Brexit discussion thread II

Leonard Hofstadter

Sam Russell wrote: »

Don't mention Trump. They have enough trouble with Boeing.

Talking of Boeing, would the EU intervene and use some muscle to help out our new Canadian best friends? Would they be more likely if the UK was not leaving the EU?

Ha, I see what you did there! Wasn't intentional as I can't stand the man! I bet if it was a country staying in the EU they would. As has been pointed out before, the US never dared to do anything against Airbus even though (unlike Bombardier) they compete directly with Boeing.

This is one of the advantages of being in a massive trade block (the single market/EU), the market is large enough and attractive enough for other third countries to want to do a deal with, but equally the EU single market is large enough that we don't have to have trade deals with other third countries. They're a kind of nice little luxury but we can manage without them, even with the UK gone there is still a single market for 440 million, that's a lot so there's plenty of room for competition and innovation.

Because we're not desperate for trade deals (even though we'd like them at the same time) it means that to use Theresa May's favourite phrase 'no deal is better than a bad deal', which when it comes to trade deals can often be the case (e.g. US-Australia), more often than not the EU has the upper hand in trade deals due to its sheer size and the fact that the single market is the world's wealthiest trading bloc so it can hold the line on environmental and food standards and force everyone up to their level rather than allowing any old thing because you're so desperate for a trade deal (like what might happen in Brexit Britain).

Junkyard Tom

This is the salient point when it comes to Brexit that I keep returning to in my thoughts.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Brexit will be an education in how a false sense of one's place in the world can have consequences.

In the clip below we can listen to the absolute disconnect from reality UKIP and Rule Britannia types have. Just listen to the utter idiocy of the UKIP peer contrasted with Ian Dunt speaking of the deeply damaging realities a bad Brexit could inflict on the British population.

https://youtu.be/Aetus_o1RnE?t=59

jimmycrackcorm

PeadarCo wrote: »

Well that seems to be what UK government has been saying for since brexit started. The UK has decided its leaving. Please over us the deal we want. The EU can't and isn't going to stop the UK from leaving. The EU has said if you want to have a trade agreement that goes beyond WTO rules there's our demands. If they are unacceptable to the UK, it leaves and goes trading under WTO rules ( assuming it gets over the objections of other WTO members)

The analogy made be crude but it sums up the situation. The UK badly needs some sort of deal. Its the reason there is so much debate and division in the UK over it. For the EU no politician will lose their job. It is up to the UK to offer a deal that's acceptable to the EU not the other way around.

TLDR. Husband decides he wants to leave his wife and family home. He gets to live in a grotty bedsit, still has to pay the mortgage, but at least he has his freedom.

sink

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

In the clip below we can listen to the absolute disconnect from reality UKIP and Rule Britannia types have. Just listen to the utter idiocy of the UKIP peer contrasted with Ian Dunt speaking of the deeply damaging realities a bad Brexit could inflict on the British population.

https://youtu.be/Aetus_o1RnE?t=59

When he says that they can set up a medicine regulator in a fortnight with no budget you have to wonder about his sanity. It's like claiming you can build an commercial aeroplane out of cardboard and superglue. He is reasoning on the level of a cargo cult, dress up like an aeroplane and pray to the sky and maybe some rations will fall.

Nody

captainspeed wrote: »

A genuine question: can the EU block the UK from joining the WTO? The UK after is a member at present via the EU but they will need to go in as their own country post-Brexit. If they can then that is quite a trump card the EU has over the UK (in addition to all the other trump cards they have).

UK is in a hybrid set up where they are part of WTO as a country and the EU block as well; that's why an agreement needs to be reached on their share of the EU quotas to be able to act as it's own again. That's also what the recent Canada, NZ, Australia, USA etc. rejection was about; if the other countries don't accept the split UK in practice can't sign new WTO trade deals or invoke old once because their share of imports are not clear. What makes it even more interesting of course is the export side of things; once UK have left EU in April 2019 and try to export under the quotas agreed by EU if an agreement has not been reached they are likely to be rejected and told full WTO tariffs apply since they are no longer part of EU.

And to help put things in perspective here's an interview done by the CNN with opinion of Pascal Lamy (European Commissioner for Trade 1999-2004 and head of WTO 2005-2013) who answered when asked if trading on WTO terms would be enough simply with a "No, that's why UK joined EU in the first place" and also shoots down the idea of UK getting better FTA then what EU has been able to get. I'd strongly recommend watching the interview for our Brexiteers here but of course with him being an expert and previous head of the WTO I'm sure his opinion will simply be ignored since it's all part of project fear...

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are being intransigent

Good.

The Prime Minister could have climbed down any time since the referendum, but she hasn't because she's aiming to deliver the referendum result

She has changed tack completely because the referendum, held to marginalize the Tory Eurosceptics, backfired and strengthened the Eurosceptic wing of the party, and she had to change sides to get the top job.

If internal Tory party politics dictated that she should change back, announce Parliament is sovereign and hang the referendum result to stay at number 10, she would do so in a heartbeat.

Calina

BoatMad wrote: »

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Are you sure? Does ratifying Brexit require a constitutional amendment?

Nate

believe so in Ireland , its a mod to the treaties

It is unlikely. We don't have a referendum every time there is a new member or trade deal. This is a) reverse new member (one leaving) and b) possibly a trade deal at some point in the future.

This is not a substantive mod to the treaties. The list of countries changes but the provisions within the treaties do not.

In any case we don't ratify Brexit. Only the UK does. We agree an exit arrangement and potentially trade arrangements afterwards.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

And to help put things in perspective here's an interview done by the CNN with opinion of Pascal Lamy (European Commissioner for Trade 1999-2004 and head of WTO 2005-2013) who answered when asked if trading on WTO terms would be enough simply with a "No, that's why UK joined EU in the first place" and also shoots down the idea of UK getting better FTA then what EU has been able to get. I'd strongly recommend watching the interview for our Brexiteers here but of course with him being an expert and previous head of the WTO I'm sure his opinion will simply be ignored since it's all part of project fear...

I think Pascal Lamy puts it in terms that is easy to understand, paraphrasing here, but in a FTA negotiation your weight is the size of your market. In the EU the weight of of the market is 500 million, but the UK is cutting that down now to 60 million or to around 10%-15%. So I would guess the fantasy idea that the UK can just cut and paste FTA with countries that already have ones with the EU will be almost impossible.

Why would South Korea, who I am sure gave up some concessions in the negotiations with the EU, just give those concessions to the UK as well as the EU? What incentive do they have to double their concessions as I am sure the EU will not agree to a 15% cut in the FTA because the UK isn't there any longer? The FTA will continue as is and the UK will have to negotiate its own concessions from the start with those nations, or have a quick deal that will favour the other side as they have been negotiating with the EU and will be up to date on what they want.

LeinsterDub

Theresa May has angered pro-Brexit MPs by conceding that the European court of justice would continue to have jurisdiction over the UK during the “implementation period” when Britain leaves the European Union

An other day an another flip flop on so called UK red lines. It's only a small step away from accepting jurisdiction for ever or 100 years and will have the citizens rights issue resolved

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/brexit-mps-angry-as-theresa-may-accepts-continuing-rule-of-eu-court

Samaris

An interesting bit I came across in reading about the whole thing was that Britain does not have a great deal of negotiators and people trained in agreeing trade deals. Since they joined the EU, it has been the EU negotiating teams to sort out all trade deals. Obviously, some of those people were British, of course, but there hasn't been a need to push for people with those skills in roughly forty years.

When the UK put forward Article 50 (the timing of which was pretty much May's only big card and she did not exploit it at all), the UK had about forty people able for the job (experienced trade negotiators) vs the EU's 550 or thereabout. With those 40, plus some help from New Zealand and perhaps some from Canada (there was a call put out there towards negotiators that had just finished the seven year negotiation for a Canada-EU trade deal, not sure if they got them), minus any of the forty that were London-based in particular and pro-Remain in general that weren't particularly interested in delivering an almost impossible deal that they didn't agree with anyway (that was also an issue with getting people), the UK has to work out the negotiations with the EU, once there's enough progress made there, negotiations with the WTO and other countries - if they have the people. This is just to prevent things not being done in time, regardless of how well the actual negotiations go.

Also, the deal with the EU has to be completed long before March 2019, as all other 27 countries have to ratify it. That's going to be longer than a two month job, the deal has to be struck and agreed between UK and the negotiators by perhaps this time next year to ensure it has time to be passed.

Britain also cannot unilaterally decide to raise or lower tariffs without it hitting all WTO countries, unless there is a specific trade deal in place. They cannot just decide to raise or lower tarrifs on one trading partner without the same effect on all. Brexiters who talk about being able to lower the tariffs to nothing between the UK and EU cannot also argue for a no-deal Brexit, because it simply does not work this way. A taste of this is NZ, Canada and the US going "oy" regarding the quota splits. ("Most favoured nation" rule). This all assumes that the UK can just disentangle its "schedule" from the EU one (the schedule being the list of rules and tariffs that apply to goods being imported and exported). This needs to be argued out for legalities, but let's take the best case scenario, that they can. (If they don't, they start from scratch).

The UK needs to extract its schedule and present it to the WTO. The WTO needs to accept it and any issues need to be dealt with through a process if other countries disagree. So, Britain goes to the WTO and tries to bring along as much of its EU agreements as possible. Every change the UK makes risks trade disputes with other countries - and some of the EU regulations aren't as useful to the UK. Firstly, there's bringing forward all external tariffs that the EU already has, i.e. on cars, etc. It would be suicide to start messing with those, because it's going to take delicate work to get anything through the WTO and changes will absolutely start disputes coming in. This, by the way, means that Britain is not particularly in control of its tariffs and trade. That is the inevitable downside of trading on a world market. The alternative is being North Korea.

Also, some of the tariffs don't really benefit Britain - their main sugar refining is of cane sugar (through Tate & Lyle). The vast majority of European sugar is beet. Protections are on beet. There are also protections on oranges. Tinkering with any of these already opens the UK up to costly trade disputes.

And this is just what happens after if things go okay with the EU. If things don't go okay with the EU, that's 27 aggravated countries in the WTO who can make life difficult.

Those forty trained negotiators are going to be busy.

Samaris

Food for thought - that comment that May made about how Britain wants to take back control of how it labels its goods would actually indicate a removal from the WTO. The rules on international goods labelling comes from the Codex Alimentarius, which sets regulations that go down through the WTO, are accepted by the EU and all countries within.

A lot of the complaining about the EU regarding food labelling wasn't actually to do with the EU (Johnson's moronic EU correspondent articles aside). If May wants to unilaterally decide how Britain labels its foodstuffs and does not abide by the usual rules, they don't sell them to anyone.

So even from that point, it was becoming clear that the politicians in charge of Brexit had little to no idea of what they were actually doing.

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

An interesting bit I came across in reading about the whole thing was that Britain does not have a great deal of negotiators and people trained in agreeing trade deals. Since they joined the EU, it has been the EU negotiating teams to sort out all trade deals. Obviously, some of those people were British, of course, but there hasn't been a need to push for people with those skills in roughly forty years.

When the UK put forward Article 50 (the timing of which was pretty much May's only big card and she did not exploit it at all), the UK had about forty people able for the job (experienced trade negotiators) vs the EU's 550 or thereabout. With those 40, plus some help from New Zealand and perhaps some from Canada (there was a call put out there towards negotiators that had just finished the seven year negotiation for a Canada-EU trade deal, not sure if they got them), minus any of the forty that were London-based in particular and pro-Remain in general that weren't particularly interested in delivering an almost impossible deal that they didn't agree with anyway (that was also an issue with getting people), the UK has to work out the negotiations with the EU, once there's enough progress made there, negotiations with the WTO and other countries - if they have the people. This is just to prevent things not being done in time, regardless of how well the actual negotiations go.

Also, the deal with the EU has to be completed long before March 2019, as all other 27 countries have to ratify it. That's going to be longer than a two month job, the deal has to be struck and agreed between UK and the negotiators by perhaps this time next year to ensure it has time to be passed.

Britain also cannot unilaterally decide to raise or lower tariffs without it hitting all WTO countries, unless there is a specific trade deal in place. They cannot just decide to raise or lower tarrifs on one trading partner without the same effect on all. Brexiters who talk about being able to lower the tariffs to nothing between the UK and EU cannot also argue for a no-deal Brexit, because it simply does not work this way. A taste of this is NZ, Canada and the US going "oy" regarding the quota splits. ("Most favoured nation" rule). This all assumes that the UK can just disentangle its "schedule" from the EU one (the schedule being the list of rules and tariffs that apply to goods being imported and exported). This needs to be argued out for legalities, but let's take the best case scenario, that they can. (If they don't, they start from scratch).

The UK needs to extract its schedule and present it to the WTO. The WTO needs to accept it and any issues need to be dealt with through a process if other countries disagree. So, Britain goes to the WTO and tries to bring along as much of its EU agreements as possible. Every change the UK makes risks trade disputes with other countries - and some of the EU regulations aren't as useful to the UK. Firstly, there's bringing forward all external tariffs that the EU already has, i.e. on cars, etc. It would be suicide to start messing with those, because it's going to take delicate work to get anything through the WTO and changes will absolutely start disputes coming in. This, by the way, means that Britain is not particularly in control of its tariffs and trade. That is the inevitable downside of trading on a world market. The alternative is being North Korea.

Also, some of the tariffs don't really benefit Britain - their main sugar refining is of cane sugar (through Tate & Lyle). The vast majority of European sugar is beet. Protections are on beet. There are also protections on oranges. Tinkering with any of these already opens the UK up to costly trade disputes.

And this is just what happens after if things go okay with the EU. If things don't go okay with the EU, that's 27 aggravated countries in the WTO who can make life difficult.

Those forty trained negotiators are going to be busy.

Good morning!

I'm broadly in agreement that the UK will need to keep its trade schedule broadly in harmony upon retaking its own independent seat on the WTO.

I think Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia have a fair point and steps need to be taken to compromise with them. I think the UK should be willing to take a greater quota to compensate for the lack of flexibility if they don't want to trade more. Keeping the same quota isn't keeping things the same as what they are.

Once the UK sits on the WTO it can propose modifications in due course.

This wrangling with WTO terms shows the obvious disadvantage of giving up control of your trade policy for 40 years.

I think the UK have made reasonable proposals to the EU. I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the Prime Minister has gone as far as she can go.

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An other day an another flip flop on so called UK red lines. It's only a small step away from accepting jurisdiction for ever or 100 years and will have the citizens rights issue resolved

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/brexit-mps-angry-as-theresa-may-accepts-continuing-rule-of-eu-court

They still have to sort out border, bill and rights before a transition deal occurs.

cantwbr1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



I think the UK have made reasonable proposals to the EU. I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the Prime Minister has gone as far as she can go.

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Can you point us to where how far Teresa May can go is defined. As has been pointed out numerous times the entire show is purely to appease the Tory eurosceptics and nothing appears to ever have been defined (in public anyway)

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm broadly in agreement that the UK will need to keep its trade schedule broadly in harmony upon retaking its own independent seat on the WTO.

I think Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia have a fair point and steps need to be taken to compromise with them. I think the UK should be willing to take a greater quota to compensate for the lack of flexibility if they don't want to trade more. Keeping the same quota isn't keeping things the same as what they are.

Once the UK sits on the WTO it can propose modifications in due course.

This wrangling with WTO terms shows the obvious disadvantage of giving up control of your trade policy for 40 years.

I think the UK have made reasonable proposals to the EU. I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the Prime Minister has gone as far as she can go.

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

And the extremely advantageous growth that it had in those same 40 years.



Also there is a large bill to settle before they go off spending money that is owed.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm broadly in agreement that the UK will need to keep its trade schedule broadly in harmony upon retaking its own independent seat on the WTO.

I think Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia have a fair point and steps need to be taken to compromise with them. I think the UK should be willing to take a greater quota to compensate for the lack of flexibility if they don't want to trade more. Keeping the same quota isn't keeping things the same as what they are.

Once the UK sits on the WTO it can propose modifications in due course.

This wrangling with WTO terms shows the obvious disadvantage of giving up control of your trade policy for 40 years.

I think the UK have made reasonable proposals to the EU. I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg that the Prime Minister has gone as far as she can go.

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Firstly Australia didn't sign the letter, it was the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand and Uruguay who signed the letter. I am not sure where Australia stands on this.

I know this may be pointless, but any thoughts on the interview linked with Pascal Lamy and the position the UK will find itself in regarding trade negotiations?

Also, if one of the compromises is that the UK will pay for a transition period then you are delusional. It is not a compromise to pay for access to something. That would mean the position before would have been that the UK expected to have access for free.

In the youtube clip linked by Junkyard Tom with Ian Dunt and Lord Pearson, Ian Dunt talks about the cost that the UK may have to keep paying to the EU. This would be for any EU organization that the UK will use once they are out of the EU. Now before you say they will leave everything there is no way the UK will replicate all the EU institutions that they currently make use of. So there will have to be some payments to the EU even after the UK have left the EU.

So if the UK doesn't want to spend money on setting up a new aviation regulator, or medicines agency, or anything that is currently checked in the EU that the UK uses it will need to keep paying into the EU budget.

LeinsterDub

steddyeddy wrote: »

They still have to sort out border, bill and rights before a transition deal occurs.

Indeed but at this stage any progress is major progress

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Hard Brexit might cost perhaps 10% of the UKs GDP for 10 years, or £3 trillion pounds.

Good luck finding that down the back of the EU contributions sofa.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But I thought the NHS was getting that money after the UK left the EU?!

What a joke this has all become. You know well it will cost hundreds of millions to get even the customs infrastructure in place for heaven's sake.

It's pathetic. Just how much for economic pain are you willing to inflict on those who can't up sticks and leave, all for so called sovereignty (the whole WTO debacle shows that no nation is truly sovereign)?

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm broadly in agreement that the UK will need to keep its trade schedule broadly in harmony upon retaking its own independent seat on the WTO.

Too bad USA, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand and Uruguay now also want their cake and eating it, eh?

So that ain't happening.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This wrangling with WTO terms shows the obvious disadvantage of giving up control of your trade policy for 40 years.

How much of a disadvantage to the UK was getting the benefit of quotas and tariffs levels gained on the back of a 500 million consumers-sized market, again?

solodeogloria wrote: »

In an ideal scenario transitional terms (not an extension of membership) should be agreed that takes the UK out of the political union and allows the UK and the EU to prepare for life outside.

The UK has not made any inroads towards that "ideal scenario" prior to invoking Article 50 TEU or since, so you can safely knock that notion on the head.

The EU has not made much inroads, either.

But then, unlike the UK, it doesn't need to: that's what the balance of power in negotiations is all about.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Otherwise the UK should prepare for no deal using the resources that would have otherwise have gone to Brussels in a transition agreement.

Sorry to break it to you, but as already posted and linked aplenty in the past few days, No.11 Downing Street is sh1t out of luck: the OBR is shortly taking a broadsword to Hammond's Brexit kitty.

Accessorily, that converts as around 9-ish years' worth of government resources husbanding and deficit nursing by Osbourne down the tubes, for the sake of 16 months' worth of rethoric and identity politics.

And I've not mentioned the exit bill, which is on top. I know you're oblivious to it, but well: the exit bill about which the EU will drag the UK kicking and screaming into the ICJ in the Hague in case of no deal/hard Brexit, with a claim for breach of its contractual obligations under the VC which will in all likelihood succeed, and the judgement for which the EU would be able to enforce through the WTO if it needs to.

Thomas__

steddyeddy wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

An other day an another flip flop on so called UK red lines. It's only a small step away from accepting jurisdiction for ever or 100 years and will have the citizens rights issue resolved

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/09/brexit-mps-angry-as-theresa-may-accepts-continuing-rule-of-eu-court

They still have to sort out border, bill and rights before a transition deal occurs.

At the present, it looks more like Mrs May is doing neither of these and simply "preparing" the UK for a hard Brexit to crash out with no deal with the EU and that´s just that. This makes any transition period obsolete because one doesn´t have to get a "transition deal" when there is no deal at all.

It seems that the way I have predicted judged by the behaviour of this present UK govt is going to become the harsh reality and one could see their behaviour as either a mix of desperation and resignation or even worse, a deliberate ill conduct of the negotiations on part of the UK and by that, giving the diehard radical Brexiteers just what they want and this UK govt appears to don´t care about the consequences at all.

There´s again increasing reporting on the doomsday schedule for Mrs May in the media and I reckon that she won´t last as PM til Christmas this year. She really has messed it all up herself and the other deluded and radical Brexit Tories are taking advantage of it and see to it to bring her to her downfall.  

This new "Champion" in the Tory Party of whom I never heard, respectively read, anything until recently is looking for his time to come to take over. One might assume that if he gets to it, things might turn even worse than in case Mr Johnson would be her replacement. But he has discredited himself too often of late to be even considered as the man to take over from Mrs May.

This present British cabinet appears to have lost all senses on responsibility for the whole country and its people but is only acting to please the radical Brexiteers who are just a minority to themselves. The problem in all this is, that they think that nobody is going to hold them to account for what they´re doing and once the UK is out of the EU, the process cannot be reversed anymore.

It is a shame that Labour as the main opposition party in the Commons is just making hot air on the subject but in principal going along with the govt. Later on, they´ll have to answer many things to those generation they´ve helped to deprive them of their future opportunities. The UK govt is waisting her time in her negotiations with the EU cos they are incapable to settle anything and Labour is just standing idly by. I wouldn´t be surprised when in the not so far future, the downfall of Mrs May will also trigger the downfall of Labour in the UK and it won´t help them to have shifted more to the left either. The younger generations will punish them for that once they have to endure the harsh reality of being outside the EU, the single market and the Customs Union (the latter I find just insufferable stupid).  

I´m sure that when we will look on the UK in say ten years to come, this UK we know today might exist no more. The misconduct of this present UK govt is more water on the mills of the SNP and given that the result of the UK-EU negotiations will be no deal it´ll make IndyRef2 in Scotland unavoidable and it´ll also change the mind of probably enough Scottish people to give "Yes" a go and thus bring about a majority for Independence.

View

BoatMad wrote: »

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Are you sure? Does ratifying Brexit require a constitutional amendment?

Nate

believe so in Ireland , its a mod to the treaties

Modifications to the EU Treaties do not require a constitutional referendum here unless there is an impact on sovereignty. That means treaties such as accession ones for new member states do not require referenda.

That doesn’t mean that the amending treaties, such as Nice etc, that we have held referenda on, require referenda. The only way to know would be a Supreme Court ruling on a treaty but as we have no proper procedure to ratify EU Treaties, we have held them by default.

In the case of Brexit, a hard Brexit would not require a referendum here. Nor would a post-exit FTA. A simple exit agreement also should not require one unless it does something radical like something like set up a new court to deal with citizens rights. There is very little likelihood of that happening though as the EU countries won’t want a court that can overrule the ECJ on a fundamental part of the EU Treaties.

Enzokk

Thomas__ wrote: »

It is a shame that Labour as the main opposition party in the Commons is just making hot air on the subject but in principal going along with the govt. Later on, they´ll have to answer many things to those generation they´ve helped to deprive them of their future opportunities. The UK govt is waisting her time in her negotiations with the EU cos they are incapable to settle anything and Labour is just standing idly by. I wouldn´t be surprised when in the not so far future, the downfall of Mrs May will also trigger the downfall of Labour in the UK and it won´t help them to have shifted more to the left either. The younger generations will punish them for that once they have to endure the harsh reality of being outside the EU, the single market and the Customs Union (the latter I find just insufferable stupid).

I think Labour has been vague about their plans for Brexit because it is a stick the Tories can beat them with and take the the attention away from themselves a bit. Instead of seeing what the Tories are up to it will shift to the Sun and Telegraph and Daily Mail throwing out headlines about how Labour would drown the UK. Instead there is nothing to throw at Labour as they haven't said anything that is offensive on Brexit.

I guess the politics of the situation at the moment is anybody that dares speak about not going through with article 50 will be tainted as undemocratic. That is probably the worst thing that can happen to a politician right now and as we have seen on this thread its not even a discussion that the politicians shouldn't go through with the the vote. The UK did go to war to promote democracy so not following the vote would mean chaos.

The fact that "in the most democratic" country in the world, the USA, their politicians constantly go against the grain of the opinion of the people (look at polls of people favouring gun control or wanting universal healthcare, yet Republicans vote against this on purely ideological grounds and yet this isn't causing the US to be swallowed by a volcano for not being democratic) shows that politicians do what they feel is right, whether you agree with it or not. In the UK the current political climate will not allow for this.

I don't doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is EU skeptic, but I guess we will never get to know exactly what his views are though. If you want to be in government you are going to have to court that anti-EU/anti-immigrant/racist vote. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't change the truth of it.

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

How much of a disadvantage to the UK was getting the benefit of quotas and tariffs levels gained on the back of a 500 million consumers-sized market, again?

Well, consider for a moment about 90% of UK businesses do not export to the EU (which also happens to translate to about 85-90% of GDP being global or domestic trade), yet 100% of their exports must conform to EU regulatory standards.

That seems like a pretty intrusive system; the very point being made by those economists who advocate for leaving the EU, is that they see protectionism as a barrier to prosperity. Very few people who want to see increased trade see protectionism as being in anybody's economic interests, at least outside the EU.

Professor Moriarty

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, consider for a moment about 90% of UK businesses do not export to the EU (which also happens to translate to about 90% of GDP not being global or domestic trade), yet 100% of their exports must conform to EU regulatory standards.

That seems like a pretty intrusive system; the very point being made by those economists who advocate for leaving the EU, is that they see protectionism as a barrier to prosperity. Very few people who want to see increased trade see protectionism as being in anybody's economic interests, at least outside the EU.

But 44% approx. of their exports go to the EU.

BoatMad

Samaris wrote: »

Food for thought - that comment that May made about how Britain wants to take back control of how it labels its goods would actually indicate a removal from the WTO. The rules on international goods labelling comes from the Codex Alimentarius, which sets regulations that go down through the WTO, are accepted by the EU and all countries within.

A lot of the complaining about the EU regarding food labelling wasn't actually to do with the EU (Johnson's moronic EU correspondent articles aside). If May wants to unilaterally decide how Britain labels its foodstuffs and does not abide by the usual rules, they don't sell them to anyone.

So even from that point, it was becoming clear that the politicians in charge of Brexit had little to no idea of what they were actually doing.

again its the sorry saga of the UK politicians inherently blaming try EU for stuff that the EU doesnt control

basically the UK hasn't a clue quite frankly and its engaged in the worst self harm since WW2

Peregrinus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, consider for a moment about 90% of UK businesses do not export to the EU (which also happens to translate to about 85-90% of GDP being global or domestic trade), yet 100% of their exports must conform to EU regulatory standards.

For a large chunk of that 90%, they do not export to the EU because they do not export at all, and so they are unaffected by rules requiring exports to conform to regulatory standards, EU or otherwise.

BoatMad

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, consider for a moment about 90% of UK businesses do not export to the EU (which also happens to translate to about 85-90% of GDP being global or domestic trade), yet 100% of their exports must conform to EU regulatory standards.

That seems like a pretty intrusive system; the very point being made by those economists who advocate for leaving the EU, is that they see protectionism as a barrier to prosperity. Very few people who want to see increased trade see protectionism as being in anybody's economic interests, at least outside the EU.

where you get your figures , is anyones guess UK trade figures show the UK does aprox 50% of all trade with the EU ( imports and exports )


"LONDON
The European Union's importance to British exporting firms appears to be growing, official figures showed Tuesday, a development that could focus the minds of those negotiating the country's exit from the bloc.

Figures published by the Office for National Statistics found that exports to the EU rose by 4.1 percent in the three months to August from the previous-three-month period, compared with an 8.8 percent fall with countries from outside the EU.

That divergence contrasts with one of the main arguments put forward by those backing Brexit in last year's referendum campaign: that the EU market is diminishing in importance and the country's long-term interests would be better served by promoting links with the rest of the world, particularly the fast-growing economies such as China and India.

"These figures indicate how important it is for the U.K. to make progress with Brexit negotiations as leaving the EU without a deal could have far-reaching negative consequences for exporters," said Oliver Kolodseike, senior economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research in London.

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/news/business/article178004086.html#storylink=cpy"

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But 44% approx. of their exports go to the EU.

Well that figure is debatable, but the question was how much EU protectionism is worth to the UK.

And the answer to that must be given in terms of UK GDP, which is somewhere around 13%, i.e. 87% of the UK's GDP is from outside the EU27, even though 100% of British products must conform to EU regulatory standards.

listermint

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well that figure is debatable, but the question was how much EU protectionism is worth to the UK.

And the answer to that must be given in terms of UK GDP, which is somewhere around 13%, i.e. 87% of the UK's GDP is from outside the EU27, even though 100% of British products must conform to EU regulatory standards.

have you and facts to back up these arguments, because so far it does not appear so.

Can you shed some recent statistics and links to these to back up the argeumetn that 87% of the UK GDP is external to the EU market and that the figure of EU exports are debateable.

Thomas__

Enzokk wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

It is a shame that Labour as the main opposition party in the Commons is just making hot air on the subject but in principal going along with the govt. Later on, they´ll have to answer many things to those generation they´ve helped to deprive them of their future opportunities. The UK govt is waisting her time in her negotiations with the EU cos they are incapable to settle anything and Labour is just standing idly by. I wouldn´t be surprised when in the not so far future, the downfall of Mrs May will also trigger the downfall of Labour in the UK and it won´t help them to have shifted more to the left either. The younger generations will punish them for that once they have to endure the harsh reality of being outside the EU, the single market and the Customs Union (the latter I find just insufferable stupid).

I think Labour has been vague about their plans for Brexit because it is a stick the Tories can beat them with and take the the attention away from themselves a bit. Instead of seeing what the Tories are up to it will shift to the Sun and Telegraph and Daily Mail throwing out headlines about how Labour would drown the UK. Instead there is nothing to throw at Labour as they haven't said anything that is offensive on Brexit.

I guess the politics of the situation at the moment is anybody that dares speak about not going through with article 50 will be tainted as undemocratic. That is probably the worst thing that can happen to a politician right now and as we have seen on this thread its not even a discussion that the politicians shouldn't go through with the the vote. The UK did go to war to promote democracy so not following the vote would mean chaos.

The fact that "in the most democratic" country in the world, the USA, their politicians constantly go against the grain of the opinion of the people (look at polls of people favouring gun control or wanting universal healthcare, yet Republicans vote against this on purely ideological grounds and yet this isn't causing the US to be swallowed by a volcano for not being democratic) shows that politicians do what they feel is right, whether you agree with it or not. In the UK the current political climate will not allow for this.

I don't doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is EU skeptic, but I guess we will never get to know exactly what his views are though. If you want to be in government you are going to have to court that anti-EU/anti-immigrant/racist vote. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't change the truth of it.

I understand your point, perhaps more in a way as I see that being democratic has been replaced by being dogmatic on the result of one Referendum and the Brexiteers handle it as being "sacro-sanct" which in a democracy itself, there is no such a thing of dogmatism that excludes another Referendum to vote on the same subject when the circumstances and most so the conditions have changed or like in the case of Brexit become more clear.

I use the term dogmatism with reason because it is them Brexiteers who hadn´t rest until they´d got another Referendum on Brexit if the result had been against them and this is and by all means would had been backed by the very right-wing tabloid scrap papers you´ve mentioned.
As for Jerry Corbyn, I couldn´t care less what his real thoughts are because his deeds and his record of being anti-EU before the Referendum speaks for himself and more than the lies he can spread. One the one hand you have the Tories who like to abuse this Brexit for a power grab never seen in the history of the UK since the old days of King Henry VIII, on the other hand you have Corbyn who likes to use this Brexit as a means for the downfall of the Tories to take over power from them and work to realise his dream of a Socialist Britain based on the old Marxism theory. The Tories being anti-democratic by denying and thus depriving the people a second Referendum on Brexit for fear that some of the leavers would have second thoughts and given the chance would vote for remain. Labour under Corbyn being anti-democratic by ignoring the other 48% who voted for remain and who have been not just former but in some cases presumably still Labour voters.

You´re perfectly right in your opinion regarding the greed and "lust" for power on both parties. I just like to remind on that one that this greed has led many governments and even Empires in the past to their very collapsing and downfall. If they didn´t go down in war, they went down by revolution once the people were pushed too far by and became fed up with their corrupt politicians. I see that there is some real chances that the situation might develop towards such an extreme like a Revolution because we see the seeds already flourishing by this strong and extreme polarised political climate in the UK. This development is just in its beginning and a worst case Brexit will surely bring it to flourish in a couple of years time, reckoned from the day the UK has finally left the EU and has no Transition period negotiated and Exits with a hard Brexit effective from 01 April 2019. In contrast to the chaos this will bring upon the UK, its economy and with an allround effect on its people, the chaos politicians fear for not following Brexit is rather minor.  

There are still no such reports to read in which it is told that the queues have started with countries who want to negotiate trade deals with the UK. It is no wonder that there are none because the whole world, at least to speak of the potential trade partners the UK would like to have for her post-Brexit time, is watching the conduct of the present UK govt in her negotiations with the EU and what they see is nothing but a unreliable government that doesn´t knows where to go and how to reach agreements and settle them. They appear to be the worst and unserious UK govt ever and no-one who´s right in his mind would even consider to take the bother to negotiate anything on trade with them. But in their dense cloude of wishful thinking, the UK govt doesn´t realises that and keeps up playing ping-pong with the EU and the biggest clown in the whole cabinet is on and off making silly remarks in his capacity as FS.

This present UK govt is incapable to generate any, not even the minimum of trust which is necessary to negotiate and settle trade deals. They´re the laughing stock of Europe and I am convinced that not less Brits will soon regret it to have voted for this Tory cabinet, cos a trade deal is no joke but a damn serious matter. Just Mr Johnson has no clue about it at all, silly as he is and one wonders what qualifies a person to become a member of a nations government these days. Mr Johnson has proved by himself that he´s none because he lacks even the minimum standards for a trustworthy and reliable conduct on the international stage.

Enzokk

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well that figure is debatable, but the question was how much EU protectionism is worth to the UK.

And the answer to that must be given in terms of UK GDP, which is somewhere around 13%, i.e. 87% of the UK's GDP is from outside the EU27, even though 100% of British products must conform to EU regulatory standards.

I find it interesting you call statistics debatable but offer no links to your statistics.

I think the 44% figure is debatable as it includes gold that is exported to India, China and Switzerland. This is gold that is held in the UK for private clients and banks so not for the UK itself. It seems the figure of exports to the EU is closer to 50%. Where do you get your figures from?

Revealed: How gold takes the shine off Britain's trade figures

When gold is excluded from the trade figures, the numbers are transformed - with half of UK physical exports over the past five years going to the EU.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ambro25 wrote: »

Too bad USA, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand and Uruguay now also want their cake and eating it, eh?

If you read my last few posts you'd know that I think the concern that these countries have is justified and that the UK ought to respond in a spirit of generosity.

The UK need to be willing to compromise here.

ambro25 wrote: »

So that ain't happening.
How much of a disadvantage to the UK was getting the benefit of quotas and tariffs levels gained on the back of a 500 million consumers-sized market, again?

You're missing my point. If the UK never had to give over control of quotas in the first place it wouldn't be going through this type of discussion now.

ambro25 wrote: »

The UK has not made any inroads towards that "ideal scenario" prior to invoking Article 50 TEU or since, so you can safely knock that notion on the head

The EU has not made much inroads, either.

But then, unlike the UK, it doesn't need to: that's what the balance of power in negotiations is all about.
Sorry to break it to you, but as already posted and linked aplenty in the past few days, No.11 Downing Street is sh1t out of luck: the OBR is shortly taking a broadsword to Hammond's Brexit kitty.

The Treasury have already budgeted for contributions until 2021. These figures are from day to day spending, not out of any presumed Brexit war chest.

The UK have made considerable concessions to the EU but they will not roll over completely. We've reached the point where it is up to the EU if they want to progress further or not. I'm hopeful that they do.

ambro25 wrote: »

And I've not mentioned the exit bill, which is on top. I know you're oblivious to it, but well: the exit bill about which the EU will drag the UK kicking and screaming into the ICJ in the Hague in case of no deal/hard Brexit, with a claim for breach of its contractual obligations under the VC which will in all likelihood succeed, and the judgement for which the EU would be able to enforce through the WTO if it needs to.

In a no deal scenario the contributions won't be paid. There are significant reasons to doubt if it is legally enforceable. These are contributions that Britain has chosen to give. Not a "bill" that they "owe".

I'm hoping for a scenario where the UK can ensure member states that there won't be a black hole but this requires transitional terms and I don't think the UK should shift from this.

Come what may on March 2019 the Government needs to honour the referendum result and to plan extensively for this outcome. This isn't what the UK wants but if the EU are asking for unreasonable things (ECJ supremacy and a huge payment with no assurance of transitional terms into this) there has to be a point where the UK says "no thanks, this is a rubbish deal!"

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

The latest plan now is with hard Brexit is to join Nafta instead according to the telegraph; what was that of focusing on fast growing Asia again?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Can you shed some recent statistics and links to these to back up the argeumetn that 87% of the UK GDP is external to the EU market and that the figure of EU exports are debateable.

Enzokk wrote: »

I find it interesting you call statistics debatable but offer no links to your statistics.

Simple arithmetic.

If you want to know the value of British-EU exports to GDP, you divide the value for 2016 (£240bn) by the GDP for 2016, and express it as a %.

it's about 13%.

Professor Moriarty

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well that figure is debatable, but the question was how much EU protectionism is worth to the UK.

And the answer to that must be given in terms of UK GDP, which is somewhere around 13%, i.e. 87% of the UK's GDP is from outside the EU27, even though 100% of British products must conform to EU regulatory standards.

Well, it's not debatable. This from the BBC. This from Factcheck - an independent body. This from the official EU stats website. This from the House of Commons official stats records.

All state categorically that approximately 44% of the UK's exports in 2016 were to the EU.

listermint

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Simple arithmetic.

If you want to know the value of British-EU exports to GDP, you divide the value for 2016 (£240bn) by the GDP for 2016, and express it as a %.

it's about 13%.

So you dont have and facts to back it up then? as requested..

Nody

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

WThat seems like a pretty intrusive system; the very point being made by those economists who advocate for leaving the EU, is that they see protectionism as a barrier to prosperity. Very few people who want to see increased trade see protectionism as being in anybody's economic interests, at least outside the EU.

Sorry ATNM but you're out riding the wrong bicycle here; first of all most countries don't want free unrestricted trade in the first place. That includes the likes of USA etc. The world is also going towards more protectionism than less so walking away from the world's largest trade block with the largest amount of FTA is stupid in and of itself if you want trade.

Secondly to export goods outside of EU they do not have to meet EU standards; this can be seen in for example here or here; they simply need to meet the country they export to.

Finally EU currently represents 50% of all services and goods in value that's sold outside of Britain as it stands today and of the non EU trade about 60% of the trade goes via EU FTA agreements. Hence we're talking about 80% of all trade & services today are EU related in one form or another.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

So you dont have and facts to back it up then? as requested..

Eh?

Are you asking for a reference for a long division calculation? Genuine question. I don't see what you're questioning. UK exports to the EU are around 240bn GBP and the UK GDP is worth around 1.8tn GBP... soo.... do the maths.

Enzokk

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Simple arithmetic.

If you want to know the value of British-EU exports to GDP, you divide the value for 2016 (£240bn) by the GDP for 2016, and express it as a %.

it's about 13%.

And how does that compare to other economies? What are you trying to show? If you use your calculation, Germany exported around 505 million euro to other EU countries. As compared to their GDP that is 14%.

So what does it mean? Is Germany also supposed to leave the EU now? Ireland has around 17% of its EU exports compared to GDP. Again, what is the purpose of your comparison? It seems that countries imports and exports compared to their GDP would be around 30%, but this varies from country to country on how open they would be to trade. All that shows is how open a country is to trade from around the world.

Intra-EU trade in goods - recent trends

Economy of Germany

Economy of ROI

Nody

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Eh?

Are you asking for a reference for a long division calculation? Genuine question. I don't see what you're questioning. UK exports to the EU are around 240bn GBP and the UK GDP is worth around 1.8tn GBP... soo.... do the maths.

I think you got lost on the way; UK total exports goods & services 2016 were 550bn GBP. That's simply a fact and of that 240bn GBP was directly exported to EU countries. That they had a total GDP of 1.8tn does not change the simple fact their total exports were only 550bn GBP globally.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

I think you got lost on the way; UK total exports goods & services 2016 were 550bn GBP. That's simply a fact and of that 240bn GBP was directly exported to EU countries. That they had a total GDP of 1.8tn does not change the simple fact their total exports were only 550bn GBP globally.

Good afternoon!

I think everyone is a bit confused.

The proportion of exports to the European Union to the total GDP is what he is referring to.

First off - I'm not sure how accurate that is.

Second off - I agree that trade to the EU is important and want a good deal to be arranged.

Thirdly - 13% is a still a significant portion of the economy. I wouldn't be looking to lose that. On the other hand I don't think all 13% would be wiped out in a no deal scenario.

Either way nobody really wants it to happen. I still aspire towards a good outcome but I'm willing to say walk if it's a rubbish deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well that figure is debatable, but the question was how much EU protectionism is worth to the UK.

And the answer to that must be given in terms of UK GDP, which is somewhere around 13%, i.e. 87% of the UK's GDP is from outside the EU27, even though 100% of British products must conform to EU regulatory standards.

How much of the UK GDP is tied up with the single market and the freedom of movement of goods?

For example BMW, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Opel/Peugot, Ford are all involved in assembly of vehicle made from components to/from other EU countries all supplied on a 'Just in Time' basis. Not just import/export tariffs will play havoc with this system but the delays will render the current production system impossible. Now it is not just vehicle assembly that has this model, but it is the most apparent.

I cannot see the 13% figure being even close because many of these internal import/export activities within a corporation will be represented at arms length value in the companies books because they use internal transfer prices that have little relevance to the actual cost prices for these goods.

I would imagine the motor industry in Britain will be completely re-aligned if a hard Brexit occurs. For example, Ford engines built in Dagenham might find their way into Nissan Quaskais built in Sunderland, and perhaps the BMW 316 might be built on the Mini line in Cowley. New models might be skipped for the UK market.

It will be bleak in the UK after a hard Brexit.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well that figure is debatable, but the question was how much EU protectionism is worth to the UK.

And the answer to that must be given in terms of UK GDP, which is somewhere around 13%, i.e. 87% of the UK's GDP is from outside the EU27, even though 100% of British products must conform to EU regulatory standards.

Those companies may not export but they still operate within a single market.
If ignoring a standard gave a competitive advantage to a European country (French, Slovenian, Cypriot whoever) displace a British company, the British company would rightly call foul.

What impact are these regulations on those companies? Would they exist anyways?

steddyeddy

Also ~ 60 - 80% of the UK's economy is services, not goods. Most of those need passporting rights to trade in other countries and single markets like the EU.

ambro25

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, consider for a moment about 90% of UK businesses do not export to the EU (which also happens to translate to about 85-90% of GDP being global or domestic trade), yet 100% of their exports must conform to EU regulatory standards.

Er, no: if they "do not export to the EU", then logically they need not conform to EU regulatory standards at all.

That is, lest their output is for the domestic market (in which case it's a level competition playing field, both in the UK and across the EU...whereby, why not try and sell a few more units in the EU as well?) and/or unless the non-EU destination country/-ies for their non-EU-only exports itself mandates EU regulatory standards (or their local equivalent).

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That seems like a pretty intrusive system

It's the only system that seems to work in a multinational market which its participants want to harmonise into a homogenous and consistent whole. And even then, it's not perfect and is taking a lot of tweaking. 40+ years of it.

Now, speaking of exports, and the UK's current socio-economic make-up, you might want to (re)consider the issue from the angle of services and NTBs. Because the UK is, after all, a service-led economy in this day and age. There isn't much the WTO does in practice, about those. Think 'the passported financial services' issue, but now scale up (to all EU-negotiated FTAs and other agreements, the umbrella of which the UK is leaving) by as many fields of economic services as there exists, the exporting capacity of which is wholly contingent upon recognition of qualifications (or not), EEA domiciliation (or not), statutory regulation (or not), <...>.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well that figure is debatable, but the question was how much EU protectionism is worth to the UK.

The Port Talbot ex-TATA employees, and the Northern Ireland soon-to-be ex-Bombardier employees might wish to answer that one on my behalf.

Yes, it's a facile retort. But your line-crossing of the benefit to the UK of its EU membership of the past 40 years, so much from a protectionist stance (indeed) as from a domestic growth and exporting stance, doesn't really deserve more, tbh. For now at least.

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

Er, no: if they "do not export to the EU", then logically they need not conform to EU regulatory standards at all.

If they are selling in the UK, they are currently selling in the EU and must meet EU standards. That could change if the UK departs from EU standards after Brexit, but as of now, sales in the UK market are subject to the same standards as sales to anywhere else in the EU.

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

unless the non-EU destination country/-ies for their non-EU-only exports itself mandates EU regulatory standards (or their local equivalent).

I don't think anyone producing in the EU can ignore EU standards just because the end product will be sold outside the EU.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you read my last few posts you'd know that I think the concern that these countries have is justified and that the UK ought to respond in a spirit of generosity.

So, after EU immigrants, domestic industry and now domestic farmers and other agri-workers...is there anyone left for you to throw under the wheels of the Brexit bus?

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're missing my point. If the UK never had to give over control of quotas in the first place it wouldn't be going through this type of discussion now.

You call that a point?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Treasury have already budgeted for contributions until 2021. These figures are from day to day spending, not out of any presumed Brexit war chest.

Good job. But I doubt that these "budgeted-for contributions until 2021" factor in both an exit bill and maintaining contributions to March 2021, somehow.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have made considerable concessions to the EU but they will not roll over completely. We've reached the point where it is up to the EU if they want to progress further or not. I'm hopeful that they do.

You hope is misplaced: as I and others keep telling you, this is a negotiation, and Barnier is out to get everything he can out of its leverage, for its 27 Members.

solodeogloria wrote: »

In a no deal scenario the contributions won't be paid. There are significant reasons to doubt if it is legally enforceable. These are contributions that Britain has chosen to give. Not a "bill" that they "owe".

Sure. So who's going to pay the UK's prorata share of 40+ years worth of EU employees' pensions liabilities, solo?

On the topic enforceability, that's in a nutshell what May & Consorts said about the Gina Miller challenge way back when. Now I don't hold myself to be an authority on constitutional law, far from it, but...I called that one right before May's team had filed its own submissions in reply, and long before they were dumb enough (but perhaps party politically-compelled) to waste more taxpayer's money with appealing the judgement at first instance.

So believe what you will (or perhaps read up older formal statement on the topic by France and Germany), and I'll just let events vindicate me. Again.

Fair enough?

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

If they are selling in the UK, they are currently selling in the EU and must meet EU standards. That could change if the UK departs from EU standards after Brexit, but as of now, sales in the UK market are subject to the same standards as sales to anywhere else in the EU.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think anyone producing in the EU can ignore EU standards just because the end product will be sold outside the EU.

Which is exactly what I said?

ambro25 wrote:

That is, lest their output is for the domestic market (in which case it's a level competition playing field, both in the UK and across the EU...whereby, why not try and sell a few more units in the EU as well?) and/or unless the non-EU destination country/-ies for their non-EU-only exports itself mandates EU regulatory standards (or their local equivalent).

EDIT @ Deleted User: yes, and I've long worked with a number of businesses around here (Yorks) which do exactly that (produce to non-EU standards) day-in, day-out for (non-EU) export-only markets, in particular non-EU offshore O&GE and Middle East <other items>. It's not specific or exclusive to the UK by far. There just has to be enough profit in it, to warrant spec'ing the goods and configuring the production line. What they cannot do however, is shelve EU standards in terms of employment, working conditions, etc.