Brexit discussion thread III

Capt'n Midnight

Infini wrote: »

Hard Brexit by Ignorant Gobshytes it is then....

All it would take is for the EU to basically say "no deal" for the real effects to kick in at this stage.

We need to make it very clear to the UK that we'll do everything in our power to trash any hopes they have of having their cake and eat it.

If they shaft us, economically or over the border, and they haven't sorted out everything when Article 50 kicks in, we'll veto EVERYTHING.

It removes some wriggle room. So might just focus some minds and dispel some illusions.




Then again they've ignored so much reality it won't make much difference.

Junkyard Tom

At last, Kate Hoey has been 'slapped down by her local Constituency Association'.



twitter.com/stewartcdickson

Hopefully people are beginning to understand what, I believe, motivates Kate Hoey when it comes to Brexit.

joeysoap

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Chequers conclave has ended, though we won't get an official result until a speech by TMPM scheduled for next week. Obviously we'll get a dozen leaks in the meantime though.

Earliest tweets from reporters from initial briefings are that the cakeists have won the day. "Divergence is the victor" according to The Suns James Forsyth.

Portillo said as much on This Week tonight.

Strazdas

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Chequers conclave has ended, though we won't get an official result until a speech by TMPM scheduled for next week. Obviously we'll get a dozen leaks in the meantime though.

Earliest tweets from reporters from initial briefings are that the cakeists have won the day. "Divergence is the victor" according to The Suns James Forsyth.

FT reports the Cabinet are looking for Canada Plus Plus Plus (something that has already been ruled out by the EU).

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Then please explain how/why only 63% of non-EU immigrants (who you say need to have a job to be allowed enter) are in employment whereas 82% of EU immigrants (who can enter freely) are in jobs and contributing to the economy?

There could be a couple of factors at work here:

Non-EU migrants who arrive to take up jobs may have a greater propensity to bring non-working dependents with them, or in their train.

Also, non-Eu migrants may (on average) be less skilled/less educated than EU migrants, and so if they lose their jobs they have greater difficulty in finding others.

Plus, it could be that EU-migrants who lose or leave their jobs have a greater propensity to return home, or move to a third country) than non-EU migrants, who settle in the UK.

First Up wrote: »

And if current trends continue and Brexit achieves the intended reduction in EU immigrants, who is going to do the jobs they now fill?

Labour markets are complex. There's be a number of things going on.

1. All other things being equal, if you reduce the number of people seeking low-skilled, low status jobs, that creates a scarcity at that end of the market, and wage rates should tend to rise. But . . .

2. Low skilled, low status jobs tend to be low-output jobs. At higher wage rates, the job may simply be uneconomic. So, while pay rates should rise for some of the jobs at this end of the market, other jobs will simply disappear. The combined effect would be slightly higher rates of pay for low-end jobs, but fewer low-end jobs.

3. This assumes that cutting off EU migration will reduce the number of people seeking low-end jobs. But this would be painful for employers/industry, and they can be expected to resist it. They could advocate for policies of increased non-EU migration, or even after the end of free movement, very accessible employment-based visas for EU citizens, so that ending free movement wouldn't really operate to reduce the supply of low-end workers. To the extent that they success in this, wage rates would not rise, and the number of low-end jobs would not reduce.

4. The UK has always been free to reduce non-EU immigration if they wanted these effects, and they haven't done so. This may suggest that the interests of employers/industry are reflected in government policy and that, after the end of free movement, if this continues to be the case, employers and industry may have their way.

5. And coming in from left field will the the other effects of Brexit. If trade barriers/trade restrictions/trade friction affect the UK's imports and exports, employment is going to be adversely affected anyway. If growth in the economy is restricted, the job market will be affected, and this could eclipse any effect acheived by limiting low-end immigration. Having fewer people seeking low end jobs only causes a wage rise if there are the same number of low-end jobs to be filled. If a general miasma of gloom in the economy as a result of brexit means that there is less demand for waiters on tables, delivery drivers, attendants at concerts, cleaners-up after events and countless other jobs, then the wage rate for those jobs and similar unskilled low pay jobs is not going to rise and the number of such jobs being offered will fall.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

FT reports the Cabinet are looking for Canada Plus Plus Plus (something that has already been ruled out by the EU).

Yes. But the purpose of the little awayday wasn't for the UK to work out what they could get. It was to work out what they would ask for, first off.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Valid points there. I recall reading in Tim Shipman's Fall Out that the age at which someone became more like to vote Conservative than Labour in 2015 was 34. In 2017, it was 47. That's grim reading for the Conservative party as one's thirties are the age when one normally has accumulated some degree of wealth and has solidified their goals for the rest of their life.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm not sure one can extract a greater trend from such a small data set

Good point. The two data points are only 2 years apart, so this isn’t so much about the effects of cohorts aging over time as it is about a bunch of people aged between 34 and 47 switching from voting Tory in 2015 to voting Labour in 2017. Whatever the reason for the switch, it’s unlikely to have much to do with the fact that they were 2 years older.

Still, the Tories are right to be concerned:

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher believed in a property owning democracy which I believe is one of the reasons why so much social housing stock was sold off. However, now there is a different problem. The Conservatives have to sell the status quo to younger Brits and other people living here. These people are aging and will be wondering what the future will hold. The old idea of getting a degree to increase one's income with the goal of obtaining a property is all but dead save for cases where the bank of Mum and Dad steps in. Thus, there is no reason for house sharers in their thirties to vote Conservative when Labour is offering to build social housing, cap rents, make having pets a right in rental properties and so on and so forth.

If older people are more likely to vote Tory, that’s partly because they have more wealth and therefore more stake in preserving the status quo. For most people, the primary wealth they have in their equity in their home. But people in their 20s and 30s today are not accumulating that wealth as fast as their parents’ generation did at that age. They are older before they can afford to buy a house, they pay a lot more for it, and they spend a lot more time paying for it. So, if having accumulated wealth tends to make you vote Tory, then the present generation will take a lot longer to get to that point. They’ll spend relatively more of their lives voting Labour/Liberal Democrat/whatever, and relatively less voting Tory.

And even that assumes that, when they do get to the level of relative wealth their parents enjoyed, they will have the same propensity to vote Tory. This isn‘t a given.

One way for the Tories to combat this problem is to go into full populist/Trump mode, appealing to people who feel aggrieved because they are locked out from the prosperity they perceive others to enjoy/accumulate. This is a difficult one for the Tory party to pull off, while still remaining the party that defends the vested interests of the already-prosperous. And it’s highly risky; if you go full-on Trump you may end up with, well, Donald Trump or his British equivalent. Arguably, the whole business of the Tories competing with Farage by adopting Farage-like attitudes to the EU is what has the country, and the party, in the mess that it’s now in.

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

FT reports the Cabinet are looking for Canada Plus Plus Plus (something that has already been ruled out by the EU).

One has to wonder whether this would preserve the open border between the EU and NI though.

Nody

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Chequers conclave has ended, though we won't get an official result until a speech by TMPM scheduled for next week. Obviously we'll get a dozen leaks in the meantime though.

Earliest tweets from reporters from initial briefings are that the cakeists have won the day. "Divergence is the victor" according to The Suns James Forsyth.

Well May wanted support for her "three basket approach" which EU already ruled out before the meeting started; not that the current UK government would let something minor like that stop it from being their agreed policy going forward.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

One has to wonder whether this would preserve the open border between the EU and NI though.

Depends on what the "plus plus plus" is.

The plusser it is, broadly speaking, the closer it becomes to something that might help to support an open border. And the closer it is to that, the less additional alignment would be needed in NI in order to keep the border open, and the smaller the differences that might have to be maintained between NI and GB.

In other words, May's strategy - or wishful thinking, at any rate - may be to try and get a Canada +++ deal which largely does the work needed to keep the border open, so that she only has to break her promise to the DUP a little bit in order to do the further alignment in NI needed to keep it open. And maybe if she only breaks it a little bit, they won't collapse her government. Or something.

But I may be overthinking this. The Cabinet brexit committee considered NI last week, and came to the conclusion that they needed to think about it a bit more. For them, that counts as a decision, so they probably regard NI as an issue that's been parked for the time being, and their deliberations yesterday didn't involve any thought about NI, one way or the other.

Call me Al

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But the purpose of the little awayday wasn't for the UK to work out what they could get. It was to work out what they would ask for, first off.

Completely agree.
This is their wish list or, as Boris would say, the cake.
But they will get a very watered down version.
By it's very nature it can't be a good deal, and this was bluntly spelt out to Teresa May last April in that infamous dinner in Downing St last April.

Otherwise there's no incentive for any country stay in the single market.

Peregrinus

It seems very unlikely that they'll get what they start out by asking for. After all, with pretty well every issue that has been thrashed out between the EU and the UK so far, the final resolution has always been pretty most of what the EU sought, and not very much of what the UK sought.

But, when you think about it, that makes it rational for the UK to bid high. If you expect to have to move away from your opening position, then you need an opening position that is well away from the position you are willing to settle for in the end.

So I wouldn't criticise the UK for bidding high when setting out their stall. (I would criticise them for not setting out their stall until now; the decisions that were made yesterday really should have been made 12 months or more ago. But that's a different complaint.)

But what stall will they set out? We're hearing different things:

1. "Divergence has won the day", according to one leak reported in the Sun; also the FT. I take this to mean that the decision was to prioritise the right of the UK to set its own standards rather than accepting EU standards, and that the basis of any favourable relationship with the EU would be mutual recognition of standards (What David Davis was advocating in his recent speech), rather than alignment to common standards.

2. The Prime Minister has "played a blinder" and persuaded Brexiteers to shift their position, according to a leak reported by Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC. That might contradict the earlier leak, or it might indicate that there was some quid pro quo; the Brexiteers yielded on some other point, in return for winning on the issue of divergence. Or it could just be that each side is trying to spin the same compromise as a victory for itself.

3. It's "baby steps forwards not a huge breakthrough" - Laura Kuenssberg again. This sounds a bit dispiriting, as though they have just groped their way a little further forward towards an agreed position, rather than actually arriving at an agreed position.

All in all, still pretty confused, and I guess we'll have to wait for May's speech late next week to get a clearer picture of whether this represents real progress and, if so, in what direction.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Then please explain how/why only 63% of non-EU immigrants (who you say need to have a job to be allowed enter) are in employment whereas 82% of EU immigrants (who can enter freely) are in jobs and contributing to the economy?

There could be a couple of factors at work here:

Non-EU migrants who arrive to take up jobs may have a greater propensity to bring non-working dependents with them, or in their train.

Also, non-Eu migrants may (on average) be less skilled/less educated than EU migrants, and so if they lose their jobs they have greater difficulty in finding others.

Plus, it could be that EU-migrants who lose or leave their jobs have a greater propensity to return home, or move to a third country) than non-EU migrants, who settle in the UK.

First Up wrote: »

And if current trends continue and Brexit achieves the intended reduction in EU immigrants, who is going to do the jobs they now fill?

Labour markets are complex. There's be a number of things going on.

1. All other things being equal, if you reduce the number of people seeking low-skilled, low status jobs, that creates a scarcity at that end of the market, and wage rates should tend to rise. But . . .

2. Low skilled, low status jobs tend to be low-output jobs. At higher wage rates, the job may simply be uneconomic. So, while pay rates should rise for some of the jobs at this end of the market, other jobs will simply disappear. The combined effect would be slightly higher rates of pay for low-end jobs, but fewer low-end jobs.

3. This assumes that cutting off EU migration will reduce the number of people seeking low-end jobs. But this would be painful for employers/industry, and they can be expected to resist it. They could advocate for policies of increased non-EU migration, or even after the end of free movement, very accessible employment-based visas for EU citizens, so that ending free movement wouldn't really operate to reduce the supply of low-end workers. To the extent that they success in this, wage rates would not rise, and the number of low-end jobs would not reduce.

4. The UK has always been free to reduce non-EU immigration if they wanted these effects, and they haven't done so. This may suggest that the interests of employers/industry are reflected in government policy and that, after the end of free movement, if this continues to be the case, employers and industry may have their way.

5. And coming in from left field will the the other effects of Brexit. If trade barriers/trade restrictions/trade friction affect the UK's imports and exports, employment is going to be adversely affected anyway. If growth in the economy is restricted, the job market will be affected, and this could eclipse any effect acheived by limiting low-end immigration. Having fewer people seeking low end jobs only causes a wage rise if there are the same number of low-end jobs to be filled. If a general miasma of gloom in the economy as a result of brexit means that there is less demand for waiters on tables, delivery drivers, attendants at concerts, cleaners-up after events and countless other jobs, then the wage rate for those jobs and similar unskilled low pay jobs is not going to rise and the number of such jobs being offered will fall.

I'm well aware that labour markets are complex but the elasticity of demand and supply you describe cannot apply when the the most productive potential source of supply is being discouraged while the least productive source continues to grow unabated.

There has been detailed research to show that EU immigrants are overwhelmingly motivated by self improvement through work/skills aquisition, whereas non-EU immigrants are much more likely to be coming for social/family reasons. And as the statistics indicate, the first group fills gaps in the labour market while the second group doesn't.

The impacts of both on the social system and the wider economy are pretty easy to understand. The longer term impact on the gene pool can be considered too.

Brexit, and the muddled thinking behind it is pushing the UK in a very dangerous direction.

Peregrinus

I'm only looking here at the lowest end of the job market - low-skilled, low status, low-paying jobs.

A large chunk of EU migration is not chasing these jobs at all. Discouraging educated, skilled migration from the EU will obviously deplete the skills pool in the UK, and that's obviously a bad thing, but that's not my focus here.

But there's undoubtedly some EU migration - low-skilled workers from Eastern Europe doing fruit picking, for example - who are competing with unskilled UK workers for the low-end jobs. In fact fruit picking is a good example of the kind of job that might simply disappear if measures are adopted which succeed in raising the wage rate for such jobs. If Brexit does result in less unskilled migration from the EU, and if that isn't replaced by unskilled migration from other countries, then a foreseeable outcome is (a) jobs like fruit-picking disappear; fruit-farming ceases to be economically viable, and is replaced with some less labour-intensive cultivation, and (b) the guy who picks up the litter after the football game is over gets paid a little more, and is more likely to be a UK citizen.

But, while that outcome is foreseeable, it's not the one I expect. Call me cynical, but I think the interests of employers and industry will prevail. One way or another, the supply of unskilled labour will be maintained, and wage rates for low-end jobs will not rise.

And, arguably, this is a good thing. The way to improve people's earnings is not to restrict the size of the workforce so as to create shortages so that the price of labour is bid up; it's to invest in education, training, industrial capital, etc, so that workers become more productive and their labour can command a higher price. I think it's widely accepted that the real problem in the UK labour market is the persistent low productivity of British workers, relative to their comparators in other European countries.

i'm not sure where you're coming from with your comments about the gene pool. If you think low skills or low productivity are characteristics which are genetically inherited, I disagree.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the purpose of the little awayday wasn't for the UK to work out what they could get. It was to work out what they would ask for, first off.

Yes, but if they were paying attention, they'd know the EU already considered what they are going to ask for (since the EU side are months ahead in negotiations) and said No.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but if they were paying attention, they'd know the EU already considered what they are going to ask for (since the EU side are months ahead in negotiations) and said No.

They may be perfectly aware of that. In fact, I imagine they are. But it's not an uncommon negotiating tactic to go in with a position that the other side has already rejected. The EU, after all, is quite happy to talk about options that the UK has already rejected.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, when you think about it, that makes it rational for the UK to bid high. If you expect to have to move away from your opening position, then you need an opening position that is well away from the position you are willing to settle for in the end.

You can't go to your boss, demand a one million percent rise or you'll quit and hope he'll split the difference and give you a 500,000% rise. Your boss will just say "Get out of my office".

If the UK are really going to go in with a proposal which has already been considered and explicitly ruled out by the EU, I think that's what the EU side should do - pack their papers and leave - no deal, you're out in March 2019, good luck.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm only looking here at the lowest end of the job market - low-skilled, low status, low-paying jobs.

A large chunk of EU migration is not chasing these jobs at all. Discouraging educated, skilled migration from the EU will obviously deplete the skills pool in the UK, and that's obviously a bad thing, but that's not my focus here.

But there's undoubtedly some EU migration - low-skilled workers from Eastern Europe doing fruit picking, for example - who are competing with unskilled UK workers for the low-end jobs. In fact fruit picking is a good example of the kind of job that might simply disappear if measures are adopted which succeed in raising the wage rate for such jobs. If Brexit does result in less unskilled migration from the EU, and if that isn't replaced by unskilled migration from other countries, then a foreseeable outcome is (a) jobs like fruit-picking disappear; fruit-farming ceases to be economically viable, and is replaced with some less labour-intensive cultivation, and (b) the guy who picks up the litter after the football game is over gets paid a little more, and is more likely to be a UK citizen.

But, while that outcome is foreseeable, it's not the one I expect. Call me cynical, but I think the interests of employers and industry will prevail. One way or another, the supply of unskilled labour will be maintained, and wage rates for low-end jobs will not rise.

And, arguably, this is a good thing. The way to improve people's earnings is not to restrict the size of the workforce so as to create shortages so that the price of labour is bid up; it's to invest in education, training, industrial capital, etc, so that workers become more productive and their labour can command a higher price. I think it's widely accepted that the real problem in the UK labour market is the persistent low productivity of British workers, relative to their comparators in other European countries.

i'm not sure where you're coming from with your comments about the gene pool. If you think low skills or low productivity are characteristics which are genetically inherited, I disagree.

With due respect to fruit pickers, my breakfast raspberry tastes the same if it is picked by a Romanian or a native of Norwich. Discouraging all European immigration so that we can be more likely to have it picked by the native of Norwich is a pretty stupid way to manage your economy

As for the gene pool, the descendants of people who were motivated and courageous enough to leave home and risk everything to better themselves are quite likely to inherit some of those characteristics.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

As for the gene pool, the descendants of people who were motivated and courageous enough to leave home and risk everything to better themselves are quite likely to inherit some of those characteristics.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that these characteristics are "quite likely" to be heritable?

I think that is extraordinarily unlikely.

First Up

Its back to the old nature v nurture debate. I've seen research showing 40% inherited directly, which is pretty high.

Add to that the influence of hard working parents and being exposed to different cultures and environments and you have a solid base for someone with ambition and self reliance.

But I'd be interested to know why you think it extraordinarily unlikely.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

They may be perfectly aware of that. In fact, I imagine they are. But it's not an uncommon negotiating tactic to go in with a position that the other side has already rejected. The EU, after all, is quite happy to talk about options that the UK has already rejected.

But again, isn't that just setting themselves up to fail? Why state that this is what you want, after months of discussions, and thus what you are going to head into the talks looking for, when you already know its not even on the table. Not that you may not get it, not that you are chancing your arm, you have already floated it and had it rejected.

So the best is that the deal you might have gotten is improved, but since nobody knows what that deal would have been, the only judgment is whether you achieved the goal you set out, and we all know they won't.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

But I'd be interested to know why you think it extraordinarily unlikely.

Because if characteristics as simple as motivation and drive were heritable, evolution would act on them and everyone would have them in abundance in just a few generations.

Unless you think there is some equal evolutionary advantage to demotivation and lack of drive, in which case the folks who do not emigrate should have those advantages in spades, negating your point.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

But I'd be interested to know why you think it extraordinarily unlikely.

Because if characteristics as simple as motivation and drive were heritable, evolution would act on them and everyone would have them in abundance in just a few generations.

Unless you think there is some equal evolutionary advantage to demotivation and lack of drive, in which case the folks who do not emigrate should have those advantages in spades, negating your point.

Nobody is saying it is the only factor and while 40% is a pretty solid inheritance, of course other factors come into play.

I'm confident that someone from a family of motivated self starters has a better chance of making it than someone from a family of defeatist whingers. Multiply that by a few million and it makes a difference over time.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

I'm confident that someone from a family of motivated self starters has a better chance of making it than someone from a family of defeatist whingers. Multiply that by a few million and it makes a difference over time.

If it was that simple, defeatist whingers would be extinct. And I mean if the difference was even 1% heritable, defeatist whingers would be extinct.

The only way defeatist whinging is still around is if these characteristics are not heritable AT ALL in this simple way, or if defeatist whinging is an equally successful trait for some reason.

Anyhow, this is all rather off topic, so I will leave it there.

listermint

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If it was that simple, defeatist whingers would be extinct. And I mean if the difference was even 1% heritable, defeatist whingers would be extinct.

The only way defeatist whinging is still around is if these characteristics are not heritable AT ALL in this simple way, or if defeatist whinging is an equally successful trait for some reason.

Anyhow, this is all rather off topic, so I will leave it there.

Totally off topic, and probably something for a new thread (definitely)

But no, because defeatist whingers procreate and are assisted by welfare states. so why would they be extinct!!


New thread >>>> that way

Skedaddle

The issue is actually very simple. Removing human capital from the British economy is going to have impacts at all levels.

You've things like supply of unskilled workers who may have engaged in area like fruit picking but more so in all kinds of unskilled and semiskilled work. Those jobs will either cost a lot more to fill or go unfilled entirely. The result of that is various businesses becoming unviable and being unable to compete with cheap imports, which the Tories are promising through low cost trade deals with developing countries and big producers like US and Latin American agriculture.

Then at the high skilled end, you've removed what is a US-scale quasi-domestic talent pool drawn from the entire EU. UK cities, R&D, tech and universities and all sorts of areas were in the same position as Boston or San Francisco, drawing talent from all over a huge population. If those people have to apply for visas and be put through even slightly hoops, they'll just go to other equally attractive EU cities and hubs, and that includes Ireland. There's already evidence of a big drop off in EU applications for those kinds of jobs.

From a UK perspective, it satisfies a political need to keep a bunch of jingoists happy. That all it does. In all economic analysis this isn't going to solve problems. It will just create many more and the finer details of those aren't even predictable by models as the scenario being created is pretty much unprecedented.

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

New thread >>>> that way

Indeed.

Econ_

Can anybody explain to me the difference between "Divergence" and "cherry picking"?

Skedaddle

Econ_ wrote: »

Can anybody explain to me the difference between "Divergence" and "cherry picking"?

In this context, there isn't one.

What I find absolutely hilarious though is they're playing with words and subtle language tweaks, when this is being translated into multiple working and official languages at EU level and also being parsed by lawyers and professional negotiators.

Putting a spin on words like this is utterly pointless. It's all filtered back out again.

Econ_

The standard of the Brexit debate in the UK is appalling.

Brexiteers, on the Television, radio and print journalism have made clear several times that the leave vote was not all about economics.

Yet they claim that the EU will eventually give them the free trade deal they want, because it's in their interests.

They are right in so far as that it is in the EU's economic interest to do so but it is clearly not in their political interest. In fact it would be a political catastrophe. Brexiteers are able to understand this economic interests ≠ all interests rationale when it comes to the leave vote but seem incapable of doing so with regards these negotiations.

Zubeneschamali

Skedaddle wrote: »

they're playing with words and subtle language tweaks, when this is being translated into multiple working and official languages at EU level and also being parsed by lawyers and professional negotiators.

Putting a spin on words like this is utterly pointless.

The spin is not intended to fool the EU negotiators.

It is to fool the UK public into thinking the government know what they are doing.

Econ_

Skedaddle wrote: »

In this context, there isn't one.

What I find absolutely hilarious though is they're playing with words and subtle language tweaks, when this is being translated into multiple working and official languages at EU level and also being parsed by lawyers and professional negotiators.

Putting a spin on words like this is utterly pointless. It's all filtered back out again.

They have a reputation for this wordsmith. Bertie Ahern said that during various negotiations that the British would often have 40+ people involved in writing text whereas their European equivalents would have maybe 4 or 5.

Econ_

@SamCoatesTimes
Two Tory select committee chairs and a host of others back "a" customs union - just as Jeremy Hunt says the cabinet decided on the reverse. Awkward.


Looks like the amendment tabled by Soubry and Umunna to force UK government to stay in a customs union with EU after exit date has serious legs to it.


This is massive. Expect absolute chaos over this in the coming days.

Skedaddle

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The spin is not intended to fool the EU negotiators.

It is to fool the UK public into thinking the government know what they are doing.

I'm not sure that's the case. They've actually done exactly this kind of thing at meetings and have left even their own civil service baffled.

Econ_ wrote: »

They have a reputation for this wordsmith. Bertie Ahern said that during various negotiations that the British would often have 40+ people involved in writing text whereas their European equivalents would have maybe 4 or 5.

Wordsmithing, or just engaging in deliberate obfuscation and sophistry?

Econ_

Econ_ wrote: »

They have a reputation for this wordsmith. Bertie Ahern said that during various negotiations that the British would often have 40+ people involved in writing text whereas their European equivalents would have maybe 4 or 5.

Bertie accusing people of being wordsmiths?

wow

Enzokk

Econ_ wrote: »

They have a reputation for this wordsmith. Bertie Ahern said that during various negotiations that the British would often have 40+ people involved in writing text whereas their European equivalents would have maybe 4 or 5.

Seems that this is what is happening. The UK cannot leave the EU without a deal and the closer they are to EU membership the better it is for them. But they have to sell it to the public as that is what was voted for.

It seems to me that they will suggest to the EU that they are not in the customs union, but they form a new customs union where the UK will decide on their own standards and regulations. If these happen to lead to the same ones as the EU then there is no need for checks or barriers. But their cake would be that they can then negotiate their own trade deals in the process.

I see this as working as it will basically mean the UK will be in the EU without being in the EU. They will pay money to participate in EU institutions to ensure the continued running of industries in the UK that depend on those EU industries, like EMA or EASA.

The problem I see with this is trade deals. They will be able to negotiate their own trade deals, but they will be hemmed in by the regulations they need to follow to maintain the customs union with the EU (not the be mistaken for the EU customs union). As soon as they try and have a trade deal with the US where they allow in products that do not conform with the EU regulations then the deal is off.

So at the end of all this I predict that the UK will be out of the EU, out of the customs union and not participating with the single market. They will however be in a customs union with the EU, they will trade with the single market and they will pay for the pleasure of using EU institutions.

So they will not have moved other than in name, because it is somewhat ridiculous to leave the EU as everyone except those vultures who will feast on the corpse of the UK outside of the EU tells you. Running to stand still I suppose.

Leroy42

And blue passports. Don't forget they managed to take back control of them from the evil bureaucrats in Brussels.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

And blue passports. Don't forget they managed to take back control of them from the evil bureaucrats in Brussels.

And it will be sold to the public that they will have limited free movement for people from the EU. This will be in the form of allowing them to come to the UK looking for work, but if they cannot find work within 3 months they will be asked to leave. They will not be allowed access to the benefits system as they will be asked to leave before they can get any benefits. This is the control they will take back as well.

LeinsterDub

Enzokk wrote: »

But their cake would be that they can then negotiate their own trade deals in the process.

This absolutely impossible you can't be in Custom Union while not being in Customs Union.

You can't having the EU saying to China no dumping of steal , the UK saying ok but wink wink sell really dump it on the EU via the CU.

Enzokk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This absolutely impossible you can't be in Custom Union while not being in Customs Union.

You can't having the EU saying to China no dumping of steal , the UK saying ok but wink wink sell really dump it on the EU via the CU.

But they won't be in the Customs Union. They will be in a customs union. It will just be a coincidence that the regulations that the UK has with the (totally separate) customs union happens to be so close to the EU customs union that it allows for no barriers to trade. It will be a coincidence because the UK will make their own regulations (control).

It will be a fudge, nothing more or less. The UK will not get their own trade deals with countries that do not have trade deals with the EU because their regulations with their own customs union with the EU will preclude this.

That is my reading from the wording of the recent meeting of the cabinet and the fact that no-one resigned on the spot.

LeinsterDub

Enzokk wrote: »

But they won't be in the Customs Union. They will be in a customs union.

You can't be in customs union and not be in customs union , be it the or a customs union

Enzokk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You can't be in customs union and not be in customs union , be it the or a customs union

I know that, you know that, it is up to the UK to sell it to the idiots that want to leave the EU customs union. This is just my prediction looking at how the negotiations moved from phase 1 to phase 2 (and the reports from the recent meeting), where the UK basically agreed to stay in said customs union due to the GFA and NI.

LeinsterDub

Enzokk wrote: »

But they won't be in the Customs Union. They will be in a customs union.

You can't be in customs union and not be in customs union , be it the or a customs union

As Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, it has to adjust its tariffs and duties to match those of the EU. However, the free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by the EU do not extend to Turkey, so the EU's FTA partners can export to Turkey tariff-free, while maintaining tariffs on Turkish goods, unless they also conclude a separate FTA agreement with Turkey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Turkey_Customs_Union

Enzokk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You can't be in customs union and not be in customs union , be it the or a customs union




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Turkey_Customs_Union

I am not fighting you on this point, the UK politicians seem to be. They want divergence from the EU but they have agreed to have the same regulations to ensure no barriers in NI, and due to the DUP, the UK. How do you realistically do that?

What happened at the Chequers Brexit awayday?

What do we know about what was agreed?

Brexiters were quick out of the blocks to claim victory: “Divergence was the victor,” one said afterwards. Another minister said David Davis’s Vienna speech, in which the Brexit secretary suggested Britain would take control of its own regulations, though they may not change that much from the EU ones, was an “extensive hint” of what was agreed.

Zubeneschamali

If there is a special UK-EU customs union, May will be able to claim victory on her statement that she would not do a Canada deal or a Norway deal, she would get a special bespoke UK deal suited to the UKs needs.

It'll just be words, but the UK press are desperate for brexit wins, claiming at every stage that the EU are on the back foot over a barrel on the ropes.

MAY CALLS EU BLUFF! MAY WINS UK DEAL!

Between the lines: UK folds and agrees to stay aligned with the Customs Union indefinitely.

Skedaddle

The problem is the EU isn't bluffing and hasn't been playing any cards.
It's just been repeatedly stating hard facts and sticking to the negotiation position it started out with.

Leroy42

Skedaddle wrote: »

The problem is the EU isn't bluffing and hasn't been playing any cards.
It's just been repeatedly stating hard facts and sticking to the negotiation position it started out with.

True, but the thinking must be that as we get closer to the cliff edge EU will start to realise that hard is not any good for them either.

On BBC QT last night an audience member restated that they (EU) need us more that we (UK) need them. Now we have seen the fallacy of that argument but it is true that a hard brexit will hit certain sections of the EU hard (Ireland for example). Will these areas be willing to pay the price for an ideal?

I reckon that is the bet behind this. It doesn't look for good at the moment, and the EU has looked pretty consolidated, but as the clocks ticks down will cries start to raise about doing something about this or that. Take the plight of EU immigrants in the UK. Are they willing for all of them to be illegal basically on 30th March? (unlikely to happen but its a stick to use). Are the EU prepared to forego the possible 40bn in payments?

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Take the plight of EU immigrants in the UK. Are they willing for all of them to be illegal basically on 30th March? (unlikely to happen but its a stick to use). Are the EU prepared to forego the possible 40bn in payments?

Well, if it comes to that, are the Brits ready to starve?

They can't feed themselves, and the EU ports and airports will be shut tight if there is no deal.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Take the plight of EU immigrants in the UK. Are they willing for all of them to be illegal basically on 30th March? (unlikely to happen but its a stick to use). Are the EU prepared to forego the possible 40bn in payments?

Well, if it comes to that, are the Brits ready to starve?

They can't feed themselves, and the EU ports and airports will be shut tight if there is no deal.

No they won't be "shut tight". The worst it will be is WTO terms. It will mean price increases and possibly some items not being widely available but "no deal" doesn't mean a trade embargo.

Econ_

Leroy42 wrote: »

True, but the thinking must be that as we get closer to the cliff edge EU will start to realise that hard is not any good for them either.

On BBC QT last night an audience member restated that they (EU) need us more that we (UK) need them. Now we have seen the fallacy of that argument but it is true that a hard brexit will hit certain sections of the EU hard (Ireland for example). Will these areas be willing to pay the price for an ideal?

I reckon that is the bet behind this. It doesn't look for good at the moment, and the EU has looked pretty consolidated, but as the clocks ticks down will cries start to raise about doing something about this or that. Take the plight of EU immigrants in the UK. Are they willing for all of them to be illegal basically on 30th March? (unlikely to happen but its a stick to use). Are the EU prepared to forego the possible 40bn in payments?

The EU just has to sit tight and call the UK’s bluff.

No deal would be very bad for various sectors of the EU but it would be an unprecedented modern day catastrophe for the UK. Aside from immediately harsh economic consequences - flights would be grounded, delivery of vital medicines would be greatly impeded, UK citizens in the EU would be in no mans land etc. etc.

The EU knows that the UK can’t let these things happen under any circumstances and they will absolutely be forced into accepting whatever deal is on the table for them.