Brexit discussion thread II

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is - it doesn't matter. Before and during the referendum there were clear promises to respect and implement the result in the case of leave.

MPs voted to trigger Article 50. Most MPs feel that Brexit has to happen in some shape or form.

The likelihood of a u-turn on implementing Brexit is zilch. MPs voted to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972 last night.

The questions are now firmly around the process of how, not if.

I don't recall you presenting this alternative aspect of the Commons-based side of the Brexit debate, when you claimed in the post I was responding to, that "it doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening. That is the question that is certainly settled even if you don't believe that the public voted to leave to take back control.".

Because the above <new> post warrants a whole <new> series of fresh points to be made, only partially concerned with the non-representative role of MPs (balancing the respective interests of the nation, their constituents and their party, whence 'Rebels'), but much more concerned with Ms May's current balance of power in the Commons (15 of those Rebels) and Ms May's current staying power in No.10 (the Commons remainers after a meaningful vote promise got their pound of flesh; the Commons brexiters after enshrining the leaving date in the Bill -as the pound of flesh balancing the meaningful vote- didn't).

Perhaps you'll give me the courtesy of a heads-up, next time you shift the goalposts? Just so I can factor the displacement in my reply as well.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Any other suggestion comes from cloud cuckoo land considering where the country actually is on these issues.

The posters who are advocating for a u-turn, wouldn't be advocating for a u-turn in the event of a remain vote. That's why it is really just plain old hypocrisy and essentially being a sore loser to advocate rubbishing the democratic will of the people.

From what I can see - most remainers understand this too apart from the hardened few clinging on to the hope of EU membership.

For the avoidance of doubt, solo (because your post, quoting mine as it does, strongly suggestd that I may harbour some hopes for a U-turn): I'm not advocating for a U-turn, nor do I believe there is any U-turn coming before 2019.

If a U-turn happens, bonus for the 48% (and the balance, even if they never realise it); if it doesn't, so what: not a blind bit of difference to our personal circumstances, we're quids in either way now, because -unlike you, by the evidence of your posts- I favour rationality and one in the hand over two in the bush.

I'm simply countering the more misleading aspects of your posts with facts and, accessorily, demonstrating your apparent imperviousness to said facts in your faith-based discourse.

For the avoidance of doubt still: I (not so secretly, now) hope the UK crashes out with no deal, and I also hope (in equal measure) that we EU27 will show solidarity and provide some support (propping Ireland all along and as needed in the meantime) when (if) the crashing turns to burning.

<self-censoring edit, probably too strong>

An Ciarraioch

Good news for the UK - the number of EU workers in the country has risen by 112k since the referendum.

Bad news for the UK - the majority of the new arrivals appear to be from Bulgaria and Romania, which would facilitate a reduction in the average wage.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/15/number-european-union-workers-britain-rises

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

You are specifying England and Wales and excluding Scotland why?

Vronsky wrote: »

Because it doesn't suit his argument.

Good afternoon!

We need to be more charitable towards one another. I shouldn't have to deal with snide aspersions about my intentions for posting here any more than you should.

Yes - I disagree with you on Brexit. We must do better to make this a reasonable platform for discussing and we should disagree better than we are currently doing. I'm taking the minority position on this thread. That isn't always easy.

The reason I mention England and Wales is because they have different electoral law to the rest of the United Kingdom. UK wide referenda and elections tend to follow this.

In Scotland EU citizens and 16 year olds voted in the 2014 referendum but it isn't the norm. Commonwealth citizens (inc Maltese and Cypriot) and Irish citizens can vote in national referenda. Other countries in Europe have similar rules.

It wasn't an intentional choice for this referendum but simply the law. Again, I find moaning about the referendum boring at this stage. The task at hand is to deliver Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

We need to be more charitable towards one another. I shouldn't have to deal with snide aspersions about my intentions for posting here any more than you should.

Yes - I disagree with you on Brexit. We must do better to make this a reasonable platform for discussing and we should disagree better than we are currently doing. I'm taking the minority position on this thread. That isn't always easy.

The reason I mention England and Wales is because they have different electoral law to the rest of the United Kingdom. UK wide referenda and elections tend to follow this.

In Scotland EU citizens and 16 year olds voted in the 2014 referendum but it isn't the norm. Commonwealth citizens (inc Maltese and Cypriot) and Irish citizens can vote in national referenda. Other countries in Europe have similar rules.

It wasn't an intentional choice for this referendum but simply the law. Again, I find moaning about the referendum boring at this stage. The task at hand is to deliver Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

As far as I can tell you are wrong on this issue. The legislation that governs referenda in the UK is the following Act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents

Nowhere in this Act does it specify who shall be entitled to vote in a referendum. In the Wikipedia page on the issue....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom#Legislation

states that "Separate legislation (i.e. an Act of Parliament) by the Parliament of the United Kingdom is required for the holding of each UK-wide referendum which is held to set out the referendum question, its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted...."

So it appears to me that unless you can produce some evidence to the contrary, the UK parliament could easily have included EU citizens in the electorate for the referendum.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

View wrote: »

The government clearly weren’t campaigning for Remain when half the cabinet was out campaigning for Leave.

This they were allowed to do with a “free pass” - so that Ministers could act as though they were opposition back-benchers while presenting themselves with the “gravitas” of full cabinet authority behind them.

The decision to include Commonwealth citizens but to exclude EU ones was clearly made to aid the Leave campaign. Logically either both sets of non-UK citizens should have both excluded or both included. It is clearly partisan to exclude one set and include another. The Leave campaign would have been howling at the moon has the decision been made the other way.

So too was the decision on the referendum wording - which contrary to your claim was not a ruling but rather advice as can be seen in the link you provide (and it is advice that was issued without there being any credible evidence that people are more biased toward voting yes rather than no).

Lastly, the options themselves were loaded as the options were Remain on a more semi-detached basis as per the protocol that the Conservatives liked or Leave. There was no “status quo” option on the ballot.

This would be akin to the Oireachtas organising a referendum where the two options were for us to either become a devolved region of the UK (like Wales) or a region of the UK under direct Westminster rule (like North West England).

Good morning!

I couldn't leave this hanging.

Can you please point out any referendum in England or Wales where an EU citizen could vote (apart from Irish or Cypriot or Maltese)?

This is electoral law in England and Wales. It wasn't put in place just because of this referendum. The same is true for general elections.

I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There is no electoral law for referenda in the UK (or any subset of it), never mind who can or cannot vote in them.

The decision to include AND to exclude specific groups of people was made by the government when deciding upon their EU referendum act.

View

View wrote: »

There is no electoral law for referenda in the UK (or any subset of it), never mind who can or cannot vote in them.

The decision to include AND to exclude specific groups of people was made by the government when deciding upon their EU referendum act.

the decision was made by Parliament, not the government.

steddyeddy

I too will throw my hat into the "crash out without a deal" ring. It's the closest thing to a U-turn we can get. Despite all of the evidence there's a continued insistence that Brexit, at worst will be a mild inconvenience and at best be an free trade extravaganza with the rest of the world.

The only thing that can shake this view is consequence.

Junkyard Tom

So have the 15 Tory Brexit rebels put the kibosh on a Brexit leave date enshrined in law? Am I reading t right?

View

Aegir wrote: »

View wrote: »

There is no electoral law for referenda in the UK (or any subset of it), never mind who can or cannot vote in them.

The decision to include AND to exclude specific groups of people was made by the government when deciding upon their EU referendum act.

the decision was made by Parliament, not the government.

No, the decision on what was presented to Parliament for approval in the referendum act was made by the government.

Had the government opted to be either more inclusive or more exclusive in who could vote, it is highly unlikely that had the government party would have vote down their own government proposal.

An Ciarraioch

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So have the 15 Tory Brexit rebels put the kibosh on a Brexit leave date enshrined in law? Am I reading t right?

Well, as things stand, the default leave date remains March 29th, unless an extension is agreed between the UK and the EU.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The reason I mention England and Wales is because they have different electoral law to the rest of the United Kingdom. UK wide referenda and elections tend to follow this.

Someone else has already highlighted to you that you might be wrong in terms of how the electorate is defined for referendums in the UK so I won't go through that.

What I will highlight is this: you are being disingenuous. The vote whether to Brexit or not did not just take place in England and Wales. It also took place in NI and in Scotland, and while I cannot be certain for NI, in Scotland there is a record of one case at least of EU citizens having the right to vote in a referendum there.

Either the vote is truly national across the UK in which case, yes the Scottish example counts, or else the vote was not truly national in which case, something which neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland voted for is being imposed on them.

In this case, I don't think you can suggest my question is snide although in principle, I agree with ambro25 - you are prone to move goalposts when it doesn't suit you to continue defending a point any more.

You excluded Scotland not because it was a different legal system but because you could not defend your point if Scotland was included. But Scotland was included in the referendum so it was wrong to exclude them from a discussion on previous electorate decisions for referendums. And that's before it was explained to you that in fact, there is some discretion in deciding who can participate in referendums and the exclusion of the 16-18 cohort was a House of Commons decision which overturned a House of Lords decision in favour of allowing the younger cohort to be included.

Also - and I want to be clear about this - EU citizens were allowed to vote in the Brexit referendum. You claim to be one of them. Sure Irish people are special but they are still EU citizens and can be counted as such. You cannot disregard them because it doesn't suit you to acknowledge that we are EU citizens.

Calina

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Well, as things stand, the default leave date remains March 29th, unless an extension is agreed between the UK and the EU.

The point with respect to the date is that if it is enshrined in UK primary legislation, it becomes very difficult to get any sort of an extension to, for example, the Article 50 negotiating period. The relevant Treaty allows for such an extension on unanimous agreement among the other member states. It'd be a pity if it was the UK hamstrung itself.

Although their recent record suggests they are well capable of it.

Junkyard Tom

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Well, as things stand, the default leave date remains March 29th

Does anyone believe this is realistic?

steddyeddy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Does anyone believe this is realistic?

No, but I also don't believe the UK has a choice.

Nody

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Does anyone believe this is realistic?

Define realistic; as in UK and EU ready with new border controls up etc.? Heck no. Realistic as in the most likely date UK leaves EU? Heck yes.

Junkyard Tom

Nody wrote: »

Define realistic; as in UK and EU ready with new border controls up etc.? Heck no. Realistic as in the most likely date UK leaves EU? Heck yes.

So they leap off the cliff and expect to grow wings on that date?

PeadarCo

Junkyard Tom wrote:

So they leap off the cliff and expect to grow wings on that date?

Its sums up the madness of Brexit. Putting the Brexit date in law is a crazy decision. It ties the hands of those negotiating on behalf of the UK. It isn't remotely practical as anyone who has read this thread would understand. ( For a person who primarily reads the thread thanks to all the posters that have linked some genuinely interesting information on brexit and its potential consequences)

The UKs very big problem and to a lesser degree Ireland and EU is that those who want to leave the EU and to hell with the consequences have some serious power. RTE were reporting that the UK was sending people to Dublin on a brexit fact finding mission. That should have been done before the referendum or at the very least before triggering brexit talks. The fact that fact finding missions are still going on with only about a year to left is scary.

Nody

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So they leap off the cliff and expect to grow wings on that date?

Well for the hardcore brexiteers it's not a cliff but a gilded road ahead of them to world trade; for the more sensible such as Solo here it's simply not possible to change the date (it require resolution of the 3 core issues for an extension to be approved which is highly unlikely to happen).

So in as many words; yes.

solodeogloria

View wrote: »

There is no electoral law for referenda in the UK (or any subset of it), never mind who can or cannot vote in them.

The decision to include AND to exclude specific groups of people was made by the government when deciding upon their EU referendum act.

Good evening!

You can repeat the same point but it doesn't make it any more true.

The majority of the MPs who voted that bill in campaigned for remain in the referendum.

Again, no referendum has taken place in England and Wales that included EU citizens (bar Irish and Commonwealth inc Maltese and Cypriot) in the electorate. This follows electoral law. The same electorate vote at general elections.

It isn't valid to say that the referendum was rigged by excluding EU citizens when as far as I can tell they haven't been included in any referendum in England and Wales.

Are you going to say the AV referendum was rigged for the same reason?

Calina: if you're not going to respect my sincerity I'd rather you didn't respond to my posts.

Nody: I support transition not an extension of Article 50. I don't think the EU even want an extension of Article 50 as they want British MEPs out of the parliament by the next election. Transition would allow more time for trade negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So they leap off the cliff and expect to grow wings on that date?

The brexiters' push to have the 29 March 2019 date inserted into the Withdrawal Bill is to help guarantee this outcome.

There isn't any other reason to it, than for tying the hands of the UK government and its negotiating team, whether current or future: it doubles as a political insurance for brexiters, in case of another anticipated GE before March 2019.

The UK sure isn't getting an extension of the Article 50 deadline, since that one requires unanimous approval of all 27 member states, and the UK has pretty much burned enough bridges already in that respect.

The UK isn't getting a transition either, if it doesn't sort out the 3 core Stage 1 issues, and the exit bill chief amongst those. Two can play the red lines game, and them's the EU's.

Now we wait and see who blinks first, which will tell you loud and clear who needs the other the most. But to the surprise of absolutely no-one (-unblinkered), so far the EU is already well up on the scoreboard, while the UK is still stood with nil point.

steddyeddy

Inflation hits 5 year high. It's only going to get worse guys.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/14/uk-inflation-cost-of-living-german-economy-growth-powers-ahead-business-live

steddyeddy

Also it's looking like talks will not be going ahead in December. The best bet would be for the UK to crash out and accept the consequences of living in fantasy land. Then secure EU re-entry, minus the Sterling of course.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/manfred-weber-doesnt-look-like-brexit-talks-will-move-on-this-year-2017-11

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You can repeat the same point but it doesn't make it any more true.

The majority of the MPs who voted that bill in campaigned for remain in the referendum.

Again, no referendum has taken place in England and Wales that included EU citizens (bar Irish and Commonwealth inc Maltese and Cypriot) in the electorate. This follows electoral law. The same electorate vote at general elections.

It isn't valid to say that the referendum was rigged by excluding EU citizens when as far as I can tell they haven't been included in any referendum in England and Wales.

Are you going to say the AV referendum was rigged for the same reason?

Calina: if you're not going to respect my sincerity I'd rather you didn't respond to my posts.

Nody: I support transition not an extension of Article 50. I don't think the EU even want an extension of Article 50 as they want British MEPs out of the parliament by the next election. Transition would allow more time for trade negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Then show us the relevant electoral law. I have already linked to the relevant pieces of legislation that I could find and there is nothing in any of it to back up what you say.

If you are so sure, you will be able to show us the legislation.

Peregrinus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So they leap off the cliff and expect to grow wings on that date?

Well, that's what the suggested transition period/implementation period is for.

The idea is that UK will leave on 29 March 2019 - will cease to be a member state, will not be represented in the Council of Ministers or the Parliament, will not nominate a Commissioner, etc - but, by mutual agreement, for an agreed temporary period EU law will continue to apply in the UK, and the UK will continue to have most of the benefits and burdens of membership, while practical arrangements are made to give effect to a new and more distant relationship from (say) March 2021, the broad outlines of which will already have been agreed by March 2019.

May has asked for a transitional period (the pro-Brexit press has mostly reported this as May "offering" a transitional period, which I think tells you all you need to know about how they view the world). The EU hasn't said no; in fact they're quite keen on the idea, with the caveat that they would see no point in it unless the broad outlines of the long-term relationship have indeed been agreed by March 2019. It's not clear at this point that that will happen.

In short, the EU would be up for a transition period so that both parties can transition in an orderly way to the long-term relationship that they have agreed. But they would not be up for a transition period as a way of putting off dealing with the fact that the two sides have been unable to agree on their long-term relationship.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

Then show us the relevant electoral law. I have already linked to the relevant pieces of legislation that I could find and there is nothing in any of it to back up what you say.

If you are so sure, you will be able to show us the legislation.

The relevant law is European Union Referendum Act 2015 section 2. This is the Act which provided for the holding of the referendum (each referendum in the UK is authorised by a separate Act of Parliament) and it says, basically, that the rifht to vote is extended to anyone who can vote in a parliamentary election, plus certain additional categories - peers (who in the UK normally cannot vote in Parliamentary elections) and residents of Gibraltar who are Commonwealth or Irish citizens.

The right to vote in parliamentary elections is set out in the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 2000. Basically, it's residents of the UK who are over age 18 and who are Commonwealth or Irish citizens.

The upshot of all this is that, in addition of course to British citizens, the only EU nationals who got to vote in the UK referendum were citizens of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus (Malta and Cyprus being Commonwealth countries). A French citizen resident in the UK could not vote (whereas, say, a New Zealand citizen could). And this is exactly the state of affairs that applies in UK Parliamentary elections.

Other EU citizens resident in the UK do get to vote in EU Parliament elections and (I think) in local government elections. And it may be that they can vote in Scottish and/or Welsh parliamentary/assembly elections; I don't know about that.

mickoneill31

Peregrinus wrote: »

May has asked for a transitional period (the pro-Brexit press has mostly reported this as May "offering" a transitional period, which I think tells you all you need to know about how they view the world).

Ive seen it mentioned in this thread before as one of her concessions

Peregrinus

It's a concession only in the sense that it's a concession to reality.

It does make it easier for her to offer something that the EU does want, though, which is a financial settlement. It's slightly easier for May to sell the idea making payments paying the EU to the loony Eurosceptic right of her own party if she can present it as the quid pro quo for something the UK is getting in return, which is continued access to EU markets. So, in that sense, it opens the door to a concession, which is that, yes, the UK will be paying into the EU budget after Brexit.

Enzokk

So the London financial sector will still see free movement of labour.

Britain pledges protection for bankers from EU migration curbs

I guess this is no more or less than one definition of control of immigration. But now we have places that favoured leaving the EU by 70% asking to be kept in the EU (in effect) to preserve their industry in their area.

Leave-voting Grimsby accused of double standards

At least London voted remain, but areas that overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU really should just be left to their own devices to sink or swim without any special deals.

steddyeddy

Enzokk wrote: »

So the London financial sector will still see free movement of labour.

Britain pledges protection for bankers from EU migration curbs

I guess this is no more or less than one definition of control of immigration. But now we have places that favoured leaving the EU by 70% asking to be kept in the EU (in effect) to preserve their industry in their area.

Leave-voting Grimsby accused of double standards

At least London voted remain, but areas that overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU really should just be left to their own devices to sink or swim without any special deals.

There was never any doubt that high skilled workers would be able to migrate to Britain, but that isn't the financial sector's big problem. The big problem is passporting rights. I.E will the British Financial sector or businesses based on Britain be able to do business in the EU as seamlessly as they're doing now.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

There was never any doubt that high skilled workers would be able to migrate to Britain, but that isn't the financial sector's big problem. The big problem is passporting rights. I.E will the British Financial sector or businesses based on Britain be able to do business in the EU as seamlessly as they're doing now.

Good morning!

As I mentioned previously - even without formal passporting rights banks like UBS have been ensured that they can book trades back to back in London and in another EU location.

There's also the possibility of MiFID II equivalence.

Banking is one of the areas where there has been an exaggeration of impact.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

As I mentioned previously - even without formal passporting rights banks like UBS have been ensured that they can book trades back to back in London and in another EU location.

There's also the possibility of MiFID II equivalence.

Banking is one of the areas where there has been an exaggeration of impact.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Assured by who?

ancapailldorcha

Good article from the BBC detailing the dilemma ahead for the port at Rotterdam. It looks like the port will have to divide its terminal into two halves for exports to the UK in order to accommodate customs checks.

The article contains the following breakdown of British imports and exports:



In other news, Ken Clarke has given a great speech about the problems with implementing Brexit:

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/930862953808752640

swampgas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Good article from the BBC detailing the dilemma ahead for the port at Rotterdam. It looks like the port will have to divide its terminal into two halves for exports to the UK in order to accommodate customs checks.

The article contains the following breakdown of British imports and exports:

The same article has this exchange between the journalist and a Dutch MP specialising in European affairs, where the argument that EU needs the UK as much as the UK needs the EU was put forward, and very definitively shot down:

Yet paradoxically, this threat offers potential support to a key argument deployed by the pro-Brexit side. In the run-up to the referendum, they insisted it would be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, on the basis that "they need us as much as we need them."

With the Netherlands and other countries vulnerable to the consequences of a hard Brexit, Britain might indeed be seen to have leverage in any negotiations.
It was a suggestion I made to a Dutch MP specialising in European affairs, Anne Mulder. Was it time, I asked, for the Netherlands and other influential EU nations to offer the UK more concessions, given all would suffer from a breakdown of talks?

The Dutch have a reputation for politeness, and I was expecting a reply laden with diplomatic euphemism. What I got was a surprisingly pithy denunciation of Britain's politicians, and their approach to the Brexit negotiations:

"Some of them are unrealistic, they are not rational… they are always saying the ball is in the EU's court. Well there's a great big ball in their court, but they don't want to see, because they are blind."

And what about the claim that the EU needs the UK just as much as the UK needs the EU?

"If you want to dream, do it at night," he suggested.

When it comes to those UK-EU negotiations, it seems the current betting here is on failure.

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Good article from the BBC detailing the dilemma ahead for the port at Rotterdam. It looks like the port will have to divide its terminal into two halves for exports to the UK in order to accommodate customs checks.

The article contains the following breakdown of British imports and exports:



In other news, Ken Clarke has given a great speech about the problems with implementing Brexit:

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/930862953808752640

God be with the days when most Tories were like sensible Ken Clarke.

cml387

murphaph wrote: »

God be with the days when most Tories were like sensible Ken Clarke.

The loonies (Redwood, Bill Cash, Peter Lilley) were there in those days. It's just that now them or their successors are in the driving seat.

whatstherush

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

As I mentioned previously - even without formal passporting rights banks like UBS have been ensured that they can book trades back to back in London and in another EU location.

There's also the possibility of MiFID II equivalence.

Banking is one of the areas where there has been an exaggeration of impact.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Everythings fine, hand wave away, but then there's always this guy
https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/status/931170132616974336

Seriously you have described brexit as a "opportunity to good to turn down", why don't the CEO's that would be in converse with CEO of Goldmans not see the same thing

solodeogloria

whatstherush wrote: »

Everythings fine, hand wave away, but then there's always this guy
https://twitter.com/lloydblankfein/status/931170132616974336

Seriously you have described brexit as a "opportunity to good to turn down", why don't the CEO's that would be in converse with CEO of Goldmans not see the same thing

Good afternoon!

I don't see any reason why discussing with regulators is "handwaving". I think the executive board of UBS would have made pretty thorough enquiries to European regulators to confirm this outcome before saying that they are going to scale down their moves rather publicly in the Financial Times.

I think Brexit is too good an opportunity to miss in terms of expanding trade from the UK. I hold to that view.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

whatstherush

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't see any reason why discussing with regulators is "handwaving". I think the executive board of UBS would have made pretty thorough enquiries to European regulators to confirm this outcome before saying that they are going to scale down their moves rather publicly in the Financial Times.

I think Brexit is too good an opportunity to miss in terms of expanding trade from the UK. I hold to that view.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Surely the companies that are going to be affected most by Brexit are companies who trade(internationally) already, so again, why can't the people who are paid to make the strategic decisions for their respective companies not see " too good an opportunity to miss in terms of expanding trade"?

Anthracite

whatstherush wrote: »

Surely the companies that are going to be affected most by Brexit are companies who trade(internationally) already, so again, why can't the people who are paid to make the strategic decisions for their respective companies not see " too good an opportunity to miss in terms of expanding trade"?

Could it be that they are blinded by ideology and wishful thinking?

murphaph

cml387 wrote: »

The loonies (Redwood, Bill Cash, Peter Lilley) were there in those days. It's just that now them or their successors are in the driving seat.

Yeah true they were there but they were really on the fringes if my memory serves me right. The idea of something like Brexit coming to pass even under Thatcher seemed impossible to me.

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah true they were there but they were really on the fringes if my memory serves me right. The idea of something like Brexit coming to pass even under Thatcher seemed impossible to me.

Sometimes they came out of the cave. Remember John Major's 'Bastards'.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't see any reason why discussing with regulators is "handwaving". I think the executive board of UBS would have made pretty thorough enquiries to European regulators to confirm this outcome before saying that they are going to scale down their moves rather publicly in the Financial Times.

I think Brexit is too good an opportunity to miss in terms of expanding trade from the UK. I hold to that view.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If the UK came close to the levels of exports Germany has to these far flung countries (under the current regime!) then there might be some argument to make about the EU holding the UK back in some way but there simply isn't. The UK doesn't make as much stuff the world needs anymore.

Water John

Ken Clarke, superb speaker. He doesn't need to read notes. Where have the Tories got themselves to?
Have themselves wagged by Russia.

solodeogloria

whatstherush wrote: »

Surely the companies that are going to be affected most by Brexit are companies who trade(internationally) already, so again, why can't the people who are paid to make the strategic decisions for their respective companies not see " too good an opportunity to miss in terms of expanding trade"?

Good evening!

No - the companies that will be most effected by Brexit (if there's a bad deal or no deal) are the companies that are highly exposed to trade with the EU rather than companies that trade a lot with the rest of the world.

For Brexit to be successful I recognise that the UK needs as good a deal with the EU as possible whilst regaining the ability to negotiate free trade agreements that substantially liberalise trade with other countries.

I don't know what to make of your last question. Businesses have a broad range of views about Brexit. What is clear however is that uncertainty needs to be dealt with. I'm personally amenable to the Government heading north of its €20bn figure to something like £36bn net (€50bnish gross with EIB and rebate etc taken into account) if it provides this. This would be contingent on a good trade arrangement being agreed.

murphaph wrote: »

If the UK came close to the levels of exports Germany has to these far flung countries (under the current regime!) then there might be some argument to make about the EU holding the UK back in some way but there simply isn't. The UK doesn't make as much stuff the world needs anymore.

The UK is an exporter of services primarily. That just means the UK has a different economy to Germany's. Exporting services isn't inferior to exporting goods. The removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers will allow for better access for British goods and services into other parts of the world and vice versa. New opportunities to liberalise trade would inevitably give more opportunities to British businesses and create jobs. I don't take that comment back because it is true.

Signing deals with British interests at heart also won't involve the inevitable wrangling with 27 other countries.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Gerry T

How will the UK trade in services post brexit. All the UK trade deals are through the EU so finish March 19. WTO as far as I know doesn't cover services so there is no automatic way to trade services post brexit. Setting up a new service agreement will most likely take years, possibly 5 and more. Finally service trade can be based on recognition of each countries education qualifications, trade organisation, governance bodies, certification, local country regulation, which won't exist post brexit. Existing service companies will scale back to service local UK markets until all this gets sorted. In the mean time others will meet the service demand. By the time the UK re-enters that market they will have to compere for business and possibly won't have the available people with the required skill set to win back contracts.
It's just my opinion and you may argue a polar out come. But what is a certainty is no one really knows what will happen. We are all speculating. So if you own a French business availing of UK service, would you not mitigate that risk and change service provider during 2018 so as to insulate your business from damage. While the UK is extremely good at the service provision it provides, it's not the only one out there.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's also the possibility of MiFID II equivalence.

If the EU grant the UK extensive rights under MiFID II who else do they have to grant them to ?

One of the huge problems with the UK asking for a deal is that other nations may be entitled to the same concessions. Is the UK going to pay for access for those other nations ? ... I thought not.

Banking is one of the areas where there has been an exaggeration of impact.

So the bankers are crying wolf as they buy and rent property in other EU financial centres ?

RE: MiFID II

It’s worth remembering, however, that MiFIR only gives third-country firms a potential passport for professional clients and ECPs. The ability to do business with retail clients will still depend on the law of individual member states, unless it is carried out through reverse solicitation. Furthermore, an equivalence decision by the Commission takes time, though it could be undertaken in parallel with the withdrawal negotiations. Also, if one of the motivations for Brexit was to escape regulation from Brussels, there may be limited appetite in the next Government to comply with a rulebook over which the UK will have little control.

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/thought-leadership/eu-referendum-microsite/what-does-brexit-mean-for-mifid-ii

It is worth bearing in mind that almost nothing will be 'business as usual' post Brexit date without serious, serious work that is realistically terribly unlikely to be completed in time.

Capt'n Midnight

What has the EU ever done for us ?
European Investment Bank lends Limerick city and county council €85m for urban investment

The loan from the EIB is believed to be the first of its kind to a local authority, and the first of a series of supports from the bank to other Irish local authorities to fund urban renewal and development.

Plenty of local and regional authorities in the UK could do with that sort of funding. But that avenue will shortly be removed.

Capt'n Midnight

Not sure if this is an indication of general competence or of people having less cash due to Brexit either way it's not a good omen.

Tax disc: Car tax evasion triples after paper version scrapped

The number of unlicensed vehicles on the road has tripled since the paper tax disc was abolished, government figures show.

The data, published every two years, shows that the government potentially lost out on £107m from 755,000 unlicensed vehicles last year.

...

The measure was meant to have saved the Treasury £10m a year, the RAC said.

Figures from the Department for Transport show that 1.8% of vehicles were unlicensed in 2017 compared with 0.6% on 2013.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is an exporter of services primarily. That just means the UK has a different economy to Germany's. Exporting services isn't inferior to exporting goods.

What is on offer if the UK do leave the customs union and Single market is a Canadian style FTA, de facto confirmed today I believe. As an FTA is an old style (end of life) instrument it deals mainly in goods NOT services.
So relatively good for the EU who export goods to the UK primarily. Relatively bad for the UK who export services primarily to the EU.
So in terms of the Brexit the British Government has cornered itself into:

Goods good
Services bad.

Got it now?

The removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers will allow for better access for British goods and services into other parts of the world and vice versa.

You are putting tarriffs onto goods with the other parts of the world!
If there is a crash out you will have the highest trade and non-trade barriers of any country on the planet bar none.

We are moving into a green economy age. By the time the UK comes to making trade agreements abroad the notion of shipping/flying goods half way around the planet will be gone or will be tarriffed heavily.

New opportunities to liberalise trade would inevitably give more opportunities to British businesses and create jobs. I don't take that comment back because it is true.

Whaaaatever