Brexit discussion thread IV

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU conceded on freedom of movement before, when the last round of accessions happened for example, FOM from these States was not guaranteed

It was guaranteed, right from the outset, but on a phased-in basis. The then member states (the EU-15) could put restrictions on FOM from the new member states, but for a maximum of 7 years. And the new member states were similarly free to impose temporary FOM restrictions themselves. (Some did so on a reciprocal basis - e.g. if an EU-15 state had restrictions on their nationals for 2 years, they had similar restrictions on nationals of that state. This was largely symbolic, since there wasn't a lot of migration from the EU-15 to the new member states.)

This wasn't so much a concession on free movement as a phasing in of free movement. This was by far the largest expansion of the EU since its creation, and there was a fear that the immediate introduction of complete free movement on such a large scale would be destabilising.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

Do you think honestly that HMG are that nuanced?

Nuanced enough to use a story like this either to manage or to gauge reaction before they take a step in public? Yes, they are. It's bog-standard stuff for spin doctors. It's their job, basically.

flatty wrote: »

I think may runs day to day.

She does. But that doesn't mean that she immediately announces every opportunistic twist and turn that she makes.

IAmTheReign

Akrasia wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I would not hold my breath on the EU conceding on FOM.

The reality of the situation is that this is not really a negiotiation, it is the EU presenting the available options and inviting the UK to either take their pick or come up with something else the EU would be abe to accept. They don't want to take their pick from colum A, and there is very little chance of them coming up with something for colum B.

The EU has very little reason to compromise with the UK. Compromising on the foundations of the EU is a much worse outcome for the EU than allowing the UK to crash out.

The EU conceded on freedom of movement before, when the last round of accessions happened for example, FOM from these States was not guaranteed

FOM is guaranteed though. The last three accession treaties allow for older member states to delay introducing the right to FOM but the length of the transition period is not indefinite.

Jim2007

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU conceded on freedom of movement before, when the last round of accessions happened for example, FOM from these States was not guaranteed

Simply not true! The implementation was staggered, but it was NEVER conceded. All EU citizens enjoy or will enjoy the exact same rights. And the only way that can change is with treaty change, which simply is not going to happen. So stick to the facts it makes contributions more credible.

EdgeCase

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dunno. Most countries are in favour of intra EU free movement. The countries which have seen the rise of right wing populists are usually concerned about non-eu mediterranian migration. I suspect its only the British who are conflating internal and external migration issues.

This kind of right wing populist usually has a parallel agenda and will find all the hate and fear buttons in a society and press them constantly. Then they find the cracks and drive wedges into them.

You can see that clearly with Brexit and Trump.

The agenda they are pushing is to leave the EU due to a dislike of regulation and a notion of being in some kind of ultra capitalism, destroying many many years of multilateralism and social democratic progressive policy. In the US you're seeing the decapitation of federal bodies that regulated successfully such the EPA and undoing of socially progressive legislation in areas hardliners don't like.

They're achieving that by whipping up fears about immigration, crime, sovereignty etc etc etc

You can plainly see that there's a cabal trying to smash the institutions of 20th century western progressiveness in the west itself and also the likes of Putin who've a parallel agenda of just wanting to undermine the West generally as he sees it as a military and economic competitor, which in reality is nonsense. I think the EU in particular would have been happy to engage in a normal way with Russia, without the baggage and dogmatic views the US had, but alas now it's all a bit screwed up.

BonnieSituation

We'll at least they can bank on runaway growth of 0.4% to get them out of the mire of their own making.

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/aug/10/uk-growth-figures-gdp-house-of-fraser-business-live

EdgeCase

That's why I said "would have".
There had been good engagement right up to the early 2000s in areas like aerospace and energy. Then he started playing with the gas valves, then the Ukraine stuff and now it's all a bit too late unless there's major political changes in Russia over the decades ahead.

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Do you think honestly that HMG are that nuanced?

Nuanced enough to use a story like this either to manage or to gauge reaction before they take a step in public? Yes, they are. It's bog-standard stuff for spin doctors. It's their job, basically.

flatty wrote: »

I think may runs day to day.

She does. But that doesn't mean that she immediately announces every opportunistic twist and turn that she makes.

What reaction are the gauging though? The papers? The tail has wagged the dog for far too long as the political class grow inexorably more cowardly by the year.

judeboy101

J Mysterio wrote: »

Look at the embarassing, childish shìte they are at today:

Theresa May faces Tory civil war after step taken towards investigation into Boris Johnson's niqab comments

Tories attacked the prime minister following the decision to start a process that could lead to a formal probe

That stuff might be funny to some in private, but writing an article calling muslim women 'bank robbers'? To what end did he do this? To rally support behind him of all the right wing elements flocking to Tommy Robinson and co.?

And ol' May is agonising over it now lest she start a 'civil war' within the Tories. It's a joke. She can't afford to lead as she's so terrified of losing any seats from her side of Parliament.

Mr bean thinks its just a joke and religion should not be exempt from criticism or humour

https://news.sky.com/story/rowan-atkinson-among-those-leaping-to-boris-johnsons-defence-over-burka-comments-11468114

Leroy42

Am I right in thinking that the fall off in the value of GBP should have brought with it an increase in exports?

Wasn't that one of the reasons given as to the UK economy had faired reasonable well since with vote? (I know it has reduced it growth rate but the predictions were much worse).

If the above is true (and I'm happily open to correction) shouldn't that be sending panic waves through the Treasury?

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the fall off in the value of GBP should have brought with it an increase in exports?

Wasn't that one of the reasons given as to the UK economy had faired reasonable well since with vote? (I know it has reduced it growth rate but the predictions were much worse).

If the above is true (and I'm happily open to correction) shouldn't that be sending panic waves through the Treasury?

Carney from Bank of England has said UK GDP is -2% from where it should have been post Brexit. This has been masked by external factors, meaning the UK hasn't gone into recession yet.

The Civil service know this. But 'Brexit is what the people voted for and Brexit is what will happen'.

J Mysterio

It's like the old adage: if your friends voted to drop the counrey off a cliff, would you legislate it for them?

Infini

J Mysterio wrote: »

Look at the embarassing, childish shìte they are at today:

Theresa May faces Tory civil war after step taken towards investigation into Boris Johnson's niqab comments

Tories attacked the prime minister following the decision to start a process that could lead to a formal probe

That stuff might be funny to some in private, but writing an article calling muslim women 'bank robbers'? To what end did he do this? To rally support behind him of all the right wing elements flocking to Tommy Robinson and co.?

And ol' May is agonising over it now lest she start a 'civil war' within the Tories. It's a joke. She can't afford to lead as she's so terrified of losing any seats from her side of Parliament.

Not to side track too much, I dont like much of Boris but to be fair on this the Niquab/full face veil that some muslim women are wearing IS considered to be rather regressive. The Headscarf is hardly a bother since IMO its very similar to the shawl the old ladies wore years ago but theres alot of negative connotations associated with it thanks to the idiots in the crazy east and the carryon im Saudi arabia.

Rjd2

Infini wrote: »

Not to side track too much, I dont like much of Boris but to be fair on this the Niquab/full face veil that some muslim women are wearing IS considered to be rather regressive. The Headscarf is hardly a bother since IMO its very similar to the shawl the old ladies wore years ago but theres alot of negative connotations associated with it thanks to the idiots in the crazy east and the carryon im Saudi arabia.

Its a very complicated and nuanced issue so perfect for social media:pac:

I see where Mr Bean is coming from, but this isn't satire or even free speech, just Boris been a dick for the sake of it. There is a debate to be had regarding this I suspect, but not if this is the avenue for it.

For what its worth, its worked out for him pretty well. He can portray himself as the victim, and the remain element of the party who are loathed by the majority of the tory voters have attacked him which has done him no harm whatsoever.

J Mysterio

Infini wrote: »

Not to side track too much, I dont like much of Boris but to be fair on this the Niquab/full face veil that some muslim women are wearing IS considered to be rather regressive. The Headscarf is hardly a bother since IMO its very similar to the shawl the old ladies wore years ago but theres alot of negative connotations associated with it thanks to the idiots in the crazy east and the carryon im Saudi arabia.

The Niquab is a bit... but that's not the point. You would expect someone who was just the Foreign Minister (and who has aspirations to be PM) to have a wee bit of tact or class and the ability to discuss the issue with some decorum, rather than insulting an entire religion.

But it seems he wanted to do that, probably to drum up support. Appealing to the lowest common demoninator with this stuff.

The other element of it is that these comments by Boris are an attempt to conflate the Islamification of the UK with Brexit. That doesn't wash.

It is also more Tory infighting and scandal when they should have better things to be at. It's a joke, but just another day with another ridiculous story in Brexit Britain really.

EdgeCase

Leroy42 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the fall off in the value of GBP should have brought with it an increase in exports?

Wasn't that one of the reasons given as to the UK economy had faired reasonable well since with vote? (I know it has reduced it growth rate but the predictions were much worse).

If the above is true (and I'm happily open to correction) shouldn't that be sending panic waves through the Treasury?

The problem with that is it’s a services economy and that just means a big cut in wages relative to the price of energy and consumer goods.

For most UK people it just means a fall in standards of living due to lost purchasing power.

It’s a common misconception based on the fixation on goods that is present in commentary about Brexit and also from Trump’s attitudes.

Weak currency would benefit China or Germany but it has relatively little positive impact on an economy that’s more about services.

Sam Russell

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem with that is it’s a services economy and that just means a big cut in wages relative to the price of energy and consumer goods.

For most UK people it just means a fall in standards of living due to lost purchasing power.

It’s a common misconception based on the fixation on goods that is present in commentary about Brexit and also from Trump’s attitudes.

Weak currency would benefit China or Germany but it has relatively little positive impact on an economy that’s more about services.

Also, the manufacturing activity requires significant input materials from abroad so dropping the value of the currency has little impact on manufacturing export pricing. All it means is imported goods will cost more resulting in inflation, and effectively a reduction in the real incomes of the British population.

It is likely to drop below parity with the Euro before the crash out in March 2019.

trellheim

For info - not sure if posted already.

The TEN-T core routes need to be amended to remove the UK landbridge for our RO-RO/container traffic. This went out to consultation and is now an EC adoption

importantly our containers will now flow Dublin/(Zeebrugge/Antwerp/Rotterdam) and not France ( it was thought that France will be tied up with stuck UK containers).

brought to you by the folks in the commission beavering away See

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-3440106_en

Rhineshark

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Lads, any chance you can ignore the risk of a bloody sectarian civil war so we can indulge in an act of monumental stupidity?

Some of the talk out of Britain in the last month has been more and more desperate, ill considered and desperate.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/britain-urged-ireland-to-reduce-emphasis-on-ni-peace-in-brexit-talks-1.3591310

"Theresa May was said to be hurt and concerned her credentials as a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement were not being taken seriously."

Well frankly diddums to you, PM £1b-Bribe-To-DUP-for-Support-Westminster-Neutrality-Me-Arse May.

Well really...

Rhineshark

Leroy42 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the fall off in the value of GBP should have brought with it an increase in exports?

Wasn't that one of the reasons given as to the UK economy had faired reasonable well since with vote? (I know it has reduced it growth rate but the predictions were much worse).

If the above is true (and I'm happily open to correction) shouldn't that be sending panic waves through the Treasury?

Exports usually go up when the currency devalues but Britain is more a trade hub than anything. What it manufacturers requires imports first, and those consequently become more expensive. So any gain from exports is at least partially offset by raised cost of imports.

Britain is pretty resource-starved in raw materials.

Jaggo

Rhineshark wrote: »

Exports usually go up when the currency devalues but Britain is more a trade hub than anything. What it manufacturers requires imports first, and those consequently become more expensive. So any gain from exports is at least partially offset by raised cost of imports.

Britain is pretty resource-starved in raw materials.

I also think the product mix made in the UK is not the type that would benefit from a currency devaluation.

The UK has specialised in high value speciality items. Stuff that is not price sensitive.

People who buy rolls Royce engines are not concerned by a 10% reduction in the cost price when 50% of the bill is the 10 year maintenance contract where the engineers will have to apply for visas before doing the maintenance work.

Leroy42

I see IDS is out again with some "considered" nonsense regarding immigration.

When the interviewer stated that the CBI had found, upon asking 130k business' (no idea if that is true but IDS didn't question it) wanted greater flexibility in terms of migrants workers and he simply ignored it and said well greater flexibility means more bureaucracy (or words to that effect)

Why is IDA allowed on the media spouting these ideas and yet nobody ever questions him on the complete shambles that was Universal Credit? How can anyone take anything he says seriously?

And yet he is allowed on and not even questioned as to exactly how this will benefit, and who.

Sam Russell

Jaggo wrote: »

I also think the product mix made in the UK is not the type that would benefit from a currency devaluation.

The UK has specialised in high value speciality items. Stuff that is not price sensitive.

People who buy rolls Royce engines are not concerned by a 10% reduction in the cost price when 50% of the bill is the 10 year maintenance contract where the engineers will have to apply for visas before doing the maintenance work.

I think RR Engines would be priced in US Dollars, so devaluation counts for nothing, as would maintenance agreements. GBP is a soft currency these days.

Also, foreign companies usually do their consolidated accounts in their own national currency, so again devaluation does not help much.

Trasna1

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think RR Engines would be priced in US Dollars, so devaluation counts for nothing, as would maintenance agreements. GBP is a soft currency these days.

Also, foreign companies usually do their consolidated accounts in their own national currency, so again devaluation does not help much.

It doesn't make any sense anyway. No matter what you're selling, good or services, if the currency it's sold in devalues, it will be cheaper for people to import it. The benefit with services is actually greater than goods as all their value is derived in the UK with potentially limited imported input.

Devaluation for a services economy loads the cost on employees, which tend to be more economically sticky than say imported goods.

Junkyard Tom

Would RR engines be a 'good' and the 10 years of maintenance be a 'service'? So if Britain gets a deal on goods and not services it creates a big mess for the likes of RR?

judeboy101

Stop and search powers without the need to establish just/probable cause on the UK side of the border with NI. It already exists at NI ports and airports. Xmas shopping in Newry is going to be fun.

http://www.thejournal.ie/stop-and-search-northern-ireland-4174889-Aug2018/

lawred2

Rhineshark wrote: »

"Theresa May was said to be hurt and concerned her credentials as a guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement were not being taken seriously."

Well frankly diddums to you, PM £1b-Bribe-To-DUP-for-Support-Westminster-Neutrality-Me-Arse May.

Well really...

I wonder will someone point this out to her

flutered

Infini wrote: »

Calling BS on the whole Buisness Insider thing. Feels like the stuff off that is unreliable and shoddy and based on rumors. Would wait till a more reliable publication reports it IMO.

bloomberg has the inside track on the eu, as has tony connelly, i believe nothing outside of these two

Sam Russell

Just a question.

How will insurance work out for a policy with a UK regulated ins company? Will it be OK, or should it become void on a crash out?

Ted_YNWA

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just a question.

How will insurance work out for a policy with a UK regulated ins company? Will it be OK, or should it become void on a crash out?

Probably the same as when Setanta went bust, become void.

They are not licenced to operate in whatever region. Be it UK ins co. insuring for EU customer, or EU ins co operating in UK.