Brexit discussion thread IV

brickster69

Imreoir2 wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

JRM explains that the UK might "destroy" Irish farmers:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1034601856532733952

If they put a tarriff on Irish beef they will have to put a tarriff on all beef coming in from outside the UK. The UK can't produce enough beef for domestic demand. Irish farmers will still be able to sell their beef to the UK, the tarriffs will only have the effect of making beef more expensive for UK consumers. Great plan.

You do understand the price of Beef from South America is far cheaper per Tonne with tariffs on top than it is from EU suppliers without. The reason EU countries do not import much Beef is because of the quotas allowed.

Unfortunately it is common economics that companies such as Tesco will shop elsewhere or squeeze Irish suppliers margins than pay 40% extra tariffs. These tariffs are what the EU apply so would have to be recipricated.

listermint

brickster69 wrote: »

You do understand the price of Beef from South America is far cheaper per Tonne with tariffs on top than it is from EU suppliers without. The reason EU countries do not import much Beef is because of the quotas allowed.

Unfortunately it is common economics that companies such as Tesco will shop elsewhere or squeeze Irish suppliers margins than pay 40% extra tariffs. These tariffs are what the EU apply so would have to be recipricated.

How much cheaper with tariffs and shipping is it in comparison to Irish beef.

In your estimation or with details. Including the tariff you noted.

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

You do understand the price of Beef from South America is far cheaper per Tonne with tariffs on top than it is from EU suppliers without. The reason EU countries do not import much Beef is because of the quotas allowed.

Unfortunately it is common economics that companies such as Tesco will shop elsewhere or squeeze Irish suppliers margins than pay 40% extra tariffs. These tariffs are what the EU apply so would have to be recipricated.

There's also the shipping costs. And don't the quotas also apply to Britain, the same as the tariffs? Isn't that what they're saying at the moment? That they'd rollover the same tariffs as the EU and divide out their share of the quotas,.

Water John

South American beef would be mainly Zebu. You have the extensive use of hormones and growth promoters coupled with little traceability.
Hope the UK consumer is fine with that. JRM seems to think its good enough for them.

Strazdas

Dymo wrote: »

Looks like Europe is starting to fold, it not near March yet and the stories this week coming from Brussels seem to indicate that the EU is starting to bend over backwards to get to an agreement with the UK.

I get the feeling there is going to be a lot of concessions to the UK
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/france-ready-to-agree-close-eu-deal-with-uk-after-brexit-37266475.html

They did say this was one the UK tactics, see who would blink first.

These reports are appearing in the British press only and nowhere else. Not sure who this stuff is aimed at or what they are up to but anything claiming that the EU are about to cave in to the UK is fake news.

There was similar nonsense the other day claiming Barnier was going to offer Britain a radical new deal but it was a complete misinterpretation of a single sentence he had used at his press conference.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

These reports are appearing in the British press only and nowhere else. Not sure who this stuff is aimed at or what they are up to but anything claiming that the EU are about to cave in to the UK is fake news.

There was similar nonsense the other day claiming Barnier was going to offer Britain a radical new deal but it was a complete misinterpretation of a single sentence he had used at his press conference.

They truncated the sentence, leaving out 'as a third country', which completely distorted its meaning.

If the UK accept a border in the Irish Sea and NI remaining in the CU and SM (largely), then a WA is automatic, and no crash out. They can then implement all their aid trade deals with African countries, and begin expanding their trade world wide.

They have nearly two years then to sort out their economy to its new more productive level before they leave the CU and SM. [or not].

Would the EU allow a clause in the WA for the UK to rejoin the EU before the transition period ran out? Maybe T&Cs would apply.

Dick Pickle

Sam Russell wrote: »

They truncated the sentence, leaving out 'as a third country', which completely distorted its meaning.

If the UK accept a border in the Irish Sea and NI remaining in the CU and SM (largely), then a WA is automatic, and no crash out. They can then implement all their aid trade deals with African countries, and begin expanding their trade world wide.

They have nearly two years then to sort out their economy to its new more productive level before they leave the CU and SM. [or not].

Would the EU allow a clause in the WA for the UK to rejoin the EU before the transition period ran out? Maybe T&Cs would apply.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1010646/Brexit-news-Michel-Barnier-EU-UK-offer-no-deal-preparation-latest

All change !

Hurrache

Dymo wrote: »

Looks like Europe is starting to fold, it not near March yet and the stories this week coming from Brussels seem to indicate that the EU is starting to bend over backwards to get to an agreement with the UK.

I get the feeling there is going to be a lot of concessions to the UK
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/france-ready-to-agree-close-eu-deal-with-uk-after-brexit-37266475.html

They did say this was one the UK tactics, see who would blink first.

Not really
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1035260576618954752?s=20

Beechwoodspark

Doubt there will be any concessions really. Why would there be? The EU has the whip hand over the UK, on lots of fronts. I expect the UK to concede whatever is necessary to maintain trade with the single market -which is vital for them.

Enzokk

Panasonic will be moving their headquarters from London to Amsterdam.

Panasonic to move European headquarters from UK to Amsterdam

It is understood that Panasonic's decision is linked to concerns that Japan could see the UK as a tax haven if it cuts corporation tax to attract businesses post-Brexit.

If it that was the case, Panasonic could face higher taxes back in Japan.

A number of other Japanese firms have revealed plans to move their European bases out of the UK, including banking giants Nomura Holdings, Daiwa Securities, MUFG and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group.

But Project Fear and all that. Even if a deal will be reached now it seems that for many companies the decision has been made and even if the UK cancels article 50 they will still have lost jobs from companies that have decided to move out of the UK.

I am still a little amazed that we find ourselves in the current situation. Neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn are willing to say that there are positives for the UK economy due to Brexit, yet both will blindly go ahead with it. At the moment JC gets a pass as he isn't at the wheel, yet both of them are pursuing a policy that will hurt the UK. It is baffling what is happening right now.

Inquitus

Enzokk wrote: »

Panasonic will be moving their headquarters from London to Amsterdam.

Panasonic to move European headquarters from UK to Amsterdam



But Project Fear and all that. Even if a deal will be reached now it seems that for many companies the decision has been made and even if the UK cancels article 50 they will still have lost jobs from companies that have decided to move out of the UK.

I am still a little amazed that we find ourselves in the current situation. Neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn are willing to say that there are positives for the UK economy due to Brexit, yet both will blindly go ahead with it. At the moment JC gets a pass as he isn't at the wheel, yet both of them are pursuing a policy that will hurt the UK. It is baffling what is happening right now.

For context Panasonic are moving 20 out of 30 jobs out of the UK

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

Their politicians will blame it on us and our politicians will blame it on them. The border goes up regardless. Ultimately each side will have to take responsibility for their part.

What bit do you consider ours? Did we leave the EU? Did we set contradictory red lines? Did we spend 20 months not negotiating?

ancapailldorcha

Was going to post that. Thanks.

Enzokk wrote: »

I am still a little amazed that we find ourselves in the current situation. Neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn are willing to say that there are positives for the UK economy due to Brexit, yet both will blindly go ahead with it. At the moment JC gets a pass as he isn't at the wheel, yet both of them are pursuing a policy that will hurt the UK. It is baffling what is happening right now.

2 years later and I'm still amazed that it's actually happening.

May has a fractious party to keep together while Corbyn is waiting for his chance to enter number 10. Interestingly for the latter the party-within-a-party, Momentum is going to consult party members regarding its Brexit stance ahead of Labour's party conference next month which could be interesting. Ultimately though, a car-crash Brexit would suit Jeremy Corbyn, Seumas Milne and John McDonnell just fine. It would banish the Tories from Westminster so they can get on with project Socialism aided and abetted by FPTP. I wait with baited breath for any sign of actual opposition from Labour but I remain disappointed.

Meanwhile, May is paralysed while HMS United Kingdon heads ever closer to the Brexit Iceberg while Jacob Rees-Mogg, Priti Patel and John Redwood squabble with Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry.

Ultimately, each party has two large factions. Labour has its working class heartlands in the North of England, Wales and London and its modern, University educated cosmopolitan voters and activists in University towns to reconcile while the Tories somehow have to align their free market whig element with it's far right epitomised by Mr. Rees-Mogg, a difficult task for a good leader, never mind Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.

J Mysterio

Dick Pickle wrote: »

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1010646/Brexit-news-Michel-Barnier-EU-UK-offer-no-deal-preparation-latest

All change !

Jesus wept.

briany

Enzokk wrote: »

I am still a little amazed that we find ourselves in the current situation. Neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn are willing to say that there are positives for the UK economy due to Brexit, yet both will blindly go ahead with it. At the moment JC gets a pass as he isn't at the wheel, yet both of them are pursuing a policy that will hurt the UK. It is baffling what is happening right now.

What we're seeing here is one of the most egregious examples in modern times of "power before principle". Both parties are pandering to one side of their electorate while knowing full well the economic and societal maelstrom they're heading into. Neither May nor Corbyn can have it in their hearts that Brexit will look anything like a success. It's obvious through their constant avoidance of direct questions and repetition of some hollow rhetoric that they have no positive answers for anything. Obvious and sickening. Between May, Corbyn and Tim Farron, the younger generations of the UK have no official representative. At best, they have MPs from both parties who agree with them, but are allowing themselves to be cowed by Brexiteers.

It's easy for myself to say, of course, having never tasted the dizzying heights of political power, but I wouldn't want it in this scenario. It must be absolutely
amazing to be Prime Minister of the UK if you're willing to have your name attached to the biggest shambles since the second World War.

FrancieBrady

J Mysterio wrote: »

Jesus wept.

It is so transparent what they just did there to anyone but Brexiters who will believe the EU are in disarray.

cml387

J Mysterio wrote: »

Jesus wept.

Known in the trade as a "reverse ferret".

brickster69

listermint wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

You do understand the price of Beef from South America is far cheaper per Tonne with tariffs on top than it is from EU suppliers without. The reason EU countries do not import much Beef is because of the quotas allowed.

Unfortunately it is common economics that companies such as Tesco will shop elsewhere or squeeze Irish suppliers margins than pay 40% extra tariffs. These tariffs are what the EU apply so would have to be recipricated.

How much cheaper with tariffs and shipping is it in comparison to Irish beef.

In your estimation or with details. Including the tariff you noted.

Yes 30% cheaper including shipping and tariffs @ 40%. This would be based on tariffs between EU to UK post Brexit.

listermint

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes 30% cheaper including shipping and tariffs @ 40%. This would be based on tariffs between EU to UK post Brexit.

Any actual details of this , factual sources.

Rather than ramblings of percentage differences.

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes 30% cheaper including shipping and tariffs @ 40%. This would be based on tariffs between EU to UK post Brexit.

Tariffs based on what schedule? If there's no deal, then it's base WTO tariffs. But I suspect you're close enough with the price differential. The quality and sanitary issues would have to be got over because afaik, foot and mouth is endemic in South American cattle.

Spook_ie

prawnsambo wrote: »

Tariffs based on what schedule? If there's no deal, then it's base WTO tariffs. But I suspect you're close enough with the price differential. The quality and sanitary issues would have to be got over because afaik, foot and mouth is endemic in South American cattle.

Ireland would be bloody glad of a hard border if F&M raised its head again, likewise with swinefever and a multitude of other farm problems

prawnsambo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ireland would be bloody glad of a hard border if F&M raised its head again, likewise with swinefever and a multitude of other farm problems

Actually I think they're getting that under control now. Exports to the EU have started again, so they must be doing inspections. But that throws a spanner in the works of UK importing beef from there because they won't be able to get a better deal than the EU. May be a problem for Irish farmersm but I don't think Argentina has the production capability to replace all the EU beef Britain imports. Or even a significant proportion of it.

Capt'n Midnight

Inquitus wrote: »

For context Panasonic are moving 20 out of 30 jobs out of the UK

For context

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0830/988495-panasonic-to-move-european-hq-from-uk-to-amsterdam/

It is understood that Panasonic's decision is linked to concerns that Japan could see the UK as a tax haven if it cuts corporation tax to attract businesses post-Brexit.

If it that was the case, Panasonic could face higher taxes back in Japan.

This could affect every other Japanese company in the UK. And the car makers might not have as big margins as Panasonic.


So the UK plan to reduce tax is already backfiring ?

If there's a hard Brexit and then the UK change the tax rules then it's possible the EU might also classify them as a tax haven, something that would suit a lot of EU countries wanting to take finance and jobs from the UK.

briany

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Doubt there will be any concessions really. Why would there be? The EU has the whip hand over the UK, on lots of fronts. I expect the UK to concede whatever is necessary to maintain trade with the single market -which is vital for them.

If they want to enjoy the advantages of the Single Market, they need to allow free movement. Whether that means they remain in the EU or move into EFTA is up to them, but free movement is probably the greatest of the Brexit red lines. The UK can't even agree amongst its own politicians to participate in a customs union with the EU, so there's no hope of them sorting out a mutually agreeable bespoke deal on Single Market access.

Bit cynical

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What bit do you consider ours? Did we leave the EU? Did we set contradictory red lines? Did we spend 20 months not negotiating?

Well basically our insistance of a backstop involving no border infrastructure is based on a calculation that there is no chance that there won't be a deal. We can therefore pile on conditions. If there is a deal then it will be a good deal. That's the positive aspect.

The problem is it makes no deal more likely, and no deal is particularly bad for Ireland given that in that scenario we both have significant border infrastructure as well as economic problems similar is magnitude to those of the UK (according to forecasts by bodies like the IMF and EU).

Why does it make no deal more likely? Because delivering on the backstop while at the same time coming up with something acceptable to the EU is politically difficult for the UK. Great if you want to trap the UK between a rock and a hard place but not if you trying to get a deal.

Our position (or at least the narrative that it is our position) is therefore a high-risk one.

It has been argued that in the scenario of a no deal, it will only be a matter of time before the UK seeks to rejoin the EU. Maybe. But this too is a calculation, and even here we have to accept our responsibility of being in the situation of powerlessly waiting (a long time, imo) for the UK to rejoin - not a good position.

The EU has covered itself here. As pointed out by supporters of the EU's stance on this thread, Brexit - even a no deal one - is really just an inconvenience for most of the EU. Therefore they can take a tough stance. Ireland can safely be treated as collateral damage. What is more they can point to our insistance on the backstop and say that we got what we want: in the absence of no border, no deal.

I think Varadkar realises that no deal, if that is the way it turns out, will be a huge political shock to people here. Some of the blame will be aimed at the UK but by no means all of it.

Infini

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU has covered itself here. As pointed out by supporters of the EU's stance on this thread, Brexit - even a no deal one - is really just an inconvenience for most of the EU. Therefore they can take a tough stance. Ireland can safely be treated as collateral damage. What is more they can point to our insistance on the backstop and say that we got what we want: in the absence of no border, no deal.

I think Varadkar realises that no deal, if that is the way it turns out, will be a huge political shock to people here. Some of the blame will be aimed at the UK but by no means all of it.

To be honest if there's no deal its completely on the UK and noone else. We were looking for no hard border for one reason: We don't want the trouble's of the past being dragged back up because the Brit's basically had a brain implosion. It's also been made a point because the idiot's who've been driving all this would use Ireland as something to exploit in any deal however by making clear that we only wanted a special zone in regards to NI to prevent civil disorder and exploitation of an unenforceable border.

Truth is if there's a no deal scenario it's the UK who will end up disintegrating over this I could bet money that within 10 year's there would be a United Ireland and a Republic of Scotland with only a rump UK left. Every opportunity they've been offered has been met with idiocy, arrogance, foolishness and brain-dead stupidity.

The sad truth is it's the British people who will suffer the effect's of this more than any other, sure Ireland will get hit too but in term's of farming for example I could see Irish Produce significantly replacing British produce in Europe in the event of a no deal. Not only that but the EU won't be the one's to blame they had their house in order from day one. The Brit's cant even get a coherent position in 2 year's because they're too busy being gobshítes and arguing amongst themselves over petty ideology instead of drawing up a workable long term plan. These are the same dope's who care nothing for the people in NI or Scotland because it doesn't suit them and neither do they want to reconsider because they can't accept they're wrong and have no workable plan and it's all the EU's fault (even though its THEIR fault to begin with).

Charles Babbage

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well basically our insistance of a backstop involving no border infrastructure is based on a calculation that there is no chance that there won't be a deal. We can therefore pile on conditions. If there is a deal then it will be a good deal. That's the positive aspect.

The insistence on a backstop involving no border infrastructure comes about from a wish to have coninued peace on this island and to stop the British throwing the Good Friday Agreement in the bin.


Since the British signed the GFA this is a straightgforward request.

Bit cynical

Infini wrote: »

To be honest if there's no deal its completely on the UK and noone else. We were looking for no hard border for one reason: We don't want the trouble's of the past being dragged back up because the Brit's basically had a brain implosion. It's also been made a point because the idiot's who've been driving all this would use Ireland as something to exploit in any deal however by making clear that we only wanted a special zone in regards to NI to prevent civil disorder and exploitation of an unenforceable border.

Wanting no hard border is perfectly reasonable, but Ireland's stance which has been incorporated into the EU's stance, is: no hard border or no deal, i.e., we don't care one way or the other.

Truth is if there's a no deal scenario it's the UK who will end up disintegrating over this I could bet money that within 10 year's there would be a United Ireland and a Republic of Scotland with only a rump UK left. Every opportunity they've been offered has been met with idiocy, arrogance, foolishness and brain-dead stupidity.

Yet the combined stance of Ireland's requirement of no border on the one hand and the EU's requirement of maintaining the integrity of the single market are not compatible with a country leaving the customs union.

Doesn't matter really that we would prefer the UK's political setup to be different. Doesn't matter that we think they are idiots etc. If the only things we offer are politically unacceptable in the UK then the deal fails. Then we pay.

The sad truth is it's the British people who will suffer the effect's of this more than any other, sure Ireland will get hit too but in term's of farming for example I could see Irish Produce significantly replacing British produce in Europe in the event of a no deal.

Sure but whatever we gain we will also lose as the UK is a net importer of agricultural products.

Not only that but the EU won't be the one's to blame they had their house in order from day one.

Well we won't be able to blame the EU as, like I said earlier, they will be able to say that they were trying to accomodate Ireland's wishes. If the deal falls through, the EU can hardly be blamed for that.

The Brit's cant even get a coherent position in 2 year's because they're too busy being gobshítes and arguing amongst themselves over petty ideology instead of drawing up a workable long term plan. These are the same dope's who care nothing for the people in NI or Scotland because it doesn't suit them and neither do they want to reconsider because they can't accept they're wrong and have no workable plan and it's all the EU's fault (even though its THEIR fault to begin with).

What they can't get is a position that is acceptable to both Ireland and the EU. But I don't think anyone has come up with a solution to that, which I suspect is what the EU wants.

Maybe you are right in that the UK will fall apart within 10 years. There is a possibility of that. But it also means that we are waiting for that to happen, we have failed in our negotiating position. We have not made realistic demands.

Bit cynical

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The insistence on a backstop involving no border infrastructure comes about from a wish to have coninued peace on this island and to stop the British throwing the Good Friday Agreement in the bin.


Since the British signed the GFA this is a straightgforward request.

As I've said, no problem with wanting no border. We just need to make sure it is a realistic demand, otherwise we end up with a worse situation.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

As I've said, no problem with wanting no border. We just need to make sure it is a realistic demand, otherwise we end up with a worse situation.

The problem is that if we drop it as a demand, we also end up with worse situation.

Your concern is that, by insisting that a Withdrawal Agrement must rule out a hard border, we (Ireland) risk not getting a Withdrawal Agreement, which would be bad for us.

But, if we don't insist that a a Withdrawal Agrement must rule out a hard border, we will end up with a Withdrawal Agreement leading to a hard border, which would be worse for us (because the UK would have what it wants, and therefore would be under no pressure to do something about the hard border).