Brexit discussion thread III

Leroy42

What I don't understand is why the likes of Boris and Rees-Mogg see in the continued push for a hard Brexit? Surely nobody can realistically think that this will lead to anything other than significant costs and issues for GDP, at least in the short term?

But they seem to be totally focused that this is what was voted for and must be delivered , regardless of the process or what the effects are.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I don't understand is why the likes of Boris and Rees-Mogg see in the continued push for a hard Brexit? Surely nobody can realistically think that this will lead to anything other than significant costs and issues for GDP, at least in the short term?

But they seem to be totally focused that this is what was voted for and must be delivered , regardless of the process or what the effects are.

They seem to believe that they need another Dunkirk and Battle of Britain so that they can achieve another D Day somewhere down the road.

Enzokk

strandroad wrote: »

I mean clarity as in May and her perceived "Remainer cabinet" could not be blamed as they currently are, if you look at the headings above. Brexit problems could not be seen as May problems anymore.

The whole problem at the moment is that while members of her cabinet have expressed their own views on Brexit, Theresa May has never been asked or challenged on her view. She didn't have to express any views to become PM and she avoided Brexit at the election, other than delivering on the vote and getting the best deal (whatever the heck that means). So here we are, 19 months after the vote and the UK Government still has not decided what it wants from Brexit, but the finish line is fast approaching. Absolute shambles on an epic scale. Anyone that says Theresa May has done well to not have it fall apart is ignoring the fact that she is just delaying it by not confronting her position.

Harika

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I don't understand is why the likes of Boris and Rees-Mogg see in the continued push for a hard Brexit? Surely nobody can realistically think that this will lead to anything other than significant costs and issues for GDP, at least in the short term?

But they seem to be totally focused that this is what was voted for and must be delivered , regardless of the process or what the effects are.

It is what Little Finger said in GOT "chaos is a ladder", some like stable times, some see chaos as opportunity to rise to the top.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

They seem to believe that they need another Dunkirk and Battle of Britain so that they can achieve another D Day somewhere down the road.

Fine, but whilst WWII was significant achievement for Britain, and something they can rightfully be proud of being a part in winning, in the longer term is cost them dearly (not that they had any choice really).

There is really no need for another Dunkirk or BoB. They are going to use valuable resources rescuing themselves for a disaster that they created.

I get their unhappiness with the EU, I share a lot of the misgivings, but these seems to go far beyond that. This seems to be nothing short of a cult. Brexit means Brexit regardless of what Brexit actually means.

CelticRambler

Nody wrote: »

And there needs to be a hell of a leader to bring those two halves back together and not end up shedding a significant number of votes and MPs in the process.

What's really needed in Britain is a Macron-esque politician/party that bulldozes both the Tories and Labour into the ditch on each side of a middle road back to common sense.

Living in France for the last fifteen years, I watched the two-party systems in the UK, the US and France get progressively more dysfunctional and incapable of actually governing the country. Against that background, "Trump" didn't surprise me, and "Brexit" was only slightly unexpected. It was a pleasant surprise to see the French opt for the radical third way, and even though there are the usual occasional WTF? moments that you get with any party, the mood here is considerably better that it was two years ago.

Could that happen in the UK? For the moment, I don't see how. The tradition of being either Labour or Tory (oh, or LibDem "if you want to waste your vote" ... :rolleyes: ) is probably still too strong, but with the rise of the youth vote, a high-profile candidate leading a non-traditional party with a manifesto of "clean sweep/drain the swamp" could make significant gains and perhaps hold the balance of power. If the DUP can do it, anyone can! :pac:

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

What's really needed in Britain is a Macron-esque politician/party that bulldozes both the Tories and Labour into the ditch on each side of a middle road back to common sense.

Living in France for the last fifteen years, I watched the two-party systems in the UK, the US and France get progressively more dysfunctional and incapable of actually governing the country. Against that background, "Trump" didn't surprise me, and "Brexit" was only slightly unexpected. It was a pleasant surprise to see the French opt for the radical third way, and even though there are the usual occasional WTF? moments that you get with any party, the mood here is considerably better that it was two years ago.

Could that happen in the UK? For the moment, I don't see how. The tradition of being either Labour or Tory (oh, or LibDem "if you want to waste your vote" ... :rolleyes: ) is probably still too strong, but with the rise of the youth vote, a high-profile candidate leading a non-traditional party with a manifesto of "clean sweep/drain the swamp" could make significant gains and perhaps hold the balance of power. If the DUP can do it, anyone can! :pac:

Labour really missed the boat with David Miliband. What a difference a first name makes.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

CelticRambler wrote: »

What's really needed in Britain is a Macron-esque politician/party that bulldozes both the Tories and Labour into the ditch on each side of a middle road back to common sense.

Living in France for the last fifteen years, I watched the two-party systems in the UK, the US and France get progressively more dysfunctional and incapable of actually governing the country. Against that background, "Trump" didn't surprise me, and "Brexit" was only slightly unexpected. It was a pleasant surprise to see the French opt for the radical third way, and even though there are the usual occasional WTF? moments that you get with any party, the mood here is considerably better that it was two years ago.

Could that happen in the UK? For the moment, I don't see how. The tradition of being either Labour or Tory (oh, or LibDem "if you want to waste your vote" ... :rolleyes: ) is probably still too strong, but with the rise of the youth vote, a high-profile candidate leading a non-traditional party with a manifesto of "clean sweep/drain the swamp" could make significant gains and perhaps hold the balance of power. If the DUP can do it, anyone can! :pac:

Labour really missed the boat with David Miliband. What a difference a first name makes.

Yes, the ramifications of that disaster are still with us and still have a way to go.

LaChatteGitane

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I stand corrected... I swear I saw Belgium ahead of the UK somewhere.

Nate

They are about the same
https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/exports-by-country exports

Imports
https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/imports-by-country

LuckyLloyd

Enzokk wrote: »

Nothing has changed at the leadership of those newspapers. They are still run by the same editors, still owned by the same owners who have their own agendas that are sold as being for the common man but their interests run in the complete opposite of what their readership actually needs. Its the biggest con job out there and people keep falling for it.

Agreed, and I am of course aware of that. It is important to keep an eye on though, as any weakening or acceptance of reality by the Brexit hardliners will be signaled in the media first.

CelticRambler

Enzokk wrote: »

So here we are, 19 months after the vote and the UK Government still has not decided what it wants from Brexit

Hardly surprising, though, because the UK Government didn't want Brexit. David Cameron wanted an in/out referendum that returned an "In" result, to keep a bunch of trouble-makers in his own party quiet, rather than tell them to fall in line or run off with Nigel & Co. He gambled, he lost and he ran off instead.

Theresa May gambled again with her election call, but without addressing the fundamental problems of a divided Tory Party, so she lost too.

Again, it's very similar to the situation in the US, where the Republican Party managed to use a dodgy electoral system to get a will o' the wisp into the White House, but the party itself is in such disarray that they can barely keep the lights on, let alone get any of the work of government done.

All of which means that the EU is the only grown-up at the negotiation table, and the squabbling children will do what they're told until they're mature enough to decided for themselves. So come 29th March 2019, GB will get a "Northern Ireland +++" deal which will send the hard-core Brexiteers into a fit and trigger a fresh election, one that will be very much more of an in/out referendum than either of the last two votes.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote: »

So come 29th March 2019, GB will get a "Northern Ireland +++" deal which will send the hard-core Brexiteers into a fit and trigger a fresh election, one that will be very much more of an in/out referendum than either of the last two votes.

Except that it won't be an EU referendum and by then it will be too late anyway.

CelticRambler

First Up wrote: »

Except that it won't be an EU referendum and by then it will be too late anyway.

Well, it will be if there's any party willing to stand on a manifesto of getting back what Britain's lost. I don't think either Labour or the Tories are strong enough to go down that road, and the LibDems have too much baggage.

But say that election took place at Brexit+18months, well into the transition phase and without as much/little progress on a final deal as we're seeing at the moment, a new Macron-style forward-looking party, specifically campaigning to put the past behind them, could conceivably capture the vote of a disenchanted nation finally waking up to the cold, harsh reality of being a "third country". A younger electorate, with family and friends elsewhere in the EU enjoying freedom and prosperity, might well be sufficiently motivated by the prospect of re-joining the club to change the course of historical UK politics.

swampgas

The outgoing German ambassador to the UK has been talking to the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/29/german-ambassador-peter-ammon-second-world-war-image-of-britain-has-fed-euroscepticism

Interesting take on the way British identity (for many) is based on "Britain standing alone" against Germany, with films like Dunkirk and Darkest Hour feeding into it.

ambro25

The EU27 phase 2 guidelines about the transition are agreed (in 10 minutes).

Downing Street spokesman said: ''There is obviously going to be a negotiation on what the implementation period looks like.

''The formal directives will be released this afternoon. This will be a negotiation and there will naturally be some distance in the detail of our starting positions."

If that 'negotiation' is anything like the 'negotiation' that followed the publication of the EU guidelines about phase 1 (and why should it differ?), then it should go:

Barnier: here's the EU position; sign here, here and here.

<much public testiculation by May, Davis, Bojo, Reese-Mogg, etc. whilst Corbyn & co continue to sit silently on the fence in the shadows>

[23:59:59 on last day] May: <scritch, scritch, scritch> there, there and there, done. We'd greatly appreciate if you let us keep that one quiet. Oh, lookit, what's that over there...

:pac:

Capt'n Midnight

demfad wrote: »

Long term the most economic sea route is the shortest. That would be Cork-Brest.

https://afloat.ie/port-news/port-and-shipping-news/item/38253-irish-sea-freighter-seatruck-ferries-surge-continues

Seatruck believe that the continued and worsening HGV driver shortage in Ireland and the UK is leading to a growth in unaccompanied trailer shipments as operates seek to use this vital resource more efficiently. By shipping trailer only, from ports which reduce road mileage compared with the traditional transit through Wales or Scotland, operators can make significant door to door savings in what is an increasingly competitive logistics landscape.

Capt'n Midnight

Harika wrote: »

Seems like Daily Express is pushing the "Czech will leave the EU" agenda. I googled and the majority if hits is from the Daily Express, going back to 2016!
As netto beneficiary of EU transfer payments I highly doubt they actually will want to leave. That is political suicide.

There's also the history. Is "Western Betrayal" still an issue there ?

Seeing as how Poland is getting a little uppity , there's another reason for the Czech's to not go it alone at this time.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Except that it won't be an EU referendum and by then it will be too late anyway.

Well, it will be if there's any party willing to stand on a manifesto of getting back what Britain's lost. I don't think either Labour or the Tories are strong enough to go down that road, and the LibDems have too much baggage.

But say that election took place at Brexit+18months, well into the transition phase and without as much/little progress on a final deal as we're seeing at the moment, a new Macron-style forward-looking party, specifically campaigning to put the past behind them, could conceivably capture the vote of a disenchanted nation finally waking up to the cold, harsh reality of being a "third country". A younger electorate, with family and friends elsewhere in the EU enjoying freedom and prosperity, might well be sufficiently motivated by the prospect of re-joining the club to change the course of historical UK politics.

When the transition period starts the UK will already be out and the deal (and much of the damage) done. Even if a new party could emerge and field enough electable candidates running on what would then be a Return agenda to gain power, I don't think it would be just a matter of saying "forget we said anything".

Jim2007

Skedaddle wrote: »

I think they're confusing EU treaty law with the UK's fluffy constitution. It's impossible for the EU to just amend a treaty. There's a long and complex process and 28 national parliaments and democratic processes to go through first.

Well actually it is 38 regional and national parliaments plus at least one and potentially three referenda... we’ve never actually done a treaty change under those circumstances and the idea that they’d open up that can of worms for the sake a third country is unrealistic.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, it will be if there's any party willing to stand on a manifesto of getting back what Britain's lost. I don't think either Labour or the Tories are strong enough to go down that road, and the LibDems have too much baggage.

But say that election took place at Brexit+18months, well into the transition phase and without as much/little progress on a final deal as we're seeing at the moment, a new Macron-style forward-looking party, specifically campaigning to put the past behind them, could conceivably capture the vote of a disenchanted nation finally waking up to the cold, harsh reality of being a "third country". A younger electorate, with family and friends elsewhere in the EU enjoying freedom and prosperity, might well be sufficiently motivated by the prospect of re-joining the club to change the course of historical UK politics.

There is an assumption in that scenario that the EU would want Britain to rejoin. I don't think that's a given considering how much blood will be spilt by the time Britain finally leaves.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is an assumption in that scenario that the EU would want Britain to rejoin. I don't think that's a given considering how much blood will be spilt by the time Britain finally leaves.

To date, the EU hasn't spilt a drop of blood. Any knives that are being wielded are on the island of GB. Having the "prodigal child" return to the family under (totally) new leadership would send a very strong message to other dithering nations.

All hypothetical for the moment, of course ...

Patser

Just as a slight aside, British passport is going up a fair whack in price. That must be some seriously expensive blue dye they'll be using.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42860723


I know, I know, in the piece they say it's nothing to do with the blue, just coincidental timing....

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

To date, the EU hasn't spilt a drop of blood. Any knives that are being wielded are on the island of GB. Having the "prodigal child" return to the family under (totally) new leadership would send a very strong message to other dithering nations.

All hypothetical for the moment, of course ...

Yeah, all one can do is speculate. But you're right, a prodigal son returning mea culpa would be a major victory. I think the most likely long term outcome is that Britain becomes a vassal state of strategic interest to the US. Kind of like their Israel in Europe. With ourselves in a slimmed down EU without the Eastern European countries. Hope I'm wrong and you're right.

BonnieSituation

Uh oh...

Looks like Brexit isn't a good idea economically. If only we weren't so blind all this time and could have told HMGov before now!

The Guardian wrote:

Brexit would leave the UK worse off under three possible scenarios: a comprehensive free trade deal, single market access and no deal at all, according to a leaked government analysis of the economic impact of leaving the EU.

The document was meant to be shown confidentially to cabinet ministers this week but was leaked in an embarrassing development for Theresa May and David Davis, the Brexit secretary.

It said national income would be 8% lower under a no deal scenario, around 5% lower with a free trade agreement with the EU and about 2% lower with a soft Brexit option of single market membership over a 15-year period...


...The report prompted Chris Leslie, a Labour MP and supporter of the Open Britain group campaigning against a hard Brexit, to call for the public release of the document. “It’s little wonder the government has repeatedly refused to publish any serious Brexit analysis,” he said. “Their own impact assessments underline what has long been obvious, that their reckless plan to crash out of the single market and the customs union will leave us all much worse off.

“There is no mandate for this hard and destructive Brexit. No one voted to make themselves or their families worse off.”...



...A government spokesperson said: “We have already set out that the government is undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis in support of our EU exit negotiations and preparations. “We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/30/brexit-would-damage-uk-growth-says-leaked-cabinet-report

RTÉ reporting on it too...
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0130/936950-brexit/

---

Could this be the first sign of the wheels coming off the track...

Peregrinus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

. . . Could this be the first sign of the wheels coming off the track...

Every week we have a new first sign of the wheels coming off. And yet the wheels stay stubbornly on.

Brexit was never really about economics. Brexiters chose to believe the £350 million-a-week line because it was what they wanted to hear, but it was not their reason for becoming Brexiters in the first place, and when the claim was debunked they were unbothered.

Brexit is going to happen. No discussion of the economic consquences is going to change this. Yes, it will cost Britain dearly. No, the people who voted for Brexit do not really care about this. Or, at least, they do not care enough about it to change their minds.

Zubeneschamali

national income would be 8% lower under a no deal scenario, around 5% lower with a free trade agreement with the EU and about 2% lower with a soft Brexit option of single market membership over a 15-year period

Before the Brexit referendum even happened, the British Government was predicting a 3-6% cost, and now it is saying 2-8%. not much change, just more uncertainty.

Peregrinus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Cmon, the tone of my post was clearly facetious.

Yes, I know. But it's a facetiousness that points to a depressing truth.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I know. But it's a facetiousness that points to a depressing truth.

It's beyond depressing tbh. I'm nearly at the point of not caring and just want to move on.

I mean in the sense that I'm slowly not caring about GB and the outcome for them. Obviously I care for Ireland (N and S) and the EU and the effects on same but I want rid of them at this remove. This is just another nail in the coffin of care.

Nody

Michael Barnier issued a press release last night which will see the Tory Brexit wing have a heart attack due to outrage and the Remainer wing from the downsides it highlight:

The EU position is very clear: the transition will last for 21 months, until 31 December 2020. During this limited period of time, the whole EU acquis will continue to apply to the UK. As well as the full EU supervision and enforcement framework, under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

This will include new EU rules entering into force during this period. For one simple reason: during transition, the UK will continue to take part in the Single Market, the Customs Union and all Union policies. It will continue to have all the economic benefits. Therefore it must also apply all the EU rules. The Single Market cannot be "à la carte".

This will ensure stability for EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU. Their rights will remain unchanged until 31 December 2020. And we are determined to ensure that those who arrived before this date will benefit from the protection agreed in our Joint Report.

This will also ensure a level playing field and stability for businesses. They will not have to adapt twice. That said, it is high time to start preparing for those who have not done so yet. However, the UK will no longer be an EU member on 29 March 2019. This will have consequences in terms of institutions and governance. After this date, the UK will no longer participate in the EU decision-making process.

Finally, one word on existing agreements with third countries during the transition: As part of the transition, the UK will remain bound by the obligations stemming from all existing EU international agreements, for instance on trade and aviation. This is crucial for the good functioning of the Single Market and the Customs Union. And we can agree on this in the Article 50 Agreement between the EU and the UK. But we cannot ensure in the Article 50 Agreement that the UK keeps the benefits from these international agreements. Our partners around the world may have their own views on this, for instance the 70 countries covered by trade deals.

The last part is what will become blood in a shark tank for future FTA for UK; all FTA are null & void as of March 2019 but they can't sign new once until Jan 2021 unless the countries decide to play nice. I expect to see quite a few countries bully UK with the threat/implementation of removal as they try to negotiate a new FTA to go live as of Jan 2021.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

The last part is what will become blood in a shark tank for future FTA for UK; all FTA are null & void as of March 2019 but they can't sign new once until Jan 2021 unless the countries decide to play nice. I expect to see quite a few countries bully UK with the threat/implementation of removal as they try to negotiate a new FTA to go live as of Jan 2021.

The existing trade agreements are not "null and void" as of March 2019; they will still bind the UK, because they form part of EU law, and during the implementation period the UK will continue to be bound by EU law.

But the UK can't automatically claim the benefit of the agreements as against the third counties involved; if the UK wants to claim the benefits of, e.g., the EU/South Korea trade deal, they need to get the agreement of the South Korean government to that. As matters stand, from the point of view of the South Korean government, the trade deal is a deal with EU member states, and the UK will cease to be a member state at the start of the implementation period. Obviously, South Korea's agreement to this is not something the EU can deliver; this is something the UK needs to take up with South Korea (and about 65 other countries).

This isn't news; it was pointed out around the time that May first asked for a two-year implementation period . As late as last October the then Trade Minister, Lord Price, was assuring people that the EU trade agreements would be "rolled over" in favour of the UK, and that all the countries involved had agreed to this, but in November Liam Fox admitted that, in fact, not a single country had yet agreed to this. And, so far as I know, that's still the case.

Leroy42

I found it amusing that yesterday the EU decided (depending on which paper/report you read) the outlines for PII in 2 or 10 minutes. This is despite a near daily insistence that the EU is splitting and the UK will drive a wedge through the whole thing.

I have to say that I am starting to come to the same position that BonnieSituation expressed earlier. It is becoming clearer by the day that the UK do not seem to care about themselves, and certainly to not care about anyone else.

Whilst we would all prefer if this mess had never been created by them in the first place, I am getting to the stage that I hope it really harms them. I hope they face the consequences of their selfish and uniformed decision. The only cause of great concern is the negative effect that that will have on Ireland and each of us, but I really can't see that being avoided at this stage.

Leroy42

A number of papers are claiming today that May will reject the transitional deal, they are not willing to accept continued free movement.

The only outcome left therefore is what type of brexit on 29th March 2019 as it appears that this is the only argument left. But if free movement is so against their idea that they are willing to forego the transition period that they themselves requested, then I really can't see anything other than a hard brexit.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

A number of papers are claiming today that May will reject the transitional deal, they are not willing to accept continued free movement.

The only outcome left therefore is what type of brexit on 29th March 2019 as it appears that this is the only argument left. But if free movement is so against their idea that they are willing to forego the transition period that they themselves requested, then I really can't see anything other than a hard brexit.

Agreed; I'd expect phase 1 and possibly some fudge claiming basis for discussions on a FTA as a best possible outcome in such a scenario.

BonnieSituation

Mod: Constructive posts only please.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

A number of papers are claiming today that May will reject the transitional deal, they are not willing to accept continued free movement.

A 21 month transitional deal is far too short to put in place everything needed for UK borders and customs.

No transition period is simply impossible. Trade would simply halt, and they would starve.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A 21 month transitional deal is far too short to put in place everything needed for UK borders and customs.

No transition period is simply impossible. Trade would simply halt, and they would starve.

Well yes and no; remember UK is free to set what ever border requirements they wish on their side of the border. Hence UK imports can flow pretty much uninterrupted if they so desire but the problem will be down the line on the export side and of course WTO trade terms (i.e. all countries would need to be given such unrestricted access). Hence I'd expect UK will go down the route of "EU imports don't require control right now" and kick the ball down the line to worry about WTO fines later (once other countries start lodging complaints about not being given the same unrestricted access) to avoid the starvation scenario. That will not help the companies trying to export things etc. but empty food shelves is about as quickly as you can get the general public to revolt against their government.

Leroy42

The latest 'leaked' report, as posted earlier, is saying that no matter what option they go far its going to hurt. It just depends on how much and who.

Rees-Mogg has, expectedly, come out to rubbish the governments own paper, on the basis that they were wrong prior to the vote. He states that widespread job losses that were predicted never happened. And whilst it appears that the UK economy is growing slower that both it had been and what the EU, that could just be down to lack of certainty rather than a serious fall out from Brexit.

I guess the question I am asking is, given that the predicted recession hasn't materialised, and the UK continues to prove able to not only withstand the effects but continue to grow, is there a chance that the we are all overplaying the likely impact of even a hard brexit?

I get that in the short term there would be issues, and that is is crazy that the UK seems intent on not being prepared prior to it rather than the apparent approach that they will deal with things as they arise, but once the planes keep flying, and the electricity stays on and the supermarkets keep the food on the shelves then in reality will people really notice the difference.

Of course I understand that nobody has the answer, it is all speculation, but given that previous predictions were so wrong why place any faith in the current predictions (on either side)

Nody

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Uh oh...

Could this be the first sign of the wheels coming off the track...

The Brexiteer wing of Tory has said to ignore the report; why? Because it is forecasting and forecasting has been wrong before.

What I'd love to know is then what magical crystal ball the Brexiteers have access to that can predict the future accurately because that sure seems handy to have around...

Leroy42 wrote: »

I guess the question I am asking is, given that the predicted recession hasn't materialised, and the UK continues to prove able to not only withstand the effects but continue to grow, is there a chance that the we are all overplaying the likely impact of even a hard brexit?

Not really; they have not left yet and lost about 2% growth without anything else changing in terms of access.

I get that in the short term there would be issues, and that is is crazy that the UK seems intent on not being prepared prior to it rather than the apparent approach that they will deal with things as they arise, but once the planes keep flying, and the electricity stays on and the supermarkets keep the food on the shelves then in reality will people really notice the difference.

But that's just it; planes will not be flying on day 1 and every single JIT import/export chain is broken which will cost hundreds of millions in alternative workarounds to be implemented and then not reversed down the line. The borders will take years to build up in terms of manpower and space and the real cost which is lost investments will take over a decade to materialize.

Now that would still possible be in an okish state except there's a very very high probability of a significant recession in the next five years combined with Trump going on a global trade war with everyone (America First!) and countries due to this becoming even more protectionist in nature. Either one is bad for someone who needs to negotiate trade deals and combined they become a double whammy of pain for UKs economy who will have only a handful of bad FTA by then compared to the 70+ in EU. Hence no, I don't think they will keep on flying and as London keep losing bank jobs and bonuses the money to run the government starts to drop as well exaggerating the problem further (and that's before we'd go into the tax heaven status some Brexiteers wants to push for which would drive down corporate tax intake even further). They will limp along for sure not like they are going to become Venezuela but growth will be low, unemployment (esp. for people not with a University degree) will rise significantly at the same time as crops will rot in the fields due to lack of immigrant workers to do the jobs while they will keep shedding manufacturing jobs etc. Now if they had a brilliant PM with a plan to turn the economy into something else outside of manufacturing they might pull something off; they however got May, Corbyn or one of the stooges as PM depending on when you look in the time period and that's not inspiring a great deal of confidence in such a transformation.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

The Brexiteer wing of Tory has said to ignore the report; why? Because it is forecasting and forecasting has been wrong before.

What I'd love to know is then what magical crystal ball the Brexiteers have access to that can predict the future accurately because that sure seems handy to have around...

And yet a sizeable proportion of the electorate will swallow whole anything the Brexiteers say. An objective perspective on the Brexit 'news' in the Sun, Express, Mail and Telegraph would find it funny and bizarre but it's often people's only source of information. Many people will therefore dismiss this report simply because Rees Mogg hand waved it away.

Harika

Leroy42 wrote: »

The latest 'leaked' report, as posted earlier, is saying that no matter what option they go far its going to hurt. It just depends on how much and who.

Rees-Mogg has, expectedly, come out to rubbish the governments own paper, on the basis that they were wrong prior to the vote. He states that widespread job losses that were predicted never happened. And whilst it appears that the UK economy is growing slower that both it had been and what the EU, that could just be down to lack of certainty rather than a serious fall out from Brexit.

<snip->)

First, the Brexiteers claim that the forecasts have been wrong before, but they miss that since the referendum basically nothing has happened. UK is leaving the EU, maybe next year or in three years after a transition deal or not at all. Not leaving is still on the cards, as unlikely it is. So from this point of view, it will only get interesting as soon as they actually have left.
There were positive and negative impacts so far: the fallen pound helped exports, EU institutions have been moved away, some banks are exploring the option to move parts to different countries, EU nurses are not applying as much as before. The impact of all those little pieces are atm minimal, especially as because of the uncertainty companies only are preparing for the Brexit, but haven’t yet executed adjustments to their long term plans. Even after Brexit it will take years to have full effect, and then other effects will overshadow those. And for our understanding a change of the overall growth from 0.6 to 0.4 percent of the GDP is not really grabbable.
The other point is the wide spread global undermining of the “Elite” and that common sense should prevail instead of those people with University degrees it just takes the common sense to look at the numbers and make decisions based on that.
And as Nody says, we are also in a time where whatever suits your agenda is taken as fact, and everything against it discarded as propaganda. That's why I asked before, where are the unbiased reviews of what the actual impact is of EU/UK decisions.

Skedaddle

They would want to be a little bit careful about congratulating themselves on causing the pound to slide.

They’re getting the upswing of a weak currency while still having full EU maker acces as Brexit hasn’t yet happened.

If Brexit does happen, you get all the realities of reduced market Acces.

If Brexit doesn’t go ahead, you’ll see GBP surge and it will cripple exporters.

So they’ve basically created a nice little currency trap for themselves by adding extreme instability. Well done

First Up

Harika wrote: »

That's why I asked before, where are the unbiased reviews of what the actual impact is of EU/UK decisions.

What would you consider an unbiased source?

Harika

First Up wrote: »

What would you consider an unbiased source?

Not source but interpretation. Like here you will mostly find one interpretation of events, but where do you find an impartial evaluation without prejudice that looks how it effects both sides?

First Up

Harika wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

What would you consider an unbiased source?

Not source but interpretation. Like here you will mostly find one interpretation of events, but where do you find an impartial evaluation without prejudice that looks how it effects both sides?

Do I assume that you consider all the evaluations you have seen to be biased?

Harika

First Up wrote: »

Do I assume that you consider all the evaluations you have seen to be biased?

I assume all to be biased, except the ones that are unbiased.

demfad

Harika wrote: »

I assume all to be biased, except the ones that are unbiased.

The leaked report in question is from the Brexit department (Dexeu) itself! It may be biased, but that makes the figures optimistic not pessimistic.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

What would you consider an unbiased source?

It is indeed difficult to ever get totally unbiased reports, even subconsciously we are have preconceived ideas and sometimes let them interpret data in a particular way.

However, when the vast majority of unconnected reports all point to a similar outcome, then whilst bias still exists within each one, it is hard to argue that it is bias alone that is driving the outcomes.

When you look at the majority of the reports, which all point to negative outcomes, and the disparate areas that they are coming from, and then compare that to the paucity of positive reports and the, in most cases, single sources that they are coming from, then it points to accepting one over the other.

Whilst one can never rule out that the majority is wrong, the way to do it is to undermine the assumptions inherent in the reports themselves, not simply calling them wrong and claims of bias.

To date, the brexit side have provided nothing more than dismissal of any report that those not fit their position, but have very rarely provided anything in the way of backup to either the basis for their dismissal or a basis for their position.

One can only conclude that the most serious case of bias is therefore coming from the party that is not prepared to divulge any of the information on which they have based their position

First Up

Harika wrote: »

I assume all to be biased, except the ones that are unbiased.

I suggested previously that you ignore the media and follow the money.

State Street are one of the world's largest (and oldest) financial advisory companies. They do a quarterly survey of 100 global asset managers to monitor their risk/opportunity evaluation of Brexit.

Look it up and see if it meets your criteria for being unbiased.

Harika

demfad wrote: »

The leaked report in question is from the Brexit department (Dexeu) itself! It may be biased, but that makes the figures optimistic not pessimistic.

Yeah and there you see the problem, even when they are biased pro and the outcome is negative, is it already biased to be shown better than it actually is? By merging EU and UK forecast you get quite the idea of the impact of Brexit.
Now when we are talking about the stage 1 outcome and the exit bill. Who did well here, did UK fare better than expected or did the EU get more than they actually asked for. What was the ZOPA and who went closest? How does the payment influence the Irish border question, was that a good move of TM or a capitulation?

ambro25

Harika wrote: »

Not source but interpretation. Like here you will mostly find one interpretation of events, but where do you find an impartial evaluation without prejudice that looks how it effects both sides?

I think I referred you to Richard North's blog? Might have been another poster.

It's not unbiased as a source (he's pro-careful, measured and concerted exit, an EEA-based solution, rather than 'pro-Brexit' as it were), but I find him pretty objective in terms of interpretation (because he's worked in and for the EU, always at the H&S EU/UK regulatory coalface, he consistently strips the Brexity rethoric from daily news to focus on facts and position-contrasting).

Basically he applies what clearly is a very in-depth knowledge of EU law, facts and procedures, to the ongoing car crash that is the UK government's handling of Brexit, for a contrasting view of how Brexit 'should be done' for the mutual benefit of the UK and the EU.

As I posted before (IIRC), think of him as an "objective Brexiter", which I'd call a halfway-position between pros- and antis- (i.e. a pro-leaver in a similar predicament, but on the opposite side of the mirror, to a pro-remainer with a realistic-cum-fatalistic take on proceedings like myself ).

FWIW, any of my older posts about the interrelation of UK intellectual property law & practice with EU intellectual property law (and Brexit consequences on same, since the referendum and at term) have been fully objective. Because it's black and white legal texts, with all of their application, relevance and consequences fully-mappable for both sides (since long before the referendum itself): it's wholly pointless adopting a bias in the matter, one way or the other, because the consequences of the UK (or any other Member State, for that matter) exiting the jurisdiction and scope of the various Directives and Regulations constituting 'EU intellectual property law' are plainly couched in black and white, and will automatically occur by default (if the UK does not remain an EEA member state at least) on 1st April 2019 regardless.

I cannot be sure -because my professional game of over 2 decades is intellectual property, not these other areas- but strongly suspect that the exact same situation befalls most other areas of harmonised British socio-economic life codified by EU Directives, Regulations and other treaties (including air travel, chemicals, medicines, etc.).

I suppose that is how and why I find an affinity with Dr North, even though we are ideologically opposed (he's pro-exit when I'm pro-remain): we're both experienced, time-served specialists with in-depth factual knowledge of how UK and EU are imbricated in our respective professional spheres, sufficiently so to understand perfectly well what will happen by time T, T+1, T+2 etc. depending on whether the UK adopts Brexit model A, Brexit model B, etc. or no model at all.

The main problem you may have with your search, of course, is that whilst it's relatively easy to conduct rational analyses of the EU's handling of Brexit (because the EU publishes everything about it and has been fully consistent in its decisions, PR and whatnot since about it before June 2016 - and because much everything about what the EU is and how it works is as black and white as the TEU and TFEU permit), it's difficult to conduct reciprocal rational analyses of the UK's handling of Brexit, because that is nothing if not consistently irrational (irresponsible might be a better, less biased adjective ).

I'm mindful that this last paragraph will come across as bias, but I really cannot think of any other way of qualifying May and Davis' handling of Brexit since around July 2016, with however much objectivity you may care to throw at it.

Or just read Peregrinus posts