half of Leave voters voted to leave on the basis of Sovereignty.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's another option. The apocalypse just isn't there. Quibbling about things that can be resolved is just silly. This is the job of the negotiators. I'm confident to let them do the work they need to do. I see no reason for panic.

This is just pathetic to be honest. I have friends and relatives who are pro-Brexit and not one of them spouts this sort of infantile nonsense. You wonder why people here in favour of Remaining in are pessimistic about Brexit and then you spout this.

By the way, when do you plan on substantiating your claim that most remainers are Euro-federalists? I've asked this umpteen times now and have got nothing.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Not true. Leaving the single market and customs union is the only way to regain control of trade policy which will lead to liberalised trade terms and more jobs in the UK. My position is primarily based on creating a strong business environment for companies in the UK.

By leaving the world's most lucrative free trading area. Right....

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's nothing illusory about it. There are clear opportunities for liberalised trade right around the world.

Not a single one you can detail though....

solodeogloria wrote: »

Private operators already work in the NHS. The American boogeyman is just nonsense. I don't see any more reason to be wary of the Americans than I do of the EU to be honest. The British Government will continue to regulate the health and agriculture sectors after Brexit.

It isn't though, is it? The Conservative party isn't famed for looking after the NHS and would likely dismatle it if it were politically possible. Priviatising it is just the most workable compromise.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, none of this is insurmountable. Brexit is going to be hard work, but it is hard work that is worth it in the long run. I support Brexit because it'll lead to more jobs in the long term rather than less.

I would love, and I do mean love some sort of evidence that this will work out. Why will it result in more jobs, exactly? Britain already trades with the whole world. This absurd fantasy that Brexit is about trade belongs in the bin with the idea that 17.4 million people are racists.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

I know you refuse to accept this - but there will be far more opportunities in the future for British companies after Brexit than there are today with a liberalisation of trading terms with other countries. This will mean jobs will be created in the UK in the long term.

List them. In detail and to what extent.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't hideous to support making decisions for the long term benefit of the UK. The Government's approach is right, Brexit cannot come with the same restrictions as EU membership. The UK needs to take back much more control.

Outline how that control will provide improved benefit to the UK in the long term. In particular, detail what you mean by long term.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would love, and I do mean love some sort of evidence that this will work out. Why will it result in more jobs, exactly? Britain already trades with the whole world. This absurd fantasy that Brexit is about trade belongs in the bin with the idea that 17.4 million people are racists.

I think like most Brexiteers he has not the first idea of how to turn broad, fantastic dreams into complex, realistic outcomes. That's the job of 'Remoaners' and the maligned experts. Brexiteers deal in meaningless slogans like 'take back control', 'brexit means brexit', 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. When it comes to complicated realities they have no answers: hence the dismissing of even very broadly discussed topics like driving licences or air carriers. I think actual experts would find the level of debate on those specific topics to be low, but at least there's an attempt to grapple with the complexity and understand this is just a tiny portion of what needs to be sorted inside 12 months. Brexiteers absolutely do not want to talk details or talk about tradeoffs. Lets get out of the painfully realistic details and get back to mindless slogans like saying Brexit means more jobs, more trade, more icecream for everyone.

We're basically dealing with Walter Mitty types who have ridiculously subverted an entire country, chasing dream like outcomes. I've been reading the blogs of what I would describe as semi-realistic Brexiteers: They wanted out of the EU, but into the EEA which they believed offered the best balance of sovereignty and market access for the UK. Some of them are crazed in their own way (one of them approves of Brexit as being a Khmer Rouge/Year Zero style reset of a British society he holds utterly in contempt), but they are quite unified in believing the Brexit pursued by May and company is absolutely moronic, with the EU response being entirely predictable and indeed reasonable.

Give a year and even our resident Brexiteers will be claiming they always believed the same. If they haven't entirely disappeared that is.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote: »

Give a year and even our resident Brexiteers will be claiming they always believed the same. If they haven't entirely disappeared that is

to work in the rest of the EU given their priviliged status

Samaris

Bit of a jump off airline regulation for a moment;

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1104/917420-brexit/

This is going to be awkward as well. Ireland absolutely cannot afford its national flocks to be put at risk by dubious border control that allows British livestock with anything less than stringent, EU-level health controls within its borders. The UK doesn't exactly have the best reputation for the health of its livestock (see BSE crisis, Foot and Mouth crisis - actually, see below;

United States 1870–1929
Mexico-U.S. Border 1947
United Kingdom 1967
Taiwan 1997
United Kingdom 2001
China 2005
United Kingdom 2007
Japan and Korea 2010–2011

Anyone spotting a pattern there for EU countries and Foot and Mouth?

BSE is more difficult to trace, but it does appear to have started in Britain and been exported onwards. Various countries did well or less well in controlling it, with a notable breakdown in France of EU countries. Bar France, the most damage outside Britain was to the US, Canada and Japan (I'm not entirely sure of the order - I know France did have a big issue with it, but not sure it was worse than the latter three non-EU countries).

BSE I don't blame Britain too much for, it was a "new" disease (actually, it jumped a species barrier from sheep to cattle in the 1980s, I think) and the response of tracking down what caused it (feeding animal products to cattle) was fairly quick, albeit the whole thing ended up devastating to British agriculture, and gave Irish farmers nightmares for years (probably still does).

But this was all while Britain was following EU regs*. Irish farmers are probably going to be even more nervous of British livestock being moved through their markets once we're not quite sure how well regulated the British industries are (and there is plenty of threat to the efficacy of British regulation).

I do not see a reasonable alternative to a hard border once we have different regulation levels. I don't think the wishy-washy freedom of people and a big old questionmark on goods is going to work. 2001 Foot & Mouth outbreak in Ireland was down to illegal movement of cattle of British origin, as in article linked at the top. First time there's an outbreak from dubious movement of British cattle that affects the Republic and our livestock and meat-exporting industries are going to be on lockdown insofar as the EU is concerned (and likely everyone else right after).

*Note - basic protections in terms of heat treatment etc does not work on prions that cause BSE. Tbh, although BSE is the most famous issue, Foot & Mouth is more relevant for a conversation on health of livestock and effects on agriculture. BSE is a rather unique disease and Britain may have just been unlucky to be first as other countries were also giving cattle dubious feed.

Nody

Well lets make another jump; chemicals or if you so want to put it UKs second largest export for the tune of 26 billion a year too no ones surprise you need to meet stringent EU requirements to export chemicals and as long as UK is in EU they follow EU standards; however as all other standards and certificates are no longer valid as of day 1 Brexit. The UK government keep insisting that "things will be fine" while hand waving the issue but Echa (European Chemicals Agency) for controlling it has a bit more frank view point:

Whether the industry has been given any assurances by Ministers there is no way of knowing, but this is a risky strategy. For, while the UK Government is being close-lipped about the implications, the EU's European Chemical Agency is being a lot more helpful.

On its own website yesterday, it decided to advise UK registrants that, as a consequence of the UK's decision to leave the EU, any REACH registrations awarded by the Agency "without prejudice to any provisions of the withdrawal agreement" only apply "until the United Kingdom ceases to be a Member State".

Clearly, as far as the EU is concerned, and the agency can speak for it, once the UK leaves the EU, none of the chemicals produced under UK registrations can be marketed in the territories of EU Member States. This has the potential, as reported yesterday, to do "tremendous damage" to the industry.

However, until it gets the go-ahead from the European Council – which may or may not be in December – the UK will not even be able to discuss transition arrangements. And then, there is absolutely no certainty as to what the outcome might be. The industry will have to live with uncertainty for a while longer.

The crucial point will come next year, with a deadline of 31 May, when the next (and main) tranche of registrations are due. UK chemical companies are going to have to decide whether to continue with UK-based applications, or transfer their operations to Only Representatives based in other EU Member States.

But that's not a problem right; all UK has to do is set up their own version of what this EU wide organization does which can't be to hard...

Some lessons could possibly be learned from the Norwegian Environment Agency (NEA), set up in 2013 and acting as the REACH competent authority in Norway, although the NEA is not aspiring to take on the role of Echa. There is certainly a case to be made for setting up a strong domestic agency, to manage chemicals and related environmental, health and safety (EHS) regulations more broadly. The NEA currently has about 700 employees. In Turkey, the REACH-like regulation, KKDIK, is still in the pipeline but the REACH style processes of registration and authorisation are to be managed solely by the Turkish Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning. However, questions are already being raised about the adequacy of the current core staff, at the ministry, to manage this complex new regulation. Setting up regulatory processes on a par with Echa is not inexpensive or easy.

For recognition of the equivalence of REACH and UK-REACH to be established, it would first need to be agreed in the Brexit negotiations with the EU. It might well prove to be unattainable. In principle, Echa and the European Commission are looking favourably at different forms of regulatory cooperation and the agency has established agreements with its counterpart chemical agencies in Australia, Canada, Japan and the US. The discussion between these agencies is gradually progressing on the future mutual recognition of each other’s risk assessments. According to my information from public sources, there has not been similar progress on direct mutual acceptance of other chemical agencies’ registrations, authorisations or other regulatory notifications. Direct mutual recognition would require a very high level of trust to be established, during the exit negotiations, that the processes at the future regulatory body are aligned and up to the same standards as those of EU authorities to produce equivalent outcomes.

An added level of complexity would be created by the eventual divergence of appeal and court processes. Acting outside the scope of EU law, the UK chemicals agency and the UK courts would no longer make direct reference to the evolving line of decisions of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) but rather decide matters domestically, thus gradually diverging from the legal interpretations in the EU.

Also, the contractual arrangements for UK-REACH member and lead registrants, to have access to data, would be another matter to be carefully considered. Usually, under consortium and Sief agreements, data access rights are only granted for EU REACH regulatory purposes, which would seem to exclude any further use under the domestic UK-REACH post-Brexit.

Yea; not going to happen so yet another barrier for UK exporting companies and yet more money that the UK companies will be sending to Mainland Europe as of next year forward for certification of products to ensure EU compliance (and if UK want to implement their own regime on top of it that will double the cost for UK produced chemicals instead). But but but WTO trade rules!!1 Well sorry to burst everyone's bubble but there are no WTO trade rules. There are WTO frameworks to create the basis for discussions deals but there are no magical WTO trade rules to fall back on as basis for trade that the UK politicians so love to reference.

murphaph

The 350 mil a week for the NHS is soon going to be -350 mil to pay for all these agencies. I wonder at all did anyone in the UK calculate these costs before the referendum.

Solo is not really engaging anymore and who could blame him really. It's becoming more indefensible by the day. All he's left with is repeating that solutions can be found, solutions can be found over and over.

If you throw enough money at these problems then yes they can be solved but other services must suffer cuts. All for this religion called Brexit with Nigel Farage as its high priest.

Nody

Welp; it looks like UKs hardcore brexiteers are going to be in for a bit of a rough weather and better hope a full deal is somehow struck...

The British government is living in “fantasy land” if it believes that it can an amicable break-up with the EU in the event of a ‘basic’ Brexit, senior EU officials and diplomats have told The Telegraph.

Three separate EU sources in both Brussels and a leading EU capital have warned that British expectations of a “no deal, deal” had failed to understand the ramifications of the UK pulling out Europe without paying its bills.

The Brexit secretary told the Lords EU select committee that in the “very, very improbable” event that a deal proved beyond the two sides, worst-case scenarios would be averted.

“Whatever happens we will have a basic deal without the bits we really want,” he said.

However European officials are adamant that if the UK exits the EU without a deal – leaving an immediate €20bn black hole in the EU’s seven-year budget framework – there will be no appetite to engineer a soft landing for the UK.

“This is pure fantasy,” said a senior EU diplomat closely involved in the Brexit negotiations, “the idea of a ‘no deal deal’ completely fails to understand the EU, or the fury that would result if the British leave without paying their bills.

“At that point, the EU wouldn’t be looking to make a parachute for the UK, it will only be working out how to cut strings.”

A second Brussels-based source was equally clear. “If things go really sour the 27 will be in no mood to try to collate a number of last-minute mini emergency deals for ‘free’. We’ll be busy enough trying to sort out the budget fallout.”

Article is here in the Telegraph and relevant sections quoted here. So much for the "no deal" threat from UK having any effect... Oh and in case of a hard crash out no British plane will be allowed to fly to EU for 30 days as that's the minimum application time for a third party operator (and British companies can only apply after the UK has left EU).

murphaph

It's good that the EU is letting this message seep out.

If we get that far so many UK businesses will already have pulled the emergency cord and instigated their contingency plans that irreparable damage will have been done to the UK economy.

30 days of no flights could bankrupt many airlines.

The religion of Brexit will continue to demand that the livelihoods of millions are sacrificed at the altar of sovereignty of course.

Edit: Isn't it also incredible how the Brexit narrative has gone from one of "they'll be beating down our door to give us a trade deal like the single market" to "if we don't get any deal we will be able to avert the worst of the day 1 effects of being outside the EU" and even this is (of course) being rejected by the EU.

David Davis apparently thought no deal means lots of small emergency deals to save the UK from its own stupidity. He's deluded and it's good the EU is getting this message out. If the UK leaves with no deal they are out on their ear in March 2019 with customs controls the next day. It is an apocalyptic scenario and the mood music says we're heading towards it.

I think public opinion might begin to shift if things continue like this and businesses start to relocate.

Akrasia

murphaph wrote: »

It's good that the EU is letting this message seep out.

If we get that far so many UK businesses will already have pulled the emergency cord and instigated their contingency plans that irreparable damage will have been done to the UK economy.

30 days of no flights could bankrupt many airlines.

The religion of Brexit will continue to demand that the livelihoods of millions are sacrificed at the altar of sovereignty of course.

Edit: Isn't it also incredible how the Brexit narrative has gone from one of "they'll be beating down our door to give us a trade deal like the single market" to "if we don't get any deal we will be able to avert the worst of the day 1 effects of being outside the EU" and even this is (of course) being rejected by the EU.

David Davis apparently thought no deal means lots of small emergency deals to save the UK from its own stupidity. He's deluded and it's good the EU is getting this message out. If the UK leaves with no deal they are out on their ear in March 2019 with customs controls the next day. It is an apocalyptic scenario and the mood music says we're heading towards it.

I think public opinion might begin to shift if things continue like this and businesses start to relocate.

I can also see a lot of companies and investors suing the UK for losses associated with them recklessly withdrawing from the EU without making provisions to allow them to continue trading

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-investors-could-sue-uk-for-billions-over-brexit-g6jfssvnv

If the UK refuse to do a deal because of their 'divorce bill' it could be one of the greatest own goals in modern history

Leonard Hofstadter

Also good that the 50 odd studies on the impact of Brexit are going to be published, perhaps at last the large swathes of the British public who still think Brexit is a good idea (most people have definitely not changed their minds) might reconsider and try and swing things back towards more cooperation with the EU?

After all closer ties with the EU are not just in the UK's interest but the EU's, too.

Thing is from an EU point of view we can only have close ties with the UK if it wants them - after all it is the UK not the EU that has sought to change the relationship so it is hardly fair to blame the EU for the current stand off.

UsedToWait

captainspeed wrote: »

Also good that the 50 odd studies on the impact of Brexit are going to be published, perhaps at last the large swathes of the British public who still think Brexit is a good idea (most people have definitely not changed their minds) might reconsider...

I think you're giving the British electorate too much credit.
They took their cues from side of a bus slogans and borderline racist posters.
They're hardly going to plough through 50 economic forecasts now, and you can guarantee the Tory media will spin it as them foreigners out to get us.

It'll be 'Keep Calm and Carry On', as our own Lord Haw Haw likes to say.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Welp; it looks like UKs hardcore brexiteers are going to be in for a bit of a rough weather and better hope a full deal is somehow struck...

Article is here in the Telegraph and relevant sections quoted here. So much for the "no deal" threat from UK having any effect... Oh and in case of a hard crash out no British plane will be allowed to fly to EU for 30 days as that's the minimum application time for a third party operator (and British companies can only apply after the UK has left EU).

So we are back to day 1 of Brexit where the UK want's a parachute with no strings attached ?

ambro25

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So we are back to day 1 of Brexit where the UK want's a parachute with no strings attached ?

What do you mean, "back"?

:pac:

Coincidentally, John Harris' piece in the Guardian today is a good milestone-setter, on the very topic of where we (the UK) were this time last year versus now. Worse off, measurably so, and still not even a murmur of a political solution from the powers-that-be, be they in government or in opposition, to the underlying causes of the bulk of the Leave vote.

demfad

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/brexit-ministers-spy-russia-uk-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw

The papadoupolous indictment last week has connected Trump-Russia to Brexit-Russia via Papadopoulus himself and the 'Professor' probably a member of Russian intelligence who appears to have wielded infleunce at the 'centre' of British power:

1. Mifsud and Papadopoulos also had links into the heart of the British government.
2. Several confirmed meetings between Mifsud and Alok Sharma, the MP for Reading West and a Foreign Office minister until June this year.
3. 2 weeks ago Mifsud told a colleague he was returning to London from Rome to have dinner with Boris Johnson re Brexit
4. The Foreign Office has confirmed that a third minister, Tobias Ellwood, met Papadopoulos at the UN general assembly in September 2016.

Head of Vote leave was Matthew Elliott a political strategist who had registered Vote Leave Ltd at Companies House and filed the legal documents with the commission.

1. In 2012 Elliott was targeted by a man the Home Office now believes was a Russian spy, Sergey Nalobin. He was expelled from the UK in 2015.
2. In 2012, Nalobin was the key figure at the heart of an organisation called Conservative Friends of Russia, a high-profile new group that threw a high-profile launch in the Russian ambassador’s garden (the same ambassador, from Papadoupolous indictment Alexander Yakovenko).
3. But the Conservative Friends of Russia was not what it seemed, and nor was Nalobin. Nalobin was intimately connected to the FSB: the Conservative Friends of Russia was a Moscow influence operation.
4. Matthew Elliott has never made his association with the Conservative Friends of Russia public. But he was a founding member of the group and later that year went on a 10-day trip to Moscow with all expenses paid by the Russian government.
5. According to online biographies he has also done political work for a party/parties in Ukraine.

Johnson has met Nabolin several times at the Russian embassy and must surely have known of Elliots connections to him.

This from Bill Browder:

Bill Browder, an Anglo-American businessman who is leading a global campaign for a “Magnitsky Act” – aimed at punishing Russia for the murder of his lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, in Moscow in 2009 – said he was unsurprised by Britain’s role.

“London is one of the main outposts for Russian financial and political influence programmes in the west. It’s floating on a tide of dirty money. All the oligarchs have bases there. They all have homes. All the professional service firms are in London – lawyers, investigations agencies – all running private influence ops on behalf of the oligarchs who are working on behalf of Putin. There’s a huge reluctance in Britain to strangle the golden goose. Because a lot of people very close the centre of power are financially benefiting.”

(There was another major article in the Sunday Times yesterday on Russian influence on Brexit)

Thargor

Interesting Twitter thread well worth clicking through:

https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/927551446186450944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fukpolitics%2F

Very little progress it seems, maybe even going backwards, hard to see anything to be optimistic about here.

steddyeddy

Thargor wrote: »

Interesting Twitter thread well worth clicking through:

https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/927551446186450944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fukpolitics%2F

Very little progress it seems, maybe even going backwards, hard to see anything to be optimistic about here.

The worrying thing is his idea that the UK will go back on its promise to protect EU citizens and hasn't made progress on the bill. He states that this will likely delay talks in December.

The most scary bit is this:

If no agreement in Dec, next opportunity to kick-start talks is in March. That leaves *7 months* to agree deal. They can't, and won't.

Nody

steddyeddy wrote: »

The worrying thing is his idea that the UK will go back on its promise to protect EU citizens and hasn't made progress on the bill. He states that this will likely delay talks in December.

The most scary bit is this:

If no agreement in Dec, next opportunity to kick-start talks is in March. That leaves *7 months* to agree deal. They can't, and won't.

No that is not the scary bit; the scary bit is EU puts the chance of a hard crash out at over 50% and also clearly stated (which May and most of UK appear to have missed) that if not every single cent is paid there will be no deal, no partial deal, no deal deal or anything else. So yea; start shorting the pound for April 2019...

Thargor

Looks like Northern Ireland will take a major hit anyway, the place is going to be a complete welfare state basket case after this, it already was but the figures involved will start to call attention to it in the rest of the UK.

steddyeddy

Thargor wrote: »

Looks like Northern Ireland will take a major hit anyway, the place is going to be a complete welfare state basket case after this, it already was but the figures involved will start to call attention to it in the rest of the UK.

NI is probrably seen as a price the Brexiters in the rest of the UK are willing to pay.

Junkyard Tom

Thargor wrote: »

Looks like Northern Ireland will take a major hit anyway, the place is going to be a complete welfare state basket case after this, it already was but the figures involved will start to call attention to it in the rest of the UK.

Indeed.

Leonard Hofstadter

Nody wrote: »

No that is not the scary bit; the scary bit is EU puts the chance of a hard crash out at over 50% and also clearly stated (which May and most of UK appear to have missed) that if not every single cent is paid there will be no deal, no partial deal, no deal deal or anything else. So yea; start shorting the pound for April 2019...

The other scary thing is how little the penny has dropped with the hardcore Brexiteers, people like Julia Hartley-Brewer are utterly delusional about how this thing is going to work and are basically advocating a 'no deal' unless the EU does what the UK wants, have a listen to the first four minutes of this YouTube video in particular, it's mind-blowing.

They actually think the UK will survive just fine without a trade deal - but in that case, why the hell are they so desperate to leave the EU so they can do free trade deals with the rest of the world? The contradiction is obvious (to me at least)!

Not an uncommon attitude amongst hardcore Brexiteers by the way - 'they need us more than we need them', 'we don't owe them a penny', 'they (the EU) are bluffing and will give us what we want' and all the other usual rabble rousing etc. Oh and there's a new one, apparently there's some group going to launch a legal challenge if the British Government agrees to pay €20 billion without any sort of a deal (despite the fact that the previous Government agreed to fund up to 2020).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTGweC0MM9Q&ab_channel=PoliticsUK

With this kind of logic I can't see how a deal will be done to be honest, we'd better get used to border crossings once more (and that will never last, if it didn't work in the 70s it's not going to work now either).

Nody

captainspeed wrote: »

The other scary thing is how little the penny has dropped with the hardcore Brexiteers, people like Julia Hartley-Brewer are utterly delusional about how this thing is going to work and are basically advocating a 'no deal' unless the EU does what the UK wants, have a listen to the first four minutes of this YouTube video in particular, it's mind-blowing.

They actually think the UK will survive just fine without a trade deal - but in that case, why the hell are they so desperate to leave the EU so they can do free trade deals with the rest of the world? The contradiction is obvious (to me at least)!

Not an uncommon attitude amongst hardcore Brexiteers by the way - 'they need us more than we need them', 'we don't owe them a penny', 'they (the EU) are bluffing and will give us what we want' and all the other usual rabble rousing etc. Oh and there's a new one, apparently there's some group going to launch a legal challenge if the British Government agrees to pay €20 billion without any sort of a deal (despite the fact that the previous Government agreed to fund up to 2020).

No they actually think EU will come running back crying and will make a deal, any deal, because of the sassy stiff upper lip of the British. The big question mark is how they will react once they realize that it will not happen and the consequences that will bring in general. I mean if nothing else they should fear for their political future once UK economy goes down but hey that's project fear talk.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

captainspeed wrote: »

They actually think the UK will survive just fine without a trade deal - but in that case, why the hell are they so desperate to leave the EU so they can do free trade deals with the rest of the world? The contradiction is obvious (to me at least)!

I think the vast majority of people in the UK want some form of a deal with the European Union at the time of writing.

The right to forge free trade deals with the rest of the world is also the right freedom to desire from Brexit. Expanding trade with the US and China alone in the coming decade after Brexit would be extremely beneficial to Britain. Those two countries alone make up about half of what the UK trades with the whole of the EU. Expanding this £100bn worth of trade with a more beneficial trading arrangement would create jobs in Britain. That's before we start talking about others. Yet some posters claim that I've not highlighted opportunities from Brexit when I clearly have.

Reason and logic suggests that the best arrangement for the UK as a whole is to preserve as much trade with the EU27 as possible whilst gaining and utilising the freedom to sign trade deals to trade with other countries on more liberal terms.

captainspeed wrote: »

Not an uncommon attitude amongst hardcore Brexiteers by the way - 'they need us more than we need them', 'we don't owe them a penny', 'they (the EU) are bluffing and will give us what we want' and all the other usual rabble rousing etc. Oh and there's a new one, apparently there's some group going to launch a legal challenge if the British Government agrees to pay €20 billion without any sort of a deal (despite the fact that the previous Government agreed to fund up to 2020).

Technically speaking the UK doesn't "owe" the EU anything. It isn't "owing". It's that the UK has pledged to give money to the EU. That is an obligation it should pay, but it isn't a debt and it is wrong to state that it is.

Now - the question is what exactly are the UK's obligations as a leaving member state. That is a matter under dispute between the UK and the EU at present. I personally expect movement on this as the EU clarifies what the future arrangement will look like. For me personally I think £36bn net is probably the right amount after the ~£10bn European Investment Bank taken into account. It is a trade off, and the money argument is a bargaining chip. There's no way that the UK won't use it for that purpose.

captainspeed wrote: »

With this kind of logic I can't see how a deal will be done to be honest, we'd better get used to border crossings once more (and that will never last, if it didn't work in the 70s it's not going to work now either).

I'm not as pessimistic. I think we'll see movement in December on both sides. I still think the prophesies of doom are the irrational side of the Brexit debate. On the face of it at this juncture, Britain is holding up remarkably well in comparison to the projections of project fear, and I suspect it will continue to do so.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41887401

CBI president Paul Drechsler said about 10% of businesses had "started to reallocate employees, to replan their investments... by the end of the year that will be 25% and by March 60% of all firms will have made big decisions, which are their contingency plans to prepare for the unknown".

murphaph

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41887401

Yeah the unbelievable is slowly starting to become cold hard reality. The Tories really would sacrifice the UK economy on the Brexit altar. Business probably didn't really believe it could happen but the trickle will soon turn into a flood.

ambro25

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah the unbelievable is slowly starting to become cold hard reality. The Tories really would sacrifice the UK economy on the Brexit altar. Business probably didn't really believe it could happen but the trickle will soon turn into a flood.

QFT, but I'd object (respectfully ) that the more realistically-minded and pragmatic business types (those who copped on early, that this was political exploitation of an ideological crusade, moreover made unstoppable by the UK political system and the make-up of the current opposition) (e.g. me ) have long believed that it could happen, if not by design then by accident, and set about implementing contingency plans when the EU refused to countenance May's promises in Florence (on the back of Davis' ensuing delivery failure).

That's exactly why, after May got onboard with her 3 Brexiteers, I wanted to set up an EU subsidiary early; but that ship sailed earlier this year when the firm decided to expand nationally instead (only 1 choice available out of the set of limited investment resources), since 'others' in the firm seemingly decided to believe the "it'll be grand" noises (which are legally groundless, absent a deal; and some 'cake and eating it' that deal would have to be) from our Chartered bodies about continuing rights of legal representation in the EU, and still believe that it will all work out. Good for them if it does, is all I'll say.

To hear some local clients plus a couple of business relations involved in such contingency planning for the past few months (all outside of London), it's turning into a flood RTFN. None of it is making the news unsurprisingly, but the fact is that I know 3 local manufacturing businesses ('finishing' really, as they import components and assemble locally) are running down UK stocks and quietly ferrying assets over to the EU opportunistically (ad hoc to complement 'normal' EU-bound loads) as I type this post.

I'm beginning to wonder (-marginally, but still) if, as a result of unfolding and cascading events, having planned our family and my job moves by Q1 2018, I've not accidentally left it a tad late. My notice isn't even in yet (awaiting signed contracts) :pac: