Brexit discussion thread IV

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

But is it a trade deal? I think it looks like foreign aid.

Looks like foreign aid used to buy a political promise to replicate the EU trade deal once they are alowed to make such agreements after Brexit.

The UK are spending nearly half their net contribution to the EU to secure the promise of being allowed to keep the same level of acces they have now to a trading block with the same GDP as Poland, and this is supposed to be a sign of hope for how things will be outside the EU?

Seth Brundle

Imreoir2 wrote: »

this is supposed to be a sign of hope for how things will be outside the EU?

Is it a sign that the UK government are serious about commiting suicide?

McGiver

Nate--IRL-- wrote:

Farcical.

Pure PR (or propaganda) and a distraction.

A very good comment on the Independent setting facts straight.

SIZE OF ECONOMIES OF COUNTRIES AND TRADING BLOCS

GDP trillion US$... No of consumers
18.6 trillion US$ ... 325 million ... United States
13.8 trillion US$ ... 446 million ... EU27 (without the UK)
11.2 trillion US$ ... 1,384 million ... China
10.2 trillion US$ ... 497 million ... TPP11 = CPATPP
4.9 trillion US$ ... 127 million ... Japan
3.6 trillion US$ ... 82 million ... Germany
2.6 trillion US$ ... 65 million ... United Kingdom
*****
2.5 trillion US$ ... 644 million ... ASEAN
2.4 trillion US$ ... 262 million ... MERCOSUR
2.3 trillion US$ ... 1,317 million ... India
1.8 trillion US$ ... 208 million ... Brazil
1.5 trillion US$ ... 37 million ... Canada
1.4 trillion US$ ... 51 million ... South Korea
1.3 trillion US$ ... 147 million ... Russia
1.3 trillion US$ ... 24 million ... Australia
1.0 trillion US$ ... 124 million ... Mexico
0.4 trillion US$ ... 65 million ... SACU
***********
75.3 trillion US$ ... 7,500 million ... World

TPP11 = Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore,Vietnam

ASEAN = Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam

MERCOSUR = Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay, Paraguay

SACU = Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland

OK so you pay £4b (50% of annual EU membership fee) to get access to an economy the size of 2.9% of the EU SM and get a deal worth £2.5b. Well done

Rhineshark

McGiver wrote: »

Pure PR (or propaganda) and a distraction.

A very good comment on the Independent setting facts straight.



OK so you pay £4b (50% of annual EU membership fee) to get access to an economy the size of 2.9% of the EU SM and get a deal worth £2.5b. Well done

This could get rather expensive. Although tbh, I suspect she got this deal cheap compared to what other blocs and countries will demand. It all got very quiet on the India front since India made noises about visas as part of any trade deal.

It will be very interesting to see what happens when the deals come down to actively damaging domestic industries. The free traders have got the Brexiters all wound up (in an only semi-comprehending way though) about how protectionism of any variety is an EU scam so public (Brexiter & Brexitpress) support might well be in favour of allowing tonnes more New Zealand lamb or Argentinian beef and the government doesn't really have the power to dictate terms in this very tight window anyway.

fash

Rhineshark wrote: »

This could get rather expensive. Although tbh, I suspect she got this deal cheap compared to what other blocs and countries will demand. It all got very quiet on the India front since India made noises about visas as part of any trade deal.

It will be very interesting to see what happens when the deals come down to actively damaging domestic industries. The free traders have got the Brexiters all wound up (in an only semi-comprehending way though) about how protectionism of any variety is an EU scam so public (Brexiter & Brexitpress) support might well be in favour of allowing tonnes more New Zealand lamb or Argentinian beef and the government doesn't really have the power to dictate terms in this very tight window anyway.

Is the southern African deal even a real trade agreement? I understand it is favoured tariff free access to the EU/UK with the other side entitled to tariff as normal, designed as an aid to them. As such it is already a massive net benefit to the southern African union and one they shouldn't have to have been paid to simply replicate.

Leroy42

TM was given a bit of a grilling by both the Sky and C4 reporters yesterday. Not sure the angle the C4 guy was going down (would TM term Mandela a terrorist) but the Sky guy did the same thing he did with Corbyn a few weeks ago, namely asking if Brexit was a good idea.

Corbyn made a complete bags of it, and whilst May was a bit better, she still completely failed to answer the question.

Now lets look at it. TM as PM, is pushing ahead with Brexit. Yet she is not able to say what the benefits of it are. Even with unpopular taxes etc, ministers can at least give their view on the benefits (even if in many cases they are incorrect). What the UK currently have is a government that is incapable of giving any reasons, beyond the will of the people, of to why they are doing what they are doing.

The Shy News guy made the point that since we now know the possible outcomes (Chequers or No Deal) that there was no benefits and such should we still carry on. All TM could say was she was going to make a success of Brexit. Not one defining reason as to why it was all going to be worth it.

IMO, that is a truly staggering state of affairs.

On a slightly different topic, the more I see of TM the more I am staggered that this person ever made it to PM. I have yet to see anything even close to leadership. She is bad with people, bad at interviews, bad on camera. She lacks clarity when she talks. It might simply be the way she is, but she comes across to me as always nervous, defensive and unsure. Not having a go at her, but how anybody thought she was ever PM material is beyond me.

breatheme

How does one measure a successful Brexit? One that only makes the UK 5% poorer? 10%?

prawnsambo

breatheme wrote: »

How does one measure a successful Brexit? One that only makes the UK 5% poorer? 10%?

I think we're past the stage of quantifying how much and have moved on to how long.

Nody

breatheme wrote: »

How does one measure a successful Brexit? One that only makes the UK 5% poorer? 10%?

No; that's far to detailed and risk blowing up in Brexiteers faces but thankfully Mel Gibson has shown the way as seen by the arguing done to date. You'll need to think of the English king as EU for the reference to work naturally but that's a very small double talk thing anyway compared to the rest of the things said to date.

Imreoir2

McGiver wrote: »

Pure PR (or propaganda) and a distraction.

A very good comment on the Independent setting facts straight.



OK so you pay £4b (50% of annual EU membership fee) to get access to an economy the size of 2.9% of the EU SM and get a deal worth £2.5b. Well done

On the upside, that £4 billion investment does increase the GDP of SACU by 1%.

bilston

Leroy42 wrote: »

TM was given a bit of a grilling by both the Sky and C4 reporters yesterday. Not sure the angle the C4 guy was going down (would TM term Mandela a terrorist) but the Sky guy did the same thing he did with Corbyn a few weeks ago, namely asking if Brexit was a good idea.

Corbyn made a complete bags of it, and whilst May was a bit better, she still completely failed to answer the question.

Now lets look at it. TM as PM, is pushing ahead with Brexit. Yet she is not able to say what the benefits of it are. Even with unpopular taxes etc, ministers can at least give their view on the benefits (even if in many cases they are incorrect). What the UK currently have is a government that is incapable of giving any reasons, beyond the will of the people, of to why they are doing what they are doing.

The Shy News guy made the point that since we now know the possible outcomes (Chequers or No Deal) that there was no benefits and such should we still carry on. All TM could say was she was going to make a success of Brexit. Not one defining reason as to why it was all going to be worth it.

IMO, that is a truly staggering state of affairs.

On a slightly different topic, the more I see of TM the more I am staggered that this person ever made it to PM. I have yet to see anything even close to leadership. She is bad with people, bad at interviews, bad on camera. She lacks clarity when she talks. It might simply be the way she is, but she comes across to me as always nervous, defensive and unsure. Not having a go at her, but how anybody thought she was ever PM material is beyond me.

Like it or not...and I don't like it...but the will of the people is a pretty good reason for continuing with Brexit...but I say that with the strong view that there needs to be a second referendum. A bit like an on screen message on your PC or tablet "Are you sure you wish to delete these files" The British people should have that opportunity as well.

breatheme

The Tories are just too stubburn to do a second referendum. Unless there's a snap election, it won't happen.

lawred2

bilston wrote: »

Like it or not...and I don't like it...but the will of the people is a pretty good reason for continuing with Brexit...but I say that with the strong view that there needs to be a second referendum. A bit like an on screen message on your PC or tablet "Are you sure you wish to delete these files" The British people should have that opportunity as well.

well - it was the stated will of 34.73% of the British population as of the 2016 vote.

I bet it's significantly reduced since then

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

On a slightly different topic, the more I see of TM the more I am staggered that this person ever made it to PM. I have yet to see anything even close to leadership. She is bad with people, bad at interviews, bad on camera. She lacks clarity when she talks. It might simply be the way she is, but she comes across to me as always nervous, defensive and unsure. Not having a go at her, but how anybody thought she was ever PM material is beyond me.

To be fair, the greatest poker player in history would sweat with the hand she is holding. The bigger point though, is that she was put into No. 10 because of her flaws. The heavyweights in the party didn't want the job, so they put in a nobody that could easily be controlled and tossed out when it suited them.

Zubeneschamali

breatheme wrote: »

How does one measure a successful Brexit?

Brexit is not motivated by economics, but by English nationalism. No matter how much it costs, it will be worth it to free Albion from perfidious Brussels.

ArthurDayne

Leroy42 wrote: »

TM was given a bit of a grilling by both the Sky and C4 reporters yesterday.  Not sure the angle the C4 guy was going down (would TM term Mandela a terrorist) but the Sky guy did the same thing he did with Corbyn a few weeks ago, namely asking if Brexit was a good idea.

Corbyn made a complete bags of it, and whilst May was a bit better, she still completely failed to answer the question.

Now lets look at it.  TM as PM, is pushing ahead with Brexit.  Yet she is not able to say what the benefits of it are.  Even with unpopular taxes etc, ministers can at least give their view on the benefits (even if in many cases they are incorrect).  What the UK currently have is a government that is incapable of giving any reasons, beyond the will of the people, of to why they are doing what they are doing.

The Shy News guy made the point that since we now know the possible outcomes (Chequers or No Deal) that there was no benefits and such should we still carry on.  All TM could say was she was going to make a success of Brexit.  Not one defining reason as to why it was all going to be worth it.

IMO, that is a truly staggering state of affairs.

It's a product of depressing self-preservation really.  There are plenty of energetic and capable members of both Labour and the Conservatives who are Remainers but right now too many are keeping their head below the trenches until the battle is over -- possibly hoping that their chance for a grab at increased influence will come when everyone else has been chopped down.  It's the wait-and-see approach which from a career perspective seems to make sense (i.e.  (1) avoid the wrath of the feral media and (2) emerge from the woodwork when everyone else cocks it up) . . . but it will come at the price of allowing the Brexiteers effectively unfettered freedom to pilot the country blindfolded into an ever-growing mess.   

"Chaos is a ladder" after all!

Leroy42

bilston wrote: »

Like it or not...and I don't like it...but the will of the people is a pretty good reason for continuing with Brexit...but I say that with the strong view that there needs to be a second referendum. A bit like an on screen message on your PC or tablet "Are you sure you wish to delete these files" The British people should have that opportunity as well.

Of course, but that is exactly why the reporter asked the question that since we now know the outcomes (chequers or No Deal) would May still vote for Brexit.

She was unable to answer. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, I find it crazy that a PM cannot even stand over the policy that she is pursuing.

This line about "will of the people" seems to me to be being used by the likes of TM etc to try to give themselves a get out if it all goes wrong (I am being generous with the if there).

Yes, the referendum was to leave, but her job is to deliver that in a way that best provides for the UK. At this stage she should really be able to answer if she thinks it is a good idea or not.

Leroy42

ArthurDayne wrote: »

It's a product of depressing self-preservation really.  There are plenty of energetic and capable members of both Labour and the Conservatives who are Remainers but right now too many are keeping their head below the trenches until the battle is over -- possibly hoping that their chance for a grab at increased influence will come when everyone else has been chopped down.  It's the wait-and-see approach which from a career perspective seems to make sense (i.e.  (1) avoid the wrath of the feral media and (2) emerge from the woodwork when everyone else cocks it up) . . . but it will come at the price of allowing the Brexiteers effectively unfettered freedom to pilot the country blindfolded into an ever-growing mess.   

"Chaos is a ladder" after all!

But that will never work. The Brexiteers have shown that this is simply the start of the process, not the end. Whatever deal is finally worked out, the Brexiteers will see that as just the latest phase in the process.

The wait and see approach is fundamentally flawed when the battle is happening in front of your eyes.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

Is the southern African deal even a real trade agreement? I understand it is favoured tariff free access to the EU/UK with the other side entitled to tariff as normal, designed as an aid to them. As such it is already a massive net benefit to the southern African union and one they shouldn't have to have been paid to simply replicate.

From the African point of view, it's not a massive benefit; it's a continuation of the trading terms they already enjoy.

What was the alternative? That post-Brexit UK's first step would be to slap tariffs on the produce of developing countries in Africa - produce which is tariff-free in the EU? How was that going to look? So the UK was always, always going to agree to continue this aspect of the existing arrangement. They had to. In a sense, they needed this even more than the African countries did, since the optics of not granting it would have been so disastrous.

Basically, what has happened here is that the UK has secured agreement to the roll-over of one of the existing EU trade deals. You'll recall that they want to roll them all over, and one of the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, if there is a Withdrawal Agreement, is that the EU will support them in this. Well, they have now got agreement to roll one of them over - a first. And it's an agreement seen as very beneficial to the other states involved. And they had to commit to 4 billion in aid and investment to get it rolled over.

demfad

breatheme wrote: »

The Tories are just too stubburn to do a second referendum. Unless there's a snap election, it won't happen.

If there is no deal then the choices become no deal or extending A50. The latter would probably require the UK to have a referendum.

We must assume that given a choice between ACTUALLY AND IMMINENTLY destroying the State's economy versus extending A50 that the latter would prevail.

breatheme

demfad wrote: »

If there is no deal then the choices become no deal or extending A50. The latter would probably require the UK to have a referendum.

In a logical world, maybe. In Toryland, if May sought to extend Article 50 and thus the negotiations, she would face a leadership contest and be ousted. And you bet she knows this and thus won't.

The ERG is hijacking the country.

Zubeneschamali

demfad wrote: »

We must assume that given a choice between ACTUALLY AND IMMINENTLY destroying the State's economy versus extending A50 that the latter would prevail.

We all (especially Cameron) assumed Brexit would lose the referendum for the same reason, yet here we are.

Imreoir2

demfad wrote: »

If there is no deal then the choices become no deal or extending A50. The latter would probably require the UK to have a referendum.

We must assume that given a choice between ACTUALLY AND IMMINENTLY destroying the State's economy versus extending A50 that the latter would prevail.

The UK can't extend Art 50 unilaterally, and if the only purpose of the extension is to postpone the evil day for a little while longer, I really don't see why the EU should let them.

If such an extension is needed to allow a deal to be done, ie the UK signals that it is ready to conceed on its red lines and needs a little more time to finalise the agreement, or if the UK signals it wants to hold a new referendum with a view to staying in the EU, then an extension is usefull and the EU should agree.

If, on the other hand, an extension is merely to buy time to prepare for no-deal, or if the government can't agree on anything else and asks for an extension simply because that is the only option they can get through parliament but have no plan for what comes next, then I don't think the EU should agree. An extension followed by a crash out is not better than just letting them crash out in March.

Leroy42

I heard, think is was last weeks, on the Remainics podcast that the effect of different countries of Brexit would be. Obviously UK 1, then ROI. But in many of the other countries it would have very low impact in terms of GDP (whilst obviously having significant effects on particular areas).

The point being made was that Brexit is front and centre in the UK (and Ireland as we know) but to many of the rest of the EU it isn't really that important. So this line from the UK that it is going to hurt the EU more than the Uk is 1) simply not true and 2) simply not seen as that important. The UK are hoping that this line will force the EU to give in to some of their demands. That increases the likelihood of a No deal which is terrible news for the UK as the EU will simply not be that engaged in order to facilitate a special deal.

The narrative is very much that it is either Chequers or the UK will opt for No Deal. 1st problem is that Chequers isn't even agreed within the UK. It is very likely that it would be voting down by the ERG etc should it ever come to a vote. So it would seem somewhat pointless for the EU to agree to something which will not be accepted anyway. 2nd is that the EU sees itself (the concept) as more important than the effects it might have (particularly given that the overall effect on the EU will be relatively small).

breatheme

Theresa May wrote:

However, our negotiations on our future relationship have reached an impasse. The two options on offer from the EU at the moment are not acceptable to me, or to the United Kingdom.

The first, a standard free trade agreement for Great Britain – with Northern Ireland staying in the customs union and parts of the single market – would break up the UK. As a proud Unionist, I am very clear that it would be unacceptable.

And the second, membership of the customs union plus an extended version of the European Economic Area (EEA), would mean free movement, vast annual payments and alignment with EU rules across the whole of our economy, which would not be consistent with the referendum result.

That's the perspective at the moment... however, they would be MAD to not leave with at least an FTA. If they actually left without an FTA just to "spite the EU" they would really be shooting themselves in the head twice.

Also, I find Chequers more insulting and unacceptable than any of the proposals of the EU.

Sassygirl1999

Are the scallop wars a new sign of remainiac tensions?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45337091

Imreoir2

breatheme wrote: »

That's the perspective at the moment... however, they would be MAD to not leave with at least an FTA. If they actually left without an FTA just to "spite the EU" they would really be shooting themselves in the head twice.

Also, I find Chequers more insulting and unacceptable than any of the proposals of the EU.

There can't be an FTA without a withdrawl agreement, and there can't be a withdrawl agreement without the backstop. The UK seemingly can't agree to the backstop, so No-deal looks like the most likely outcome, MAD and all as it is.

breatheme

True. Escaped me for a second there.

I've said this before, but I came upon this article at work today... how about letting NI decide? That would be the best way to move past this impasse.

trellheim

Imreoir2 wrote: »

There can't be an FTA without a withdrawl agreement, and there can't be a withdrawl agreement without the backstop. The UK seemingly can't agree to the backstop, so No-deal looks like the most likely outcome, MAD and all as it is.

And, it has to be sorted out in the next couple of weeks - informal EUCON on 20 Sep, and formal EUCON 18 Oct. There absolutely has to be a working basis really soon in order to get 27 heads on-side ( plus Tusk , Verhofstadt and Juncker ) so that it will go through otherwise ... there is simply no choice but to do it as a no-deal and sort it out later, or someone has to do an A50 extension. I dont think people appreciate how absolutely stuck we are !

Rhineshark

bilston wrote: »

Like it or not...and I don't like it...but the will of the people is a pretty good reason for continuing with Brexit...but I say that with the strong view that there needs to be a second referendum. A bit like an on screen message on your PC or tablet "Are you sure you wish to delete these files" The British people should have that opportunity as well.

As opposed to "No, you said two years ago to delete these files. So now the computer is taking it as "delete all files and wipe the system" as this was obviously what you meant. This was your will and cannot be undone; 30-pass overwrite to commence on 29/03/2019. No backsies."