Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Hurrache wrote: »

In another one of those you couldn't make it up moments, Alan Mendoza, executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, a conservative think tank that tries to position itself across the divide and claims to "work across borders and party lines to combat extremism, advance democracy and real human rights" had this to say about how to deal with Ireland

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1149671033646927872

I'm certainly open to bribery. Might cost him a little more than he thinks, but I'm game.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No there won't. It's -80000. Not -80000+80000=0. If you lose 80000 jobs then you lose 80000 jobs. The economy will be hammered for years so new jobs won't be coming anytime soon.

No, look it up. here is a quote:

In a disorderly scenario, economic output here would be 5 per cent lower after 10 years than if the UK remained in the European Union, while employment would be 3.4 per cent lower, which equates to 77,500 fewer jobs.

So it is 80,000 jobs less than if the UK remain, not all growth stops and then a drop of 80,000 net jobs.

And it is 80,000 jobs over 10 years. We added 4 times that number of jobs in just the last 5 years.

This really isn't the end of the world.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/disorderly-brexit-could-cause-loss-of-80-000-irish-jobs-report-warns-1.3838322

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, look it up. here is a quote:

In a disorderly scenario, economic output here would be 5 per cent lower after 10 years than if the UK remained in the European Union, while employment would be 3.4 per cent lower, which equates to 77,500 fewer jobs.

So it is 80,000 jobs less than if the UK remain, not all growth stops and then a drop of 80,000 net jobs.

And it is 80,000 jobs over 10 years. We added 4 times that number of jobs in just the last 5 years.

This really isn't the end of the world.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/disorderly-brexit-could-cause-loss-of-80-000-irish-jobs-report-warns-1.3838322

No. The ESRI are quite specific. After 10 years there will be 80000 fewer jobs in the Irish economy than there is today. So, for example, if there are 1000000 jobs in Ireland today, there will be 920000 in 2029.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The last No Deal estimates I saw were 7.7 to 10.7% lower GDP after 15 years compared to Remaining.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/uk-significantly-worse-off-under-all-brexit-scenarios-official-forecast-gdp

However what is striking about most of the forecasts is the similarity in magnitude for both the UK in Ireland in the various brexit scenarios. In relation to Ireland you say below:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This really isn't the end of the world.

If it isn't the end of the world for Ireland, it won't be the end of the world for the UK either.

kunst nugget

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think you are incorrect. As pointed out there's no legal obligation to pay that money in the event of no deal. It is not like a bar tab where there's a legal obligation.

Except there would be

A House of Lords report from 2017 says that we won’t be bound by EU law after Brexit, and so we could get out of paying the bill. But that report is contentious. Irrespective of our membership of the EU, we are still bound to our financial commitments under international law.

And it’s worth remembering that even beyond the legal issues, reneging on our financial obligations is likely to make any free trade deal with Europe, or other potential partners, politically impossible.

Is there a legal obligation to pay the 39 billion

listermint

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what is striking about most of the forecasts is the similarity in magnitude for both the UK in Ireland in the various brexit scenarios. In relation to Ireland you say below:

If it isn't the end of the world for Ireland, it won't be the end of the world for the UK either.

Show us the forecasts that are the same please.


I'll wait

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is exactly what it is. TM has stated that in the HoC. The likes of JRM etc have dressed it up as a divorce bill, a price for leaving, but it is simply false.

They owe money as part of the agreed projects within the current budget. Bridges, for example, are currently being built that UK will be part funding. Should they simply be allowed to stop paying now?

As mentioned, peoples pensions (Farage for example) have to be paid for a number of years. That is part of it.

I think you misunderstand what the 39bn relates to.

None of that has a bearing on the issue. The EU may be down financially on things like pensions to Farage or whatever and may have liked to have the UK contribute to it, but that is not the same as saying that the UK legally owes the EU for Farage's pension (or any other pension for that matter). Wanting something to be the case is not an argument I'm afraid.

Lackadaisical

From an Irish point of view, it's extremely difficult to model what's going to happen as there are also likely to be upswings in terms of relocating companies as this starts to get a lot more real and nobody's quite sure how those flows will happen or how big they will be as there's absolutely no precedent for any of this and the politics is still all up in the air.

All models should be read with a *huge* degree of caution.

In anything I do, I'm just trying to limit exposure to the UK. I don't particularly want to do that, but I don't have much option as the whole thing is just so up in the air.

The one thing I would caution is that there's still confusion outside of Ireland as to where exactly we stand. I have heard a few comments assuming we will leave the EU too. The Irish Government needs to really hammer that point was it will cost us FDI. You'd be surprised how much stuff flies around in rumour in business communities and a lot of people don't spend all that much time thinking about or parsing Irish politics or may assume it's similar to UK politics due to geographical proximity.

We were left somewhat shocked recently when a very senior US executive asked someone to explain "What's all this Brexit stuff I keep hearing people talking about."

fash

Dytalus wrote: »

The divorce bill is £39 billion.

And they would absolutely be expected to pay it even with a no-deal scenario. The bill covers outstanding commitments and liabilities to the EU, it is money the UK already owes. The EU could take the UK to the international court of justice for refusing to pay and they'd look very, very unreliable in the eyes of other nations for not paying.

Frankly better not to even do that. Better to seize assets outside the UK and then let the UK do whatever it wanted.

FrancieBrady

Lackadaisical wrote: »

All models should be read with a *huge* degree of caution.

In anything I do, I'm just trying to limit exposure to the UK. I don't particularly want to do that, but I don't have much option as the whole thing is just so up in the air.

Exactly. And what cannot be modelled is how well prepared business is. Some will be and some won't.
Same as you, I am now buying supplies from Germany and The Netherlands rather than the UK. Actually making a saving on some of it. Very small business though.

Professor Moriarty

Lackadaisical wrote: »

From an Irish point of view, it's extremely difficult to model what's going to happen as there are also likely to be upswings in terms of relocating companies as this starts to get a lot more real and nobody's quite sure how those flows will happen or how big they will be as there's absolutely no precedent for any of this and the politics is still all up in the air.

All models should be read with a *huge* degree of caution.

Well, you have to have something on which you base your plans and the ESRI's comprehensive assessment is the best you can get. They also factored in any probable increased FDI. But you're right. Nobody knows what our learned friends across the Irish Sea will do next.

Lackadaisical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, you have to have something on which you base your plans and the ESRI's comprehensive assessment is the best you can get. They also factored in any probable increased FDI. But you're right. Nobody knows what our learned friends across the Irish Sea will do next.

Well they'll make their best guess, but I'm just saying I wouldn't be jumping to the conclusion that any of these models are particularly reliable. I wouldn't read them like I would a normal economic forecast based around solid data. The whole thing is uncharted water and the main actors are not particularly rational either.

Professor Moriarty

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Well they'll make their best guess, but I'm just saying I wouldn't be jumping to the conclusion that any of these models are particularly reliable. I wouldn't read them like I would a normal economic forecast based around solid data. The whole thing is uncharted water and the main actors are not particularly rational either.

No. One thing is certain. It won't be pretty.

Lackadaisical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. One thing is certain. It won't be pretty.

My concern is that, a bit like the 2008 credit crunch, the weak points in the UK economy will suddenly come into focus e.g. large consumer debt load or some other issues that are in plain sight but not being noticed, it will crystallise out and all hey presto! economic meltdown.

Economies tend to function a lot on everyone trusting the system and the foundations of that system are being rocked to the core by Brexit.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

But no court would be involved unless an agreement had been reached that was then subsequently broken by one or other of the parties.

You don't seem to understand that the £39B (or whatever) is due for services rendered. The UK owes that. They merely agreed that the amount that was owed was precisely £39B (in fact likely more- there is a complex formula to calculate what will fall due) and the timetable for payment. Hence the EU do not need to sue for the precise WA amount, which was reduced - they sue for the full amount (or just seize assets etc.)

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. The ESRI are quite specific. After 10 years there will be 80000 fewer jobs in the Irish economy than there is today. So, for example, if there are 1000000 jobs in Ireland today, there will be 920000 in 2029.

I provided an actual quote above and linked to the report in the Irish times reporting what the ESRI said.


You are wrong.

trellheim

Doesnt the UK have form in this area and ignoring everyone and finding it having to reconcile in complete ignominy .... Suez crisis springs to mind .... PM Eden thought it could be a runner

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what is striking about most of the forecasts is the similarity in magnitude for both the UK in Ireland in the various brexit scenarios.

5% for Ireland, 10.7% for the UK.


Yep, looks the same.

trellheim

Hunt and Johnson interviews on tv tonight at 7pm, interviewer Andrew Neil. Hunt saying they will be out by Christmas, Johnson by 31st so I expect a redline move from Hunt see my comments above. BBC1 I think

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Let's be realistic here. The UK will take a significant economic hit after Brexit but it will not become North Korea. It will be less of a hit than Ireland took in the financial crisis. Ireland will take a similar hit but again it will be less than we took in the financial crisis.

As for reputational damage, yes, if the UK had agreed to pay 39 billion as part of the WA and then refused to do so, it would take a reputational hit. But I think we're forgetting that this figure only arises as part of the deal. In the event of no deal there is no WA. The UK owes nothing if there's no deal.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the UK admitted it owed a significant amount in and around £39B even in the event of a no deal.

While I know Brexiters hate "facts" and "experts" and "reality", nevertheless sometimes those things can be helpful:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

BluePlanet

Mr Varadkar said Ireland will have to defend the EU Single Market as it protects "our businesses, our livelihoods and our prosperity".

He said: "We’re going to want to protect the single market and make sure that Ireland doesn’t become a back-door to the Single Market to the UK.

Mr Varadkar warned of "huge difficulties" if a BSE cow from Britain or chlorinated chicken from America ended up in France after coming through a back door in Ireland.

He was asked how Ireland would police this and where checks would take place, if as the government has said, they won't happen at the border.

Mr Varadkar said: "They’re the kind of things that we’re trying to work out with the European Commission at the moment and we don’t have a perfect solution."

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/next-british-pm-will-face-very-serious-reality-check-on-brexit-varadkar-warns-38306159.html

Call me cynical but i can imagine within the dark minds of those that want to hurt this country, there will be some people that will want to do just what Varadkar has warned. And 'checks away from the border' may turn out to be a terrible strategy.

Bit cynical

listermint wrote: »

Show us the forecasts that are the same please.

Well here's one from the IMF last year as published in the Guardian:




URL="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/19/no-deal-brexit-would-harm-all-european-countries-warns-imf"]source[/URL

What we have to remember that if we say that it is not the end of the world for Ireland, others in the UK may say the same for their own country.

MadYaker

fash wrote: »

What you seem to be forgetting is that the UK admitted it owed a significant amount in and around £39B even in the event of a no deal.

While I know Brexiters hate "facts" and "experts" and "reality", nevertheless sometimes those things can be helpful:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-39-billion-brexit-divorce-bill

What’s to stop giving 2 fingers to the EU and keeping their 39 billion? No trade deals for a start I’m guessing

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I provided an actual quote above and linked to the report in the Irish times reporting what the ESRI said.


You are wrong.

And here is RTE quoting the report. It could not be plainer:

As well as slowing down the rate of growth, Brexit will also mean fewer jobs in the economy compared with a scenario in which the UK stays in the EU.

The ESRI estimates that ten years after the UK leaves with a deal, employment in Ireland will be some 45,000 lower than it would have been if the UK remained a member state.

A disorderly no-deal Brexit would see that number almost double, with around 80,000 fewer in employment.

80000 fewer jobs in 10 years time. Plain and simple

Calina

What was agreed in the withdrawal was a methodology for calculating the exit liability, not the sum itself. It is recognised by the UK that they have a liability, and this is part of the article 50 wind down negotiations. The figure is a rough guesstimate, dependent on the sterling exchange rate 18 months ago and the settlement will take place over years.

Thr liability doesn't disappear. But the calculation method might be renegotiated post no deal.

kunst nugget

MadYaker wrote: »

What’s to stop giving 2 fingers to the EU and keeping their 39 billion? No trade deals for a start I’m guessing

A completely poleaxed political reputation and junk status credit rating as well.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

None of that has a bearing on the issue. The EU may be down financially on things like pensions to Farage or whatever and may have liked to have the UK contribute to it, but that is not the same as saying that the UK legally owes the EU for Farage's pension (or any other pension for that matter). Wanting something to be the case is not an argument I'm afraid.

So the UK, having walked away from the trade arrangements it enjoyed as part of the EU, is trying to strike bilateral trade terms around the world while at the same time showing that it cannot be trusted to honour its obligations.

And this the country that has long claimed exceptionalism due to its promotion of the rule of law (and whose empire was largely based on establishing rules based trade.)

I think the EU will recover from a blip in its balance sheet a lot quicker than the UK will regain international credibility.

PeadarCo

BluePlanet wrote:

Call me cynical but i can imagine within the dark minds of those that want to hurt this country, there will be some people that will want to do just what Varadkar has warned. And 'checks away from the border' may turn out to be a terrible strategy.

Look if anything like what has been suggested it'll be farmers on the border. Remember the foot and mouth crisis back in the early 2000s. There was no issue with border checks(even if they were limited) then.

If push comes to shove and NI leaves the EU single market and customs union there will be a hard border. The alternative is that Ireland leaves the EU by having a hard border with the rest of the EU.

fash

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There will be trade. But Britain will be competing for EU trade under less favourable terms than 60 other countries. Here's an important fact to illustrate how mad No Deal is. If Britain were to start trading under WTO rules only on Nov 1st, which is what they would have to do if they crashed out, they would be the only country in the world to be doing so.

I read a good analogy about international trade being like escaping from a zombie horde (or I add: a bear). You only need to be faster than the slowest guy. Shooting yourself in the leg so that you can now only limp means that in the medium term, you are screwed.
Here is a nice comparison of the UK-EU exports and EU-UK exports exposure to tariffs.
tweet

Aside from the fact that the EU-UK exports are a tiny fraction of the EU-World exports, the majority of those in a no deal are tariff free. Plus the EU retains all of its FTAs (by far the largest number in the world).

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

So the UK, having walked away from the trade arrangements it enjoyed as part of the EU, is trying to strike bilateral trade terms around the world while at the same time showing that it cannot be trusted to honour its obligations.

And this the country that has long claimed exceptionalism due to its promotion of the rule of law (and whose empire was largely based on establishing rules based trade.)

I'm afraid your argument depends on the money being a legal obligation which it is not.


It is only an obligation if the UK signs up to an agreement saying it is. In the event of no deal they have not. The clue is in the words "no" and "deal".