Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

20silkcut

reslfj wrote: »

If the UK lowers its tariffs for e.g. NZ/AU meat, such low tariffs will be applied to import from the all other countries including the EU - due to WTO rules on MFN tariffs.

The EU's export to the UK including the Irish export will then maintain its full competitiveness. But the UK agriculture (and fish) export to the EU27 will suffer badly as the EU tariffs will not be lowered - some may even be adjusted upwards.

When the EU agrees FTAs with other countries (except US and China plus maybe India) it will not be easy for such countries to make other new more favourable deals with any nonEU country.

Lars

But if Britain does a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand can they not set the tariffs to whatever they want with those countries and have higher tariffs with MFN countries.

Leroy42

Emma Barnett on Radio 5 made, IMO, the very valid point that people have no idea what is going on with Brexit at the moment.

From the chaos and panic over the last few months, it seems that everything has simply ground to a halt. Whilst I assume that there is stuff going on in the background in the UK, there seems to be far more talk of a leadership challenge than anything in regards to movement on Brexit.

Whilst I take the point that MP's needed a break (although it seems that MP's when tired and over worked are excused from making decisions but people on benefits etc are given no such respite!)

So what are peoples thoughts on where the UK are now? Are they simply resigned to fighting the EU elections, and running down the clock until October when they can all panic again? It just seems very odd that things have turned off so quickly.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what are peoples thoughts on where the UK are now? Are they simply resigned to fighting the EU elections, and running down the clock until October when they can all panic again?

Yes, of course.


The latest bit of actual news of talks was Labour saying the Tories will not compromise and the Tories saying Labour are foot dragging.


That can go on for months.

10000maniacs

20silkcut wrote: »

But if Britain does a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand can they not set the tariffs to whatever they want with those countries and have higher tariffs with MFN countries.

Try telling that to the 10's of thousands of Welsh and Scottish sheep farmers and/or the 5.4 million small to medium enterprises in the UK who will have to figure out how to ship their now less than attractive product to others. On top of that, the UK will be a single country against 163 others wielding no influence compared to what they currently do as the third largest member of the EU28. Outside of the EU, they will become a ‘third country’ with no trade deals, applying a pre-agreed set of tariffs that they have at this moment in time had no say on within or without the WTO.
Unilateral deals with NZ and Australia will screw up everything else imaginable making everything much worse. If it could ever be.

ancapailldorcha

20silkcut wrote: »

But if Britain does a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand can they not set the tariffs to whatever they want with those countries and have higher tariffs with MFN countries.

Absolutely but they need an FTA to lower tariffs from those countries below other countries as per the MFN rule. Bear in mind that if the economy tanks, we'll need a lot of cheap food while UK farmers will lose privileged access to their preferred market as well as their subsidies. I can't see New Zealand buying a lot of British lamb either.

According to this, farmers probably voted for Brexit:

A recent poll undertaken by Farmers Weekly asked 577 farmers how they were going to vote on 23 June. This was self-selected to represent the profile of farming in the UK. 58% said they would vote to leave, 31% would vote to remain and 11% were undecided.

Capt'n Midnight

20silkcut wrote: »

I agree there is no guarantee that a no deal brexit will bring Britain to its senses.
If you look at the example of Rhodesia in the 70’s it survived fine as a pariah state trading with one or two countries until the Portuguese pulled the plug.
Britain would not be even nearly as shunned as they were.

In the case of Rhodesia it was very easy to convince the voters to back the regime.



If you've read Isaac Asimov's Foundation there's the story of how a warlord was overthrown because the supply of consumer gadgets ran out. By avoiding direct conflict there was nothing to appeal to patriots.

Hard Brexit might be like that, things get a little more expensive or in shorter supply and the EU doesn't take part in a trade war.

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to this, farmers probably voted for Brexit:

Family member is vet in West Midlands. Said that his clients seemed to overwhelmingly vote to leave as you indicated. Largely he said because of a lack of knowledge on what doing so would mean and just how the EU affects UK industry.

He was pulling his hair out for 2 years at the ignorance of many to lap up Johnson/Farage rhetoric. He is no longer pulling his hair out because he is just worn out from being frustrated about it.

Capt'n Midnight

Shelga wrote: »

I don’t really get the benefit of Scotland becoming independent right now, especially in the event of a hard Brexit. They will face all of the same border issues as Northern Ireland and so much instability.

I get it from a, we’re sick of being screwed over by England, mentality, but I don’t see how it can work practically. It’s not in Scotland’s interest for a hard Brexit no matter what happens re. their independence, so IMO Sturgeon should be putting her efforts into preventing that right now. Leave the independence issue for now.

As Scotland is a nett exporter of drink, food , fuel and energy more than a service provider an independent Scotland would be a better fit for the EFTA than England would be.

They could then stay in the CTA and peg the Pound to Sterling, which solves the issue of Schengen and the Euro.

Also as a small county Scotland wouldn't have huge influence in the EU so EFTA isn't a bad compromise.

If push came to shove the Scotland - England border is shorter and has far fewer crossings than the Irish one.

embraer170

Is the Barnier behind the scenes documentary available anywhere online?

Edit: found it here
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/078746-000-A/brexit-the-clock-is-ticking/

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Jeremy Hunt engages in a tediously childish spat with the French Ambassador to the US:

twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1121023834453364737

Mr Hunt getting lots of lessons in UK history there.

And this comment
You mean the bust of the man who suggested a united Europe working together for peace and prosperity?

reslfj

20silkcut wrote: »

But if Britain does a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand can they not set the tariffs to whatever they want with those countries and have higher tariffs with MFN countries.

The EU27 is a 7 times larger market and a FTA with the EU27 is much more important for both AU and NZ.

The EU27 will almost surely put restrictions on NZ's and AU's other new trade deals.
Trade negotiations and trade deals exist in the grown ups adult world - not in any pussy-nussy fantacy world.

Lars

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

...
They could then stay in the CTA and peg the Pound to Sterling, which solves the issue of Schengen and the Euro.

Also as a small county Scotland wouldn't have huge influence in the EU so EFTA isn't a bad compromise.

If push came to shove the Scotland - England border is shorter and has far fewer crossings than the Irish one.

The CTA - Yes!

But the currency of an independent Scotland is not an easy question. Following the UK Pound is unlikely - IMHO - to be a good idea except in the very short term. Joining the Euro or Denmark like following the Euro likely much better.

A Scotland voting to leave will know the border for goods will be there. If high tariffs for some products remain (no low tariff FTA/CU agreed) smuggling for profit might well be a problem, product standards and safety problems will then follow.

The much shorter England-Scotland border and accepting border infrastructure will mitigate problems.

Lars

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Emma Barnett on Radio 5 made, IMO, the very valid point that people have no idea what is going on with Brexit at the moment.

From the chaos and panic over the last few months, it seems that everything has simply ground to a halt. Whilst I assume that there is stuff going on in the background in the UK, there seems to be far more talk of a leadership challenge than anything in regards to movement on Brexit.

Whilst I take the point that MP's needed a break (although it seems that MP's when tired and over worked are excused from making decisions but people on benefits etc are given no such respite!)

So what are peoples thoughts on where the UK are now? Are they simply resigned to fighting the EU elections, and running down the clock until October when they can all panic again? It just seems very odd that things have turned off so quickly.

I would imagine it's simply down to the fact that almost everyone in the UK is sick and tired about the whole Brexit situation, regardless of what their point of view is, they've simply don't want to think about it anymore.

Capt'n Midnight

reslfj wrote: »

The CTA - Yes!

But the currency of an independent Scotland is not an easy question. Following the UK Pound is unlikely - IMHO - to be a good idea except in the very short term. Joining the Euro or Denmark like following the Euro likely much better.

We followed Sterling for over half century until we joined the European Monetary System.

Ironically Scottish Oil meant we couldn't continue to follow.

A Scotland voting to leave will know the border for goods will be there. If high tariffs for some products remain (no low tariff FTA/CU agreed) smuggling for profit might well be a problem, product standards and safety problems will then follow.

Scotland could choose to follow British Standards in the main just like we do, ask any engineer about BSI. As for smuggling Max Facilitation will solve everything, or rather muddle through for years until it does.


Politically joining EFTA rather than going full EU means it's easier to rejoin the UK. Could sell it on that basis to the undecided.


The moral is to take lessons from the Leave campaign and use what works to get the result.

If the enquiry into vote leave has been done then ban those tricks, other wise use them. Win Win for the SNP

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine it's simply down to the fact that almost everyone in the UK is sick and tired about the whole Brexit situation, regardless of what their point of view is, they've simply don't want to think about it anymore.

That jadedness is understandable, but if they put it on the long finger 'til October, they're just going to end up cramming about 5 months worth of that same misery into a few short weeks, instead of having a relatively calm deliberate process over the remaining time between now and 31/10.

CrabRevolution

Leroy42 wrote: »

You can be certain that the UK will sign off some trade deals really quickly. They will be sold as the proof that Brexit was right all along and that the EU is failing.

Of course the media and general public won't ever actually question the trade deals themselves. What it actually contains. Get in cheap NZ lamb, regardless of the price.

Much akin to the recent years influx of Russian money in UK property and the investment by China. People only see the benefits but there are clear costs. But the likes of Fox, Johnson etc will be log gone before any of that becomes apparent.

This is exactly what will happen. They'll get a few quick deals with anyone who offers no matter what the cost to the UK. The media and pro-brexit crowd will lap it up as "success" and proof that brexit was the right thing to do. Pointing any flaws out will be dismissed with "talking Britain down" and "remoaners".

Pre-brexit, the general public have no idea who they have trade deals with and what the terms of trade are for UK companies.

Post-brexit the general public will still have no idea who they have trade deals with and what the terms of trade are for UK companies. This won't matter though as these new arrangements (that they can't name or describe) are going to be inexplicably better because they're British.

The truth is that for the most part they don't care about trade deals, and never did. Trade deals and trade were just a straw grasped at by the brexiters needing to flesh out their manifesto for brexit.

Capt'n Midnight

Tory MPs reject rule change to oust Theresa May

To get the rules changed there'd need to be a clear majority.
But if they had a majority she'd have had to step down anyway.

But the Committee is to ask Mrs May for "clarity" on how long she plans to remain PM if her EU Withdrawal Agreement fails.

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We followed Sterling for over half century until we joined the European Monetary System.

Ironically Scottish Oil meant we couldn't continue to follow.

Scotland can't base its economy on oil after 2035/2045

• oil will run out
• the market will shrink
• the price will fall
• expensive to produce offshore oil can't compete

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Scotland could choose to follow British Standards in the main just like we do, ask any engineer about BSI.

Not if Scotland wants to join the EU.

The EU require standards, rules and regulations to be identical across the mandatory - and hugely beneficial - Single Market i.e. in all of the EU.

Lars

Capt'n Midnight

reslfj wrote: »

Scotland can't base its economy on oil after 2035/2045

• oil will run out
• the market will shrink
• the price will fall
• expensive to produce offshore oil can't compete

Fair enough. But it won't stop overnight. And there's still gas. Big demand as less carbon. In fact the old wells could be used for carbon storage. And England will need carbon credits.
But there's also billions in whisky and salmon and green energy.

Not if Scotland wants to join the EU.

The EU require standards, rules and regulations to be identical across the mandatory - and hugely beneficial - Single Market i.e. in all of the EU.

Lars

Most standards will be the same. And Scotland joining/remaining in the EU from day one isn't such a big issue.

England on the other doesn't export much in the way of food or fuel but is relies on services to the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Fair enough. But it won't stop overnight. And there's still gas. Big demand as less carbon. In fact the old wells could be used for carbon storage. And England will need carbon credits.
But there's also billions in whisky and salmon and green energy.



Most standards will be the same. And Scotland joining/remaining in the EU from day one isn't such a big issue.

England on the other doesn't export much in the way of food or fuel but is relies on services to the EU.

Spain may have a spanner or two to throw into that assumption. Don't want to be giving the Catalonians any ideas, do they.

A Dub in Glasgo

reslfj wrote: »

Scotland can't base its economy on oil after 2035/2045

• oil will run out
• the market will shrink
• the price will fall
• expensive to produce offshore oil can't compete

Scotland does not base its economy on oil and must be the only country to have vast amounts of it found off its shores and still not have a rainy day fund

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Spain may have a spanner or two to throw into that assumption. Don't want to be giving the Catalonians any ideas, do they.

That has been debunked so many times now. Spain has said that they would not interfere in a Scottish application. The Catalonia situation is different.

McGiver

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Politically joining EFTA rather than going full EU means it's easier to rejoin the UK. Could sell it on that basis to the undecided.

Or join EFTA first whilst getting ready to join the EU. Like Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc.

volchitsa

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That has been debunked so many times now. Spain has said that they would not interfere in a Scottish application. The Catalonia situation is different.

Hindsight from the post Brexit referendum, specifically the supine readiness (eagerness?) of the British media to repeatedly report as insider leaks tales about how divided the EU was when they mostly appear to have been "planted" reports from their own Foreign Office, leads me to suspect that Spain may never have been as categorical on this as we were given to believe at the time.

FrancieBrady

volchitsa wrote: »

Hindsight from the post Brexit referendum, specifically the supine readiness (eagerness?) of the British media to repeatedly report as insider leaks tales about how divided the EU was when they mostly appear to have been "planted" reports from their own Foreign Office, leads me to suspect that Spain may never have been as categorical on this as we were given to believe at the time.

They are saying clearly that they would not veto an application here. Rahoy had also said they wouldn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/spain-drops-plan-to-impose-veto-if-scotland-tries-to-join-eu

It was reported during the Scot Ind referendum campaign and then adopted as their official position by anti Independence campaigners.

10000maniacs

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Scotland does not base its economy on oil and must be the only country to have vast amounts of it found off its shores and still not have a rainy day fund

Yes. Added to that, the world is finding the burning of fossil fuels less and less acceptable. Any country with huge natural deposits of oil are extremely worried going forward. Europe's grid will be 100% renewable by 2030. Already a number of countries are renewable in 2019. Bad news for the Saudis and Russians.

20silkcut

20silkcut wrote: »

But if Britain does a free trade deal with Australia and New Zealand can they not set the tariffs to whatever they want with those countries and have higher tariffs with MFN countries.

In the Barnier programme on RTÉ the other night, Blair, while discredited in so many ways (he admitted he was wrong to open the doors in 2004 to new EU member states), makes the straightforward and sobering reflection that the vast majority of countries on the planet do the vast majority of their trade with countries geographically closer to them. Trading with countries on the far side of the planet adds huge costs/reduces competitiveness critically.

Yet crazily and incomprehensibly a post-Brexit world of Britain building on the extensive goodwill it allegedly has from natives in its former colonial possessions and making deals with the supposedly grateful natives has been bought as a viable alternative by a majority of British voters.

Does anybody remember May's post-Brexit trade visit to India in late 2016, which was widely viewed as a failure? One of the Indian conditions was that she must allow more Indian students into Britain. And what does Britain offer India? Access to a market of 500 million people in a very wealthy consumer area? Brexit is so, so many layers of utter and complete delusion.

Somebody earlier pointed out that British farmers are going to be less than happy about all these trade deals which are proposed to allow agricultural imports from NZ etc in exchange for benefits for financial services. Not only will British farmers lose EU grants, they are going to be the sacrifice in trade deals too from every country.

It's remarkable how lacking in coherence all these sectors that are negatively affected by Brexit are. So much of the blame at this stage rests with the inability of all anti-Brexit sectors to unite, mobilise and publicly show these lies for what they are. It's not like they're short of money or ambitious, cutthroat career and business people, so why aren't they fighting back against a sector of society that isn't known for its, eh, ambition?

reslfj

volchitsa wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That has been debunked so many times now. Spain has said that they would not interfere in a Scottish application. The Catalonia situation is different.

... leads me to suspect that Spain may never have been as categorical on this as we were given to believe at the time.

There is /will be a huge difference in the EU27 members attitude towards a Scotland having with force been 'Brexited' out of the EU and the richest region of Spain mainly wanting to get away from purer Spanish regions.

Catalonia was made part of Crown of Aragon already in 1137 in a kind of two kingdoms one King. That is almost 900 years ago.
In 1496 Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile married and created what is now Spain - over 500 years ago.

Did Scotland become part of England in 1603 or GB in 1707? Or as late as 1745?

The EU is already close to the max number of members for the current voting structure to work.
It is a must, that smaller states know how to behave and do not try to solve every world problem instead of their own and common EU problems.

The EU has a fairly strict subsidiarity policy which means local and regional problems will be refereed to and should be solved inside member states and not in or by Brussels.

Lars

Hurrache

So normal bizarro world Brexit services resume after the Easter break
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1121307027106598912