Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

fash

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

I didn't hear all of it but it was probably Ray Bassett who has been a backer of "Irexit".


The economist Jim Power (remember him?) was also on the panel and stated that the German car manufacturers would likely put pressure on the German government to row back on the backstop. Hopefully this is about as likely to be true as his predictions of a soft landing for the Celtic Tiger in 2007.

The German car industry literally released a press statement recently telling the EU not to back down on the withdrawal agreement. It would be quite astonishing if they were saying different things in private to the EU and how would Power be aware of it if it were happening?

volchitsa

reslfj wrote: »

Freedom of movement for people has nothing to do with movement in mi/hour or km/hour.
It in not at all about people flying, walking, sailing, driving, going by train or whatever.


FoM for people is about the right to move your main/permanent address to another EU/EEA country with an obligation to have a paid job no later than 90 days after you started staying at your new address.

FoM is also about rights to seek and take a paid job in any EU/EEA country independently of which member state you live in.

If you say: "I move from London to Bristol next week" you are not going to tell about driving on the A4, but about you new job and new house in Bristol.

The house is likely not actually new, only new to you.

Free in the EU FoM has nothing to do with not costing money. It will cost you to move from e.g. Dublin to Paris. You will just be charged the the same as a French or any other EU citizen will be charged.

Lars

PS! FoM for goods will normally include some actual 'km/hour movement', while FoM for services very often, nowadays, are just delivered via computer or telecommunication fibres. Likewise is FoM for capital.

PSS! FoM for people has other rules too - for rich people, pensioners and for students.

I'm not sure if you think you're disagreeing with me (that's how it comes across to me) but this was exactly my point.

First Up

jm08 wrote:

I would presume that the Santander route is for fresh fruit and veg coming from Spain. Sailing time is 26.5 hours.

Among other things. I'd imagine Musgraves will be a big customer.

We get "fresh" fruit and vegetables from New Zealand, South America and Africa so we should be able to cope with Northern Spain.

declanflynn

First Up wrote: »

jm08 wrote:

I would presume that the Santander route is for fresh fruit and veg coming from Spain. Sailing time is 26.5 hours.

Among other things. I'd imagine Musgraves will be a big customer.

We get "fresh" fruit and vegetables from New Zealand, South America and Africa so we should be able to cope with Northern Spain.

Your 100% correct, I had forgot about perishable goods coming here from much further away than Europe

Lucy8080

It seems that Scotland is trending because a new poll is suggesting that the Scots would vote for independence rather than leave the E.U.

Leaving out the undecided ,the poll shows (ironically) 52% v 48 % in favour of independence.

According to the Ashcroft poll - 46% said they would vote for Independence

- 43% would vote against.

Excluding those who did not know or who would not vote-this amounted to a 52% v 48% majority for Independence.

brickster69

Who does this guy think he is ? Can someone tell him it is over.

UK must not be allowed "to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries"

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/uk-must-not-be-allowed-pursue-cheap-food-policy-after-brexit-1.3802972

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

Who does this guy think he is ? Can someone tell him it is over.

UK must not be allowed "to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries"

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/uk-must-not-be-allowed-pursue-cheap-food-policy-after-brexit-1.3802972

What he actually says, if you read the report, is that "very important that the UK in any deal wouldn’t be able to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries".

In other words, he's not saying that the EU should simply dictate to the UK that it may not make trade deals with third countries. He's saying that, if the UK makes a deal with the EU, one of the terms of the deal should be that the UK mustn't make trade deals with other countries that commit it to lowering its food standards, so that EU producers selling into the UK face competition from producers in other countries who aren't required to meet the standards have to meet.

Analagous demands will be made by the US in relation to any US/UK trade deal - except that, at least as regards food, the US will seek to get the UK to commit to not imposing higher standards than US producers are subject to.

Provisions like this are a pretty common feature of trade deals between large trade powers like the US and the EU and smaller powers like the UK. Having embarked on Brexit for the specific purpose of making its own trade deals, the UK is opening itself to demands for such provisions and presumably intends to comply with them in at least some instances, as otherwise it won't be able to make many significant trade deals, which even Brexiters would have to concede would seem to make Brexit pretty pointless.

Obviously, the UK can't accede to all such demands, since - as in the example just given - it will often be faced with inconsistent demands, and can only acceed to one of them. In most cases, the UK would tend to accede to the EU demand rather than the US, since an EU trade deal would be of far greater benefit to the UK than a US deal could ever be. A problem arises, though, if there's a no-deal Brexit followed by a frosty period during which no EU trade deal can be negotiated, because the UK is still refusing to address EU concerns about the financial settement, citizens rights or the Irish border. In that circumstance there'll be strong political pressure within the UK to proceed with a US deal, but a fear of agreeing to a US deal on terms that might permanently stymie the possiblity of a beneficial EU deal at some later point, when the frost has thawed.

abff

Lucy8080 wrote: »

It seems that Scotland is trending because a new poll is suggesting that the Scots would vote for independence rather than leave the E.U.

Leaving out the undecided ,the poll shows (ironically) 52% v 48 % in favour of independence.

According to the Ashcroft poll - 46% said they would vote for Independence

- 43% would vote against.

Excluding those who did not know or who would not vote-this amounted to a 52% v 48% majority for Independence.

Maybe that's where we're heading in any event.

If we look at the history of Europe over the past forty years or so, a number of new independent nations have emerged from previously being part of a single entity. Why should the U.K. be any different?

beggars_bush

Where would Scotland get revenue to function as an independent state?

Peregrinus

beggars_bush wrote: »

Where would Scotland get revenue to function as an independent state?

Same place any state gets revenue to function as an independent state - from taxpayers and, to the extent that it engages in deficit financing, from lenders.

robinph

abff wrote: »

Maybe that's where we're heading in any event.

If we look at the history of Europe over the past forty years or so, a number of new independent nations have emerged from previously being part of a single entity. Why should the U.K. be any different?

Not that it's a reason not to split, but the UK has been around for significantly longer than the other newly independent countries that have emerged in Europe recently. And their previous lack of Independence can be traced back to basically the same event 70 odd years ago so was still in living memory.

It can't be claimed that anyone alive today remembers Scotland and England being independent countries, or even has a grandparent who did. It's not comparable situations for the reasons of looking for Independence.

Fr Tod Umptious

abff wrote: »

Maybe that's where we're heading in any event.

If we look at the history of Europe over the past forty years or so, a number of new independent nations have emerged from previously being part of a single entity. Why should the U.K. be any different?

Because many lived under tyrannical regimes and the people overwhelming wanted Independence

That is not the case here.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

It will be severely detrimental both to the national finances and to the government finances.


There will be smuggling both ways, in different goods. The preferrred direction of smuggling will alter from time to time in response to exchange rate movements and changes in UK and Irish tax policy. The smuggling market is extremely responsive.

I doubt if there will, initially, be a deluge of goods moving northwards. Sterling will tank, which will reduce the capacity of people in sterling-land to buy goods from euro-land. This will apply to smuggled and legit goods alike. Plus, significant shrinking of employment in NI, with consquent downward pressure on wages, will tend to reduce purchasing capacity anyway.

When there is a border, people move across it for cheaper goods/fuel. When our economy was depressed and employment was low was the time when most went north, because it was a survival tool and our exchequer lost out. When droves of shoppers go north for cheaper goods the UK exchequer benefits.

So if the northern economy tanks and employment falls surely the same will happen if we are cheaper.
The unapproved roads around here will be busy again I suspect.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

Not that it's a reason not to split, but the UK has been around for significantly longer than the other newly independent countries that have emerged in Europe recently. And their previous lack of Independence can be traced back to basically the same event 70 odd years ago so was still in living memory.

It can't be claimed that anyone alive today remembers Scotland and England being independent countries, or even has a grandparent who did. It's not comparable situations for the reasons of looking for Independence.

Your analogy doesn't work. You shouldn't be asking "how long has the UK been around, compared to the newly emerged countries?", but "how long has the UK been around, compared to other countries from which new countries seceded?"

The UK has been around since 1801. Poland emerged out of Russia, which has been around since 1547. Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia all emerged out of Habsburg Austria, around since 1287. Norway emerged out of the Kingdom of Denmark, around since about 980.

So, the fact that a country has been around for a long time is not really an indication that it is not going to lose territory to newly-created.

Besides, the history of the United Kingdom for the past hundred years has been of the steady loss of sovereign territory, starting with ourselves but carrying on through a succession of colonies escaping from UK sovereignty through struggle, or negotiation, or some combination of the two. There's no reason at all to think that the UK's sovereign reach cannot contract still more.

joe40

The British press and even Eoghan Harris in the independent are very critical of the Irish government stance on the backstop, with Varadker coming in for particular scorn.
But is the backstop purely an Irish concern.

I mean if the Irish government were to say ok abolish the backstop, would the rest of the EU say ok that will be fine amend the WA and trust the British promise of no need for a border.

Surely border integrity and single market standars are vital for all EU countries.

ancapailldorcha

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

There is a thing called Sunk Cost Fallacy, I think the Brexiteers are there now.

I couldn't disagree more, I'm afraid. Brexit is, and always was a disaster capitalist project masquerading as a working class revolution. The Brexiters know that they are on slippery ground and that they were unbelievably fortunate to win a suitable vague mandate for their shock doctrine due to an unlikely alignment of factors including the Euro crisis, economic stagnation, austerity and a monumentally inept PM who opted to give an incensed nation the opportunity to give the establishment a kicking.

Since the referendum, we have seen the Brexiters turn on every democratic institution in the land from the judiciary to the media to Parliament itself. For just one example, here is Leave.EU referring remainers as "vermin":

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1157695184970354688?s=19

Meanwhile, we get another glimpse of the Brexit machine in action as Tory party donor Crispin Odey bets £300 million against 16 British firms including Royal Mail:

https://inews.co.uk/news/tory-donor-bets-300-million-on-losses-for-uk-firms-after-no-deal-brexit/

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When there is a border, people move across it for cheaper goods/fuel. When our economy was depressed and employment was low was the time when most went north, because it was a survival tool and our exchequer lost out. When droves of shoppers go north for cheaper goods the UK exchequer benefits.

So if the northern economy tanks and employment falls surely the same will happen if we are cheaper.

Why would we be cheaper if the northern economy tanks? Prices tend to languish in times of recession, so if anything this should make the north cheaper.

The truth is that both economies will be badly hit by a no-deal Brexit, but the NI economy worse, so prices in the north will probably fall relative to the south. And this is likely to be exacerbated by the decline in sterling. I think that after a no-deal Brexit, at least in the short term, the flow of goods is more likely to be from north to south.

reslfj

fash wrote: »

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

The economist Jim Power...was also on the panel and stated that the German car manufacturers would likely put pressure on the German government to row back on the backstop.

The German car industry literally released a press statement recently telling the EU not to back down on the withdrawal agreement....

I posted in this forum on July 23
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110771320&postcount=5267

and a direct link is here:
https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/bdi-on-the-decision-of-the-british-conservatives-to-appoint-boris-johnson-as-party-leader-threats-from-london-are-harmful-and-will-come-back-like-a-boomerang--812518860.html

Lars

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would we be cheaper if the northern economy tanks? Prices tend to languish in times of recession, so if anything this should make the north cheaper.

Don't get you here. When we were in recession in the 80's and early 90's the flood of revenue across the border was at it's height.

The truth is that both economies will be badly hit by a no-deal Brexit, but the NI economy worse, so prices in the north will probably fall relative to the south. And this is likely to be exacerbated by the decline in sterling. I think that after a no-deal Brexit, at least in the short term, the flow of goods is more likely to be from north to south.

People watch sterling here, they have always been sensitive to fluctuations, you will see many shops displaying the daily rate, and less so in the north, but you do see it. We always have the 'sterling purse', and many others do too.
The other thing retailers will tell you is that if there are significant savings to be made on a select number of items in a basket of goods people are more likely to shop for their entire basket of goods.
I am not so sure you are fully right here Peregrinus.

Capt'n Midnight

beggars_bush wrote: »

Where would Scotland get revenue to function as an independent state?

Fossil fuels, energy and food exports. Salmon and Whisky are worth billions. Services exported to the rest of the UK accounted for £9.1Bn

( also tariffs collected from imports from the UK )

60% of Scotland's exports go the the rest of the UK , 18% to EU, 22% to the rest of the world.


Scotland could remain in the European Economic Area by joining the EFTA, doing a Norway deal, or similar. It could be a "temporary" thing until Scotland diversifies, like we did, in which case joining the EU makes more sense, or the UK rejoins the EU.

The CTA can be grandfathered in, we did that.

The pound could be kept by pegging to it to Sterling, we did that from 1922 until 1979.

Scottish - UK border would be easier to police than ours, less crossings, lower population density, fewer paramilitaries.

Capt'n Midnight

reslfj wrote: »

I posted in this forum on July 23
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110771320&postcount=5267

From September 2016. The only changes apart from the names of the people in those roles is that UK red lines and political infighting have removed many of their options.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/29/german-business-leader-warning-brexit-trade-uk

The head of Germany’s largest business group has said German firms will not push for a free trade deal between the EU and Britain after Brexit, despite the number of cars and quantities of other goods they sell in the UK.
...

He said the level of “political ill-will” against Britain on the continent was “much, much bigger than economic rationality” – in part because the bloc’s single market and eastward expansion had been “core UK strategies” and it was now “exactly those countries whose migrants are causing headaches in Great Britain”.

Ultimately, Kerber said, there was “no difference, for the BDI, between the political view and the economic view”. Pointing to huge investments made by German carmakers in central Europe, he said: “For us, the single market, eastern Europe and freedom of movement – they are all one deal, that is inseparable.”

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

beggars_bush wrote: »

Where would Scotland get revenue to function as an independent state?

Fossil fuels, energy and food exports. Salmon and Whisky are worth billions. Services exported to the rest of the UK accounted for £9.1Bn

( also tariffs collected from imports from the UK )

60% of Scotland's exports go the the rest of the UK , 18% to EU, 22% to the rest of the world.


Scotland could remain in the European Economic Area by joining the EFTA, doing a Norway deal, or similar. It could be a "temporary" thing until Scotland diversifies, like we did, in which case joining the EU makes more sense, or the UK rejoins the EU.

The CTA can be grandfathered in, we did that.

The pound could be kept by pegging to it to Sterling, we did that from 1922 until 1979.

Scottish - UK border would be easier to police than ours, less crossings, lower population density, fewer paramilitaries.

Well, Scotland has a population much the same as Ireland, and an economy much the same. We survive, and in fact have done very well since we joined the EEC in 1973, and particularly since the Single Market came into being.

We hit a speed bump in 2008, but we have recovered quite well, but unfortunately have collected a significant sovereign debt.

There is no reason why Independent Scotland should not do well in the EU. There are smaller countries in the EU and they appear to manage quite well.

Denmark is not in the Euro, but shadows the Euro very closely, and has a population of a similar size.

Of course, if Scotland got saddled with a large share of the UK sovereign debt, they could struggle.

Charles Babbage

Deleted User wrote: »

They're quite happy to do that, most countries don't enforce that rule anyway. Few UK cars in Ireland have the stickers.

NI registered cars never needed a sticker in the ROI, only GB registered ones.

L1011

tuxy wrote: »

Over 50% of our MEPs are female so I think we are safe from being classified as white supremacists.

Not anymore. That was the case last term but now there's one more male than female in both pre and post brexit lineups

InTheShadows

brickster69 wrote: »

Who does this guy think he is ? Can someone tell him it is over.

UK must not be allowed "to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries"

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/uk-must-not-be-allowed-pursue-cheap-food-policy-after-brexit-1.3802972

He's off his rocker. The UK will rightfully do what's best for the UK.

There is a desperation slowly setting in now and it's only going to get worse.

Imreoir2

InTheShadows wrote: »

He's off his rocker. The UK will rightfully do what's best for the UK.

There is a desperation slowly setting in now and it's only going to get worse.

Interesting, all the evidence seems to be pointing to the UK not doing what is best for the UK but rather opting to cut its own legs off in spite.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Same place any state gets revenue to function as an independent state - from taxpayers and, to the extent that it engages in deficit financing, from lenders.

It also has a lot of oil it can borrow on the back of, or invite investment in, one would think.

Peregrinus - I have to know, are you abroad or do you keep odd hours? Your most sage pearls of wisdom seem to always drop in the wee hours :pac:

Sam Russell

I see that the GBP is still sliding and is now testing 92p = €1.

That is quite a psychological number.

reslfj

J Mysterio wrote: »

It also has a lot of oil it can borrow on the back of, or invite investment in, one would think. ...

Oil is a dead commodity in the longer time frame needed to asses the viability of a state.

By 2050 Europe should be 'fossil free' and others will follow. Demand for oil will be lower and the expensive to produce oil from offshore sources will likely be of little value.

Lars

McGiver

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Scotland could remain in the European Economic Area by joining the EFTA, doing a Norway deal, or similar. It could be a "temporary" thing until Scotland diversifies, like we did, in which case joining the EU makes more sense, or the UK rejoins the EU.

Yes, I absolutely think that Scotland should join EFTA immediately after quoting the UK, it would be much easier transition than to the EU. They could apply the EU at the same time and work on the acquis harmonisation and other checkboxes they need to check in order to join the EU. That may take a couple of years. They can be fully functional as part of EFTA during thar time. Also, their economy is a very good match to the Norway's and Icelandic, similar population as Norway so EFTA wouldn't have an issue with them joining as in the case of the UK, which is just too large, with different structure of economy and way too 'cakeist' and 'imperialist' to be able to cooperate with other smaller countries.