Brexit discussion thread III

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In other non news Prime Minister's Questions: The key bits and the verdict

If Brexit was an issue for Corbyn he wouldn't keep ignoring it would he ?

It's a lose lose situation at the moment for Labour, if they go all out for remain then the papers will hit them hard about not respecting democracy and the will of the people. You cannot argue against that and that is why you will not see Labour advocating for it until the polls show a real change in support for reversing Brexit. I think this will only happen once polls start showing a 65% remain in polls.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

FPTP means that there is a very tenuous relationship between vote count and seats gained so any particularly enthusiastic 48%'er might have voted Lib Dem as I did in a safe seat knowing it wouldn't affect the outcome though Hammersmith now has an excellent Labour MP who's tried to keep the UK in the single market and was subsequently sacked by Jeremy Corbyn. According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, over two thirds of students are backing Labour and think Corbyn backs remain (Source).

I think it is in favour of both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to be ambiguous on their stance right now. I still think that if you look at Labour's official stance, while disappointing for people that want to reverse this, makes sense from a political stand point (leaving the single market, but a very close deal without stupid red lines at least). In what way does it favour Labour to come out for remain right now? I would think a new election before March 2019 would focus more on Brexit than the one just finished, but that is not why people will vote for Labour. It will be to save the NHS that will win them the election, that and the fact that even with 7 years in power the economy hasn't recovered for everyone and that is not the fault of Labour.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

It's win-win for Nigel really.
...
1. Remain wins, Brexit cancelled, no harm-no foul and Farage retires in peace. goes back on the EU gravy train

FYP

Capt'n Midnight

When it comes to the UK's negotiating strength it's just a long slow motion car crash.

Banks consider paying for EU access This puts the UK govt in a bit of a bind, because they have promised what they can't deliver. - Hope Mrs May still has that magic money tree somewhere.

And it undermines the whole house of cards.

Publicly, finance industry groups have been loathe to raise this option for three reasons.

First, they think it effectively penalises successful exporters - the opposite of what the government purports to want.

Second, they believe agreeing to pay for admission sets a dangerous precedent for trade deals with new partners.

Third, they think other industries such as car manufacturing and pharmaceuticals should be asked to do the same and suspect the complexity of divvying up any bill would be mind-bogglingly complex.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

It's a lose lose situation at the moment for Labour, if they go all out for remain then the papers will hit them hard about not respecting democracy and the will of the people. You cannot argue against that and that is why you will not see Labour advocating for it until the polls show a real change in support for reversing Brexit. I think this will only happen once polls start showing a 65% remain in polls.





I think it is in favour of both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to be ambiguous on their stance right now. I still think that if you look at Labour's official stance, while disappointing for people that want to reverse this, makes sense from a political stand point (leaving the single market, but a very close deal without stupid red lines at least). In what way does it favour Labour to come out for remain right now? I would think a new election before March 2019 would focus more on Brexit than the one just finished, but that is not why people will vote for Labour. It will be to save the NHS that will win them the election, that and the fact that even with 7 years in power the economy hasn't recovered for everyone and that is not the fault of Labour.

And as if by magic, a Yougov poll from three weeks ago:

In the poll, 63% of self-identified Labour supporters say they would be “delighted or pleased” if Labour said it would stop Brexit and stay in the European Union.

Leroy42

It would be ironic if they did agree to pay to maintain access, given that the UK fought so hard to reject any transaction tax on financial services

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And as if by magic, a Yougov poll from three weeks ago:

In the poll, 63% of self-identified Labour supporters say they would be “delighted or pleased” if Labour said it would stop Brexit and stay in the European Union.

I think that Labour will be more pro-Remain than the Conservatives, this is mainly due to the fact that they are really pushing for the "youth" vote. This will mean that they would be more in favour of the EU than the older Tory voters. So I would think until 80% of Labour voters are in favour of remain and then 50% of Tory voters you would see a change of opinion in the political parties.

There is a turn in favour of remaining as part of the EU, whether this is enough to change the decision is up in the air.

I am interested as well when looking at Theresa May's stance on Brexit. Is she a reluctant remainer? Or will she will happy with a hard Brexit? Her stance is as much up for debate as Jeremy Corbyn, She campaigned for Remain, but she keeps appointing hard Brexit politicians in positions of power. The latest is Suella Fernandes at the Department for Exiting the EU. This now makes at least 3 pro-Brexit people out of the 5 ministers/appointments to run the department that are all for Brexit. Surely this means a hard Brexit?

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

I think that Labour will be more pro-Remain than the Conservatives, this is mainly due to the fact that they are really pushing for the "youth" vote. This will mean that they would be more in favour of the EU than the older Tory voters. So I would think until 80% of Labour voters are in favour of remain and then 50% of Tory voters you would see a change of opinion in the political parties.

the problem Labour has, is that it is the youth vote that got Corbyn in to power, so if they want to stay, they need to persuade the youth vote to ditch their allegiance to Jezza

Enzokk wrote: »

I am interested as well when looking at Theresa May's stance on Brexit. Is she a reluctant remainer? Or will she will happy with a hard Brexit? Her stance is as much up for debate as Jeremy Corbyn, She campaigned for Remain, but she keeps appointing hard Brexit politicians in positions of power. The latest is Suella Fernandes at the Department for Exiting the EU. This now makes at least 3 pro-Brexit people out of the 5 ministers/appointments to run the department that are all for Brexit. Surely this means a hard Brexit?

Suella is obviously another of these little Englander types Professor Moriarty keeps harping on about:rolleyes:

personally, I would do the same as TM has done. These guys campaigned to leave the eu, so they obviously know what to do. The european research group have some very strong and clear views on the benefits on leaving the eu means, so i would have thought they are based placed to create and drive the strategy.

Capt'n Midnight

Aegir wrote: »

The european research group have some very strong and clear views on the benefits on leaving the eu means, so i would have thought they are based placed to create and drive the strategy.

What benefits ?


Sadiq Khan warns of Brexit 'lost decade'

He said a no-deal outcome, in which the UK left both the EU customs union and single market, could cost the country half a million jobs and £50bn in lost investment by 2030.

But the Express says
Germany issued shock Brexit WARNING: 14,000 jobs at risk in £3.36 billion HEADACHE It's a lot less jobs than Frankfurt hopes to attract.



This one has nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with the mentality
behind it. It's more than £350m a week.
Overseas students 'add £20bn' to UK economy

The institute quotes a recent report from India's Hindustan Times that told its readers that the UK had many top universities, "but they also offer the most student-hostile government in the world".

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What benefits ?

thanks for the news dumps, but I presume most of us are perfectly capable of reading the BBC website all by ourselves.

the ERG campaigned for Brexit, so in their minds there must be benefits, no?

LuckyLloyd

The story about German car manafacturor job losses is doing the rounds of the Brexit media today. Every straw. Of course it is obvious to anyone reading it that the same type of affect - only significantly magnified - will be felt across British industry. But of course that gets omitted. It’s a nice little example of how the media over there would poison the mind if it was all you read.

LuckyLloyd

Aegir wrote: »

thanks for the news dumps, but I presume most of us are perfectly capable of reading the BBC website all by ourselves.

the ERG campaigned for Brexit, so in their minds there must be benefits, no?

Take back control of ‘our money, our laws and our borders’ type of thing?

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Take back control of ‘our money, our laws and our borders’ type of thing?

why not ask her https://twitter.com/SuellaFernandes?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Enzokk

Aegir wrote: »

Suella is obviously another of these little Englander types Professor Moriarty keeps harping on about:rolleyes:

personally, I would do the same as TM has done. These guys campaigned to leave the eu, so they obviously know what to do. The european research group have some very strong and clear views on the benefits on leaving the eu means, so i would have thought they are based placed to create and drive the strategy.

I am all for letting those that wanted this to happen sort it out, but the one caveat is if they have no clue about the EU though.

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/850110198752591872


I would be happy to let the clueless Davis Davis, Suella Fernandes and Boris Johnson take the reigns and run the UK into the ground with the false facts, but we will be hurt just as much as they will so I don't want any of those idiots near the controls. But Theresa May continues to employ ministers that are not fit to work and her latest faux pas in how she handled the Toby Young (appointed by Jo Johnson and backed by Boris Johnson) affair and the fact that she cannot even fire Jeremy Hunt even while the NHS is burning all around him makes me think she has been lucky on the progress of Brexit so far, not because she is a skilled operator who will guide the UK to success.

As a reminder of the politicians waiting in the wings to take over, here is Jo Johnson on Newsnight a couple years ago fluffing his lines. Starts at 2m45.

Thargor

Love the way he shuts down when asked if he'd send his own kids to those colleges

Capt'n Midnight

Aegir wrote: »

thanks for the news dumps, but I presume most of us are perfectly capable of reading the BBC website all by ourselves.

Oddly enough for something so important the news is buried under different categories.

the ERG campaigned for Brexit, so in their minds there must be benefits, no?

Follow the money.

who funds the ERG ?
who benefits from Brexit ?

So far I can see no overall benefit to the majority of employees or small businesses.


There's a campaign to crowdfund NOYB - "None of Your Business", a non-governmental organisation that aims to ensure the new General Data Protection Regulation is enforced. Many multinationals will standardise on a single globally for their organisation. If you are a US citizen concerned with data protection in a US company you could do worse than chip a few quid their way. Of course the UK will have to follow suit to deal with those EU and US companies and because they will be rolling out the GDPR too.
https://www.ft.com/content/016390e6-da0b-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482

"taking back control" - can be done if you sever commercial links
the irony of course is that the UK had a say in such things, in future as an outsider they will have to like it or lump it

Rain Ascending

Aegir wrote: »

personally, I would do the same as TM has done. These guys [pro-Brexit ministers] campaigned to leave the eu, so they obviously know what to do.

They don't.

Example: Under David Davis's leadership, DExEU has failed to create comprehensive impact assessment for the key sectors of the UK economy. Even leaving aside the lack of business modelling in the published reports, the documents' analyses was generally regarded as superficial. Certainly, the one I read that pertains to my own field of expertise was abysmal. The British civil service is much more capable than that, so the poor quality here is down to its leadership, i.e. its political masters.

That's on the direct impact side.

Then there is the opportunity side. I've seen precious little so far by way of coherent strategy to position the UK to take advantage of Brexit. What I've heard so far is Michael Gove trying to find ways to get around the Common Fisheries Policy in 2019 (fishing a pretty minor industry, I suspect, for the UK economy as a whole) and blue passports.

When it was suggested in the Telegraph earlier this week during the cabinet reshuffle that Theresa May was about to create a minister for a hard, no-deal Brexit planning, my reaction was that was a good idea for the UK (*), but only if she appointed a Remainer to the role. The logic was simple: Brexiteers still don't want to see the problems posed by Brexit and continually try to talk them away. Only somebody willing to sit down and understand fully the administrative and regulatory challenges should be allowed in that ministerial role -- and that, by definition, had to be a Remainer.

[(*) Yes, I know that a hard no-deal Brexit is bonkers. However, the work done will be useful since with the current UK government, the most likely long-term outcome is that of a Canada-like FTA with a few add-ons. As a result, it is likely that huge swathes of EU activity would not be covered and planning for the no-deal scenario should help to mitigate the gaps.]

Calina

Aegir wrote: »

the ERG campaigned for Brexit, so in their minds there must be benefits, no?

I assume you are aware of what those benefits are and can summarise them?

If so, a couple of pointers woukd strengthen your case.

Samaris

So...what I want to know is what is Ireland doing to prepare? Are we expanding our ports? Is this France-Ireland energy link going to be completed? I know hands are a bit tied on the border, but if that falls through at the last minute because it is the one thing that crosses the red lines through, what are we able to do about it at the end of March 2019?

The politicians did well in political preparation and Enterprise Ireland has been working with businesses, but there are national concerns too that will take government decisions and spending to solve. It's bloody awkward as the Brexiter gov will have a little furry freakout at other countries daring to make preparations for a difficult Brexit, so it probably has to be kept low key. But are they happening?

Peregrinus

I think Aegir's point is that Brexiter politicians who campaigned for Brexit and who are now charged with implementing it should be able to point to the supposed benefits of Brexit, and to come up with an implementation strategy that will supposedly deliver those supposed benefits. They shouldn't need Aegir, or anyone else to do it for them.

Therefore, May is right to appoint Brexiters to the departments that have to implement Brexit. To the extent that there are any benefits to Brexit, they should be best placed to identify them and deliver them. To the extent that there are none, they'll have to wear the political cost of failing to deliver benefits.

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

So...what I want to know is what is Ireland doing to prepare? Are we expanding our ports? Is this France-Ireland energy link going to be completed? I know hands are a bit tied on the border, but if that falls through at the last minute because it is the one thing that crosses the red lines through, what are we able to do about it at the end of March 2019?

The politicians did well in political preparation and Enterprise Ireland has been working with businesses, but there are national concerns too that will take government decisions and spending to solve. It's bloody awkward as the Brexiter gov will have a little furry freakout at other countries daring to make preparations for a difficult Brexit, so it probably has to be kept low key. But are they happening?

You can't really expand your ports in a low-key way. Plus, port expansion is expensive, and it will be a wasted expense if, in the end, the UK ends up in some quite single-market-like relationship with the EU, which is very much within the range of possibilities. You could waste a lot of money by acting on the assumption of a hard brexit, if there's no hard brexit.

We'll know much more in nine to twelve months. While there's obviously an opportunity cost to deferring any major spending until we know more, it's probably the right course.

So my guess is, yes, plenty of planning being done - all along, we've been much better at this than the UK has - but not so much actual spending.

Blowfish

Samaris wrote: »

So...what I want to know is what is Ireland doing to prepare? Are we expanding our ports? Is this France-Ireland energy link going to be completed? I know hands are a bit tied on the border, but if that falls through at the last minute because it is the one thing that crosses the red lines through, what are we able to do about it at the end of March 2019?

They are currently dredging in Dublin port to allow larger ships, though I believe this was planned in any case.

Same goes for the energy link, though it's early days on that and is unlikely to be completed by Brexit day.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can't really expand your ports in a low-key way. Plus, port expansion is expensive, and it will be a wasted expense if, in the end, the UK ends up in some quite single-market-like relationship with the EU, which is very much within the range of possibilities. You could waste a lot of money by acting on the assumption of a hard brexit, if there's no hard brexit.

We'll know much more in nine to twelve months. While there's obviously an opportunity cost to deferring any major spending until we know more, it's probably the right course.

So my guess is, yes, plenty of planning being done - all along, we've been much better at this than the UK has - but not so much actual spending.

The problem is that if a no-deal Brexit occurs and we don't have an alternative route to Europe then our trading economy crashes. Being prepared for all eventualities ahead is expensive but the penalty for not being prepared for a chaotic Brexit is too large to ignore.
The time it takes to construct alternatives should be counted back from March '19. If there is no certainty by these point we must construct contingency infrastructure.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think Aegir's point is that Brexiter politicians who campaigned for Brexit and who are now charged with implementing it should be able to point to the supposed benefits of Brexit, and to come up with an implementation strategy that will supposedly deliver those supposed benefits. They shouldn't need Aegir, or anyone else to do it for them.

Therefore, May is right to appoint Brexiters to the departments that have to implement Brexit. To the extent that there are any benefits to Brexit, they should be best placed to identify them and deliver them. To the extent that there are none, they'll have to wear the political cost of failing to deliver benefits.

thank you. I thought I had made my point fairly clearly.

It is a kind of "you got us in to this mess, now get us out of it" approach.

Peregrinus

demfad wrote: »

The problem is that if a no-deal Brexit occurs and we don't have an alternative route to Europe then our trading economy crashes. Being prepared for all eventualities ahead is expensive but the penalty for not being prepared for a chaotic Brexit is too large to ignore.
The time it takes to construct alternatives should be counted back from March '19. If there is no certainty by these point we must construct contingency infrastructure.

No. The opportunity cost of not starting construction for another six months is that there's a delay of six months before the finished construction comes onstream. If it turns out to be construction that we need that's unfortunate, but it's not catastrophic. But if we start it before we know we need it and it turns out that we don't need it, that's a permanent waste which will never be recovered. Plus, we still have the problem that we are unprepared for the Brexit which does occur.

The question is, how much can we afford to waste? Remember, every billion that we waste doing unneccesary works is a billion that is not available to do necessary works, when we know what works are necessary.

So, yeah, delay in gettign the necessary infrastructure in place is bad. But wasting money putting the wrong infrastructure in place, and still experiencing delay ingetting the necessary insfrastructure, is worse. Our contingency planning should be cautious, and it should honestly confront the reality that we don't know what we're facing.

Leroy42

I think we should be using this opportunity to develop our infrastructure so that we are not so dependent on UK. Even if there is some climb down this time, IMO, UK will continue to agitate and we should be recognising that our future lies more better links to the EU without a requirement to rely on the UK to help us achieve that.

We are an island nation, and effectively we have one transport route to EU (for goods) and that is through the UK. We are totally reliant on it for our future.

joeysoap

I watched Question Time last night. NI was mentioned by one panel member. He was introduced as a comedian at the start. Nobody else mentioned it. One Brexiter spoke how they got through round 1, citing citizens rights as an example and the great opportunity round 2 presented.

Nobody answered the ‘comedians’ questions about NI. Quite the reverse, they ignored them altogether.

All in all it was depressing viewing.

They remain very divided society,

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The opportunity cost of not starting construction for another six months is that there's a delay of six months before the finished construction comes onstream. If it turns out to be construction that we need that's unfortunate, but it's not catastrophic. But if we start it before we know we need it and it turns out that we don't need it, that's a permanent waste which will never be recovered. Plus, we still have the problem that we are unprepared for the Brexit which does occur.

The question is, how much can we afford to waste? Remember, every billion that we waste doing unneccesary works is a billion that is not available to do necessary works, when we know what works are necessary.

So, yeah, delay in gettign the necessary infrastructure in place is bad. But wasting money putting the wrong infrastructure in place, and still experiencing delay ingetting the necessary insfrastructure, is worse. Our contingency planning should be cautious, and it should honestly confront the reality that we don't know what we're facing.

If it turns out to be a construction that we need it will mean a no-deal chaotic Brexit and our inability to export or import goods via the UK.
This is a catastrophe that would wreck our economy. The catastrophic logistical issues of dealing with UK related trade at ports and airports has been covered already. No regulatory recognition of UK goods would mean the seizing up of ports within hours.

The Dutch are planning for a seperate port area for UK traffic in ports to avert a no-deal Brexit freeze on all dutch international Port trade.
Ireland is in the unique vulnerable position of almost ALL international trade travelling via the UK and its ports.

We must be in a position to go around Great Britain if we cant go through it. If a billion is the cost of this contingency then it must be paid.

Skedaddle

It's not unreasonably that we might just throw that €1bn on the divorce bill in the grounds that's it's compensation for major disruption mitigation caused by a political and regulatory change in a country with whom we had a legally binding trade agreement.

Evansc

Looking for advice from learned people here....
I'm contemplating moving to Scotland this year. I fell in love with Edinburgh after a visit there recently and I want to live there and see the whole country.

I'm a bit lost on the Brexit issue and it seems like information overload when I read up on it.

Is it a good or bad thing to be a UK resident over the next few years? Will Brexit have positive impacts for the UK and would I be a headcase running gladly in to the fray?

What with the recent record spate of applications for Irish and other EU passports by UK residents; does this tell me all I need to know?

Clued in people; please inform me!

Tell me how

Evansc wrote:

Clued in people; please inform me!

There's a mountain of information, and no clear answer.

Way too many variables to even touch on.

I'm fairly clued on Brexit progress (not that it'll make a difference) and I'm probably 50% likely to move there in next 12 months.

andrewfaulk

demfad wrote: »

If it turns out to be a construction that we need it will mean a no-deal chaotic Brexit and our inability to export or import goods via the UK.
This is a catastrophe that would wreck our economy. The catastrophic logistical issues of dealing with UK related trade at ports and airports has been covered already. No regulatory recognition of UK goods would mean the seizing up of ports within hours.


The Dutch are planning for a seperate port area for UK traffic in ports to avert a no-deal Brexit freeze on all dutch international Port trade.
Ireland is in the unique vulnerable position of almost ALL international trade travelling via the UK and its ports.

We must be in a position to go around Great Britain if we cant go through it. If a billion is the cost of this contingency then it must be paid.

I’m a work in the freight industry, and reading threads like this are very interesting in terms of what people outside the industry think will happen with brexit or happens already..

Ireland doesn’t rely on the UK for transport nearly as much as people would imagine.. Yes, some cargo does travel by land bridge via the UK, mainly temperature controlled or time-sensitive cargo.. A situation where Ireland relies on the Uk for freight shipment and our ports would grind to a halt within hours is bonkers.. it might apply to the Isle of Man or Northern Ireland at a stretch but is well off the mark for the republic of Ireland

But a large amount already goes direct to Europe by sea.. there are routes direct to Belgium and the Netherlands from Irish ports already and these carry a lot of volume on a weekly basis..

Also for shipments from outside Europe by sea, the vast majority of these are transhipped to Ireland via Rotterdam rather than in the UK..

Brexit will be painful for people shipping by land bridge to the continent, but there are alternate routes already in place..

As regards port infrastructure, again this is in place already.. Some of the terminals mainly serve the Uk market at the moment but this capacity could be equally used for services to and from Europe..

Skedaddle

The main thing you’d need is more ro-ro ferry capacity and that is mobile and can be hired in and then built if needed long term.

If the business is three, it’ll happen.

andrewfaulk

Skedaddle wrote: »

The main thing you’d need is more ro-ro ferry capacity and that is mobile and can be hired in and then built if needed long term.

If the business is three, it’ll happen.

More Ro/Ro capacity in terms of ships yes, but the terminals currently used for UK bound traffic can equally handle direct services.. Ireland already has 3 Ro/Ro operators serving markets other than the UK and at least one of these is adding capacity already.. Also there is a lot of Lo/Lo capacity, and if brexit goes ahead a lot of cargo will convert from Ro/Ro to Lo/Lo.. for cargo shipping direct to the EU the transit time differences are minimal but the cost differences could be substantial..

Calina

I appreciate input like andrewfaulk's. Always useful to learn.

Skedaddle

Cost difference would likely diminish though if there's more competition. Those routes are currently dominated by one company. If the business is there, you'll get more operators coming on stream. You could even see ships move from the Irish sea routes to the continental ones.

Capt'n Midnight

Blowfish wrote: »

They are currently dredging in Dublin port to allow larger ships, though I believe this was planned in any case.

The worlds largest ferry is now doing the Dublin - Belgium route.

For the UK land link to the EU, TIR vehicles could be fast tracked as the cargo would not need customs inspection. There's way's and means.

andrewfaulk

Skedaddle wrote: »

Cost difference would likely diminish though if there's more competition. Those routes are currently dominated by one company. If the business is there, you'll get more operators coming on stream. You could even see ships move from the Irish sea routes to the continental ones.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.. Lo/Lo is cheaper than Ro/Ro and will likely remain so or even widen the gap after brexit..

Lo/Lo has 6+ operators currently.. Ro/Ro direct has 2/3 but they sell space to all comers so any haulier with a trailer is competition in theory.. Not sure what you mean about one operator dominating the route..

murphaph

Skedaddle wrote: »

Cost difference would likely diminish though if there's more competition. Those routes are currently dominated by one company. If the business is there, you'll get more operators coming on stream. You could even see ships move from the Irish sea routes to the continental ones.

If it comes to this they'll probably be redeploying some vessels from cross channel routes as trade across the channel will be way down anyway.

Skedaddle

andrewfaulk wrote: »

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.. Lo/Lo is cheaper than Ro/Ro and will likely remain so or even widen the gap after brexit..

Lo/Lo has 6+ operators currently.. Ro/Ro direct has 2/3 but they sell space to all comers so any haulier with a trailer is competition in theory.. Not sure what you mean about one operator dominating the route..

Well, it would be interesting if you end up with Stena and others coming onto Ireland-France routes.

Anyway I don't know enough about these terms and I'm not really getting into a debate about the technicalities of it. All I'm saying is that I think there's been a bit of an overstatement of Ireland's dependence on UK routes for a lot of things.

A lot of the British media in particular just assumes that we're some kind of utterly dependent statelet that will be cut off and has no independent transport links, telecoms links or ability to feed ourselves if the apron strings were cut.

I was talking to a guy in England recently who didn't seem to understand that Ireland has things like the 3rd busiest airport in these islands after LHR and Gatwick and that we had transatlantic routes out of 3 airports, not to mention extensive European connectivity and onwards connectivity via several EU hubs to the entire planet and could completely avoid the UK if we particularly had to.

There's a tendency to see Ireland as equivalent to the Isle of Man or something like that amongst some people over there. They're often a bit shocked to discover we have a life beyond the relationship with the UK and that, while it is an important export market, it's not our biggest one.

I think in general if the UK routes become uncompetitive, the focus will just shift. In general ships being ships can be moved from one route to another without much issue. Ramping up capacity on any given route is not particularly difficult.

It's also likely that monies could be available via TEN-T or similar schemes for upgrades to ports, vessels or whatever's needed both on the Irish and French side.

The UK will actually be losing a fortune's worth of logistics business as it's a major port of entry to the EU for goods, particularly via the airports. I could see a lot of large UK logistic depots becoming a lot quieter if this goes ahead. A lot of the big global logistics companies will end up having to reroute non-UK bound packages into the Benelux and other hubs, with the UK ones ending up as UK-domestic only.

Ireland's also one of the few countries that the UK exports more to than it imports from. We buy a lot of UK produced or packaged consumer goods as we are generally considered part of the same/similar market. It will be very interesting to see what happens when Irish supermarket chains start shifting towards continental supply chains.

A lot of the products coming in to Ireland via the UK may also be classified as UK exports, but in reality are just being labelled / package or transhipped e.g. the likes of household products etc etc. In most cases they're also directly replaceable with products that are either identical or possibly better.

Capt'n Midnight

Skedaddle wrote: »

A lot of the products coming in to Ireland via the UK may also be classified as UK exports, but in reality are just being labelled / package or transhipped e.g. the likes of household products etc etc. In most cases they're also directly replaceable with products that are either identical or possibly better.

Also a lot of "UK" products are anything but with production having been off-shored to cheaper places like Eastern Europe.

People pay a premium for "brands" but everything else can be yellow packed from the lowest bidder for supermarket own brands. And at that end of the market margins are tight.

Interesting times ahead for the UK exporters and the Irish importers.

Lemming

Skedaddle wrote: »

Ireland's also one of the few countries that the UK exports more to than it imports from. We buy a lot of UK produced or packaged consumer goods as we are generally considered part of the same/similar market. It will be very interesting to see what happens when Irish supermarket chains start shifting towards continental supply chains.

A lot of the products coming in to Ireland via the UK may also be classified as UK exports, but in reality are just being labelled / package or transhipped e.g. the likes of household products etc etc. In most cases they're also directly replaceable with products that are either identical or possibly better.

Bear in mind that a lot of electronics goods, e.g. intel, apple, creative labs (all computer related or consumer digital goods) are sorted/packaged/etc. in Ireland, shipped to the UK for distribution and then sold back to Ireland. So the realiy is that the UK doesn't "export" to Ireland as much as it may first appear on the books.

Skedaddle

Lemming wrote: »

Bear in mind that a lot of electronics goods, e.g. intel, apple, creative labs (all computer related or consumer digital goods) are sorted/packaged/etc. in Ireland, shipped to the UK for distribution and then sold back to Ireland. So the realiy is that the UK doesn't "export" to Ireland as much as it may first appear on the books.

In many cases, certainly Apple's anyway, they are shipped directly from China these days.

Samaris

Thanks for the replies regarding what we're doing - and I accept the "we really don't know what we need". I am worried that time is going to get very tight though. We're all making bets on "they'll sort it out, they won't play Chicken with a continent.." but sheer incompetance could do it too.

And it is not just the British press pointing out how reliant we are on Britain, the Irish press knows it too, as does the government. It's improved over the last decade, with more companies reaching further afield, but it is still a great big roadblock for us.

Tbh, I'm with that 1b damn well should be part of the bill, a "bloody incompetance" charge due to other countries needing to make preparations while the British government consistantly refuses to make their position clear.

...it is just incompetance, right? This isn't some mad ploy to hold things off until Ireland, Netherlands and France (and all the countries they think are desperate) don't have time to make the physical preparations to try force a "good deal" out (while bitching if anyone else so much as mentions the possibility) If so, that plan is insane.

I hope there is focus on Waterford, if/when it comes to it. Waterford was a strong trade port and while it has rather fallen to the neglect of the whole city, it is in a good position for supporting Rosslare-continental routes. Cork/Cobh is another big one for long-distance shipping as it's a deepwater port. I hope in the next retrospective book on current events from the Irish POV I'm reading about talks and plans with France and the Netherlands to get around the UK.

Sand

Philip Hammond has been portrayed as one of the few sensible ones in the Tory cabinet on Brexit. So its sad to see him copying the Davis/Fox/BoJo talking points on Brexit.

“We hear a willingness and enthusiasm in the USA and from many other countries around the world to make new trade deals with us,” Hammond told Die Welt. “But we don’t hear that from Europe. We hear from Europe only backward-looking stuff. ‘Are you sure you want to leave?’ Or, ‘it’s a bad decision to leave.’ Or, ‘you must be punished for deciding to leave.’”

“I can understand that paranoia [that a generous Brexit could encourage others to seek a similar exit]. But imagine you are running a successful, thriving club. If one member leaves, you don’t immediately panic that all the other members might leave, but are confident they will want to remain.”

It would be nice to think there is a rational influence on the British side, but if Hammond is this far gone its difficult to imagine where it can be. The UK still struggles to grasp that the Single Market is built by pooling sovereignty. They have prioritised their sovereignty over their prosperity, which is their right. But if they are unwilling to pool sovereignty then access to the Single Market is going to be highly restricted. They are wasting their very limited time, and aggravating the people they are negotiating with:

“I was surprised to hear the chancellor say yesterday that it was now up to the EU to make an offer to the UK on how to deal with the UK in the future,” said Dieter Kempf, the president of the Federation of German Industries. “I understand that you don’t want to be like Norway. I understand that you don’t want to be like Switzerland. I understand that you don’t want an agreement like the one with Canada. But for God’s sake, give us a bit of an idea of what you want.

“To us, that sounds more like a poker game where one tries to pull a fast one on the other,” his interviewer responded.

It's worrying from an Irish perspective as it seems the UK position is no more advanced in January than it was in November. They still want to have cake and eat it.

andrewfaulk

And it is not just the British press pointing out how reliant we are on Britain, the Irish press knows it too, as does the government. It's improved over the last decade, with more companies reaching further afield, but it is still a great big roadblock for us


I hope there is focus on Waterford, if/when it comes to it. Waterford was a strong trade port and while it has rather fallen to the neglect of the whole city, it is in a good position for supporting Rosslare-continental routes. Cork/Cobh is another big one for long-distance shipping as it's a deepwater port. I hope in the next retrospective book on current events from the Irish POV I'm reading about talks and plans with France and the Netherlands to get around the UK.[/quote]

Just to pick up on two of your points..

The Irish media haven’t a clue, anything I’ve read had been poorly researched and takes cues from what the British press are saying.. I think the reason that so many people think we are so reliant on the Uk is because they read it in a poorly researched newspaper article..

The Rosslare to the continent ferry thing has been going on since brexit was mentioned.. I can’t see Rosslare or Waterford pulling vast amounts of business/routes from Dublin to be honest.. in the general scheme of things, these ports serve their markets in the south and south east of the country and Dublin and Cork cover the rest.. that won’t change just because of brexit.. it will still cost €300+ more to bring a container or trailer to Rosslare or Waterford port than to Dublin port from Dublin and surrounding areas.. that’s down to geography and brexit won’t change that..

flutered

there is a deep water port just outside waterford, in co.kilkenny, it was doing pretty well until dublin started to undercut it, avonmore has a facility there, it would be only a matter of getting more plant in situ for more and faster loading

LeinsterDub

flutered wrote: »

there is a deep water port just outside waterford, in co.kilkenny, it was doing pretty well until dublin started to undercut it, avonmore has a facility there, it would be only a matter of getting more plant in situ for more and faster loading

Wasn't Waterford ruined by the docker strike?

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Wasn't Waterford ruined by the docker strike?

Why are you trying to imply that a 13 year long strike, followed by the agreed deal being broken with first ship arriving becoming occupied by the same workers would have any negative impact on a harbour's reputation or use when clearly it's all Dublin's fault and the local workers had in no way any part in the port's demise.

On a separate note May tries to claim that the stop to credit card charges by selling companies was a Tory policy and now an EU enforced directive; i mean seriously how stupid do you have to be to try to spin something so public as a Tory policy out of the blue?

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Why are you trying to imply that a 13 year long strike, followed by a deal broken at the first ship with it being occupied by the same workers would have any negative impact on a harbour's reputation or use?

And another one in 2003.

There was also the whole Waterford Glass thing.

In 2016 there was a strike at the Airport, and Bausch and Lomb , the construction workers threatened one to get more dosh.
It was practically a joke. http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/03/18/everyone-to-strike-for-better-wages-now-the-good-times-are-back/

To put it in perspective Waterford only has a 15% bigger population than Clondalkin.


Yes Waterford could be a great port, if the confidence was there.

ThisRegard

Ironically the Conservatives are taking credit for this EU directive

https://twitter.com/RossThomson_MP/status/952146735538851840