Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

PeadarCo

theological wrote: »

Meanwhile in Europe we have farmers protesting that farming in Europe is increasingly unprofitable. Why? The combined forces of increasing regulation such as the prohibition of pesticides to protect insects, fertilizer and manure without any means of protecting the bottom line of farmers being offered.

Federating policy decisions like this just seems to be an example of how the EU is over reaching.

Only for the EU most farmers would have been out of business long ago. Farmers have received billions in subsidies from the EU. EU tariffs given further protection. Irish farmers cannot compete on cost. Irish farms are relatively small and the wages in Ireland are relatively high. If you look at the US a huge portion of the workers on farms are immigrants. Even within the EU using the UK as an example a big immediate impact of the Brexit vote has been the impact on migrant workers. Farms in the UK have run into issues due to the reduction in seasonal migrant workers arriving in the UK.

The regulations you talk about are also another protection the EU gives farmers in the EU. The whole chlorinated chicken debate is not academic. If you don't produce to EU specifications you can't sell in the EU. And if there's any suspicion that any amount of illegal product is entering the EU market be prepared for one of the various farming lobby groups to investigate and get imports to the EU banned. The IFA did this a couple of years ago with Argentinian beef.

To say the EU hasn't protected farmers is rubbish and shows a complete lack of knowledge about the EU. The opposite is the case there hasn't been a group that has been more protected. One of the UKs issues with the EU budget has been the amount spent on subsidising farmers.

I know some beef farmers are unhappy. However anybody fimilar with farming could have told them decades ago that they would end up in this situation. The intelligent farmers have used the huge amount of EU subsidies to expand/diversify or get out.

timetogo1

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Brexiteers vote for Brexit to throttle immigration.
Brexiteers use rampant immigration to show that Brexit is working.

Yep, sounds about right for you Crypto.

This is about where they shift the argument to EU laws or or trading with timbuktu or sovereignty or anything else that isn't what the point is about.

cryptocurrency

PeadarCo wrote: »

Only for the EU most farmers would have been out of business long ago. Farmers have received billions in subsidies from the EU. EU tariffs given further protection. Irish farmers cannot compete on cost. Irish farms are relatively small and the wages in Ireland are relatively high. If you look at the US a huge portion of the workers on farms are immigrants. Even within the EU using the UK as an example a big immediate impact of the Brexit vote has been the impact on migrant workers. Farms in the UK have run into issues due to the reduction in seasonal migrant workers arriving in the UK.

The regulations you talk about are also another protection the EU gives farmers in the EU. The whole chlorinated chicken debate is not academic. If you don't produce to EU specifications you can't sell in the EU. And if there's any suspicion that any amount of illegal product is entering the EU market be prepared for one of the various farming lobby groups to investigate and get imports to the EU banned. The IFA did this a couple of years ago with Argentinian beef.

To say the EU hasn't protected farmers is rubbish and shows a complete lack of knowledge about the EU. The opposite is the case there hasn't been a group that has been more protected. One of the UKs issues with the EU budget has been the amount spent on subsidising farmers.

I know some beef farmers are unhappy. However anybody fimilar with farming could have told them decades ago that they would end up in this situation. The intelligent farmers have used the huge amount of EU subsidies to expand/diversify or get out.

Thats not a solution

MadYaker

I just find it really hard to take these guys seriously. Look at this article Javid wrote just over 3 years ago https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/14/sajid-javid-the-only-thing-leaving-the-eu-guarantees-is-a-lost-d/

cryptocurrency

MadYaker wrote: »

I just find it really hard to take these guys seriously. Look at this article Javid wrote just over 3 years ago https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/14/sajid-javid-the-only-thing-leaving-the-eu-guarantees-is-a-lost-d/

As i said, the tories are now "woke" and know their whole future depends on going hard on brexit

MadYaker

cryptocurrency wrote: »

As i said, the tories are now "woke" and know their whole future depends on going hard on brexit

The more logical explanation is that they are a self serving bunch of hypocrites but you believe whatever makes you feel safe. How has something that was a great idea 3 years suddenly become a terrible idea? What has changed? Nothing.

cryptocurrency

MadYaker wrote: »

The more logical explanation is that they are a self serving bunch of hypocrites but you believe whatever makes you feel safe. How has something that was a great idea 3 years suddenly become a terrible idea? What has changed? Nothing.

What has changed? The clear mandate of the people to leave the EU, and leave hard.

FrancieBrady

In other news the NI Assembly joins the Scottish one in voting down the WA. Welsh one looks like doing the same.

Of course Westminster has decided to ignore this, but it's noteworthy all the same.

SantaCruz

cryptocurrency wrote: »

There is nothing stupid about Brexit. Project fear has been shown time and time again the hysterical cries of remainers that amount to nothing.

Again, this is why nobody can take you seriously.

Not sure why anyone wastes time talking to this 'expat' crypto billionaire troll.

theological

cryptocurrency wrote: »

What has changed? The clear mandate of the people to leave the EU, and leave hard.

It looks like the UK are going to start negotiating with America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan in parallel. This is good news. It will be interesting to see how Boris situates the UK post-Brexit on trade.

The idea that countries aren't interested in negotiating with Britain for market access is proving to be false. It'll be interesting to see what kind of progress has been made by the end of the year.

I think it's probably the right strategy to negotiate with other countries at the same time to expand trade on multiple fronts.

Boris proved people wrong last year when they said he wouldn't renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. I suspect he could prove the naysayers wrong again.

SantaCruz

theological wrote: »

It looks like the UK are going to start negotiating with America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan in parallel. This is good news. It will be interesting to see how Boris situates the UK post-Brexit on trade.

The idea that countries aren't interested in negotiating with Britain for market access is proving to be false. It'll be interesting to see what kind of progress has been made by the end of the year.

I think it's probably the right strategy to negotiate with other countries at the same time to expand trade on multiple fronts.

Boris proved people wrong last year when they said he wouldn't renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. I suspect he could prove the naysayers wrong again.

Yes, this could be very interesting.

There is also the idea that all these other countries know that they have the UK over a barrel, desperate for deals and this will not be to the UK's advantage.

We'll see how that pans out over the next 5 years.

FrancieBrady

theological wrote: »

It looks like the UK are going to start negotiating with America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan in parallel. This is good news. It will be interesting to see how Boris situates the UK post-Brexit on trade.

The idea that countries aren't interested in negotiating with Britain for market access is proving to be false. It'll be interesting to see what kind of progress has been made by the end of the year.

I think it's probably the right strategy to negotiate with other countries at the same time to expand trade on multiple fronts.

Boris proved people wrong last year when they said he wouldn't renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. I suspect he could prove the naysayers wrong again.

Of course they are interested...as a vulture is interested in a dead lamb.

Padre_Pio

theological wrote: »

It looks like the UK are going to start negotiating with America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan in parallel. This is good news. It will be interesting to see how Boris situates the UK post-Brexit on trade.

The idea that countries aren't interested in negotiating with Britain for market access is proving to be false. It'll be interesting to see what kind of progress has been made by the end of the year.

I think it's probably the right strategy to negotiate with other countries at the same time to expand trade on multiple fronts.

Boris proved people wrong last year when they said he wouldn't renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. I suspect he could prove the naysayers wrong again.

Boris renegociated the withdrawal agreement and got a worse deal. Border in the Irish Sea is fantastic for the EU and Ireland especially.

Negotiating multiple deals simulataneously is a terrible idea. Britain hasn't negotiated a trade deal in fifty years. the idea of going from zero to many in no immediately is lunacy. They have about 20 rollover deals with smaller players, but nothing with any large trade partners.
Plus, no one will want to move first.
Plus, one trade deal could undermine another.
Plus, many countries have protectionist policies (we sell X item, so any other country selling X must have a tax). How is that going to work if all plates are spinning at the same time?

These lads are going to be tripping over themselves.

fly_agaric

theological wrote: »

It looks like the UK are going to start negotiating with America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan in parallel. This is good news. It will be interesting to see how Boris situates the UK post-Brexit on trade.

The idea that countries aren't interested in negotiating with Britain for market access is proving to be false. It'll be interesting to see what kind of progress has been made by the end of the year.

I think it's probably the right strategy to negotiate with other countries at the same time to expand trade on multiple fronts.

Boris proved people wrong last year when they said he wouldn't renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. I suspect he could prove the naysayers wrong again.

In fairness, Boris Johnson returned to something very close to the original EU and UK position (as of Dec. 2017 I think) which Theresa May was forced to reject and renegotiate (mainly) by the DUP (who also said "Never" to Boris' "new" agreement!).
It was not like "Brave" Boris came in + replaced "Weak" Theresa, banged his fist & shouted and the whole thing had to be shredded and renegotiated.
The good election result has cleared away all those nasty roadblocks & pitfalls that Theresa May had during her term. Boris doesn't have to care a fart in the wind for what the DUP [or any "remain" leaning Conservatives want]. None of that matters any more.

I see a few problems with trying to run all those negotiations concurrently.
There are likely going to be mutually incompatible demands between the various countries & blocs the UK will be trying to play off against each other.
If the UK can't set out (in detail) what it wants + knows where to apply leverage, and has 1 position in one set of negotiations and then shifts to a different set in another the whole thing could end up appearing in bad faith + a total waste of time (for the UK) in the end.
It is making more work for & diluting focus of a government & civil service that has an awful lot on its plate already.
Realistically IMO the EU negotiation is the key. The US is the most important of the others. At the moment, Boris has pomised to end the withdrawal agreement transition period by the year end. Given political schedule in the US, the UK cannot have anything agreed (edit i.e. both finished negotiation + pretty certain its going to be passed through/agreed quickly by the US political system) by then. He's really made a rod for his own back here.

cryptocurrency

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course they are interested...as a vulture is interested in a dead lamb.

Who are these nations that have such power?

davedanon

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Who are these nations that have such power?

All of them.

FrancieBrady

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Who are these nations that have such power?

Versus a post Brexit UK? America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. They'll eat the UK up and spit it out in bite size chunks.

Padre_Pio

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Versus a post Brexit UK? America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. They'll eat the UK up and spit it out in bite size chunks.

Ireland, Poland, Czech, Slovenia etc..

Perks of being in the EU baby!

theological

theological wrote: »

The idea that countries aren't interested in negotiating with Britain for market access is proving to be false.

Where are you getting this idea from? Is it a common belief anywhere on this site? Who has been saying this and who has been thanking it? Which media sources have been saying the world doesn't want to trade with the UK or that there wouldn't even be negotiations?

Of course it's easy for things you invent in your head to be proven false. It's like trying to feel smart by going to bed every day thinking "Those fools who said we don't need air to breath are proven wrong yet again."

fly_agaric wrote: »

I see a few problems with trying to run all those negotiations concurrently.
There are likely going to be mutually incompatible demands between the various countries & blocs the UK will be trying to play off against each other.

China being a major problem as well. America will demand a lot of things like no Huawei 5G which China won't take kindly to etc.

As to the rest of your post, it's on point. I don't think they will be able to juggle so many negotiations at once. It's simply a difficult process with so many moving parts, such little time, and the media.

In my opinion, there's a likelihood the UK will find itself paralysed at the choice of using something in negotiations with the EU and take the media fallout vs. using that thing in negotiations with the US, getting less for it, but getting a media win. And negotiating with the US while parts of your current unsigned deal with the EU may open up at the end of 2020 is odd. "We know you want that. But we want to give it to the EU more. How about wait until 2021 and let's see if that deal fails. Then we'll give it to you. Or maybe Japan. Not sure."


The chances of any significant deal getting passed by all EU parliaments at the end of the year is very small. We're looking at either no deal or an extremely basic bare-bones deal that will reduce some damage. There isn't enough time for the effects of anything complicated to be properly analysed, and there is only one shot at getting it through, so it won't happen. Ireland and the EU will have to lick its wounds and try to deal with the fallout while the UK goes and puts all its focus on the US etc. for a few years.

cryptocurrency

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Ireland, Poland, Czech, Slovenia etc..

Perks of being in the EU baby!

This is utterly delusional

cryptocurrency

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Versus a post Brexit UK? America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. They'll eat the UK up and spit it out in bite size chunks.

I would worry that you may actually believe that

Peregrinus

cryptocurrency wrote: »

I would worry that you may actually believe that

You are right to worry that he actually believes it, because this is very widely actually believed, and by people who know what they are talking about.

It's a trite observation that the UK does not have clear or realistic objectives for its trade deals, does not really know why it wants trade deals in the first place, hasn't sought to have any kind of domestic conversation about these things, can't articulate a case for making trade deals that doesn't also imply that leaving the Single Market was a very stupid idea, fails to appreciate the great disparity in negotiating position between itself and its principal interlocutors, lacks experience (and officials experienced) in trade negotiations and has chosen for domestic political reasons to box itself in in ways that needless reduce its already limited room for manoeuvre.

So there are good reasons for thinking that this process is not shaping up to go well for the UK.

cryptocurrency

Peregrinus wrote: »

You are right to worry that he actually believes it, because this is very widely actually believed, and by people who know what they are talking about.

It's a trite observation that the UK does not have clear or realistic objectives for its trade deals, does not really know why it wants trade deals in the first place, hasn't sought to have any kind of domestic conversation about these things, can't articulate a case for making trade deals that doesn't also imply that leaving the Single Market was a very stupid idea, fails to appreciate the great disparity in negotiating position between itself and its principal interlocutors, lacks experience (and officials experienced) in trade negotiations and has chosen for domestic political reasons to box itself in in ways that needless reduce its already limited room for manoeuvre.

So there are good reasons for thinking that this process is not shaping up to go well for the UK.

Seems more wishful thinking more then anything else. The EU have pleaded, begged, done everything for the UK not to leave and now it is kicking off about the UK not being aligned post brexit when all the UK needs is a canada type trade deal. The EU fears competition as they know they can't compete. Thats the problem with socialism.
The UK will not be in the SM, CU or be aligned. It will succeed and the resistance will just be viewed as hostile behaviour by nations who are not their friend.

I can't wait, non-firends need to be squared up too, and faced off with, never back down.

Peregrinus

So, no actual response to the points made about the UK's prospects for making beneficial trade deals, then?

You can see why ther is such little confidence in a good outcome for the process. If an attempt to engage with the issues just produces this kind of incoherent rant from Brexit supporteers, you'd better pray to God that the UK puts Remainers on the case.

theological

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Negotiating multiple deals simulataneously is a terrible idea. Britain hasn't negotiated a trade deal in fifty years. the idea of going from zero to many in no immediately is lunacy. They have about 20 rollover deals with smaller players, but nothing with any large trade partners.
Plus, no one will want to move first.
Plus, one trade deal could undermine another.
Plus, many countries have protectionist policies (we sell X item, so any other country selling X must have a tax). How is that going to work if all plates are spinning at the same time?

These lads are going to be tripping over themselves.

It's good to be negotiating simultaneously for a number of reasons. A wide market from day 1 after the transition period is in its interests. It insulates the UK from the potential failure of EU trade talks if they are advanced in their discussion with other countries. It gives the EU negotiators the idea that the UK isn't entirely beholden to the EU's position.

As for the UK not having negotiated in 50 years. You know why that is. It is because the EU pooled trade negotiation capacity from member states which in my view is a negative of EU membership. Building up its own trade negotiation capacity (which has more than likely already been happening over the last 3 years of hard remainer dithering in parliament) is a good thing for Britain and it needs to happen.

It's amusing that people are using negatives of being an EU member somehow as a gotcha argument in this discussion.

The idea that the UK is doomed to failure has been disproven time and time again since the referendum.

cryptocurrency

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, no actual response to the points made about the UK's prospects for making beneficial trade deals, then?

You can see why ther is such little confidence in a good outcome for the process. If an attempt to engage with the issues just produces this kind of incoherent rant from Brexit supporteers, you'd better pray to God that the UK puts Remainers on the case.

Remainers should never be allowed within 100m of westminster again, they are clearly fanatical nuts.

theological

fly_agaric wrote: »

In fairness, Boris Johnson returned to something very close to the original EU and UK position (as of Dec. 2017 I think) which Theresa May was forced to reject and renegotiate (mainly) by the DUP (who also said "Never" to Boris' "new" agreement!).
It was not like "Brave" Boris came in + replaced "Weak" Theresa, banged his fist & shouted and the whole thing had to be shredded and renegotiated.
The good election result has cleared away all those nasty roadblocks & pitfalls that Theresa May had during her term. Boris doesn't have to care a fart in the wind for what the DUP [or any "remain" leaning Conservatives want]. None of that matters any more.

This argument has been repeated several times on this forum and it is false. Boris didn't simply revert to a previous plan. He got democratic consent for Northern Ireland inserted into the agreement. That wasn't on the table before. It was also the fundamental problem with the backstop to begin with.

cryptocurrency

theological wrote: »

This argument has been repeated several times on this forum and it is false. Boris didn't simply revert to a previous plan. He got democratic consent for Northern Ireland inserted into the agreement. That wasn't on the table before. It was also the fundamental problem with the backstop to begin with.

rational isn't their strongest points, look at the posts above and the claims made by the same posters.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

This argument has been repeated several times on this forum and it is false. Boris didn't simply revert to a previous plan. He got democratic consent for Northern Ireland inserted into the agreement. That wasn't on the table before. It was also the fundamental problem with the backstop to begin with.

In fairness, he did get an NI consent mechanism added to the deal.

But, in equal fairness, this has only subsequently been reinvented as "the fundamental problem with the backstop to begin with".

Previously the fundamental problem with the backstop was that it created an internal border in the UK, that it left NI subject to laws (and changes in laws) that it would have no participation or representation in making, that separate customs regimes in different parts of the UK are a constititutional change which would violate the Good Friday Agreement, etc, etc. But the revised backstop still has all these characteristics; it just turns out that they are not so fundamental after all.

And in fact this is a typical Johnson manoeuvre. Find out what concession you can secure, secure it, and then retrospectively claim that this was the only problem all along and that you have solved it in a famous victory. The polarisation induced by Brexit is such, and passions run so high, that Brexit supporters who backed Johnson will accept this uncritically, even though it requires them to abandon much of what they previously proclaimed.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Peregrinus

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Remainers should never be allowed within 100m of westminster again, they are clearly fanatical nuts.

This is incredibly ironic.