Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007

First Up wrote: »

Not quite. It could be revoked but only if all 27 members agree -and they could each set conditions.

Under which provision of the treaties is this allowed??? I'm not aware of a single provision of the treaties that even remotely suggest that A50 can be revoked.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Repeatedly citing a metric that excludes Britain's biggest trade output namely services is silly.

We have been discussing trade agreements. And of course not even one example of what will turn those figures around after BREXIT.

solodeogloria wrote: »

48% is wrong. It was 44% in 2016,

48% as of Feb 2017!

First Up

Jim2007 wrote: »

Under which provision of the treaties is this allowed??? I'm not aware of a single provision of the treaties that even remotely suggest that A50 can be revoked.

The European Parliament has reportedly laid the ground for such a move, but it wouldn't be straightforward.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!


Secondly - why do you think Britain has less chance of securing a FTA then Iceland does? You completely ignored this point.

Iceland has something that China wants - seafood. Otherwise, China has little competition from Iceland and so it suits them as well.

You need to look at what China imports to see how easy a FTA will be. The main thing I think they need is food, and the UK isn't a big food exporter. Scottish Whiskey & Salmon might be in demand as well and possibly education (but the UK is blowing that one as all the academics are leaving the UK). Tourism would be big (so easy entry visas!).

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

I have some sympathy for what you say but blood-letting makes a mess and it was dropped as a medical practice some time ago.

I'd prefer to see the blood spilled over the floor of Westminster than all over the British economy. A Tory implosion, a (Corbynless) Labour/SD revival, an election and a return to sanity would be preferable in my book.

You and me both, but we are where we are and it is what it is at this juncture.

First Up

Lemming wrote:

You and me both, but we are where we are and it is what it is at this juncture.

If they leave, they leave and we will all pick at the bones while getting on with it. But Brexit is going to be very ugly and there are people in the UK I care about. I'd take a few years of political chaos and social friction over the vision of the country that the likes of Farage have in mind.

Jim2007

First Up wrote: »

The European Parliament has reportedly laid the ground for such a move, but it wouldn't be straightforward.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3

The EU parliament has no authority to change a treaty and no amount of resolutions can change that. Any EU citizen (suggest UKIP member) could take a case requiring that A50 be completed.

Capt'n Midnight

jm08 wrote: »

Iceland has something that China wants - seafood. Otherwise, China has little competition from Iceland and so it suits them as well.

You need to look at what China imports to see how easy a FTA will be. The main thing I think they need is food, and the UK isn't a big food exporter. Scottish Whiskey & Salmon might be in demand as well and possibly education (but the UK is blowing that one as all the academics are leaving the UK). Tourism would be big (so easy entry visas!).

I've already posted that the UK has already bent the knee to China , using its EU influence to allow steel dumping.

BTW thanks to lots of cheap energy 70% of Iceland's electricity is used to smelt Aluminium. And the North East passage is open these days. And China is a nett exporter of aluminium, so conflict of interest there.

Iceland exports fish to the EU along with aluminium and now pharma.

First Up

Jim2007 wrote:

The EU parliament has no authority to change a treaty and no amount of resolutions can change that. Any EU citizen (suggest UKIP member) could take a case requiring that A50 be completed.

The UK would need to go through its own steps but if they asked to revoke A50, it would be the EP that would approve the process, subject to the agreement of all 27 members.

It has never happened so we would be in uncharted water but the EU makes its laws and can amend them.

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

If they leave, they leave and we will all pick at the bones while getting on with it. But Brexit is going to be very ugly and there are people in the UK I care about. I'd take a few years of political chaos and social friction over the vision of the country that the likes of Farage have in mind.

It is going to be incredibly ugly any which way it pans out now because of where the UK's "leaders" braying donkeys have led the union. Back out and there'll be political & social chaos; proceed and there'll be political, social, and economic chaos on a scale not imagined - not even in the sh1ttest days of the sh1ttest years of 1980s Britain. The union - and indeed England - has quite literally been torn in two with little hope of reconciliation. All those people pinning their hopes on Labour to halt the madness - specifically Corbyn's Labour - are going to be bitterly angry which will only add fuel to the political chaos.

First Up

Lemming wrote:

All those people pinning their hopes on Labour to halt the madness - specifically Corbyn's Labour - are going to be bitterly angry which will only add fuel to the political chaos.

I'm not pinning any hopes on Corbyn or Labour. I don't think there is anything much to be hopeful about. But there is almost certainly going to be chaos and who knows how that will end up.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can you explain how staying in the single market doesn't satisfy these conditions?

It could potentially if the UK left the customs union. Norway has the right to carry out it's own free trade agreements. That's a great advantage.

The reason why the Norwegian option is off the table is because it doesn't allow the UK to begin to control immigration. I agree that the UK can't cherry pick what it likes from single market membership which is why I think being outside with a third party free trade deal is better.

First Up wrote: »

Why do you bother?

It's hard being one of the few people providing genuine balance on this thread.

There's really no need to be so rude. We don't have to agree and you don't have to reply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

solodeogloria wrote:

There's really no need to be so rude. We don't have to agree and you don't have to reply.

I wasn't talking to you.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!



It could potentially if the UK left the customs union. Norway has the right to carry out it's own free trade agreements. That's a great advantage.

The reason why the Norwegian option is off the table is because it doesn't allow the UK to begin to control immigration. I agree that the UK can't cherry pick what it likes from single market membership which is why I think being outside with a third party free trade deal is better.



It's hard being one of the few people providing genuine balance on this thread.

There's really no need to be so rude. We don't have to agree and you don't have to reply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No, you missunderstand. If the best deal for the UK involves getting the most they can from the single market then why not stay in the single market.

Also who has indicated they might trade with the UK?

Nody

Lemming wrote: »

It is going to be incredibly ugly any which way it pans out now because of where the UK's "leaders" braying donkeys have led the union. Back out and there'll be political & social chaos; proceed and there'll be political, social, and economic chaos on a scale not imagined - not even in the sh1ttest days of the sh1ttest years of 1980s Britain. The union - and indeed England - has quite literally been torn in two with little hope of reconciliation. All those people pinning their hopes on Labour to halt the madness - specifically Corbyn's Labour - are going to be bitterly angry which will only add fuel to the political chaos.

I can see where you're coming from but I'll play you a slightly different scenario which I think is more likely.

Hard brexit happens in some form, trade deal with EU will be negotiated after with a spin on how it's all EU's fault really. Keep in mind all the newspapers are spinning this story how EU were really a bunch of country oafs who refused the reasonable and even at times noble offers and sacrifices of UK. But don't worry; UK's leadership team has delivered on their promise and they will sort this out in a jiffy just wait and see. Election comes around and still no trade deals on the table but promises Tory we're due to close them any day now and it will allow honey and milk to run down the streets while yet another leadership struggle is ongoing in the party. Now during these years food prices have gone up due to more imports are required as the UK farmers can't get the numbers of short term unskilled labour required to harvest, energy costs are up etc. and salaries are not growing with inflation. Any bad news from EU are seized up on as proof of why leaving EU was the right thing to do; I expect Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia may be examples here of fines for not following the rules etc.

Corbyn takes the election on the promise of green forests and a new improved social economy with a raised minimum wage, increased decentralisation and more money to everyone (somehow). Of course Corbyn fails to unite his party's wings and the polices promised are not delivered or have the intended effect. The new minimum wage due to inflation, lower hours and business not doing to hot simply leads to more people unemployed or working less hours overall. The decentralisation has lead to the different regional parliaments all wanting to go in their own direction all stoking their local version of nationalism for why they are right and should get more money.

Overall by 2024 the economy has stagnated, the previous economical powerhouse of London providing the cash to the rest of UK keeps providing less and less tax money as banks move out function by function in a drip drop effect. There's been multiple articles series about the NHS "brain drain" of students moving to Dubai, Australia etc. (but not EU or only as a side note) but the real loss is from the non NHS companies. Not only can they not recruit all the skilled people they need they had a huge brain drain which they can't replace with UK or non UK staff leading to more outsourcing of work to India and the like. The manufacturing business has taken a hit from the FTA with China and USA where USA has run out most of the mid/lower end farming out of business due to being allowed to use lower than UK standards to produce leaving only the more exclusive stuff around. China on the other hand has taken on a lot of the manufacturing jobs and doing inroads on services. There are regular complaints about China's state funded companies dumping prices and having unfair competition but UK government don't dare to raise a real WTO dispute and settle for diplomat complaints etc. which China promises to fix (but never do). People complain about the poor quality compared to the old days but in the end the buyers vote with their feet for the cheapest product anyway as they feel the pinch. The election sees Tories winning the power again with the support of a new support party.

In short I don't see a social chaos erupting as much as a slow decay of living standards, food standards etc. The working and middle class will not rise in uproar but will be lead around the nose by the press with faux uproars about this or that to distract them from the morass that UK is finding themselves in. I'd predict it taking at least 4 or 5 elections before a major (i.e. top two) party would even suggest considering rejoining EU again and that party is unlikely to win while the press runs a long campaign of "how bad it is in EU" during the election cycle while during these years those who can and have the will are actively leaving the country for greener pastures delivering a significant brain drain on the economy and people who works as firebrands to change things around. To stop the people feeling and economy from feeling to much pain the government will constantly increase their borrowing until the point IMF will have to get involved. Think Argentina more than Venezuela basically.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

No, you missunderstand. If the best deal for the UK involves getting the most they can from the single market then why not stay in the single market.

Also who has indicated they might trade with the UK?

Hi,

My opinion is still that being outside after a transition is better. There's a lot of potential answers to what's the best trade deal for the UK. The best one in my mind would be one that gives the maximum amount of control with the maximum amount of trade.

Given that single market membership doesn't allow for addressing one of the major issues in the referendum it seems politically unacceptable. If the EU were willing to allow for controls on low skilled labour I would consider it but I would be accused of asking for pick and mix membership of the single market. Note that I don't support controls on skilled labour apart from a show of qualifications and agreed salary.

As discussed already leaving the customs union after a transition again is the only option that allows the UK to agree trade deals with other countries. So that has to be out also.

Now on the transition. I personally would be willing to accept membership of both for a transition. Why? I think it's because (as good as the Government's proposals are) they will be deemed unacceptable in Brussels.

A gradual get out plan which would drop customs union membership after 2 years and single market membership after 4 years after agreeing trade terms with the EU and done third countries would seem reasonable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Hi,

My opinion is still that being outside after a transition is better. There's a lot of potential answers to what's the best trade deal for the UK. The best one in my mind would be one that gives the maximum amount of control with the maximum amount of trade.

Given that single market membership doesn't allow for addressing one of the major issues in the referendum it seems politically unacceptable. If the EU were willing to allow for controls on low skilled labour I would consider it but I would be accused of asking for pick and mix membership of the single market. Note that I don't support controls on skilled labour apart from a show of qualifications and agreed salary.

As discussed already leaving the customs union after a transition again is the only option that allows the UK to agree trade deals with other countries. So that has to be out also.

Now on the transition. I personally would be willing to accept membership of both for a transition. Why? I think it's because (as good as the Government's proposals are) they will be deemed unacceptable in Brussels.

A gradual get out plan which would drop customs union membership after 2 years and single market membership after 4 years after agreeing trade terms with the EU and done third countries would seem reasonable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Do you understand the connection between trading partners and proximity? For instance do you think trading partners are better closer or far away?

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you understand the connection between trading partners and proximity? For instance do you think trading partners are better closer or far away?

Good evening!

Last post for today. I agree to a degree but only a degree. Proximity is important but it's less important in the world now as it was decades ago.

Britain's trade with the wider world has been increasing. As far as single countries go America is huge. Here's what the Office of National Statistics think:

Trade relationships are usually stronger between neighbouring countries, and with countries with large economies. China and the US are large economies and are important UK trading partners even accounting for their distance from us.

However, distance is important. The value of the UK’s trading relationship with Ireland is higher than the value of UK trade with Italy or Spain. Ireland is the UK’s neighbour, even though the total size of its economy is much smaller than Italy’s or Spain’s.

It's a bit of proximity and large economies. With 56% of trade outside the EU I think the UK needs a model to allow it to better grow trade with those economies. Also proximity matters more with physical goods but not so much with services.

It also depends on the company. For example JCB do much more trade outside the EU. So much so the company owner was pro-Brexit. There are other companies that are hugely dependent on EU trade.

We need to hammer out a solution that addresses both. This is a no brainer to me.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

One issue not considered in the analysis of the medium term, is the attrition of the Grim Reaper on the older citizens, the vast majority of whom voted for Brexit.

The younger voter who voted largely to remain will get angrier as the UK economy stagnates and reverses. Any one willing to play a longer game, can see the majority will be in favour of staying/rejoining the EU.
How long will it take for that to come about, 5-10 years?

First Up

Nody wrote:

In short I don't see a social chaos erupting as much as a slow decay of living standards, food standards etc. The working and middle class will not rise in uproar but will be lead around the nose by the press with faux uproars about this or that to distract them from the morass that UK is finding themselves in.

Slow decay and decline is certain but how it plays out politically and socially is guesswork.

UK industry will suffer and jobs will be lost. Living costs will rise but property will probably be cheaper as the market depresses and sterling falls. That will suit the Arabs and Russians but won't do much for the locals.

The nonsense about new trade deals will be exposed quickly enough but that's over the head of your average joe.

The most likely early developments will be political as I don't see either the Tories or Labour coming through intact. The Brexiteers won't be happy when the negotiators come back with their heads under their arms and the Labour left will have to be seen to respond to the impact on the working man (who will be working less.)

We'll see new party leaders emerge; I just hope some of them aren't populist opportunists. The UK is desperately short of people up to the job but it sort of serves them right; you got the politicians you elect - and deserve.

solodeogloria

First Up wrote: »

Slow decay and decline is certain but how it plays out politically and socially is guesswork.

UK industry will suffer and jobs will be lost. Living costs will rise but property will probably be cheaper as the market depresses and sterling falls. That will suit the Arabs and Russians but won't do much for the locals.

The nonsense about new trade deals will be exposed quickly enough but that's over the head of your average joe.

The most likely early developments will be political as I don't see either the Tories or Labour coming through intact. The Brexiteers won't be happy when the negotiators come back with their heads under their arms and the Labour left will have to be seen to respond to the impact on the working man (who will be working less.)

We'll see new party leaders emerge; I just hope some of them aren't populist opportunists. The UK is desperately short of people up to the job but it sort of serves them right; you got the politicians you elect - and deserve.

Good evening!

I genuinely don't understand how you can get to this kind of apocalyptic vision from where we are now.

It is in nobody's interests not to conclude some form of a deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Last post for today. I agree to a degree but only a degree. Proximity is important but it's less important in the world now as it was decades ago.

Britain's trade with the wider world has been increasing. As far as single countries go America is huge. Here's what the Office of National Statistics think:


It's a bit of proximity and large economies. With 56% of trade outside the EU I think the UK needs a model to allow it to better grow trade with those economies. Also proximity matters more with physical goods but not so much with services.

It also depends on the company. For example JCB do much more trade outside the EU. So much so the company owner was pro-Brexit. There are other companies that are hugely dependent on EU trade.

We need to hammer out a solution that addresses both. This is a no brainer to me.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's a no brainer alright. Your link reminds us of the fact trade is most important with neighbouring countries and you choose to discount that. You think reducing trade with neighbouring countries (EU) will lead to increased posperity for the UK. I find it very hard to accept you believe what you posted.

steddyeddy

David Davis has a new tactic. He's going to demand more flexibility in the negotiations. All this while the leaders of EU27 decide whether to allow trade talks to proceed. That's control ladies and gentlemen.

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/david-davis-to-demand-more-flexibility-from-brussels-in-brexit-negotiations-11364207334116

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand how you can get to this kind of apocalyptic vision from where we are now

The Punt would be worth £1.17 today. Does that not ring any alarm bells at all??

Jaggo

jm08 wrote: »

Iceland has something that China wants - seafood. Otherwise, China has little competition from Iceland and so it suits them as well.

You need to look at what China imports to see how easy a FTA will be. The main thing I think they need is food, and the UK isn't a big food exporter. Scottish Whiskey & Salmon might be in demand as well and possibly education (but the UK is blowing that one as all the academics are leaving the UK). Tourism would be big (so easy entry visas!).

This is true, but one thing else, Iceland had a strong negotiating position as it is one of the countries on the Arctic Council. The Council is dealing with shipping through the arctic sea and Iceland is one of 8 countries on it. As part of China's FTA with Iceland, Iceland agreed to grant China observer status to the negotiations.
http://www.dw.com/en/china-iceland-sign-strategic-free-trade-agreement/a-16745190
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9995525/Iceland-first-European-country-to-sign-free-trade-agreement-with-China.html

Even with this strong position, (they could offer china something no one else could) Iceland only got to sell Fish to china and China got to sell everything else to Iceland.
Note, Iceland's second largest export, financial services didn't get a look in. All financial companies in china are owned by chinese, there is nothing in this FTA that can give Brexiters any hope.

Lemming

Nody wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from but I'll play you a slightly different scenario which I think is more likely.

Hard brexit happens in some form, trade deal with EU will be negotiated after with a spin on how it's all EU's fault really.

...

In short I don't see a social chaos erupting as much as a slow decay of living standards, food standards etc. The working and middle class will not rise in uproar but will be lead around the nose by the press with faux uproars about this or that to distract them from the morass that UK is finding themselves in. I'd predict it taking at least 4 or 5 elections before a major (i.e. top two) party would even suggest considering rejoining EU again and that party is unlikely to win while the press runs a long campaign of "how bad it is in EU" during the election cycle while during these years those who can and have the will are actively leaving the country for greener pastures delivering a significant brain drain on the economy and people who works as firebrands to change things around. To stop the people feeling and economy from feeling to much pain the government will constantly increase their borrowing until the point IMF will have to get involved. Think Argentina more than Venezuela basically.

Apologies for the quote tennis. I don't disagree with anything you wrote and I agree with it save to elaborate on the chaos elements. I'm in agreement with First Up that economically it'll be a slow decay, but politically it'll be an absolute trainwreck in slow-motion with a rail car full of fireworks for good measure. The paralysis of government would hasten the social chaos I mentioned as local services in turn become paralysed due to nobody being able to make decisions or eventually sign off on budgets from higher up. I don't talk literally of the middle classes engaging in riots, but it wont take long from the point of mass unemployment to seeing what social services remain decay further to create tinder box flash-points (think 1980s South Yorkshire miners strikes or the riots across England around 2013) in which a lot of pent up frustration & anger boils over and police forces that would at that point have been mercilessly tortured with ever declining funding & resources struggle to contain - which would quite possibly lead to the army being deployed to assist in such a context on mainland soil. Remember that the UK has a large working class population, many of whom will not have seen much of an improvement in living standards for a decade already.

Edit: as for the "it's all the EU's fault"; it'd be funny if it weren't so seriously tragic. Playing to the home gallery is of zero benefit because it's not the home gallery that needs convinced. Indeed much of that playing is alienating the people that really do need convinced.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But "take back control" was not what the referendum asked:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

There was nothing in there about control, the single market or customs union, just two options:



Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

The Tories are not choosing Hard Brexit because they have to, they are doing it because it kills the threat from UKIP and the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party to the leadership.

I'm aware of that options were presented to the British public. What you are doing is ignoring the reason a lot certain sector of the British public voted for brexit.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

I'm not pinning any hopes on Corbyn or Labour. I don't think there is anything much to be hopeful about. But there is almost certainly going to be chaos and who knows how that will end up.

There's been too much backstabbing for the current bunch of Tories to yield power before the next election.

Which means Labour can say anything they damn well please because it means squat.


Even if you pretend that they will get into power before the deadline and get rid of the hard left and somehow get a deal or extension they have already committed to Brexit.

Yes they said Customs Union, but how would they get that deal ? How would they keep the seizable chunk of their voters who voted to exit happy ?

Another circle to be squared.


Unless there is a sea change in public opinion.

jm08

Jaggo wrote: »

This is true, but one thing else, Iceland had a strong negotiating position as it is one of the countries on the Arctic Council. The Council is dealing with shipping through the arctic sea and Iceland is one of 8 countries on it. As part of China's FTA with Iceland, Iceland agreed to grant China observer status to the negotiations.
http://www.dw.com/en/china-iceland-sign-strategic-free-trade-agreement/a-16745190
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9995525/Iceland-first-European-country-to-sign-free-trade-agreement-with-China.html

Even with this strong position, (they could offer china something no one else could) Iceland only got to sell Fish to china and China got to sell everything else to Iceland.
Note, Iceland's second largest export, financial services didn't get a look in. All financial companies in china are owned by chinese, there is nothing in this FTA that can give Brexiters any hope.

The trade is fairly small anyway - China imports about 80 millions worth of fish and about 8 millions worth of aluminium from Iceland. The netherlands is by far Iceland's biggest trading partner (importing 1.1 bn dollars worth).

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

David Davis has a new tactic. He's going to demand more flexibility in the negotiations. All this while the leaders of EU27 decide whether to allow trade talks to proceed. That's control ladies and gentlemen.

So far the UK has been flexible enough to offer EU citizens the exact same rights to stay that were already available to non-EU citizens in similar circumstances. AFAIK to do otherwise would have been a breach of UK law. And they still sent deportation letters to EU citizens who had applied to stay.

The UK has been flexible on customs , a magic computer system will solve all problems without the need for physical borders. This despite the loss of billions in tax to other EU countries because UK customs didn't stop Chinese fraud. If people smuggled stuff across a border when there was a "shoot to kill" policy you can take a wild guess at how well I think an invisible border will work.

The UK is so flexible on Data Protection which underpins financial services, that they pretend that it's not worth mentioning that David Davis himself has successfully challenged UK data retention law in the ECJ.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm aware of that options were presented to the British public. What you are doing is ignoring the reason a lot certain sector of the British public voted for brexit.

Yes, but Brexit was only carried by a 52:48 vote, remember. If even one Brexit voter in 20 favoured staying the the customs union, or would feel that accepting ECJ jurisdiction over aviation was a good deal if it meant staying in the Aviation Area, etc, then the likelihood is that there is majority support for policies like this.

We don't know, of course, because voters weren't asked. Which means its down to Parliament and the government to frame policy on such matters.

Samaris

The Labour policy won't work, and ironically, will give the issues that the Brexiteers have been whipping up hysteria about. Try take a Norway deal and the UK will still have to abide by a fair amount of the stuff it doesn't like only the UK will have no say in it.

Like it or not, it's too late for a "soft Brexit". Britain won't stand for it.

Now, the EU might allow it. Britain stays in, remains part of the trading area, can still trade with them and they probably won't plummet into another recession. Also, the EU gets to get on with what it's doing without Britain swinging the veto like a sock with a half-brick in it.

Sadly, at this point, I think it is best for both Britain and the EU if Britain shoos itself. Britain has mostly been a headache to the bloc. The point is that shooing itself is difficult - soft Brexit will not be accepted once it's explained (although they could go with a tried and tested Tory method at this point, explain it as "Soft Brexit means Soft Brexit", tell a pack of lies and then wonder why people are still mad). Hard Brexit is going to be rough as hell.

Solo - regarding the Iceland point, no, I was not joking. Iceland may be smaller than Britain but crucially, it is not relying on the China deal. It is already in a self-supporting position, and is expanding trade, not starting trade. It would be good for both, so both parties have some vested interest and no interest in waiting for the other country to be desperate. There is no ticking clock. Britain may be very big and have a strong manufacturing industry etcetera, but don't think other countries won't know that Britain's very future hangs on getting these deals. That is why Britain is in a weak negotiating position compared to say, Iceland making one deal. Britain will still be importing large sections of the quotas it signed up to of EU-imported foodstuffs; the current agreement is that Britain will carve out its portion and hike off with it. So Britain will be importing on a weak Sterling (which is the bad way around) from the get-go, and will desperately need to set up export routes to offset the costs (on a weak Sterling, which is good ...once they have some). It is also now in competition with the EU, and EU goods, thanks to strong regulations, are a known quantity. How is Britain to compete with a close, large exporter like that? Well, you know that bonfire of regulations Britain's been advocating? Sure, Britain might be able to undercut there, but they're pretty much going to have to advertise that their goods are lower quality than those of the EU (thanks to that bonfire of regulations that has been cheered on) and hope that their relative cheapness will attract consumers. Or keep the regulations and be able to export to the EU...although that's another promise (said bonfire) gone out the window (where it belongs, because it was a stupid promise).


That is the catch-22 there, not the size of Iceland.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's a no brainer alright. Your link reminds us of the fact trade is most important with neighbouring countries and you choose to discount that. You think reducing trade with neighbouring countries (EU) will lead to increased posperity for the UK. I find it very hard to accept you believe what you posted.

Good morning!

No. I acknowledged that distance is partially important but that large global economies are also important. My view reflects the understanding of the Office of National Statistics and I'm not interested in bending their analysis to suit my own conclusion.

There is a huge fallacy on this thread. People are presenting my position as trade with the EU vs trade with the wider world. The answer is both.

The reason why I can have open eyed optimism about the future in the UK is because it's clearly interested in continuing trade with the EU in addition to liberalising trade with the wider world. I'm looking to maintain as much trade with the EU as possible.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

In that case, that bonfire of regulations promise bears more looking at. The EU won't accept unregulated goods, or goods with less stringent regulations on quality than their own.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reason why I can have open eyed optimism about the future in the UK is because it's clearly interested in continuing trade with the EU in addition to liberalising trade with the wider world. I'm looking to maintain as much trade with the EU as possible.

You may be, but the British government clearly isn't. They have drawn a number of red lines around their own negotiating position which, if stuck to, mean that future terms for trading with the EU will be significantly more restrictive than the terms they enjoy at present.

Essentially, the UK government is targetting lousier terms for trading with the EU, in the hope that they will be able to negotiate better trading terms with third countries than they would get if they remained in the EU - not just better, in fact, but so much better that the advantage accruing will more that offset the detriment resulting from the lousier EU terms.

I've said before that I think this looks like a wildly unlikely outcome, and I have seen no serious attempt from anyone - not even from you, solo - to explain why anyone would expect it. Just a bit of handwaving about the UK being more "nimble" that, when challenged, was neither defended nor justified.

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

In that case, that bonfire of regulations promise bears more looking at. The EU won't accept unregulated goods, or goods with less stringent regulations on quality than their own.

Good morning!

Again, we've been through this many, many, many times on this thread. It is getting a touch repetitive. I may have to go and find posts I've already made and quote them instead.

Obviously when you're exporting to third countries that you comply to their regulations. When shipping to America British exporters comply with American regulations, when shipping to the EU they will comply to the EU. Depending on what markets they trade with they will always be subject to regulations. As for why anyone thinks I would have any issue at all with this is another question.

The advantage is that after Brexit, the political union with the EU will end. A great deal more decisions will be able to be made in the UK domestically than would be typically made outside.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may be, but the British government clearly isn't. They have drawn a number of red lines around their own negotiating position which, if stuck to, mean that future terms for trading with the EU will be significantly more restrictive than the terms they enjoy at present.

My ultimate destination is still outside the customs union and single market. I'm open to considering Labour's proposal as long as it is strictly time limited. Drop customs union first after agreeing new customs terms with the EU, and drop the single market after arranging a free trade deal with the EU and with other parties.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Has there been any economic good news out of the UK since Brexit was initiated apart from exporters and foreign investors who've benefited from the drop in Sterling at the expense of locals ?


Outside of Greater London the vast majority of BHS store locations are still empty a year after they closed. Prime retail locations.

Ford, BMW, Vauxhall and Mercedes are offering scrappage deals because demand for new cars is beginning to show signs of a sustained drop for the first time in around six years.

Havockk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously when you're exporting to third countries that you comply to their regulations. When shipping to America British exporters comply with American regulations, when shipping to the EU they will comply to the EU. Depending on what markets they trade with they will always be subject to regulations. As for why anyone thinks I would have any issue at all with this is another question.

Which is why being in the EU was great for manufacturers, having a unified set of regs. UK manufacturers and providers having to comply with multiple regulations for each export jurisdiction is such a silly plan that it could have been straight out of the mouth of David Davis himself.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously when you're exporting to third countries that you comply to their regulations. When shipping to America British exporters comply with American regulations, when shipping to the EU they will comply to the EU. Depending on what markets they trade with they will always be subject to regulations. As for why anyone thinks I would have any issue at all with this is another question.

Great, we have that sorted. Now, here is a rhetorical question.

Q: How are these standards and regulations checked?
A: Through customs checks at point of entry i.e. a hard border.

So if the UK is producing goods for the domestic market, for export to the US or for export to the EU, how does the EU know which ones it is getting? By implementing customs checks on a hard border. Leaving the customs union requires a hard border, simple as.

It is amazing that some people are making the illogical leap that says you can leave the customs union but have a frictionless border.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The advantage is that after Brexit, the political union with the EU will end. A great deal more decisions will be able to be made in the UK domestically than would be typically made outside.

Given the options to the UK government at the council of ministers, that is really not much of a point. It is just a matter of where the UK government has it's say.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Obviously when you're exporting to third countries that you comply to their regulations. When shipping to America British exporters comply with American regulations, when shipping to the EU they will comply to the EU. Depending on what markets they trade with they will always be subject to regulations. As for why anyone thinks I would have any issue at all with this is another question.

The advantage is that after Brexit, the political union with the EU will end. A great deal more decisions will be able to be made in the UK domestically than would be typically made outside.

So UK manufacturers will now be free to decide to comply with EU regulations, as opposed to the former tyrannical state of affairs in which the UK agreed to comply with EU regulations.

And for this they are leaving the largest and freest free trade area the world has ever seen? Please!

Billy86

Working on a contract in the public sector at the moment and someone (who is both shockingly overpaid and shockingly useless at their job) in the office was on about how Brexit is a good thing and Ireland should do the same, to which a different colleague (sarcastically) put to them then that they should quit the union, look to cancel their current contract and then go back to negotiate better terms for themselves than they currently have. Kind of summed up the stupidity of the whole idea very quickly, in my opinion.

Anyway the GBP was worth €1.0804 this morning, getting closer and closer to parity. The only times the GBP has ever been below €1.08 to the EUR were about two weeks around new year 2008/09, a week in January 2009 and another two weeks in March 2009. Those were quite temporary and wildly tumultuous times due to the nature of the financial crash, whereas this looks more steady and enduring.

Jim2007

Billy86 wrote: »

Working on a contract in the public sector at the moment and someone (who is both shockingly overpaid and shockingly useless at their job) in the office was on about how Brexit is a good thing and Ireland should do the same, to which a different colleague (sarcastically) put to them then that they should quit the union, look to cancel their current contract and then go back to negotiate better terms for themselves than they currently have. Kind of summed up the stupidity of the whole idea very quickly, in my opinion.

Anyway the GBP was worth €1.0804 this morning, getting closer and closer to parity. The only times the GBP has ever been below €1.08 to the EUR were about two weeks around new year 2008/09, a week in January 2009 and another two weeks in March 2009. Those were quite temporary and wildly tumultuous times due to the nature of the financial crash, whereas this looks more steady and enduring.

Here is the chart:

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What you are doing is ignoring the reason a lot certain sector of the British public voted for brexit.

What you are doing is pretending that you know why the British public voted the way it did, and then pretending that that means British politicians have no choice but to wreck the UK.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm looking to maintain as much trade with the EU as possible.

If that was what you wanted, you would stay in the EU. As you know very well, "remain" voter that you are.

But, if leaving, you would stay in the Single Market.

Or, if leaving that, you would stay in the customs union.

But no, because of reasons, you are leaving all 3. So "as much trade as possible" will be considerably less than today. Enjoy your recession.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Essentially, the UK government is targetting lousier terms for trading with the EU, in the hope that they will be able to negotiate better trading terms with third countries than they would get if they remained in the EU - not just better, in fact, but so much better that the advantage accruing will more that offset the detriment resulting from the lousier EU terms.

Perhaps Solo believes like Fred, that the threat to damage trade with the EU is intended only to make the EU agree to some special deal. If so, they are about to find that the EU is too big to threaten that way.

But I think they really intend to damage trade, and the position papers are intended only to lay the blame with the EU afterwards.

Sam Russell

I came across this on a web site selling bicycles. Now I am not sure how big a company it is, but it indicates a view I find amusing, in a Brexit sort of way.

All products meet UK standards and are set up with UK braking, not European bikes set up for Europe!!

Perhaps this says it all - note the double exclamation mark. I think gravity and the laws of physics are more or less the same in the UK and Europe, but perhaps there may be a difference.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

I came across this on a web site selling bicycles. Now I am not sure how big a company it is, but it indicates a view I find amusing, in a Brexit sort of way.



Perhaps this says it all - note the double exclamation mark. I think gravity and the laws of physics are more or less the same in the UK and Europe, but perhaps there may be a difference.

You do realise that in the UK and Ireland, the standard is for the front brake to be on the right, whereas in the rest of europe it is the left?

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps Solo believes like Fred, that the threat to damage trade with the EU is intended only to make the EU agree to some special deal. If so, they are about to find that the EU is too big to threaten that way.

But I think they really intend to damage trade, and the position papers are intended only to lay the blame with the EU afterwards.

how do you know what I believe?

Jim2007

Sam Russell wrote: »

I came across this on a web site selling bicycles. Now I am not sure how big a company it is, but it indicates a view I find amusing, in a Brexit sort of way.

Perhaps this says it all - note the double exclamation mark. I think gravity and the laws of physics are more or less the same in the UK and Europe, but perhaps there may be a difference.

Actually there may well be a difference - my Swiss bike has the brake leavers reversed...