Brexit discussion thread IV

lawred2

briany wrote: »

That's OK for countries who are staying in the EU, but why not have leeway for countries undergoing negotiations to leave?

because they are leaving

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

because they are leaving

The longer version is a bit like an employee leaving his place of work to work for a competitor. You can't have them doing deals for that competitor while they are still working for you.

Not a perfect analogy by any stretch, but it's close enough.

Leroy42

And the UK have made it very clear that they want to be competitive against the EU, and as such everything they say must be taken in the context that whatever they say they will do, unless it is a bilateral agreement, will only last until the UK decides otherwise.

In essence, the EU loses all power once Brexit actually happens. So they would be crazy to give the UK, or anyone else, the change to make massive deals prior to Brexit as it considerably stengthens their hand.

Imagine if instead of saying that after Brexit they will get new trade deals, that Fox could actually say exactly what he has got and what it means.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the UK have made it very clear that they want to be competitive against the EU, and as such everything they say must be taken in the context that whatever they say they will do, unless it is a bilateral agreement, will only last until the UK decides otherwise.

In essence, the EU loses all power once Brexit actually happens. So they would be crazy to give the UK, or anyone else, the change to make massive deals prior to Brexit as it considerably stengthens their hand.

Imagine if instead of saying that after Brexit they will get new trade deals, that Fox could actually say exactly what he has got and what it means.

Added to that, afaik both the Japan and Canadian trade deals with the EU include clauses that require any future trade deal with the UK to be run by the EU in case they could cause damage to the EU trade deal.

If the UK could start discussing trade deals before leaving, then such clauses could well be stymied and damage any deal the EU is in the process of concluding.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

This is a great debate between a remainer and a brexiteer; on the one side a person who's negotiated international trade deals and on the other side a leading journalist for Brexit to argue about if Brexit is a good thing or not using factual arguments. I'll leave it to you to guess the outcome of that debate but it's well worth the 9.37 minutes it will take you to listen to it as it sums up very well the current state of affairs as well as highlights exactly what a farce this is.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Added to that, afaik both the Japan and Canadian trade deals with the EU include clauses that require any future trade deal with the UK to be run by the EU in case they could cause damage to the EU trade deal.

If the UK could start discussing trade deals before leaving, then such clauses could well be stymied and damage any deal the EU is in the process of concluding.

This was mentioned in the clip posted by Nody. It is around 7:38 in the video and Jonathan Isaby (Brexit Central) replies that a clause like that is ridiculous is asked if he had actually read the 1400 pages of the agreements (CETA or the Japan agreement) to confirm if it is true or not and that his ignorance in this matter does him no favour, there is a torturous silence of around 4 seconds before he is asked his view on this he replies that the UK will be independent and will do their own deal with other independent countries.

So with regards to trade deals between the UK and Japan and Canada they will not get a equal deal to what they have at the moment because this was negotiated by the EU to be the case. The EU, unsurprisingly, is protecting the EU and this will be to the detriment of the UK.

lawred2

Nody wrote: »

This is a great debate between a remainer and a brexiteer; on the one side a person who's negotiated international trade deals and on the other side a leading journalist for Brexit to argue about if Brexit is a good thing or not using factual arguments. I'll leave it to you to guess the outcome of that debate but it's well worth the 9.37 minutes it will take you to listen to it as it sums up very well the current state of affairs as well as highlights exactly what a farce this is.

Debate pays far too much respect to the contributions of that Brexiteer. Repeating the long discounted and rubbished Brexiteer tropes about freedom to negotiate trade deals despite being on the periphary of and in competition with one of the largest trade blocs in the world. One that the rest of the world is more interested in trading with..

The pauses during that interview were painful. Each and every time the reset button was hit and then began a repeat of "independent country free to blah blah blah"

Totally exposed as a charlatan.

Imreoir2

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, HMG's no deal planning papers. A few thoughts:

1. So far we've only had 25 notices, about a third of what is expected.

2. Predictably, they have received a fair amount of scrutiny and analysis in the press.

3. I'm guessing that further tranches of notices will be be not quite such hot news, and may get less analysis.

4. If HMG has guessed likewise, odds are that the later tranches will include the notices which they hope will get less analysis. Hence all the discussion of Danish sperm and BLT sandwiches which, you know, maybe are not the biggest aspects of a no-deal Brexit. Just sayin'.

5. A few themes running several or many of the notices:

6. E.g. "although not obliged to, we'll keep everything the same, and hope the EU will reciprocate."

7. Or "we'll talk urgently to the EU about how to alleviate this particular consequence of no-deal."

8. A lot of the coverage presents this as "what will happen"; doesn't really talk about what happens if the EU doesn't reciprocate, or if talks with the EU about this or that particular consequence turn out to be no more fruitful than the talks about a Withdrawal Agreement were.

9. In short, success of HMG's no-deal strategy seems to be largely dependent on what the EU chooses to do. So much for "taking back control"

10. This approach isn't a great surprise. Previous disclsosure of HMG thinking, e.g. stockpiling of food and medicine, implied they saw no-deal as disruptive in the short term only. They hope to end that short-term disruption through the goodwill/agreement of the EU.

11. Commentary on the notices hasn't really discussed how realistic this reliance on EU goodwill/agreement is, or what will happen if it is not forthcoming.

12. EU has also been silent. They have always offered comment on what HMG says about Withdrawal Agreement or Future Trade Agreement but, on this, nothing. Strictly speaking, this is correct; UK planning for what to do in no-deal scenario is, by definition, not EU business.

13. Reliance on EU goodwill/agreement may be unrealistic in context where crisis has arisen because of failure to agree Withdrawal Agreement. EU will see this as failure on UK's part to follow through on commitments on citizens rights, settlement of financial obligations, Irish border. We will be seriously displeased, not disposed tor regard UK as a trustworthy or dependable counterparty. Not a great environment for the UK, in terms of seeking early agreements that are favourable or useful to the UK.

14. Bottom line is that UK response to no-deal is "we'll make some deals". So, not really hardcore no-deal. UK needs to say what it will do in a true no-deal situation in which there are, in fact, no deals.

Realisticly, I think the EU will be open to making a number of deals in a no withdrawl treaty scenario. There may well be quite a bit of horse trading following a no-deal Brexit, but any deals made will be hugely one sided, and even at that won't be ready on day one. The UK will still have to get through months of no deal of any kind hardship before the new, much inferior, normal starts to take hold.

lapua20grain

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1032919155882778625

A very good listen to Jonathan Isaby being schooled by a former trade negotiator.

prawnsambo

lapua20grain wrote: »

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1032919155882778625

A very good listen to Jonathan Isaby being schooled by a former trade negotiator.

Posted already. A couple of times.

lapua20grain

prawnsambo wrote: »

Posted already. A couple of times.

Feck just noticed

Sam Russell

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Super carriers to protect a global Britain, is Britain really regressing back to the bad old empire days?
https://www.bbc.com/news/resources/idt-sh/UK_aircraft_carriers

Will they have the frigates and cruisers to defend that huge target when at battle stations? A single missile could sink it without trace, not to mention a submarine on the prowl.

They need a large battle group around the carrier or else it is like the Bismark, a sitting duck. They could not find the Bismark for a long time because they had not yet invented satellites.

The USA Navy are doing the test flights, I understand, because they do not yet have the required aircraft.

Imreoir2

lapua20grain wrote: »

Feck just noticed

Nah, its worth listening to twice, the brain is not able to process the sheer level of arrogence and brass neck in one sitting.

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will they have the frigates and cruisers to defend that huge target when at battle stations? A single missile could sink it without trace, not to mention a submarine on the prowl.

They need a large battle group around the carrier or else it is like the Bismark, a sitting duck. They could not find the Bismark for a long time because they had not yet invented satellites.

The USA Navy are doing the test flights, I understand, because they do not yet have the required aircraft.

Talk about putting all your eggs in two really expencive baskets, and just as they embark on a great British economic crisis too.

Sassygirl1999

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will they have the frigates and cruisers to defend that huge target when at battle stations? A single missile could sink it without trace, not to mention a submarine on the prowl.

They need a large battle group around the carrier or else it is like the Bismark, a sitting duck. They could not find the Bismark for a long time because they had not yet invented satellites.

The USA Navy are doing the test flights, I understand, because they do not yet have the required aircraft.

the Americans will donate frigates and cruisers im sure considering they will rule the seas together to infinity and beyond

Rhineshark

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Realisticly, I think the EU will be open to making a number of deals in a no withdrawl treaty scenario. There may well be quite a bit of horse trading following a no-deal Brexit, but any deals made will be hugely one sided, and even at that won't be ready on day one. The UK will still have to get through months of no deal of any kind hardship before the new, much inferior, normal starts to take hold.

As an aside, the UK by acting so ...well... frankly dickish throughout is actually kinda making it more difficult politically to do them any favours.

Bearing in mind that the whole thing started off as brinkmanship and blackmail (give us more or I'll call a referendum, how do you like them apples), followed by two years of jaw-dropping rudeness, threatening behaviour and rhetoric and attacking Barnier, Juncker, various foreign leaders - Selmeyr's a troll so fair enough there (he was absolutely trolling the UK with some of his comments), the behaviour towards EU nationals, Ireland, blithe and often insultingly simplistic generalisations about other countries, Nigel Farage etc etc.

It seems to completely escape Brexiters that all these other countries have populations, a large portion of whom both understand English and also vote. The *leaders* want a deal. The various populations are not neccessarily drawn to look at it in as much detail as even British or Irish people, (bar politics geeks in forums :P) certainly as you get further from the epicentre. And general feeling seems to be getting more aggravated and "fine, get lost then". They're a bolshy island that wants to pretend they're in the middle if the Atlantic, grand, off you toddle. It is getting less politically viable to be seen as "caving". Ireland mostly aside as we're going to get it in the neck and know it.

I really do reckon that if they'd approached the rest of the EU in a spirit of co-operation and with a certain amount of basic courtesy, a deal could have been reached. Neither side might love it but both could live with it. Instead they've blustered the country into an unholy mess which is going to hit surrounding countries in a wave, the nearer the nastier.

Really was all so flaming unnecessary.

The EU will still co-operate for a deal. It's in everyone's interest. But horse-trading relies on the UK being willing to trade at all. And unicorns won't cut it. Even if they promise they're ponies.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Enough jokes please. Post deleted.

BonnieSituation

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Super carriers to protect a global Britain, is Britain really regressing back to the bad old empire days?
https://www.bbc.com/news/resources/idt-sh/UK_aircraft_carriers

Even in a semi-critical piece they can't help but cracking out the rule Britannia schtick.

Jim2007

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK will still have to get through months of no deal of any kind hardship before the new, much inferior, normal starts to take hold.

It is worth keeping in mind at that point the UK will be a third country and as such any agreements will have to comply with WTO rules so it may not be easy.

Imreoir2

Rhineshark wrote: »

As an aside, the UK by acting so ...well... frankly dickish throughout is actually kinda making it more difficult politically to do them any favours.

There will be no favours of any kind. The only deals on offer will be those which the EU needs to mitigate the worst colateral damage.

There will be issues that both sides simply must resolve, such as restoring air travel to working order, these will be relativly straightforward to agree. Given their relativly greater impact on the UK side, these issues can be used as leverage to force agreement in any other areas where the EU has an interest in gaining some form of deal. Beyond the EU's own direct interests, I doubt there will be much scope for agreements to make Brexit easier for the UK, especially if they want to walk off without paying the £40bn the owe.

I think that any form of post no-deal settlement, beyond the bare bones of necessary emergency agreements such as those on air traffic, should be subject to agreement to the backstop for NI. I fear that there may be an expectation in Brexiteer circles that a no-deal Brexit will reset negioations and the UK can thereafter begin to cheerypick agreements with the EU without having to deal with issues like the £40bn they owe or the NI border.

McGiver

Nody wrote:

This is a great debate between a remainer and a brexiteer; on the one side a person who's negotiated international trade deals and on the other side a leading journalist for Brexit to argue about if Brexit is a good thing or not using factual arguments. I'll leave it to you to guess the outcome of that debate but it's well worth the 9.37 minutes it will take you to listen to it as it sums up very well the current state of affairs as well as highlights exactly what a farce this is.

This is a total and absolute failure of journalism. This is some kind of moderation and poor one. Nothing to do with journalism. No factchecking no calls to present evidence. Facts vs lies and bollocks. Truly balanced indeed.

Sand

Rhineshark wrote: »

As an aside, the UK by acting so ...well... frankly dickish throughout is actually kinda making it more difficult politically to do them any favours....
...I really do reckon that if they'd approached the rest of the EU in a spirit of co-operation and with a certain amount of basic courtesy, a deal could have been reached. Neither side might love it but both could live with it. Instead they've blustered the country into an unholy mess which is going to hit surrounding countries in a wave, the nearer the nastier.

Yes, I think the UK attitude has been entirely wrong for the start. I recall seeing some Sky News 'analysis' piece which essentially painted the "negotiations" as a game of poker, using this trope to explain what was at stake and how it would play out. The entire UK approach from the start was confrontational, down to arguing over the loose change of the divorce bill.

The UK seemed to believe these early stages were a contest to win, not a common problem to solve. So if they would settle their debts was up for debate. If they would commit to their NATO responsibilities was up for debate. The tone deaf confrontational and triumphalist public attacks on the EU (rising up and including a threat of war against Spain!) as if they thought the EU couldn't read what was being printed in UK papers. All this was entirely blind on the part of the UK. These were opportunities for the UK to build trust and reinforce a partnership with the EU that would be expressed in the withdrawal agreement.

I'm sure the EU wants to maintain business as usual as much as is possible. I'm sure they would be sympathetic to the 'WTF just happened?' mindset of mainstream UK politicians in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote. In the last two years, the UK has spurned all that in favour of domestic showboating and internal Tory/Labour infighting.

At this point, the EU can only exact the maximum advantage for the EU. There's no honest partner they can do business with on the other side of the table.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will they have the frigates and cruisers to defend that huge target when at battle stations? A single missile could sink it without trace, not to mention a submarine on the prowl.

They need a large battle group around the carrier or else it is like the Bismark, a sitting duck. They could not find the Bismark for a long time because they had not yet invented satellites.

The USA Navy are doing the test flights, I understand, because they do not yet have the required aircraft.

It wouldn't be a single missile. It would be a swarm. The party trick of the Russian sea skimming ones is they pick one missile to pop up every now and then for a quick peek and tell the others what it sees. The Chinese just use balistic missiles over the top. India and Iran have lots of missiles too.

The big cost of the carriers is the extras. Even with their budget overruns the cost of the Type 45 destroyers protecting them is as much again. That's £12Bn before you can put planes on them. And the Type 45's are only air-defence so you still need sub-chasers too. And there are now 200Kt rocket torpedoes, they aren't guided but carriers can't turn on a sixpence.


At the end of the day it's all money that has to come from somewhere. Like the £5Bn for the GPS they'll need to support the carriers.

And I don't think anyone believes in the magic money tree anymore, expecially those dipping into savings and using more credit.

EdgeCase

I'm not sure it's a game of poker as much as it's a game of chicken, with a train.

There's only one side playing this game and they have a distinct lack of any risk awareness, a false sense of invincibility and overconfidence based on very little, a lack of understanding of scale and momentum and an unwillingness to listen to any safety advise from experts.

Capt'n Midnight

EdgeCase wrote: »

I'm not sure it's a game of poker as much as it's a game of chicken, with a train.

But ... but... the train's going to swerve at the last moment ??


Politics is the art of the possible.

That's the problem with triggering article 50 before you've figured out what compromises you are prepared to make and what the other side is likely to yield on. You haven't nailed your colours to the mast, you've nailed yourself.

Deal or No Dea ? as others have said they should just get Noel Edmonds in to sort this out.

As for May , she still hasn't renounced her long term red lines regarding the European Courts from her time as Home Secetary. The only saving grace is that there have been so many U turn's there might be one there too. Otherwise it's bath water and baby time.


Re the earlier tweet

Nate wrote:

Also - first real volley fired from the UK. Possibly the only weapon on the UK's side. De-rating EU states Bonds from Zero-risk.

Could prompt dumping of non-AAA government debt in a no-deal situation, by UK holders, requiring Zero-risk bonds. Will hurt us, but could have serious consequences for States like Greece

This would be fantastic news for those who didn't cash in their UK assets after the referrendum as UK banks would have to trade in some of their EU assets and buy UK ones. It's only a few % but the volumes would be huge.

As for otther side , EU banks with UK assets, they took a 10% hit when Sterling dropped so that damage was done.


Edit : Stopping distance of a TGV is 4.5Km , so if there are twists or turns you won't even realise it's upon you till it's too late.

bilston

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Super carriers to protect a global Britain, is Britain really regressing back to the bad old empire days?
https://www.bbc.com/news/resources/idt-sh/UK_aircraft_carriers

Not sure of the relevance Brexit but anyway it's been in the pipeline for years.

With a belligerent Russia and an unpredictable USA it makes good sense for European countries like the UK to be looking after their own defences.

bilston

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Super carriers to protect a global Britain, is Britain really regressing back to the bad old empire days?
https://www.bbc.com/news/resources/idt-sh/UK_aircraft_carriers

Even in a semi-critical piece they can't help but cracking out the rule Britannia schtick.

On the positive side If the Russians sink a British Aircraft Carrier with a swarm of missiles we'll not be talking about Brexit anymore.

Nitrogan

Sand wrote: »

At this point, the EU can only exact the maximum advantage for the EU. There's no honest partner they can do business with on the other side of the table.

Absolutely this.

We, in the rest of the EU, can only try keep them honest when they blame us for not getting what Brexiters promised.

Sassygirl1999

bilston wrote: »

Not sure of the relevance Brexit but anyway it's been in the pipeline for years.

With a belligerent Russia and an unpredictable USA it makes good sense for European countries like the UK to be looking after their own defences.

global britain is the tories mantra, see the link?

badtoro

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

the Americans will donate frigates and cruisers im sure considering they will rule the seas together to infinity and beyond

They may well do, however their own Navy didn't exactly shine when a Chinese diesel submarine popped up within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk.

Carriers have become the battleships of old, they're obsolete just that there hasn't been a war with equal sides to prove it yet.

Besides submarines, the real test is anti ship missiles. Throw enough of those at carriers and you'll make nice reefs with them. Rather like the wondering if carrier launched aircraft really could sink battleships at the beginning of that technology.

Sassygirl1999

badtoro wrote: »

They may well do, however their own Navy didn't exactly shine when a Chinese diesel submarine popped up within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk.

Carriers have become the battleships of old, they're obsolete just that there hasn't been a war with equal sides to prove it yet.

Besides submarines, the real test is anti ship missiles. Throw enough of those at carriers and you'll make nice reefs with them. Rather like the wondering if carrier launched aircraft really could sink battleships at the beginning of that technology.

i understand you think things have moved on but obsolete is the wrong word
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obsolete
obsolete:1.
no longer produced or used

clearly they are being produced by all the big armies, china is making more and more, japan may do so too