Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

54and56

VinLieger wrote: »

Well yeah the fall in sterling means they can get things cheaper than ever before, why not make hay while the sun shines?

Im sure if you looked at Amazon and other online UK retailers like Asos etc you would see a similar spike.

Quite the opposite. The fall in Sterling means anything imported into the UK costs more.

£1 Sterling bought you €1.43 worth of goods in Nov 2015. Today £1 only buys you €1.08 worth of goods. That's a 25% reduction in the value of Sterling over that time and it could get much much worse.

fash

54&56 wrote: »

Quite the opposite. The fall in Sterling means anything imported into the UK costs more.

£1 Sterling bought you €1.43 worth of goods in Nov 2015. Today £1 only buys you €1.08 worth of goods. That's a 25% reduction in the value of Sterling over that time and it could get much much worse.

.. a spike in activity is Irish buying UK products

spacecoyote

54&56 wrote: »

Quite the opposite. The fall in Sterling means anything imported into the UK costs more.

£1 Sterling bought you €1.43 worth of goods in Nov 2015. Today £1 only buys you €1.08 worth of goods. That's a 25% reduction in the value of Sterling over that time and it could get much much worse.

I think you may be misreading his point. Hes talking about cheaper UK exports due to the weakened currency.

The discussion was around companies like Dunnes, etc... increasing their import of UK produce recently as a result of the cheaper cost

mrbrianj

The English dont give a damn about the border, Ireland or the backstop, its the level playing field stuff that's in their way.

Take that out (which the EU cant and wont) and having checks in the Irish Sea and the disgruntled DUP wont make any headlines in London.

yerwanthere123

Flex wrote: »

Johnson wont have to, apparently Leo Varadkar is "under pressure as furious Irish businesses demand deal with Boris" and give up the backstop /sarcasm

Thats the story in The Express.. I honestly thought this was satire when I read it. And the source for their story? Tory peer Lord Marland :rolleyes:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1164447/Brexit-News-Leo-Varadkhar-Boris-Johnson-no-deal-Ireland

The comments on that article are surreal

There is a relatively simple answer. The ROI should leave the EU, come to mutual understanding with the UK to join in with the WTO and prosper like we will.
There will not be a hard border then.

Poor Leo, you're being played for a mug. Ireland is seen as expendable by the evil empire as we'll find out in due course. Btw, please keep your lorries off our roads and find some other route for your exports to continental Europe.

Ireland will have to Leave the rotten EU too.

Hey, they could even perhaps re-join the United Kingdom as well, if they really want to share in the post-Brexit prosperity which we will be enjoying. Just a quick oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, and Bob's your uncle :-)

I think they have realised that their lorries will find it difficult to transit the UK and their plans to ship via ferries to France is likely to face disruption by the French ports

I believe that eventually the Irish will have to defy the EU rule and seek an economic partnership of some kind with the British and may well lead to an Irexit sooner than later.

In any case, as the British economy booms thousands of Irish will enter Britain to take advantage of the new job opportunities.

Now that is the real injustice of Irish Free Movement in that they will be able to have their own little cherry picking party.

Post-brexit prosperity? New job opportunities? Talk about an alternative reality.

L1011

jm08 wrote: »

Ornua (formerly known as The Irish Dairy Board) is an Irish co-operative company set up by the Irish State. It owns the brands Dairygold etc. I doubt very much if it is processing British cheese (unless it comes from NI)!

Ornua are now a global company just as much as the former Kerry co-op (Kerry Group) and Waterford co-op (Glanbia).

prawnsambo

54&56 wrote: »

Quite the opposite. The fall in Sterling means anything imported into the UK costs more.

£1 Sterling bought you €1.43 worth of goods in Nov 2015. Today £1 only buys you €1.08 worth of goods. That's a 25% reduction in the value of Sterling over that time and it could get much much worse.

He was talking about the cost of importing from the UK. Obviously if the UK produce includes imported (into the UK) content, then costs might rise. But the fall in sterling makes importing from the UK a bit of a bonanza at the moment.

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

Why should we plan for a border that the UK has said will not happen? That is exactly what Varadkar is saying there on the discussions with the then PM. Now PM Johnson may back out of this, but seeing as he has not had the courage for a one on one meeting with Varadkar, well then that says a lot about the man.

Until Johnson comes out and states that the UK will be breaking the promises and assurances they have given, it should be taken as such that they will still keep to not putting up a border.

I always find it amusing that people who push this narrative about Ireland and the EU saying they wouldn't erect border controls, miss the obvious reason: The obvious solution is a border in the Irish Sea with the agreement of the British government. Who will absolutely give that agreement rather than have the weight of the entire world land on its shoulders while they're busy shovelling manure all over the country.

Capt'n Midnight

eagle eye wrote: »

Hasn't the UK signed a load of continuity trade deals with other countries already? I remember hearing stuff about Central American countries signing up recently.

There's two lists

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/signed-uk-trade-agreements-transitioned-from-the-eu
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/existing-trade-agreements-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal/existing-trade-agreements-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-without-a-deal


When the EU does a trade deal it suits some member countries better than others. Assume the deals the UK rolls over are ones that suited other EU countries better than the EU. I'd imagine the Faroe Islands deal with the EU had a lot of input from Denmark.

LOL at Turkey. They are in the EU Customs Union for everything apart from agriculture, services and public procurement. So very limited scope there.


The Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) trade bloc one happened when the UK gave £4Bn in Aid.


The mutual recognition agreements are not Free Trade Deals. They reduce some of the paperwork but they do nothing for tariffs. Country of origin would be important too in case stuff is re-exported.

Valhallapt

Strazdas wrote: »

I don't believe it says anything about customs checks. It merely says that the legal status of NI cannot be changed without the permission of people in the province.

Given that the EU suggested a NI backstop, it doesn't seem like they regarded this as being in breach of the GFA (they must surely have examined the legal implications first).

Sorry I don’t follow, do you think the existing arrangements are in breach of the GFA?

BluePlanet

Has anybody mentioned that it's a little odd that it's John Bolton (US National Security Advisor) making the statements about a trade deal with the UK?
I mean, why the National Security Advisor and not say... anyone from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, or US Dept of Commerce?

My guess it is evidence that UK/US trade deal is in the Foreign Policy bucket and not Trade.

lawred2

BluePlanet wrote: »

Has anybody mentioned that it's a little odd that it's John Bolton (US National Security Advisor) making the statements about a trade deal with the UK?
I mean, why the National Security Advisor and not say... anyone from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, or US Dept of Commerce?

My guess it is evidence that UK/US trade deal is in the Foreign Policy bucket and not Trade.

Or it's another case of someone self important speaking out of turn

briany

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Deal or No-deal, the UKs obligation under the GFA don't go away. The UK will still have to adopt the measures necessary to prevent border checks because of its international treaty obligations. The UK signed a binding treaty with Ireland, we have lived up to our commitments and our government fully expects the UK to do the same. It would be incredible if our Taoiseach said that he expects the UK to breach its obligations under the GFA and that we were preparing to implement a border as a result. The consequences if the UK breach the treaties they have signed will be dire. Why would any nation sign a treaty with the UK if they are seen to tear them up when they become inconvinient?

"It's binding"

Brexiteers - "Binding, schminding. It was a letter of intent more than a treaty. Notice that it was called the Good Friday Agreement, not Good Friday Treaty."

---

Anyway, let's suppose that the UK flagrantly reneged on the GFA. What would be the consequences, internationally? I mean, I can see that it wouldn't help relations with the EU and Ireland, but those seem to be going downhill either way. What else? International condemnation? Can they be summonsed to legal proceedings in the Hague? Does their credit rating take a blow? Do other countries really care? Would it make them more reticent to cut a deal with the UK?

It just seems to me that countries can flout international law and face no real consequences. Russian rolled into the Crimea under the pretence of being a stabilising force or taking back what was theirs in the first place, but I don't see how it fundamentally changed the situation for Russia.

As far as I can see, the biggest consequences would be domestic, i.e. the possibility of kickstarting the Troubles II. The jingoism over there is at such a high level, though, that I wonder if half the Brexiteers fancy this in a, "let the IRA try it again and we'll cut them down to size with drones and surveillance and MI6 infiltration. Rah!" kind of way.

Mad stuff.

BluePlanet

briany wrote: »

"It's binding"

Brexiteers - "Binding, schminding. It was a letter of intent more than a treaty. Notice that it was called the Good Friday Agreement, not Good Friday Treaty."

---

Anyway, let's suppose that the UK flagrantly reneged on the GFA. What would be the consequences, internationally? I mean, I can see that it wouldn't help relations with the EU and Ireland, but those seem to be going downhill either way. What else? International condemnation? Can they be summonsed to legal proceedings in the Hague? Does their credit rating take a blow? Do other countries really care? Would it make them more reticent to cut a deal with the UK?

It just seems to me that countries can flout international law and face no real consequences. Russian rolled into the Crimea under the pretence of being a stabilising force or taking back what was theirs in the first place, but I don't see how it fundamentally changed the situation for Russia.

As far as I can see, the biggest consequences would be domestic, i.e. the possibility of kickstarting the Troubles II. The jingoism over there is at such a high level, though, that I wonder if half the Brexiteers fancy this in a, "let the IRA try it again and we'll cut them down to size with drones and surveillance and MI6 infiltration. Rah!" kind of way.

Mad stuff.

We'd have to hold a referendum on re-inserting the territorial claim.

amacca

BluePlanet wrote: »

Has anybody mentioned that it's a little odd that it's John Bolton (US National Security Advisor) making the statements about a trade deal with the UK?
I mean, why the National Security Advisor and not say... anyone from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, or US Dept of Commerce?

My guess it is evidence that UK/US trade deal is in the Foreign Policy bucket and not Trade.

He's aligned entirely with Trumps ideology.....dislikes EU etc...he's there to deliver that message to try and make Johnson more influential/succesful in the hope that Brexit will definitely happen and it will weaken the EU.....Id imagine someone that actual Trade representatives etc wouldnt be able to be quite so glib for lots of reasons

Basically US influence on the wane somewhat, no longer as big a player with rise of China etc instead of viewing EU as a stabilising influence and partner etc they view them as a threat....they don't get to swing their willys around as much when there are other blocks swinging them too......so take the opportunity to diminish the EU when they can and he can be trusted to do the job the administration wants him to do as it aligns with his own beliefs.

BluePlanet

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It's quite possible there is no one in charge of that department, not many smart people want to work for Trump regime

Actually yes there is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_United_States_Trade_Representative

The Financial Times speculate on the same (why is Bolton making this statement and not the US Trade Representative).
They assume it is kite flying bluster that is aimed at a UK domestic audience.
Also speculate that his idea will likely run counter to WTO rules, but that the WTO is rather toothless anyway.
https://www.ft.com/content/34c5bb92-bdb4-11e9-b350-db00d509634e

So is there any point to this at all?
Substantively, probably not. But politically, if the UK’s Mr Johnson manages to convince MPs and the public to ignore all the issues above, he may well be able to assuage concerns about the trade impact of a no-deal Brexit.

jimmycrackcorm

Strazdas wrote: »

I don't believe it says anything about customs checks. It merely says that the legal status of NI cannot be changed without the permission of people in the province.

Given that the EU suggested a NI backstop, it doesn't seem like they regarded this as being in breach of the GFA (they must surely have examined the legal implications first).

More so a border in the Irish sea is appropriate as the current situation in NI reflects what GFA is. Putting the border there will still keep NI in the UK and maintain exactly how things are in the North now.
If the North was to diverge from that then the principle of consent must be mandated.

Not only did NI vote heavily in favour of the GFA but also in favour of remaining in the EU, so there is a clear double indication of the democratic mandate.

If BoJo held a GE and managed to rid his DUP lifeline then he could simply allow NI to have a referendum on keeping the Backstop to only NI. We all know the outcome for that, especially DUP farmers.

Spanish Eyes

If there is any capitulation by EU on the backstop I would be willing to leave. That would be anathema to me.

The whole ethos of the EU is that we are one.But hopefully that will not happen.

As in Macbeth.

"Lady Macbeth:
We fail?
But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail."

and all that.

Strazdas

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If there is any capitulation by EU on the backstop I would be willing to leave. That would be anathema to me.

The whole ethos of the EU is that we are one.But hopefully that will not happen.

As in Macbeth.

"Lady Macbeth:
We fail?
But screw your courage to the sticking place,
And we'll not fail."

and all that.

It won't happen, such a move would be too dangerous for the EU and especially to a renegade like Johnson who cannot be trusted.

prawnsambo

amacca wrote: »

He's aligned entirely with Trumps ideology.....dislikes EU etc...he's there to deliver that message to try and make Johnson more influential/succesful in the hope that Brexit will definitely happen and it will weaken the EU.....Id imagine someone that actual Trade representatives etc wouldnt be able to be quite so glib for lots of reasons

Basically US influence on the wane somewhat, no longer as big a player with rise of China etc instead of viewing EU as a stabilising influence and partner etc they view them as a threat....they don't get to swing their willys around as much when there are other blocks swinging them too......so take the opportunity to diminish the EU when they can and he can be trusted to do the job the administration wants him to do as it aligns with his own beliefs.

Bolton was spotted with the Vote Leave crew on the day the result was announced. So he'd be a fan of brexit I suppose.

Edit: Found it. Pictured with that expert on Irish history Daniel Hannan.

Spanish Eyes

Strazdas wrote: »

It won't happen, such a move would be too dangerous for the EU and especially to a renegade like Johnson who cannot be trusted.

I really hope you are right there.

Good that EU is silent right now. Let the UK try and figure out what EU approach is.

They could have left already really. But something is stopping them.

They will never be trusted again. Even if a miracle happens and they stay in. Who do they think they are?

prawnsambo

briany wrote: »

It just seems to me that countries can flout international law and face no real consequences. Russian rolled into the Crimea under the pretence of being a stabilising force or taking back what was theirs in the first place, but I don't see how it fundamentally changed the situation for Russia.

As far as I can see, the biggest consequences would be domestic, i.e. the possibility of kickstarting the Troubles II. The jingoism over there is at such a high level, though, that I wonder if half the Brexiteers fancy this in a, "let the IRA try it again and we'll cut them down to size with drones and surveillance and MI6 infiltration. Rah!" kind of way.

Mad stuff.

Russia is being hit with sanctions. I doubt the UK would be similarly sanctioned, but it's not inconceivable. However their standing in international relations would be permanently damaged. And of course trust would be lost. Very difficult to enter into trade negotiations where the other side always think you're untrustworthy. There would be a high cost associated with that lack of trust.

Purgative

I think that giving Johnson what he wants would be the last thing he wants.


I believe he is trying to engineer a GE and wants to be able to say he wants to do X, but can't because of the EU, Ireland, everyone else.



I think most of the BS currently being spouted by Johnson and his "A Team" is pretty much for home consumption.

Water John

The EU is silent but also on holidays.
The real clue of what Johnson wants is, the installation of Cummings and his lakies in No 10. Brexit at all costs.

brickster69

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Good that EU is silent right now.

They are trying to figure out how they have gone from believing they had the best deal they could of wished for, to one which puts most of the countries into recession.

briany

prawnsambo wrote: »

Russia is being hit with sanctions. I doubt the UK would be similarly sanctioned, but it's not inconceivable. However their standing in international relations would be permanently damaged. And of course trust would be lost. Very difficult to enter into trade negotiations where the other side always think you're untrustworthy. There would be a high cost associated with that lack of trust.

I don't think the UK's reneging on the GFA would concern the bigger world players like China, Russia and India. None of their governments could afford to act piously about the matter as they all have more than enough dirt on their own hands. Besides, I don't think trustworthiness would enter much into it. When you're at that level of negotiating, leverage and mutual benefit seem like much bigger factors in deciding whether or not to do a deal.

prawnsambo

briany wrote: »

I don't think the UK's reneging on the GFA would concern the bigger world players like China, Russia and India. None of their governments could afford to act piously about the matter as they all have more than enough dirt on their own hands. Besides, I don't think trustworthiness would enter much into it. When you're at that level of negotiating, leverage and mutual benefit seem like much bigger factors in deciding whether or not to do a deal.

I'm not naive enough to think it would have a moral dimension. It would be just used as leverage where there's need for some element of trust and for that to be entirely one-sided.

KildareP

brickster69 wrote: »

They are trying to figure out how they have gone from believing they had the best deal they could of wished for, to one which puts most of the countries into recession.

They do have the best deal, one that has united 27 countries together.

Same cannot be said for the United Kingdom which is anything but.

BluePlanet

Regardless of the kite flying and transactional strings attached to John Bolton's appeal for a UK/US trade deal, we also have a statement from a more relevant person in the Trump admin - the US Commerce Secretary, back in 2016 before he was confirmed in the post:

Wilbur Ross, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Commerce secretary, has urged other countries to exploit the “God-given opportunity” to steal business from the U.K., according to a report in The Times.

If confirmed as Commerce secretary, Ross would be among those responsible for negotiating a free trade deal with the U.K. But his comments have sparked speculation that the U.S. may seek to exploit the uncertainty created by Brexit in order to lure business away from London.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html

I suppose the media could have reminded readers about this, but oh well..

lawred2

BluePlanet wrote: »

Regardless of the kite flying and transactional strings attached to John Bolton's appeal for a UK/US trade deal, we also have a statement from a more relevant person in the Trump admin - the US Commerce Secretary, back in 2016 before he was confirmed in the post:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/27/brexit-is-a-god-given-opportunity-to-steal-trade-from-uk-wilbur-ross.html

I suppose the media could have reminded readers about this, but oh well..

Sparked speculation?

No! Really!? Surely not. Thought these trade deals were going to be all milk and honey and upsides galore for the UK?