Brexit discussion thread IV

Trasna1

EdgeCase wrote: »

Just when you think it's at peak ridiculousness, it seems to just get worse and worse. I think the UK s a lost cause at this stage. They're utterly determined to go down this path of economic self destruction and there's really no way of arguing based on pragmatism and logic.

De Gaulle was right. They should never have been let into the EEC in the first place.

As a consequence of that, Ireland would never have joined the EEC either. Ireland was firmly locked in a trade orbit with the UK - we even practically shared a currency at the time.

Rhineshark

Rhineshark wrote: »

If we do take on NI as part of the CUSM, this us going to mean an Irish Sea border regarding Europe as well, isn't it?

We are not going to be able to prevent UK goods getting into RoI, which indicates to me that all-island exports are going to need to be checked.

Still better than the alternative, but I don't see a way around that.

No - Ireland and Northern Ireland will remain as we are in the single market.
Imports from Britain to either NI or here will be checked.
Exports from here to Britain may or may not be checked on arrival depending on what they decide to do.

Trasna1

Larbre34 wrote: »

A comprehensive EU US deal (if it appears) is a massive setback to the UK Brexit model for success, especially with the EU having wrapped up the Japan deal recently. At the same time, we hear some of the brexiteer banking execs insisting the City of London will remain vital 'just cos'. Super strategy.

If I was in big business in the UK, or indeed the employee of a firm with global export scope, my blood would be running cold about now.

I think there is a real risk of getting caught up in the rhetoric and in some ways the post above shows it. The delighting in the EU closing trade deals, not because it will make us wealthier, but because it sticks it to the British is the wrong attitude to have. There is much to fear from these deals. The Japan one will see the shrinking of motor manufacturing, and when you add in the changes to this industry coming by way of electrification (electric cars have fewer engineered parts, no turbos, no altinators), could end up with a lot of people out of work.
Likewise, as the American economy is more competitive a free trade deal with the USA will see European gdp contract in the short to mediun term. Add in the external courts and the drop in standards and these free trade deals don't seem all that appealing.

The real reason the countries and blocs want them as it sets up a stronger Western alliance with the ability to set defacto global standards and to counteract the growing influence of the BRICs, particularly China.

LeinsterDub

Trasna1 wrote: »

I think there is a real risk of getting caught up in the rhetoric and in some ways the post above shows it. The delighting in the EU closing trade deals, not because it will make us wealthier, but because it sticks it to the British is the wrong attitude to have. There is much to fear from these deals. The Japan one will see the shrinking of motor manufacturing, and when you add in the changes to this industry coming by way of electrification (electric cars have fewer engineered parts, no turbos, no altinators), could end up with a lot of people out of work.
Likewise, as the American economy is more competitive a free trade deal with the USA will see European gdp contract in the short to mediun term. Add in the external courts and the drop in standards and these free trade deals don't seem all that appealing.

The real reason the countries and blocs want them as it sets up a stronger Western alliance with the ability to set defacto global standards and to counteract the growing influence of the BRICs, particularly China.

Pure fear mongering. As far as I am aware no trade the EU has ever signed has been attribute to a decline in GDP. These deals take years to come live in certain sectors with tariffs declining year on year. Electric cars are coming regardless of trade deals perhaps it will lead to job loses perhaps not. Perhaps AI will perhaps not. But I'd rather have 300 ml extra customers in a declining market

VinLieger

Rhineshark wrote: »

If we do take on NI as part of the CUSM, this us going to mean an Irish Sea border regarding Europe as well, isn't it?

We are not going to be able to prevent UK goods getting into RoI, which indicates to me that all-island exports are going to need to be checked.

Still better than the alternative, but I don't see a way around that.

No the sea border between the UK and the EU will be the Irish sea. NI will be under EU regulations so anything imported from the UK to NI or ROI will need to be checked. Anything coming or going from ROI/NI to the EU will be fine.

Trasna1

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Pure fear mongering. As far as I am aware no trade the EU has ever signed has been attribute to a decline in GDP. These deals take years to come live in certain sectors with tariffs declining year on year. Electric cars are coming regardless of trade deals perhaps it will lead to job loses perhaps not. Perhaps AI will perhaps not. But I'd rather have 300 ml extra customers in a declining market

Yes, in the long term it will lead to growth. That doesn't mean that the growth year on year will be uniform and across all sectors. And benefits aren't necessarily equal either: a fully liberalised TTIP would see the American economy 13% larger over the long term and the European economy 5% larger over the long term. Over the short to medium term the EU is expected to lose out as the American economy is better placed to capitalise in an increased market size. If FTAs we're all positive then they wouldn't be so contentious and negotiation so fraught.

It isn't fear mongering, certain sectors lose out in trade deals - for EU-Japan it's European motors and Japanese agriculture that have lost. Protectionist tariffs exist for a reason.

Blowfish

Trasna1 wrote: »

I think there is a real risk of getting caught up in the rhetoric and in some ways the post above shows it. The delighting in the EU closing trade deals, not because it will make us wealthier, but because it sticks it to the British is the wrong attitude to have. There is much to fear from these deals. The Japan one will see the shrinking of motor manufacturing, and when you add in the changes to this industry coming by way of electrification (electric cars have fewer engineered parts, no turbos, no altinators), could end up with a lot of people out of work.

There isn't a motor manufacturing industry in Ireland so it's not a particularly relevant concern with the Japan deal. What is relevant though is that the Japan deal includes deals on stuff like beef, which should hopefully offset at least a small amount of the negative agri effect that Brexit will cause.

Trasna1

Blowfish wrote: »

There isn't a motor manufacturing industry in Ireland so it's not a particularly relevant concern with the Japan deal. What is relevant though is that the Japan deal includes deals on stuff like beef, which should hopefully offset at least a small amount of the negative agri effect that Brexit will cause.

Indeed it does. But if I were working in an industry like motors in Europe, my blood would be running cold at the thought of these deals rather than applauding them.

It's not that they can't be a good thing - it's the football team like cheering and jeering from some posters that I'm getting at. A win for your team is not a win for everyone on your team - a point lost on some here.

listermint

Trasna1 wrote: »

I think there is a real risk of getting caught up in the rhetoric and in some ways the post above shows it. The delighting in the EU closing trade deals, not because it will make us wealthier, but because it sticks it to the British is the wrong attitude to have. There is much to fear from these deals. The Japan one will see the shrinking of motor manufacturing, and when you add in the changes to this industry coming by way of electrification (electric cars have fewer engineered parts, no turbos, no altinators), could end up with a lot of people out of work.
Likewise, as the American economy is more competitive a free trade deal with the USA will see European gdp contract in the short to mediun term. Add in the external courts and the drop in standards and these free trade deals don't seem all that appealing.

The real reason the countries and blocs want them as it sets up a stronger Western alliance with the ability to set defacto global standards and to counteract the growing influence of the BRICs, particularly China.

can you give some examples of the having EU dropped its standards in the pursuit of a trade deal ?

seamus

Trasna1 wrote: »

The delighting in the EU closing trade deals, not because it will make us wealthier, but because it sticks it to the British is the wrong attitude to have.

You know why, though? Not because it's "sticking it to the Brits", but because the nature of how they have chosen to (not) structure their exit from the EU cannot be allowed to be a success.

It's not about punishing them for leaving, but not bending over backwards and giving them free rides and get-out-of-jail-free cards because things are going badly south for them.

It's needs to be demonstrated that taking the approach of "fnck everyone else we'll do whatever we want and expect everyone else to dig deeper", will hurt you badly.

And every time we see something which makes Brexit even more of a mess, the less likely it is that another nation will try to go their own way at the expense of everyone else. And that should be reason for the rest of us to feel relief and vindication.

Trasna1

listermint wrote: »

can you give some examples of the having EU dropped its standards in the pursuit of a trade deal ?

TTIP was going to result in a drop in standards until Trump binned the whole lot.

LeinsterDub

Trasna1 wrote: »

Yes, in the long term it will lead to growth. That doesn't mean that the growth year on year will be uniform and across all sectors. And benefits aren't necessarily equal either: a fully liberalised TTIP would see the American economy 13% larger over the long term and the European economy 5% larger over the long term. Over the short to medium term the EU is expected to lose out as the American economy is better placed to capitalise in an increased market size. If FTAs we're all positive then they wouldn't be so contentious and negotiation so fraught.

Where are these numbers coming from ?

listermint

Trasna1 wrote: »

TTIP was going to result in a drop in standards until Trump binned the whole lot.

TTIP was failing before Trump binned anything. It had a long road to go.

Any real examples of the EU having dropped it standards for a trade deal?

Or is as per the norm with the EU and trading partners having to up their standards game. Because the EU sets world standards doesnt drop them.

LeinsterDub

Trasna1 wrote: »

Indeed it does. But if I were working in an industry like motors in Europe, my blood would be running cold at the thought of these deals rather than applauding them.

It's not that they can't be a good thing - it's the football team like cheering and jeering from some posters that I'm getting at. A win for your team is not a win for everyone on your team - a point lost on some here.

As you already pointed out if I was working in an industry like motors my blood would be running cold at the thought of the following things in order

1. Electric cars
2. Self driving cars
3. Increased automation
4. American trade war
5. Competition from Eastern Europe
6. Europe - Japan trade deal

Infini

listermint wrote: »

TTIP was failing before Trump binned anything. It had a long road to go.

Any real examples of the EU having dropped it standards for a trade deal?

Or is as per the norm with the EU and trading partners having to up their standards game. Because the EU sets world standards doesnt drop them.

He might have meant TPP the trans pacific agreement Trump walked away from.

LeinsterDub

No deal is not just one of several options for Brexit. It is a total false equivalence to put it, as many do, on an equal footing with a free trade agreement, an EEA+ type agreement, or with remaining in the EU. It’s possible to have a conversation about the pros and cons of each of those. I believe that remaining in the EU would be by far the best option, but I’m happy to admit that the others might at least be possible without having to resort to stockpiling medicines, blood and food....

It is the UK government’s responsibility to announce now that it would take every step possible to avoid what would now obviously be a catastrophe for the UK. These can include requesting an extension to Article 50, possible to call a referendum on the deal or a general election, or requesting a suspension or even revocation of Article 50. No amount of embarrassment, loss of face, or concessions in negotiations could be worse than the prospect of shortages of essentials and the civil unrest that could follow. Through either, lives could be ruined or lost

Written by Steve Bullock a former negotiator for the UK in the EU and goes into good deal of why no deal is just insane. I know this is preaching to the choir here but surely the majority of those in the 48% are sane too?

http://www.euronews.com/2018/07/25/no-deal-brexit-isn-t-an-option-view

EdgeCase

TTIP became very weird, lacked transparency and both sides were unconvinced by the direction it was going and the structures it was proposing, which seemed to be all about handing power to corporates, and that was under Obama, so I wouldn't at expect to see any big structured deal emerge under Trump.

The EU has absolutely no reason to do any bad quality deals that undermine us.

You'll probably see a broadening of trade on LNG from the US which is hugely strategic for ensuring we aren't over dependent on Russian supplies too and more likelihood of narrowly focused bilateral arrangements on other specific areas.

I would expect the UK could end up doing some awful, one way (against their own interests) deal with the US out of desperation and because it won't be able to come off its political europhobic high horse to do anything sensible with its nexdoor neighbour and is currently being lead by people who adore extremes of unregulated, ultra liberal capitalism without any social protections.

The sad reality is that despite being far more politically in-line with European attitudes towards things like more social democratic approaches to politics and economics, wanting to protect rural life and having high expectations for food and agriculture and all of those things, they’re imagining monsters in Brussels and have allowed debate to be whipped up into a mixture of toxic jingosim and pure fantasy.

Leroy42

At no point in the campaign was a no deal ever discussed. In fact, hard brexit wasn't even discussed too much (in my recollection) but at least I understand the thinking behind this.

But how can JRM and Boris say, with any authority, that the will of the people was to crash out with nothing?

Its truly insane that the PM and ministers came out the last few days talking about stockpiling food etc and there is hardly a whimper. Some talk about a 2nd ref, maybe a slight extension to A50. What more are people waiting for to let them know that whatever the pros and cons of Brexit, this particular government is not delivering it.

As the opinion piece linked above states, a no deal is the complete lack of political competence. It means that TM has utterly failed to deliver Brexit. Because Brexit was never sold as crashing out, it was sold as an agreement by both parties. You can argue about how realistic it ever was for the UK to believe that almost nothing would change, but that at least was the position.

Imreoir2

Rhineshark wrote: »

If we do take on NI as part of the CUSM, this us going to mean an Irish Sea border regarding Europe as well, isn't it?

We are not going to be able to prevent UK goods getting into RoI, which indicates to me that all-island exports are going to need to be checked.

Still better than the alternative, but I don't see a way around that.

The point of the sea border between NI and GB is to prevent good that do not comply with EU rules from getting onto this island, there is no question of a border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

EdgeCase

They were basically told that they could leave the EU and have nothing change - basically the cherry pickers’ charter - keep all the same rights, remove most of the responsibilities, pay nothing, get everything.

That has evolved, since notifying the start of the article 50 process, into burning all bridges and cutting all ties. It’s been a childish tantrum when they discovered that they weren’t going to be able to get their own way.

It’s utter madness, grossly misleading politicians who have fed into a bunch of eurosceptic conspiracy theories, jingosim, fantasies based on historical notions about how great the British Empire once was and a good dollop of mass hysteria whipped up all the time by tabloids.

Trasna1

listermint wrote: »

TTIP was failing before Trump binned anything. It had a long road to go.

Any real examples of the EU having dropped it standards for a trade deal?

Or is as per the norm with the EU and trading partners having to up their standards game. Because the EU sets world standards doesnt drop them.

Equivalence is a euphemism for dropping standards to the lowest common denominator.

The EU doesn't set global standards, it sets its own standards. One of the drivers of TTIP was that it would create an economic area so dominant that it would set the defacto standard for the world, giving Western companies an advantage.

The EU doesn't do deals that undermine the EUs economy in the round over a long period of time but the deals it does can undermine certain sectors. The EU has to give as well as take in negotiations - it's not a one way street.

jm08

Trasna1 wrote: »

Indeed it does. But if I were working in an industry like motors in Europe, my blood would be running cold at the thought of these deals rather than applauding them.

It's not that they can't be a good thing - it's the football team like cheering and jeering from some posters that I'm getting at. A win for your team is not a win for everyone on your team - a point lost on some here.

Similar doubts about the trade deal between South Korea & EU. Don't think that has happened.



Nissan (and other Japanes companies) are not going to shut down their European plants because there is a trade deal with the EU. If anything it will make them more competitive because their will not be tariffs on some components.

EdgeCase

The EU doesn’t aim to set global standards but actually across a wide range of areas, largely because EU standards are designed to be somewhat “open source” as they must be applicable across 28 countries & the EEA, they tend to be picked up around the world, or at least aspects of them are. You see it a lot on EU originated technical standards in particular.

Any trade deal with the US isn’t a one way street for either side. They’re both democracies and share a lot in common in many areas but they’ve very different political backdrops and expectations. The US has become very extreme on right leaning politics and absolute liberalism in economics, while most is Europe remains centrist with a focus on and domestic political expectation of social democracy and regulation of markets.

They both share a lot more in common than either does with China, which is basically more like a mercantile authoritarian state without any democracy or sense they even need to consider that at all. It’s more like a big company.

Or you've Russia, a heavily armed former super power with an economic weight equivalent to the Benelux region of Europe, but heavily dependent on simple energy products, not dynamic trading economies. Russia's only a global power because it has nuclear weapons. That's the worrying reality of it.

Trump for some BIZZARE reason picked Russia and the UK right is for some equally weird reason also going that route. It makes very little sense economically.

It's hard to know what the UK is going to evolve into. I sincerely hope it's not going to be some kind of disgruntled former power, sitting on the edge of Europe moaning about how it used to be so great. That is a recipe for something more like modern Russia...

VinLieger

The stockpiling idea has a bit of a problem that anyone who had done even the most basic research (ie the minister in charge for it) would have discovered


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/26/stockpile-food-no-deal-brexit-dream-on?__twitter_impression=true

EdgeCase

That's the thing. The UK also pioneered many just in time systems and ultra efficient logistics. Thus a few inches of snow for a few days and they're out of bread. It's the same here in Ireland. Supermarkets don't even have significant stockrooms, you're running too minimise storage and get things onto the shelf in the least number of steps possible, reducing costs.

If brexit disrupts ports food and essentials will run out. What concerns me is that could happen here too without serious contingency to source supermarket type products on the continent at short notice.

Ireland needs to be able to rapidly switch to French and/or Benelux etc very rapidly.

I would hope the government has literally hauled in the big retailers and distributors and gone through contingencies.

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

Similar doubts about the trade deal between South Korea & EU. Don't think that has happened.



Nissan (and other Japanes companies) are not going to shut down their European plants because there is a trade deal with the EU. If anything it will make them more competitive because their will not be tariffs on some components.

Yep. Shipping finished cars means shipping a lot of air. Shipping some components is much more efficient. Japanese workers aren't cheaper than European ones.

CelticRambler

EdgeCase wrote: »

If brexit disrupts ports food and essentials will run out. What concerns me is that could happen here too without serious contingency to source supermarket type products on the continent at short notice.

Ireland needs to be able to rapidly switch to French and/or Benelux etc very rapidly.

I would hope the government has literally hauled in the big retailers and distributors and gone through contingencies.

The biggest danger for UK producer-suppliers is that Ireland doesn't need to be able to rapidly switch to continental sources. Irish retailers can make a decision right now to make the change, without taking account of any Brexiteer ranting and raving; and once they've changed, they'll need a very good reason to return to the UK - especially if the UK continues on its current rudderless course.



That said, when I read comments here and elsewhere about how Ireland is going to be hard hit "no matter what" it dismays me. Where has all the entrepreneurship in Ireland gone? Were I in business in Ireland, I would already have scaled back my exposure to the UK market in favour of EU opportunities. I suspended a previous project in the south-east because my potential customer base was too obsessed with London; with or without a hard Brexit, the whole Brexit saga has made my project look viable once again.

listermint

Trasna1 wrote: »

Equivalence is a euphemism for dropping standards to the lowest common denominator.

The EU doesn't set global standards, it sets its own standards. One of the drivers of TTIP was that it would create an economic area so dominant that it would set the defacto standard for the world, giving Western companies an advantage.

The EU doesn't do deals that undermine the EUs economy in the round over a long period of time but the deals it does can undermine certain sectors. The EU has to give as well as take in negotiations - it's not a one way street.

I suspect you know that what my sentence was infering is that the EU sets the bar, not the actual standard. They are adopted followed and aimed for.

Still no detail on the EU dropping its standards then in pursuit of a trade deal ?

Ok then.

jm08

EdgeCase wrote: »

Ireland needs to be able to rapidly switch to French and/or Benelux etc very rapidly.

I would hope the government has literally hauled in the big retailers and distributors and gone through contingencies.

At least Ireland is the end destination (and isn't an access port to other European countries). Similarly with ports like Holyhead & Swansea - most traffic will be coming from Ireland. The problem will be using England as a landbridge to continental Europe.

Trasna1

listermint wrote: »

I suspect you know that what my sentence was infering is that the EU sets the bar, not the actual standard. They are adopted followed and aimed for.

Still no detail on the EU dropping its standards then in pursuit of a trade deal ?

Ok then.

Equivalence is the same as dropping standards. CETA has equivalence provisions.