Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Aren't WTO the lowest level, the default should nothing else exist? If so, then a crash out would necessitate WTO rules. Neither the UK or EU could avoid it, apart from making a deal?

No the lowest standard is non WTO trading which means WTO tariffs or worse on everything. The reason for this is that UK's WTO membership is very intertwined with EU's at this stage and countries could dispute that UK is a proper WTO member. It's the same way UK thinks they can ignore the whole aspect of unbundling with EU on qoutas and keep trading "because lawsuits will take a decade to resolve" but as always UK thinks no one else will act against them but they are free to act any way they want. Hence a country can claim UK is not a WTO member and put any tariffs they feel like until a trade deal is done; can you think of some countries that would/could do that?

Leroy42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The UK would find it impossible to trade on WTO rules without cooperation from the EU. WTO being the lowest required standard does not necessitate that individual countries can/do comply with those standards.

Nobody would seriously suggest that even trade on this island could be in compliance with WTO rules without some regulatory framework in place between the UK and EU?

Probably. But that doesn't stop it from being the default. So if no deal is agreed then it reverts back to WTO. According to the likes of JRM, Johnson, Davis etc this is perfectly fine. Even the likes of TM, with her total nonsense about "no deal is better..." has provided an easy narrative.

marno21

Speaking of WTO, does anyone know when the WTO elections are on? After all, it would be a sin for Britain to rely on an organisation run by unelected bureaucrats for trade.

serfboard

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Farage on the other hand has several potent advantages ...

Secondly, he has simplicity. If a pragmatic liberal like myself is asked about say low wages, I would point to low British productivity, lack of meaningful investment, economic disparity, the demise of trade unions, etc... Each of these topics is worthy of several scholarly works in and of themselves. Farage needs merely one word. Immigration. Nothing else. Long NHS queues? Too many immigrants clogging up Her Majesty's wonderful public health system. Can't get a school place for your child? Same. Too much traffic in London? Yep. Foreigners again. That list goes on.

Indeed - a simple and wrong answer to counteract what is in fact a simple and right answer. Why are your lives so sh1t? Because the billionaires have stolen all the money.

As Dutch Historian Rutger Bregman said at Davos, the solution is "Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullsh1t".

Silent Running wrote: »

paralysis in the HoC is the current position and that would have to be broken. They can't rely on extension after extension. Patience in the EU is wearing thin. They could be forced to crash out if they push this strategy too far.

This is what Ivan Rogers has said - that the EU could get fed up and kick Britain out.

I think that (a lot of) people in the EU are looking at this the wrong way - if they want an extension the next time, offer them only a one-year extension, and keep doing this every year until they either pass a Deal in the HOC, definitely commit to crashing put (which they can't do in the current HOC) or Revoke A50 and Remain.

There is then to be no more discussion or effort on the part of the EU regarding Brexit until the annual meeting where another extension gets passed - just like someone renewing membership.

In the meantime, Britain is considered to be a full member of the EU.

First Up wrote: »

[Verhofstadt]'s talking in Dublin tomorrow week so we can look forward to some lively utterances.

It's actually next Friday (the 17th) in The Gresham at lunchtime. If I was in Dublin I'd definitely be going to it.

Leroy42

serfboard wrote: »

I think that (a lot of) people in the EU are looking at this the wrong way - if they want an extension the next time, offer them only a one-year extension, and keep doing this every year until they either pass a Deal in the HOC, definitely commit to crashing put (which they can't do in the current HOC) or Revoke A50 and Remain.

There is then to be no more discussion or effort on the part of the EU regarding Brexit until the annual meeting where another extension gets passed - just like someone renewing membership.

In the meantime, Britain is considered to be a full member of the EU.

The problem with that approach is that the EU need to put together some fairly long term plans. Starting with the budget itself, but also the election of Commissioner etc, as well as accession of new countries, new regulations, they want to do things with financial services tax, there is the evolving area of data, the increasingly difficult area of super companies like FB and Google. As well as relationships with the US, China etc.

The EU is far too complex to have a member simply sign up for a year at a time, with the very real possibility of crash out at any stage. Whilst of course any country could drop out at any point, there appears little appetite in other countries. Any 'wins' the UK could achieve would be seen as giving in to demands by the UK (even if it had nothing to do with it and they simply won the argument) that would only embolden those that seek to leave and annoy those that stayed.

reslfj

CelticRambler wrote: »

This point has been made before, but repeatedly gets buried in other Brexit-related nonsense. Contrary to what some have stated above, the default is a crash out Brexit.

There is no such thing, and never will be, as a "no deal" Brexit. Even the hardest Brexiteers acknowledge that a crash-out Brexit will have to be followed immediately by a raft of mini-deals cobbled together in a hurry.

But a deal - no matter how "mini" - is still a deal, and there is absolutely no way the UK can have any kind of functional relationship with the EU without some kind of deal.

WTO is only rules and tariffs. The UK can trade on EU's

But the EU is regulation much, much more. No goods moves without transportation.

• UK lorries will have just over 5% of the permits (pre-EU agreed) needed for driving into the EU27.
• UK planes can not carry passengers to/from the EU27 without a deal.
• UK will not get any radioactive isotopes - e.g. for medical use - without a deal which includes EURATOM
• etc etc etc

The EU27 has clearly stated that without a deal, there will not be any mini-deals and not even negotiations about anything now under EU rules.

The EU27 has also stated that the WA text will be a de facto prerequisite for any future deal.

Lars

PS! Don't count on another A50 extension. Several EU27 members are already against and in more member states this enjoys public support.

Capt'n Midnight

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I disagree slightly:

A "no deal" Brexit is one where the EU and UK form no consensus for ground-rules on their future trade negotiations post-Brexit.

It should be made clear that "no deal" means the UK won't keep any deals with the EU and will keep none of the existing EU deals with 70 other countries.

Jim2007

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I disagree slightly:

A "no deal" Brexit is one where the EU and UK form no consensus for ground-rules on their future trade negotiations post-Brexit. However, if the UK want to trade on day-1 on WTO terms, there will have to be some deal consensus with the EU in order to do so.

Crashing out isn't the same, as it would not allow the UK to trade on WTO rules right away - there's simply no way the UK can untangle itself from the EU in such a manner as to trade in accordance with WTO rules on day-1.

Not at all, a no deal BREXIT is exactly that, there will be no legal basis beyond WTO rules that can be applied. The EU is rule based and to expect that they can or will in anyway do something different would be a grave mistake.

First Up

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

It should be made clear that "no deal" means the UK won't keep any deals with the EU and will keep none of the existing EU deals with 70 other countries.

You can be sure that the implications of the UK leaving the EU are not lost on country with a trade agreement with the EU.

How the UK deals with that is its own problem.

Irish Praetorian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

BBCQT audience stacked with boorish Kipper-types, almost like they have turned out with the express intention of cheering everything Nigel Ferengi says.

I feel bad for the people who are against leaving but the sooner that Britain is out of the EU the better.

There some to be some kind of curious inverse relationship between the shift against Brexit amongst the polling data and increased kippy yobbishness of the QT audience.

ancapailldorcha

No more insults please.

LeinsterDub

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

There some to be some kind of curious inverse relationship between the shift against Brexit amongst the polling data and increased kippy yobbishness of the QT audience.

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1126609186178072577

This fella did a better job than most uk journalists over the last few years

Leroy42

With the core issue being that they keep going on about easily making trade deals with the rest of the world yet cannot agree a deal with the EU on how to leave.

Trump is finding things difficult with China at the moment, and the US is the biggest economy in the world. Yet they never discuss how they will get these great deals that other countries have failed to get.

So at the very least they need a completely new plan going forward.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

Trump is finding things difficult with China at the moment, and the US is the biggest economy in the world. Yet they never discuss how they will get these great deals that other countries have failed to get.

Trump is playing hardball with China (he doesn't know how to do anything else) but it will most likely backfire on him (higher prices in Walmart and markets closed off to US grain exporters).

There is nothing in the currently beligerent US trading climate to encourage the UK to expect any better (if they are lucky) access to the US market than they currently enjoy as part of the EU - and they are likely to have to pay a price even for that.

FreudianSlippers

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It should be made clear that "no deal" means the UK won't keep any deals with the EU and will keep none of the existing EU deals with 70 other countries.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not at all, a no deal BREXIT is exactly that, there will be no legal basis beyond WTO rules that can be applied. The EU is rule based and to expect that they can or will in anyway do something different would be a grave mistake.

The "deal" we're talking about here is in relation to the transition period, not the future trading relationship between the UK/EU. Admittedly, it's not a good sign for the future deal if they can't agree to a deal on the TA; but not impossible.

All I'm saying is that if there is a "no deal" brexit (i.e. no TA), there may be a way for the UK to trade on WTO terms by some consensus with the EU. Crashing out is worse as the UK couldn't even meet the WTO minimum requirements.

Danzy

The only person in the Democrat field that would share Trump's view on Trade is Sanders.

Biden and others are like Hilary, who came close to locking Asia and the EU in to one of the most radical free market trade deals ever proposed. Reaganism on speed.

FreudianSlippers

Danzy wrote: »

The only person in the Democrat field that would share Trump's view on Trade is Sanders.

Biden and others are like Hilary, who came close to locking Asia and the EU in to one of the most radical free market trade deals ever proposed. Reaganism on speed.

Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin - and I don't mean that in a good way.

reslfj

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if there is a "no deal" brexit (i.e. no TA), there may be a way for the UK to trade on WTO terms by some consensus with the EU.
Crashing out is worse as the UK couldn't even meet the WTO minimum requirements.

The EU27 will not even negotiate about anything now related to and regulated by EU rules, unless the WA text is agreed.

Before Brexit the WA with the transition agreement, after Brexit without the TA, as you write.

But rights of UK and EU citizens, the £39bn payment and the backstop - will have to be ratified by the UK before anything happens in relation to any new agreement with the EU.

In any "Something will happen quote", believe me, the word "Something" will mean "Nothing".

Had the UK Brexited on March 29. The EU27 would have unilaterally allowed planes to fly direct UK-EU until April 2020, allowed UK lorries to continue driving in all EU27 countries during all of 2019 and granted UK financial institutions the right to operate well into 2020 (check the timing yourself).

The EU27 will, I guess, rework its plans for unilateral 'no deal' rules up to Oct. 31. as the EU and its businesses have not stopped 'No Deal' preparations.

Lars

Danzy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin - and I don't mean that in a good way.

Both represent an opposition to the globalised free market.

From left and right.

Larbre34

I can't really get over how idiotic it is to have Verhofstadt campaigning with the Lib Dems in leafy London and Tusk giving interviews to Warsaw media bigging up a second referendum. Its just petrol to the fire of arguments of EU interference, particularly as it applies to voters in the UK who are unsettled by Brexit prospects and may be wavering.

Yes the EU has never been sold well in the UK, but that is now the solemn responsibility of pro-Remain parties in these elections, to counter the hate and the lies with vocal proponency, the eurocrats need to give them a clear road.

Leroy42

My guess is they tried to stay out of it before and the UK failed miserably. I doubt they are trying to influence any Leavers, what they are trying to do, IMO, is to out a face on the faceless Eurocrats. To make the EU real.

For those that hate everything about the EU, the Express reader, of course it will be like a red rag to a bull. But if they avoided talking about it they would be accused of being aloof and not caring about the EU or democracy.

As these are EU elections, any EU member has every right to talk about them within the EU.

Sam Russell

Larbre34 wrote: »

I can't really get over how idiotic it is to have Verhofstadt campaigning with the Lib Dems in leafy London and Tusk giving interviews to Warsaw media bigging up a second referendum. Its just petrol to the fire of arguments of EU interference, particularly as it applies to voters in the UK who are unsettled by Brexit prospects and may be wavering.

Yes the EU has never been sold well in the UK, but that is now the solemn responsibility of pro-Remain parties in these elections, to counter the hate and the lies with vocal proponency, the eurocrats need to give them a clear road.

Verhofstadt is a politician, similar to Mairead McGuinnes. Why can he not campaign?

briany

When it comes to Brexit, BBC Question Time is starting to turn into the Jeremy Kyle Show. It's just degenerating week in, week out with heckling and loud booing of both sides of the argument. It's good TV on the one hand, but if the audience attitudes are in any way indicative of wider public discourse in the UK, you could be seeing ugly scenes on its streets, whichever way Brexit goes.

Tell me how

briany wrote: »

When it comes to Brexit, BBC Question Time is starting to turn into the Jeremy Kyle Show. It's just degenerating week in, week out with heckling and loud booing of both sides of the argument. It's good TV on the one hand, but if the audience attitudes are in any way indicative of wider public discourse in the UK, you could be seeing ugly scenes on its streets, whichever way Brexit goes.

I was saying that previously that if this was happening anytime before the start of the 20th century, it would have escalated to widespread physical conflict by now.

There was someone on a Ch4 vox pop some weeks ago and she was very sinister in saying what was needed was someone like Enoch Powell who was Famous for a 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 which was very vocal in decrying immigration in to the UK.

She was kind of smiling as she said it, but not in a jovial type way.

Larbre34

Sam Russell wrote: »

Verhofstadt is a politician, similar to Mairead McGuinnes. Why can he not campaign?

He absolutely can. However I think its unwise for him to campaign in London, as he has today.

First Up

Larbre34 wrote:

He absolutely can. However I think its unwise for him to campaign in London, as he has today.

He's in London to energise the pro EU vote. He's a politician and its an election. Most MEPs are members of pan European alliances and they all nail their colours to the mast.

Sam Russell

I have noticed that the BBC are promoting the BRITISH tradition of the ENGLISH FA Cup Final between Manchester City and Watford.

I hope people in Scotland enjoy this British tradition, as they watch two English football teams decide the British English FA Cup Final.

And they say that the BBC are not biased.

Oldenboard

The Alde group is represented in the UK by the Liberal Democrats. The LibDems have done reasonably well in the recent local elections but they did terrible at the last elections to the 8th European Parliament in 2014. The size of the electoral regions means that parties must get around 10-12% of the vote share to win seat, which is at the upper end of support for the Liberal Democrats in the UK. The Alde / LibDem absolutely must get the Remain vote out if they want to improve on their miserable 2014 performance, win more MEPs and set a mark against Brexit.

Water John

Juncker said the other day, one of his big regrets was taking Cameron's advice and not getting involved in the original 2016 Brexit debate.

LeinsterDub

Larbre34 wrote: »

I can't really get over how idiotic it is to have Verhofstadt campaigning with the Lib Dems in leafy London and Tusk giving interviews to Warsaw media bigging up a second referendum. Its just petrol to the fire of arguments of EU interference, particularly as it applies to voters in the UK who are unsettled by Brexit prospects and may be wavering.

Yes the EU has never been sold well in the UK, but that is now the solemn responsibility of pro-Remain parties in these elections, to counter the hate and the lies with vocal proponency, the eurocrats need to give them a clear road.

The EU didn't interfere the first time around and we all know how that turned out. Remain lost and they got accused of interfering anyway. May as well actually interfere.