Brexit discussion thread IV

Enzokk

Spook_ie wrote: »

And it's likely to be needed again, let 'em get on with it, you never know what we might decide ourselves in 10 years time after a possible Migration Crisis, Russian Aggression Crisis, Eurozone Crisis, Tradewar with USA Crisis etc.

What decision do you think we will have in 10 years time if there is a trade war with the US? Or we have Russian aggression? We seem to have had a eurozone crisis since 2008 all the time and every few years there is a threat to the currency that will do something or other, yet here we are.

Enzokk

prawnsambo wrote: »

He kind of blew his argument in the first paragraph though. It's only the economy when the economy is in a nosedive. That's where the phrase originated, and it's no less true now than it was back when it was first coined. People don't get excited about possible future economic problems when they're currently doing fine. I recently had an exchange on twitter with a guy in the UK who's company is doing fine to the point of paying bonuses on the back of increasing exports to China and the USA. It was a polite exchange that suddenly stopped when I pointed out that a hard brexit would mean all the tariff regimes his imports and exports were currently subject to would end on 29th March.

Not only that, he seems to ignore that while one side was talking about how the economy would perform the other told people its not true and it would be fine. He would be correct had the Leave campaign agreed with the economic outlooks, but they told people that not only were they wrong, that people would actually be better of outside of the EU.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

It doesn't. The buzz in London - or certain circles in London, at any rate, is that the likely end state is Canada + for GB, with a backstop for NI on more-or-less the EU terms.

But if that is the case, then Davies 'plan' is nothing of the sort. It simply continues the cherry picking adventure.

The UK still do not seem to have come to terms that NI is part of the UK, and as such carries with it certain obligations. If Malta, or wherever, were to leave , then it would actually be a pretty straightforward deal. Pick on option, pay your money etc and off you go.

But the UK does include NI, and at the very least Chequers tried to deal with that reality (poorly and never going to work but still tried). That Davies and other right wingers think that his 'plan' is any way to proceed shows how little real ideas they actually have. That the ex minister for Brexit, after 18 months of having a full dedicated department at his disposal, can only come up with what Canada had shows how totally bereft of ideas they all are.

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

but they are mutually incompatible unless someone moves a red line .... Given the DUP and their happy agreement to everything put in front of them I have to tell you I am a teensy bit concerned (/s, of course).

Any feasible Brexit (other than no-deal) requires at least one red line to be moved. So the working assumption, when we speculate about any Brexit deal, is that there will be some movement on the red lines. That's kind of taken for granted in all discussions of the topic.

Any consideration of a feasible Brexit has to start from two fundamentals.:

1. No version of Brexit enjoys majority support in the UK.

2. No version of Brexit is feasible which does not secure EU assent, except no-deal Brexit.

(By "feasible" here I don't mean that it would work well, or have acceptable or tolerable outcomes. I just mean that it's possible to do it.)

Right. If you're in the UK and you favour any version of Brexit other than no-deal, you'll be aware that your favoured version of Brexit does not enjoy majority support. You'll be aware that no deal will prevail unless a majority can be built in the UK in support of some other version of Brexit. This means you have an incentive to compromise and support a Brexit version which, if not your favoured version, is more like your favoured version than no-deal would be.

But you'll also be aware that this only works if the compromise Brexit is one that will be acceptable to the EU. So the points you should contemplate compromising on are the points which are most problematic for the EU.

Compromising on "no British government could agree to an Irish sea border!" may piss off the DUP, but it won't bother the EU in the least.

Obviously there's a risk, to put it no higher, that the DUP would vote against that. But that's a domestic problem. Every possible version of Brexit presents a domestic problem, for the reason already pointed out - none enjoys majority support - so the fact that this particular version presents a domestic problem can't be fatal; if it is, you might as well just save your breath and head straight for no-deal. Domestic problems are, in principle, manageable.

One way this one might be managed is for HMG to sign up to a backstop (which, remember, doesn't actually take effect until the end of the transitional period) while insisting that it will never take effect because another solution will be found in the meantime, through a future agreement or whatever. That's a hard sell, but not necessarily an impossible one. The DUP has an incentifve to believe this, or to pretend to believe it, because if they are seen to have caused a no-deal Brexit, by the time the next election comes round NI will be in a world of pain, and their constituency will crucify them. But there may be other ways - e.g. get the Scots Nats to abstain on the final deal, for instance. (After all, they'd quite like the precedent of an internal border in the UK, wouldn't they?)

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if that is the case, then Davies 'plan' is nothing of the sort. It simply continues the cherry picking adventure.

This surprises you?

Seriously, if Davis were capable of coming up with a plan, he's have come up with a plan while he was Secretary of State.

prawnsambo

The conservative party conference has to be front and centre right now for all involved. It's madness that such a parochial concern should be putting brexit on the back burner, but I would think that a bit of breathing space is being afforded to May in the hope that the whole house of cards doesn't come crashing down before there's an opportunity to discuss a plan, any plan at the October council meeting.

trellheim

Peregrinus wrote: »

This surprises you?

Seriously, if Davis were capable of coming up with a plan, he's have come up with a plan while he was Secretary of State.

Davis took Steve Baker with him. Without those two no plan will pass

The implication is of course Canada+ backing up Peregrinus above

but it is likely NI will be the movable red line * until of course someone kicks up

LuckyLloyd

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now, I can just about understand how some people (though not 17.4m) were fooled during the campaign. Remain did a really poor job for example. But what possible reason could anyone have to actually switch from remain to leave? It baffles me. There has been nothing in the last 18 months that would give any reason to make that switch.

It is simply because they buy into the idea that EU is bullying them?

You can see it on Question Time tbh. For a long spell between, say, October 2016 and the early summer of 2018 cakeism was existing to various degrees without any real challenge or being cornered on anything tangible. A lot of Remainers would be shouted down in every conversation on every point and - particularly considering they tend to be younger on average - they probably just gave up. It gets tiresome to be constantly brow beaten and at a certain point people conclude this is happening anyway so best get on with it.

Brexit is a study in how herd mentality works and how normal people can be manipulated into thinking certain ways over time.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how does a Canada + avoid a hard border in NI?

It doesn't. The buzz in London - or certain circles in London, at any rate, is that the likely end state is Canada + for GB, with a backstop for NI on more-or-less the EU terms.

The buzz in Brussels is that whatever the end state is will be on the EU terms.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

The buzz in Brussels is that whatever the end state is will be on the EU terms.

A Canada-style FTA with an NI carve-out is definitely on the EU's terms.

Leroy42

What would a Canada style deal mean in terms of the impact on UK & Ireland?

As I understand it, it does remove the need for customs checks (or at least fast track) and of course tariffs are totally gone.

From the UK POV, they could of course make their own trade deals, not have FOM or be covered by the ECJ.

I mean, from my limited understanding of it, it seems like a good deal, but not really anything special in terms of the UK relationship to the EU or vice versa. Who decides the regulations and how are they verified on each side?

First Up

It eliminates tariffs (or most of them.)

It does not eliminate customs checks. Only membership of the SM and full compliance with all EU standards does that.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

What would a Canada style deal mean in terms of the impact on UK & Ireland?

As I understand it, it does remove the need for customs checks (or at least fast track) and of course tariffs are totally gone.

Depends on what's delivered; for example food products would still require Sanitary controls to be performed (and that's after EU recognises UK competence in the area) up to 20% or so. Same for fish require UK to sign up to the EU Fishing policy etc. and regulatory controls will still happen but drop down from 100% towards 2 to 20% depending on the product . Products will need to be EU certified for what goes into it, quality etc. in a EU country as well as putting up financial guarantees at the border for the stuff shipped in advance to cover the tariffs etc.

I mean, from my limited understanding of it, it seems like a good deal, but not really anything special in terms of the UK relationship to the EU or vice versa. Who decides the regulations and how are they verified on each side?

That's the crux of it as Canada found out; the regulation to be met is decided by each side and EU has some very specific requirements inc. certifications which UK will no longer be allowed to do. Hence additional inspections etc. will be required at the border along with getting new certifications on all products in a EU country (even if they existed in UK already) as well as rules of origin comes into play (i.e. they need to prove that it's UK produced and not half products imported and slapped together to avoid tariffs and we all know UK are full of raw materials, right?). Of course all Services would be out which means London, New York or Singapore makes no difference for offering financial products (though UK may have a favourable position as they already adjusted a lot of information to the EU market which US funds could not be bothered with etc.). In short on paper they can ship it over without tariffs but in practice due to regulatory requirements there would be tariffs under another name. Even taking something basic such as a Cadbury chocolate bar would run into things such as calculating the actual sugar and fat content for tax purposes, then reclaim them if they can offset it with another import from EU (for example let's say they import Irish milk to go into the bar they can offset the fat content of the milk with the fat in the chocolate bar) etc. It gets very messy quickly and those costs add up quickly and require some very detailed knowledge about the rules. Larger companies have such capability but small to mid cap companies will hurt from it. Only to add to give an example without giving away to much but these costs if the supply chain is not planned for it can easily exceed 50k EUR per truck in pure taxes to be paid as a product moves in and out of EU during the production chain.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

It eliminates tariffs (or most of them.)

It does not eliminate customs checks. Only membership of the SM and full compliance with all EU standards does that.

Afaik, that (SM) also requires payments to the EU. Canada plus is basically a FTA with the plus being some services (but not financial services) and tariff-free trade (excluding agriculture). Or at least that's how I understand it.

The difficulty is the border and the UK need to start working harder on that issue because it seems to be a deal breaker.

flatty

Why has may been utterly indifferent to the UK services industry? It makes no sense to me at all. Surely that should be the number one issue for a Conservative govt?

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

Why has may been utterly indifferent to the UK services industry? It makes no sense to me at all. Surely that should be the number one issue for a Conservative govt?

My reading of it is that they fully believe that the CoL, in particular, is untouchable (in terms of being replaceable within in the EU) and that the EU will very much want to keep things the way they are in terms of services and as such will give the UK what it wants.

Thus the UK are taking it off the table, in the hope that the EU will look for something on services and thus create a want from the EU for which the UK will demand something in return.

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Why has may been utterly indifferent to the UK services industry? It makes no sense to me at all. Surely that should be the number one issue for a Conservative govt?

My reading of it is that they fully believe that the CoL, in particular, is untouchable (in terms of being replaceable within in the EU) and that the EU will very much want to keep things the way they are in terms of services and as such will give the UK what it wants.

Thus the UK are taking it off the table, in the hope that the EU will look for something on services and thus create a want from the EU for which the UK will demand something in return.

Thanks. Makes sense in the heads of the deluded classes I suppose. The arrogance.

trellheim

Raab on feet in Commons at 1700 to talk Brexit

sorry here

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bfb08a93-5cbd-4aac-9458-525dfa3c233e if you want to watch

First Up

trellheim wrote: »

Raab on feet in Commons at 1700 to talk Brexit

sorry here

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bfb08a93-5cbd-4aac-9458-525dfa3c233e if you want to watch

Watched it. It was pitiful stuff. Keir Starmer just ripped it to pieces.

trellheim

Peter Grant making the decent point that there is fk-all new in Raab's statement .

J Mysterio

More nice work from UK Gov RE: Hostile Environment:

Boy born in Leeds goes on holiday – then UK bars him from returning home

Six-year-old Mohamed Barrak Diallo blocked from seeing mother after Home Office revokes his passport

Infini

Sterling has just hit 90p to the €1 as it slides once again.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/GMB_union/status/1036945979386355713

A pretty important trade union and solid Labour ally has called today for a second referendum. Corbyn may loath the idea, but its a brave man who would bet against a second vote been official Labour policy by the end of the year.

An Ciarraioch

There's a turn-up for the books!

http://twitter.com/SkyData/status/1037013917019643904

Water John

That along with the UI poll may mean, the reality is dawning on the general public if not on the politicians. We can only hope.
That shift in the Sky Poll, is open territory for Labour to jump into.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how does a Canada + avoid a hard border in NI?

It doesn't, that's why the backstop must be agreed before a Canada + deal can be discussed in detail. One of the reasons the UK government won't opt for an FTA is that they want to pretend that the backstop won't be needed, but it obviously would with an FTA.

The other reason an FTA is not acceptable to the UK governemt is that, while not as bad as a no-deal Brexit, it would still cause huge damage to the UK economey.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

From the UK POV, they could of course make their own trade deals.

You would think so, but it's not quite as easy as that in reality, major FTA's like the Canada deal, or the more recent Japan deal, include provisions that require a renegioation should the parties intend to sign any future deals that will impact your deal. It's not impossible that the UK will be able to have an FTA with the EU and negioatiate other trade deals too, but not without consulting the EU first.

I mean, from my limited understanding of it, it seems like a good deal, but not really anything special in terms of the UK relationship to the EU or vice versa. Who decides the regulations and how are they verified on each side?

If you take the Canada deal, it is quite limited in some areas, it does allow for tarriff free trade, but other non-tarriff barriers like inspections to ensure that goods are what they are supposed to be, and comply with EU regulations still exist. For the most part, the deal does not allow for trade in services at all between the EU and Canada. You won't be getting any insurance products directly from a company based in Canada for example.

The headache of agreeing an FTA between the EU and UK is that the whole point of trade deals is to bring countries/trading blocks closer together, to reduce barriers to trade, not to allow them to be further apart and create aditional barriers to trade. There is no way that a Canada + FTA does not do huge damage to the UK economey.

Capt'n Midnight

NI Poll from 24-28th August http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/polls/ni-ofoc-bfb

Short version, NI wants to stay in the UK but wants to stay in the EU more.


52% to stay in the UK if the UK stays in the EU.

52% for United Ireland if the UK leaves the EU, 56% if it's a Hard Border.

And no surprises about the demographics. Older Unionists aren't a growing segment.

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

My reading of it is that they fully believe that the CoL, in particular, is untouchable (in terms of being replaceable within in the EU) and that the EU will very much want to keep things the way they are in terms of services and as such will give the UK what it wants.

Thus the UK are taking it off the table, in the hope that the EU will look for something on services and thus create a want from the EU for which the UK will demand something in return.

CoL?

My brain is not at full pelt tonight.

Patser

City of London (particularly its financial services)