Brexit discussion thread IV

Spanish Eyes

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First name to appear is Patrick Minford who favours abolishing all tariffs. Can't see farmers, fishermen and manufacturers doing well out of that one.

Are they talking about zero% tariffs from EU only I wonder.

They cannot pick and choose this under WTO "favoured nation clause" can they?

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First name to appear is Patrick Minford who favours abolishing all tariffs. Can't see farmers, fishermen and manufacturers doing well out of that one.

Not sure how the UK is going to abolish the EU/US/Japanease/Korean etc etc tarriffs. They can make themselves open to being flooded with anything from anywhere while everywhere else can charge WTO tarriffs for UK goods, and thats about all they can do. Not sure where the 80bn is going to come from when hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs in the UK are gone.

ancapailldorcha

Oh no, it's all goods coming into the UK. Here's an article from The Economist about him:

https://www.economist.com/britain/2017/08/24/most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt-the-economy-but-one-disagrees

lawred2

Some seriously dodgy analysis and conclusions in this paper

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Why-the-supposed-worst-possible-option-a-World-Trade-Deal-trading-under-WTO-rules-is-the-UKs-best-next-step-Michael-Burrage.pdf

Specifically the chart on Real Growth of Goods Exports 1993 - 2015

UK has been outstripped by the EU12 in terms of growth in exports of real goods... The fault? Well the single market of course. Growth of exports from the US (outside of the single market) also grew at a similar level to the EU12.. But poor old UK lagged them all..

Solution - obviously leave the single market

It might be a solution to something alright but those statistics would lead me more to think that the UK simply isn't making stuff that people want to buy... which is a much bigger problem and one that will still be front and center whether they be inside or outside the single market.

An Ciarraioch

So, Barnier says "If both sides approach talks in a realistic manner, a deal can be done in six to eight weeks", and UK markets and media go into overdrive. No remote sign that there was any progress on the Border, but guess London will grasp at any slight straws.

lawred2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Oh no, it's all goods coming into the UK. Here's an article from The Economist about him:

https://www.economist.com/britain/2017/08/24/most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt-the-economy-but-one-disagrees

This was enough to persuade the BBC, perhaps mindful of criticism of anti-Brexit bias

say what now?

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

Not sure if this has been brought up, but seems like while the ERG will not release a plan for Brexit but they will release a report that the UK will be £80bn better off on WTO rules. I look forward to the release of this data so that we can also get that windfall, as I am sure other EU countries are eager for it as well.

Britain would get £80 billion boost from a no deal Brexit, Jacob Rees-Mogg claims

It claims that the extra economic growth would swell Treasury coffers by £80bn over 15 years, leading to tax cuts and higher public spending.

Surely they don't mean £5.3 Bn a year ??

Or are they including the £40Bn odd they won't pay the EU which drops it to less than £3Bn a year. I'm only half joking. :pac:




If they mean £80Bn a year it represents a growth of 10% over the existing public finances. In 2018-19, we expect it to raise £775.8 billion,

£80Bn extra is an increase of less than 0.7% a year. That's abysmal.

To put it in context the UK economy has already dropped 2.1% behind other similar economies because of the Brexit referendum. The knock-on hit to the public finances is now £23 billion per annum – or £440 million a week.

prawnsambo

£80 billion over 15 years? In what world is that even significant? UK budget expenditure is 10 times that in any given year. This is the side of the bus all over again.

yer man!

kowtow wrote: »

I assumed that would be the problem.

I wonder how many people produce a driving licence or anything other than a passport? ...

I've done it once a few years ago, produced a driving license. Was asked where I came from, which I replied, Edinburgh and they waived me on. My friend produced a student ID and they waived here on too. We were both travelling Aer Lingus so both IDs were accepted for UK travel by the airline.

First Up

yer man! wrote:

I've done it once a few years ago, produced a driving license. Was asked where I came from, which I replied, Edinburgh and they waived me on. My friend produced a student ID and they waived here on too. We were both travelling Aer Lingus so both IDs were accepted for UK travel by the airline.

Its advisable to hold on to your boarding pass for such situations.

ancapailldorcha

lawred2 wrote: »

say what now?

I don't know what you mean. The BBC is constantly slated by Brexiteers for being anti-Brexit.

Imreoir2

lawred2 wrote: »

Some seriously dodgy analysis and conclusions in this paper

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Why-the-supposed-worst-possible-option-a-World-Trade-Deal-trading-under-WTO-rules-is-the-UKs-best-next-step-Michael-Burrage.pdf

Specifically the chart on Real Growth of Goods Exports 1993 - 2015

UK has been outstripped by the EU12 in terms of growth in exports of real goods... The fault? Well the single market of course. Growth of exports from the US (outside of the single market) also grew at a similar level to the EU12.. But poor old UK lagged them all..

Solution - obviously leave the single market

It might be a solution to something alright but those statistics would lead me more to think that the UK simply isn't making stuff that people want to buy... which is a much bigger problem and one that will still be front and center whether they be inside or outside the single market.

Wait, the reason that other countries in the single market have out performed the UK in terms of exports is that the single market has held the UK back? Have the other members of the single market developed some form of single market immunity that has eluded the UK?

bilston

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, Barnier says "If both sides approach talks in a realistic manner, a deal can be done in six to eight weeks", and UK markets and media go into overdrive. No remote sign that there was any progress on the Border, but guess London will grasp at any slight straws.

Barnier is the one saying a deal can be done in 6-8 weeks. How is that London grasping at straws?

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

Barnier is the one saying a deal can be done in 6-8 weeks. How is that London grasping at straws?

I think 'realistic manner' might be a clue.

Water John

If the LSE are rubbishing Minford's claims, not a lot needs to be said. That is not Lefties saying he's wrong.

Spanish Eyes

I'd say there is a lot going on in the background away from the press and social media.

And voila.... an agreement the day before a Hard Brexit.

UK can say they brought it down to wire. EU won't care as long as UK observes the usual rules and the Border issue is resolved.

A game of chicken.

Imreoir2

bilston wrote: »

Barnier is the one saying a deal can be done in 6-8 weeks. How is that London grasping at straws?

Maybe read beyond the headline.
Deal can be done in 6/8 weeks IF the UK accepts the backstop.

Imreoir2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I'd say there is a lot going on in the background away from the press and social media.

And voila.... an agreement the day before a Hard Brexit.

UK can say they brought it down to wire. EU won't care as long as UK observes the usual rules and the Border issue is resolved.

A game of chicken.

The day before hard Brexit is about 3 months too late to matter.

brickster69

Don't forget the EU's obligations under it's own Treaties ie. International Law. You would imagine the last thing they would want is to break the rules.
Under Article 50(2), they "shall negotiate and conclude the withdrawal agreement"
Under Article 3(5). In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Under Article 8:1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.
Even to suggest a division between GB & NI for Political reasons is against UN rules on sovereignty.

EdgeCase

The biggest problem in Northern Ireland at the moment is the lack of a functioning devolved administration. Having the region's interests represented by a combination of the DUP and the Tories is insanity.

EdgeCase

EdgeCase wrote: »

The biggest problem in Northern Ireland at the moment is the lack of a functioning devolved administration. Having the region's interests represented by a combination of the DUP and the Tories is insanity.

Bill Clinton was saying why would Sinn Fein go back into devolved government now not knowing what the outcome of Brexit will be. They would have to implement whatever comes out of it.

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

Don't forget the EU's obligations under it's own Treaties ie. International Law. You would imagine the last thing they would want is to break the rules.
Under Article 50(2), they "shall negotiate and conclude the withdrawal agreement"
Under Article 3(5). In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Under Article 8:1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.
Even to suggest a division between GB & NI for Political reasons is against UN rules on sovereignty.

Are you claiming to understand the EU Treaties better than the EU does? If not, then what is the point of your post?

The UK has agreed that a backstop is needed in the withdrawl treaty. The EU agrees with the UK on this point, this is hardily against UN rules on sovereignty. If the UK does not agree with the EU proposal on how the backstop should be given legal force in the treaty, then it is up to the UK to come up with an alternative proposal. The EU has been asking the UK to provide this for months.

Charles Babbage

brickster69 wrote: »

Under Article 8:1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.
Even to suggest a division between GB & NI for Political reasons is against UN rules on sovereignty.

The EU is supporting an agreement, the GFA, already signed by the UK and registered at the UN. This is most certainly not UN rules on sovereignty.

Infini

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I'd say there is a lot going on in the background away from the press and social media.

And voila.... an agreement the day before a Hard Brexit.

UK can say they brought it down to wire. EU won't care as long as UK observes the usual rules and the Border issue is resolved.

A game of chicken.

I dont think this is the case. From every report and information we've seen the UK is paralysed by infighting and incompetence by the Brexiteer idiots. Nothing short of an election or a 2nd referendum on this is gonna solve this realistically in the remaining time unless the UK capitulates. The EU wont compromise on its core tenents just because the UK no longer wishes to abide by them. As well as that an agreement the day before Brexit won't happen, November is the last realistic chance for the UK to negotiate any withdrawal agreement. After that it's very likely to be a crashout Brexit or there's a 2nd referendum to reverse this.

Truthfully in the next few week's were looking at all the BS coming home to roost for the UK, the brexiteers are discredited they have no viable backup plan they're intentionally stalling with the intent to cause a crashout. May is stalling on her own Chequers plan but its dead to right's it's contraditory and just isnt viable. Likely unless the UK backs down on the Border issue and accepts the backstop they'll crash out by March and only a GE/2nd Ref is likely to have any chance of resolving this.

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

Don't forget the EU's obligations under it's own Treaties ie. International Law. You would imagine the last thing they would want is to break the rules.
Under Article 50(2), they "shall negotiate and conclude the withdrawal agreement"

One party to a negotiation can't conclude an agreement on it its own; it does require a meeting of minds between the two parties. There's a bit of a clue iin the word "agreement".

So, no, Art 50(2) doesn't require the EU to accept whatever cakeist proposal the UK cares to offer. It requires them to try and reach agreement with the UK, and it equally requires the UK to try and reach agreement with the EU. (The UK, remember, is just as bound by Article 50 as the EU is.) And since the UK can't agree with itself about the terms on which it should leave, they are clearly not yet capable of fulfilling the obligation they have undertaken to reach an agreement with the EU.

So if anybody's in breach of Article 50(2) here, it's not the EU.

brickster69 wrote: »

Even to suggest a division between GB & NI for Political reasons is against UN rules on sovereignty.

Happily, nobody is suggesting "a division between GB and NI for political reasons".

Some Brexiters pretend to believe this, but we know they don't really believe it. If the proposed backstop were a fundamental change in NI's constitutional position within the UK then, per the Downing Street Declaration and the Good Friday Agreement, whether it should be accepted and implemented would be a matter exclusively for the people of NI. The role of Westminster would be to find out what the people of NI wanted, and then do it. But Westminster hasn't shown the least inclination to do that - it appears literally not even to have crossed their minds - and I look in vain for the Brexiters urging them to do so.

So, no, Brexiters don't see the backstop as a constitutional issue. They merely find it politically convenient to pretend to.

fash

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, Barnier says "If both sides approach talks in a realistic manner, a deal can be done in six to eight weeks", and UK markets and media go into overdrive. No remote sign that there was any progress on the Border, but guess London will grasp at any slight straws.

I assume Barnier is also doing a few things here in making this statement: making it harder for the UK to blame the EU for (the inevitable?) failure to agree and creating positive momentum/ pressure towards an agreement (e.g. expectations raised, sterling rises etc- all to be taken away if the UK fails to fire through). I believe Barnier has been saying for some time that time is not the issue- the failure to make decisions is - this statement merely puts that in other words.

lawred2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Wait, the reason that other countries in the single market have out performed the UK in terms of exports is that the single market has held the UK back? Have the other members of the single market developed some form of single market immunity that has eluded the UK?

Incredible reasoning to be fair.. Takes some mental contortions to derive the conclusions that that 'learned' gentleman derived..

fash

I was wondering whether the following would be politically possible for TM : agree the WA with a backstop with a sufficiently open political statement to go either Canada or Norway (and saying something to the effect that the backstop would not be used unless the people voted for it). Then during the WA time period, have a second referendum on Canada or Norway option. That type of second referendum answers the problem of "repeating the question" - and if the UK ended up with Norway, it could always join the EU in future- the EU wouldn't be too unhappy about it.

EdgeCase

It's arguably already far too late to matter.

The pencilled in deadline for Brexit negotiations to be concluded between the UK Government and the European Commission is sometime in October 2018 i.e. next month.

The problem is simply logistical. The agreement has to be debated and approved by the European Parliament, then it has to be approved by all 27 remaining EU member states and they have all sorts of democratic processes to get through at national and even regional level.

You can 't seriously expect the European Parliament and 27 countries to sign off on some highly nuanced agreement without any idea what they're signing or any time to pick it apart or debate it properly. It's nuts. The agreement has huge implications for every one who has signed up to it and may have all sorts of knock on effects and impacts that we're not even aware of. Rushed legislation is very dangerous.

Simultaneously the UK has to sign off on it through a parliamentary vote and that could go into chaos very easily. It could range form anything from a political stalemate to a chaotic collapse of the British Government and a general election, which could come back without any clear majority on anything.

Then you also have issues with international bodies like the WTO who may end up seeing challenges to aspects of any preferential trade deals between the two, so that could easily end up in arbitration.

There simply isn't enough time. This should have been agreed months and months ago.

I think at this stage, we're looking at either an extension of the deadline or a hard Brexit. There's no real other alternative.

Realistically, as the UK doesn't have any of the border infrastructure in place to deal with any of this, I don't even know how this is going to work. We end up with a crash out in March without any contingencies or logistical planning in place.

I can only assume that the UK strategy is to make such a complete mess of the whole thing that the EU has no choice but to put some kind of interim measures in place to avoid a complete catastrophe. If that is their strategy, it's an extremely dangerous one as the EU could equally just walk away.

Leroy42

Given that the NI border issue seems to be a major sticking point, and with time quickly running out and little, it appears, hope of a solution to the NI impasse, the only deal I can see happening at this stage will be one that it does not deal with the NI border (ie end with a hard border) or allows a soft border but without other conditions (FOM etc)

It is certainly on that basis that the Tory party are having their debate, since they will not accept a backstop.

But given that the above were to be true, what should the Irish government do in such a situation. I ask this because the debate in the UK media seems to all be about what deal the UK parliament is willing to accept, but there seems to be an almost ignorance that quite apart for the UK there are a further 27 parliaments that also need to agree.